Advanced search Help
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
State of the State Department and State Department Authorization, Hearing Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, First Session, October 27, 2021
This is the Ocotber 27, 2021 hearing on "State of the State Department and State Department Authorization," held before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. From the opening statement of Robert Menendez: "I think there is now broad and bipartisan consensus that we have reached a crisis point, and there is a bipartisan desire to address the core structural and resource issues that have too long plagued the [State] Department. With the Department being led by people such as yourself [Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Brian McKeon], who have dedicated so much of their careers to government service, I had been hoping to see a necessary effort to undertake a systematic reform and modernization effort. Today, I look forward to hearing specifics. What is your thinking about reforming and modernizing the department? Where do you see opportunities to ensure that resources are aligned with the department's missions? What are you doing to address the morale crisis and stem the loss of talented Foreign Service and Civil Service officers? As the Administration continues to deemphasize our military presence around the world, where is the necessary diplomatic counterweight?" Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Brian McKeon.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2022
-
Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media, Virtual Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, First Session, February 24, 2021
This is the February 24, 2021 hearing on "Fanning the Flames: Disinformation and Extremism in the Media," held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement of Mike Doyle: "Today we are talking about media outlets, such as cable news, broadcast news, and radio, and the role they play in disseminating disinformation and fomenting extremism. My hope is that our witnesses can help this subcommittee understand the current media ecosystem, how we got here, and potential solutions." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Soledad O'Brien, Jonathan Turley, Kristin Danielle Urquiza, and Emily Bell.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2022
-
Status of the United States Strategic Forces, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, March 2, 2011
From the opening statement of Michael Turner: "Today's hearing provides our subcommittee with the opportunity to review the status of U.S. strategic forces. Since last year's strategic posture hearing a number of notable events have occurred, and several new policy documents have been released that affect our Nation's strategic posture and which ultimately frame the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Loretta Sanchez, Michael Turner, C. Robert Kehler, James N. Miller, Keith B. Payne, and William J. Perry.
United States. Government Printing Office
2011
-
Why Congress Needs to Abolish the Debt Limit, Hearing Before the Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, Second Session, February 16, 2022
This is the February 16, 2022 hearing on "Why Congress Needs to Abolish the Debt Limit," held before the U.S. House Committee on the Budget. From the opening statement of John A. Yarmuth: "The debt ceiling now plays an outsized role in our politics and congressional deliberations--something that was never intended. This century-old law was created to make borrowing easier, not harder. Its misuse has already jeopardized our ongoing recovery once, and now threatens the future of our economy and the American people. We will get into the details of why we think it needs to be abolished during this hearing, but because I cannot think of another provision of budget law that has been as misused, misunderstood, and misrepresented as much as the debt limit, I want to lay down the facts right away. [...] [A]s long as the debt limit remains in place, there is a direct threat to our entire economy, and Congress is becoming less and less capable of defusing it. It is time to abolish the debt ceiling. I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses who will share their expert analysis and first-hand experience with the costs and risks of this outdated law." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Laura Blessing, Louise Sheiner, LaJuanna Russell, and Mick Mulvaney.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2022
-
LIFT America: Modernizing Our Infrastructure for the Future, Hearing Before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, First Session, May 22, 2019
This is the May 22, 2019 hearing on "LIFT [Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's] America: Modernizing Our Infrastructure for the Future," held before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce. From the opening statement of Frank Pallone, Jr.: "Two of our committee's top priorities are strengthening the economy and combating climate change. One of the best ways for Congress to address both of these priorities now is by rebuilding and modernizing our Nation's crumbling infrastructure. [...] [W]e are discussing the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act, or the LIFT America Act, which was introduced last week by all 31 committee Democrats. This is a comprehensive bill that addresses critical infrastructure needs across our entire committee's jurisdiction. It will strengthen our economy for the future by creating good-paying jobs and investing in critical clean energy, broadband, drinking water, and healthcare infrastructure. So as we continue to develop a comprehensive plan to address climate change, there are many actions we can take now to reduce carbon pollution immediately." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Brian Wahler, Mignon L. Clyburn, Jessica Eckdish, Daniel A. Lyons, Christopher Guith, and John Auerbach.
