[House Report 116-709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 593
116th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 116-709
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 31, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
42-828 WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island Texas
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee ROB BISHOP, Utah
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
Chair SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RO KHANNA, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
FILEMON VELA, Texas RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
ANDY KIM, New Jersey TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., MATT GAETZ, Florida
California DON BACON, Nebraska
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania JIM BANKS, Indiana
JASON CROW, Colorado LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey (Vacancy)
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas (Vacancy)
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 31, 2020.
Hon. Cheryl L. Johnson,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Johnson: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith the
report on the activities of the Committee on Armed Services for
the 116th Congress.
Sincerely,
Adam Smith, Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Powers and Duties................................................ 1
Committee Rules.................................................. 4
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services................... 17
Committee Staff.................................................. 21
Committee Meetings and Hearings.................................. 23
Legislative Activities........................................... 23
Oversight Activities............................................. 29
Publications..................................................... 101
Union Calendar No. 593
116th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 116-709
======================================================================
REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR THE
116TH CONGRESS
_______
December 31, 2020.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
POWERS AND DUTIES
Background
The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee
of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by
merging the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs.
The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were
established in 1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and
naval appropriations was taken from the Committee on
Appropriations and given to the Committees on Military Affairs
and Naval Affairs, respectively. This practice continued until
July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over all appropriations was
again placed in the Committee on Appropriations.
In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select
Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3,
1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas
of the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially
unchanged. However, oversight functions were amended to require
each standing committee to review and study on a continuing
basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the
Committee on Armed Services was to review and study on a
continuing basis all laws, programs, and Government activities
dealing with or involving international arms control and
disarmament and the education of military dependents in school.
The rules changes adopted by the House (H. Res. 5) on
January 4, 1977, placed new responsibilities in the field of
atomic energy in the Committee on Armed Services. Those
responsibilities involved the national security aspects of
atomic energy previously within the jurisdiction of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy. Public Law 95-110, effective
September 20, 1977, abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy.
With the adoption of H. Res. 658 on July 14, 1977, which
established the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed
Service over intelligence matters was changed. That resolution
gave the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence oversight
responsibilities for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities and programs of the U.S. Government. Specifically,
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exclusive
legislative jurisdiction regarding the Central Intelligence
Agency and the director of Central Intelligence, including
authorizations. Also, legislative jurisdiction over all
intelligence and intelligence-related activities and programs
was vested in the permanent select committee except that other
committees with a jurisdictional interest may request
consideration of any such matters. Accordingly, as a matter of
practice, the Committee on Armed Services shared jurisdiction
over the authorization process involving intelligence-related
activities.
The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4,
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals.
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence
matters and the intelligence related activities of the
Department of Defense.
On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.
On January 5, 2012, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 112th Congress, which clarified the Committee on Armed
Services jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered
cemeteries.
Constitutional Powers and Duties
The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8 of the United
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that
Congress shall have power:
To raise and support Armies;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States;
To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all Places
purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
House Rules on Jurisdiction
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each
standing committee. Under the rule, all bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
(1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and
Air Force reservations and establishments.
(2) Common defense generally.
(3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum
and oil shale reserves.
(4) The Department of Defense generally, including the
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures
relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of
interoceanic canals.
(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
(7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the Department of Defense.
(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including
financial assistance for the construction and operation of
vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant
marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the
national security.
(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and
privileges of members of the Armed Forces.
(11) Scientific research and development in support of the
armed services.
(12) Selective service.
(13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
and Air Force.
(14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the
common defense.
(16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special
oversight functions with respect to international arms control
and disarmament and the education of military dependents in
schools.
Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight
H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority
for each committee to investigate matters within its
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated,
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on
Armed Services.
The committee derives its authority to conduct oversight
from, among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules
of the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to
investigations and studies).
COMMITTEE RULES
The committee held its organizational meeting on January
24, 2019, and adopted the following rules governing rules and
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full
committee and its subcommittees. (H.A.S.C. 116-1; Committee
Print No. 1)
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules
of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in
these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far
as applicable.
(b) Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee's rules shall be
publicly available in electronic form and published in the
Congressional Record not later than 60 days after the chair of
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.,
when the House of Representatives is in session, and at such
other times as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Chairman''), or by written
request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed
with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a
written request of a majority of the members of the Committee.
RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES
Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee
chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the
Chairman, other subcommittee chairmen, and the ranking minority
member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding,
whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and
subcommittee meetings or hearings.
RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEES
(a) Jurisdiction
(1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all subjects
listed in clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and retains exclusive jurisdiction
for: defense policy generally, ongoing military operations, the
organization and reform of the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy, counter-drug programs, security
cooperation and humanitarian assistance activities (except
special operations-related activities) of the Department of
Defense, acquisition and industrial base policy, technology
transfer and export controls, joint interoperability, detainee
affairs and policy, force protection policy, and inter-agency
reform as it pertains to the Department of Defense and the
nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy. While
subcommittees are provided jurisdictional responsibilities in
subparagraph (a)(2) and are required to conduct oversight in
their respective jurisdictions, pursuant to clause 2(b)(2) of
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee retains the right to exercise oversight and
legislative jurisdiction over all subjects within its purview
under rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of six
standing subcommittees with the following jurisdictions:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: Army programs
and accounts related to aircraft, ground equipment, missiles,
ammunition, and other procurement; Marine Corps programs and
accounts related to ground and amphibious equipment, fighter
aircraft, helicopters, air-launched weapons, and ammunition;
Air Force programs and accounts related to fighter, training,
reconnaissance and surveillance, and electronic warfare
aircraft, helicopters, air-launched weapons, ground equipment,
and ammunition; Navy programs and accounts related to fighter,
training, and electronic warfare aircraft, helicopters, and
air-launched weapons; tactical air and missile defense programs
and accounts; chemical agent and munition destruction programs
and accounts; and National Guard and Reserve equipment programs
and accounts.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Department of Defense
policy and programs and accounts related to military personnel
and their families, Reserve Component integration and
employment, military health care, military education, dependent
schools, POW/MIA issues, Morale, Welfare and Recreation,
commissaries, cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Defense, the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
and military retirement issues.
Subcommittee on Readiness: Department of Defense policy and
programs and accounts related to military readiness, training,
logistics and maintenance, military construction, organic
industrial base, the civilian and contract workforce,
environment, military installations and real property
management, family housing, base realignments and closures, and
energy.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces: Navy and
Marine Corps acquisition programs and accounts related to
shipbuilding and conversion, reconnaissance and surveillance,
tanker, and airlift aircraft, ship and submarine-launched
weapons, ammunition, and other procurements; Air Force programs
and accounts related to bomber, tanker, and airlift aircraft;
Army programs and accounts related to waterborne vessels; and
Maritime policy and programs and accounts under the
jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5 and
9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Department of Defense and
Department of Energy policy related to strategic deterrence,
strategic stability, nuclear weapons, strategic and nuclear
arms control, nonproliferation, nuclear safety, missile
defense, and space; Department of Defense programs and accounts
related to nuclear weapons, strategic missiles, nuclear command
and control systems, Department of Defense intelligence space,
space systems and services of the military departments, and
intermediate and long-range missile defense systems; and
Department of Energy national security programs and accounts.
Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities: Department of Defense policy and programs and
accounts related to military intelligence, national
intelligence, countering weapons of mass destruction, counter-
proliferation, counter-terrorism, other sensitive military
operations, special operations forces, cyber security, cyber
operations, cyber forces, information technology, information
operations, and science and technology (including defense-wide
programs and accounts related to research, development,
testing, and evaluation, except for those defense-wide programs
and accounts related to research, development, testing, and
evaluation of missile defense systems).
(3) Definitions--For the purposes of subparagraph (a)(2):
(A) The phrase ``programs and accounts'' means
acquisition and modernization programs, sustainment
planning during program development, and related
funding lines for procurement, advanced development,
advanced component development and prototypes, systems
development, sustainment planning, and demonstration.
(B) The term ``policy'' means statutes, regulations,
directives, and other institutional guidance.
(C) The phrase ``science and technology'' means
science and technology programs and related funding
lines for basic research, applied research, and non-
acquisition program advanced development.
(b) Membership of the Subcommittees
(1) Subcommittee memberships shall be filled in accordance
with the rules of the majority party's caucus and the minority
party's conference, respectively.
(2) The Chairman of the Committee and the Ranking Minority
Member thereof (hereinafter referred to as the ``Ranking
Minority Member'') may sit as ex officio members of all
subcommittees. Ex officio members shall not vote in
subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into
consideration for the purpose of determining the ratio of the
subcommittees or establishing a quorum at subcommittee hearings
or meetings.
(3) A member of the Committee who is not a member of a
particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee and
participate during any of its hearings but shall not have
authority to vote, cannot be counted for the purpose of
achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point of order at the
hearing.
RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES
(a) Committee Panels
(1) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee
consisting of members of the Committee to inquire into and take
testimony on a matter or matters that fall within the
jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee and to report to the
Committee.
(2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue in
existence for more than six months after the appointment. A
panel so appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be
reappointed by the Chairman for a period of time which is not
to exceed six months.
(3) Consistent with the party ratios established by the
majority party, all majority members of the panels shall be
appointed by the Chairman, and all minority members shall be
appointed by the Ranking Minority Member. The Chairman shall
choose one of the majority members so appointed who does not
currently chair another subcommittee of the Committee to serve
as chairman of the panel. The Ranking Minority Member shall
similarly choose the ranking minority member of the panel.
(4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction.
(b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces
(1) The Chairman, or the chairman of a subcommittee with
the concurrence of the Chairman, may designate a task force to
inquire into and take testimony on a matter that falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee,
respectively. The Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or
the chairman and the ranking minority member of a subcommittee
shall each appoint an equal number of members to the task
force. The Chairman or the chairman of a subcommittee shall
choose one of the members so appointed, who does not currently
chair another subcommittee of the Committee, to serve as
chairman of the task force. The Ranking Minority Member or the
ranking minority member of a subcommittee shall similarly
appoint the ranking minority member of the task force.
(2) No task force appointed by the Chairman or the chairman
of a subcommittee shall continue in existence for more than
three months. A task force may only be reappointed for an
additional three months with the written concurrence of the
Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or the concurrence of
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
subcommittee whose chairman appointed the task force.
(3) No task force shall have legislative jurisdiction.
RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION
(a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
(b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup
only when called by the Chairman or the chairman of a
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
(c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by
the Committee.
(d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee,
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee.
(e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority
Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation
and other matters to be considered by the House of
Representatives, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules
of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not
conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives and
other applicable rules.
RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Chairman, or the chairman of
any subcommittee, panel, or task force, shall make a public
announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any
hearing or meeting before that body at least one week before
the commencement of a hearing and at least three calendar days
(excluding Saturdays, Sundays, or legal holidays except when
the House is in session on such a day) before the commencement
of a meeting. However, if the Chairman, with the concurrence of
the Ranking Minority Member, or the chairman of any
subcommittee, panel, or task force, with the concurrence of the
respective ranking minority member, determines that there is
good cause to begin the hearing or meeting sooner, or if the
Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force so determines by
majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of
business, such chairman shall make the announcement at the
earliest possible date. Any announcement made under this rule
shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest, and promptly
made publicly available in electronic form.
(b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an
announcement under paragraph (a) made within 24 hours before
such meeting, the Chairman, or the chairman of any
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall cause the text of such
measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic
form as provided in clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(e)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide audio and video coverage of
each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a
manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the
proceedings. The Committee shall maintain the recordings of
such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the
public.
(b) Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
(a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of
business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the
Committee, or any subcommittee, panel, or task force, to the
extent that the respective body is authorized to conduct
markups, shall be open to the public except when the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force in open session and with a
majority being present, determines by record vote that all or
part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day
shall be in executive session because disclosure of testimony,
evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the
preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in
attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force may vote to close a hearing
or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony
or evidence to be received would endanger the national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive
session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session, a
majority of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force
being present.
(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force that the evidence or
testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the
evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing
may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness,
notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) and the
provisions of clause 2(g)(2)(A) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and in accordance with the provisions
of clause 2(g)(2)(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, such evidence or testimony shall be presented
in executive session, if by a majority vote of those present,
there being in attendance no fewer than two members of the
Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force, the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force determines that such
evidence may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any
person. A majority of those present, there being in attendance
no fewer than two members of the Committee, subcommittee,
panel, or task force may also vote to close the hearing or
meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether evidence or
testimony to be received would tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate any person. The Committee, subcommittee, panel, or
task force shall proceed to receive such testimony in open
session only if the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task
force, a majority being present, determines that such evidence
or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of
the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by
letter to the Chairman, one member of that member's personal
staff, and an alternate, which may include fellows, with Top
Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee,
or that member's subcommittee(s), panel(s), or task force(s)
(excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of
committee rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the
provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes
for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff
member or fellow at such hearings is subject to the approval of
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force as dictated
by national security requirements at that time. The attainment
of any required security clearances is the responsibility of
individual members of the Committee.
(d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance
at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the
House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the
Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series
of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a
particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same
procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the
public.
(e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same
procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five
additional consecutive days of hearings.
RULE 10. QUORUM
(a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving
evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.
(b) One-third of the members of the Committee or
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action,
with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of the
Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:
(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;
(2) Closing Committee or subcommittee meetings and
hearings to the public;
(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;
(4) Authorizing the use of executive session
material; and
(5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to
close to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be
received would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person.
(c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the
House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is
actually present.
RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE
(a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force on any
measure or matter under consideration shall not exceed five
minutes and then only when the member has been recognized by
the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, except
that this time limit may be exceeded by unanimous consent. Any
member, upon request, shall be recognized for not more than
five minutes to address the Committee or subcommittee on behalf
of an amendment which the member has offered to any pending
bill or resolution. The five-minute limitation shall not apply
to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or the chairman
and the ranking minority member of a subcommittee, panel, or
task force.
(b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the
Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force when a hearing is
originally convened shall be recognized by the Chairman or
subcommittee, panel, or task force chairman, as appropriate, in
order of seniority. Those members arriving subsequently shall
be recognized in order of their arrival. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member or the
chairman and the ranking minority member of a subcommittee,
panel, or task force, as appropriate, will take precedence upon
their arrival. In recognizing members to question witnesses in
this fashion, the Chairman shall take into consideration the
ratio of the majority to minority members present and shall
establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a
manner as not to disadvantage the members of either party.
(2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a
member of the Committee who is not a member of a
subcommittee, panel, or task force may be recognized by
a subcommittee, panel, or task force chairman in order
of their arrival and after all present subcommittee,
panel, or task force members have been recognized.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee or the chairman of
a subcommittee, panel, or task force, with the
concurrence of the respective ranking minority member,
may depart with the regular order for questioning which
is specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule
provided that such a decision is announced prior to the
hearing or prior to the opening statements of the
witnesses and that any such departure applies equally
to the majority and the minority.
(c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, panel,
or task force hearings and meetings.
RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER
(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee is
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
(1) to sit and act at such times and places within
the United States, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
(2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not
limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers
necessary.
(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the
Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking Minority
Member, under subparagraph (a)(2) in the conduct of any
investigation, or series of investigations or activities, only
when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority
of the Committee or subcommittee being present. Authorized
subpoenas shall be signed only by the Chairman, or by any
member designated by the Committee.
(2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued
by the Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph (a)(2)
may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House of
Representatives.
RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS
(a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to
the Committee or a subcommittee, panel, or task force shall be
submitted to the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force
at least 48 hours in advance of presentation and shall be
distributed to all members of the Committee, subcommittee,
panel, or task force as soon as practicable but not less than
24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such
prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in
electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national
security information bearing a classification of Confidential
or higher, the statement shall be made available in the
Committee rooms to all members of the Committee, subcommittee,
panel, or task force as soon as practicable but not less than
24 hours in advance of presentation; however, no such statement
shall be removed from the Committee offices. The requirement of
this rule may be waived by a majority vote of the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force, a quorum being present. In
cases where a witness does not submit a statement by the time
required under this rule, the Chairman, with the concurrence of
the Ranking Minority Member, or the chairman of a subcommittee,
panel, or task force, as appropriate, with the concurrence of
the respective ranking minority member, may elect to exclude
the witness from the hearing.
(b) The Committee and each subcommittee, panel, or task
force shall require each witness who is to appear before it to
file with the Committee in advance of his or her appearance a
written statement of the proposed testimony and to limit the
oral presentation at such appearance to a brief summary of the
submitted written statement.
(c) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, written witness statements, with
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness,
shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later
than one day after the witness appears.
RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES
(a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman,
may administer oaths to any witness.
(b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following
oath:
``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the
testimony you will give before this Committee (or
subcommittee, panel, or task force) in the matters now
under consideration will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?''
RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES
(a) When a witness is before the Committee or a
subcommittee, panel, or task force, members of the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force may put questions to the
witness only when recognized by the Chairman, subcommittee,
panel, or task force chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose
according to rule 11 of the Committee.
(b) Members of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task
force who so desire shall have not more than five minutes to
question each witness or panel of witnesses, the responses of
the witness or witnesses being included in the five-minute
period, until such time as each member has had an opportunity
to question each witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter,
additional rounds for questioning witnesses by members are
within the discretion of the Chairman or the subcommittee,
panel, or task force chairman, as appropriate.
(c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall be pertinent to the
measure or matter that may be before the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force for consideration.
RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS
The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the
Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force will be published
officially in substantially verbatim form, with the material
requested for the record inserted at that place requested, or
at the end of the record, as appropriate. The transcripts of
markups conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee may be
published officially in verbatim form. Any requests to correct
any errors, other than those in transcription, will be appended
to the record, and the appropriate place where the change is
requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published under
this rule shall include the results of record votes conducted
in the session covered by the transcript and shall also include
materials that have been submitted for the record and are
covered under rule 19. The handling and safekeeping of these
materials shall fully satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No
transcript of an executive session conducted under rule 9 shall
be published under this rule.
RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS
(a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote,
division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.
(b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-
fifth of those members present.
(c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a
subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be
cast by proxy.
(d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in
attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference
committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of
that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
(e) The Chairman, with the concurrence of the Ranking
Minority Member, or the chairman of a subcommittee, as
appropriate, with the concurrence of the respective ranking
minority member or the most senior minority member who is
present at the time, may elect to postpone requested record
votes until such time or point at a markup as is mutually
decided. When proceedings resume on a postponed question,
notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous
question, the underlying proposition shall remain subject to
further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the
question was postponed.
RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS
(a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by
the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice
of intention to file supplemental, minority, additional or
dissenting views, all members shall be entitled to not less
than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in
which to file such written and signed views with the Staff
Director of the Committee, or the Staff Director's designee.
All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee
shall be included within, and shall be a part of, the report
filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter.
(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report
any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and
against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief
description of the question, shall be included in the Committee
report on the measure or matter.
(c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee,
the Chairman shall cause the text of each such amendment to be
made publicly available in electronic form as provided in
clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS
The result of each record vote in any meeting of the
Committee shall be made available by the Committee for
inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of
the Committee and also made publicly available in electronic
form within 48 hours of such record vote pursuant to clause
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. Information so available shall include a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition and the name of each member voting for and each
member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or
proposition and the names of those members present but not
voting.
RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER INFORMATION
(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security
information bearing a classification of Confidential or higher
which has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee
shall be deemed to have been received in executive session and
shall be given appropriate safekeeping.
(b) The Chairman shall, with the approval of a majority of
the Committee, establish such procedures as in his judgment may
be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any
national security information that is received which is
classified as Confidential or higher. Such procedures shall,
however, ensure access to this information by any member of the
Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner of the House of Representatives, staff of the
Committee, or staff designated under rule 9(c) who have the
appropriate security clearances and the need to know, who has
requested the opportunity to review such material.
(c) The Chairman shall, in consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member, establish such procedures as in his judgment
may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of any
proprietary information that is received by the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such procedures shall be
consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives and
applicable law.
RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING
The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees,
and any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or the
chairmen of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS
The records of the Committee at the National Archives and
Records Administration shall be made available for public use
in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority
Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause
4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise available, and
the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a
determination on the written request of any member of the
Committee.
RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES
Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 24. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS
Not later than January 2nd of each odd-numbered year the
Committee shall submit to the House a report on its activities,
pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
FULL COMMITTEE
Pursuant to H. Res. 24, H. Res. 25, H. Res. 42, H. Res. 68,
and H. Res. 712, the following Members have served on the
Committee on Armed Services in the 116th Congress:
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
ROB BISHOP, Utah RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JACKIE SPEIER, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
MO BROOKS, Alabama SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
PAUL COOK, California\3\ SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice
SAM GRAVES, Missouri Chair
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York RO KHANNA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana FILEMON VELA, Texas
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma
MATT GAETZ, Florida GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr.,
DON BACON, Nebraska California
JIM BANKS, Indiana CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming JASON CROW, Colorado
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan\4\ XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
KATIE HILL, California\1\
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York\2\
----------
\1\Mrs. Hill resigned from the committee on November 3, 2019.
\2\Mr. Brindisi was elected to the committee on November 19, 2019
\3\Mr. Cook resigned from the committee on December 7, 2020.
\4\Mr. Mitchell's election to the committee was vacated on December 15,
2020.
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The following subcommittees were established at the
committee's organizational meeting on January 24, 2019.
Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Department of
Defense policy and programs and accounts related to military
intelligence, national intelligence, countering weapons of mass
destruction, counter-proliferation, counter-terrorism, other
sensitive military operations, special operations forces, cyber
security, cyber operations, cyber forces, information
technology, information operations, and science and technology
(including defense-wide programs and accounts related to
research, development, testing, and evaluation, except for
those defense-wide programs and accounts related to research,
development, testing, and evaluation of missile defense
systems).
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island,
Chairman
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York RICK LARSEN, Washington
SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM COOPER, Tennessee
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia RO KHANNA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
DON BACON, Nebraska JASON CROW, Colorado, Vice Chair
JIM BANKS, Indiana ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Department of
Defense policy and programs and accounts related to military
personnel and their families, Reserve Component integration and
employment, military health care, military education, dependent
schools, POW/MIA issues, Morale, Welfare and Recreation,
commissaries, cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Defense, the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
and military retirement issues.
JACKIE SPEIER, California,
Chairwoman
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr.,
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan\1\ California, Vice Chair
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MATT GAETZ, Florida DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
----------
\1\Mr. Mitchell's election to the committee was vacated on December 15,
2020.
Subcommittee on Readiness
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Department of
Defense policy and programs and accounts related to military
readiness, training, logistics and maintenance, military
construction, organic industrial base, the civilian and
contract workforce, environment, military installations and
real property management, family housing, base realignments and
closures, and energy.
JOHN GARAMENDI, California,
Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia ANDY KIM, New Jersey, Vice Chair
JOE WILSON, South Carolina KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma
ROB BISHOP, Utah CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JASON CROW, Colorado
MO BROOKS, Alabama XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
Subcommittee on Seapower And Projection Forces
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy and Marine
Corps acquisition programs and accounts related to shipbuilding
and conversion, reconnaissance and surveillance, tanker, and
airlift aircraft, ship and submarine-launched weapons,
ammunition, and other procurements; Air Force programs and
accounts related to bomber, tanker, and airlift aircraft; Army
programs and accounts related to waterborne vessels; and
Maritime policy and programs and accounts under the
jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5 and
9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut,
Chairman
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida FILEMON VELA, Texas
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr.,
PAUL COOK, California\3\ California
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi KATIE HILL, California\1\
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
ELAINE LURIA, Virginia, Vice Chair
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York\2\
----------
\1\Mrs. Hill resigned from the committee on November 3, 2019.
\2\Mr. Brindisi was assigned to the subcommittee on November 19, 2019.
\3\ Mr. Cook resigned from the committee on December 7, 2020.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Department of
Defense and Department of Energy policy related to strategic
deterrence, strategic stability, nuclear weapons, strategic and
nuclear arms control, nonproliferation, nuclear safety, missile
defense, and space; Department of Defense programs and accounts
related to nuclear weapons, strategic missiles, nuclear command
and control systems, Department of Defense intelligence space,
space systems and services of the military departments, and
intermediate and long-range missile defense systems; and
Department of Energy national security programs and accounts.
JIM COOPER, Tennessee, Chairman
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina RICK LARSEN, Washington
ROB BISHOP, Utah JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JACKIE SPEIER, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee RO KHANNA, California
LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma, Vice
Chair
Subcommittee on Tactical Air And Land Forces
Jurisdiction Pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Army programs
and accounts related to aircraft, ground equipment, missiles,
ammunition, and other procurement; Marine Corps programs and
accounts related to ground and amphibious equipment, fighter
aircraft, helicopters, air-launched weapons, and ammunition;
Air Force programs and accounts related to fighter, training,
reconnaissance and surveillance, and electronic warfare
aircraft, helicopters, air-launched weapons, ground equipment,
and ammunition; Navy programs and accounts related to fighter,
training, and electronic warfare aircraft, helicopters, and
air-launched weapons; tactical air and missile defense programs
and accounts; chemical agent and munition destruction programs
and accounts; and National Guard and Reserve equipment programs
and accounts.
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey,
Chairman
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
PAUL COOK, California\3\ JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
MATT GAETZ, Florida RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
DON BACON, Nebraska SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan\4\ FILEMON VELA, Texas
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico,
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado Vice Chair
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
KATIE HILL, California\1\
JARED GOLDEN, Maine
ANTHONY BRINDISI. New York\2\
----------
\1\Mrs. Hill resigned from the committee on November 3, 2019.
\2\Mr. Brindisi was assigned to the subcommittee on November 19, 2019.
\3\Mr. Cook resigned from the committee on December 7, 2020.
\4\Mr. Mitchell's election to the committee was vacated on December 15,
2020.
TASK FORCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Future of Defense Task Force was appointed on October
16, 2019, and was reappointed on January 15, 2020.
Future of Defense Task Force
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The Future of
Defense Task Force was chartered to review U.S. defense assets
and capabilities and assess the state of the national security
innovation base to meet emerging threats.
