The Insider

By John Liang
December 6, 2012 at 3:08 PM

With the majority of federal government spending being driven by a few large components -- chief among them the Defense Department -- "these agencies are critical to the implementation and success of government-wide strategic sourcing efforts," a new memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget states. "Many of these agencies have experience with strategic sourcing efforts, and some of them currently manage government-wide acquisition contracts (GWACs) that could be adapted to support strategic sourcing efforts."

Consequently, OMB has established the Strategic Sourcing Leadership Council (SSLC), according to the Dec. 5 memo. Chaired by the federal procurement policy administrator, the council consists of representatives from the Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs departments as well as the General Services Administration, NASA "and other agencies as designated by the administrator," the memo reads.

Specific to the Pentagon, the memo states:

DOD's participation on the SSLC includes representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense; from each of the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and from the Defense Logistics Agency. In addition, because small businesses playa vital role in Federal contracting, the SSLC includes a representative from the Small Business Administration.

The SSLC shall, in consultation with the Chief Acquisition Officers Council, the Chief Financial Officers Council, the Chief Information Officers Council, the Performance Improvement Council, and other interagency councils as necessary, lead the government's efforts to increase the use of government-wide management and sourcing of goods and services. The SSLC will meet regularly to provide long-term leadership of the government's strategic sourcing efforts as well as to take actions that save taxpayer dollars now.

A Government Accountability Office report issued in September found that "improved and expanded use" of strategic sourcing "could save billions in annual procurement costs." As InsideDefense.com reported:

The report -- dated Sept. 20 -- states that GAO reviewed strategic sourcing efforts at four agencies -- the Defense, Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and Energy departments -- "that were among the 10 agencies with the highest fiscal year 2011 procurement obligations."

With regard to the Pentagon, GAO "reviewed the efforts of four component agencies -- Air Force, Army, Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) -- which accounted for 88 percent of DOD spending in fiscal year 2011, as well as department-wide efforts managed by DOD's Program Acquisition and Strategic Sourcing (PASS) office, which is within DOD's Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP) organization and reports to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (AT&L)," the report states.

In this week's memo, OMB wants the SSLC to submit by March 2013 "a set of recommendations for management strategies for specific goods and services -- including several IT commodities identified through the PortfolioStat process -- that would ensure that the Federal government receives the most favorable offer possible." At a minimum, OMB wants the recommendations to:

* identify at least five products and/or services for which new government-wide acquisition vehicles or management approaches should be developed and made mandatory, to the maximum extent practicable, for the SSLC agencies;

* for these identified commodities and solutions, provide a supporting spend analysis, estimate savings opportunities, and define metrics for tracking progress;

* identify existing contract vehicles and relevant contract renewal dates that could be used to develop transition strategies to the new solutions;

* identify agencies that should serve as "executive agents" to lead the development of each of these new solutions (with the assistance of interagency teams comprised of agency experts);

* propose plans and management strategies to maximize the use of each strategic sourcing effort;

* propose vendor management or other strategies that could be used to reduce the variability in the prices paid for similar goods and services, where the development of new government-wide vehicles may not be immediately feasible; and

* propose other savings strategies that could be implemented, such as adapting existing vehicles (e.g., Multiple Award Schedules, GWACs, and Multi-agency Contracts) to ensure that certain characteristics of strategic sourcing are followed.

To view the full OMB memo, click here.

By Christopher J. Castelli
December 6, 2012 at 1:58 PM

The Office of the Management and Budget’s new guidance on sequestration directs the Defense Department and other federal agencies to provide more information and analysis needed to update the estimates in the 400-page Sequestration Transparency Act (STA) report that OMB issued in September and to “finalize calculations of the spending reductions that would be required,” according to an OMB spokeswoman. The updates are needed in light of the current continuing resolution and other developments since September, she said.

The September report detailed preliminary estimates of sequestration’s potential impact on more than 1,200 budget accounts, including initial determinations of the exempt and non-exempt status of those accounts. OMB’s new guidance to federal agencies, issued earlier this week, is technical in nature, the spokeswoman noted. “For example, we requested the sequestrable federal administrative expenses in otherwise exempt mandatory accounts,” she said.

