The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Waiver Authority and Modification of Volumes

Summary: The Clean Air Act requires that transportation fuels contain a minimum volume of renewable fuel. This renewable fuel standard (RFS) was established by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05; P.L. 109-58) and amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140). The RFS includes scheduled volume mandates that grow each year (starting with 9 billion gallons in 2008 and ascending to 36 billion gallons in 2022). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is responsible for administering the RFS, determines the annual volume after 2022. Within the overall RFS, there are submandates for advanced biofuels, including cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and other advanced biofuels.

Summary: EPA has the authority to waive the RFS requirements, in whole or in part, if certain conditions outlined in statute prevail. More specifically, the statute identifies a general waiver for the overall RFS and waivers for two types of advanced biofuel: cellulosic biofuel and biomass-based diesel. Statute requires EPA to announce each year's standards by November 30 of the previous year, except for biomass-based diesel, which must be announced 14 months before the year for which the applicable volume is to apply. Further, the final section of the waiver provision—which some refer to as the "reset" section—requires a permanent modification of applicable volumes of the RFS starting in 2016 and carried forward, if certain conditions are met.

Summary: In several instances, EPA has used, has proposed to use, or has been petitioned to use its waiver authority when implementing the RFS. In November 2018, EPA announced in its final rule for 2019 for the RFS that it was using the cellulosic biofuel waiver authority to reduce the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume requirements. EPA's use of the cellulosic biofuel waiver authority is not new. EPA has repeatedly issued a waiver, reducing the volume required for cellulosic biofuel. For the last few years, the use of the cellulosic biofuel waiver led EPA to also reduce the total advanced biofuel volume requirement. For various reasons (e.g., technology issues, financial support, policy uncertainty), the U.S. cellulosic biofuel industry has been unable, by a wide margin, to produce the volume amounts identified in statute.

Summary: The 2019 final RFS program rule issued by EPA triggers the RFS "reset" section of the waiver provision for total renewable fuel. The reset was triggered in previous final rules for both advanced biofuel and cellulosic biofuel. It is unclear what impact the use of the reset section will have on RFS standards in future years. EPA reports it will issue a rulemaking in early 2019 that proposes to reset the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume targets for the years 2020-2022.

Summary: A possible issue for Congress is whether the waiver authority and the reset provisions are sufficient options for EPA to address the statutory advanced biofuel volume shortfalls—shortfalls that may have been more than what Congress envisioned when it expanded the RFS in 2007. Another issue is how the Administration might apply the reset provision, and if it would contribute to uncertainty for industry, financiers, and other interested parties.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requires that the nation's transportation fuel supply contains renewable fuels. This mandate—established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct05; P.L. 109-58 ) and expanded in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA; P.L. 110-140 )—requires the use of renewable fuel, although it does not explicitly require the production of that fuel. Obligated parties, such as refiners or importers of gasoline or diesel fuel, are responsible for complying with the RFS requirements. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the mandate, which is an amendment to Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions governing the regulation of fuels. The statutory renewable fuel volume increases annually until 2022, with EPA determining the volume after 2022 within certain limitations. In general, EPA has the authority to waive the RFS requirements, in whole or in part, if certain conditions outlined in statute prevail.

The RFS is a complex and highly technical policy initiative. It deals with multiple sectors of the economy and requires the use of some advanced renewable fuel production technologies that have yet to reach maturity. The RFS also incorporates thresholds for greenhouse gas emission reduction. This complexity is exacerbated by multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives on what the RFS should accomplish, how it should be implemented, and whether it should exist, which leads to debate about the RFS and its future. Congressional debate about the RFS is expected to continue with special attention to how EPA administers the program. As Congress continues its oversight of the RFS, it may be useful to understand the RFS waiver authority granted to EPA. This report discusses the waiver provisions of the RFS, including the modification-of-applicable-volumes ("reset") section.