JIM BANKS, Indiana, Chair SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts, Chair
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee SUSAN DAVIS, California
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
COMMITTEE STAFF
By committee resolution adopted at the organizational
meeting on January 24, 2019, or by authority of the chairman,
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the
committee during the 116th Congress:
Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
Daniel Sennott, Minority Staff
Director
Jen Stewart, Minority Staff
Director (resigned January 12,
2020)
Douglas Bush, Deputy Staff
Director
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
John F. Sullivan, Professional
Staff Member (resigned February 2,
2019)
Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
Rebecca A. Ross, Professional
Staff Member
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff
Member
David Sienicki, Professional Staff
Member
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative
Operations
Everett Coleman, Professional
Staff Member
Craig Greene, Professional Staff
Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional
Staff Member
Jack Schuler, Budget Director
(resigned January 17, 2019)
John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
(resigned February 1, 2020)
William S. Johnson, General
Counsel
Peter Villano, Professional Staff
Member (resigned March 1, 2020)
Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff
Member
Claude Chafin, Communications
Director (resigned December 11,
2020)
Katie Thompson, Security Manager
David Giachetti, Professional
Staff Member
Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional
Staff Member (resigned September
6, 2019)
Mark Morehouse, Professional Staff
Member
Katy Quinn, Professional Staff
Member
Barron YoungSmith, Counsel/
Communications Director
Brian Greer, Professional Staff
Member (resigned December 1, 2019)
Jason Schmid, Professional Staff
Member
Megan Handal, Clerk (resigned
November 30, 2019)
Danielle Steitz, Clerk
Thomas Hawley, Professional Staff
Member (resigned June 10, 2019)
Sarah Mineiro, Professional Staff
Member (resigned April 1, 2020)
Shenita White, Office Manager
Hannah Scheenstra, Executive
Assistant (resigned April 9, 2019)
Glen Diehl, Professional Staff
Member
Maria Vastola, Professional Staff
Member
Kim Lehn, Professional Staff
Member
Jamie Jackson, Deputy General
Counsel
Stephanie Halcrow, Professional
Staff Member
Eric Snelgrove, Professional Staff
Member
Justin Lynch, Clerk (resigned
April 26, 2019)
Caroline Kehrli, Clerk
Zachary Taylor, Clerk
William Sutey, Professional Staff
Member
Elizabeth Griffin, Professional
Staff Member
Halimah Najieb-Locke, Counsel
(resigned June 4, 2020)
Michael Hermann, Budget Director
Carla Zeppieri, Professional Staff
Member
Sapna Sharma, Professional Staff
Member
Kelly Goggin, Professional Staff
Member
Melanie Harris, Professional Staff
Member
William T. Johnson, Professional
Staff Member
Chidi Blyden, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 7, 2019)
Grant Schneider, Professional
Staff Member (appointed January 7,
2019)
Joshua Stiefel, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 10,
2019)
Jonathan Lord, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 14,
2019)
Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 14,
2019)
Jessica Carroll, Professional
Staff Member (appointed January
21, 2019)
Matt Rhoades, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 21,
2019)
Bess Dopkeen, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 28,
2019)
Sean Falvey, Clerk (appointed
February 1, 2019)
Jonathan Pawlow, Professional
Staff Member (appointed February
1, 2019, resigned January 2, 2020)
Laura Rauch, Professional Staff
Member (appointed February 25,
2019)
Monica Matoush, Communications
Director (appointed February 27,
2019)
Shannon Green, Professional Staff
Member (appointed April 15, 2019)
Caleb Randall-Bodman, Deputy
Communications Director (appointed
April 22, 2019)
Alonzo Webb, Clerk (appointed
April 23, 2019)
Alexis Hasty, Executive Assistant
(appointed May 1, 2019)
John Muller, Professional Staff
Member (appointed May 9, 2019)
Emma Morrison, Clerk (appointed
June 3, 2019)
Troy Nienberg, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 6, 2020)
Sidney Faix, Clerk (appointed
January 13, 2020)
Natalie De Benedetti, Clerk
(appointed January 13, 2020)
James Vallario, Professional Staff
Member (appointed February 21,
2020)
Naajidah Khan, Clerk (appointed
April 15, 2020)
Paul Golden, Professional Staff
Member (appointed April 20, 2020)
Hannah Kaufman, Professional Staff
Member (appointed April 26, 2020)
Karen Thornton, Professional Staff
Member (appointed June 29, 2020)
Jeff Bozman, Professional Staff
Member (appointed July 13, 2020)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
A total of 227 meetings and hearings have been held by the
Committee on Armed Services, its subcommittees, and task force
during the 116th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and
hearings follows:
FULL COMMITTEE................................................... 65
SUBCOMMITTEES:
Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities............................................... 32
Subcommittee on Military Personnel........................... 22
Subcommittee on Readiness.................................... 25
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces............... 21
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces............................. 23
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces................. 20
TASK FORCE:
Future of Defense Task Force................................. 19
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
PUBLIC LAWS
Public Law 116-11 (S. 252)--A Bill to Authorize the Honorary
Appointment of Robert J. Dole to the Grade of Colonel in the Regular
Army
S. 252, ``A bill to authorize the honorary appointment of
Robert J. Dole to the grade of colonel in the regular Army'',
was introduced in the Senate by Senator Pat Roberts on January
29, 2019, and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services. On March 4, 2019, the Senate Committee on Armed
Services was discharged from S. 252 and it passed the Senate
without amendment by unanimous consent. On March 5, 2019, S.
252 was received in the House and referred to the Committee on
Armed Services, and subsequently to the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel. On March 26, 2019, Representative Gilbert
R. Cisneros, Jr. asked unanimous consent that the Committee on
Armed Services be discharged from further consideration of S.
252 and for its immediate consideration in the House. There was
no objection to the request, and S. 252 was passed in the House
by unanimous consent. On April 6, 2019, S. 252 was signed by
the President and became Public Law 116-11.
Public Law 116-92 (S. 1790)--National Defense Authorization Act For
Fiscal Year 2020
S. 1790 was reported to the Senate as an original measure
by Chairman James M. Inhofe on June 11, 2019. The Senate began
consideration of S. 1790 on June 24, 2019. It passed the Senate
with an amendment by yea-nay vote, 86-8 (Record Vote Number:
188) on June 27, 2019. On July 2, 2019, S. 1790 was sent to the
House and held at the desk.
On September 17, 2019, Chairman Adam Smith (WA) asked
unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table, the bill S.
1790, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House; to
strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the provisions of H.R. 2500 as passed by the House; to
pass the Senate bill, as amended; and to insist on the House
amendment thereto and request a conference with the Senate
thereon. The request was agreed to without objection. On
September 18, 2019, the Senate disagreed to the House amendment
to the Senate bill and agreed to the request for conference.
On December 9, 2019, the conference report to accompany S.
1790 (H. Rept. 116-333) was filed in the House. On December 11,
2019, the conference report was agreed to in the House by the
yeas and nays, 377-48 (Roll no. 627). On December 17, 2019, the
conference report was agreed to in Senate, 86-8 (Record Vote
Number: 400). The President signed the legislation on December
20, 2019, and it became Public Law 116-92.
Public Law 116-92 did the following: (1) authorized
appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for procurement and for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2)
authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for operation
and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)
authorized for fiscal year 2020 the personnel strength for each
Active Duty component of the military departments, and the
personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve
Component of the Armed Forces; (4) modified various elements of
compensation for military personnel and imposed certain
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the
defense establishment; (5) authorized appropriations for fiscal
year 2020 for military construction and family housing; (6)
authorized appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations;
(7) authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for the
Department of Energy national security programs; and (8)
authorized appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for the Maritime
Administration.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
is a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its
primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8,
of the Constitution of the United States, which grants Congress
the power to provide for the common defense, to raise and
support an Army, to provide and maintain a Navy, and to make
rules for the Government and regulation of the land and naval
forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives provides the
House Committee on Armed Services with jurisdiction over the
Department of Defense generally and over the military
application of nuclear energy. The bill includes the large
majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from its
oversight activities, conducted through hearings, briefings,
and roundtable discussions with Department of Defense and
Department of Energy civilian and military officials,
intelligence analysts, outside experts, and industry
representatives, and informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence.
Public Law 116-210 (H.R. 8276)--To Authorize the President to
Posthumously Award the Medal of Honor to Alwyn C. Cashe for Acts of
Valor during Operation Iraqi Freedom
H.R. 8276, ``To authorize the President to posthumously
award the Medal of Honor to Alwyn C. Cashe for acts of valor
during Operation Iraqi Freedom'', was introduced on September
16, 2020, by Representative Stephanie N. Murphy and was
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On September 22,
2020, Representative Kendra S. Horn asked unanimous consent
that the Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further
consideration of the bill and for its immediate consideration
in the House. There was no objection to the request, and H.R.
8276 was passed in the House by unanimous consent. On September
23, 2020, H.R. 8276 was received in the Senate and read twice.
On November 10, 2020, it was passed in the Senate by unanimous
consent. On December 4, 2020, H.R. 8276 was signed by the
President and became Public Law 116-210.
LEGISLATION PASSED THE HOUSE OVER VETO
H.R. 6395--William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act For Fiscal Year 2021
On March 26, 2020, H.R. 6395, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, was introduced by
Chairman Adam Smith and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. On July 1, 2020, the Committee on Armed Services held
a markup session to consider H.R. 6395. The committee ordered
the bill H.R. 6395, as amended, favorably reported to the House
of Representatives by a recorded vote of 56-0, a quorum being
present. The short title of the bill, as reported to the House,
was amended to the ``William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021''. The bill
passed the House, as amended, on July 21, 2020, by recorded
vote, 295-125 (Roll no. 152). On August 5, 2020, the bill was
received in the Senate, read twice, and placed on Senate
Legislative Calendar under General Orders Calendar No. 505.
On November 16, 2020, the measure was laid before the
Senate by unanimous consent and the Senate passed H.R. 6395
with an amendment in the nature of a substitute by a voice
vote.
On November 18, 2020, Chairman Smith requested that the
House disagree to the Senate amendment and request a conference
with the Senate by unanimous consent. On December 2, 2020, the
Senate insisted on its amendment and agreed to the request for
a conference by unanimous consent. On December 3, 2020, the
conference report to accompany H.R. 6395 (H. Rept. 116-617) was
filed in the House. On December 8, 2020, the conference report
was agreed to in the House by the yeas and nays, 335-78-1 (Roll
no. 238). On December 11, 2020, the conference report was
agreed to in the Senate by a yea-nay vote, 84-13 (Record Vote
Number: 264). The bill was presented to the President on
December 11, 2020. The bill was vetoed by the President on
December 23, 2020. On December 28, 2020, the House considered
the veto message of the President. The House passed H.R. 6395
over veto by the yeas and nays (2/3 required), 322-87 (Roll no.
253).
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 does the following: (1)
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for procurement
and for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E);
(2) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for operation
and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)
authorize for fiscal year 2021 the personnel strength for each
Active Duty component of the military departments, and the
personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve
Component of the Armed Forces; (4) modify various elements of
compensation for military personnel and imposed certain
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the
defense establishment; (5) authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2021 for military construction and family housing; (6)
authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations;
(7) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for the
Department of Energy national security programs; and (8)
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for the Maritime
Administration.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 is a key mechanism
through which Congress fulfills one of its primary
responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8, of the
Constitution of the United States, which grants Congress the
power to provide for the common defense, to raise and support
an Army, to provide and maintain a Navy, and to make rules for
the Government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
Rule X of the House of Representatives provides the House
Committee on Armed Services with jurisdiction over the
Department of Defense generally and over the military
application of nuclear energy. The bill includes the large
majority of the findings and recommendations resulting from its
oversight activities, conducted through hearings, briefings,
and roundtable discussions with Department of Defense and
Department of Energy civilian and military officials,
intelligence analysts, outside experts, and industry
representatives, and informed by the experience gained over the
previous decades of the committee's existence.
LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.R. 2500--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
On May 2, 2019, H.R. 2500, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, was introduced by
Chairman Adam Smith and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. On June 12, 2019, the Committee on Armed Services
held a markup session to consider H.R. 2500. The committee
ordered the bill H.R. 2500, as amended, favorably reported to
the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 33-24, a
quorum being present. The bill passed the House, as amended, on
July 12, 2019, by recorded vote, 220-197 (Roll no. 473). On
August 11, 2019, the bill was received in the Senate, read
twice, and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General
Orders Calendar No. 512. For further action on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, please see
Public Law 116-92.
H. RES. 124--Expressing Opposition to Banning Service in the Armed
Forces by Openly Transgender Individuals
H. Res. 124, ``Expressing opposition to banning service in
the Armed Forces by openly transgender individuals'', was
introduced on February 11, 2019, by Representative Joseph P.
Kennedy, III and was referred to the Committee on Armed
Services, and subsequently to the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel. Pursuant to H. Res. 252, H. Res. 124 was considered
in the House under a closed rule on March 28, 2019. H. Res. 252
provided for 1 hour of debate on H. Res. 124 equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Armed Services. On March 28, 2019, H. Res. 124 was
agreed to in the House by the yeas and nays: 238-185-1 (Roll
no. 135).
H. RES. 413--Expressing the Immense Gratitude of the House of
Representatives for the Acts of Heroism, Valor, and Sacrifices made by
the Members of the United States Armed Forces and Allied Armed Forces
who Participated in the June 6, 1944, Amphibious Landing at Normandy,
France, and Commending those Individuals for their Leadership and
Bravery in an Operation that Helped bring an End to World War II
H. Res. 413, ``Expressing the immense gratitude of the
House of Representatives for the acts of heroism, valor, and
sacrifices made by the members of the United States Armed
Forces and allied armed forces who participated in the June 6,
1944, amphibious landing at Normandy, France, and commending
those individuals for their leadership and bravery in an
operation that helped bring an end to World War II'', was
introduced on May 30, 2019, by Representative William R.
Keating and was referred to the Committee on Armed Services,
and in addition to the Committees on Foreign Affairs, and
Veterans' Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned. On May 31, 2019, the resolution was subsequently
referred to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel. On June 4,
2019, Representative Keating asked unanimous consent that the
Committee on Armed Services be discharged from further
consideration of the resolution and for its immediate
consideration in the House. There was no objection to the
request, and H. Res. 413 was agreed to in the House by
unanimous consent.
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW
Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, described below are actions taken and
recommendations made with respect to specific areas and
subjects that were identified in the oversight plan for special
attention during the 116th Congress, as well as additional
oversight activities not explicitly enumerated by the oversight
plan.
POLICY ISSUES
National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Related
Defense Policy Issues
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued to focus
on the readiness, capability, and capacity of the U.S. Armed
Forces, support for ongoing military operations, and the
Department of Defense. The committee fulfilled its
constitutional responsibilities primarily by legislating the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
The committee oversaw Department of Defense efforts to
implement the National Defense Strategy and the National
Military Strategy during the 116th Congress. In doing so, the
committee examined the broad strategic framework, including:
strategic objectives; relevant departmental policies,
initiatives, and doctrines; force structures; joint operational
concepts; various organizational matters; roles and missions;
training and exercises; education; investments; the research
and development of new technologies; modernization efforts;
logistics; facilities and supporting infrastructure; and
industrial base matters; and the committee provided the
resources necessary to support strategic requirements.
The committee also continued to oversee: ongoing military
operations; reassurance and deterrence activities; and
Department of Defense investments in capabilities, and
infrastructure to address current and emergent challenges. The
committee informed its legislative efforts and conducted
oversight through hearings and briefings; engagements with
defense leaders, military commanders, diplomats, academics, and
private sector experts; and congressional delegation visits to
military installations and U.S. forces serving abroad.
Deterrence
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight to ensure that U.S. defense posture and policy are
structured to effectively deter actors posing strategic
challenges to the United States, its allies, and partners. That
included the ability of the United States, in concert with
allies and partners, to deter adversaries militarily and to
counter efforts to weaken our shared values, undermine our
systems of government, threaten international norms, and
disrupt the cohesion of our alliances and partnerships. To that
end, the committee conducted oversight, gathered information,
and legislated on issues critical to deterrence such as U.S.
defense capabilities, resources, and posture; implementation of
the National Defense Strategy; competition for influence and
hybrid warfare; security cooperation and assistance; and
adaptation in a dynamic and complex national security
environment.
In particular, the committee's activities in the 116th
Congress recognized the essential role that U.S. alliances and
partnerships play in maintaining global security and advancing
U.S. national security objectives. For that reason, in the
course of its legislative and oversight activities, the
committee pursued efforts to strengthen U.S. alliances and
partnerships, paid careful attention to the state of U.S.
relationships, and sought to respond deliberately and
effectively to adversary efforts to disrupt them.
Russia
Russia continues to maintain an aggressive global influence
campaign, particularly evident in Eastern Europe, the Middle
East, and Central Asia, but with far-reaching impacts
worldwide. Russian military activity and its employment of
unconventional and conventional tactics, including efforts to
disrupt the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), malign
activities in Afghanistan, ongoing aggression in Ukraine,
increased naval activity, and increased engagement in locations
as disparate as Africa, Central America, and the arctic, were
important areas of concern for the committee in the 116th
Congress. The committee's oversight has concentrated on the
U.S. military capabilities, capacity, posture, and readiness
needed to effectively maintain U.S. alliances and to counter
and deter Russia.
The European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), and the resources
associated with it, was a significant area of oversight for the
committee. The committee sought to ensure that the initiative
was appropriately resourced and implemented while taking
substantial steps to strengthen transparency, planning, and
congressional oversight of the initiative. The committee also
maintained oversight of Department resources and tools
allocated to ensure that U.S. force posture in Europe is
appropriate and continued to work on building the capacity of
Ukraine and other NATO allies and partners to deter and defend
against Russian aggression.
During the 116th Congress, the committee received several
intelligence and policy briefings on Russia's military programs
and activities, its naval activity, its engagement in locations
such as Africa, Central America, and the arctic, and Russia's
global influence operations, including those aimed at
disrupting elections, democratic institutions, and military
partnerships and alliances, as well as its ongoing aggression
in Ukraine. On March 13, 2019, the committee conducted a
hearing titled ``National Security Challenges and U.S. Military
Activities in Europe'' to inform the committee regarding the
fiscal year 2020 budget request as it relates to the European
theater. On May 9, 2019, members of the committee received a
related briefing. On May 15, 2019, the committee received a
briefing on ``Russian Federation's Election Interference
Efforts and U.S. Responses.'' On February 11, 2020, the
committee held a hearing with outside experts on ``The
Department of Defense's Role in Long-Term Major State
Competition,'' including competition with Russia. On February
27, 2020, members of the committee received a related briefing.
On July 9, 2020, the committee received a briefing on media
reports of a Russian bounty program on U.S. and Coalition
service members in Afghanistan. On July 23, 2020, members of
the committee received a briefing on proposed force structure
changes in the European theater. On September 23, 2020, the
committee held a hearing with outside experts on ``The Role of
Allies and Partners in U.S. Military Strategy and Operations,''
discussing the role of alliances in partnerships in deterring
Russia. On September 30, 2020, the committee held a hearing
regarding ``U.S. Defense Posture Changes in the European
Theater,'' assessing announced changes to U.S. military posture
in Europe. On October 1, 2020, the committee received a
briefing on ``Foreign Election Interference Efforts'' with
relevant experts. Members and staff also traveled to the U.S.
European Command area of operations on multiple occasions to
review and assess operations and activities, including those
related to Russia. These congressional and staff delegations
were preceded by operational and intelligence oversight
briefings to members and staff by senior officials from the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the
intelligence community.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) contained several provisions to bolster the
deterrence and defense capabilities of the United States and
strengthen collective deterrence with allies and partners in
Europe, to include fully funding the EDI request at $5.7
billion and authorizing an additional $734.3 million in funds
for activities and capabilities supporting European deterrence,
as well as $300.0 million for security assistance, equipment,
and training to Ukrainian forces under the Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative. Further, Public Law 116-92 established
new oversight, planning, and transparency requirements for EDI,
including a requirement to display enhanced fidelity in the
contents of the EDI to Congress during budget submissions,
annual five-year planning for each EDI submission, and
subsequent yearly reporting to Congress on how EDI funds have
been used. Public Law 116-92 also expressed the sense of
Congress in strong support of the NATO alliance and prohibited
the use of funds to suspend, terminate, or file notice of
withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty until December 31,
2020. Public Law 116-92 also limited military cooperation
between the United States and Russia, prohibited funds for
activities recognizing the sovereignty of the Russian
Federation over Crimea, extended other security cooperation
authorities, and mandated sanctions related to construction of
the Nord Stream II pipeline.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) contained
several provisions to strengthen deterrence measures, defense
capabilities, and enhance collective deterrence with U.S.
partners and allies in Europe, including fully funding the EDI
request at $4.5 billion and authorizing additional funds for
activities and capabilities supporting European deterrence, as
well as $250.0 million for security assistance, equipment, and
training to Ukrainian forces under the Ukraine Security
Assistance Initiative. Further, the FY21 NDAA expressed the
sense of Congress in support of NATO and limited a reduction in
the number of U.S. forces stationed in Germany below 34,500
until 120 days after the Secretary of Defense submits an
assessment to Congress regarding costs, plans, and impacts
related to a reduction. The FY21 NDAA also limited military
cooperation between the United States and Russia, prohibited
funds for activities recognizing the sovereignty of the Russian
Federation over Crimea, expanded and extended other security
cooperation authorities, required an assessment of U.S.
military posture in Southeastern Europe, extended the annual
Russia Military Power Report, established mandatory sanctions
on Turkey for its acquisition of the Russian S-400 air missile
defense system as required by CAATSA, and expanded sanctions
related to construction of the Nord Stream II pipeline.
Iran
Iran continued to project malign influence throughout the
Middle East region by threatening freedom of navigation in
critical waterways, supporting terrorist organizations and
proxy militias, illicit cyber operations, developing and
proliferating ballistic missiles, and threatening to resume
development of nuclear weapons following the United States'
withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
During the 116th Congress, the committee received briefings
on Iran's military capabilities and malign activities
throughout the region. The committee conducted oversight of the
Department's efforts to deter Iran's destabilizing activities
throughout the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.
Additionally, the committee conducted oversight of U.S. Central
Command's force posture, readiness, and activities with respect
to Iran and other regional threats. On December 13, 2019, the
committee received a briefing on the Department's policies
toward Iran and Saudi Arabia. On January 29, 2020, the
committee received a briefing on the Department's policies
toward Iran. On March 7, 2019, the committee held a hearing on
U.S. national security challenges in the Middle East and Africa
titled ``National Security Challenges and U.S. Military
Activities in the Greater Middle East and Africa''. On March
10, 2020, the committee held a hearing on the same subject
titled ``National Security Challenges and U.S. Military
Activities in the Greater Middle East and Africa''. Members and
staff traveled to the U.S. Central Command area of operations
on multiple occasions to review and assess operations and
activities, including those related to Iran. These
congressional and staff delegations were preceded by
operational and intelligence oversight briefings to members and
staff by senior officials from the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and the intelligence community. Finally,
the committee received numerous staff-level briefings on
Department of Defense programs and activities related to Iran.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) contained provisions that required a report
studying the effect of lifting the United Nations arms embargo
on Iran, and a report on Iranian activities related to nuclear
proliferation. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY 21 NDAA) contains a
provision requiring activity and budget information on
Operation Spartan Shield, a U.S. Central Command operation that
includes some Iran deterrence activities. In the conference
report accompanying the FY 21 NDAA, the conferees required a
report examining the threat posed by Iran-backed militias in
Iraq to Iraq and U.S. forces.
The People's Republic of China
The People's Republic of China continues its efforts to
assert influence, modernize its military, and take steps that
erode security norms, increasing the risk of conflict,
particularly in the South and East China Seas. The committee
continued to conduct oversight of the Department's response to
China's efforts to extend its military reach and invest in its
military forces. At the same time, the committee also continued
to conduct oversight of the Department's military posture,
force structure, and force readiness efforts, and plans to
enhance capabilities, forward presence, posture, and training
and exercises to deter and counter acts of aggression and
protect vital U.S. and ally and partner interests.
During the 116th Congress, the committee received briefings
on China's military strategy and capabilities, and influence
operations, including those aimed at disrupting elections,
democratic institutions, and military alliances and
partnerships, as well as U.S. military posture, readiness, and
partnership initiatives to deter such activities. On March 12,
2019, the committee received a briefing on China's military
power and U.S. military activities in the Indo-Pacific. On
March 27, 2019, the committee held a hearing titled ``National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Indo-
Pacific.'' On January 15, 2020, the committee held a hearing
with outside experts on ``DOD's Role in Competition with
China.'' On February 11, 2020, the committee held a hearing
with outside experts on ``The Department of Defense's Role in
Long-Term Major State Competition,'' including competition with
China. On May 13, 2020, the committee held a briefing via
conference call on national security challenges in the U.S.
Indo-Pacific Command Area of Operations. On September 9, 2020,
the committee held a hearing with outside experts on ``The Role
of Allies and Partners in U.S. Military Strategy and
Operations,'' discussing the role of alliances in partnerships
in deterring China. Members and staff traveled to the U.S.
Indo-Pacific Command area of operations on multiple occasions
to review and assess operations and activities, including those
related to China. These congressional and staff delegations
were preceded by operational and intelligence oversight
briefings to members and staff by senior officials from the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the
intelligence community.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) contained several provisions to bolster the
capacity and defense capabilities of the United States and
partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific. Public Law 116-92
required an assessment from the Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific
Command on the resource requirements to implement the National
Defense Strategy in the region, modified the annual report on
military and security development involving the People's
Republic of China, and modified and expanding the Maritime
Security Initiative to include twelve additional nations.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) contained
several provisions to strengthen deterrence measures, defense
capabilities, and enhance collective deterrence with U.S.
partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific. The FY 21 NDAA
established a Pacific Deterrence Initiative to enhance the U.S.
deterrence and defense posture in the Indo-Pacific region,
assure allies and partners of an enduring U.S. commitment to
the Indo-Pacific, and enhance Congress's ability to conduct
oversight on U.S. military activities in the region. The
Initiative authorized $2.2 billion in activities for Fiscal
Year 2021. Further, the FY21 NDAA reinforced the United States
commitment to a rules-based international order by modifying
and extending the Department of Defense Freedom of Navigation
Report and authorized the establishment of a Movement
Coordination Center Pacific to synchronize lift capabilities of
partner nations in the Indo-Pacific. The FY21 NDAA also
expanded prohibitions on the U.S. defense supply chain, and
required an assessment of the National Cyber Strategy to deter
China from engaging in industrial espionage and cyber theft.
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea continues to pose
a threat to the Korean Peninsula, the United States, and U.S.
forces, allies, and partners in East Asia. While North Korea
has not conducted a nuclear test since 2017, North Korea
advanced its ballistic missile program by conducting multiple
tests in 2019 and 2020. The committee continued to oversee the
Department of Defense's efforts to implement a range of
posture, force structure, and force readiness initiatives;
infrastructure and force realignments, including U.S.-Republic
of Korea Special Measures Agreements consultations; and
bilateral and multilateral training and exercises.
During the 116th Congress, the committee received briefings
on the security threats posed by North Korea, as well as U.S.
military posture, readiness, and partnership initiatives to
deter such activities. On February 13, 2019, the committee
received a briefing on North Korea and U.S. military readiness
on the Korean Peninsula. On March 27, 2019, held a hearing
titled ``National Security Challenges and U.S. Military
Activities in the Indo-Pacific'', including challenges posed by
North Korea. On January 28, 2020, the committee held a hearing,
``XXX,'' to receive a security update on the Korean Peninsula.
On May 20, 2020, the committee held a briefing via conference
call on national security challenges on the Korean Peninsula.
On September 9, 2020, the committee held a hearing with outside
experts on ``The Role of Allies and Partners in U.S. Military
Strategy and Operations,'' discussing the role of alliances in
partnerships, including those deterring North Korea. Members
and staff traveled to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command area of
operations on multiple occasions to review and assess
operations and activities, including those related to North
Korea. These congressional and staff delegations were preceded
by operational and intelligence oversight briefings to members
and staff by senior officials from the Department of Defense,
the Department of State, and the intelligence community.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) contained several provisions to strengthen
deterrence measures, partnerships and collective deterrence
against threats posed by North Korea. Public Law 116-92
prohibited the use of funds to reduce the number of active duty
U.S. forces in South Korea below 28,500 until 90 days after the
Secretary of Defense certifies that such a reduction is in the
national security interest of the United States, will not
significant undermine the security interest of allies in the
region, and that the Secretary has appropriately consulted with
U.S. allies, including South Korea and Japan. Further, Public
Law 116-92 required the Comptroller General to report on the
direct, indirect, and burden-sharing contributions of South
Korea and Japan. Public Law 116-92 also imposed secondary-
banking sanctions and primary trade-based sanctions on North
Korea and foreign persons involved with North Korea, and
increased congressional oversight on enforcement of sanctions
and North Korean sanctions evasion efforts.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) contained
several provisions to strengthen deterrence measures and
enhance collective deterrence with U.S. partners and allies in
East Asia. The FY21 NDAA established a Pacific Deterrence
Initiative to reassure U.S. allies and partners of an enduring
commitment to the Indo-Pacific and to enhance Congress' ability
to conduct oversight on U.S. military activities in the region.
The Initiative authorized $2.2 billion in activities for Fiscal
Year 2021. Further, the FY21 NDAA also prohibited the use of
funds to reduce the number of active duty U.S. forces in South
Korea below 28,500 until 90 days after the Secretary of Defense
certifies that such a reduction is in the national security
interest of the United States, will not significant undermine
the security interest of allies in the region, and that the
Secretary has appropriately consulted with U.S. allies,
including South Korea and Japan.
Strategic Deterrence Issues
The committee also conducted oversight of issues related to
strategic deterrence. With regard to nuclear deterrence, the
committee conducted oversight of nuclear deterrence policy and
posture. This oversight included a full committee hearing on
``Outside Perspectives on Nuclear Deterrence'' on March 6,
2019. This oversight included examining the role of nuclear
weapons and options for nuclear deterrence; options to reduce
the risk of miscalculation that could lead to nuclear war in a
crisis and reduce the risk of a nuclear arms race or a lowered
threshold to nuclear weapons use; and options to maintain
credible nuclear extended deterrence. In order to understand
the threat environment driving U.S. modernization efforts, the
committee also conducted several classified briefings on the
nuclear weapons programs of several foreign countries.