The Pentagon is consulting with OMB and has been instructed to pursue internal planning on sequestration, DOD Press Secretary George Little said Wednesday. "We are at the very start of this process," he said. "We don't have all of the details firmed up. Naturally we hope very much that sequestration will be avoided, and that we don't enter that phase in early January 2013. We do not want to go off the fiscal cliff, but in consultation with OMB, we think that it is prudent at this stage . . . to begin at least some limited internal planning."

“The administration remains focused on reaching agreement as we’ve been discussing on a balanced deficit reduction plan that avoids sequestration,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Wednesday. “Leaders of both parties have pledged to work together in the coming weeks, and we are confident, as I just said, that we can reach an agreement. However, with less than one month left before a potential sequestration order would have to be issued, the Office of Management and Budget must take certain steps to ensure the administration is ready to issue such an order should Congress fail to act.”

The guidance is not a change in the administration’s commitment to reach an agreement and avoid sequestration, Carney said. “OMB is simply ensuring that the administration is prepared, should it become necessary to issue such an order,” he said. “OMB will continue to consult with agencies and will provide additional guidance as needed. This is just acting responsibly because of the potential for this happening.”

By John Liang
December 5, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Ranking Member John McCain (R-AZ) are pressing the Air Force for more information on what they call the "mismanagement" that led to the service's termination of the billion-dollar Expeditionary Combat Support System program.

"From what we know to date, this case appears to be one of the most egregious examples of mismanagement in recent memory," the senators write in a letter sent today to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. "We believe that the public and the taxpayers deserve a clear explanation of how the Air Force came to spend more than $1 billion without receiving any significant military capability, who will be held accountable, and what steps the Department is taking to ensure that this will not happen again."

The Air Force's decision to cancel ECSS was a key piece in the service's plan to reach financial auditability by 2017, Inside the Air Force reported last month:

ECSS, led by prime contractor CSC until the company's contract was canceled earlier this year, was designed as a next-generation logistics program that could consolidate hundreds of legacy software systems and streamline supply chain management and many other functions. The program has failed to deliver those capabilities, though, and service spokesman Ed Gulick announced the program's termination in a Nov. 8 statement.

"The Air Force has concluded the ECSS program is no longer a viable option for meeting the FY-17 Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) statutory requirements," the statement reads. "Therefore, we are canceling the program and moving forward with other options in order to meet both requirements. As our acquisition and logistics leadership worked through the 3rd program restructure in the last 3 years, it became apparent the Air Force will be better served by developing an entirely new strategy versus revamping the ECSS system of record again.

"The scope of ECSS continues to decrease even as the costs continue to increase and the schedule continues to lengthen," Gulick continued.

Delays and cost overruns became a fact of life for ECSS in recent years. The Air Force says $1.03 billion has been spent on the program since 2005, with no significant military capability to show for it. Acting Air Force Under Secretary Jamie Morin told Congress earlier this year he was "personally appalled at the limited capabilities that program has produced relative to that amount of investment."

In their letter today, Levin and McCain state they want answers to the following questions:

1. What has the Air Force gained from the $1 billion it has spent on this program and what capabilities, if any, will be salvaged from the program?

2. What were the root causes of the failure of the ECSS program and why did it take so long for senior management to recognize these problems and cancel the program?

3. Why were previous efforts to restructure the ECSS program ineffective, and why did it take so long for senior management to recognize that they had been ineffective?

4. What changes will the Department make in the way that it manages its procurement of its other enterprise resource planning (ERP) programs to avoid similar problems in the future? In particular, what steps will the Department take to ensure: (1) appropriate software selection; (2) adequate government ERP program management skills; (3) consistency in ERP acquisition processes; and (4) an infrastructure able to support ERP performance needs?

5. What role did ineffective business process re-engineering (BPR) have in the problems the Air Force experienced with ECSS and how is this issue being addressed for future ERP programs?

6. What steps will the Department take to ensure that the prime contractor’s failure to perform as required is appropriately considered as past performance in connection with future DOD contract award decisions?