EPAct05 established a renewable fuel program requiring that transportation fuel sold or introduced into commerce in the United States, on an annual average basis, contain a specified amount of renewable fuel. The RFS mandate, as amended by EISA, calls for the consumption of 9 billion gallons of total renewable fuel in 2008, ascending to 36 billion gallons in 2022, with EPA determining the annual volume after 2022. The statute identifies four categories of renewable fuels that must be used to meet the mandate. However, these four categories can be aggregated into two major categories: unspecified biofuel (mainly cornstarch ethanol) and advanced biofuel (e.g., cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, and other advanced biofuels), shown in Figure 1 . Over time, the growth in the RFS transitions from biofuels that, in practice, are made mostly from food and feed crops to biofuels made from nonfood and nonfeed crops. For instance, in 2022, the statute requires that advanced biofuels constitute close to 60% of the 36 billion gallon mandate and unspecified biofuels constitute about 40%.

Congress gave the EPA Administrator waiver authority to adjust the renewable fuel volumes specified in statute given certain conditions (e.g., inadequate domestic renewable fuel supply). The EPA Administrator is required to set the standards by November 30 of the preceding year (e.g., under statute the 2020 standard is required to be finalized by November 30, 2019). Further, when the EPA Administrator reduces the cellulosic biofuel volume, the Administrator also may reduce the total renewable fuel and total advanced biofuel volumes by the same or a lesser volume. For biomass-based diesel, the statute specifies volumes for four years (2009-2012) and requires EPA to announce the remaining annual biomass-based diesel volume "14 months before the first year for which such applicable volume will apply" (e.g., the 2021 biomass-based diesel standard is required to be finalized by November 2019).

EPA issued the final 2019 standards (and the 2020 standard for biomass-based diesel) in November 2018. The RFS statutory requirements and the EPA requirements for 2014 through 2019 are provided in Table 1 .

The RFS provisions of the CAA contains a set of waiver provisions. The provisions contain three separate waivers—a general waiver, a cellulosic biofuel waiver, and a biomass-based diesel waiver—that the EPA Administrator may use to waive, in whole or in part, the volume of renewable fuel mandated by statute. The waivers referred to in this report should not be confused with small refinery exemptions. If a waiver is issued, it expires after one year (60 days for the biomass-based diesel waiver), unless the Administrator renews the waiver. Additionally, starting in 2016, the waiver provision allows for a modification of applicable volumes. The waivers and the modification of applicable volumes are described in further detail in the following sections of this report.

The RFS statute gives the EPA Administrator the authority to waive the overall RFS requirements, in whole or in part, if

domestic renewable fuel supply is inadequate to meet the mandate, or implementation of the requirement would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, a region, or the United States.

The Administrator may issue the general waiver at his or her discretion or if petitioned by a state or fuel provider. In those instances in which the Administrator receives a petition for a waiver, the Administrator has 90 days after receipt of the petition to approve or disapprove it. Prior to making a decision, the Administrator is required to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy and to allow for public notice and the opportunity for comment. If a general waiver is granted, any adjustment applies to the total national renewable fuel requirement. Thus, EPA may not issue a general waiver for an individual state or supplier within a state.

CAA Section 211(o) obligates the EPA Administrator to reduce the cellulosic biofuel mandate when the projected production capacity for a given year is less than what is identified in statute. The law does not require the EPA Administrator to consult with the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Energy when issuing a cellulosic biofuel waiver, or to give public notice and opportunity for comment. However, the Administrator must base the projection on the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimate provided under the applicable percentages provision. Although it is not required by the statute to do so, EPA has consulted with federal agencies, industry, and others when the agency has considered issuance of a cellulosic biofuel waiver. EPA also has provided opportunity for public comment. The Administrator must set the new required amount at the "projected available volume during that calendar year" by November 30 of the preceding year. Should the Administrator reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume, the Administrator also may reduce the volumes of advanced biofuel and renewable fuel by the same or lesser volume. When the Administrator issues a cellulosic biofuel waiver, the Administrator must offer cellulosic biofuel waiver credits for obligated parties to purchase for that compliance year in lieu of using actual cellulosic biofuel.

The RFS statutory provisions give the EPA Administrator authority to reduce the amount of biomass-based diesel required for up to 60 days if the Administrator determines that there are significant market circumstances (including feedstock disruptions) "that would make the price of biomass-based diesel fuel increase significantly." If these market circumstances continue past the initial 60-day period, the Administrator may issue another waiver for an additional 60 days. The Administrator is to consult with the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture prior to issuing such a waiver. If the Administrator issues a biomass-based diesel waiver, the Administrator also may reduce the volumes of advanced biofuel and renewable fuel by the same or lesser volume. To date, EPA has not used the biomass-based diesel waiver authority.