Countering Terrorism
Countering terrorism remains a central focus and mission of
the Department of Defense. U.S. Armed Forces have deployed
around the globe to confront al-Qaida, the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and other, associated terrorist groups.
While these terrorist groups have been degraded, some have
continued to present a threat to the United States.
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight efforts to ensure that the posture and policies of
the Department of Defense are properly structured, resourced,
and aligned to effectively counter terrorist and violent
extremist organizations that threaten the United States, its
allies, and partners. This included examining the planning for
and execution of counterterrorism operations, security
cooperation to strengthen the counterterrorism capabilities and
practices of partners and allies, and detention policy related
to counterterrorism.
The committee received briefings on a range of threats to
U.S. equities and the Department's activities and capabilities
related to combatting terrorism, deterring threats, and
countering extremism. Further, on February 6, 2019, the
committee held a hearing on the Department's approach to
counterterrorism titled ``Evaluation of the Department of
Defense's Counterterrorism Approach''. In regions, like Africa,
the committee examined our commitment to our partners support
efforts to bolster our partners' capacity to disrupt violent
extremist organizations and, on March 7, 2019, and March 10,
2020, the committee received testimony on efforts to address
security threats in the USAFRICOM theater during hearings
titled ``National Security Challenges and U.S. Military
Activities in the Greater Middle East and Africa.''
Members and staff traveled to various combatant command
areas of operations to review and assess operations and
activities, including those related to counterterrorism. These
congressional and staff delegations were preceded by
operational and intelligence oversight briefings to members and
staff by senior officials from the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and the intelligence community. Finally,
the committee received numerous staff-level briefings on
Department of Defense programs and activities related to
counterterrorism activities and authorities.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) prohibited the Department from knowingly
providing weapons and support to several named terrorist
groups. The committee continued to conduct oversight of the
Department's authority to provide support to foreign forces,
irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting
ongoing military operations to combat terrorism. In the
conference report accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-333), the
conferees required a report from the Department examining the
relationship between Hizballah and the Lebanese Armed Forces.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) would
prohibit the Department from knowingly providing weapons and
support to several named terrorist groups. It would modify and
extend the authority to support border security operations of
certain foreign countries.
Further, the committee continued its oversight of detainee
policy, including detainees held at the United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO), as well as detainees held
in areas of operations.
With respect to detainees held at GTMO, the committee
continued to conduct oversight regarding detention policies and
practices, as well as the application of the Military
Commissions Act (Public Law 109-366; Public Law 111-84). The
committee conducted travel to GTMO. The committee also received
numerous staff briefings regarding conditions at GTMO,
including briefings related to medical care and the COVID-19
pandemic. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) extended until December 31, 2020,
prohibitions on the transfer of GTMO detainees to the United
States, the construction or modification of facilities in the
United States to house GTMO detainees, closure or
relinquishment of U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay and the
transfer of GTMO detainees to Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Public Law 116-92 also established a Chief Medical Officer to
oversee health care decisions at GTMO. The FY21 NDAA would
further extend the prohibitions related to detainee transfers,
construction, and relinquishment of U.S. Naval Station
Guantanamo Bay until December 31, 2021.
Operation Freedom's Sentinel
The committee continued its robust oversight of the U.S.
military effort in Afghanistan with a focus on the
Administration's South Asia Strategy, the ability to measure
progress on U.S. objectives in Afghanistan and the region, the
Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan, and reductions of
military personnel from Afghanistan. The committee extended its
related oversight activities on the U.S.-led Operation
Freedom's Sentinel counterterrorism mission and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Resolute Support Mission (NATO-
RSM) to train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Defense
and Security Forces (ANDSF). Additionally, the committee
examined the regional security environment focusing on
Pakistan, other neighboring countries, and the international
community. Specifically, the committee scrutinized the
Department of Defense's activities to deny safe havens for the
Taliban, al-Qaida, the Haqqani Network, the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria-Khorasan, and other extremist organizations;
support for the Government of Afghanistan's security efforts;
NATO and other troop contributing countries' support for NATO-
RSM; and assessments of Russian influence and its possible
impacts on Afghanistan's security.
During both sessions of the 116th Congress, the committee
held numerous events related to the U.S. military mission in
Afghanistan. At hearings on March 7, 2019, and March 10, 2020,
titled ``National Security Challenges and U.S. Military
Activities in the Greater Middle East and Africa'', the
committee received testimony about the U.S. military mission in
Afghanistan. The committee also received a briefing on the U.S.
military mission in Afghanistan, the implications for the South
Asia Strategy, and the way ahead. On April 23, 2020, the
committee conducted a briefing for members and staff entitled,
``Update on the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan and the
status of the U.S. Agreement to bring peace to Afghanistan,''
with officials from the Department of Defense and Department of
State. The committee also held a briefing on media reports of a
Russian bounty program on U.S. and Coalition service members in
Afghanistan, following reports that Russia provided financial
incentives to the Taliban to target U.S. and Coalition service
members in Afghanistan. The committee also held a hearing on
November 20, 2020, with non-governmental witnesses on the
situation in Afghanistan, U.S. policy and military strategy,
and the implications of the peace process on Afghanistan and
U.S. involvement there. Officials from the Department of
Defense, Department of State, and the intelligence community
provided numerous additional briefings to committee members and
staff. Additionally, committee members and staff traveled to
Afghanistan and the region on multiple occasions to meet with
U.S., Coalition, and Afghan officials, service members, and
regional civilian and military leaders.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) continued the authority of the Afghan
Security Forces Fund to support the ANDSF, including the Afghan
Air Force and the Afghan Special Operations Forces. It also
modified the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C.
1101) to increase the number of authorized visas for Afghans
who supported U.S. operations by 4,000 and returned primary
applicant eligibly criteria for the visas to those specified in
the original 2009 law.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) continues to
authorize the Afghan Security Forces Fund to support the ANDSF.
The FY21 NDAA also includes further oversight of the Intra-
Afghan Negotiations by requiring the Secretary of State, in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to submit materials
relevant to the ``Agreement for Bringing Peace to
Afghanistan,'' as well as any subsequent agreements. The FY21
NDAA would also extend existing authorities and would modify
certain Department of Defense and Department of State reporting
requirements to improve congressional oversight of programs and
activities in Afghanistan. The FY21 NDAA also requires a
detailed budgetary breakdown of Operation Freedom's Sentinel
costs in Afghanistan and limits the use of funds to reduce the
military personnel in Afghanistan to less than 2,000 without
first submitting a report to Congress.
Pakistan
The committee recognizes that Pakistan remains an
important, albeit imperfect, counterterrorism partner to the
United States. The committee continued to conduct oversight on
the broad range of security issues involving Pakistan,
including the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons,
Pakistan's on-going and future nuclear weapon projects,
regional tensions with India, and the positive role Pakistan
has played in the recent Intra-Afghan Negotiations. Moreover,
the committee evaluated the terrorist activity emanating from
the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan and conducted
oversight of the Department of Defense's efforts to combat the
threat.
During both sessions of the 116th Congress, events related
to the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan involved
discussions about Pakistan. These events updated the committee
on Pakistan, its positive role in the Afghan peace process and
the security situation within the country.
Operation Inherent Resolve
As part of Operation Inherent Resolve, U.S. and coalition
forces continue to advise, train, and equip our partners
against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The
committee recognizes that the security landscape in Iraq and
Syria continues to be complex.
During the 116th Congress, the committee conducted
oversight to assess the sufficiency of authorities, resources,
equipment, basing, and personnel to support the Operation
Inherent Resolve mission and policy objectives. The committee
conducted oversight of the Counter-ISIS Train and Equip
programs and their effectiveness, monitored the stability of
the countries in the region and capability of ISIS, and oversaw
the authorities and resources provided to address these
challenges. The committee examined the presence and influence
exerted by other actors in Syria, particularly Russia, Iran,
and Turkey, and the implications for U.S. objectives regarding
ISIS and regional security and stability.
During the 116th Congress, the committee held hearings on
Operation Inherent Resolve and the Department of Defense's
efforts to work with regional partners to address ISIS. On
March 7, 2019, the committee received testimony on national
security challenges and U.S. military activities in the Middle
East and Africa in a hearing titled ``National Security
Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Greater Middle
East and Africa''. On December 11, 2019, the committee received
testimony on U.S. policy in Syria and the broader region in a
hearing titled ``U.S. Policy in Syria and the Broader Region''.
On March 10, 2020, the committee received testimony on national
security challenges and U.S. military activities in the Middle
East and Africa in a hearing titled ``National Security
Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Greater Middle
East and Africa''. In addition, the committee regularly
received briefings from Department of Defense, Department of
State, and intelligence community officials regarding Operation
Inherent Resolve and security threats related to the region.
Members and staff traveled to the U.S. Central Command area
of operations to review and assess operations and activities,
including those related to Operation Inherent Resolve. These
congressional and staff delegations were preceded by
operational and intelligence oversight briefings to members and
staff by senior officials from the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, and the intelligence community. Finally,
the committee received numerous staff-level briefings on
Department of Defense programs and activities related to
Operation Inherent Resolve.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) extended and modified the authority, and
authorized the appropriation of funds, to support the Iraqi
security forces and vetted Syrian groups and individuals in the
fight against ISIS. It modified and extended the authorities of
the Office of Security Cooperation-Iraq (OSC-I) to support
operations and activities. It included the CAESAR Syria
Sanctions, which targeted the Assad regime's military. In the
conference report accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-333), the
conferees expressed support for the Ministry of Peshmerga
forces of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) extends and
modifies the authority, and would authorize the appropriation
of funds, to support the Iraqi security forces and vetted
Syrian groups and individuals in the fight against ISIS. It
would modify and extend the authorities of OSC-I to support
operations and activities. In the conference report
accompanying the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-617), the
conferees required a report from the Department on the threat
posed by Iran-backed militias in Iraq to Iraq and U.S. military
forces.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
The committee continued to monitor the National Nuclear
Security Administration Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation
activities. The threat of nuclear weapons-grade material,
technology, and know-how remains a threat to the United States,
particularly in light of new technological developments that
may complicate the cost and the ability to detect such
activity. The spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons-
usable materials remain a grave threat to the United States,
and as such, the committee authorized increased funding for
Defense Nuclear Non-proliferation programs in both the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-
92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Consistent with its
oversight plan for the 116th Congress, the committee supported
leveraging new technologies and opportunities, and included a
provision in Public Law 116-92 requiring a National Academy of
Sciences review of U.S. capabilities for detection,
verification, and monitoring of nuclear weapons and fissile
material, and recommendations for improving these capabilities.
Emerging Threats, Security Cooperation, and Other Issues
The United States faces a complex array of threats to
national security. State and non-state actors are increasingly
leveraging opportunities to pose new and evolving threats,
particularly in the realm of space, cyberspace, proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, high performance computing, and
other emerging and disruptive technologies. Furthermore,
threats to national security are no longer isolated to state or
non-state actors. Infectious disease outbreaks and the extreme
weather events associated with a changing climate threaten
security and stability around the globe and have significance
for U.S. national security as well as military operations.
Partners and allies remain an integral part of addressing U.S.
national security challenges. During the 116th Congress, the
committee conducted oversight of numerous cross-cutting
Department of Defense activities central to addressing these
emerging threats. Further, the committee conducted oversight of
security cooperation and other efforts to strengthen
relationships with partners and allies.
Emerging Threats
During the 116th Congress, the committee conducted
oversight of numerous cross-cutting Department of Defense
activities central to addressing these emerging and unforeseen
threats. Elsewhere in this report is further discussion of such
activities conducted by the Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
The committee conducted numerous briefings with the
Department to assess the response to the pandemic. In
particular, the committee established a series of briefings
with senior leaders in the Department and the services to
coordinate the response to the new stresses and demands that
the pandemic placed on the Department, including the defense
industrial base and its supply chains, and to examine policy
options for defending against potential vulnerabilities.
Through these briefings, the committee sought timely, detailed
information on the activity of the Department and its
contractors, including the Department's acquisition-related
support to other Federal departments and agencies. They also
informed the committee's legislative efforts, including to
align strategically the tools of industrial policy--including
most prominently the Defense Production Act--with the needs of
the warfighters and the supporting establishment.
The committee also continues to recognize national security
threats facing the country stem from grey zone activities
(e.g., disinformation campaigns and fake news, cyber espionage,
and election meddling and political interference) that occur
below the level of armed conflict and yet can yield significant
damage. The committee is concerned that the Department is not
fully synchronized in its efforts to confront these threats. To
that end, the committee conducted a series of meetings and
briefings, some of which were classified, on topics ranging
from technologies to counter unmanned aircraft systems to the
sensitive issue of elecromagnetic spectrum management to a
series of technical briefings on election security.
Security Cooperation
The committee conducted oversight of security cooperation,
building partner capacity programs, and examined the importance
of partners and allies in the 116th Congress. The committee
focused on efforts to build partner capacity and strong
partnerships as a means to help deter malign influence by China
and Russia and further U.S. national security objectives.
Activities included oversight of the Department's activities in
theaters where U.S. presence and security assistance helps
counter investments by China and Russia. On September 23, 2020,
the committee held a hearing entitled, ``The Role of Allies and
Partners in U.S. Military Strategy and Operations,'' which
examined the network of alliances and partnerships related to
defense and opportunities to strengthen security relationships.
In support of our partnerships, the committee also conducted
oversight visits to countries such as Tunisia, Niger, and Mali
where security partnerships and presence can help promote
stability and combat extremist threats from ISIS and al-Qaida.
In the conference report accompanying the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-617), the conferees required a report that
would identify opportunities to increase security partnerships
with African countries.
Further, the committee continues to monitor and evaluate
the implementation of comprehensive reforms to security
cooperation provisions made during the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328) to
ensure that they are sufficient to meet requirements, properly
executed, and consistent with national security objectives.
Members conducted oversight visits to countries in the regions
to assess the sufficiency of resources available in these
regions to help better inform the Department's allocation of
resources to key partners and allies.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
contained multiple provisions to adjust security cooperation
authorities to evolving requirements and enhance congressional
oversight of such authorities.
Other Issues
Additionally, during the 116th Congress emphasized the need
for whole of government approaches and partner adherence to
shared democratic values and human rights. The committee also
received briefings and reports on the Department's assistance
provided to countries' participating in humanitarian relief
efforts for Venezuela. In the conference report accompanying
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-617), the conferees
noted the importance of a sustained commitment to cooperative
efforts, protection of civilians and adherence to human rights
in this region by providing enhanced oversight on equipment
certification and requiring a review of the sufficiency of
resources to the Human Rights Office at Southern Command. In H.
Rept. 116-617, the conferees encouraged the Department to
continue to prevent and respond to civilian harm in the Sahel.
During a February 26, 2020, hearing entitled, ``The Fiscal
Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from
the Department of Defense'' the committee examined challenges
to resources, force protection and posture and was briefed on
the Department's review of the combatant commands and plans to
reposition troops on the continent and the merger between US
Army Africa and US Army Europe.
The committee also examined illicit trafficking and
transnational organized crime issues globally, particularly
counterdrug efforts in Central and South America. The committee
conducted hearings on military activities in the SOUTHCOM area
of responsibility and received briefings from staff. The
committee held a hearing on March 11, 2020, titled ``National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military activity in North and
South America.'' Other oversight activities such as travel
ensured that the committee understood instability in the
Northern Triangle and the threats to the region and their
impact on the homeland.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) also prohibited in-flight refueling to non-
U.S. aircraft engaged in hostilities in the civil war in Yemen.
It also required a report from the Department examining the
impact of Saudi-led coalition airstrikes on civilian casualties
in Yemen. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 includes provisions that
requires reports from the Department and from the Government
Accountability Office examining the impact of U.S. security
assistance to the Saudi-led coalition in its conflict in Yemen
against the Houthis. It would also include a statement of
policy on Yemen.
Organization and Management of the Department of Defense
During the 116th Congress, the committee oversaw the
organization and management of the Department of Defense, and
it legislated substantial organizational changes through the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Prominent
organizational changes included: the establishment of the
United States Space Force as a separate armed force within the
Department of the Air Force; the establishment of a Chief
Diversity Officer within the Department of Defense; adjustments
to the position of Chief Information Officer of the Department
of Defense; the establishment of an Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Industrial Base Policy; the establishment of an
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and
Environment; and the establishment of Assistant Secretaries for
Energy, Installations, and Environment in each of the
Departments of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force; and the
disestablishment of the position of Chief Management Officer of
the Department of Defense.
Homeland Defense
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of the missions and capabilities of U.S. Northern
Command and the Department of Defense's Homeland Defense and
Global Security directorate. This section covers integration of
response planning and exercises, as well as requests for
support from other departments and agencies, Defense Support of
Civil Authorities, as well as the Department's integration and
support to domestic crises response. Elsewhere, the activities
report covers other aspects of homeland defense such as cyber
operations, Cooperative Threat Reduction, nuclear issues, and
intermediate and long-range missile defense systems.
During the 116th Congress, the committee conducted
oversight and received hearings and briefings on a range of
topics focused on homeland defense issues, particularly on the
Department of Defense's support to the Department of Homeland
Security at the southern land border of the United States,
COVID-19 pandemic support, and support to civilian law
enforcement.
Support to the Southern Border
During both sessions of the 116th Congress, the committee
received numerous briefings on the mission, scope, authorities,
duration, efficacy, and cost of U.S. border support operations
from Department of Defense officials. On January 29, 2019, the
committee held a hearing entitled, ``Department of Defense's
Support to the Southern Border.'' On May 1, 2019, and March 11,
2020, the committee held hearings titled ``National Security
Challenges and U.S. Military Activity in North and South
America'' to inform the committee regarding the fiscal year
budget request as it relates to Northern Command and to the
Department of Defense's support to the Department of Homeland
Security at the southern border. Members and staff also
traveled to the southern border of the United States on
multiple occasions to review and assess Department of Defense
operations and activities.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) contained a provision that directed the
Secretary of Defense to transmit requests for assistance
received from the Department of Homeland Security or the
Department of Health and Human Services electronically no later
than 7 calendar days after receiving those requests as well as
the Secretary's response to any such request to the committee.
This has provided Congress greater oversight into what support
requests the Department of Defense is receiving as well as
which ones they support and how they will provide that support.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) contained a
provision that would modify and expand section 1059 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public
Law 114-92) to provide more detailed information on military
support to Department of Homeland Security along the southern
border. The modification would require the Department of
Defense to ensure that support to the border will not affect
military readiness and would modify the reporting requirement
to include a description of the assistance, the units (Active
Duty and National Guard) that provide the assistance, the
length of military deployments, the mission of these personnel
by location, and the financial cost of the support.
COVID-19 Pandemic
During the second session of the 116th Congress, the
committee received regular briefings on how the Department of
Defense is providing force protection during the COVID-19
pandemic, and received updates on COVID-19 testing, research,
and vaccine development; the COVID-19 pandemic response from
the Department of Navy; and how Department of Defense is
leveraging the Defense Production Act and supporting the
Defense Industrial Base during COVID-19. The committee also
received a briefing from the National Center for Medical
Intelligence on COVID-19. On June 10, 2020, the committee held
a hearing entitled ``Department of Defense COVID-19 Response to
Defense Industrial Base Challenges.'' The Subcommittee on
Military Personnel also held briefings with subject matter
experts in infectious disease and global health to discuss
military Force Health Protection related to COVID-19 on May 21,
2020, and the progress of the COVID-19 Task Force on September
11, 2020. These events were essential for the committee to
better understand the origins of the pandemic, the pandemic's
effect on the U.S. military and the military industrial base,
as well as the Department's role in Operation Warp Speed.
The FY21 NDAA contained a variety of provisions that would
authorize funding to strengthen Department of Defense and the
country's ability to respond to a potential COVID-19 resurgence
and other infectious diseases in the future.
Support to Civilian Law Enforcement
During the second session of the 116th Congress, the
committee received several briefings and testimony from the
Department of Defense on its support of civilian law
enforcement's civil unrest activities. The committee received
testimony from Department of Defense on July 9, 2020, at a
hearing entitled, ``Department of Defense Authorities and Roles
Related to Civilian Law Enforcement.'' These events provided
the committee a better understanding of the Department of
Defense's support to civil law enforcement, existing
authorities, and limitations.
The FY21 NDAA contained a provision that would require
active duty, National Guard, and Federal law enforcement
personnel who are providing support to Federal authorities in
response to a civil disturbance to display visibly: (1) the
individual's name or other identifier unique to that
individual; and (2) the name of the Federal law enforcement
agency, Armed Force, or other organization of which such
individual is a member. This provides for greater transparency
and understanding when military personnel are used in support
of civil authorities.
Acquisition
In the 116th Congress, the committee continued its ongoing
effort to improve the agility of the Department of Defense
acquisition system and the environment driving acquisition
choices in the Department, industry, and Congress. Through its
oversight function, the committee continued to monitor the
efforts of the Department, and particularly the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, to implement recent
statutory changes and recommendations of commissioned reports.
The committee placed a priority on accountability and integrity
in contracting. In developing policy, the committee continued
to solicit input from industry, academia, the Department, and
other stakeholders.
The committee conducted events to receive testimony from
key leaders and experts. Committee staff travelled to discuss
key issues with partners and allies and also participated in
events for members of government, industry, academia, and
investment communities, including a discussion platform for
fast-paced technology.
In response to the pandemic, the committee also established
recurring weekly staff briefings by Department senior leaders
on the response to the public health crisis to ensure the
appropriate, effective, and efficient use of the Department's
significant financial resources and contracting flexibilities
provided in the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act and the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act
(Public Law 116-136). Further, on June 10, 2020, the committee
held a hearing entitled ``DOD COVID-19 Response to Defense
Industrial Base Challenges,'' which discussed the Department's
efforts in ramping up production capacity of key public health
needs pursuant to Defense Production Act authority, while
expanding the defense industrial base's (DIB) capabilities and
ensuring the health and security of companies in the DIB. The
testimony also highlighted the Department's significant role in
providing acquisition expertise to other federal agencies
tasked with major pandemic-related acquisition projects. The
committee also received a briefing on September 11, 2020,
providing an update on defense industrial policy efforts to
maintain a supply chain for medical supplies and to shore up
firms in the DIB.
Acquisition Policy and Issues
Consistent with its oversight plan for the 116th Congress,
the committee expanded its efforts to improve the agility of
the Department's acquisition system. Through legislation and
oversight, the committee monitored and guided the efforts of
the Department, and the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment, to execute its responsibilities to
deliver effective, reliable, and affordable solutions to the
warfighters. Beginning in early 2020, the committee applied
these efforts with particular vigor in response to the
coronavirus pandemic. The committee supported the Department's
rapid response to acquisition issues and needs that the
pandemic presented, enabling the Under Secretary for
Acquisition and Sustainment to surge acquisition resources and
expertise to other Government agencies, while simultaneously
protecting the health and security of the DIB.
The committee also emphasized the importance of
accountability and integrity in the contracting process.
Reports of misbehavior by some contractors underscored the
value of transparency in the data used to determine fair and
reasonable prices for goods and services. Transparency, coupled
with rigorous oversight, preserves the ability of the
Government to negotiate effectively. The committee worked to
equip the Department with contracting tools and legal
authorities, and encouraged the Department to deploy those
tools and authorities, to ensure that contractors meet high
standards of ethics and responsibility.
The committee took action to enable the Defense acquisition
system to respond quickly to emerging and potential threats
from adversaries. The committee's careful approach to the
requirements, acquisition, budget, and oversight processes
emphasized that investments in innovation must be paired with
broader support for sustainment activities. The committee
supported multiple initiatives for innovative approaches to
acquisition and modernization while also pressing the
Department to adopt a more systematic, strategic approach to
sustainment, to ensure that both aspects of the Acquisition and
Sustainment enterprise receive appropriate attention.
Industrial base resiliency and supply chain security are
critical to the Department's ability to accomplish its
missions. Accordingly, the committee took legislative action to
improve the Department's ability to assess and mitigate risks
to its supply chains by: modernizing risk assessment and
mitigation; strengthening and prioritizing efforts to address
key industrial base vulnerabilities; collaborating effectively
with allies and partners; improving insight into and mitigation
of risks presented by foreign ownership, control, and influence
of contractors; enhancing transparency of beneficial ownership
of contractors; reducing reliance on potentially vulnerable
sources of strategic and critical materials; and expanding
incentives for trusted sources of semiconductors and other
critical microelectronics. In its oversight capacity, the
committee ensured that the Department implemented a careful,
risk-based approach to implementing the prohibition on certain
telecommunications equipment, consistent with section 889 of
the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-292).
The committee incorporated several provisions in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA)
aimed at improving efficiency and effectiveness in the
acquisition process. Some provisions of note in Public Law 116-
92 and the FY21 NDAA include:
(1) Investing in the Workforce: The committee made
significant progress in strengthening the acquisition
workforce. Public Law 116-92 required the Department to
redesign the Acquisition Workforce certification, education,
and career fields by leveraging nationally and internationally
recognized standards. It also established a Defense Civilian
Training Corps to address critical skill gaps in the
Department's civilian workforce. It further directed the
Department to establish extramural research activities focused
on innovative acquisition processes to leverage expertise
outside of the Department, in order to provide academic
analyses and policy alternatives for consideration by the
Department and Congress.
(2) Streamlining Acquisition Processes: To ensure the
integrity of the defense industrial supply base and improve
risk mitigation, including improving processes and procedures
for assessing and mitigating risks related to foreign
ownership, control or influence, Public Law 116-92 directed the
Department to streamline and digitize its acquisition processes
and reformed acquisition policies with an increased emphasis on
the software and personnel required to make acquisition
efficient and cost-effective. Exclusive attention to cost,
schedule, and performance of major defense acquisition programs
and other development programs obscures myriad other risks in
programs, large and small, any one of which could be single
points of failure for successful acquisitions. The FY21 NDAA
requires Service Acquisition Executives, who play important
roles as portfolio managers and in executing programs, to
report to Congress about lessons learned in the implementation
of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, including ``middle
tier'' acquisition authority. To achieve a careful balance
between flexible acquisition processes and oversight, the FY21
NDAA also adds a congressional notification requirement after a
program using rapid prototyping and/or rapid fielding under
``middle tier'' of acquisition authority is terminated. Given
the role that the Service Acquisition Executives play in
portfolio and program management, this legislation would
leverage their authority and accountability to improve overall
acquisition policy. Furthermore, the FY21 NDAA enhances
authorities for acquisition of space systems for the United
States Space Force and requires DOD to report to the committee
on the use of such authorities to ensure transparency and
accountability.
(3) Increasing Transparency and Integrity: Public Law 116-
92 empowered contracting officers to obtain cost or pricing
data needed to stop future price gouging by defense contractors
with sole-source contracts. The FY21 NDAA would require
disclosure of beneficial ownership in the database used by
federal agency contract and grant officers for contractor
responsibility determinations and clarify whistleblower rights
by requiring Department of Defense contractors to inform their
employees that internal confidentiality agreements do not
prohibit the employees from lawfully reporting fraud waste or
abuse. Public Law 116-92 also placed increased focus on the
integrity of the defense industrial base, by directing
attention to contractor behavior that constitutes violations of
the law, fraud, and associated remedies, including suspension
and debarment. In the conference report accompanying the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-617), the conferees directed
the Department to evaluate whether current suspension and
debarment processes are sufficient to protect it from
contractors that have been cited for willful or repeated fair
labor standards violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.
(4) Improving Industrial Policy Leadership: The FY21 NDAA
would require one of the Assistant Secretaries to be the
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy,
whose principal duties will involve the overall supervision of
policy of the Department for developing and maintaining the
defense industrial base of the United States and ensuring a
secure supply of materials critical to national security. It
would further direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Industrial Base Policy and other officials to establish
initiatives to help the Department of Defense better leverage
the innovation and agility of small businesses.
(5) Ensuring the Security of the Defense Industrial Base:
Public Law 116-92 directed the Department to develop a
consistent, comprehensive framework to enhance cybersecurity
for the DIB in consultation with key stakeholders in industry.
Additionally, Public Law 116-92 strengthened the requirements
for the national security strategy for the national technology
industrial base as well as the annual report to Congress to
ensure actual mitigation strategies, individual responsible for
the strategy, and the timelines to eliminate the gaps and
vulnerabilities. The FY21 NDAA requires the DOD to provide
quarterly status briefings to the committee on these efforts.
