The Insider

Intel Amendments
By John Liang
May 31, 2012 at 2:55 PM

The House Rules Committee last night released the amendments submitted for the fiscal year 2013 intelligence authorization bill. Among them:

* An amendment submitted by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) that would "require a threat assessment for cyber threats to critical infrastructure."

* An amendment submitted by Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) that would "require the Director of National Intelligence to submit to the congressional intelligence committees a report containing an assessment of the consequences of a military strike against Iran within 60 days."

Calling All Payloads
By Jason Sherman
May 30, 2012 at 8:40 PM

The Pentagon is asking for ideas on potential satellite payloads for an upcoming launch of the new "Super Strypi" system run by the Operationally Responsive Space (ORS) Office, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM.

The ORS office hopes to reach government or government-sponsored organizations “that would be interested in flying on this mission,” according to a May 24 Federal Business Opportunities notice. “If you have a payload/space vehicle that meets the requirements . . . and the orbit is acceptable, have your government sponsor contact the ORS Office.”

The planned August 2013 launch will be held at the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii.

Fueling Up
By Sebastian Sprenger
May 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM

The Defense Logistics Agency last Friday announced a slate of contracts with fuel suppliers, which totaled $2.4 billion. Leading the pack of nine vendors, with a $782 million deal, is BP West Coast Products, a subsidiary of the British oil giant BP, according to a May 25 Defense Department statement. All contracts cover a period of performance until Jan. 30, 2013.

The military's fuel consumption has come into focus in recent years. Leaders have sought to make weapon systems more energy efficient, arguing that gas guzzlers degrade their capability on the battlefield. As a result, the Pentagon has pushed for greater use of renewable sources and non-petroleum-based fuels. But this month, House and Senate authorizers -- most of them Republicans -- have pushed back against the idea during deliberations on the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bills.

Also of note is the unforeseen cost of powering the Afghanistan war. Because the military has been barred from using the least expensive resupply method -- trucking fuel in through Pakistan -- the added cost sending in the commodity by air is eating into an already strained budget.

Guardedly Optimistic
By Maggie Ybarra
May 25, 2012 at 5:17 PM

The National Governors Association is applauding a Senate Armed Services Committee decision to include language in its fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill that would protect the National Guard from what the association sees as “disproportionate and damaging reductions.”

Ever since the Air Force rolled out an FY-13 budget request calling for the retirement of hundreds of aircraft, most of them flown by the Air National Guard, the Council of Governors (COG), the National Governors Association (NGA) and various adjutant generals have protested against the strategy. Congress has pushed back against the Air Force plan, with the Senate Armed Services Committee flexing its muscles this week by recommending the creation of a “National Commission on the Structure of the Air Force.”

In a May 25 statement, NGA praised committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) for the move. Levin, during a May 24 press conference on the mark-up, told reporters that the Air Force's drawdown plan for its Guard component was “way out of proportion.”

“The nation's governors are encouraged by the Senate Armed Services Committee's work to protect the Air National Guard from disproportionate and damaging reductions," NGA's statement reads. "Governors are particularly appreciative of the work of Committee Chairman Michigan Sen. Carl Levin and Ranking Member Arizona Sen. John McCain, as well as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin for their efforts to preserve Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve aircraft and personnel at fiscal year 2012 levels for fiscal year 2013."

In April, NGA sent a strongly worded letter to Levin and McCain, as well as House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA), essentially asking them to sustain FY-12 funding levels for the Air National Guard.

As for the House, authorizers included language in their defense authorization bill that would protect the Guard from the service's force structure strategy. That language would forbid the Air Force from using FY-13 funds to retire, divest, realign or transfer its aircraft.

NGA noted in its statement that both bills, though varying in language, would provide adequate protection against the proposed force structure cuts. “The Senate Committee action follows adoption of similar protections for the Air National Guard that were included in the bill passed by the House last week,” NGA said. “Both bills provide a path to meet fiscal responsibilities while protecting the aircraft and personnel necessary to fulfill the Guard's critical mission at home and abroad.”

The language in the bills “gives governors and the Department of Defense the opportunity to put a process in place for 2014 that recognizes the cost-effectiveness and value of the Guard,” NGA added.

During a May 23 hearing, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) questioned the force structure strategy, asking Air National Guard Director Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt if he was consulted before the Air Force made its final decision on the strategy.