The last section of the waiver provision is the modification-of-applicable-volumes section, referred to by some as the "reset" section for the RFS. This section requires that the EPA Administrator modify the applicable volumes of the RFS in future years starting in 2016 if certain conditions are met. Specifically, it provides that, starting in 2016, the EPA Administrator shall modify the applicable volumes of the RFS for subsequent years if the Administrator waives the renewable fuel mandate, the advanced biofuel mandate, the cellulosic biofuel mandate, or the biomass-based diesel mandate by at least 20% for two consecutive years or by at least 50% for a single year. This reset section does not state what the modified amount must be. Rather, it requires that the Administrator determine the applicable volumes—in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Agriculture—based on a review of program implementation thus far and analysis of certain factors (e.g., the impact of the production and use of renewable fuels on the environment).

EPA has repeatedly used its cellulosic biofuel waiver authority to reduce the cellulosic biofuel volume required, and, since 2014, to also reduce both the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volume required. In November 2018, EPA announced that it used the cellulosic biofuel waiver to reduce the applicable total renewable fuel, advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel volume requirements for 2019. According to the agency, the "13.0 billion gallons specified in the statute for advanced biofuel cannot be reached in 2019 … primarily due to the expected continued shortfall in cellulosic biofuel."

The EPA Administrator issued a general waiver for prior final rules (which covered 2014 through 2016) and repeatedly issued cellulosic biofuel waivers for 2010 through 2018. The Administrator used the waivers for 2014, 2015, and 2016 to reduce the total renewable fuel (including a lowering of the unspecified biofuel mandate), advanced biofuel, and cellulosic biofuel volume requirements. The Administrator has not granted a biomass-based diesel waiver.

Waiver authority is intended, in part, to assist EPA with implementation of the RFS. One of EPA's program tasks is to use the waiver authority, when required, to determine the annual final standard, and to announce that final standard by the statutory deadline. The challenge of projecting advanced biofuel production, political pressure from some stakeholders, and other factors may have contributed to past delays in issuing final standards under the waiver authority. Such delays could lead to difficulty for obligated parties who have to demonstrate program compliance and for renewable fuel producers who are interested in producing the required fuel. For 2016 through 2019, EPA has issued the final rule according to the statutory schedule.

There are three stakeholders that generally have had distinct views about the impacts of the waiver authority: the advanced biofuel industry, the conventional biofuel industry, and the petroleum industry. Some advanced biofuel advocates assert that granting of waivers, in conjunction with other factors, could weaken confidence in renewable fuel markets and the chosen technologies, specifically cellulosic biofuel. Advanced biofuel production, particularly cellulosic biofuel production, has not been produced at the levels called for in the statutory provisions by relatively large margins. Some conventional biofuel advocates have not always been content with EPA's proposals to use the waiver authority to reduce conventional biofuel volumes. Conventional biofuel production has remained in line with what the statutory provisions require. Some in the petroleum industry assert that the waiver authority is an option that addresses the use of more ethanol than can be used by certain vehicles (i.e., the blend wall) or supported by existing infrastructure. While perspectives about EPA's use of the waiver authority vary among stakeholders, the waivers have provided EPA with the flexibility to establish volume requirements that have been attained.

Impacts of RFS Modification of Applicable Volumes

The 2019 final rule has triggered the reset section of the waiver provision for total renewable fuel. Previous final rules had already triggered a reset for both advanced biofuels and cellulosic biofuels. EPA reports that in early 2019 it will issue a rulemaking that proposes to "reset" the cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel volume targets for the years 2020-2022. Many have questions and concerns about how EPA may implement the reset section (the modification-of-applicable-volumes section of the RFS). This section requires the EPA Administrator to modify the applicable volumes of the RFS in its entirety starting in 2016 if certain conditions are met. It is not clear how EPA may carry out this action .

