Considered Forthwith: Armed Services committees

Welcome to the 18th installment of "Considered Forthwith."

This weekly series looks at the various committees in the House and the Senate. Committees are the workshops of our democracy. This is where bills are considered, revised, and occasionally advance for consideration by the House and Senate. Most committees also have the authority to exercise oversight of related executive branch agencies.

This week, I will look at the House Armed Services Committee and Senate Armed Forces Committees. Obviously, these members are the ones to contact to advance the bill that would repeal the "Don't ask/don't tell policy." These are also the committees that need a proverbial kick in the pants to advance legislation that would close Gitmo. More information below.

Committee membership

First, here are the members of the House Committee:

Democrats: Ike Skelton, Chairman, Missouri; John M. Spratt, Jr., South Carolina; Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas; Gene Taylor, Mississippi; Neil Abercrombie, Hawai'i; Silvestre Reyes, Texas; Vic Snyder, Arkansas; Adam Smith, Washington; Loretta Sanchez, California; Mike McIntyre, North Carolina; Robert A. Brady, Pennsylvania; Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey; Susan A. Davis, California; James R. Langevin, Rhode Island; Rick Larsen, Washington; Jim Cooper, Tennessee; Jim Marshall, Georgia; Madeleine Bordallo, Guam; Brad Ellsworth, Indiana; Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania; Hank Johnson, Georgia; Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire; Joe Courtney, Connecticut; David Loebsack, Iowa; Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania; Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona; Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts; Glenn Nye, Virginia; Chellie Pingree, Maine; Larry Kissell, North Carolina; Martin Heinrich, New Mexico; Frank Kratovil, Maryland; Eric Massa, New York; Bobby Bright, Alabama; Scott Murphy, New York; Dan Boren, Oklahoma

Republicans: John M. McHugh, Ranking Member, New York; Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland; Buck McKeon, California; Mac Thornberry, Texas; Walter B. Jones, North Carolina; Todd Akin, Missouri; Randy Forbes, Virginia; Jeff Miller, Florida; Joe Wilson, South Carolina; Frank LoBiondo, New Jersey; Rob Bishop, Utah; Mike Turner, Ohio; John Kline, Minnesota; Mike Rogers, Alabama; Trent Franks, Arizona; Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania; Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington; Mike Conaway, Texas; Doug Lamborn, Colorado; Rob Wittman, Virginia; Mary Fallin, Oklahoma; Duncan D. Hunter, California; John C. Fleming, Louisiana; Mike Coffman, Colorado; Tom Rooney, Florida

Here are the members of the Senate committee:

Democrats: Carl Levin (Michigan), Chairman; Edward M. Kennedy (Massachusetts); Robert C. Byrd (West Virginia); Joseph I. Lieberman (Connecticut); Jack Reed (Rhode Island); Daniel K. Akaka (Hawaii); Bill Nelson (Florida); Ben Nelson (Nebraska); Evan Bayh (Indiana); Jim Webb (Virginia); Claire McCaskill (Missouri); Mark Udall (Colorado); Kay R. Hagan (North Carolina); Mark Begich (Alaska); Roland W. Burris (Illinois)

Republicans: John McCain (Arizona), Ranking Member; James M. Inhofe (Oklahoma); Jeff Sessions (Alabama); Saxby Chambliss (Georgia); Lindsey Graham (South Carolina); John Thune (South Dakota); Mel Martinez (Florida); Roger F. Wicker (Mississippi); Richard Burr (North Carolina); David Vitter (Louisiana); Susan M. Collins (Maine)

These are relatively large committees for several reasons. For one thing, the military is the largest bureaucracy within the federal government, so the oversight and law-making functions are important.

More importantly, this is the authorizing committee for defense projects. For more background about the difference between authorizing and appropriating, check out my diary on the Appropriations Committees. In a nutshell, authorizing committees decide which projects to pursue while the appropriations committees decide whether or not to fund them. This is particularly important since the defense budget represents more than half of the government's discretionary spending.

Senate Committee Assignments

The House committees are fairly flexible in terms of how large they can be. As a result, the more prominent committees tend to have large memberships in order to accommodate members' preferences. Senate assignments rules, on the other hand, are very formalized. The two parties make their assignments and those are formally approved early in the session.