“We were encouraged to make our inputs, and we did so,” Wyatt said. “In fact, we exercised that encouragement rather vociferously inside the Air Force corporate process. We did present the alternatives to the Air Force, alternatives to the [FY-13 president's budget] as it officially came out.”

Wyatt said the Air National Guard's leadership offered several alternatives for meeting the budget and operational demands of the Air Force. Some of those alternatives were accepted, he said, adding that most of them were not.

“I think [Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton] Schwartz has accurately described the process when he said that there were very difficult decisions for the Air Force to make,” Wyatt said. “He encouraged open debate. I engaged openly in that debate and made my inputs. But in the end, the final decision is left to he chief and the secretary and many of the recommendations and alternatives that we proposed were not adopted, but we respect the difficult decisions that the chief and the secretary had to make.”

Roll Call
By John Liang
May 25, 2012 at 3:28 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee this morning released the results of the seven roll call votes taken during yesterday's mark-up of the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill.

Among them was an 18-8 vote to keep full committee mark-ups closed to the public, something Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has opposed for the past few years.

Another vote involved authorizing the use of Defense Department funds for abortion in cases of rape and incest (passed 16-10). The panel also voted on alternative fuel issues and unfunded priorities.

To view the full list, click here.

Planning Purposes
By Christopher J. Castelli
May 24, 2012 at 4:45 PM

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little today downplayed the need to plan for the imposition of sequestration under the Budget Control Act. "There's not a whole lot of planning, quite frankly, that we'd do because it's an across-the-board cut,” Little said. “I've heard it described as a haircut by senior department officials. You know, there's not a whole of planning you have to do."

When pressed on the notion that sequestration could be implemented without a plan, he added, “We would have to obviously take steps to deal with the consequences of sequestration and for prospective reductions in resources and personnel. . . . We haven't started it yet.” Asked whether that might change before the end of the year, Little said, “I'm not aware of any changes to this point. We're going to have to see where the process takes us. The focus is on trying to avoid sequestration. We do expect at some point to have to deal with if it's starting to look us straight in the face.”

Little declined to comment on the prospect of defense cuts totaling $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, a scenario described in a new Center for Strategic and International Studies assessment due out today. He defended the Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 budget request and the accompanying strategy that was rolled out in January. "No one to my knowledge has really picked apart that strategy, including on Capitol Hill,” Little said. “People seem to recognize that it's a sound approach to dealing with what we need to do to address the national security challenges of the future. Now, when it comes to the budget side and how that strategy is implemented, I understand that people have disagreements. We recognize that.”

Inside the Pentagon reported on the CSIS findings today:

CSIS: DOD Likely Faces Cuts In $1.2 Trillion To $1.5 Trillion Range

The drawdown facing the Defense Department in the next decade will likely total $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion, exceeding the Budget Control Act's sequestration scenario, according to a new report that criticizes the Pentagon's failure to plan for the cuts as a high-stakes gamble.

The department will likely face not only budget cuts but also a "weakening defense dollar in terms of purchasing power as measured by military capability," states the Center for Strategic and International Studies' report on planning for a deep defense drawdown, due to be released today.

Perpetually rising costs within DOD are "eroding the purchasing power of the defense dollar," Clark Murdock, the report's author, told Inside the Pentagon. Murdock said his initial estimate is these internal costs are inflating at a rate of roughly 7 percent annually.

Today's interim report, informed by a working group of 30 leading defense and budget analysts, lays out a seven-step approach for determining which military capabilities must be retained and developed in the face of deep defense budget cuts. This includes an analytic way to categorize capabilities as must-have, nice-to-have, and unnecessary. In November, CSIS plans to issue a final report that recommends four to five distinct force mixes, each reflecting different potential long-term investment strategies.

Life-Cycle Logistics Leader
By John Liang
May 24, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Frank Kendall, the Defense Department's acting acquisition chief, has appointed a new point person for life-cycle logistics within the Pentagon workforce.

Kendall has tapped Sue Dryden, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for materiel readiness, to be the life-cycle logistics "functional leader," according to an April 6 memo.

The memo also includes an updated list of all of the Pentagon's functional leaders. Some of those include DOD Strategic and Tactical Systems Director David Ahern, who oversees acquisition management; Performance Assessments and Root Cause Analyses Director Gary Bliss, for earned value management; and Developmental Test and Evaluation Director Edward Greer, for the test and evaluation functional area.

To view the memo containing the updated list of functional leaders, click here.