The Administrator has the discretion to set the modified amounts. Depending on how the reset is applied, there could be interest in its impact on public and private investment for biofuels. There might also be interest in the reset's potential impact on the transition of the program from mostly conventional biofuel to mostly advanced biofuel by 2022. Additionally, there may be interest about whether a reset could address the concerns expressed by some obligated parties (i.e., refiners) about high compliance costs. Going forward, reset implementation could have implications for the entire fuel industry, given the potential for EPA to reduce the applicable volumes or maintain ambitious targets.


U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress

Summary: Special Operations Forces (SOF) play a significant role in U.S. military operations and, in recent years, have been given greater responsibility for planning and conducting worldwide counterterrorism operations. U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) has about 70,000 Active Duty, National Guard, and reserve personnel from all four services and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians assigned to its headquarters, its four service component commands, and eight sub-unified commands.

Summary: In 2013, based on a request from USSOCOM (with the concurrence of Geographic and Functional Combatant Commanders and the Military Service Chiefs and Secretaries), the Secretary of Defense assigned command of the Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs) to USSOCOM. USSOCOM now has the responsibility to organize, train, and equip TSOCs. While USSOCOM is now responsible for the organizing, training, and equipping of TSOCs, the Geographic Combatant Commands will continue to have operational control over the TSOCs. Because the TSOCs are now classified as sub-unified commands, the services are responsible to provide non-SOF support to the TSOCs in the same manner in which they provide support to the Geographic Combatant Command headquarters.

Summary: The current Unified Command Plan (UCP) stipulates USSOCOM responsibility for synchronizing planning for global operations to combat terrorist networks. This focus on planning limits its ability to conduct activities designed to deter emerging threats, build relationships with foreign militaries, and potentially develop greater access to foreign militaries. USSOCOM is proposing changes that would, in addition to current responsibilities, include the responsibility for synchronizing the planning, coordination, deployment, and, when directed, the employment of special operations forces globally and will do so with the approval of the Geographic Combatant Commanders, the services, and, as directed, appropriate U.S. government agencies. Further, the proposed changes would give broader responsibility to USSOCOM beyond counterterrorism activities, to include activities against other threat networks. In August 2016, the Obama Administration assigned USSOCOM the leading role in coordinating DOD's efforts to counter WMDs, a mission previously assigned to U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). USSOCOM is also the DOD proponent for Security Force Assistance and recently was assigned the mission to field a transregional Military Information Support Operations (MISO) capability.

Summary: USSOCOM's FY2020 budget request is for $13.8 billion, and USSOCOM has requested a force structure of 66,553 military and 6,651 civilian personnel.

Summary: A potential issue for Congress is the future of USSOCOM and U.S. SOF.

Special operations are military operations requiring unique modes of employment, tactical techniques, equipment, and training. These operations are often conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments and are characterized by one or more of the following elements: time sensitive, clandestine, low visibility, conducted with and/or through indigenous forces, requiring regional expertise, and/or a high degree of risk. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are those active and reserve component forces of the services designated by the Secretary of Defense and specifically organized, trained, and equipped to conduct and support special operations. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, FL, is a functional combatant command responsible for training, doctrine, and equipping for all U.S. SOF units.

In 1986, Congress, concerned about the status of SOF within overall U.S. defense planning, passed legislation ( P.L. 99-661 ) to strengthen special operations' position within the defense community and to strengthen interoperability among the branches of U.S. SOF. These actions included the establishment of USSOCOM as a new unified command. USSOCOM headquarters currently consists of approximately 2,500 military and Department of Defense (DOD) civilians (not including government contractors). As stipulated by U.S.C. Title X, Section 167, the commander of USSOCOM is a four-star officer who may be from any military service. U.S. Army General Raymond A. Thomas III is the current USSOCOM Commander. Army Lieutenant General Richard Clarke has been approved to replace General Thomas when he retires in March 2019. The USSOCOM Commander reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD SOLIC), a member of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy (OSD-P), provides civilian oversight over USSOCOM activities and is chain of supervision between the Secretary of Defense and USSOCOM Commander. The current ASD SOLIC is Owen West.

As of 2019, USSOCOM consists of over 70,000 active duty, reserve, National Guard, and civilian personnel assigned to its headquarters (about 2,500 personnel), its four components, and sub-unified commands. USSOCOM's components are the U.S. Army Special Operations Command (USASOC); the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC); the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC); and the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC). The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a USSOCOM sub-unified command.

Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs)

Theater-level command and control responsibilities are vested in Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs). TSOCs are sub-unified commands under their respective Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCCs). TSOCs are special operational headquarters elements designed to support a GCC's special operations logistics, planning, and operational command and control requirements, and are normally commanded by a general officer.

In February 2013, based on a request from USSOCOM and with the concurrence of every geographic and functional combatant commander and military service chiefs and Secretaries, the Secretary of Defense transferred combatant command of the TSOCs from the GCCs to USSOCOM. This means USSOCOM has the responsibility to organize, train, and equip TSOCs, as it previously had for all assigned SOF units as specified in U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 167. This change is intended to enable USSOCOM to standardize, to the extent possible, TSOC capabilities and manpower requirements. While USSOCOM is now responsible for the organizing, training, and equipping of TSOCs, the GCCs continue to have operational control over the TSOCs and all special operations in their respective theaters. TSOC commanders are the senior SOF advisors for their respective GCCs. Each TSOC is capable of forming the core of a joint task force headquarters for short-term operations, and can provide command and control for all SOF in theater on a continuous basis. The services have what the DOD calls "Combatant Command Service Agency (CCSA)" responsibilities for providing manpower, non-SOF peculiar equipment, and logistic support to the TSOCs. The current TSOCs, the GCCs they support, and the CCSA responsibility for those TSOCs are as follows.

Special Operations Command South (SOCSOUTH), Homestead Air Force Base, FL; supports U.S. Southern Command; its CCSA is the Army. Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA), Stuttgart, Germany; supports U.S. Africa Command; its CCSA is the Army. Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR), Stuttgart, Germany; supports U.S. European Command; its CCSA is the Army. Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT), MacDill Air Force Base, FL; supports U.S. Central Command; its CCSA is the Air Force. Special Operations Command Pacific (SOCPAC), Camp Smith, HI; supports U.S. Pacific Command; its CCSA is the Navy. Special Operations Command Korea (SOCKOR), Yongsang, Korea; supports U.S. Forces Korea; its CCSA is the Army. Special Operations Command U.S. Northern Command (SOCNORTH), Peterson Air Force Base, CO; supports U.S. Northern Command; its CCSA is the Air Force.

In addition to Title 10 authorities and responsibilities, USSOCOM has been given additional responsibilities. In the 2004 Unified Command Plan (UCP), USSOCOM was given the responsibility for synchronizing DOD planning against global terrorist networks and, as directed, conducting global operations against those networks. In this regard, USSOCOM "receives, reviews, coordinates and prioritizes all DOD plans that support the global campaign against terror, and then makes recommendations to the Joint Staff regarding force and resource allocations to meet global requirements." In October 2008, USSOCOM was designated the DOD proponent for Security Force Assistance (SFA). In this role, USSOCOM performs a synchronizing function in global training and assistance planning similar to the previously described role of planning against terrorist networks. In 2018, USSOCOM was also assigned the mission to field a transregional Military Information Support Operations (MISO) capability intended to "address the opportunities and risks of global information space." By April of 2019, a Joint MISO WebOps Center (JMWC) is planned to be operating with the Interagency and Combatant Command teams to provide joint messaging capabilities.

U.S. Army SOF (ARSOF) includes approximately 33,000 soldiers from the active Army, National Guard, and Army Reserve organized into Special Forces, Ranger, and special operations aviation units, along with civil affairs units, military information units, and special operations support units. ARSOF Headquarters and other resources, such as the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, are located at Fort Bragg, NC. Five active Special Forces (SF) Groups (Airborne), consisting of about 1,400 soldiers each, are stationed at Fort Bragg and at Fort Lewis, WA; Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Carson, CO; and Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Special Forces soldiers—also known as the Green Berets—are trained in various skills, including foreign languages, that allow teams to operate independently throughout the world.

Two Army National Guard Special Forces groups are headquartered in Utah and Alabama. In addition, an elite airborne light infantry unit specializing in direct action operations, the 75 th Ranger Regiment, is headquartered at Fort Benning, GA, and consists of three battalions of about 800 soldiers each and a regimental special troops battalion providing support to the three Ranger battalions. The Army's special operations aviation unit, the 160 th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (SOAR), consists of five battalions and is headquartered at Fort Campbell, KY. The 160 th SOAR features pilots trained to fly the most sophisticated Army rotary-wing aircraft in the harshest environments, day or night, and in adverse weather and supports all USSOCOM components, not just exclusively Army units.