All of the Senate committees are classified as Super A, A, B, or C depending on the prominence and workload of the committee. Armed Services is one of the Democrats' five Super A committees. The others are Finance; Appropriations; Foreign Relations' and Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Republicans do not count Commerce, Science, and Transportation to be a Super A committee.

Chamber rules state that Senators are limited to service on two Class Super A/ Class A committees and one Class B committee. There are no limits on service on the Class C committees. Both Parties' rules limit members to service on only one Super A committee. For more about committee and chair assignments, check out the Senate's web page on these rules.

Jurisdictions

Here is the formal jurisdiction of the House Armed Services Committee:

(1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and Air Force reservations and establishments.
(2) Common defense generally.
(3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum and oil shale reserves.
(4) The Department of Defense generally, including the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of interoceanic canals.
(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
(7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the Department of Defense.
(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including financial assistance for the construction and operation of vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the national security.
(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and privileges of members of the armed forces.
(11) Scientific research and development in support of the armed services.
(12) Selective service.
(13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.
(14) Soldiers’ and sailors’ homes.
(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common defense.

And here's the Senate Committee's official jurisdiction:

1. Aeronautical and space activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations.

2. Common defense.

3. Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, generally.

4. Maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including administration, sanitation, and government of the Canal Zone.

5. Military research and development.

6. National security aspects of nuclear energy.

7. Naval petroleum reserves, except those in Alaska.

8. Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and privileges of members of the Armed Forces, including overseas education of civilian and military dependents.

9. Selective service system.

10. Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common defense.

(2) Such committee shall also study and review, on a comprehensive basis, matters relating to the common defense policy of the United States, and report thereon from time to time.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

I won't get into the politics of DADT, except to say that I support a repeal and allowing gay and bisexual soldiers to serve in the military. For one thing, there are issues of equality to consider. For another, the military has very few Arabic and Farsi speakers and too many have been discharged under DADT.

Homosexuality in the U.S. military goes back to the Revolutionary War when Lt. Frederick Gotthold Enslin was drummed out of the service for attempting to engage in sodomy with another solider. For many decades, "sodomy" was classified as a crime under the Articles of War. In 1942, the policy of discharge for homosexuality was officially codified. Depending on the circumstances, soldiers discharged after being caught engaging in homosexual activity often could not collect veterans' benefits. Draftees during the Vietnam era sometimes claimed to be gay to avoid the draft.

Source

One of Bill Clinton's early efforts was to repeal the policy and allow gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve openly. Naturally the homophobes balked. The eventual compromise -- DADT -- was authored by Colin Powell and included in the Fiscal Year 1994 Defense Authorization Bill.

The repeal movement's current champion is Rep. Patrick Murphy (Pa-08). The former U.S. Army lawyer has introduced legislation in the last three Congresses to overturn DADT and allow gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to serve openly. Currently the bill is in the House Subcommittee on Military personnel. Murphy is a member and Susan A. Davis of California is the subcommittee chair. More information on the subcommittees appears below. Murphy's bill has 164 co-sponsors, but it is more important to get Chairwoman Davis to bring the bill to a markup/vote in the subcommittee and get Chairman Skelton to do the same in the full committee.

Other current issues

House Committee hearings: The House Committee has several hearings scheduled for this week, including professional development in the military, psychological stress of members of the military, and an assessment of the U.S.-Russian security arrangement.

Senate Committee hearings: This Week, the Senate Committee is dealing with several nominations, including Secretary of the Army.

Update: How did I miss this? The nominee for Secretary of the Army is John McHugh, the ranking member of the House Committee.

Gitmo: Both committees are dealing with the question of what to do with the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Earlier this month, the Senate Committee received testimony on the legal issues surrounding holding trials for the prisoners. Here is a link to the testimony and a webcast of the hearing. The House Committee last week marked up House Resolution 602 which would:

Requesting that the President and directing that the Secretary of Defense transmit to the House of Representatives all information in their possession relating to specific communications regarding detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism.