(6) Invigorating Small Businesses: The committee continues
to recognize small businesses as an engine of our economy and
is concerned about the number of small businesses in the DIB.
The FY21 NDAA directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Industrial Base Policy to establish initiatives that expand and
diversify the number of small businesses in the national
technology and industrial base, and improve their resiliency
and competitiveness, even in the face of national emergencies.
Given the importance of past performance evaluations to small
businesses competing in the DIB, the FY21 NDAA requires
contracting officers to consider a small business concern's
past performance in a joint venture or as a first-tier
subcontractor when evaluating the small business concern's
offer for a prime contract, if the small business so chooses.
(7) Expanding Acquisition Reform: The committee led efforts
to continue and expand Acquisition Reform to the capability
requirements process and sustainment activities. The FY21 NDAA
requires the Department to conduct two assessments on the
capability requirements process. Additionally, the FY21 NDAA
directs a panel to look at weapon system sustainment as well as
enhance the requirements of a weapon systems life cycle plan.
The FY21 NDAA also includes the transfer and reorganization of
the defense acquisition statutes, which will set the conditions
for future reforms.
(8) Future of Warfare: The FY21 NDAA expands the use of
modularity in the design of weapons systems, as well as
business systems and cybersecurity systems, to enable
competition for upgrades as well as sustainment throughout a
product's lifecycle, enhance interoperability, and to support
combining and recombining systems in novel ways to achieve
joint all-domain warfare and the emerging joint warfighting
concept.
Financial Management
In the 116th Congress, the committee continued to oversee
military effectiveness and fiscal responsibility in a dynamic
budgeting environment. Under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of
2011 (Public Law 112-25), as modified by the Bipartisan Budget
Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-37), recent years have seen
significant increases in national defense discretionary
spending, necessitating significant oversight in order to
ensure the Department of Defense is a responsible steward of
taxpayer dollars.
The Comptroller General of the United States has
consistently identified the Department of Defense's financial
management as a high-risk area since 1995. The Department of
Defense has made some progress in modernizing its financial
management capabilities, but arcane and obsolete financial
management processes and systems continue to struggle to
accurately track and account for billions of dollars and
funding and tangible assets, which undermines confidence in the
Department's financial management systems and requires
significant congressional oversight.
The committee continued to review efforts to implement the
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan, as
mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The Inspector General of the
Department of Defense conducted the first agency-wide financial
audit of the Department in fiscal year 2018, and continues to
conduct such audits annually. On May 16, 2019, the committee
held a hearing examining the Department's progress and the path
forward for audit readiness and remediation efforts. Committee
staff also engaged regularly with the Department in order to
examine trends and concerns within the broader audit effort,
monitor interdependencies between the FIAR plan and business
systems modernization efforts, and oversee corrective actions
and process improvements. Both the Department and Congress
depend on the objective tools provided by proper financial
management processes and statements in order to make informed
decisions.
READINESS
Maintenance and Training
As the military services invest in modernization
initiatives, continuing to make proper investments in the
maintenance and training of legacy weapon systems through
divestment is important for military readiness and the safety
of personnel. To that end, the committee conducted oversight of
the budget requests of the military services in support of
weapon system sustainment and training and, where appropriate,
recommended resource adjustments in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) and
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA).
The committee took particular interest in the challenge of
getting Navy ships out of shipyard maintenance periods on
schedule and on budget. In response, the committee conducted
oversight of Navy initiatives to improve planning and execution
of shipyard work and programming of shipyard availabilities in
the budget request. Section 363 of Public Law 116-92 and
section 343 of the FY21 NDAA sought to improve transparency and
oversight of Navy ship depot maintenance budget requests and
execution. Similarly, the committee noted concerns in both the
committee reports accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120) and
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-442) regarding depot
carryover limits and the way the services calculate allowable
depot workload that is carried over from one year to the next.
The committee continued to examine the operational tempo of
units to ensure that adequate periods for maintenance,
training, and reset are built into the deployment cycles. This
becomes more challenging as the services implement new concepts
and introduce new weapon systems and capabilities into the
force. To that end, the committee conducted oversight changes
to the force generation models, such as the Army's Regionally
Aligned Readiness and Modernization Model and the Navy's
Optimized Fleet Response Plan, through reporting requirements
included in the committee reports accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-
120) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-442).
Finally, the committee examined ways that commercial best
practices, new technology, and data analytics can help the
military services more efficiently maintain weapon systems and
effectively train personnel. This includes the collection of
real-time data and analysis of historical maintenance records
to develop a more efficient, predictive, and effective
maintenance strategy as well as the use of augmented and
virtual reality training and simulators to improve training.
The committee conducted oversight of these initiatives through
reporting requirements included in the committee reports
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120) and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-442).
Logistics
Survivable logistics is a key combat support area and a
critical enabler underpinning U.S. military power. The
committee conducted oversight of the Department of Defense's
efforts to protect and sustain its prepositioned stocks,
communications networks, and tanker, strategic airlift, and
military sealift fleets. The committee also focused on
oversight of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), the Department
of Defense entity responsible for managing the global supply
chain and providing goods and services in support of the total
force. DLA's role in supporting the requirements of geographic
and functional combatant commands was also of importance to the
committee.
The Department of Defense often prioritizes funding of
combat capabilities (weapon systems, warships, fighters,
bombers, land combat vehicles) over logistics capabilities
(sealift, fuel distribution, contested logistics assets). To
that end, the committee noted the importance of investing in a
more secure and resilient logistics and transportation
infrastructure and set out to assist the Department of Defense
in balancing its priorities and adequately funding the
logistics enterprise. The committee examined the Department's
airlift, sealift, and tanker sustainment and recapitalization
plan, and in some cases prohibited divestiture of legacy assets
until the Department fields a sufficient quantity of
operational next-generation systems.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) included a reporting requirement on
strategic policy for prepositioned materiel and equipment. In
addition, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA), required
the Department of Defense to designate a single organization to
be responsible for bulk fuel management and delivery through
the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command region and develop a bulk fuel
management strategy. Finally, the FY21 NDAA mandated a
recurring requirement for the Department of Defense to conduct
a comprehensive review of sustainment and logistics
requirements necessary to support the force structure, force
modernization, infrastructure, and other elements of the
defense program and policies of the United States. Finally, in
the committee report accompanying the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-442), the committee required reports on
Department of Defense Fuel Contracting and Department of
Defense Warehouse Space Management.
Life-Cycle Sustainment
Design decisions made during weapon system development can
create sustainment problems that drive costly depot-level
maintenance once the system is fielded. The committee focused
on reducing the total ownership costs of weapon systems and
equipment by ensuring the Department of Defense is developing,
procuring, and modernizing weapon systems and equipment with
consideration of life-cycle support and sustainment
requirements and cost. To that end, section 802 of the William
M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) seeks to improve sustainment
planning in the acquisition milestone process and help control
cost growth for major weapon systems.
The committee continued to conduct oversight of weapon
system sustainment issues by monitoring materiel condition
metrics such as availability rates and mission capable rates.
To improve congressional oversight and military service
accountability, section 351 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) and
section 347 of the FY21 NDAA implemented and then refined a
requirement for the Department to develop materiel readiness
metrics and objectives for major weapon systems, regularly
review and update the metrics and objectives, and report on
them with the annual budget request. Finally, the committee
recognized the benefit of having continuous, independent review
of the weapon system sustainment enterprise to constantly seek
opportunities for improvement. To that end, section 345 of the
FY21 NDAA would establish an independent advisory panel to
focus on ways to improve the weapon system sustainment
ecosystem.
Organic Industrial Base
Our Nation's organic industrial base is vital to achieving
and maintaining warfighting readiness across all domains. The
military services' arsenals, depots, air logistics complexes,
and shipyards provide long-term sustainment through programmed
maintenance and conduct repair and modernization upgrades.
These facilities and their skilled workforces provide a
national-level insurance policy against unforeseen national
strategic contingencies. The committee remained concerned about
the current state and future health of the organic industrial
base as a result of an extended period of fiscal uncertainty,
increasing maintenance and sustainment requirements, workforce
attrition and recruiting challenges, and an overemphasis on
modernization initiatives at the expense of investments in
maintaining legacy weapon systems.
The committee continued to conduct oversight to ensure the
Department of Defense's organic industrial base is viably
positioned for long-term sustainability and has the workforce,
equipment, and facilities for efficient operations to meet the
Nation's current and future requirements. For example, section
359 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2020 (Public Law 116-92) required the Secretary of Defense to
develop a comprehensive strategy for improving the depot
infrastructure of the military departments with the objective
of ensuring that all depots have the capacity and capability to
support the readiness and material availability goals of
current and future weapon systems. The committee also conducted
oversight of how the military services ensure the depot
workforce possesses the capabilities and skills to support
emerging requirements as well as how the military services are
recruiting, training, and preparing to retain the future
workforce. To this end, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21
NDAA) would provide temporary authority to the Secretary of
Defense to appoint retired members of the Armed Forces to
positions at the level of GS-13 and below at defense industrial
base facilities.
The committee also continued its work to oversee carryover
management. The committee noted concerns in both the committee
reports accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120) and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-442) regarding depot carryover limits and
the way the services calculate allowable depot workload that is
carried over from one year to the next.
The committee took particular interest in the challenge of
getting Navy ships out of shipyard maintenance periods on
schedule and on budget. In response, the committee conducted
oversight of Navy initiatives to improve planning and execution
of shipyard work and programming of shipyard availabilities in
the budget request. Section 363 of Public Law 116-92 and
section 343 of the FY21 NDAA sought to improve transparency and
oversight of Navy ship depot maintenance budget requests and
execution.
Civilian Personnel
The Federal civilian workforce of the Department of Defense
plays a critical role in advancing national security. The
Department employs more Federal civilians than any other agency
and these personnel perform disparate and essential missions
across the globe. The committee focused on providing the
Department with the proper tools to invest in a strong civilian
workforce that contributes effectively to the success of the
Department's mission.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) included several provisions to support the
civilian workforce. In order to enable the entire Federal
Government to better compete with the private sector for
talent, Public Law 116-92 provided 12 weeks of paid parental
leave to all Federal civilian employees. In addition, Public
Law 116-92 provided that civilians moving as part of their
employment within the Federal Government are not taxed for
their relocation expenses paid for by the government. The bill
provided extensions to the authority that permits certain
allowances, benefits, and gratuities for civilian personnel on
official duty in combat zones and to the authority that waives
limitations on premium pay for civilians serving overseas.
Public Law 116-92 also expanded and extended to 2025 several
hiring authorities so that the Department of Defense can
quickly hire civilian personnel into key areas, such as the
defense industrial facilities (shipyards, depots, and arsenals)
and major range and test facilities. Finally, in the committee
report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120), the committee noted
concerns and established reporting requirements relating to
involuntary civilian reductions in force, total force
management, borrowed military manpower, and the use of term and
temporary hiring authorities.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) included
additional legislative provisions to support the civilian
workforce. The bill would extend paid parental leave to
approximately 100,000 Federal civilians inadvertently excluded
from the provision in Public Law 116-92, including Article I
judges and employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs,
Transportation Security Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, White House, and the courts and public
defender's office in Washington, DC. In recognition of Federal
civilians' dedicated service to the country throughout the
pandemic, the FY21 NDAA also would permit the Office of
Personnel Management to authorize agencies to allow most
Federal civilians to carry over an additional 25 percent of
annual leave into 2021. Further, the FY21 NDAA would prohibit
the Secretary of Defense from reducing the civilian workforce
unless the Department assesses the impact of such a reduction
on workload, military force structure, lethality, readiness,
and operational effectiveness. The FY21 NDAA also included the
Elijah Cummings Federal Employee Antidiscrimination Act, which
would require each Federal agency to establish a model Equal
Employment Opportunity Program that is independent of the
agency's human capital or general counsel offices and would
establish requirements related to complaints of discrimination
and retaliation in the workplace. Finally, the FY21 NDAA would
provide extensions to the authorities that permit certain
allowances, benefits, and gratuities for civilian personnel on
official duty in combat zones; waive limitations on premium pay
for civilians serving overseas; and allow the Navy to pay
overtime to certain civilian shipyard employees working in
Japan.
In the conference report accompanying the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-617), the conferees also noted that the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has not yet implemented
recommendations by the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory
Committee to align Federal wage system wage areas with General
Schedule locality pay areas across the country and encouraged
OPM to address this longstanding issue as soon as possible.
Personnel Background Investigations
The committee is concerned about the timeliness, quality,
and cost of processing Federal security clearance applications
and the impact that has on our national security apparatus'
ability to effectively recruit and retain high-quality
professionals. In 2018, the Government Accountability Office
added the government-wide personnel security clearance process
to its High-Risk List, which identifies Federal areas in need
of urgent reforms to address significant challenges. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public
Law 115-91) directed that the Department of Defense resume
responsibility for background investigations for Department of
Defense personnel and defense contractors and directed the
Secretary of Defense to begin a phased transition of all
investigations previously conducted by the National Background
Investigations Bureau (NBIB) to the Department of Defense. In
October 2019, the NBIB was incorporated into the Defense
Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA), which also
absorbed several other components including the Defense
Security Service and the Consolidated Adjudications Facility.
Given the importance of conducting security, suitability,
and credentialing background investigations for Department of
Defense personnel, and the fact that the Department now has the
responsibility to conduct the majority of such investigations
solicited by the U.S. Government, the committee continued its
oversight to ensure a smooth transition and that clearances are
investigated and adjudicated in a timely fashion. The committee
also continued its oversight of DCSA's transition to
government-wide continuous vetting. To this end, the committee
received quarterly briefings from the Department on security,
suitability, and credentialing reform.
In addition, the committee noted concerns in the committee
report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120) regarding the persistent
backlog of security clearance applications and required the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees on the scope of the investigative and
adjudicative backlog, plans to reduce the backlog, DCSA
staffing, and reforms to ensure a high-quality security
clearance process. Finally, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) required the DCSA
Director to provide a report on improving the quality of
information in background investigation request packages.
Energy and Environment
The military services continue to invest in installation
and operational energy improvements. Energy resilient
installations minimize the impacts of natural and manmade
energy interruptions, ensuring continuity of operations.
Increased efficiency enhances effectiveness and produces cost
savings that can be applied to other installation readiness
needs. Operational energy capability improvements enhance
readiness by extending operational reach and on-station time
and limiting reliance on fossil fuel convoys, improving our
national security posture. Therefore, the committee continued
to conduct oversight of the Department of Defense and military
services' efforts to address resiliency gaps and improve energy
efficiency on military installations and for military
operations. To that end, where appropriate, the committee
recommended resource adjustments and policy changes in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA).
The committee continued to examine the Department's
policies and investments in both installation and operational
energy, conducting oversight of these matters through analysis
of budget requests and execution of existing policy. Sections
317 and 319 of Public Law 116-92 sought to incentivize the
Department of Defense to make more positive energy resilience
investments. Sections 315, 316, 317, 2804, 2823, and 2825 of
the FY21 NDAA addressed energy resilience and energy security
on military installations. Sections 322, 323, and 324 of the
FY21 NDAA sought to improve the Department's capability to make
operational energy improvements. Similarly, the committee noted
concerns in both the committee reports accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H.
Rept. 116-120) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-
442) about the Department's execution of its operational energy
and installation energy resilience programs.
In addition, the committee conducted oversight of the
Department and military services' environmental management. The
committee expressed concern about the Department's efforts to
address the impacts of climate change on training and
installation resilience. Sections 326, 327, 328, 2801, 2804,
2805, and 2806 of Public Law 116-92 sought to focus the
Department's efforts toward improving installation resilience
in the face of climate change. Sections 327, 328, and 2827 of
the FY21 NDAA would require the Department to increase its
transparency and update its analysis regarding greenhouse gas
emissions and planning for climate change. Similarly, the
committee noted concerns in both the committee reports
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120) and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-442) about the Department's planning for
installation resilience in the face of increasing instances of
extreme weather, drought, wildfire, and sea-level rise.
The committee continued to conduct oversight of the
Department's efforts with respect to contamination caused by
its use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to
include identification and remediation of contaminated sites,
and research and development of alternatives. Sections 322,
323, 324, 329, and 330 of Public Law 116-92 sought to limit
further contamination by limiting use of PFAS-containing fire-
fighting agents, creating guidance for handling and disposal of
PFAS-contaminated materials, and banning the use of PFAS-
containing packaging for Meals Ready-to-Eat. Likewise, Sections
330, 331, 332, 333, 334, and 335 of the FY21 NDAA sought to
build on policies that encouraged transparency with communities
and focused effort on research and development. Similarly, the
committee noted concerns in both the committee reports
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120) and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-442) about the Department's transparency in
communicating with impacted communities and sense of urgency in
remediating PFAS contamination in defense communities.
Military Construction, Facilities Sustainment, and Real Property
Management
The committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Defense's military construction program to manage the overall
capacity of the Department's infrastructure and to ensure
resilient long-term military construction investments. The
committee also continued its oversight of the Department's
investments in facility sustainment, restoration, and
modernization, particularly as an instrument of disaster
recovery and resiliency enhancement. To that end, the committee
conducted oversight of budget requests of the Department of
Defense and military services in support of the military
construction program and where appropriate recommended resource
adjustments and policy changes in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) and
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA).
The real property management process requires extensive
oversight to maintain almost $749.0 billion in infrastructure.
The committee conducted oversight of the Department's efforts
to improve its internal management of its real property to
include better requirements development to reduce project
planning inefficiencies that have resulted in poorly
coordinated investment decisions and suboptimal facility
construction.
The committee significantly increased its oversight of the
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) program
particularly with respect to maintenance and sustainment of
housing developments. The committee noted a lack of oversight
by the Department and military services of military family
housing developments managed by private partners. The committee
examined ways to enhance this oversight and make policy changes
that would ensure military families lived only in safe, high-
quality MHPI homes. Title 30 of Public Law 116-92 sought to
make sweeping changes to the management, oversight, sustainment
of MHPI housing units, as well as improve the treatment of the
tenants of these units. Sections 2811 through 2818 of the FY21
NDAA sought to continue to increase accountability and
transparency about the conditions and financial solvency of
MHPI projects. Similarly, the committee noted concerns in both
the committee reports accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120) and
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-442).
The committee also increased its oversight of installation
resilience matters to include energy resiliency and resilience
to climate change. As noted in the Energy and Environment
section of this report, both Public Law 116-92 and and the FY21
NDAA contained sections that sought to encourage enhancements
in installation resiliency. Similarly, the committee noted
concerns about gaps in the Department's policies related to
resiliency in both the committee reports accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (H.
Rept. 116-120) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-
442).
Finally, the FY21 NDAA included a provision that would
establish an independent commission to make recommendations to
the Secretary of Defense for the renaming of assets or removal
of symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that
commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who
served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America from
all assets of the Department of Defense.
MILITARY PERSONNEL AND HEALTH CARE ISSUES
Military Manpower and Force Structure
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued to
assess the military's manpower requirements to meet its current
and future global military commitments. Specifically, the
committee continued to provide aggressive oversight of military
manpower levels, skill sets, and force structure to ensure they
support the National Defense Strategy. In the 116th Congress,
the committee examined trends in overall total force structure
requirements, end strength, recruiting, retention, morale, and
benefits and compensation.
The committee focused on integration of women into combat
arms positions in the Army and Marine Corps and on ensuring the
military is inclusive and represents the demographics of the
U.S. population. As part of this oversight the committee
sponsored a congressional delegation (CODEL) to Fort Bragg and
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and another CODEL to Fort Lewis
and Travis Air Force Base to meet with women who had
transitioned to a combat arms position in units. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-
92) required the Marine Corps to gender integrate basic
training at Parris Island within 5 years and at San Diego
within 8 years. The committee also held a hearing on December
10, 2019, on diversity in recruiting and retention and
increasing diversity in the military.
In the second session of the 116th Congress, the committee
continued its oversight of increasing diversity in the military
by including legislation in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21
NDAA) that would require a Chief Diversity Officer of the
Department of Defense and would require the Secretary of
Defense to create a strategy for increasing diversity in the
military as part of the National Defense Strategy, to include
measurable metrics with a progress report as part of each new
National Defense Strategy.
Military Benefits and Compensation
During the 116th Congress, the committee gave close
scrutiny to draft proposals from the Department of Defense
calling for changes to military compensation and other benefit
programs. The oversight of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel ensured such proposals were thoroughly assessed with
respect to their positive or negative impacts to the All-
Volunteer Force. Specifically, the draft Department of Defense
proposals to reform the Reserve Component call-up duty status
authorities which would overhaul the way a Reserve Component
service member is activated were considered. The subcommittee's
oversight in this area was concentrated on the proper alignment
of the new authorities to ensure that the pay and benefits for
Reserve Component members would not be adversely affected. To
that end, on March 27, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on Reserve Component duty status reform. Although the
Department of Defense unveiled to the committee a very detailed
and thorough plan for changes to the duty status authorities,
the proposal did not reach the committee in time for inclusion
in the fiscal year 2020 or 2021 National Defense Authorization
Acts.
The subcommittee's oversight of pay and allowance issues
led the committee, as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92), to
recommend no change to current law, thereby enabling the by-law
3.1 percent raise in basic pay during calendar year 2020 based
on section 1009 of title 37, United States Code. It is the
intent of the underlying law to ensure military pay raises
match the rate of compensation increases in the private sector
as measured by the Employment Cost Index. As part of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA), the committee again
recommended no change to the current law which would result in
a basic pay increase of 3.0 percent for 2021. Additionally, the
FY21 NDAA included legislation that would increase certain
hazardous duty incentive pay for members of the uniformed
services.
Public Law 116-92 and the FY21 NDAA also extended the
authorities to pay bonuses and special pays during fiscal year
2020 and fiscal year 2021, and the subcommittee monitored the
value of those bonuses and special pays to ensure they were
sufficient to achieve the recruiting and retention objectives
for which they were developed. The FY21 NDAA includes
legislation that would increase the bonus authority for officer
healthcare professionals to help to address the Department of
Defense's overall shortage in this critical area.
Finally, the committee maintained focus on the Survivor
Benefit Plan (SBP) financial offset from the Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC). Legislation in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-
181) established a Special Survivor Indemnity Allowance for
surviving spouses who are the beneficiary of the SBP annuity
and have their annuity partially or fully offset by the DIC
which was due to expire. The committee's continued oversight in
this area and the focus on a whole-of-Congress solution for the
complete repeal of the SBP annuity offset by DIC led to
legislation being included in Public Law 116-92 that eliminated
the offset.
Military Health System
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of military health policies of the Department of
Defense. The Department is charged with both supporting the
readiness requirements of the warfighter and delivering a
robust military health benefit, all while creating efficiencies
and implementing cost savings initiatives that may alter the
composition of the existing Military Health System (MHS).
Through briefings and hearings, the committee examined military
medical manning requirements, TRICARE benefit delivery, wounded
warrior programs, resiliency, opioid policy, and ongoing reform
efforts that are transitioning military treatment facilities
and other organizational structures from the military service
departments to the Defense Health Agency. The committee also
continued to monitor the implementation of the Genesis
Electronic Health Record, as well as other health-related
collaborations between the Department of Defense and Department
of Veterans Affairs such as suicide prevention. The committee
held two joint hearings with the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs to review both electronic health records and veteran
suicide.
The committee held a hearing on the Feres Doctrine to hear
testimony on whether the policy needed reform to improve the
quality of healthcare delivered in military treatment
facilities as well as provide more compensation to
beneficiaries impacted by medical malpractice. Although the
committee did not repeal or change the Feres Doctrine, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) authorized the Secretary of Defense to allow,
settle, and pay an administrative claim against the United
States for personal injury or death of a member of the
uniformed services that was the result of medical malpractice
caused by a Department of Defense healthcare provider.
During the second session of the 116th Congress the
committee continued to monitor the Department's reform of the
MHS as well as provided considerable oversight of the
Department's response to COVID. The committee held two member-
level briefings with outside experts on the Department's
response to the pandemic and the staff held numerous briefings
with the Department on topics from force protection to testing
and vaccine development and distribution. The William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (FY21 NDAA) includes provisions that would require the
Department to review its posture, plans, and training for
future pandemics; create a registry of TRICARE beneficiaries
diagnosed with COVID-19; and partner with civilian healthcare
and Federal agencies to enhance interoperability and create
medical surge capability and capacity of the national medical
system.
Military Personnel Policy
During the 116th Congress, the personnel policies of the
Department of Defense remained under considerable scrutiny as
the services compete to recruit, manage, and retain the best
and brightest men and women. The Subcommittee on Military
Personnel continued to give close examination to proposals from
the Department of Defense and other organizations calling for
any major changes to personnel policies including recruiting,
promotions, career paths or changes to military retention,
talent management, and other policy programs in order to assess
the impact of any proposed changes on the viability of the All-
Volunteer Force.
As a part of this personnel policy oversight, the
subcommittee focused on officer personnel management. To that
end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2020 (Public Law 116-92) authorized personnel policies to
increase the Department's flexibility to manage personnel
talent. The provisions included the authority of promotion
boards to recommend that officers of particular merit be placed
higher on the promotion list. The William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21
NDAA) includes a provision that would expand the availability
of enhanced constructive service credit in a particular career
field upon original appointment as a commissioned officer.
In a continuation of the subcommittee's oversight
responsibilities, on March 12, 2019, the subcommittee met to
receive testimony on outside perspectives on military personnel
policy, and on May 16, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony from the Department of Defense on military personnel
management.
In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic, the subcommittee included in the FY21 NDAA several
authorizations that concerned the management of the Reserve
Components that have been called to duty in response to the
pandemic. The authorities include constructive credit for
certain members of the Reserve Components who could not
complete minimum annual training requirements as a result of
the COVID-19 pandemic, and quarantine housing for members of
the National Guard who perform certain duty in response to the
COVID-19 emergency.
Since the establishment of the U.S. Space Force as a
separate service in Public Law 116-92 the committee continued
to work with the Department to oversee, establish, and
legislate the appropriate personnel policies for the new
service. To that end, the subcommittee participated in
quarterly briefings by the Space Force leadership on the way
forward for manning the Space Force, general personnel
policies, and specific general officer manning numbers and
associated personnel policy.
Uniform Code of Military Justice, Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence
The committee continued its record of providing effective
oversight of military justice, which included implementation of
the comprehensive overhaul of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice mandated by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-328). The committee also
continued its robust oversight of the Department of Defense's
sexual assault prevention and response programs with a focus on
implementation of best practices for prevention programs,
including programs designed to address and prevent domestic
violence in the military.
In exercising its oversight of sexual assault prevention
and response, the committee executed several congressional
delegations (CODELs) and staff delegations focused on programs
at the installation level. The oversight trips, coupled with
two hearings on sexual assault and one hearing on domestic
violence, helped the committee shape and pass legislation to
better protect and provide care for victims of sexual assault
and domestic violence. The National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) increased resources
available to sexual assault survivors, including an increase in
the number of investigative personnel and Victim Witness
Assistance Program liaisons, with the goal of ensuring that
investigations of sex-related offenses be completed not later
than 6 months after the date of initiation. It also required
additional training for commanders regarding disposition of
sexual assault and collateral offenses. Public Law 116-92 also
required the Department of Defense to establish a program to
provide legal counsel to domestic violence victims to assist
them before and during the court-martial process. Counsel
providing services under this program were also required to
receive specialized training on issues commonly associated with
domestic violence.
In the second session of the 116th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on racial
disparities in the military justice system to discuss causes
and potential remedies. The committee focused significantly on
Fort Hood, Texas, and the deaths of several soldiers, to
include Specialist (SPC) Vanessa Guillen. The committee
conducted one briefing with the Army's Criminal Investigation
Command to hear details of the disappearance and investigation
of the death of SPC Guillen and one hybrid hearing covering the
U.S. Army Forces Command Inspector General's review of the
sexual harassment and assault prevention programs at Fort Hood,
which included testimony from two advocates for victims of
military sexual trauma. The committee also sponsored a CODEL to
Fort Hood to receive information firsthand from investigators,
commanders, and soldiers. Finally, the subcommittee held a
hearing with the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee to
discuss the 9 findings and 70 recommendations the committee
made to the Secretary of the Army regarding the problems
emanating from Fort Hood.