7. What steps has the Department taken to review its other ERP programs in light of this experience and to ensure that they are not suffering from problems similar to those experienced by ECSS?

8. What options is the Air Force looking at to replace ECSS and how much are these options likely to cost? When will a comprehensive plan be in place?

9. In the absence of ECSS, how does the Air Force intend to meet the original objectives of ECSS and meet the 2014 and 2017 audit-readiness deadlines?

10. If the Air Force is planning to rely on legacy systems as part of its mitigation approach, what steps is the Department taking to identify and assess these legacy systems to determine what modifications (including manual workarounds) will need to be implemented and when will the Department have a timeline in place for implementing these corrective actions?

By John Liang
December 5, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Traditionally, attendees of the Aerospace Industries Association's annual year-end luncheon are treated to a detailed overview of aerospace and defense revenues for the past year as well as a projection of the upcoming one.

That wasn't the case this time.

AIA President and CEO Marion Blakey devoted most of her speech to the looming threat of sequestration, warning that the aerospace and defense industry is "getting closer to a 'Thelma and Louise' moment, when we careen off into the void."

Blakey added that "the time for real work, real negotiation and a real solution" to sequestration "is now."

By John Liang
December 5, 2012 at 3:23 PM

After the Senate passed the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill yesterday, all of the members of the Armed Services Committee were, as is customary, designated as the conferees who will meet with their House counterparts to hammer out a compromise bill for the president to sign.

A list of House conferees has not yet been released.

View yesterday's floor debate.

By John Liang
December 4, 2012 at 10:37 PM

The full Senate late this afternoon passed the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill by a 98-0 vote.

To view the past week's floor debate, which includes the amendments the senators considered, see below (today's floor debate will be added tomorrow morning):

Senate 12/3/2012 Floor Debate On The FY-13 Defense Policy Bill

Senate 11/30/2012 Floor Debate On The FY-13 Defense Policy Bill

Senate 11/29/2012 Floor Debate On The FY-13 Defense Policy Bill

By Sebastian Sprenger
December 4, 2012 at 5:35 PM

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last week moved quickly to notify lawmakers about what he called a successful Nov. 29 test of the Medium Extended Air Defense System. MEADS is on the chopping block in the Senate's defense authorization bill that's being debated on the chamber's floor now.

"In light of this solid success and the need to archive data that will allow the United States and our partners, Germany and Italy, to capitalize on the demonstrated capabilities, we should provide the final year of funding to complete the PoC [proof of concept] development and testing against ballistic missiles," Panetta writes in a Nov. 30 letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services committees.

"The Army is already considering ways to link the knowledge gained from the tri-national MEADS PoC program to its future air and missile defense development plans," Panetta adds.

At stake is the administration's fiscal year 2013 request of roughly $400 million. That sum would fund the final year of development work plus an intercept test against a tactical ballistic missile a year from now.

By Courtney Albon
December 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM

The Air Force on Monday awarded a $900 million contract to three companies for its Rocket Systems Launch Program.

Lockheed Martin, Orbital Sciences, and Space Exploration Technologies won the deal for RSLP, which will support ballistic missile testing and sub-orbital space launch initiatives. According to the contract announcement, work will take place in Utah, Arizona and California and is expected to conclude in November 2017.

RSLP, part of the Space and Missile Systems Center's Space Development and Test Wing, grew from the Advanced Ballistic Reentry Systems program, which was established in 1963 to manage reentry vehicle research and to reactivate ICBM assets.

The program also supports the Missile Defense Agency by launching inactive ICBMs to be used as targets during flight tests, and there are plans for RSLP to support additional tests for NASA, according to an Air Force fact sheet. The service considers RSLP to be a cost-effective launch option for small space vehicles and has to date conducted eight space missions using Minuteman and Peacekeeper rocket motors.

The Air Force notes in its fact sheet that “the program's primary goal is to be the provider of choice by offering highly reliable and cost-effective launch services in support of DOD and other government agencies.”

By John Liang
December 3, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller today called the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program "a model for how an interagency team should operate."