OCO Shrinkage
By John Liang
May 23, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Overseas contingency operations funding may shrink faster than some folks think, according to a new research note from Credit Suisse analysts issued today. Here's the summary:

NATO Leadership Affirms Withdrawal of Almost All Allied Troops by End of 2014; Result Is Likely End to Most OCO Funding with War's Conclusion in Late-CY14: Yesterday, NATO Leadership issued a joint declaration confirming ISAF/NATO transition to Afghan forces of all combat missions by mid-2013 and withdrawal of NATO troops by end of 2014. The declaration in essence supports President Obama's plan of completing the drawdown by the end of CY14. While Obama's commitment to ending the war has been largely anticipated at this stage by investors, these actions suggest a strong possibility that OCO funding will aggressively contract from the $89B FY13 request to well below the OMB/DOD plan for sustained $44.2B in OCO per year between FY14 and FY22. The comments imply no OCO funding beyond Q1 of FY’15.

More of a Surprise for Contractors than Investors: While this may be obvious to most investors, it appears many contractors have been relying on continued OCO as per the existing budget materials. We have been expecting a sharp decline in OCO funding, but believe most contractors have been relying on the $44.2b annual wedge being used by both OMB and the DoD Comptroller. The $89B in the FY13 OCO request pays for 70k U.S. troops at a cost of $1.3M each. The FY14 placeholder of $44.2B projects a 50.3% drawdown in FY14. This would fund 34k troops at $1.3M each. We assume a more realistic FY14 OCO is $39B-$46B for 30-35k troops. Also, we assume FY15 OCO of $10-11B for the final period of Oct to Dec 2014, plus ~$2.7B for U.S funding of the Afghan National Security Forces (Army Police), translating to a total FY15 OCO of $11-15B. Army & Marines will also likely request temporary RESET funding, with Army focus on 2015-2016 and USMC on 2014-2015. Recent congressional hearings suggest Army is identifying worst-case ceiling of ~$20-23B in RESET total costs, while USMC is projecting ~$3.2B in RESET costs after combat ends.

Primary Impact to O&M; Secondary to Procurement: O&M and procurement account for 72% & 11% of OCO funding respectively. The biggest impact would be to Army, which consumes $50B (56% of FY13 OCO request), with Navy & Air Force likely to suffer less impact because each consumes ~16%. A faster ramp-down in OCO clearly impacts infrastructure, logistics and operations suppliers including KBR, Fluor, Bechtel and DynCorp, which have been feeding from the LogCap contract (Army logistics), but which have also already seen significant downward revenue and EBIT assumptions. It will also impact gov’t services providers such as MANT & CACI as brigades return from Afghanistan and the deployment cycle ends. Contracts such as Army S3 will slow materially.

RESET Directed to Rotary Likely to Be More Robust: This will be predominately directed at rotary wing aviation (Boeing/Sikorsky/Textron) and most radios. This RESET funding will likely be of short duration (2-3 years).

DSCA Deals
By John Liang
May 23, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency recently announced a pair of proposed significant foreign military sales, one to Australia and another to South Korea.

Australia is looking to upgrade 12 of its F/A-18F aircraft to the EA-18G Growler configuration, a deal worth up to $1.7 billion if Congress approves it, according to a May 22 DSCA statement, which adds:

Australia is an important ally in the Western Pacific. The strategic location of this political and economic power contributes significantly to ensuring peace and economic stability in the region. Australia's efforts in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations have made a significant impact to regional political and economic stability and have served U.S. national security interests. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives and facilitates burden sharing with our allies.

The proposed sale will improve Australia's capability in current and future coalition efforts. Australia will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Australia will have no difficulty absorbing this new capability into its armed forces.

The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

South Korea, for its part, seeks eight MH-60R Seahawk helicopters and associated equipment valued at $1 billion, along with a separate $84 million deal for 18 UGM-84L Harpoon Block II All-Up-Round Missiles and associated equipment.

According to the May 16 DSCA statement on the proposed Seahawk sale:

The Government of the Republic of Korea is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific and a key partner of the United States in ensuring peace and stability in that region. It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist our Korean ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability, which will contribute to an acceptable military balance in the area. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives.

The proposed sale of the MH-60R SEAHAWK helicopter will improve South Korea's capability to meet current and future threats from enemy Anti-Surface Warfare (ASW) capabilities. The sale of these MH-60R helicopters will enhance interoperability with U.S. Naval forces, and add to the military stability of the region. Korea will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces.