The William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 includes provisions that
would create an independent civilian task force to study and
make recommendations to prevent and prosecute domestic violence
within the military services, require establishment of a
capability for confidential reporting of sexual harassment, and
require implementation of a Safe to Report policy across the
services that establishes standards for the handling of
collateral misconduct committed by victims of sexual assault.
Military Family Readiness
During the 116th Congress, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel continued to focus on the support provided to
families of members of the Armed Forces, particularly when
their servicemember spouse is deployed. The subcommittee
continued to assess the methods used by the military services
to identify the needs of military families and to identify the
programs and policies that can be implemented or modified to
improve their quality of life. As end strengths of the Armed
Forces continued to increase, the committee closely examined
the Department of Defense and military services' family support
programs to ensure the programs are adequately resourced to
support an increase in family members.
In addition, the subcommittee continued close oversight on
the quality and availability of services at Department of
Defense child development centers. To that end, the continued
rigorous oversight of the subcommittee on family readiness
issues resulted in the inclusion of several provisions in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) relating to a critical component of family
readiness, childcare. The provisions included authorizing
service members to take leave for a birth or adoption in more
than one increment, and deferring deployment for one year for
service members who give birth. Additionally, further
improvements to childcare availability were addressed,
including the direct hire of childcare employees.
Spouse employment and education issues were also of
continued importance in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21
NDAA). Provisions were included that would address the
expansion of the My Career Advancement Account program for
military spouses to nonportable career fields and occupations
and expand financial assistance under My Career Advancement
Account program to assist spouses with continuing education.
The subcommittee continued its oversight efforts with regard to
childcare and the FY21 NDAA included childcare provisions that
would require childcare availability for shift workers,
establish a program for financial assistance for service
members using in-home child care, and an assessment of
financial assistance available to service members using non-
Department of Defense child care facilities. A focus on
enhancing children's education resulted in provisions included
in the FY21 NDAA that would establish a pilot program to expand
eligibility for enrollment at domestic dependent elementary and
secondary school, and a pilot program on expanded eligibility
for Department of Defense Education Activity Virtual High
School program to further assist military families. Finally,
the FY21 NDAA would require the Department of Defense to
standardize and improve the Exceptional Family Member Program
to assist families with special needs.
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs and Military Resale Programs
The committee believes the cost-efficient sustainment of
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) and military resale
programs (commissaries and exchanges) is required to protect
quality of life in military communities. The Subcommittee on
Military Personnel provided oversight efforts directed toward
that end in conjunction with continuing major resale reforms,
begun in the 114th Congress, to ensure the continued viability
of these programs.
Additionally, the subcommittee believes that MWR and
military resale programs must remain competitive with private
sector entities to ensure that service members and their
families benefit fully from these programs. During the 116th
Congress, the subcommittee monitored current practices and
policies to ensure that MWR and military resale programs
employed the full range of strategies available to private
sector competitors to inform authorized patrons about the
benefits associated with these programs and encourage their
participation.
The subcommittee continued to monitor and oversee the
changes required by the commissary reform plan with an emphasis
on maintaining this valuable benefit without interruption. To
that end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) contained a provision on defense
resale matters that required the Department of Defense to
develop a business strategy that preserves service member
savings. During the 116th Congress, the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel continued its oversight of the defense
retail system by receiving a quarterly briefing from the
Department of Defense on the savings targets and the ongoing
resale reform plan. This oversight continued throughout the
116th Congress and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 contains a
provision that would expand the previous provisions on this
issue to restart the reform process by mandating an updated
business case analysis for the reform and for consolidation of
the defense resale system.
Prisoner of War and Missing in Action
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued
oversight of the Department of Defense's Prisoner of War/
Missing in Action activities. Specifically, the committee
focused on the operations of the Defense Personnel Accounting
Agency (DPAA) to ensure they are meeting the requirement that
the accounting effort achieve at least 200 identifications
annually. Committee staff met multiple times with the
leadership of DPAA to monitor progress in achieving the
required minimum 200 identifications annually. DPAA continues
to work to regain access to recover missing service members
from North Korea as a humanitarian mission. Unfortunately, due
to COVID, DPAA had to cancel the majority of its overseas
operations, but remains postured to execute when the conditions
allow. DPAA laboratories were able to devise ways to continue
forensic identification work in Hawaii and at Offutt Air Force
Base, Nebraska, yielding 120 identifications for fiscal year
2020.
Arlington National Cemetery
The committee continued its oversight from the 115th
Congress of Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) into the 116th
Congress. The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-232) directed the
Secretary of the Army to establish revised eligibility criteria
for interment at Arlington National Cemetery to ensure that the
cemetery remains an active burial ground well into the future.
The Secretary of the Army announced the draft proposed criteria
September 25, 2019. The Army has conducted over three and half
years of thoughtful deliberation and public outreach--including
with veteran and military service organizations--and active
engagement with ANC senior leaders and the Advisory Committee
on ANC. On September 15, 2020, the Army announced a 60-day
public comment period and is in the rulemaking process for
revised eligibility for burial and inurnment into Arlington
National Cemetery.
MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES
Overview
During the 116th Congress, the committee conducted
oversight of military equipment modernization strategies and
programs. The committee assessed the effectiveness of those
strategies and their ability to mitigate threats in the near-
term and long-term from near-peer and peer competitors. The
committee's efforts focused on full-spectrum, combat-effective
lethality from near-term modernization efforts that utilize
acquisition reform initiatives to speed development and
fielding of solutions to the warfighter. The committee devoted
attention to the military services' implementation and
utilization of new, innovative, and agile acquisition reform
authorities to recapitalize, upgrade, or enhance the
performance of current and future combat systems. The committee
also conducted oversight on the military services' ability to
aggressively control development and procurement costs,
implement reasonable, executable and accountable sustainment
strategies that preserve system affordability, as well as
manage strategic risk in critical areas of the U.S. defense
industrial base.
The committee conducted oversight and produced legislation
that subsequently provides resources to mitigate cost growth
and schedule delays of modernization programs. The committee
assessed the need for legislative action on a range of concerns
including late determination of programmatic requirements;
unjustified requirements growth and failure to properly
mitigate requirements changes; insufficient analyses of
alternatives; concurrency in test and evaluation master plans;
military services proceeding prematurely with development of
immature technology; poor cost estimating; inadequate funding
profiles; over-estimation of potential production rates;
program instability; and, improper use of new and agile
acquisition reform authorities.
Armored Vehicle Modernization
The committee focused on oversight of the Army and Marine
Corps' evolving plans to improve the capability and extend the
operating lives of its current heavy- and medium-weight armored
combat vehicles. The committee evaluated plans for and
conducted oversight of research, development, production, and
timely fielding of its current fleets and next generation of
these systems. The committee focused oversight efforts on
management of these programs: the Next Generation Combat
Vehicle including the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, M1
Abrams tank, the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the family of
Stryker Combat Vehicles, the family of Amphibious Combat
Vehicles, the Light Armored Vehicle, the M109A7 Paladin
Integrated Management, the Armored Multipurpose Vehicle, the
Army's mobile protected firepower, and Active Protection
Systems for combat vehicles.
Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
The committee conducted oversight of the Army and Marine
Corps' current and future tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV)
fleets, including their families of light, medium, and heavy
TWVs and the family of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected
Vehicles. The committee specifically focused those efforts on
management of these programs: Family of Medium Tactical
Vehicles, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck, Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle, Ground Mobility Vehicle, Infantry Squad
Vehicle, and High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle.
Rotorcraft Programs
The committee focused oversight efforts on rotorcraft
modernization, force structure, and readiness. The committee
specifically examined how the military services are balancing
plans to accelerate development of next generation rotorcraft
platforms with requirements to upgrade current rotorcraft
platforms. Program areas of oversight interest for the
committee included the following programs: UH-60 Black Hawk
utility rotorcraft, AH-64 Apache Attack rotorcraft, CH-47
Chinook heavy lift rotorcraft, UH-1 Huey utility helicopters,
AH-1 attack helicopter, CH-53K heavy lift rotorcraft program,
UH-1N utility helicopter replacement program, Combat Rescue
Helicopter, TH-73 advanced helicopter training system, and the
Future Vertical Lift (FVL) development program.
The committee also conducted oversight on advanced aircraft
survivability equipment upgrades to provide warning and
protection against evolving threats, and monitored the Improved
Turbine Engine program, designed to improve lift capability on
the AH-64, UH-60, and FVL platforms.
Communications and Network Programs
The committee conducted oversight on the research,
development, and procurement of tactical battlefield
communications networks. Specifically, the committee examined
the Army's plans for future battlefield network research and
development programs, the Army's Tactical Network Modernization
roadmap, and efforts on the incremental development and
fielding of the Integrated Tactical Network and other tactical
radio programs. The committee began and will continue to
conduct oversight on the Army's ``Project Convergence'' and
development of systems that will contribute to Joint All-Domain
Command and Control.
Individual Soldier and Marine Equipment
The committee continued to monitor and oversee the
research, development, and procurement of soldier and marine
individual equipment, as well as other complementary personal
protective equipment programs. Focus areas included: advances
in weight reduction (``lightening the load'') in individual
equipment; development of female-specific individual protective
equipment; development and procurement of the Enhanced Night
Vision Goggle-Binocular; small arms and small caliber
ammunition modernization with particular emphasis on the Army's
next generation squad weapon system; procurement and fielding
of enhanced performance small caliber rounds; improved combat
helmets to help mitigate traumatic brain injury; and the
development and fielding of the Integrated Visual Augmentation
System.
Fixed-Wing Tactical and Training Aircraft
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued
oversight efforts on the size, composition, capability, and
capacity of the Department of Defense's tactical and training
aircraft force structure. The committee engaged the Department
through hearings and classified events to understand its
aircraft force-mix strategy and composition regarding
procurement of advanced-4th, 5th, and 6th generation tactical
aircraft. Specifically, the committee scrutinized plans to
recapitalize existing tactical aircraft to ensure that mission
areas related to air superiority, interdiction, and kinetic
support to land and maritime forces maintain combat
effectiveness requirements. The committee engaged the Air
Force, Navy, and Marine Corps to understand development,
production, and recapitalization strategies to mitigate
forecasted tactical aircraft inventory shortfalls that impact
the Department's ability to implement the National Defense
Strategy. The committee continued oversight of the Department's
efforts to improve capabilities and reliability among the
legacy fleet of aircraft and closely monitored the impacts on
aviation readiness related to procurement of initial spares,
repaired parts, and consumable supplies.
The committee continued oversight of the F-35 program,
particularly with regard to affordability issues and concerns
related to program life-cycle cost, production and fielding
schedules, aircraft and support system performance, and
sustainment strategy planning and execution. The committee
focused oversight efforts on the F-35's performance during the
Initial Operational Test and Evaluation phase, Block 4 software
development, and the Continuous Capability Development and
Delivery follow-on modernization program. The committee's focus
areas on the F-35 program included production efficiency,
software development and testing related to the operational
flight program and mission data files, addressing F135 engine
supply chain and risks, the Autonomic Logistics Information
System (ALIS) fielding and integration into operational F-35
units, the beginning stages of the follow-on system named the
Operational Data Integration Network to replace the
dysfunctional ALIS, depot stand-up and facilitization, and
supply chain management required to support concurrent
production and operational maintenance and sustainment
requirements.
In addition, the committee examined acquisition strategies
related to the experimentation effort of the Air Force's Light
Attack and Armed Reconnaissance platform, the Air Force's F-
15EX new start program, and the Air Force's and Navy's initial
plans and concepts for development of Next Generation Air
Dominance capabilities. The committee continued engagement with
the Air Force and Navy regarding efforts to mitigate
physiological episodes that were prevalent and experienced by
pilots operating tactical and training aircraft equipped with
the On-Board Oxygen Generating System.
Tactical Missiles and Munitions
During the 116th Congress, the committee engaged the
Department of Defense on oversight of the testing and war-
reserve material requirements and subsequent production
strategies to support and maintain sufficient inventories of
conventional tactical aircraft missiles and munitions at an
acceptable risk level. The committee focused its attention on
the Department's identification, assessment, and strategies for
management of risk in the associated defense industrial base
and issues related to diminishing manufacturing sources,
obsolescence issues, sole-source supply of components and major
sub-systems, and production capabilities needed to support both
annual production and surge requirements when necessary. The
committee examined the stability and predictability of the
Department's near and long-term budget planning and execution
to control cost and reduce uncertainty in the defense
industrial base.
Specifically, the committee focused on a wide-array of
missile, munitions, and ammunition programs of the Department
of Defense, including but not limited to: high-energy lasers,
Maneuver Short Range Air Defense, Indirect Fire Protection
Capability Interceptors, Iron Dome Interceptors, Precision
Strike Missile, Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System, Joint
Air-to-Ground missile, the Army Tactical Missile System,
Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missile, Small Diameter Bomb I
& II, Joint Direct Attack Munition, Joint Air-to-Surface
Standoff Missile-Extended Range, Joint Advanced Tactical
Missile, and precision-guided and preferred munitions
supporting the deterrence and warfighting requirements of the
geographical combatant commanders.
Bomber Force Structure
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued
oversight efforts on the size, composition, capability, and
capacity of the Department of Defense's bomber aircraft force
structure. The committee is monitoring the development of the
long-range strike bomber aircraft B-21A Raider as the program
moves through acquisition. Section 132 and section 133 of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2021 provide guidance to the Air Force on
reviewing the bomber fleet mix and end strength. The committee
also understands that long-range strike with standoff weapons
will principally be conducted by the B-1 Lancer and B-52
Stratofortress bombers over the next decade. The committee is
reviewing the development of a legacy bomber modernization
program that is commensurate with the intended service life and
fielding of advanced weapons.
The committee conducted oversight of the budget request in
support of the B-52 Stratofortress Commercial Engine
Replacement Program and, where appropriate, recommended
resource adjustments in section 4201 of the FY21 NDAA.
Aerial Refueling Aircraft
During the 116th Congress, the committee reviewed the Air
Force aerial refueling aircraft modernization and
recapitalization programs, along with the Navy's nascent
refueling capability associated with the MQ-25 Stingray
program.
The Air Force currently requires 479 air refueling tankers
to meet the National Defense Strategy but only possesses 395
KC-135R/T Stratotankers and 56 KC-10A Extender tankers for a
total of 451 legacy tankers. The committee is watching the
procurement of KC-46A Pegasus aircraft in light of the
continuing deficiencies in the remote vision system and is
cautiously optimistic the aircraft is on the path to be an
operational air refueling aircraft in all situations. The
addition of KC-46A aircraft will eventually grow the tanker
force to 479 aircraft. Subsequently, the Air Force plans to
replace its older tankers one-for-one with the planned 179 KC-
46A aircraft. Section 135 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
provides guidance to the structure of the air refueling fleet
until the KC-46A is operational. The remaining 300 KC-135
aircraft will need to be modernized. The committee has taken
several briefs with the way ahead for the KC-135s to conduct
operations in contested airspace.
The committee visited and received several briefings and is
continuing to review the MQ-25 program as the Navy seeks to
develop an unmanned aerial vehicle that adds an additional air
refueling capabilities. The committee received additional
briefings on capability, modernization, and procurement of the
KC-130J.
Airlift Programs
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued
oversight efforts on the size, composition, capability, and
capacity of the Department of Defense's strategic and tactical
aircraft force structure. The committee engaged the Department
through hearings and briefings to understand tactical airlift
modernization and recapitalization strategy. The committee
engaged the Air Force to understand the modernization of the C-
130H Hercules aircraft propellers and engines. The committee
continued to assess the risk in the Air Force's current plan to
maintain an intratheater airlift aircraft inventory to support
the National Defense Strategy supported by section 134 of the
William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA).
The committee continued to provide oversight of the C-5M
Super Galaxy and C-17A Globemaster III modernization programs
per section 4101 of the FY21 NDAA.
Surface Warfare Programs
The Department of the Navy must expand the core
capabilities of U.S. seapower to achieve a blend of peacetime
engagement and major combat operations capabilities as part of
the Navy's 355-ship requirement. During the 116th Congress, the
committee provided oversight of the composition, capacity, and
capabilities of the surface fleet. The committee also assessed
the large and small surface combatant requirements to ensure
oversight of the force structure and the associated weapons and
sensors employed on the surface force with a specific emphasis
on Frigate capabilities. The committee continued to conduct
oversight of the Littoral Combat Ship and the sensors that will
be fielded as part of the mission modules. Further oversight of
the amphibious forces will also be pursued to include an
analysis of what the optimal build cadence is, integration of
advanced data capabilities and the amphibious assault
connectors, and how best to support expeditionary basing. The
committee continued its oversight of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke
class Destroyer program and followed the transition to the
Flight III variant that incorporate the new air and missile
defense radar. The committee also monitored the requirements
associated with the new large surface combatant that the Navy
indicates will be fielded in the near future. In addition to
the manned platforms, the committee will review options for the
Navy to augment the surface force structure with both unmanned
and optionally manned platforms and will ensure these programs
are sufficiently mature before the start of construction.
Finally, the committee reviewed the combat logistics forces and
the Maritime Security Program to ensure sufficient capacity is
available to support national security objectives.
As part of this oversight, the committee continued to place
a significant emphasis on improving affordability in
shipbuilding programs through: ensuring stable requirements;
the use of acquisition best practices; stability within the
overall program; increased reliance on common systems and open
architecture; and industrial base capacity, process, and
facility improvements at the shipyards.
Undersea Warfare Programs
The ability to operate freely at sea is one of the most
important enablers of joint and interagency operations, and sea
control requires capabilities in all aspects of the maritime
domain. There are many challenges to our ability to exercise
sea control, perhaps none as significant as the growing number
of nations operating submarines, both advanced diesel-electric
and nuclear propelled. Exercising sea control in the undersea
domain is essential to maintaining the freedom of navigation in
support of U.S. maritime interests. The committee continued to
review the undersea domain to ensure warfare dominance.
Specifically, the committee reviewed short- and long-term
options to reverse the decline in the attack submarine force
structure as well as options to augment the undersea fleet with
unmanned underwater vehicles. The committee also assessed
whether sufficient resources and technological maturity are
available for the recapitalization of the ballistic missile
submarine force. Additionally, the committee monitored the
development of the requirements associated with the follow-on
attack submarine to the Virginia class. Finally, the committee
assessed the weapons and sensors employed in the undersea
domain to retain maritime dominance, to include the capacity
and capabilities of unmanned undersea vehicles.
As part of this oversight, the committee placed specific
emphasis on the efficacy of multi-year procurement, rigorous
assessment of requirements, and management of an expanding
undersea industrial base capacity.
Military Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs
The committee conducted oversight activities on cost,
schedule, and performance outcomes of tactical manned and
unmanned aerial intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
(ISR) systems. The committee examined the ISR enterprise for
balance in inventory, satisfaction of military collection
requirements, timeliness and redundancy of dissemination
architecture, and modernization of analysis and exploitation
capabilities for video and imagery. The committee monitored the
Department of Defense's ISR policy development and
implementation.
The committee evaluated the Department of Defense's long-
term ISR architecture modernization and next-generation
acquisition strategy. It further examined the supporting
analysis behind programmatic decisions, the management of risk
across ISR collection capabilities and capacities, and the
corresponding resources to process, exploit, and disseminate
raw data and finished analysis. The committee conducted
oversight on improvements made to ISR transmission and down-
link architecture that provide rapid delivery of collected
information supporting timely and effective defense operations.
The committee's oversight efforts included the following
ISR programs: RQ-4 Global Hawk unmanned aerial system (UAS)
Block 30 and Block 40, MQ-9 Reaper UAS, MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAS,
U-2 aircraft, RC-135 aircraft, Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar System aircraft, E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System
aircraft, and the Advanced Battle Management System.
Nuclear Forces and Posture
The committee oversaw the atomic energy defense activities
of the Department of Energy and nuclear policies and programs
of the Department of Defense to ensure the safety, security,
reliability, and credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. The
committee ensured that the United States maintains a safe,
secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal to address current and
future threats. The committee conducted oversight of the
Department of Energy and the Department of Defense's nuclear
modernization and sustainment plans, nuclear deterrence and
posture, including programs and policies included in the 2018
Nuclear Posture Review.
In particular, the committee oversaw funding levels and
requirements for the nuclear deterrence mission and nuclear
enterprise, including relevant nuclear delivery platforms and
their associated warheads to ensure resources are provided and
allocated effectively and efficiently across Department of
Energy and Department of Defense, including through budget
hearings on these proposed programs. With regard to the
Department of Defense, the committee emphasized oversight of
major acquisition programs that will recapitalize U.S. nuclear
forces and the supporting complex for decades into the future,
including but not limited to the Ground Based Strategic
Deterrent system, the Long-Range Standoff cruise missile, and
missiles associated with the new Columbia-class submarine. The
committee also placed particular emphasis on investments in
nuclear enterprise programs that fall under the purview of the
Department of Energy, including but not limited to
infrastructure investments, warhead life extension programs,
stockpile stewardship programs, stockpile management programs,
cost savings and efficiency initiatives, safety and security,
and progress on the nuclear clean-up activities. The committee
held a hearing on the cause and impacts of delays and cost
increases of the B61 life extension program and W88 alteration
program in September 2019, and included provisions in both the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) on
improving oversight of the plutonium pit production and nuclear
weapons acquisition programs. The committee also initiated
discussions on the importance of hiring and retaining a
diverse, world-class workforce, requiring detailed reporting in
the FY21 NDAA.
In addition, the committee continued oversight of the
nuclear command and control programs that underpin a reliable
nuclear deterrent.
Alongside overseeing and authorizing U.S. nuclear programs,
the committee monitored foreign nuclear weapon development and
modernization programs, holding classified briefings on China
and Russia's nuclear weapons in November 2019 and on Chinese
nuclear modernization programs in December 2020, and included
requirements for classified reports and an independent report
on adversary nuclear weapons programs in the FY21 NDAA.
The committee provided oversight of the U.S. nuclear policy
and posture, extended deterrence policy, arms control
activities, and nuclear force structure requirements, including
impacts on strategic stability. Continuing efforts to inform
dialog on measures to enhance deterrence and stability, Public
Law 116-92 included a provision requiring an independent report
on benefits and risks of a potential U.S. posture of no-first-
use of nuclear weapons. In addition to a hearing by the
committee in March 2019 to receive outside views on U.S.
nuclear posture, the committee held a hearing in February 2019
on the value of nuclear arms control, with Senator Richard
Lugar, former Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, and former
Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter. The committee also
held a classified briefing on the Open Skies Treaty in February
2020, and both Public Law 116-92 and the FY21 NDAA included
provisions regarding the process and decision to withdraw from
the Open Skies Treaty.
Missile Defense
The committee oversaw the Department of Defense's efforts
to develop, test, and field layered missile defense
capabilities to protect the United States, its deployed forces,
and allies and partners against missile threats.
The committee continued to place emphasis on cost-effective
and reliable missile defenses that contribute to strategic
stability. The committee conducted oversight on U.S. homeland
missile defense development, focusing on the next generation
interceptor program with provisions in both the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-
92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA), efforts to
improve regional missile defense capabilities, developmental
and operational testing, cyber security to protect Ballistic
Missile Defense System (BMDS) data, force structure and
inventory requirements, continued integration of ``left-of-
launch'' capabilities, and science and technology investments
in areas such as boost-phase intercept, directed energy, space
sensor layer, and continuous improvements to radar
discrimination. The committee focused on the Department's plans
to design and develop a hypersonic defense capability, and in
addition to the technical and programmatic aspects, continued
to refine national missile defense policy through a provision
in Public Law 116-92 in light of these complex and emerging
threats.
The committee monitored implementation of the 2019 Missile
Defense Review by the Department of Defense and opportunities
to strengthen international missile defense cooperation with
allies and partners to defend against ballistic and cruise
missiles.
The committee legislated on the roles, responsibilities,
and acquisition policies of the Missile Defense Agency and
military services as they relate to missile defense to ensure
acquisition accountability and that investments in missile
defense capability and capacity are addressing global combatant
commander requirements.
The committee continued oversight of the Army's Lower Tier
Air and Missile Defense System modernization efforts, including
the Patriot weapon system, the Lower Tier Air and Missile
Defense Sensor (as that program transitions to a rapid
prototyping effort), and efforts to improve interoperability of
Army and BMDS systems. Public Law 116-92 included language that
ensured the program had sound acquisition practices in place
during the rapid prototyping effort, and that requirements were
being met in accordance with operational needs.
The committee monitored progress of the Department of
Defense Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic offensive efforts
across both the Navy and Army programs as potential ``left-of-
launch'' capabilities. The committee initiated policy
discussions and included provisions in both Public Law 116-92
and the FY21 NDAA that required the Department to assess and
address the risks of ambiguity, miscalculation, and unintended
escalation of these types of weapons.
National Security Space
The committee oversaw the national security space policies
and programs of the Department of Defense, including combat
support agencies and elements of the Department of Defense that
are also part of the intelligence community. The committee
continued its years-long focus on improving the organization
and management of the Department's space program, and related
policies, to posture the military to maintain our space
advantage, address new threats in space, elevate the focus
within the Department on space as a warfighting domain, and
create a culture that recognizes the importance of space for
national security. Toward this end, the committee was
intrinsically involved in the establishment of the U.S. Space
Force, building on earlier efforts in the House-passed National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 to establish a
Space Corps, and ultimately establishing the U.S. Space Force
as a separate military service within the Air Force in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92). Public Law 116-92 also established a new Assistant
Secretary for Space Policy to elevate space-related policy
within the Department and established a new Assistant Secretary
for Space Acquisition and Integration to increase focus on
space acquisition.
In an effort to support new space acquisition frameworks
and to support the use of new commercial architectures and
services, including the use of proliferated LEO architectures
to enhance resilience, and to promote innovation for national
security, the committee held a briefing in May 2019 on the
mission and plans of the Space Development Agency (SDA).
Further, the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) established
the SDA in statute, mandating its transfer to the U.S. Space
Force by October 2022. The FY21 NDAA again required the
Department to submit a report and plan for a new space
acquisition framework. In further support of innovation and
resilience in space, the committee also held briefings on
optimal future space architectures in January 2020 with Dr.
Andrew Cox and on an update on Project Maven in support of the
use of AI to inform and increase the speed of operational
awareness and decisions.
The committee also oversaw the establishment of the Space
Command as a separate geographic combatant command, in support
of increased focus on warfighter requirements, plans, and
operations.
The committee monitored current and expected foreign space
threats, and focused on the need for development of effective
deterrence policies for space. To this end, the committee held
several classified briefings on space threats and adversary
space capabilities in March 2019 and in September 2020, and
Public Law 116-92 mandated an independent study to inform
effective deterrence in space. Both Public Law 116-92 and the
FY21 NDAA continued to press for measures to increase
deterrence and capacity, for example mandating the development
of terminals that can multi-global navigation satellite systems
to add resilience to precision, navigation and timing
capability and deter an attack on GPS space assets.
Finally, the committee continued to support increased use
of commercial capabilities, with both Public Law 116-92 and the
FY21 NDAA including provisions to mandate the use of commercial
capabilities with regard to space domain awareness. The FY21
NDAA continued to support competition to ensure cost-effective
assured access to space by mandating investments toward phase 3
of the National Security Space Launch program, and included
several provisions to support small launch capabilities.
Navy and Marine Corps Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
Programs
During the 116th Congress, the committee continued
oversight efforts on the size, composition, capability, and
capacity of the Department of Defense's maritime intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft force structure. The
committee engaged the Department through classified and
unclassified briefings to understand modernization and
recapitalization strategy. The committee engaged the Navy to
understand the recapitalization of the remaining P-3C Orion
maritime patrol aircraft with the P-8 Poseidon aircraft. The
committee continued to assess the risk in the Navy's current
plan to maintain and procure the MQ-4 Triton supported by
section 4101 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA).
The committee also continued to provide oversight of the E-
2D Advanced Hawkeye Airborne Early Warning Command and Control
aircraft as it gains inflight air refueling capability and
continues to replace the E-2C Hawkeye. Advanced unmanned
capability unclassified and classified briefings were held to
support and understand the MQ-8B/C Firescout and new MUX/MALE
capabilities for the Marine Corps.
Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations and Electronic Warfare
The committee continued oversight of the Department of
Defense's developing Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations (EMSO)
strategy and associated electronic warfare (EW) systems. The
committee engaged with the EMSO Cross Functional Team and
military service leaders to understand how the Department is
identifying requirements, developing policies, and establishing
the necessary governance structures to manage the EMSO
enterprise. The committee focused on the Department's ability
to address emerging EMSO and EW threats and the military
services' efforts to develop and field next-generation
capabilities to counter these threats. Specifically, the
committee examined airborne EW systems, including the EC-130H
Compass Call aircraft, the EC-37B Compass Call re-host
aircraft, the Navy's Next Generation Jammer airborne electronic
attack capability, and the Army's Multi-Function EW-Air, as
well as ground-based EW capabilities including the Terrestrial
Layer System.
Integrated Air and Missile Defense
The committee conducted oversight on the research,
development, and procurement of Army and Marine Corps tactical
air and missile defense programs. Specifically, the committee
examined the interim and enduring solutions for the Indirect
Fire Protection Capability, the Integrated Battle Command
System, and the Mobile-Short Range Air Defense capabilities.
INTELLIGENCE AND EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Intelligence
The committee recognizes the increasingly complex nature of
warfare and the national security imperative of ensuring that
the Defense Intelligence Enterprise is postured to balance
intelligence support to National Defense Strategy priority
challenges of confronting strategic competition and ongoing
counterterrorism operations. Over the 116th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities set and pursued an aggressive oversight and
legislative agenda for the Defense Intelligence Enterprise. The
subcommittee examined the current and planned modernization
activities, with a focus on developments in machine learning
and artificial intelligence, to ensure the Department of
Defense is on track to continue creating current, informed
foundational intelligence to support military operations,
advanced weapon systems, and military planners.
To that end, the subcommittee conducted multiple briefings
and hearings with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security
(USD(I&S)), and the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center
(JAIC), to monitor progress in the development and
synchronization of artificial intelligence initiatives,
including activities underway at the JAIC; the DIA's Machine-
assisted Analytic Rapid-repository System (MARS), which will
ultimately underpin every aspect of military operations; and
USD(I&S)'s Project Maven.
The subcommittee examined the organization, functions, and
operations of the Defense Intelligence Agency to ensure
comprehensive, timely, and objective intelligence support to
Department of Defense plans and operations. The subcommittee
provided oversight into the formulation and execution of the
military intelligence program. In accordance with section 3038
of title 50, United States Code, the subcommittee scrutinized
the management and execution of national intelligence program
capabilities within Department activities to ensure these
resources were adequate to satisfy the overall intelligence
needs of the Department, and appropriately integrated with the
intelligence activities of the Department.
The subcommittee held numerous briefings on combatant
command intelligence requirements, oversight processes, and
resources. The subcommittee paid particular attention to these
areas during closed, classified briefings, as well as numerous
congressional delegations with members and professional staff.
The subcommittee pursued an aggressive oversight plan to
address intelligence gaps in assessing and predicting
infectious disease outbreaks such as the novel coronavirus, as
well as assessing and predicting extreme weather events to
ensure military planners are able to capture that information
to aid in military planning and operations.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
(Public Law 116-92) contained a number of provisions aimed at
ensuring the ability of the Department to efficiently manage
security support services, including processing personnel
security investigations, protecting sensitive and classified
U.S. government information, and guarding against
counterintelligence threats to sensitive national security
information and technologies. The subcommittee examined the
transition of the National Background Investigations Bureau to
the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency. Public Law
116-92 required the Defense Counterintelligence and Security
Agency to submit on a semiannual basis a report outlining
efforts to improve the quality of agency background
investigation submissions, improve both the quality and
timeliness of security clearances and other vetting requests
across the Federal Government. Upon completion of a fulsome
examination of the roles and missions of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence, and to better reflect the
responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence, Public Law 116-92 renamed the position to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security.
Through the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) and
accompanying committee report (H. Rept. 116-442), the
subcommittee took steps to address misinformation targeted at
U.S. Armed Forces; established a Climate Security Roundtable to
ensure the incorporation of artificial intelligence and machine
learning into weather forecasting to enhance military
intelligence surrounding climate change; and increased
accountability of Department of Defense clandestine activities.
Finally, the subcommittee conducted oversight of all
intelligence organizations, programs, and activities of the
Department of Defense in accordance with the committee's
jurisdiction. The subcommittee coordinated, as appropriate,
with the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence on matters related to Department of Defense
intelligence and counterintelligence activities in the course
of oversight and the authorization of appropriations for
intelligence activities shared by the two committees.
Science and Technology
In the 116th Congress, the committee worked to ensure the
Department of Defense continues to foster a robust and balanced
science and technology (S&T) ecosystem comprised of agencies,
offices, laboratories, federally funded research and
development centers, university affiliated research centers,
academic partnerships, test and evaluation entities, and
partnerships with the private sector, including small
businesses, in order to deliver the best capabilities to the
warfighter in the near, mid, and long term. The Subcommittee on
Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities conducted
oversight of the Department's S&T activities to ensure planning
and execution of investments were aligned with national
strategies and other interagency efforts to maintain
technological superiority. This included examination of the
Department's S&T investments, which concerningly had less than
zero percent real growth in the fiscal year 2021 President's
budget request; the Department's efforts to advance
technologies aligned with the National Defense Strategy (NDS)
and the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering's (USD(R&E)'s) 11 modernization priorities; and how
USD(R&E), the military services, and the many innovation
organizations in the Department advanced these modernization
priorities while protecting the important science and
technology investments in next-generation innovations. The
subcommittee continued its oversight of the performance of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Innovation
Unit, and Strategic Capabilities Office, as well as other
service-specific innovation centers and partnerships with
private industry to ensure coordination, synchronization,
transition of technology, and prudent use of fiscal resources.
The subcommittee encouraged the Department to examine its
S&T strategy and doctrine, concepts of employment, and other
organizing concepts pursued by the military services and the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, including how capabilities
contribute to new security strategies; how they will be
supported by rigorous technical analysis and relevant concepts
of employment; and how the Department will develop plans to
transition mature technologies to the field. For each of the
rapid technological advancements outlined in the NDS, and the
USD(R&E) modernization priorities, section 232 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-
92) tasked the Department to strategically develop policies on
how the United States should use and deploy these future
technologies, and how these emerging capabilities will
contribute to new security strategies.
Through Public Law 116-92 and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (FY21 NDAA), the committee granted dozens of authorities
to improve the Department's S&T workforce; facilities;
infrastructure; access to small businesses, academia, and the
tech sector to champion in-house and extramural innovation for
the future of force modernization, warfighting operational
concepts, and acquisition. The subcommittee continued to
encourage the Department to use the authorities that have been
underutilized, and Public Law 116-92 required the Secretary of
Defense to submit a master plan for implementation of
authorities relating to science and technology reinvention
laboratories. The FY21 NDAA includes 10 recommendations from
the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence,
many focused on helping the Department attract, hire, and
retain a strong technical workforce.
Providing and maintaining the infrastructure, both digital
and brick and mortar, is paramount to attracting the best
talent. Section 252 of Public Law 116-92 required the Secretary
to produce a master plan to support the Department's
modernization requirements, including improvements for the
science and technology reinvention laboratories and the
facilities of the Major Range and Test Facility Base.
Additionally, section 231 of Public Law 116-92 directed a
digital engineering capability and pilot to provide testing
infrastructure and software development platforms to support
automated approaches for testing, evaluation, and deployment,
and section 836 of the FY21 NDAA would direct the Secretary to
iteratively develop and integrate advanced digital data
management and analytics capabilities to use data to enable and
inform further development and innovations in models and
simulations, including innovations in automation, artificial
intelligence, and software development.
Ensuring the Department nurture its talent pipeline is
vital to ensuring the Department and the nation's innovation
base has the technical workforce it will need to strengthen the
U.S. military's edge over the next few decades. The
subcommittee continued its focus on science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and provided
direction and authorities to the Department to diversify and
strengthen the national security workforce. Section 262 of
Public Law 116-92 directed a National Academies of Sciences
study on elevating defense research at Historically Black
Colleges and Universities and Other Minority Institutions
(HBCU/MIs). The FY21 NDAA would encourage Department
contractors to participate in STEM in elementary and secondary
schools; enable the Secretary to provide financial assistance,
scholarships, and fellowships for students at HBCU/MIs; direct
a single organization to have primary responsibility for
building cohesion and collaboration across the Department's
various scholarship and employment programs; provide part-time
and term employment for university professors and students
working in the Defense S&T enterprise. The FY21 NDAA would also
direct a study on how to better attract and retain highly
qualified individuals for employment in DOD who have scientific
or technical expertise in critical technologies and are
involved with basic and applied research funded by the
Department.
Further, the current global COVID-19 pandemic underscores
the importance of the subcommittee's oversight of S&T
investments in countermeasures to adversary capabilities and
emerging threats, such as infectious diseases, biotechnologies,
and climate change. Section 263 of Public Law 116-92 directed a
Defense Science Board study on emerging biotechnologies
pertinent to national security. Section 278 of the FY21 NDAA
would direct an assessment and direct comparison of the United
States and its adversaries' capabilities in emerging
biotechnologies for national security purposes, including
applications in material, manufacturing, and health. Section
1055 of the FY21 NDAA would reauthorize the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program to promote the national goals
of assuring national security, protecting quality of life,
ensuring environmental stewardship, and strengthening science
education and communication through improved knowledge of the
ocean.
Cyberspace Activities and Information Technology
The committee recognizes the ever-increasing cyber threats
facing the nation and the criticality of ensuring that the U.S.
Armed Forces are postured to succeed in cyberspace. Over the
116th Congress, the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging
Threats and Capabilities set and pursued an aggressive
oversight and legislative agenda for cyber-related matters.
This necessitated examination not only of the Department of
Defense's operations and capabilities, but also to ensure the
Department was not compartmentalizing its cyber forces and
instead creating the necessary linkages between its cyber
operations and operations in the other warfighting domains.
Additionally, this effort requires that the Department is
cognizant of and persistently collaborating with other
departments and agencies of the executive branch, to include
the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, Energy, and
Health and Human Services. The subcommittee focused on ensuring
that the Department of Defense adequately budgeted for and
invested in cyber capabilities, and that these investments
aligned correctly to the nation's strategic objectives.
Through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) and accompanying committee report
(H. Rept. 116-333), the subcommittee emphasized measures to
improve congressional oversight of the Department's actions,
operations, policy and strategy towards cyberspace. This
included provisions mandating a comprehensive framework for the
Department's cybersecurity efforts in assisting the Defense
Industrial Base, establishing a biannual reporting requirement
for the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, directing a
Government Accountability Office study of the Department's
inventory of Internet Protocol Version 4 addresses, and
accounting for all of the Department's investments in
cybersecurity education programs at the primary, secondary, and
post-secondary levels. Additionally, Public Law 116-92
contained provisions that refined the definitions and
notification standards for sensitive military cyber operations,
and directed a quadrennial cyber posture review.
Through the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA) and the
accompanying conference report (H. Rept. 116-617), the
subcommittee made significant headway, not only in improving
the posture of the Department of Defense, but of the entire
executive branch through oversight and legislation built on
recommendations from the National Security Commission on
Artificial Intelligence and the Cyberspace Solarium Commission.
Key provisions in the FY21 NDAA include legislation addressing
personnel management authority of the commander of U.S. Cyber
Command, authority to expend operation and maintenance funds
for cyber operations-peculiar capability development,
strengthening the position of the Principal Cyber Advisor, and
the authority to establish tailored cyberspace operations
organizations within each of the military services. Most
notably, the FY21 NDAA would establish a National Cyber
Director, Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed, to
serve as the principal advisor of the President on matters
related to cyberspace and cybersecurity, and with a remit that
spans the departments and agencies of the executive branch.
Information Operations
The committee recognizes that engagement with foreign
audiences and a refined understanding of the information
environment is pivotal to navigating the 21st century global
security environment. Whether influencing nation-state
adversaries or countering propaganda efforts by violent
extremist groups, or identifying and countering deception or
disinformation events, strategic communication and information
operations are critical elements to success in all domains.
During the 116th Congress, the Subcommittee on Intelligence
and Emerging Threats and Capabilities set and pursued an
aggressive oversight and legislative agenda examining the
Department of Defense's progress in developing and leveraging
information operations (IO) as a means to counter state-
sponsored information warfare against those adversaries
designated by the National Defense Strategy. Nation-state
actors such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are adept
at disinformation campaigns and manipulation of the information
environment. Violent extremist groups like Al Shabaab, Boko
Haram, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria also leverage
the information environment to accelerate the radicalization,
and thus recruitment, of vulnerable groups and recruitment
opportunities. These violent extremist groups rely upon social
media and encrypted messaging services to plan, finance, and
direct the execution of violent acts of terror.
Both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2020 (Public Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21
NDAA) include provisions addressing these types of malign
activities. Public Law 116-92 directed an annual report
regarding the ongoing establishment of U.S. Special Operations
Command's (USSOCOM's) Joint Military Information Support
Operations (MISO) Web Operations Center, focusing on efforts to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of USSOCOM's MISO
programs while ensuring coordination with the Department of
State's Global Engagement Center to ensure synchronized, cogent
information operations. Further, in the committee report
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (H. Rept. 116-120), the committee directed the
development of a comprehensive strategy for the development and
execution of operations in the information environment while
simultaneously scrutinizing the posture and resourcing of
defense intelligence capabilities to sufficiently support such
activities in the information environment. The FY21 NDAA builds
on these efforts and would add training on foreign
disinformation campaigns and studying cyber exploitation and
online deception of members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their
families.
Protecting Critical Technology and National Security Information
In the 116th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight to ensure the Department of Defense implements
policies that promote a sound economic, political, and
strategic environment on U.S. soil where global collaboration,
discovery, innovation, public institutions, and industry can
all thrive. Though the open dialogue and debate of academia can
be anathema to the secrecy relied on in the Department, it must
recognize--and embrace--the competitive advantage America's
free society provides us to out-innovate and develop better
products faster. The United States free society and open, basic
research environment focused on discovery for the United
States--and the world--has, for the last several decades,
allowed our American universities to undertake nothing less
than a talent acquisition program for the U.S. economy.
Through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (FY21 NDAA) the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging
Threats and Capabilities included numerous provisions to
address the initiative to support protection of national
security academic researchers from undue influence and other
security threats initially included in section 1286 of the John
S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2019 (Public Law 115-232). Section 1299C of the FY21 NDAA would
completely replace and update section 1286 of Public Law 115-
232 to mandate the designation of a government official to act
as an academic liaison to work with academia to develop and
execute initiatives to protect Department-sponsored academic
research from undue foreign influence and threats; clarify that
the initiatives are intended to be developed and executed with
all appropriate academic research institutions; mandate the
establishment of requirements for briefings on espionage risks
to appropriate senior academic officials; clarify requirements
on the development of a list of foreign talent programs that
pose a threat to U.S. national security interests; establish
additional procedures, consistent with government best
practices and overseen by the designated academic liaison, for
enhanced information sharing between the government and
academic institutions with respect to fundamental research
programs; and mandate additional reporting on lists of academic
institutions and foreign threat programs of concern to the
Congress and the public.
Additionally, the FY21 NDAA would create an interagency
working group led by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy and would direct a National Academies of Sciences-hosted
roundtable with academia and others to tackle issues of foreign
influence, cyber-attacks, theft, and espionage. Both teams were
directed to develop best practices for Federal research
agencies and grantees, while accounting for the importance of
the open exchange of ideas and the international talent
required for scientific progress and American leadership in
science and technology. Additionally, the subcommittee
partnered with the House of Representatives Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology and Committee on Energy and
Commerce, as well as with the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources to include a provision which would require disclosure
of funding sources in applications for research and development
awards from any Federal research agency.
Sensitive Military Operations
Throughout the 116th Congress, the committee continued
extensive oversight of sensitive military operations conducted
by the Department of Defense outside of Afghanistan, Iraq, or
Syria in accordance with section 130f of title 10, United
States Code. As appropriate, oversight is conducted in
classified forums.
The Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities focused particular attention to the legal, policy,
operational, and funding authorities, including section 127e of
title 10, United States Code, associated with such operations
throughout the 116th Congress. In the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (FY21 NDAA), the subcommittee modified the existing
reporting requirements to ensure increased transparency and
timely notifications to Congress regarding the transition or
termination of any activities under said authority and directed
a parallel review by the Comptroller General of the United
States regarding the conduct of the 127e authority.
The committee believes in the deliberate application of
military force under the appropriate authorities and direction
from the President and the Department of Defense. As such, the
committee significantly enhanced oversight of military
operations and activities by directing that the Department
provide all execute orders upon request by the committee for
review. Now codified in section 113 of title 10, United States
Code, as directed by section 1744 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92), the
Secretary of Defense must provide copies of each execute order
upon request as well as a quarterly report identifying and
summarizing all execute orders approved by the Secretary or the
commander of a combatant command in effect for the Department
of Defense as those operating principles framing military
operations.
In addition to enhancing oversight of those operating
principles establishing military operations and activities, in
the committee report accompanying the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (H. Rept. 116-442), the committee also directed a
comprehensive review and report by the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a review of U.S. Special
Operations Command's (USSOCOM's) structure and organization of
those forces aligned or assigned to the command to increase
transparency and understanding of USSOCOM's expanding force
structure, to include the size and influence of the theater
special operations commands (TSOCs).
Further, building upon the policy to reduce the likelihood
of civilian casualties resulting from military operations as
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91) and the John S. McCain National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-
232), the subcommittee continued oversight efforts by enhancing
civilian casualty policy responsibilities within the Department
and further directed the modification of reporting requirements
related to such civilian casualty policies of the Department of
Defense in Public Law 116-92 as a means to increase public
transparency and focus accountability. Section 1721 of Public
Law 116-92 further directed an independent review of Department
of Defense standards, processes, procedures, and policy
relating to civilian casualties resulting from United States
military operations as a means to increase transparency and
accountability of potential consequences resulting from
military operations.
The committee believes in the importance of the development
of a professional and ethical force to successfully execute the
missions required of special operations. Whether countering
violent extremism or competing below the level of armed
conflict with state actors, the committee recognizes that
consistent, strong leadership is critical for the comportment
of such an elite force, and thus, the subcommittee prioritized
building upon the efforts of section 922 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114-
328) to strengthen civilian oversight of special operations.
The subcommittee also focused efforts on ensuring that
USSOCOM acts upon the findings and implements the
recommendations from the 2020 USSOCOM Comprehensive Review
regarding the professionalism and ethics of special operations
forces, directing regular updates on the status of such
implementation in section 599 of the FY21 NDAA.
Irregular Warfare
The committee acknowledges that malign nation-state actors
and violent extremist groups employ both military and non-
military means such as surrogates, cyber operations,
disinformation campaigns, and political bribes to accomplish
their desired end states. These hybrid warfare tactics occur in
that grey zone below the threshold of armed conflict, and
require the U.S. Armed Forces to confront these malign actors
through specialized operational authorities and unconventional
activities.
During the 116th Congress, the Subcommittee on Intelligence
and Emerging Threats and Capabilities received briefings on the
publication of the Irregular Warfare Annex to the 2018 National
Defense Strategy, and conducted oversight engagements to better
understand how U.S. Special Operations Command, with oversight
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD SO/LIC), will adjust resources
and capabilities to support the Department's efforts towards
great power competition.
The subcommittee conducted oversight of the Department of
Defense's planning for and use of the operational authority
provided by section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115-91). Section 1202
provides the Department limited authority to provide support to
foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals
engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing and authorized
irregular warfare operations by U.S. special operations forces.
In alignment with U.S. Special Operations Command's
progress in prioritizing its great power competition mission
with the need to maintain focus on countering violent
extremism, the subcommittee authorized an extension for the use
of the authority through 2023 in section 1207 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-
92). Further, after rigorous oversight and focused engagements
with the Department, the subcommittee further authorized an
increase in the resourcing specific to this authority while
modifying reporting requirements to increase transparency
regarding the partnered forces' adherence to human rights law
in the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
Over the past few years, both Russia and North Korea
employed chemical weapon nerve agents. In Syria, pro-regime and
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria forces used chemical weapons on
civilian populations to achieve their tactical and strategic
objectives. Advances in biotechnology, gene sequencing, gene
editing, and synthetic biology have lowered the barriers of
entry for countries and individuals acting with nefarious
intent--or even just by chance--to produce biological agents in
a scope and scale not previously encountered. These and other
advances exacerbate the complexity of the world's weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) threats, and the United States ability
to counter them.
During the 116th Congress, and in a time when the world is
struggling to respond to the rapid spread of the highly
infectious COVID-19 pandemic, the Subcommittee on Intelligence
and Emerging Threats and Capabilities focused on efforts of the
organizations under its oversight to advance the collective
fight against the virus. The subcommittee held multiple
briefings with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), and the
Chemical Biological Defense Program (CBDP) on their efforts to
provide treatments, vaccines, tests for diagnoses, and other
technologies to address the impact of the virus. The
subcommittee supported the increase of CARES Act funding for
DARPA to surge on pandemic response, and encouraged the CBDP to
be a key partner in the fight against COVID-19. DARPA worked,
as it did for Ebola, to develop and deliver technologies and
medical countermeasures to ensure that our military can
maintain operational readiness. CBDP's Medical Program funds
and manages efforts to develop medical countermeasures,
vaccines, therapeutics, and pre-treatments. Similarly, the
Physical Program funds and manages efforts to develop
surveillance and detection technologies, diagnostics, personal
protective equipment, and decontamination systems. To prepare
against potential unknown threats, CBDP built expertise and
capabilities to address novel pathogens, which made it an ideal
program to support the fight against the novel coronavirus.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, through its execution
of the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction
(CTR) Biological Threat Reduction Program (BTRP) and its
Technical Reachback Analysis Cell, received foreign partner
requests for preparedness and detection including providing
biosafety, biosecurity, and bio-surveillance support to aid in
detection, diagnosis, reporting, and modeling related to the
COVID-19 outbreak. There were many good examples of BTRP-
trained local professionals in countries like Guinea, Liberia,
Cape Verde, Jordan, and Thailand who diagnosed and confirmed
the first cases of COVID-19 in their countries. Despite these
successes, the fiscal year 2021 President's budget request
drastically slashed the CTR program by over one-third, and the
subcommittee worked to ensure that the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021 (FY21 NDAA) would restore over $120.0 million to this
important effort.
Indeed, the current coronavirus outbreak and global
pandemic underscores the importance of scientific research and
preparedness across the interagency for our national and
economic security. To that end, in the committee report
accompanying the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-442), the
subcommittee directed the Comptroller General of the United
States to assess the Department's strategy and planning for
research and development and for emerging threats, and
particularly biological threats, and for incorporating those
threats into broader planning and exercise mechanisms.
The subcommittee partnered with the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and
Nonproliferation to jointly host a hearing on biosecurity this
fall while the COVID-19 pandemic was worsening across the
United States. Section 1299I of the FY21 NDAA would direct the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of
State, to enter into an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences to conduct an assessment of the United States
strategies for preventing, countering, and responding to
nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism. The subcommittee
partnered with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the many corresponding
Senate committees to include section 364 of the FY21 NDAA,
which would require all relevant departments and agencies to
review and update the National Biodefense Implementation Plan.
Additionally, section 363 of the FY21 NDAA would improve
oversight of Federal biodefense programs by requiring the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide integrated
biodefense budget submissions and comprehensive analysis of all
Federal biodefense programs annually.
Regarding the concern as to whether U.S. forces are
prepared for a significant state-level WMD event, and are
trained and equipped to successfully operate and perform in a
contaminated environment, section 1259 of the FY21 NDAA would
require the Secretary of Defense to implement the Government
Accountability Office recommendations on the preparedness of
U.S. forces to counter North Korean chemical and biological
weapons. The subcommittee also pushed on whether U.S. Forces
Korea planners have access to the relevant intelligence on
North Korean chemical and biological weapons sites needed to
effectively plan--and if necessary, conduct--counter-WMD
operations.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
Full Committee Hearings and Briefings
During the 116th Congress, the committee held a series of
budget posture hearings and briefings in preparation for the
fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021 budgets. The hearings and
briefings, combined with the committee's responsibility for
assembling the annual defense authorization bill, are a central
element in the discharge of the committee's oversight
responsibilities. In upholding its responsibilities to mitigate
waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement of Federal Government
programs, and pursuant to House rule XI, clause 2(n), (o), and
(p), the committee met several times to conduct oversight of
Department of Defense activities, as noted elsewhere in this
report.
The committee convened a hearing on March 26, 2019, to
receive testimony from the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the fiscal year 2020 budget
request. To further inform its consideration of the fiscal year
2020 budget request, the committee held hearings on April 2,
2019 and on April 10, 2019 with military senior leaders to
inform members of the state of the military. Additionally, the
committee convened a hearing to ascertain from members of
Congress their national defense priorities for the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, which took
place on April 3, 2019. Following these budget hearings, on May
16, 2019, the committee convened a hearing to receive testimony
from the Comptroller of each branch of the military about the
Financial Improvement and Audit Remediation Plan at the
Department of Defense.
To inform its consideration of the fiscal year 2021 budget
request, the committee received testimony from the Secretary of
Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on
February 26, 2020. Receiving testimony from the Secretaries of
the military departments during three hearings on February 27,
2020, March 3, 2020, and March 4, 2020 further updated the
committee about and detailed the fiscal year 2021 budget
request.
The committee sought to continually update members on U.S.
relations and policy around the world, to tailor the
committee's oversight and agenda. Topics included overviews of
national security challenges in the Greater Middle East,
Africa, Europe, the Indo-Pacific Region, and South America. In
keeping with the committee's goal and record to be proactive in
addressing threats and strategy, the committee convened a
series of hearings and briefings throughout the 116th Congress
to examine approaches to counterterrorism, nuclear deterrence
policy and posture, the role of allies and partners in U.S.
military strategy and operations, and the U.S. military mission
in Afghanistan and the implication of the Peace Process on U.S.
involvement. Competition was specifically addressed in hearings
on the Department of Defense's roles in competing with China
and long-term major state competition. Hearings focused on
other policies ranged from the Department of Defense's support
to the Southern Border to authorities and roles related to
civilian law enforcement.
To better understand strategic reassurance and deterrence
activities across the globe, the committee also held frequent
briefings to receive intelligence and operational updates on
threat developments. These briefings informed the committee of
policies toward Iran and security updates on the Korean
Peninsula, Africa, coalition service members in Afghanistan and
ISIS in Iraq and Syria. They also informed the committee's
legislative initiatives in readiness, capabilities,
infrastructure, and technology oversight to ensure that the
U.S. Armed Forces remain capable of addressing current and
emerging conventional and unconventional threats.
In 2020, to address the COVID-19 pandemic, the committee
met in person and remotely to hear testimony from Department of
Defense officials. Hearings informed members of the Department
of Defense COVID-19 response to defense industrial base
challenges, the COVID-19 pandemic response from the Department
of the Navy, the leverage of the Defense Production Act and
supporting the Defense Industrial base during the pandemic, the
Department of Defense's update on COVID-19 testing, research,
and vaccine development, the Defense Intelligence Agency's
National Center for Medical Intelligence on COVID-19, the
Department of Defense and Defense Logistics Agency
participation in the whole of government response to COVID-19,
and how the Department of Defense is providing force protection
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In response to advanced technology development and the
changing global landscape of defense, the committee established
the Future of Defense Task Force in October 2019. The Task
Force held events to address theories of victory and innovative
concepts for national security, supercharging the innovation
base, biosecurity, Chinese research and development, and
unidentified aerial phenomena.
Budget Oversight
On March 13, 2019, the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget
request for the National Defense Budget Function (050) for
Fiscal Year 2020 to the Committee on the Budget.
As requested by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the
committee outlined its legislative priorities for the upcoming
year. The committee noted that the annual National Defense
Authorization Act contained all the essential authorities
required to sustain our military and is the chief mechanism
through which Congress exercises its Article I, Section 8
responsibilities. The committee announced its intent to enact a
national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2020 as it
had for 58 consecutive years. However, the committee noted with
concern that the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
provided for increases in discretionary spending levels for
2018 and 2019, but sequestration levels remained in effect for
fiscal years 2020 and 2021. The committee expressed support for
an increase in Budget Control Act caps in order to advance the
country's interests across the full range of policy, but
stressed that increases to national defense spending should be
part of a comprehensive approach that included an end to
sequestration across all budget functions, increased revenues,
and a return to regular order in the appropriations process.