United States. Government Publishing Office
2022
-
Current Status and Future Direction for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy and Posture, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, First Session, Hearing Held November 2, 2011
This is the November 2, 2011 hearing on "The Current Status and Future Direction for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy and Posture," held before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces. From the opening statement of Henry J. Hyde: "In general, this new and multi-faceted initiative with India has been termed a global partnership, and has been widely hailed as a bold and encouraging development. I personally know of no one who is not in favor of improved relations and enhanced cooperation between the United States and India, which, to my mind and that of many others, is long overdue. Such disagreement as exists on this subject centers primarily on its perceived importance in strategic terms, and on the depth and extent of the anticipated cooperation. Some see a nascent and far-reaching alliance between our two countries that will have a dramatic, perhaps even transforming, geostrategic impact. Others place this new relationship in a more modest context, viewing it as a useful endeavor, but far from heralding a fundamental change in the nature of our relationship, or in the balance of power in Asia." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Loretta Sanchez, Michael Turner, Thomas P. D'Agostino, C. Robert Kehler, James N. Miller, Ellen O. Tauscher, James R. Langevin, Mo Brooks, John C. Fleming, Trent Franks, Doug Lamborn. and Austin Scott.
United States. Government Printing Office
2012
-
Fact Sheet: DHS Efforts to Assist Ukrainian Nationals
From the Document: "Following Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is providing support and humanitarian relief to Ukrainian nationals in need both in the United States and abroad. To protect Ukrainians residing in the U.S., the Secretary of Homeland Security designated Ukraine for Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for 18 months. This will allow Ukrainians here since March 1, 2022 to stay and apply for employment authorization in the U.S. To provide pathways to the United States for Ukrainians seeking refuge, DHS is working to expand current legal pathways and develop new programs in support of the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to displaced Ukrainians. We are coordinating our efforts closely with our European allies and partners who are on the frontlines of this humanitarian crisis." This fact sheet covers legal pathways for eligible Ukrainians, TPS, asylum, the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, humanitarian parole, and special situations and expedited processing.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
2022-03-31?
-
Future Force: Naval Science and Technology Magazine (Volume 8 No. 1, 2022)
From the Document: "Future Force is a professional magazine of the naval science and technology community. Published quarterly by the Office of Naval Research, its purpose is to inform readers about basic and applied research and advanced technology development efforts funded by the Department of the Navy." This Issue of Future Force features the following articles: "Office of Naval Research:75+ Years of the Office of Technological Advantage" by Lorin Selby; "The Small, the Agile, and the Many: Reimagine Naval Power" by Lorin Selby; "DARTE [Digital Aviation Readiness Technology Engine]: Making Aviation Readiness More Predictable" by Benjamin Michlin, Dean Lee, Phu Thoi, Josh Duclos, Jamal Rorie, Gary Williams, Jazlynn Wied, and Andrew Sabater; "Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren Division Leads with Innovation" By Diana Stefko, Caleb Gardner, and Elliot Carter; "FLIP [Floating Instrument Platform] Stood Tall for Ocean Science" by Edward Lundquist; "Digital Adaptive Optics: Through the Blur" by Kyle Drexler and Skylar Lilledahl; "Crane Engineer Receives Award for Research on Rare, Superior Metal" by Sarah K. Miller; and "Division Newport Uses Prize Challenges to Advance Undersea Warfare" by Evan Crawley.
United States. Office of Naval Research
2022
-
Navy TAGOS(X) Ocean Surveillance Shipbuilding Program: Background and Issues for Congress [Updated March 29, 2022]
From the Introduction: "The Navy wants to procure in FY2022 the first of a planned new class of seven TAGOS [Tactical Auxiliary General Ocean Surveillance](X) ocean surveillance ships. The Navy's proposed FY2022 budget requested $434.4 million for the procurement of the first TAGOS(X)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
O'Rourke, Ronald
2022-03-29
-
2013 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Hearing Held Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, November 20, 2013
This is the November 20, 2013 hearing on "Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission," held before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee. From the opening statement of Howard P. 'Buck' McKeon: "I would like to welcome everyone to today's hearing on the 2013 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. This hearing is part of a larger oversight effort focus on the Asia-Pacific rebalance led by Mr. Forbes and Ms. Hanabusa, who are providing strong bipartisan leadership on this important topic. We have met with the U.S. Pacific Command officials and last week heard from key ambassadors representing allied and partner nations. However, we cannot consider the rebalance without examining China." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Carolyn Bartholomew, William A. Reinsch, Dennis C. Shea and Larry M. Wortzel.