In addition, there are numerous bills in the two committees relating to the closing of Gitmo. The problem, of course, is that he have to find homes for the innocent and hold trials for the rest. Since the Bush Administration did exactly zero on this issue, this might unfortunately take a while. This is an issue we need to continue to pursue. We need to identify, try and punish the guilty and release the innocents.

Defense Authorization Act: Each year, Congress must pass the Defense Authorization Act, which sets the spending priorities for the Department of Defense for the year and make any Congressionally-directed policy changes like it did with DADT. (It will be up to the appropriations committees to actually fund those programs). The Senate passed the bill on Thursday. This was the bill that cut the authorization for those F-22s and expanded the hate crimes law. The House has already passed their version with significant differences. This bill will got to conference committee and a final vote will probably take place this fall. A full summary of the House version is on the committee's home page and here is the easy to understand round up from Congress Matters.

Subcommittees

Here is a brief run down of the subcommittees.

House subcommittees:

Readiness:

Military readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all military construction, installations and family housing issues, including the base closure process, and energy policy and programs of the Department of Defense.

Chair: Solomon Ortiz, Texas
Ranking member: J. Randy Forbes, Virginia

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces:

Navy and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations, and information technology programs) and Naval Reserve equipment. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

Chair: Gene Taylor, Mississippi
Ranking member: W. Todd Akin, Missouri

Air and Land Forces:

All Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic missiles, special operations and information technology programs). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for deep strike bombers and related systems, National Guard and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs.

Chair: Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Ranking member: Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland

Oversight and Investigations:

Any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee, subject to the concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee and, as appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee shall have no legislative jurisdiction.

Chair: Vic Snyder, Arkansas
Ranking member: Rob Wittman, Virginia

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities:

Department of Defense counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations Forces; science and technology policy, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and information technology programs; force protection policy; homeland defense and consequence management programs within the Committee’s jurisdiction; and related intelligence support.

Chair: Adam Smith, Washington
Ranking member: Jeff Miller, Florida

Strategic Forces:

Strategic weapons (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense, intelligence policy and national programs, and Department of Energy national security programs (except non-proliferation programs).

Chair: Jim Langevin, Rhode Island
Ranking member: Michael Turner, Ohio

Military Personnel:

Military personnel policy, reserve component integration and employment issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.

Chair: Susan A. Davis, California
Ranking member: Joe Wilson, South Carolina

Source for jurisdictions

Senate Subcommittees
Airland
Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Personnel
Readiness and Management Support
Seapower
Strategic Forces

I don't have jurisdiction statements for the Senate subcommittees, but the membership lists are available at the link above.

For more about other committees, check out my previous work:
Small Business Committees
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
The Committee Primer
House Education and Labor Committee
Senate Finance Committee
Senate HELP Committee
Senate Judiciary Committee
House Energy and Commerce Committee
House Ways and Means Committee
House and Senate Appropriations Committees
House Intelligence Committee
House Judiciary Committee
House and Senate Ethics Committees
House Science and Technology Committee
House Financial Services Committee
House Rules Committee
The Role of Committees

Note: Blogger Union rules state that, after doing this for 18 weeks with no pay, I get next weekend off. I almost feel like a Senator taking August off.

Crossposted on Daily Kos, Congress Matters, Docudharma, and my own blog.

Another whistleblower silenced

Journalists and public relations people tend to lead parasitic professional lives. Journalist need PR people to get their information and PR people need journalists to get their messages out to the public. I have many friends in the PR business, but it is always an uneasy professional relationship. Journalists are supposed to report the most accurate version of the story while PR professionals are supposed to promote the version of the truth most favorable to their organization. Believe it or not, sometimes the PR version of the truth is actually an untruth.

This story is not about promoting untruths. This is a story about a government PR professional who believes in reporting the truth. Unsurprisingly from this administration, she got canned. This is also a story about the military's obsession with sanitizing the Iraq War by, among other things, hiding the costs of war by keeping the media away from soldiers' funerals. It took two years just to convince the Defense Department to release some photos of flag-draped coffins.

Keep in mind that there is a dead American in each one of those boxes. No rants about the politics of the war. These men and women fought and died for their country. Their military has actively engaged in keeping their sacrifices a secret. Military funerals are the nation's reminder that there is a war on and that war is terrible, not glorious.