Speaking at a forum on the CTR program at the National Defense University, Gottemoeller said when the effort "was first beginning to take off" in the early 1990s, "it was during that period that we first understood that we had to have a profoundly interagency effort in order to advance these programs and get them cemented in place." Further:

You can imagine the challenge in terms of dealing with very disparate countries who were going through extremely complicated political, security and economic transitions themselves, but our own national government was not really organized at the time to work in this way together, and so a pattern . . . of working [together] was established way back at the outset of these programs in 1992, 1993 and going forward, because it was absolutely necessary to hang together, otherwise we never would have been able to, I think, put the pieces together and work successfully with our Congress which was extraordinarily important [as was] the continuing engagement of Sen. [Sam] Nunn and Sen. [Richard] Lugar was very beneficial from that point of view.

But that's a . . . tradition . . . that was well established and continues to this day, so when I said, we're synced up among State, Energy and Defense -- and by the way, very much with the national security staff in the White House leading the way -- it is because it is a well-established tradition that has proven its worth, and we know that as we face new challenges going forward, we're absolutely going to have to have priorities set, and a clear vision as a national government as to how we want to proceed.

So I would say it's based on sound experience and it's also based on our now very real recognition of the challenges that ensue from trying to continue to advance these very, well, productive but in many ways innovative programs. At every point along the way, you are innovating your interactions with your governments, figuring out how to work the particular challenges of individual projects, and you're also innovating and thinking about how to get the resources of our national government to work most effectively together, and oh by the way, I see many individuals here from our national laboratories as well, who are always very important in both the creative aspects in thinking about how a project should be formulated but also in terms of their implementation.

By John Liang
November 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Four defense industry chiefs will discuss their views on the effects of budget cuts and the threat of sequestration on national security at the National Press Club on Monday.

According to a club statement released this morning, the participants include Northrop Grumman CEO Wes Bush; Pratt & Whitney President David Hess; Dawne Hickton, CEO of RTI International Metals Inc.; and TASC CEO David Langstaff.

Northrop's Bush painted a worst-case scenario during an Oct. 24 teleconference call with investors on his company's third-quarter 2012 earnings. As Defense:Next reported that day:

During a conference call on Northrop's 2012 third-quarter earnings, investors asked how the company planned to proceed under the shadow of sequestration and what the financial fallout would be from an across-the-board cut of about $500 billion from the Pentagon's budget. Sequestration, which was carved out in the 2011 Budget Control Act, was designed to motivate Congress to work with the White House on trimming the budget. Congress has so far been unable to chisel out a financial plan for how to curb the deficit, which means the policy could be implemented in less than 70 days.

Wes Bush, chairman, president and CEO of Northrop, and Jim Palmer, the company's corporate vice president and chief financial officer, told investors that while Northrop -- and the Defense Department -- would feel the effects of sequestration rather quickly, so would a broad range of government agencies.

"This is a broader set of national issues and national concerns than just the defense community," he said.

Northrop Grumman would be hit hard by sequestration because the contracting base of the military services has a higher turnaround rate, prompting those services to spend their obligated amounts within a set time frame, Bush said.

"Long-term, I don't think I have to speculate in saying the impacts would be profound and very, very negative," he said.

The uncertainty about whether sequestration will happen has made it difficult for Northrop to prepare the way ahead, Bush said. "We all know there is a substantial deficit situation and there are some tough decisions that lie ahead regarding the outcomes for each component of that budget," he said. "So it's a little unclear today from where we are to predict how that's going to go."

By John Liang
November 30, 2012 at 1:00 PM

The Navy recently issued a strategic plan for how the service will conduct cyberspace operations through 2020. According to the document's foreword:

This Strategic Plan provides the framework and vision necessary to ensure the U.S. Navy remains a critical insurer of our national security and economic prosperity well into the future. Through the intelligent use of cyberspace, Navy warfighters will bring unique capabilities to the fight in order to achieve superior operational outcomes at the time and place of our choosing. Cyberspace operations are a critical component of Information Dominance, and, carefully coordinated, will provide Navy and Joint Commanders with the necessary elements to achieve and maintain an operational advantage over our adversaries in all domains.