United States. Government Printing Office
2014
-
Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Acquisition, Programming, and the Industrial Base: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, Hearing Held February 28, 2013
This is the February 28, 2013 hearing on "Impacts of a Continuing Resolution and Sequestration on Acquisition, Programming, and the Industrial Base," held before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Committee on Armed Services. From the opening statement of Michael R. Turner: "The Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today in open session to receive testimony on the impacts of sequestration and the continuing resolution, CR, its impacts on acquisition, programming, and the industrial base. […] Today, we plan to leverage the information gained from that hearing and provide our members with the opportunity to gain a better understanding of how the CR and sequestration would impact defense acquisition, programs, projects and activities, and their associated industrial bases across the country. One of the most tragic aspects of our current situation is that sequestration was never supposed to happen, and there were numerous opportunities to avoid it. By laying out the details of the impacts of sequestration, the Department of Defense could have helped us in our education campaign to avoid the catastrophic cuts we are now facing." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Loretta Sanchez, Michael R. Turner, Charles R. Davis, Michael R. Moeller, Heidi Shyu, James O. Barclay, Sean J. Stackley, Allen G. Myers, John E. Wissler, and Daniel B. Maffei.
United States. Government Printing Office
2013
-
Back from the Battlefield: DOD and VA Collaboration to Assist Service Members Returning to Civilian Life, Joint Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services Meeting Jointly with Committee on Veterans' Affairs [Serial No. 112-71], House of Representatives, One Hundred Twelfth Congress, Second Session, July 25, 2012
This is the July 25, 2012 hearing on "Back from the Battlefield: DOD and VA Collaboration to Assist Service Members Returning to Civilian Life," held before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services and the U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. From the opening statement of Howard P. McKeon: "Good morning. The committee will come to order. Good morning, I welcome everyone for this special joint hearing with the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Our focus is the collaboration between the Department of Defense [DOD] and the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to assist service members transitioning to civilian life. We have two of America's leaders with us, Secretary Panetta and Secretary Shinseki, to discuss how we as a Nation can best serve those who have served us in uniform. […] Today's hearing demonstrates our joint longstanding commitment that there be no gap in services and support provided to our service members and their families as they transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs. […] The transition that service members experience from active service into civilian life must be improved. Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan know that the hardships don't end when they leave the war zone. We in Congress are painfully aware that at this very moment 26,000 service members are in the midst of the disability evaluation process and are forced to wait over 400 days on average before they can return home to their communities." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Bob Filner, Howard P. McKeon, Jeff Miller, Adam Smith, Leon E. Panetta, Eric K. Shinseki, Ann Marie Buerkle, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Cooper, Trent Franks, John R. Garamendi, Larry Kissell, James R. Langevin, Dave Loebsack, and Bobby Schilling.
United States. Government Printing Office
2013
-
Information Technology Investments and Programs: Supporting Current Operations and Planning for the Future Threat Environment, Hearing Before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services, One Hundred Fourteenth Congress, First Session, February 25, 2015
This testimony compilation is from the February 25, 2015 hearing, "Information Technology Investments and Programs: Supporting Current Operations and Planning for the Future Threat Environment," before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services. From Terry Halvorsen's testimony: "Today I would like to provide you with an overview of the Department's IT [Information Technology] budget, the importance of IT and cybersecurity to our warfighting and business missions, and what we are doing to better manage DoD's IT spend to get more out of each and every dollar. I will highlight the Department's progress in implementing the Joint Information Environment (JIE) -- specifically the Joint Regional Security Stacks (JRSS), efforts to strengthen the IT investment review and requirements management process, how we are improving relations with industry, as well as strengthening the IT workforce." Statements, letters and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Terry Halvorsen, Robert Ferrell, William Bender, John Zangardi, Kevin Nally and Ted Branch.