Which brings us to Gina Gray, who has worked for many years as a military public affairs officer. Ms. Gray started a job with Arlington National Cemetery in April and was fired in late June. Dana Milbank reported her story for the Washington Post today.

Gray realized early in her tenure that the military was placing even more restrictions on media coverage of funerals. This is true even after the families had invited the media (which a majority do) to the funeral and thus broadcast their grief to the world.

According to Milbank's column, reporters were positioned where they could at least hear prayers and eulogies during the Rumsfeld era. Ten days into her new job, Gray found that the cemetery's deputy superintendent, Thurman Higginbotham, positioned the media some 50 yards from the funeral of a marine colonel who left behind two little girls. The location made it impossible to hear the service and the view was obstructed, so photographs were out of the question.

Milbank wrote a column on April 24 about the funeral. Almost as an aside, he noted:

Nor does the blocking of funeral coverage seem to be the work of overzealous bureaucrats. Gina Gray, Arlington's new public affairs director, pushed vigorously to allow the journalists more access to the service yesterday -- but she was apparently shot down by other cemetery officials.

Specifically, she pointed out that such treatment of the press was not in accordance with standing policy. Gray was subsequently treated poorly by co-workers and supervisors. She was demoted from public affairs director to public affairs officer June 9. She was fired at the end of June and contends that she would still be working there had she just gone along with Higginbotham and the superintendent John Metzler.

Gray also contends that Higginbotham contacted family members and urged them not to allow the media into the services for their fallen loved ones. Milbank confirmed the charge through an anonymous source at the cemetery. I am assuming that the source requested anonymity in order to keep his/her job.

Gray received her termination letter June 27. The letter accused her of being disrespectful to her supervisors and failing to act in an appropriate manner.

I cannot conclude better than Milbank, so here is his quote:

On June 27, Gray got her termination memo. (Gray's supervisor, Phyllis) White said Gray had "been disrespectful to me as your supervisor and failed to act in an inappropriate manner." Failed to act in an in appropriate manner? The termination notice was inadvertently revealing: Only at Arlington National Cemetery could it be considered a firing offense to act appropriately.

It should be noted that Milbank and the military obviously have differing opinions of appropriate behavior. I tend to agree with Milbank's assessment and applaud a PR professional for fighting for more access instead of less.

Also, the cemetery is now looking for its fourth PR director in three years.

Chris
h/t to Think Progress for this one.

Update: I replaced the final quote from Milbank's story. I missed the significance of the word "inappropriate." It was a typo, I hope. Otherwise, this is proof that these people have a culture of acting inappropriately. Thanks to this Dailykos diarist for pointing that out.

Presidents and war records

Sunday on Face The Nation, retired Gen. Wesley Clark made the accurate, if in-artfully stated, argument that John McCain’s military service does not necessarily qualify him to be the next leader of the free world. Specifically, he pointed out that flying his plane around and getting shot down does not qualify him to be president. Additionally, he pointed out that McCain’s command experience was not in combat, for what little that’s worth. And this from a retired general who ran for president.

Here is the exact quote:

Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.

He was responding to this question:

I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean...

But there's more from Clark:

I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war.

To his credit, Clark is not backing down. But, that’s beside the point.

Naturally, the Right are having a hissy fit because they see those comments as an attack on McCain’s war record. (Never mind the effective Swiftboating of John Kerry. Nothing to see here; please move along.) Meanwhile, Barak Obama has distanced himself from Gen. Clark’s assessment so that it doesn’t look like they are advocating a questioning of McCain’s record. (Indeed, Obama has gone to lengths to highlight McCain’s service while still disagreeing with the GOP’s presumptive nominee on pretty much every issue.)

This non-issue does raise an interesting question, though. Is there a correlation between past military service and performance as president? Using Wikipedia I identified the 27 of 43 presidents who had some military service. (Note: normally, I do not like to use Wikipedia as a source, but this was the quick and dirty way to get the information.)

First, though, a quick question. Is this your idea of a great leader...

Or is this more like it...