A fourth proposed sale announced this week concerns Bangladesh:

DSCA Statement On Proposed $180 Million C-130 Sale To Bangladesh

CRS On Precision Strike
By John Liang
May 22, 2012 at 4:24 PM

The Congressional Research Service recently issued a report  (originally obtained by Secrecy News) on the proliferation of precision strike capabilities around the world. According to the report's executive summary:

The United States took the early lead in the development of precision strike and has enjoyed a monopoly on these systems for over 20 years. However, many experts agree that the U.S. advantage is eroding as these systems spread. A demonstration of this proliferation occurred in 2006, when Hezbollah successfully used a Chinese-designed C-802 Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM) against an Israeli corvette off the coast of Lebanon. This event demonstrated a non-state terrorist organization’s successful use of precision strike technology. In addition, access to the global commons is fundamental to global commerce and security -- the proliferation of technology could threaten U.S. unfettered access.

Effective use of precision strike weapons goes beyond that of the weapon itself. The weapon is one part of a much greater, elaborate system of capabilities the actor must either possess or to which it must have access. Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR), in particular, plays a critical role in precision strike.

Many experts believe the proliferation of precision strike has already begun and will continue to accelerate as more and more countries continue to develop and purchase precision strike weaponry. Three such countries include China, Iran, and Russia. China’s recent military buildup and its strategy with an apparent focus on anti-access/area denial capabilities entails a number of precision strike weapon systems to include the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, which some defense analysts have labeled a "game changer." Iran, although at a much smaller and less elaborate scale, has also entered the precision-guided munitions regime with an outward belligerence toward closing the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, where 40% of the world's oil passes daily. Russia continues to supply arms to the international community and is focusing on developing its own fifth generation fighter comparable to the U.S. F-22 Raptor. Finally, a Russian defense company is currently marketing a new cruise missile system that can be hidden inside a standard shipping container. The housing of the system blends in with the hundreds of thousands of shipping containers used every day in carrying the world's commerce. Some defense experts have expressed fear that a weapon with such camouflage capability could give any merchant vessel the capability to wipe out an aircraft carrier.

The proliferation of precision strike creates potential issues for Congress. These issues include whether the Department of Defense (DOD) is properly taking adversary precision strike weapons into account in its own plans and programs, and whether Congress should approve, reject, or modify proposed DOD programs for responding to those weapons.

Check out our most recent precision strike coverage:

Key Changes Urged In Amphibious Ops To Counter Precision Weapons (Inside the Pentagon, May 10)

SOCOM Seeks Industry Input On Medium-Range Precision Strike System (Inside the Army, March 5)

DOCUMENT: SOCOM Request For Information On MRPSS

No BRAC Today
By Thomas Duffy
May 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM

The Senate Armed Services readiness subcommittee this morning strongly rejected the Obama administration's request for another round of military base closings in fiscal year 2013. Subcommittee Chairwoman Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) said the Pentagon has not convinced her that another BRAC round is needed.

The subcommittee marked up its portion of the FY-13 DOD authorization bill today in a public session -- the only open session the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold as it works through the authorization bill.

McCaskill said the subcommittee made only two additions to the DOD budget request: $59 million was added to the Defense Department inspector general's budget, and $21 million was added to the Pentagon's corrosion control program. McCaskill explained that based on the subcommittee's calculations the taxpayer will get a 22-to-1 return on the additional IG money and a 14-to-1 return on the extra corrosion money.

The subcommittee's mark caps operations and maintenance spending at $200 million and codifies Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's edict that the military services and defense agencies will have an audit of budgetary resources prepared by the end of FY-14, McCaskill said.

The full committee expects to complete the authorization bill mark-up by Thursday, according to the committee's website.

Bahrain Bound
By Megan Eckstein
May 21, 2012 at 8:30 PM

Navy Under Secretary Robert Work said at a Cato Institute event this afternoon that eight Littoral Combat Ships would be sent to Bahrain as mine countermeasures ships and patrol coastal ships are retired from the fleet.

While taking questions from reporters after the event, Work first asked that the exact number not be reported just yet, but since the event and his initial comments had been streamed live online and broadcast on C-SPAN, he confirmed the number.