United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services
2015-02-25
-
Addition of Trainers to Iraq: Background for Congress [June 16, 2015]
"Responding to recent setbacks in Iraq and Syria in the fight against the Islamic State organization (IS, aka ISIL/ISIS/Daesh), on June 10, 2015, President Obama authorized the deployment of an additional 450 troops to train, advise, and assist the Iraqi Security Forces. These U.S. forces are to join the 3,100 already in theater, which would bring the total number of U.S. forces in Iraq up to approximately 3,550. Approximately half of those additional forces would advise the 8th Iraqi Division on the use of its ground forces and help build connections between the government in Baghdad and local Sunni tribes in Anbar province. The other half are to perform logistic and force protection functions. Reflecting the shift in the campaign's center of gravity away from Mosul in northern Iraq, new troops are to be based in Anbar Province at Taqaddum, an Iraqi air base situated between Ramadi and Fallujah. This would be the fifth training site established in the counter-IS campaign; U.S. trainers are also operating out of Al-Asad, Besmaya, Irbil, and Taji. The deployments appear to be evolving into a 'lily-pad' basing footprint across the country. As of May 21, 2015, the United States spent upwards of $2.57 billion on military operations in Iraq and Syria since August 2014; the average daily cost of counter-IS operations in both Iraq and Syria was $9.0 million."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2015-06-16
-
Future of the Army in Domestic Operations: A Strategy for the 21st Century
"The issue of whether or not the Army should be involved in support of domestic operations continues to be a controversial one. As this debate continues, there is ample evidence to demonstrate that the Army has a long standing history of providing support to the nation. It is within reason to expect that the Army will continue to do so in the future if the nation's leadership continues to focus on the domestic agenda. Despite the fact that the military has played a significant role in the development of the nation, there has never been a stated strategy or policy for the employment of military forces in the domestic arena. With a smaller force and a reduced budget in the future, we can ill afford to continue without such a strategy. This paper outlines some components of a domestic strategy for the employment of military forces. In doing so, the author examines the historical roles and limitations of the military in the domestic arena. In addition, he identifies the domestic challenges and threats that the nation currently faces, as well as some military assets that may be used to address those threats. A key issue is that, unlike any other time in recent history, the country has the opportunity to utilize wisely some of the Army's resources to promote domestic prosperity."
Army War College (U.S.)
Austin, Lloyd J. (Lloyd James), 1953-
1997
-
Interview of the Vice President by Jonathan Karl, ABC News [December 17, 2008]
This document is a White House Press Office transcript of the interview of Vice President Cheney on December 17, 2008 by Jonathan Karl of ABC News. Issues discussed include: terrorism, law enforcement, Guantanamo Bay, President-elect Obama, Biden, and the economic situation.
United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary
Cheney, Richard B.
2008-12-17
-
Interview of Vice President Cheney by Kelly O'Donnell, NBC News [May 7, 2006]
In this interview by Kelly O'Donnell, Vice President Cheney talks about Porter Goss's departure from the CIA, U.S. relations with Russia, issues with Iran, and topics regarding Iraq.
United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary
Cheney, Richard B.
2006-05-07
-
Vice President Cheney's Remarks at a Rally for the Minnesota National Guard [May 15, 2006]
In this speech by Vice President Cheney, he gives his appreciation for the National Guard and speaks about their different roles in the security of the United States in the face of natural disasters as well as in confronting terrorist threats.
United States. Office of the White House Press Secretary
Cheney, Richard B.
2006-05-15
-
China's Industrial and Military Robotics Development
"China's commercial and military robotics industries are rapidly growing in size and quality as the country upgrades its manufacturing sector and military capabilities. In 2013, China surpassed Japan to become the world's largest market for industrial robots, and by 2018 will account for over a third of the industrial robots installed worldwide. China's military is also fielding larger numbers of increasingly capable unmanned systems in the air, land, and sea domains that may bolster its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. To support both commercial and military systems, China is investing heavily in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and nanotechnology that will fundamentally change the capabilities of these systems. The growth of China's robotics industry presents opportunities and challenges to U.S. economic and security interests. Chinese demand for industrial robots and high-end robotic components as well as U.S.-China bilateral investment in AI research all present market and collaboration opportunities for the United States. However, industrial robots may also improve the competitiveness and quality of China's manufacturing sector, erode U.S. competitive advantages, and contribute to China's defense industrial capabilities. The Chinese military's deployment of increasingly capable unmanned systems may provide A2/AD capabilities that degrade the U.S. military's ability to operate freely in the Western Pacific. Chinese countermeasures against unmanned systems are also an under studied subject that may complicate the U.S. military's increasing deployments of such weapons as part of the Third Offset strategy. China's persistent acquisition of foreign technologies through illicit, informal, and formal means extends to robotics and may jeopardize many U.S. technological advantages."