The committee identified that it will continue the practice of
conducting a significant number of hearings, briefings, and
roundtable discussions in order to better understand the
current security environment, evaluate proposals for reform,
and receive independent feedback on the military requirements
necessary to support a robust strategy. The committee's ranking
member did not join the chairman in his views and estimates.
On March 23, 2020, the chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget
request for the National Defense Budget Function (050) for
Fiscal Year 2021 to the Committee on the Budget. At the time,
the President had announced a topline of $740.5 billion for
fiscal year 2021 discretionary budget authority for national
defense. This budget submission complied with the limitations
mandated by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (Public Law 116-
37).
As requested by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the
committee outlined its legislative priorities for the upcoming
year. As in the prior year, the committee noted that the annual
National Defense Authorization Act contained all the essential
authorities required to sustain our military and is the chief
mechanism through which Congress exercises its Article I,
Section 8 responsibilities. Likewise, the committee announced
its intent to enact a national defense authorization bill for
fiscal year 2021 as it had for the preceding 59 consecutive
years. The committee identified that it will continue the
practice of conducting a significant number of hearings,
briefings, and roundtable discussions in order to better
understand the current security environment, evaluate proposals
for reform, and receive independent feedback on the military
requirements necessary to support a robust strategy. The
committee's ranking member did not join the chairman in his
views and estimates.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND TASK FORCE
Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities
The Subcommittee on Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities conducted additional oversight of specific issues
across the portfolio, most notably issues pertaining to
civilian casualties resulting from U.S. military operations;
pandemic preparedness; U.S. capabilities to counter unmanned
aircraft systems; 5G development and spectrum management;
matters pertaining to artificial intelligence and machine
learning, working closely with the National Security Commission
on Artificial Intelligence; and a comprehensive effort to
synchronize cyber policy, in partnership with the Cyber
Solarium Commission.
The subcommittee considered and reported dozens of
legislative provisions in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92), and the William
M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21 NDAA). The FY21 NDAA would direct an
acceleration of developments in capabilities to counter
unmanned aircraft systems to ensure the protection of U.S.
Armed Forces; provide comprehensive reform to accelerate 5G
communications development by the Department; included 10
recommendations from the National Security Commission on
Artificial Intelligence; creates a National Cyber Director to
ensure the Executive Branch is synchronizes to defense our
critical infrastructure. In the conference report accompanying
the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H. Rept. 116-617), the conferees
directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct an
assessment of the capabilities and capacity of the National
Center for Medical Intelligence to effectively forecast or warn
of foreign health threats.
A formal list of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities is provided below:
On February 7, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Long-Range Emerging Threats Facing the United
States: Implications for National Security.''
On February 26, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Department of Defense Information Technology,
Cybersecurity, and Information Assurance.''
On February 28, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the ``Cyber Mission Force and Military Operations
in Cyberspace: A Framework for Oversight.''
On March 7, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on the ``Department of Defense's Protecting Critical Technology
Task Force.''
On March 13, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the ``Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for U.S.
Cyber Command and Operations in Cyberspace.''
On March 28, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the ``Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for
Department of Defense Science and Technology Programs:
Maintaining a Robust Ecosystem for Our Technological Edge.''
On April 3, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Reviewing Department of Defense Strategy, Policy, and
Programs for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction for Fiscal
Year 2020.''
On April 9, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on the ``Evolution, Transformation, and Sustainment: A Review
of the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for U.S. Special
Operations Forces and Command.''
On May 9, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on the ``Counterterrorism Quarterly.''
On September 10, 2019, the Subcommittee met, in
coordination with the House Oversight Committee, Subcommittee
on National Security, to receive testimony on ``Securing the
Nation's Internet Architecture.''
On September 26, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
classified briefing on the ``Counterterrorism Quarterly.''
On October 16, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony, in coordination with the Subcommittee on Readiness,
on ``Resiliency of Military Installations to Emerging
Threats.''
On October 31, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``Cyber Operations Quarterly.''
On November 13, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``Fifth Generation (5G) Information and
Communications Technologies.''
On December 11, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Climate Change in the Era of Strategic
Competition.''
On January 9, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``Cyber Operations Quarterly.''
On January 30, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems.''
On February 11, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Reviewing Department of Defense Strategy,
Policy, and Programs for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction
for Fiscal Year 2021.''
On February 6, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``Counterterrorism Quarterly.''
On February 26, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``National Defense Strategy: Emerging
Threats, Capabilities, and Investments.''
On March 4, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on the ``Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command
and Operations in Cyberspace.''
On March 5, 2020, the subcommittee received a classified
briefing on ``Manda Bay.''
On March 11, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Reviewing Department of Defense Science and
Technology Strategy, Policy, and Programs for Fiscal Year 2021:
Maintaining a Robust Ecosystem for Our Technological Edge.''
On April 9, 2020, the subcommittee received a briefing from
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency regarding the
``COVID-19 Pandemic.''
On April 17, 2020, the subcommittee held a briefing on
``Censored Contagion: How Information on the Coronavirus is
Managed.''
On April 30, 2020, the subcommittee held a briefing on
``Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the COVID-19 Pandemic.''
On June 11, 2020, the subcommittee received a briefing on
the ``Air Force Venture Program.''
On July 30, 2020, the subcommittee held a hearing to
receive testimony on ``Review of the Recommendations of the
Cyberspace Solarium Commission.''
On September 17, 2020, the subcommittee held a hearing to
receive testimony on ``Interim Review of the National Security
Commission on Artificial Intelligence Effort and
Recommendations.''
On October 2, 2020, the subcommittee held a hearing, in
coordination with the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and Non-proliferation, to
receive testimony on ``Strengthening Biological Security:
Traditional Threats and Emerging Challenges.''
On November 19, 2020, the subcommittee held a briefing on
``Department of Defense IT Requirements in the COVID-19
Pandemic.''
On December 4, 2020, the subcommittee held a briefing on
``Fifth Generation (5G) Information and Communications
Technologies.''
In addition to these events, the subcommittee's plans for
hearings on ``Department of Defense Information Technology,
Cybersecurity, and Information Assurance'' and ``FY21 Budget
Request for Special Operations Command'' were cancelled as a
result of COVID-19 impacts on congressional operations. In lieu
of hearings, the subcommittee received formal written testimony
from Special Operations Command and held a remote
teleconference briefing with the Department's Chief Information
Officer.
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel continued oversight
of military personnel, military personnel policy, the Military
Health System, family programs, as well military pay and
compensation. The hearings and briefings held by the
subcommittee directly informed its oversight, legislative
provisions, and authorization of appropriations included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public
Law 116-92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. A list of
formal subcommittee events is provided below:
On February 13, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the military service academies' action plans to
address the results of the sexual assault and violence report
at the military service academies.
On February 27, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on transgender service in the military policy.
On March 12, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on outside perspectives on military personnel policy.
On March 27, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on reserve component duty status reform.
On April 2, 2019 the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on examining the role of the commander in sexual assault
prosecutions.
On April 30, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the Feres doctrine and whether it is a policy in
need of reform.
On May 16, 2019 the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on military personnel management.
On May 21, 2019, the subcommittee met jointly with the
Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs to receive testimony on understanding the problem of
military and veteran suicide and preparing for the future.
On June 4, 2019, the subcommittee met to mark-up H.R. 2500,
to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
On September 18, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on shattered families, shattered service: taking
military domestic violence out of the shadows.
On October 23, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing from enlisted spouses on financial literacy and
military family support.
On October 30, 2019, the subcommittee met jointly with the
Subcommittee on Technology Modernization of the House Committee
on Veterans' Affairs to receive a briefing on the Electronic
Health Record program.
On December 5, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on Military Health System reform.
On December 10, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on diversity in recruiting and retention and
increasing diversity in the military.
On February 5, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the Exceptional Family Member Program.
On February 11, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on incidents of white supremacy in the military.
On May 19, 2020, the subcommittee received a briefing on
the Army's ENGAGE program and preventing military suicide.
On May 21, 2020, the subcommittee received a briefing from
outside experts on the Department of Defense's response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
On June 16, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on racial disparity in the military justice system.
On June 23, 2020, the subcommittee met to mark-up H.R.
6395, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2021 for
military activities of the Department of Defense and for
military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.
On July 23, 2020, the subcommittee received a briefing on
the Army Criminal Investigation Command's investigation into
the SPC Vanessa Guillen case.
On July 29, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on the military's #MeToo moment: an examination of sexual
harassment and perceived retaliation in the Department of
Defense and at Fort Hood.
On September 11, 2020, the subcommittee received a briefing
from the Department of Defense and outside experts on the
Department's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
On December 9, 2020, the subcommittee received testimony on
the findings and recommendations of the Fort Hood Independent
Review Committee.
Subcommittee on Readiness
The Subcommittee on Readiness continued oversight of
military readiness, training, logistics, and maintenance
issues; military construction, installations, shipyard repair
facilities, and family housing issues; energy and environmental
policy and programs of the Department of Defense; and civilian
personnel and service contracting issues. The hearings and
briefings held by the subcommittee directly informed
subcommittee oversight, legislative provisions, and
authorization of appropriations included in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-
92) and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. A list of formal
subcommittee events is provided below:
On February 6, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``How Readiness is Assessed and the Current State
of Military Readiness.''
On February 14, 2019, the subcommittee held a roundtable
with military spouses to hear of their experiences and concerns
with privatized military family housing.
On February 26, 2019, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, met to receive
testimony on ``Naval Surface Forces Readiness: Are Navy Reforms
Adequate?''
On March 13, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Ensuring Resiliency of Military Installations
and Operations in Response to Climate Changes.''
On March 27, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``DOD's Joint Logistics Enterprise and Future
Concerns for Survivable Combat Logistics.''
On April 4, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Mismanaged Military Family Housing Programs: What is the
Recovery Plan?''
On May 1, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for Military Construction,
Energy, and Environmental Programs.''
On May 9, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for Military Readiness.''
On July 26, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress.
On September 26, 2019, the subcommittee met for a briefing
on ``Ground Vehicle Mishaps: Causes, Effects and Solutions.''
On October 16, 2019, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities, met to receive testimony on ``Resiliency of
Military Installations to Emerging Threats.''
On October 22, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Ship and Submarine Maintenance: Cost and
Schedule Challenges.''
On November 13, 2019, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, met to receive
testimony on ``F-35 Program Update: Sustainment, Production,
and Affordability Challenges.''
On November 14, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on ``Security Clearances: How Reforms May Improve the
Process.''
On November 21, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``The Department of Defense Organic Industrial
Base: Challenges, Solutions and Readiness Impacts.''
On December 5, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Privatized Housing: Are Conditions Improving for
Our Military Families?''
On January 14, 2020, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, received a
briefing on the ``F-35 Program and Sustainment Update.''
On February 5, 2020, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, met to receive
testimony on ``Update on Navy and Marine Corps Readiness in the
Pacific in the Aftermath of Recent Mishaps.''
On February 7, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on the Quarterly Readiness Report to
Congress.
On February 12, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Land Based Ranges: Building Military Readiness
While Protecting Natural and Cultural Resources.''
On March 3, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on the ``FY21 Air Force and Space Force Readiness Posture.''
On March 11, 2020, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, met to receive
testimony on ``U.S. Transportation Command and Maritime
Administration: State of the Mobility Enterprise.''
On March 12, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the ``FY21 Navy and Marine Corps Readiness
Posture.''
On May 20, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a briefing
on ``COVID-19 Impacts on Military Training and Readiness.''
On May 28, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a briefing
on ``COVID-19 Impacts on Shipyard and Depot Operations and
Production.''
On July 28, 2020, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, met to receive
a briefing on the Fire Aboard USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6).
On September 15, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Addressing the Legacy of Department of Defense
Use of PFAS: Protecting Our Communities and Implementing
Reform.''
On October 1, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on ``Contested Logistics Requirements in Support of
the National Defense Strategy.''
On December 3, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
briefing on ``the Findings and Recommendations of the National
Commission on Military Aviation Safety.''
In addition to these formal events, the committee's plans
for hearings on the ``FY21 Army Readiness Posture'' and ``FY21
Energy, Installations, and Environment Posture'' were cancelled
as a result of COVID-19 impacts on congressional operations. In
lieu of hearings, the subcommittee received written statements
from the witnesses and exchanged a series of questions for the
record that were responded to in writing.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces provided
oversight of the Department of the Navy, the Department of the
Air Force and the Department of the Army. The subcommittee held
multiple hearings and briefings with officials from each of the
military services. The subcommittee oversaw Navy shipbuilding
programs which included new acquisition vessels as well as the
modernization of existing fleet vessels. Oversight of Navy non-
tactical aviation was also provided. In its oversight of the
Air Force, the subcommittee oversaw the acquisition and
modernization of all aerial refueling aircraft, bomber aircraft
and tactical and strategic aircraft. Finally, the subcommittee
provided oversight of the Army's watercraft fleet. A list of
formal subcommittee events is provided below:
On February 14, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``Sealift ad Airlift Requirements Review.''
On February 26, 2019, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Readiness, met to receive testimony on ``Naval
Surface Forces Readiness: Are Navy Reforms Adequate?''
On February 27, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``U.S. Air Force 101.''
On March 7, 2019, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Readiness, met to receive testimony on ``U.S.
Transportation Command and Maritime Administration: State of
the Mobility Enterprise.''
On March 14, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Department of the Air Force Fiscal Year 2020
Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces.''
On March 26, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
Request for Seapower and Projection Forces.''
On April 30, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``Navy Force Structure Assessment and Navy and
Marine Corps: How We Fight.''
On May 8, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``B-21 Program and Budget Briefing.''
On September 26, 2019, the subcommittee met for a
classified briefing on ``The National Reconnaissance Office.''
On November 13, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``Building the Bomber and Mobility Force the Air
Force Needs.''
On November 20, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``Aircraft Carrier Force Structure: Update on In
Service and New Construction Aircraft Carriers.''
On January 29, 2020, the subcommittee met for a briefing on
``Sealift Turbo Activation Exercise Briefing.''
On February 5, 2020, the subcommittee, along with the
Readiness Subcommittee, met to receive testimony on ``Update on
Navy and Marine Corps Readiness in the Pacific in the Aftermath
of Recent Mishaps.''
On February 27, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Air Force Projection Forces Aviation Programs
and Capabilities Related to the 2021 President's Budget.''
On March 4, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request for
Seapower and Projection Forces.''
On March 11, 2020, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Readiness, met to receive testimony on
``Sealift and Mobility Requirements in Support of the National
Defense Strategy.''
On May 29, 2020, the subcommittee met for a briefing on
``The Maritime Security Program.''
On June 4, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Future Force Structure Requirements for the United States
Navy.''
On July 28, 2020, the subcommittee, along with the
Subcommittee on Readiness, met for a briefing on ``The Fire
Aboard USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD-6).''
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces continued oversight of
Department of Defense and Department of Energy policy related
to strategic deterrence, strategic stability, nuclear weapons,
strategic and nuclear arms control, nonproliferation, nuclear
safety, missile defense, and space; Department of Defense
programs and accounts related to nuclear weapons, strategic
missiles, nuclear command and control systems, Department of
Defense intelligence space, space systems and services of the
military departments, and intermediate and long-range missile
defense systems; and Department of Energy national security
programs and accounts. In total, the Subcommittee held a total
of 23 formal hearings and briefings during the 116th Congress.
These hearings and briefings directly informed subcommittee
oversight, legislative provisions, and authorization of
appropriations included in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92) and the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021. A formal list of subcommittee events is provided
below:
On February 14, 2019, the subcommittee, along with members
of the full committee, met for a classified briefing update on
the ``Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) Program.''
On February 26, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``INF Withdrawal and the Future of Arms Control:
Implications for the Security of the United States and its
Allies.''
On March 14, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on space threats.
On March 28, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for Department of
Defense Nuclear Activities.''
On April 3, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for National Security Space
Programs.''
On April 9, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for Atomic Energy Defense,
Nonproliferation, Safety, and Environmental Management.''
On May 8, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for Missile Defense and
Missile Defeat Programs.''
On May 15, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``Space Development Agency and plans to improve
resilience and deterrence in space.''
On September 20, 2019, the subcommittee met for a
classified briefing on the ``Redesigned Kill Vehicle Re-plan.''
On September 25, 2019, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Status of the B61-12 Life Extension and W88
Alteration-370 Programs.''
On October 30, 2019, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``Strategic Forces related to Turkey.''
On November 19, 2020, the subcommittee received a
classified briefing on Russia and China's nuclear forces and
views on nuclear deterrence and strategic stability.''
On January 8, 2020, the subcommittee received a classified
briefing on the ``Next Generation Interceptor.''
On January 20, 2020, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on the ``Space security study on future space
architectures.''
On February 6, 2020, the subcommittee met for a classified
briefing on ``Open Skies Treaty flight execution and future
plans.''
On February 27, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on ``Fiscal Year 2021 Strategic Forces Posture.''
On March 3, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``FY21 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces and Atomic Energy
Defense Activities.''
On March 12, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on the ``FY21 Budget Request for Missile Defense and
Missile Defeat Programs.''
On June 4, 2020, the subcommittee met for a briefing on the
``Next Generation Interceptor.''
On September 17, 2020, the subcommittee met for a
classified briefing on ``Russian space threats.''
On November 17, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing on ``Update from the Department of Defense
on Project Maven.''
On December 7 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing update on ``Conventional Prompt Strike
Program.''
On December 9, 2020, the subcommittee met to receive a
classified briefing update on ``Chinese Nuclear Weapons
Programs.''
In addition to these events, the subcommittee cancelled
hearings on ``FY2021 Priorities for National Security Space
Programs'' and ``FY2021 Priorities for Atomic Energy Defense,
Nonproliferation, Safety and Environmental Management'' due to
COVID-19 implications on Committee operations.
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces provided
oversight of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force,
and the Office of the Secretary of Defense acquisition programs
providing tactical aircraft and missiles; armor and ground
vehicles; munitions; rotorcraft; individual equipment to
include tactical networks and radios and personal protective
equipment; counter improvised explosive device equipment;
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms to
include unmanned aerial systems, and associated support
equipment, including National Guard and Reserve equipment
programs. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces also
provided oversight on policy, such as threats and force
structure requirements, as appropriate within the
subcommittee's jurisdiction. This included current or future
acquisition programs that relate to gaps in the capabilities
required to execute current national military strategies, as
well as the allocation of acquisition resources. This also
included military-service specific acquisition responsibilities
and authorities directly relating to the subcommittee's
jurisdiction. The subcommittee also participated in oversight
of the management of industrial base concerns during the COVID-
19 pandemic.
The subcommittee conducted three oversight hearings during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2020 budget request,
including the following: April 4, 2019: ``Navy and Marine Corps
Tactical Aviation and Ground Modernization''; May 1, 2019:
``Fiscal Year 2020 Department of the Army Modernization
Programs''; and May 2, 2019: ``Department of the Air Force
Acquisition and Modernization Programs in the Fiscal Year 2020
National Defense Authorization President's Budget Request''.
Despite the challenges of restrictions to scheduling and
in-person activities due to the COVID-19 pandemic through most
of 2020, the subcommittee conducted two oversight hearings
during its consideration of the fiscal year 2021 budget
request, including the following: March 5, 2020: ``Fiscal Year
2021 Army and Marine Corps Ground Systems Modernization
Programs''; and March 10, 2020: ``Department of Defense
Tactical and Rotary Aircraft Acquisition and Modernization
Programs in the FY21 President's Budget Request''.
In addition to oversight hearings, the subcommittee held
various briefings and events to conduct oversight, including
classified briefings: February 26, 2019: ``Overview of Army
Threat Assessment, Requirements, and Acquisition for Aviation
and Combat Vehicles''; March 6, 2019: ``An Introductory
Overview of the U.S. Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps Tactical
Aviation Acquisition Programs''; March 12, 2019: ``Overview of
Marine Corps Threat Assessment, Requirements, and Acquisition
for Aviation and Combat Vehicles''; March 26, 2019: Overview of
Army and Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance Platforms Capabilities and Allocation to Support
Operations''; October 29, 2019: ``Update on Army Soldier
Equipment Program''; November 13, 2019: ``F-35 Program Update:
Sustainment, Production, and Affordability Challenges'';
November 21, 2019: ``Update on the Air Force's Next Generation
Air Dominance Family of Systems Concept and Digital Century
Series Initiative''; December 4, 2019: ``Update on Air Force
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Systems'';
January 14, 2020: ``F-35 Program and Sustainment Update'';
February 12, 2020: ``Update on Joint Critical/Preferred
Munitions and Ammunition Inventory''; February 28, 2020:
``Department of Defense Electronic Warfare Update''; May 29,
2020: ``F-35 Program Update''; June 9, 2020: ``Army COVID-19
Update''; September 22, 2020: ``Modernization of the
Conventional Ammunition Production Industrial Base''; and
September 25, 2020: ``United States Marine Corps Force
Design''.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation that
was ultimately included in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116-92). The legislation
covered a range of issues, including authorization of
appropriations for procurement programs and research,
development, test, and evaluation programs for the Departments
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Reserve Components.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation that
was ultimately included in William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The legislation
covered a range of issues, including authorization of
appropriations for procurement programs and research,
development, test, and evaluation programs for the Departments
of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Reserve Components.
Future of Defense Task Force
The Future of Defense Task Force was created on October 16,
2019, by Chairman Adam Smith and Ranking Member William ``Mac''
Thornberry. Its mandate was to review emerging threats and
technologies and to evaluate the Department of Defense's
strategic and budgetary priorities to ensure the United States
remains in long-term strategic overmatch of global competitors.
The following committee members were assigned to the Task
Force: Reps. Seth Moulton and Jim Banks, who served as Co-
Chairs; and Reps. Susan Davis, Scott DesJarlais, Chrissy
Houlahan, Elissa Slotkin, Paul Mitchell, and Michael Waltz.
The Task Force was established in accordance with the Rules
of the House of Representatives, applicable to standing
committees, and the Rules of the Committee on Armed Services.
Pursuant to Rule 5, subsection (b) of the Committee Rules, the
Task Force existed for an initial period of 3 months with a
renewal for an additional 3 months, which the Task Force
exercised.
For 6 months, the Task Force conducted briefings, meetings,
hearings, virtual roundtables, site visits and CODELS within
the committee's Rule X jurisdiction. The Task Force received
testimony from executive branch officials, members of the
military services, and outside experts to include
representatives from academia, think tanks and private
industry.
The Task Force ended on April 15, 2020. An extensive report
of the Task Force's findings and recommendations was submitted
to the chairman and ranking member on Sept. 23, 2020, by the
eight members.
Details of activities included the following:
On October 9, 2019, the Future of Defense Task Force
convened a hearing entitled ``Theories of Victory,'' which
gamed out the future of defense for the next 30 to 50 years to
determine what success should look like. Witnesses were Ms.
Michele Flournoy and Senator Jim Talent.
On February 5, 2020, the Future of Defense Task Force
convened a second hearing entitled ``Supercharging the
Innovation Base,'' which explored ways to ensure private
industry and the Department of Defense were best prepared to
meet emerging threats to U.S. national security. Witnesses
included the Honorable Eric Fanning, Mr. Raj Shah, and Mr.
Chris Brose.
A third hearing, ``Battlefield Perspectives,'' was
scheduled for March 2020, but was postponed then cancelled due
to COVID-19 restrictions.
Each Wednesday during session for six months, Task Force
members received classified briefings on relevant subject
matter to include artificial intelligence, bio security,
emerging technologies, and the innovation base, among others.
Briefers included representatives from the Department of
Defense, the military services, academia, and private industry,
among others.
The Task Force conducted five CODELS during its review:
The Halifax Security Forum (Halifax, Canada); November 22,
2019-November 24, 2019.
Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand); January 17, 2020-
January 24, 2020.
The Munich Security Conference (Munich, Germany); February
14-February 15, 2020.
AFRICOM and Africa (Germany, Djibouti, Kenya); February 16-
February 20, 2020.
Silicon Valley and Boston (Palo Alto, Mountain View, San
Mateo, Mountain View and San Francisco, California, and Boston,
Massachusetts); February 17, 2020-February 21, 2020.
A sixth CODEL to the North Atlantic Treaty Association
headquarters and to several Arctic states was cancelled due to
COVID-19 travel restrictions.
PUBLICATIONS
HOUSE REPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Number Date Filed Bill Number Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Rept. 116-120. June 19, 2019........ H.R. 2500.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2020
H. Rept. 116-120, June 27, 2019........ H.R. 2500.... National
Part 2. Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2020
H. Rept. 116-442. July 9, 2020......... H.R. 6395.... William M.
(Mac)
Thornberry
National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2021
H. Rept. 116-442, July 16, 2020........ H.R. 6395.... William M.
Part 2. (Mac)
Thornberry
National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE PRINTS
Committee Print No. 1--Rules of the Committee on Armed
Services, House of Representatives of the United States, 116th
Congress, 2019 2020, adopted January 24, 2019.
Committee Print No. 2--Future of Defense Task Force Report
2020.
PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS
H.A.S.C. No. 116-1--Full Committee Organizational Meeting
for the 116th Congress (01/24/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-2--Full Committee Hearing: Department of
Defense Support to the Southern Border (01/29/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-3--Full Committee Hearing: Evaluation of
the Department of Defense's Counterterrorism Approach (02/06/
2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Military Service Academies' Action Plans to Address
the Results of Sexual Assault and Violence Report at the
Military Service Academies (02/13/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-5--Subcommittee on Readiness and
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces Joint Hearing:
Naval Surface Forces Readiness: Are Navy Reforms Adequate? (02/
26/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-6--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: INF Withdrawal and the Future of Arms Control:
Implications for the Security of the United States and its
Allies (02/26/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-7--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Department of
Defense Information Technology, Cybersecurity, and Information
Assurance (02/26/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-8--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Transgender Service in the Military Policy (02/27/
2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-9--Full Committee Hearing: Outside
Perspectives on Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Posture Update
(03/06/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-10--Full Committee Hearing: National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Greater
Middle East and Africa (03/07/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-11--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces and Subcommittee on Readiness Joint Hearing:
U.S. Transportation Command and Maritime Administration: State
of the Mobility Enterprise (03/07/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-12--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Outside Perspectives on Military Personnel Policy (03/
12/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-13--Full Committee Hearing: National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in Europe (03/
13/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-14--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Fiscal Year 2020
Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command and Operations in
Cyberspace (03/13/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-15--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Ensuring Resiliency of Military Installations and Operations in
Response to Climate Changes (03/13/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-16--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces Hearing: Department of the Air Force Fiscal
Year 2020 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces
(03/14/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-17--Full Committee Hearing: The Fiscal
Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from
the Department of Defense (03/26/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-18--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces Hearing: Department of the Navy Fiscal Year
2020 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces (03/26/
2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-19--Full Committee Hearing: National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Indo-
Pacific (03/27/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-20--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Reserve Component Duty Status Reform (03/27/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-21--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Fiscal Year 2020
Budget Request for Department of Defense Science and Technology
Programs: Maintaining a Robust Ecosystem for Our Technological
Edge (03/28/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-22--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for Department of Defense
Nuclear Activities (03/28/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-23--Full Committee Hearing: The Fiscal
Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the
Department of Army and the Department of the Air Force (04/02/
2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-24--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Examining the Role of the Commander in Sexual Assault
Prosecutions (04/02/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-25--Full Committee Hearing: Member Day
(04/03/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-26--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for National Security
Space Programs (04/03/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-27--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Reviewing Department
of Defense Strategy, Policy, and Programs for Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction for Fiscal Year 2020 (04/03/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-28--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Hearing: Navy and Marine Corps Tactical Aviation and
Ground Modernization (04/04/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-29--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Mismanaged Military Family Housing Programs: What is the
Recovery Plan? (04/04/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-30--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Evolution,
Transformation, and Sustainment: A Review of the Fiscal Year
2020 Budget Request for U.S. Special Operations Forces and
Command (04/09/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-31--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for Atomic Energy Defense,
Nonproliferation, Safety and Environmental Management (04/09/
2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-32--Full Committee Hearing: The Fiscal
Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the
Department of Navy (04/10/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-33--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Feres Doctrine--A Policy in Need of Reform? (04/30/
2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-34--Full Committee Hearing: National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activity in North and
South America (05/01/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-35--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Hearing: Fiscal Year 2020 Department of the Army
Modernization Programs (05/01/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-36--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for Military Construction,
Energy, and Environmental Programs (05/01/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-37--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Hearing: Department of the Air Force Acquisition and
Modernization Programs in the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense
Authorization President's Budget Request (05/02/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-38--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Fiscal Year 2020 Priorities for Missile Defense and
Missile Defeat Programs (05/08/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-39--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request for Military Readiness (05/09/
2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-40--Full Committee Hearing: The Department
of Defense's Financial Improvement and Audit Remediation Plan:
The Path Forward (05/16/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-41--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Military Personnel Management--How Are the Military
Services Adapting to Recruit, Retain, and Manage High Quality
Talent to Meet the Needs of a Modern Military? (05/16/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-42--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Military and Veteran Suicide: Understanding the
Problem and Preparing for the Future (05/21/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-43--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Securing the
Nation's Internet Architecture (09/10/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-44--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Shattered Families, Shattered Service: Taking Military
Domestic Violence Out of the Shadows (09/18/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-45--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Status of the B61-2 Life Extension and W88 Alteration-
370 Programs (09/25/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-46--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities and Subcommittee on Readiness
Joint Hearing: Resiliency of Military Installations to Emerging
Threats (10/16/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-47--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Ship and Submarine Maintenance: Cost and Schedule Challenges
(10/22/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-48--Future of Defense Task Force Hearing:
Theories of Victory (10/29/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-49--Subcommittee on Readiness and
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces Joint Hearing: F-
35 Program Update: Sustainment, Production, and Affordability
Challenges (11/13/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-50--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing: The
Department of Defense Organic Industrial Base: Challenges,
Solutions and Readiness Impacts (11/21/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-51--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Privatized Housing: Are Conditions Improving for Our Military
Families? (12/05/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-52--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Military Health System Reform: A Cure for Efficiency
and Readiness? (12/05/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-53--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Diversity in Recruiting and Retention: Increasing
Diversity in the Military--What the Military Services are Doing
(12/10/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-54--Full Committee Hearing: U.S. Policy in
Syria and the Broader Region (12/11/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-55--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Climate Change in
the Era of Strategic Competition (12/11/2019).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-56--Full Committee Hearing: DOD's Role in
Competing with China (01/15/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-57--Full Committee Hearing: Security
Update on the Korean Peninsula (01/28/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-58--Future of Defense Task Force Hearing:
Supercharging the innovation base (02/05/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-59--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Exceptional Family Member Program--Are the Military
Services Really Taking Care of Family Members? (02/05/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-60--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces and Subcommittee on Readiness Joint Hearing:
Update on Navy and Marine Corps Readiness in the Pacific in the
Aftermath of Recent Mishaps (02/05/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-61--Full Committee Hearing: The Department
of Defense's Role in Long-Term Major State Competition (02/11/
2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-62--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Reviewing Department
of Defense Strategy, Policy, and Programs for Countering
Weapons of Mass Destruction for Fiscal Year 2021 (02/11/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-63--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Alarming Incidents of White Supremacy in the
Military--How to Stop It (02/11/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-64--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Land Based Ranges: Building Military Readiness While Protecting
Natural and Cultural Resources (02/12/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-65--Full Committee Hearing: The Fiscal
Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Budget Request from
the Department of Defense (02/26/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-66--Full Committee Hearing: The Fiscal
Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the
Department of the Navy (02/27/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-67--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Strategic Forces Posture Hearing (02/27/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-68--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces Hearing: Air Force Projection Forces Aviation
Programs and Capabilities Related to the 2021 President's
Budget Request (02/27/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-69--Full Committee Hearing: The Fiscal
Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the
Department of the Army (03/03/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-70--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Fiscal Year 2021 Air Force and Space Force Readiness Posture
(03/03/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-71--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request for Nuclear Forces and
Atomic Energy Defense Activities (03/03/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-72--Full Committee Hearing: The Fiscal
Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the
Department of the Air Force (03/04/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-73--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces Hearing: Department of the Navy Fiscal Year
2021 Budget Request for Seapower and Projection Forces (03/04/
2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-74--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Fiscal Year 2021
Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command and Operations in
Cyberspace (03/04/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-75--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Hearing: Fiscal Year 2021 Army and Marine Corps Ground
Systems Modernization Programs (03/05/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-76--Full Committee Hearing: National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activities in the Greater
Middle East and Africa (03/10/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-77--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Hearing: Department of Defense Tactical and Rotary
Aircraft Acquisition and Modernization Programs in the Fiscal
Year 2021 President's Budget Request (03/10/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-78--Full Committee Hearing: National
Security Challenges and U.S. Military Activity in North and
South America (03/11/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-79--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Reviewing Department
of Defense Science and Technology Strategy, Policy and Programs
for Fiscal Year 2021: Maintaining a Robust Ecosystem for Our
Technological Edge (03/11/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-80--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces and Subcommittee on Readiness Joint Hearing:
Sealift and Mobility Requirements in Support of the National
Defense Strategy (03/11/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-81--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Fiscal Year 2021 Navy and Marine Corps Readiness Posture (03/
12/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-82--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Hearing: Fiscal Year 2021 Priorities for Missile Defense and
Missile Defeat Programs (03/12/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-83--Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces Hearing: Future Force Structure Requirements
for the United States Navy (06/04/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-84--Full Committee Hearing: Department of
Defense COVID-19 Response to Defense Industrial Base Challenges
(06/10/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-85--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Racial Disparity in the Military Justice System--How
to Fix the Culture (06/16/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-86--Full Committee Hearing: DOD
Authorities and Roles Related to Civilian Law Enforcement (07/
09/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-87--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: The Military's #MeToo Moment: An Examination of Sexual
Harassment and Perceived Retaliation in the Department of
Defense and at Fort Hood (07/29/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-88--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Review of the
Recommendations of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission (07/30/
2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-89--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Addressing the Legacy of Department of Defense use of PFAS:
Protecting Our Communities and Implementing Reform (09/15/
2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-90--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing: Interim Review of
the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
Effort and Recommendations (09/17/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-91--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces Hearing: Modernization of the Conventional Ammunition
Production Industrial Base (09/22/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-92--Full Committee Hearing: The Role of
Allies and Partners in U.S. Military Strategy and Operations
(09/23/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-93--Full Committee Hearing: U.S. Defense
Posture Changes in the European Theater (09/30/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-94--Subcommittee on Intelligence and
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Hearing and House Committee
on Foreign Affairs Joint Hearing: Strengthening Biological
Security: Traditional Threats and Emerging Challenges (10/02/
2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-95--Full Committee Hearing: The U.S.
military mission in Afghanistan and implications of the peace
process on U.S. involvement (11/20/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-96--Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing:
Review of the Findings and Recommendations of the National
Commission on Military Aviation Safety (12/03/2020).
H.A.S.C. No. 116-97--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Hearing: Fort Hood 2020: The Findings and Recommendations of
the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee (12/09/2020).
PRESS RELEASES
First Session
JANUARY 2019
1/4/19--Smith Statement On Trump Plan To Misuse An
Emergency Authority & Divert Money From Military Readiness To
Pay For His Wall
1/16/19--Smith Welcomes Incoming Members Of The House Armed
Services Committee
1/17/19--Smith Statement On Trump Missile Defense Review
1/18/19--Smith & Langevin Slam Trump Administration's Half-
Baked Climate Change Report
1/18/19--Smith Decries President Trump's Attack On
Congressional Oversight Of Military Issues
1/22/19--Smith Statement On Supreme Court Decision About
Transgender Military Service
1/23/19--Smith Congratulates Congressman Anthony Brown On
Election As Vice Chair Of The Armed Services Committee
1/23/19--Democratic Subcommittee Members For 116th Congress
1/23/19--Smith, Thornberry Release HASC Subcommittee Chairs
And Ranking Members For 116th Congress
1/24/19--Smith Statement On $94 Billion Increase In The
Estimated Cost Of Nuclear Weapons Upgrades
1/30/19--Chairman Smith, Senator Warren Introduce Bill
Establishing ``No First Use'' Policy For Nuclear Weapons Files
1/31/19--Smith Letter To Shanahan Regarding Transparency
With Congress Files
FEBRUARY 2019
2/1/2019--Smith Appoints Vice Chairs Of Armed Services
Subcommittees
2/1/2019--Smith, Cooper Statement On Withdrawal From The
Inf Treaty
2/11/2019--Smith Statement On The Passing Of Walter Jones
2/14/2019--Readiness Subcommittee Holds Military Family
Housing Roundtable
2/15/2019--Smith Statement On President Trump's Declaration
Of A National Emergency In Order To Take Funds Supporting
Military Families And Military Readiness And Spend Them On His
Wall
2/21/2019--Smith, Engel & Schiff To Trump: Stop Withholding
Information On North Korea From Congress Files
2/25/2019--Chairman Smith And Chairman Yarmuth Denounce
Trump Budget's Planned Use Of Defense Budget Gimmick: Acting
OMB Director Vought Also Announces Trump Budget Will Call For
Non-Defense Funding Cut
2/28/2019--Committee Chairs Question Rationale For Proposed
NSC Climate Change Panel
MARCH 2019
3/4/2019--Chairman Smith Denounces Trump's Acceptance Of
Questionable World Leaders
3/8/2019--Chairman Smith Criticizes Trump's Cancellation Of
The Requirement To Report Civilian Causalities
3/12/2019--Chairman Smith Statement On DOD Implementation
Of The Ban On Transgender Military Service
3/13/2019--Readiness Subcommittee Holds Hearing On Impacts
Of Climate Change
3/18/2019--Chairman Smith Statement On Release Of List Of
At-Risk Military Construction Projects That Could Be Cut To
Fund Border Wall
3/25/2019--Chairman Smith Statement On Space Force Proposal
3/26/2019--Chairman Smith Statement On DOD Reprogramming To
Fund Border Wall Files
3/27/2019--UPDATED HASC SCHEDULE, APRIL 1-5
APRIL 2019
4/2/2019--HASC Public Schedule, April 8-12
4/2/2019--Update#3 HASC Schedule, April 1-5
4/10/2019--Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Garamendi Leads
Congressional Delegation To Observe Damaged Military
Installations And Privatized Military Housing Units
4/10/2019--HASC Chairman Smith And Ranking Member
Thornberry Announce Markup Schedule For Fiscal Year 2020
National Defense Authorization Act
4/12/2019--Readiness Chairman Garamendi Concludes
Congressional Delegation To Study Military Housing And Military
Installations Impacted By Hurricane Florence
4/18/2019--Committee Chair Statement On Redacted Release Of
The Mueller Investigation Report
4/23/2019--HASC Schedule, April 29-May 3
4/29/2019--Updated HASC Schedule, April 29-May 3
4/30/2019--Chairman Smith And Ranking Member Thornberry
Statement On The Passing Of Former Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher
4/30/2019--HASC Schedule, May 6-10
MAY 2019
5/1/2019--Readiness Subcommittee Holds Hearing on
Department of Defense's FY20 Budget Request for Military
Construction, Energy and Environmental Programs
5/7/2019--HASC SCHEDULE, MAY 13-17
5/8/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on Iranian Conflict and
Potential Escalation in the Region
5/9/2019--Readiness Subcommittee Holds Hearing on FY20
Budget Request for Military Readiness
5/14/2019--HASC SCHEDULE, MAY 20-24
5/15/2019--HASC Democrats Introduce Bill to Limit DOD's
Authority to Reprogram Military Construction Funds
5/16/2019--Smith, Schiff, and Engel Demand Briefing and
Documents on Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance Report
5/22/2019--Smith and Thornberry Slam New DOD Policy to
Stonewall Congressional Oversight
5/22/2019--UPDATED: Markup Schedule for Fiscal Year 2020
National Defense Authorization Act
5/24/2019--Smith Concerned About Increased Military
Presence in the Middle East
5/27/2019--Smith Statement Honoring Memorial Day
5/29/2019--Tomorrow: NDAA Markup Logistics Press Briefing
5/31/2019--Subcommittee Markup Press Background Briefings
JUNE 2019
6/3/2019--Military Personnel Subcommittee Mark Summary for
H.R. 2500 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2020
6/3/2019--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Mark
Summary for H.R. 2500 National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2020
6/3/2019--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Summary for
H.R. 2500 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2020
6/3/2019--Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee Mark Summary for H.R. 2500 National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
6/3/2019--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Mark
Summary for H.R. 2500 National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2020
6/4/2019--Readiness Subcommittee Mark Summary for H.R. 2500
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020
6/5/2019--HASC Subcommittee Marks as Reported for H.R. 2500
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020
6/5/2019--Full Committee Markup Press Background Briefing
6/5/2019--Chairman Smith Response to Trump's Lies Regarding
Transgender Service Members' Medical Treatment
6/7/2019--HASC Subcommittee Marks as Reported for H.R. 2500
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020
6/10/2019--Chairman Smith Releases H.R. 2500 The National
Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020
6/12/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on Efforts to Strip Key
Nuclear Provisions from the FY20 NDAA
6/13/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on the Importance of
Passing the FY20 NDAA Without Offsets
6/18/2019--Smith Increasingly Concerned About Heightened
Tensions in the Middle East
6/18/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on Appointment of Mark
Esper to Acting Secretary of Defense
JULY 2019
7/9/2019--Smith Refutes False Claims about the FY20 NDAA
7/12/2019--Democratic Majority Passes Defense Bill Through
the House
7/23/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on Confirmation of Mark
Esper as Secretary of Defense
AUGUST 2019
8/20/19--Chairman Smith Readout of Call With the Indian
Ambassador to the U.S.
8/30/19--Chairman Smith Statement on Trump Administration's
Harmful Change in USCIS Policy
SEPTEMBER 2019
9/3/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on Continued Attempts to
Fund Border Wall at the Pentagon's Expense
9/3/2019--HASC SCHEDULE, SEPTEMBER 9-13
9/9/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on the Retirement of
Congresswoman Susan Davis
9/10/2019--Rep. Smith and Sen. Menendez Formally Request
CBO Analyze the Costs of Trump Admin Allowing U.S.-Russia
Nuclear Treaty to Expire
9/11/2019--HASC SCHEDULE, SEPTEMBER 16-20
9/17/2019--HASC SCHEDULE, SEPTEMBER 23-27
9/18/2019--Defense Bill Goes to Conference and House
Leadership Announces Conferees
9/18/2019--NDAA Conferees to Meet
9/26/2019--Smith Warns Against Ratcheting up Tension in the
Middle East by Deploying Additional Military Personnel and
Assets
9/30/2019--Chairman Smith Statement on the Retirement of
Ranking Member Thornberry
OCTOBER 2019
10/7/2019--Smith Slams Shift in U.S. Policy in Syria, Warns
of Implications
10/8/2019--Top National Security Democrats Warn Trump Admin
Against U.S. Withdrawal from Key Euro-Atlantic Security Treaty
10/9/2019--HASC Schedule, October 14-18
10/10/2019--Smith Statement Following Visit to Border Wall
Construction Site
10/11/2019--Smith Warns Against Aiding Saudi Arabia After
Abandoning Kurdish Partners
10/15/2019--HASC Schedule, October 21-25
10/17/2019--Smith Statement on the Passing of Congressman
Elijah Cummings
10/17/2019--Chairmen Smith and Engel Statement on the
Retirement of Rose Gottemoeller, Deputy Secretary General of
NATO
10/18/2019--House Armed Services Committee Stands Up Future
of Defense Task Force
10/22/2019--HASC Schedule: October 28-November 1
10/24/2019--Smith Slams Decision to Abandon the Kurds
10/24/2019--Smith Blames Border Wall as Main Sticking Point
in FY20 NDAA Negotiations
10/27/2019--Smith Statement on Al-Baghdadi Special
Operation
NOVEMBER 2019
11/6/2019--HASC Schedule: November 11-15
11/15/2019--UPDATED HASC Schedule: November 18-22
11/22/2019--Chairmen Smith and Engel Demand Answers on
White House Scheme on Open Skies Treaty
11/25/2019--Chairman Smith Condemns President Trump's
Interference in the Military Justice Process
11/27/2019--HASC Schedule: December 2-6
DECEMBER 2019
12/3/2019--HASC Schedule: December 9-13
12/3/2019--Chairmen Smith and Engel Demand Answers on
Administration's Negotiations with Asian Allies
12/9/2019--House and Senate Armed Services Committees
Complete Conference for the FY20 National Defense Authorization
Act
12/11/2019--Chairman Smith Corrects the Record on the FY20
NDAA
12/11/2019--Chairman Smith on the Passage of the FY20 NDAA
Conference Report
12/20/2019--Chairman Smith Statement as the FY20 NDAA is
Signed into Law
12/29/2019--Smith Slams Recent Rocket Attacks in Iraq
Killing U.S. Contractor
Second Session
JANUARY 2020
1/3/2020--Smith Raises Grave Concerns About Pentagon
Military Action in Iraq
1/8/2020--HASC Schedule: January 13-17
1/15/2020--Smith Statement on Future Plans to Steal
Department of Defense Funds to pay for a Border Wall
1/21/2020--HASC Schedule: January 27-31
1/28/2020--Smith and Thornberry Joint Statement on U.K.'s
5G Decision
1/29/2020--HASC Schedule: February 3-7
FEBRUARY 2020
2/3/2020--UPDATED HASC Schedule: February 3-7
2/4/2020--HASC Schedule: February 10-14
2/4/2020--Smith Criticizes the Administration's Deployment
of W76 2 Low-Yield Nuclear Warheads
2/5/2020--UPDATED HASC Schedule: February 10-14
2/8/2020--Smith Denounces the Removal of Lieutenant Colonel
Alexander S. Vindman
2/13/2020--Smith Condemns Waste of DoD Funds on the Border
Wall
2/19/2020--HASC Schedule: February 24-28
2/21/2020--UPDATED HASC Schedule: February 24-28
2/26/2020--HASC Schedule: March 2-6
2/27/2020--UPDATED HASC Schedule: March 2-6
2/28/2020--Smith, Thornberry, Garamendi and Lamborn Urge
DOD to Expand Tenant Bill of Rights as Required by Law
2/29/2020--Smith Statement on Conditions-Based Peace
Agreement in Afghanistan
MARCH 2020
3/4/2020--HASC Schedule: March 9-13
3/9/2020--UPDATED HASC Schedule: March 9-13
3/13/2020--Smith Statement on the PFAS Task Force March
Progress Report
3/26/2020--Smith & Engel Lead Effort Pushing Trump
Administration to Maintain Humanitarian Assistance to Yemen
During Coronavirus Crisis
3/27/2020--Smith, Thornberry Introduce ``By Request'' Bill
and Begin FY21 National Defense Authorization Act Process
3/30/2020--Smith Statement on Continued COVID Precautions
and the FY21 NDAA
APRIL 2020
4/1/2020--House Committee Chairs Request Extension of
Public Comment Periods During Coronavirus National Emergency
4/2/2020--HASC Leadership Joint Statement on the Dismissal
of U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt Captain
4/6/2020--Smith Calls for Modly's Removal After Mishandling
U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt COVID-19 Outbreak
4/7/2020--Smith, Engel, Reed, & Menendez Statement on Open
Skies Treaty
4/7/2020--Smith Statement on Resignation of Acting
Secretary of the Navy Modly
4/9/2020--Smith, Pallone, & Thompson Urge President Trump
to Coordinate Production and Acquisition of COVID-19 Response
Supplies
4/14/2020--Smith Statement on One-Year Anniversary of
Trump's Discriminatory Transgender Ban
4/15/2020--Leading National Security Democrats Raise Alarm
over Trump Admin's Dispute With South Korea Over Cost-Sharing
Deal
4/17/2020--Smith Statement on DOD Inspector General's JEDI
Findings
4/17/2020--Smith Slams High-Risk Ligado Request
4/24/2020--Smith Statement on the Navy's Investigation of
the COVID-19 Outbreak Aboard the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt
4/28/2020--Smith Slams Trump Administration's Continued
Theft of DoD Funding
4/28/2020--Smith, Thornberry Statement on FY21 NDAA Process
4/29/2020--Smith Statement on the Navy's Additional
Investigation of the COVID-19 Outbreak Aboard the U.S.S.
Theodore Roosevelt
MAY 2020
5/8/2020--Smith, Thornberry, and 20 Bipartisan Members
Demand Answers From FCC
5/15/2020--Smith, Thornberry Sign Bipartisan, Bicameral
Letter to Administration in Support of MFO in Egypt's Sinai
Peninsula
5/18/2020--Smith Statement on Navy's First Transgender
Service Waiver
5/21/2020--Smith, Cooper Statement on Trump
Administration's Withdrawal From the Open Skies Treaty
5/22/2020--Smith & Engel Denounce Trump Administration's
Illegal Withdrawal from Open Skies Treaty
5/22/2020--Smith and 20 Armed Services Democrats Slam Trump
Administration's Open Skies Treaty Withdrawal
5/22/2020--Smith, Speier Call on President Trump to Extend
National Guard Activation to Combat COVID-19
5/29/2020--HASC Schedule: June 1-5
JUNE 2020
6/1/2020--Smith Statement on Trump's Intent to Invoke the
Insurrection Act
6/2/2020--Smith Demands Answers on the Apparent
Militarization of America
6/3/2020--Smith, Nadler, Grijalva, and Thompson Call for
Answers on Trump Administrations Use of Force Against Peaceful
DC Protestors
6/3/2020--Smith Calls on Secretary of Defense and Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs to Explain Military Activity in Washington,
D.C.
6/4/2020--HASC Schedule: June 8-12
6/5/2020--Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry
Announce Markup Schedule for Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense
Authorization Act
6/5/2020--Smith and 30 HASC Democrats Call for
Accountability from Military Leadership on Behalf of the
American People
6/8/2020--Smith, Lowey, Cooper, Kaptur and Visclosky Call
for Answers on Trump Administration's Proposal to Resume
Nuclear Testing
6/10/2020--Smith Demands Responses to Essential Oversight
Questions
6/11/2020--HASC Schedule: June 15-19
6/12/2020--Subcommittee Markup Press Background Briefings
6/17/2020--HASC to Distribute NDAA Amendments
6/19/2020--Smith Statement on Navy's Completion of U.S.S.
Theodore Roosevelt COVID-19 Investigation
6/21/2020--Intelligence and Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee Mark Summary for H.R. 6395 National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
6/21/2020--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Summary for
H.R. 6395 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021
6/22/2020--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee Mark
Summary for H.R. 6395 National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021
6/22/2020--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Mark
Summary for H.R. 6395 National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021
6/22/2020--Readiness Subcommittee Mark Summary for H.R.
6395 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
6/22/2020--Military Personnel Subcommittee Mark Summary for
H.R. 6395 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021
6/24/2020--Full Committee Markup Press Background Briefing
6/24/2020--HASC Subcommittee Marks as Reported for H.R.
6395 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2021
6/25/2020--Chairman Smith Releases Summary of H.R. 6395 The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
6/27/2020--Chairman Smith Releases H.R. 6395 The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
6/29/2020--Smith Statement on Russia's Reported Bounties on
American Soldiers
6/30/2020--HASC Schedule: July 6-10
JULY 2020
7/6/2020--Smith, Khanna Statement in Support of UN Envoy
Martin Griffiths Peace Efforts in Yemen
7/14/2020--Smith, Waters, Engel, Thompson and Pallone Seek
Information on Trump Administration Failures to Boost
Production of PPE and Testing As COVID-19 Cases Spike
7/14/2020--Smith and Thornberry Joint Statement on the
U.K.'s Decision to Protect Their Telecom Networks From Huawei
7/17/2020--Smith Statement on DOD's Ban on the Public
Display of the Confederate Flag
7/20/2020--Smith, Thompson, Nadler Joint Statement on Trump
Administration's Action in Portland
7/20/2020--Annual Defense Bill Comes to the Floor
7/21/2020--Democratic-Led House Passes Annual Defense Bill
for the 60th Consecutive Year
7/22/2020--HASC Schedule: July 27-31
7/28/2020--Smith Statement on DoD Line Items in the Senate
Republican's COVID Supplemental Bill
7/29/2020--Smith Statement on Proposed Troop Reposition and
Drawdown in Germany
AUGUST 2020
8/2/2020--Smith Statement on Anthony Tata's Senate
Confirmation Failure
8/11/2020--Smith and Reed Statement on Title 32 Authorities
for State Response to COVID-19
8/14/2020--Committee Chairs Smith and DeFazio Lead 68
Members of Congress in Pressing President Trump on National
Guard and FEMA Cost-Sharing Requirements
8/15/2020--Smith Statement on Israel and United Arab
Emirates Agreement
8/17/2020--Smith and Thornberry Statement on Prospect of a
Presidential Pardon for Edward Snowden
8/26/2020--Smith and Menendez Statement on the Immense
Costs of Allowing the New START Treaty to Expire
8/26/2020--Armed Services, Oversight, and Intelligence
Committees Urge DOD IG Review Retaliation Against Lieutenant
Colonels Alexander and Yevgeny Vindman
SEPTEMBER 2020
9/5/2020--Chairman Smith Statement on Trump's Lack of
Respect for the Military
9/8/2020--Armed Services and Oversight Subcommittees Open
Investigation Into Recent Service Member Deaths at Fort Hood
9/8/2020--HASC Schedule: September 14-18
9/15/2020--Smith Statement on Israel, United Arab Emirates,
and Bahrain Normalization Agreement
9/16/2020--HASC Schedule: September 21-25
9/17/2020--Thornberry Portrait to Hang in HASC Hearing Room
9/22/2020--Smith Statement on Defense Department Misuse of
CARES Act COVID Relief Funds
9/24/2020--TOMORROW: Future of Defense Task Force Unveils
Final Report at the Brookings Institution
9/24/2020--HASC Schedule: September 28-October 2
9/29/2020--Future of Defense Task Force Releases Final
Report
OCTOBER 2020
10/6/2020--Smith Statement on the Military Leadership
Quarantine for COVID
10/9/2020--Top National Security Democrats to Esper: Commit
to Current U.S. Troop Levels on Korean Peninsula
10/23/2020--Smith Condemns Executive Order Establishing
Schedule F Appointments
NOVEMBER 2020
11/9/2020--Smith Condemns Dismissal of Secretary of Defense
Esper Ahead of Presidential Transition
11/10/2020--Smith Warns Gutting Pentagon During Transition
Could be Devastating for National Security
11/12/2020--HASC Schedule: November 16-20
11/17/2020--Smith Statement on Afghanistan Troop Drawdown
11/18/2020--Armed Services Committees Advance Fiscal Year
2021 Conference Process at Annual `Pass the Gavel' Meeting
11/18/2020--House Leadership Announces FY21 NDAA Conferees
11/23/2020--Smith Statement on Withdrawal from Open Skies
Treaty
11/24/2020--Smith Statement on the Air Force's Seemingly
Political C 130J Basing Decision
11/25/2020--House Chairs Seek Accounting of Political
Appointees Burrowing into Career Positions at Dozens of
Agencies
11/25/2020--HASC Schedule: November 30-December 4
DECEMBER 2020
12/2/2020--HASC Schedule: December 7-11
12/2/2020--Smith and Thornberry Statement on FY21 NDAA
12/3/2020--Smith Statement on Findings and Recommendations
from the National Commission on Military Aviation Safety
12/3/2020--Smith Commends Rep. Rogers on Selection as
Ranking Member
12/3/2020--Readiness Chairman Garamendi and Ranking Member
Lamborn Issue Statement on Briefing to Address Concerning Rise
in Military Aviation Accidents
12/8/20--Smith Statement on the Passage of the FY21 NDAA
Conference Report
12/8/20--Smith Statement on Secretary of Defense Nomination
12/18/20--Smith and Langevin Statement on Armed Services
Committee's Commitment to Cybersecurity
12/19/20--Smith Warns Pentagon Leadership Against Severing
Dual-Hat Relationship Between the National Security Agency and
U.S. Cyber Command
12/21/20--Smith, Maloney and Labor Leaders Urge President
Trump to Sign FY21 National Defense Authorization Act into Law
[all]