Navy Cyber Power 2020 identifies distinct qualities the Navy must possess to succeed, and introduces methods to build a relevant and extremely capable Navy Cyber warfighting force for the future. This strategy examines cyberspace operations from multiple vectors, and considers challenges and influencing factors beyond traditional operational aspects. The way we acquire systems, train cyber professionals, and choose technologies to meet our requirements directly impacts our ability to deliver credible capabilities to deter or contain conflict, and fight and win wars. Implementation and sustainment of this strategy will operationalize cyberspace with capabilities that span all warfighting domains and provide superior awareness and control when and where we need it. Executing this strategy will be hard work and will take a concerted effort at all echelons.

View the full Navy Cyber Power 2020 Strategic Plan.

By John Liang
November 29, 2012 at 8:07 PM

The White House Office of Management and Budget is threatening to recommend a presidential veto if portions of the Senate version of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill remain unchanged.

In a statement of administration policy released this afternoon, OMB says:

While there are numerous areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration has serious concerns with provisions that: (1) depart from the President's FY 2013 Budget request; (2) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to carry out their missions consistent with the new defense strategy; and (3) limit key authorities of the Executive.  If the bill is presented to the President for approval in its current form, the President's senior advisers would recommend that the President veto the bill.

Some additional excerpts:

Structure of the Air Force: The Administration strongly objects to Title XVII, which would place limitations on funding to be used to divest, retire, or transfer units of the Air National Guard or Air Force Reserve, in addition to creating a commission to study the appropriate makeup of the Air Force.  These provisions would force DOD to operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are in excess to national security requirements, as defined by the new defense strategy, and are not affordable in an austere budget environment. They also would impair the ability of the Secretary to manage the Department and, by retaining large numbers of under-resourced aircraft in the fleet in today's fiscally constrained environment, could contribute to a hollow force. . . .

Alternative Fuels: The Administration strongly objects to sections 313 and 2823, which would limit DOD's ability to procure alternative fuels for military applications.  Section 313 is overly broad and has the potential to restrict investments by making price the sole factor in determining if DOD could use an alternative fuel, without any consideration of military capability, mission, or circumstances contributing to long-term energy security.  Section 2823 would limit DOD's ability to contribute to the development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive advanced drop-in biofuels at a commercial scale.  Such a capability, pursued in collaboration with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, would help insulate the Nation, as well as the military, against potential supply disruptions.

Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS): The Administration strongly objects to section 236, which would prohibit the use of funds for the MEADS program.  If the Congress does not appropriate FY 2013 funding, there is a high likelihood that this action would be perceived by our partners, Italy and Germany, as breaking our commitment under the Memorandum of Understanding.  This could harm our relationship with our allies on a much broader basis, including future multinational cooperative projects.  It also could prevent the completion of the agreed Proof of Concept activities, which would provide data archiving, analysis of testing, and software development necessary to harvest technology from U.S. and partner investments in MEADS.

View the full statement.

By John Liang
November 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee today confirmed Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford to become the next head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan as well as commander of the International Security Assistance Force.

Dunford's confirmation was one of 285 military nominations "approved by voice vote in a single en bloc vote," according to a committee statement, which adds: "All nominations were immediately reported to the floor following the committee's action."

Check out Dunford's responses to advance questions at his confirmation hearing earlier this month.

By John Liang
November 29, 2012 at 4:17 PM

The Senate voted yesterday to eliminate a measure in the pending fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that would have blocked the Defense Department from purchasing biofuels and other alternative fuels if they cost more than conventional fossil fuels, pushing back against an attempt to blunt the administration's high-profile initiative to bolster commercial deployment of cleaner fuels, according to a Clean Energy Report blog post:

With support from DOD, the Senate voted 62-37 to strike section 313 from the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, one of two controversial biofuels prohibitions in the bill.

Section 313, sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) during the Armed Services Committee mark-up of the bill, would have barred DOD from purchasing or producing alternative fuels if their cost exceeded the cost of producing or purchasing traditional fossil fuels, except in cases where DOD was purchasing limited quantities of alternative fuels to complete engine or fleet certification of 50/50 blends in research and development efforts.