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Ray, Jonathan; Atha, Katie; Francis, Edward . . .
2016-10
-
DOD and VA Collaboration to Assist Service Members Returning to Civilian Life, Joint Hearing with HASC Before the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, First Session, July 10, 2013
This is the July 10, 2013 hearing on "DOD and VA [Department of Veteran Affairs] Collaboration to Assist Service Members Returning to Civilian Life," held before the U.S. House Committee on Armed Services and the U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. From the opening statement of Jeff Miller: "We are going to jointly review the collaborative efforts of the DoD and VA, as it pertains to servicemembers and their transition from active duty, to civilian life. A year ago, we were privileged to have both Secretaries Panetta and Shinseki at the witness table, and both of them testified at great length regarding the progress VA and DoD were making in several key areas. And what I would like to do this morning first is to revisit those areas in my opening statement. First, the progress made in developing an integrated electronic health record. Secondly, the progress that has been made in reducing the wait times associated with VA disability claims, which necessarily does involve cooperation from DoD in the transfer of records." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Frank Kendall and Stephen W. Warren.
United States. Government Printing Office
2014
-
Security Cooperation: Comparison of Proposed Provisions for the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) [November 1, 2016]
"During the lame duck session, the 114th Congress is expected to consider various provisions in the annual defense authorization bill that address U.S. security sector cooperation. If enacted, the FY2017 [Fiscal Year 2017] National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) could significantly alter the way in which the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) engages and partners with foreign security forces. [...] Some of the proposed provisions in the FY2017 NDAA have broad appeal, while others have emerged as flashpoints in a larger debate over DOD's role in security sector assistance. The FY2017 NDAA also raises questions over whether security cooperation policy architecture is adequately structured to meet current and evolving requirements and whether the mechanisms of congressional oversight are adequately tailored to current levels of activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Rosen, Liana W.; McInnis, Kathleen J.; Skorupski, Bolko J. . . .
2016-11-01
-
How Big Should the Army Be? Considerations for Congress [September 2, 2016]
"The House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2017 authorized differing levels for active duty personnel in each of the services, but these authorizations diverge most significantly with respect to the Army. The Senate version of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act approved Army end strength of 460,000 soldiers, while the House version approved an Army end strength of 480,000. The Senate figure represents a decrease of 15,000 soldiers in comparison to the Army's FY2016 end strength of 475,000, while the House figure represents an increase of 5,000. […] In addition to the decision for FY2017, the debate about the size of the Army may well continue into the next Congress, as the Department of Defense plans further reductions in the size of the Army, proposing FY2018 end strength of 450,000. There will be also be a new President in January, and his or her policy priorities may revise the contours of this debate. This report provides an overview of active duty Army personnel strength changes in recent years, outlines the different end strength authorizations in the House and Senate versions of the FY2017 NDAA, highlights the perspectives which have contributed to these diverging approaches in the respective NDAAs, and outlines some factors which Congress may consider as it determines the appropriate size for the Army."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kapp, Lawrence; Feickert, Andrew; McInnis, Kathleen J. . . .