"LCSs will be based in Bahrain," he said. "Ultimately, we hope to replace the PCs and the mine warfare vessels that are out there with eight LCSs. So just as they wash out of the fleet, eight LCSs will go out there. So instead of 10 PCs and four to eight mine warfare vessels, we have multirole vessels, you need fewer."

These eight ships would be in addition to four planned to be based in Singapore. Work said "we're certain to have LCSs in other places" but the Navy hasn't made formal plans for other foreign ports.

Biofuel Battle
By John Liang
May 21, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Biofuel proponents are gearing up for a major fight over Defense Department clean energy and alternative fuel policies when the Senate Armed Services Committee marks up the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill this week, as committee Republicans ready amendments to block DOD plans to purchase advanced biofuels, according to a story published in last week's Clean Energy Report:

The Senate mark-up follows House passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2013 on May 18, which would block DOD efforts to purchase advanced drop-in biofuels. House Republicans opposed the DOD effort over the program's cost and as a proxy attack on President Obama's clean energy and climate change agendas.

Sens. Mark Udall (D-CO) and Patty Murray (D-WA) will offer amendments in the Armed Services Committee that support DOD's biofuel development priorities, staffers say. Democrats are bracing for an effort by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), a vocal critic of DOD's biofuel efforts, to block all military purchases of drop-in fuels with an amendment similar to that of Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) that succeeded in the House.

Sources say Inhofe is readying several amendments to block the military's green energy programs. A spokesman for Inhofe says the senator is perplexed that the military plans to spend billions to buy expensive biofuels for its fleets, while DOD is cutting its budget for ships and planes.

Staffers for Udall and Murray briefed industry May 18 on their strategy to preserve the military's biofuel programs during a drop-in fuels forum hosted by the Agriculture Department that drew hundreds of industry representatives as well as staff from the Energy Department and DOD. The forum was part of series of briefings on a multi-agency effort to advance drop-in fuels, which the military eyes as an alternative to petroleum with characteristics that make it superior to other biofuels like ethanol.

A Udall staffer told the industry audience that Inhofe will offer amendments that may go beyond the Conaway amendment. The staffer said it was urgent for industry to show support for the DOD biofuels programs in the coming days, with messaging focused on economic gains that come from DOD's biofuel efforts, the energy security aspects of advanced drop-in fuels, and the support it provides to troops by reducing their vulnerabilities in fossil-fuel supply convoys.

"The attack has been, this is about the green agenda" and that it's a proxy for climate change legislation, said the staffer. But the debate over drop-in fuels needs to shift to, "this is going to win wars," it's about combat effectiveness, energy security and protection. "We have a fight on our hands . . . and a genuine debate needs to happen," the staffer added.

Udall has asked senior military officials to describe the problems posed by the Conaway amendment in an effort to counter that provision in the Senate, according to the staffer, who said Udall expects to get an answer back from the military soon. In the meantime, Udall staff are poring over the Conaway amendment "line by line" to understand it enough to effectively block it in the Senate version of NDAA 2013.

Reserve Hearing
By John Liang
May 21, 2012 at 12:00 PM

The Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee will hold a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday to look at the fiscal year 2013 budget for the military reserve forces. Slated to testify, according to a subcommittee statement, are:

Panel I

Gen. Craig R. McKinley, USAF

Chief, National Guard Bureau

LTG William E. Ingram, Jr., USA

Director, Army National Guard

Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, USAF

Director, Air National Guard

Panel II

LTG Jack Stultz, USA

Chief, Army Reserve

VADM Dirk Debbink, USN

Chief, Navy Reserve

Lt Gen Steven A. Hummer, USMC

Director, Reserve Affairs

Lt. Gen. Charles E. Stenner Jr., USAF

Chief, Air Force Reserve

Authorized
By John Liang
May 18, 2012 at 4:57 PM

House lawmakers just passed the fiscal year 2013 defense authorization bill by a 299-120 vote.

Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH) had this to say about the bill's passage:

This year House Republicans have continued to support our men and women in uniform while ensuring the safety and security of this nation. As the Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee I have sought to place an emphasis on a number of issues which are confronting our national security structure including: missile defense, modernization of our nuclear enterprise, and reform of bureaucratic entities such as the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Earlier this year, President Obama lifted the curtain on his 'secret deal' with the Russians. We still do not know the terms of this 'secret deal.' What does he mean that he will have greater 'flexibility' past his 'last election?' The White House has never made clear what deals it has been offering to the Russians, despite requests for such information by myself and my colleagues. The bill the House passed today will ensure this nation is protected from the threat of a missile attack. This includes the study of an East Coast missile defense site in order to prepare us for emerging threats across the globe.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate in crafting a final bill which will meet these goals and continue to see that our country remains ready to meet the threats of tomorrow, while providing for our defense today.

Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA):

This year's defense authorization bill helps meet my priorities as chairman: resolve sequestration, restore strategy and sanity to the defense budget, and rebuild our military after a decade of war.

In an era of austerity, it is critical that we carefully allocate every penny that goes to the Defense Department. This bill mandates fiscal responsibility within the Department of Defense, through sound fiscal stewardship, careful prioritization of resources, and reforming the way the Pentagon interacts with the defense industrial base. We’ve taken steps to ensure that competition is promoted for government contracts, worked to ease stresses on small businesses seeking to do business with the Armed Forces, and evaluated the military’s supply chains for weaknesses.

The bill also postures our Armed Forces for potential future threats. Despite a tough fiscal environment, we have provided our Armed Forces with the tools they need to win the war today and deter against the wars of tomorrow.

I am particularly proud of the fact that this bipartisan bill honors the service of our military personnel, veterans and their families. We have kept faith with our all-volunteer military, shielding our troops and veterans from inflated health care and retirement fees. They paid for those benefits with their service, and I am proud that we were able to protect our wartime military from unfair fiscal burdens.

The FY13 NDAA would not have been possible without the partnership and leadership of my friend, Ranking Member Adam Smith. I am also particularly grateful to our subcommittee chairmen, all the Committee members and our staff for their diligent efforts on behalf of the men and women of our armed services.

Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA):

I want to thank Chairman McKeon, all members of the House of Representatives and staff for their hard work on this important piece of legislation.

Overall, this bill prioritizes our troops deployed in Afghanistan and around the world by ensuring that they have the tools and resources they need to do their job and protect national security.  It also provides our troops and their families with the benefits and support that they deserve, including a 1.6 percent pay increase.

It continues to make counterterrorism a priority and makes significant investments in all branches of our Armed Services, ensuring that our military is prepared to meet the threats of today as well as the future.  It supports our troops as they continue to fight overseas, invests in new technologies for the future, and protects vital military equipment production capacity here at home.

However, I am troubled by the language throughout the bill that either relies too much on a large and extended combat mission in the case of Afghanistan or, simply, overly confrontational language in the cases of Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China, to name a few.

In many cases, the only thing preventing me from voting against this bill is the qualifying language.  For example, on Afghanistan, the bill requires 68,000 troops through the end of 2014 but then says “if necessary.”  On Iran, it calls for all avenues to be used including military force, but again, only "if necessary."

The language on Russia is particularly troubling.  Much of the rhetoric during debate on this bill echoed sentiments from 1982, when we were at the height of the Cold War. We are no longer in the Cold War, and we should not be treating Russia like an enemy.

On North Korea, the confrontational language went so far as to include a study that suggests deploying tactical nuclear weapons to the region.  This would be dangerous and reckless and could destabilize the entire region.

If this were binding language, I would have to vote against this bill.  Luckily, it is simply a statement of policy by the majority -- policies that I strongly disagree with.

Additionally, given the size of our debt and deficit and growing budgetary pressures, I am concerned the bill supports an overall defense budget that is roughly $8 billion over the Budget Control Act.  Congress made a commitment to get our budget under control, and I fully expect that the Senate will honor the Budget Control Act number.

The bill also includes provisions that discriminate against gay and lesbian service members.  For years, many members of our Armed Services had to hide who they were to fight for the country they love, and I am strongly opposed to efforts that seek to turn back the clock on the progress we have made in the name of equality.

The bill also takes a big step back on energy, by ending support for many kinds of alternative fuels which undermine our national security policy.  Our nation must decrease, if not eliminate, its reliance on imported fuels and maintain our leadership in this area.  China and many other nations are seeking to become leaders in this area, and the committee’s actions will set us back and risk our leadership in this arena.

Again, I supported his bill in its current form because we must support our troops while they are in harm's way.  We must ensure that they have the tools and resources they need to ensure national security and accomplish missions we ask of them.  However, there is still much more work to be done to address many of the issues with this bill.  I look forward to reviewing the Senate’s version of this bill and working with my colleagues here in the House to make sure we send the President a final bill that meets the high standards of the United States Armed Services.