But the provisions drew opposition from DOD, which has been a leader in the federal government in testing alternative fuels such as biofuels and moving toward their increased use. The Navy in particular has led the way, including among its priorities deployment of a "Great Green Fleet" in 2016.

Last month, DOD urged Congress to strip the language because it would "restrict the department's ability to contribute to the development of a domestic capability to produce cost-competitive advanced drop-in biofuels on a commercial scale, which is vitally important to our long-term national security." Its appeal added that "such a capability could increase the department's resilience against potential supply disruptions and price volatility of petroleum products."

In addition, a bipartisan group of 38 senators signed a Nov. 16 letter to Senate leadership, voicing their opposition to the two biofuels restrictions in the defense bill.

Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), who led the effort on the Senate floor to strike section 313, echoed the DOD arguments, saying the department's biofuels program gives the military flexibility and aids in national security, military readiness, and helps wean the country off of foreign oil and aids in job growth.

"Our military is on the cutting edge technologically, but much of our fighting capability relies on foreign fossil fuels and decades-old power systems. That dependence has very real human and economic costs," Udall said in a press statement immediately following the vote. "Today's strong bipartisan vote affirms that we should allow our military leaders to continue to develop and use advanced alternative fuels in order to bring down costs and improve mission capabilities."

"Energy security and national security are inseparable, and our military is taking a necessary leadership role in developing and employing new technologies," Udall said earlier in a statement on the amendment.

Senate environment committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) also sought to strike the prohibition, saying the military opposes the language and that it could even prevent DOD from purchasing commercial biofuels, such as E-85 ethanol.

"The Department of Defense has flex-fuel vehicles in its fleet that can run on E-85," she said. Further, "it would restrict DOD's efforts to develop technologies to generate fuel at tactical locations, including waste to energy. These are precisely the types of technologies the nation should be investing in."

But Inhofe and other supporters of section 313 argued that the department's biofuels plan is a misplaced and expensive clean energy agenda. "I fully support development and use of alternative fuels, including biofuels, but not at the expense of the military," said Inhofe, who is slated to become the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee.

He argued during the floor debate the Energy Department should be experimenting on biofuels, not the military. "With a military budget that continues to decrease, where is the Navy going to get additional funding to pay its biofuel bill?" he said, contending the cost of these fuels is four times or in some cases one hundred times the amount as other fuels.

And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who Inhofe is replacing as the military committee's ranking Republican, had argued in a July letter that it is inappropriate for the military to be using operations and maintenance funds provided by Congress to equip and train military personnel and operate and repair facilities to purchase costly biofuels for a "demonstration."

But Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), who is slated to become the new chair of the energy committee, rejected GOP concerns about the DOD fuels program's costs, saying that the defense biofuels initiative was not an "either/or proposition because my view is that an investment in energy efficiency and in energy self-sufficiency is hugely important to protecting our country’s national security in a dangerous time."

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) has said the conference process with the House would start immediately following the Senate's passage of the defense bill.

For more military fuel news, check out InsideDefense.com's Defense Energy Alert.

By John Liang
November 28, 2012 at 10:51 PM

As expected, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) will keep the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee.

In a committee statement issued late this afternoon, the House Republican Conference decided to keep McKeon as panel chairman and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) as vice chairman.

"I am honored that my colleagues have chosen me to continue to lead one of the most productive and bi-partisan committees in the House. America's military faces unprecedented challenges around the world. Our troops bear a heavy burden, fatigued after a decade of tough fighting, while confronted with new security threats abroad and dwindling resources here at home," McKeon said in the statement. "Members of the Committee, both Republicans and Democrats, must come together next year to allocate appropriate resources to our national defense, meet future threats, ensure a stable and secure transition in Afghanistan, and honor our commitments to service members and their families."

"The Armed Services Committee has a long history of building a bi-partisan national security consensus. We have talented and energetic members on both sides of the aisle who lead their parties and the nation in defending our freedom. I look forward to working with Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) as we face these challenges together," McKeon continued.