2016-09-02
-
Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State [August 24, 2016]
"On September 10, 2014, President Obama announced the formation of a global coalition to 'degrade and ultimately defeat' the Islamic State (IS, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL/ISIS or the Arabic acronym Da'esh). Subsequently, over 60 nations and partner organizations agreed to participate, contributing either military forces or resources (or both) to the campaign. In Brussels in December 2014, 60 of these partners agreed to organize themselves along five 'lines of effort,' (by contrast, the United States strategy involves nine lines of effort), with at least two countries in the lead for each: (1) supporting military operations, capacity building, and training (led by the United States and Iraq); (2) stopping the flow of foreign terrorist fighters (led by The Netherlands and Turkey); (3) cutting off IS access to financing and funding (led by Italy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States); (4) addressing associated humanitarian relief and crises (led by Germany and the United Arab Emirates); and (5) exposing IS' true nature (led by the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-08-24
-
Information Warfare: Russian Activities [September 2, 2016]
"Pointing to several recent high-profile events, media reports suggest that Russia is engaging in activities that some may describe as Information Warfare (IW): the range of military and government operations to protect and exploit the information environment. These alleged events include 'hacks' of servers of U.S. political parties and other groups; releases and possible manipulation of sensitive documents in an attempt to influence the upcoming U.S. presidential election; and the manipulation of publicly available information on Russian activities in Ukraine. The scale and frequency of attacks on U.S. information architecture raise issues for the United States, including whether the Department of Defense adequately conceptualizes and is organized to counter IW. [...] Tactics used to accomplish these goals include damaging information systems and critical infrastructure; subverting political, economic, and social systems; instigating 'massive psychological manipulation of the population to destabilize the society and state'; and coercing targets to make decisions counter to their interests. Recent events suggest that Russia may be employing a mix of propaganda, misinformation, and deliberately misleading or corrupted disinformation in order to do so. And while Russian organizations appear to be using cyberspace as a primary medium through which these goals are achieved, the government also appears to potentially be using the physical realm to conduct more traditional influence operations including denying the deployment of troops in conflict areas and the use of online 'troll armies' to propagate pro-Russian rhetoric."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Theohary, Catherine A.; McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-09-02
-
'Right-Sizing' the National Security Council Staff? [June 30, 2016]
"Currently, the main vehicle through which coordination among different U.S. government agencies on national security matters takes place is the National Security Council (NSC). As part of its defense reform deliberations, Congress is considering whether the modern National Security Council and its staff--established in 1947 to help oversee U.S. global security interests--is optimized to enable the United States to meet current and emerging threats (see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R44508, 'Fact Sheet: FY2017 [Fiscal Year] National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) DOD Reform Proposals', by Kathleen J. McInnis). [...] The National Security Council is the President's advisory body on matters related to national and international security. Pursuant to Title 50 U.S.C §3021, the NSC's statutory members are the President, Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Energy. Other senior officials participate in NSC deliberations at the President's request. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are the NSC's statutory advisers. The NSC is directed by the Presidentially-appointed National Security Advisor (NSA) and supported by a National Security Staff (NSS, or NSC staff) comprising permanent employees of the Executive Office of the President and 'detailees' from other government agencies serving temporary assignments. The NSC staff, and the interagency coordination processes it oversees, are the primary Executive Branch vehicles for synchronizing policy and adjudicating policy differences across U.S. government agencies on national security matters."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-06-30
-
Statutory Restrictions Relating to Prior Military Service of the Secretary of Defense [December 13, 2016]
"By law, the Secretary of Defense, who has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense, is a civilian appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Section 113 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code provides that '[a] person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.' Since such statutory qualification provisions are created by law, they may also be changed, or alternatively, temporarily suspended for the benefit of a specific individual. Since the establishment of the position of Secretary of Defense by the National Security Act of 1947, Congress has acted in one instance to suspend this provision. Enacted on September 18, 1950, at the request of President Truman during the Korean War, P.L. 81-788 authorized the suspension of certain statutory requirements otherwise prohibiting General of the Army George C. Marshall from serving as Secretary of Defense."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-12-13
-
Building Partnership Capacity and Development of the Interagency Process, Hearing Before the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, April 15, 2008
From the opening statement of Ike Skelton: "Our country faces a more complex security environment today than that of the Cold War. We have seen a growing realization that the Nation's challenges such as fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting terrorism, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) require holistic strategies that make use of all the capabilities of all of our government agencies. Instead, our national security structures remain essentially unchanged from the days of the Cold War. The mechanisms to integrate all of the United States governmental departments and agencies that should play a role in the development of our national security policy and in translating that policy into integrated action are weak if they exist at all. Where they do exist, they are usually the ad hoc efforts of those directly engaged in the challenge of the moment and not the result of a deliberative process designed to achieve a unity of effort that emerges as a natural product of governmental function. Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are forcing solutions on those issues. Just as those conflicts will not be solved by military power, so too is the expertise we most need to make a difference there essentially diplomatic." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Duncan Hunter, Ike Skelton, Robert M. Gates, Michael G. Mullen, Condoleezza Rice, Jim Marshall, K. Michael Conaway, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, and John Spratt.