Here are the presidents who had any kind of military service:

George Washington: Revolutionary War; general of the Colonial Army
James Monroe: Revolutionary War; soldier in the Colonial Army, fought with distinction at the Battle of Trenton
Andrew Jackson: Seminole War/War of 1812; army commander, led the defense of New Orleans weeks after peace was signed (neither side got the memo because no one had invented the Internet yet)
William Henry Harrison: Various wars against Native American tribes; commander of government forces at the Battle of Tippecanoe
John Tyler: War of 1812; member of volunteer military company
Zachary Taylor: War of 1812/Black Hawk War/Second Seminole War; served in various capacities.
Millard Filmore: Peacetime; Served in New York militia
Franklin Pierce: Mexican-American War; brigadier general of volunteer units
James Buchannon: War of 1812; Served in a volunteer dragoon unit in the defense of Baltimore
Abraham Lincoln: Black Hawk War; elected captain of an Illinois militia unit
Ulysses S. Grant: Civil War; General of the Army of the Potomac
Rutherford B. Hayes: Civil War; colonel of 23rd Ohio regiment
James A. Garfield: Civil War; brigadier general in the Army of the Cumberland
Chester A. Arthur: Civil War; quartermaster in New York
(Grover Cleveland: none; paid a Polish immigrant to fight in his place during the Civil War.)
Benjamin Harrison: Civil War; brigadier general in the Army of the Cumberland
William McKinnley: Civil War; army captain
Teddy Roosevelt: Spanish-American War; army captain, commander of the famous Rough Riders
Harry Truman: World War I; commander of a battery unit, later a colonel in the National Guard
Dwight D. Eisenhower: World War II; five star general, commander of allied forces in Europe
John F. Kennedy: World War II; navy lieutenant, commander of PT 109, highly decorated but later admitted that he probably did not deserve the medals.
Richard M. Nixon: World War II; Lt. Commander in the navy (Pacific Theater)
Gerald R. Ford: World War II; Lt. Commander in the navy (Pacific Theater)
Jimmy Carter: Korean War era; lieutenant on the early nuclear submarines, only president to graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy
Ronald Reagan: World War II; served state-side making propaganda films for the military
George H.W. Bush: World War II; navy pilot (Pacific Theater)
George W. Bush: Vietnam era; Texas and Alabama Air National Guard. Just a few notes about George W. Bush: He protected the skies over Texas during the war. He probably even showed up for duty. Meanwhile, people like John McCain (pilot and long-time POW), and Bush’s two main opponents for the presidency Al Gore (military journalist), and John Kerry (Swiftboat commander) and millions of other Americans actually went to Vietnam. More than 58,000 died there.

I hardly need to go to the trouble of quantifying these findings. Just one caveat: leadership skills developed in the military are certainly useful for future political leadership. Conversely, it is up to the individual to translate military leadership to civilian leadership.

That said, some of our greatest military leaders were also great presidents (Washington, Monroe). We have had some real losers with exemplary (Grant), mediocre (Nixon, Buchannon), and nearly non-existent (Bush 43) military records. There were some superb military leaders who had controversial records in the Oval Office (Jackson, T. Roosevelt). Some who had limited military experience (Truman, Kennedy) are regarded as some of the best presidents. We had one (F. Roosevelt) who had no military experience, but led the country to victory in World War II. There is one example (Eisenhower) who had an historic military record, but did very little as president. Two veterans (Harrison, Garfield) did not live long enough to establish their presidential legacies. Personally, I have a lot of respect for Chester A. Arthur as well. He went from being a crooked political appointee to the president who reformed civil service.

To reiterate Gen. Clark's statement on a philosophically logical level, he implied that military service does not necessarily qualify one to be president. However, that logic does not apply in the reverse. Past military service does not necessarily mean that the soldier is not qualified to be president. The two roles (as I have demonstrated) are mutually exclusive.

As for the brain dead media narrative of the whole Clark statement, FAIR's assessment, is right on target. As usual, the media (who have been accused of being McCain's main constituency) always need a new controversy. FAIR's article details how Clark's statements were taken out of context and bent to fit the media's need for a new controversy. My favorite is Fair's statement that the media pounced on this a lot more quickly than the Swiftboat nonsense.

Chris