United States. Government Printing Office
2009
-
U.S.-Israel-Egypt Trilateral Relationship: Shoring Up the Foundation of Regional Peace, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, One Hundred Tenth Congress, Second Session, May 21, 2008
From the opening statement of Gary L. Ackerman: "About 30 years ago when the United States was not in the business of smashing things up and leaving it for others to clean up our messes, we helped bring Egypt and Israel together to make peace. It was a different time in America's relationship with the Middle East. It was still a mostly unwritten story, one whose theme was focused on the Cold War. […] When we in the United States complain about human, civil and political rights in Egypt, we are not fabricating grievances in order to accrue bargaining leverage. When the United States or Egypt calls for the end to Israeli settlement growth and the removal of unauthorized outposts, no one should write this position off as mere boilerplate. Likewise, American and Israeli concerns about the smuggling of arms into Gaza cannot be dismissed as a problem for others to deal with, and when Israeli leaders expressed interest in negotiations with Syria, their most serious political impediment should not be the President of the United States. Over time it is easy for us as human beings to take each other for granted, and the same can be said about relationships between nations. But in the Middle East today, the risk is too great to allow this pattern to persist in the trilateral relationship. The security of all three nations depends on our remembering what made peace so important 30 years ago. Failing to do so and falling into the trap of seeing only the outrage of the day and the issue of the moment will leave us like [...] boats against the current borne back ceaselessly into the past." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Daniel C. Kurtzer, David Makovsky, and Gary L. Ackerman.
United States. Government Printing Office
2008
-
Supporting the Reserve Components as an Operational Reserve and Key Reserve Personnel Legislative Initiatives, Hearing Before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, Second Session, Hearing Held April 15, 2010
This testimony is from the April 15, 2010 hearing, "Supporting the Reserve Components as an Operations Reserve and Key Reserve Personnel Legislative Initiatives," hearing before the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services.' From the opening statement of Susan A. Davis: "Today this subcommittee will turn its attention to the important issue of what it means to be an Operational Reserve Force and to examine what policies, laws and practices may need to be adjusted to ensure a sustainable Reserve Force. The attacks on September 11, 2001 set in motion the sustained increased use and heavier reliance on the Reserves with over 761,000 reservists and guardsmen mobilized to date, one-third of whom have been activated two times or more. The Department of Defense (DOD) and the services have begun a transformation of the Guard and Reserve to an operational force with greater strategic capability and depth. This includes an equipping strategy to ensure the Reserve Components have the same equipment as their respective active component and effective force management strategy to ensure the Reserves are not over-utilized." Statements, letters, and materials submitted for the record include those of the following: Susan A. Davis, Joe Wilson, Raymond W. Carpenter, Dirk J. Debbink, John F. Kelly, Dennis M. McCarthy, Charles E. Stenner, Jack Stultz, Harry M. Wyatt, Hare and Tsongas.
United States. Government Printing Office
2010
-
Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for Congress [June 2, 2016]
"Thirty years after its enactment, Congress has undertaken a review of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (GNA) as well as the broader organization and structure of the contemporary Department of Defense (DOD) more broadly. Most observers agree that in principle a comprehensive review of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is warranted at this juncture. Further, a broad consensus appears to exist among observers that DOD must become considerably more agile while retaining its strength in order to enable the United States to meet a variety of critical emerging national security challenges. Agreement seemingly ends there. There appears to be little consensus on what should be changed within DOD and what specific direction reform ought to take. Discussions have begun to coalesce around a number of proposals, including reforming defense acquisition processes, further strengthening the Joint Staff, reducing Pentagon staffs, and better empowering the services in the joint arena. Ideas vary, however, on how, specifically, to achieve those outcomes. Disagreement also exists as to whether or not reorganizing DOD alone will be sufficient. Some observers maintain that a reform of the broader interagency system on national security matters is needed. […] This report is intended to assist Congress as it evaluates the variety of reform proposals currently under discussion around Washington."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-06-02