Some of the most frequently deployed SOF assets are Civil Affairs (CA) units, which provide experts in every area of civil government to help administer civilian affairs in operational theaters. The 95 th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne) is the only active CA unit that exclusively supports USSOCOM. In September 2011 the 85 th Civil Affairs Brigade was activated to support U.S. Army General Purpose Forces (GPFs). All other CA units reside in the Reserves and are affiliated with Army GPF units. Military Information Support Operations (formerly known as psychological operations) units disseminate information to large foreign audiences through mass media. Two active duty Military Information Support Groups (MISGs)—the 4 th Military Information Support Group (MISG) (Airborne) and 8 th Military Information Support Group (MISG) (Airborne)—are stationed at Fort Bragg, and their subordinate units are aligned with Geographic Combatant Commands.

The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is one of the Air Force's 10 major commands, with approximately 19,500 active, reserve, and civilian personnel. AFSOC units operate out of four major continental United States (CONUS) locations and two overseas locations. The headquarters for AFSOC, the 1 st Special Operations Wing (1 st SOW), 24 th Special Operations Wing (24 th SOW), and the Air Force Special Operations Air Warfare Center (AFSOAWC) are located at Hurlburt Field, FL. The AFSOAWC is responsible for training, education, irregular warfare program, innovation development, and operational testing. From AFSOAWC's fact sheet:

The AFSOAWC's mission includes non-standard aviation in support of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and allied special operations forces.

The following units are consolidated under the Air Warfare Center [AFSOAWC]:

■ U.S. Air Force Special Operations School, Hurlburt Field, FL

■ 6 th Special Operations Squadron, Duke Field, FL

■ 19 th Special Operations Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL

■ 551 st Special Operations Squadron, Cannon Air Force Base, NM

■ 5 th Special Operations Squadron, a reserve unit from the 919 th Special Operations Wing, Duke Field, FL

■ 371 st Special Operations Combat Training Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL

■ 18 th Flight Test Squadron, Hurlburt Field, FL

■ 592 nd Special Operations Maintenance Squadron, Duke Field, FL

■ 209 th Civil Engineer Squadron, a guard unit from Gulfport, MS

■ 280 th Special Operations Communications Squadron, a guard unit from Dothan, AL

The Air Warfare Center provides mission qualification training in SOF aviation platforms to include AC-130U, AC-130W, U-28, MQ-1, MQ-9, C-145, C-146 as well as small unmanned aerial systems (SUAS), Combat Aviation Advisors, medical element personnel, and AFSOC Security Forces. In addition to AFSOC personnel, AFSOAWC is responsible for educating and training other USSOCOM components and joint/interagency/coalition partners.

The 27 th SOW is at Cannon AFB, NM. The 352 nd and 353 rd Special Operations Wings provide forward presence in Europe (RAF Mildenhall, England) and in the Pacific (Kadena Air Base, Japan), respectively. The 6 th SOS's mission is to assess, train, and advise partner nation aviation units with the intent to raise their capability and capacity to interdict threats to their nation. The 6 th SOS provides aviation expertise to U.S. foreign internal defense (FID) missions. The Air National Guard's 193 rd SOW at Harrisburg, PA, and the Air Force Reserve Command's 919 th SOW at Duke Field, FL, complete AFSOC's major flying units.

The 24 th Special Operations Wing is one of three Air Force active duty special operations wings assigned to Air Force Special Operations Command. The 24 th SOW is based at Hurlburt Field, Fla. The 24 th SOW is the only Special Tactics wing in the Air Force.

From the Air Force's Special Tactics fact sheet:

The primary mission of the 24 SOW is to provide Special Tactics forces for rapid global employment to enable airpower success. The 24 SOW is U.S. Special Operation Command's tactical air and ground integration force, and the Air Force's special operations ground force to enable global access, precision strike, and personnel recovery operations.

Core capabilities encompass: airfield reconnaissance, assessment, and control; personnel recovery; joint terminal attack control and environmental reconnaissance.

Special Tactics is comprised of Special Tactics Officers, Combat Controllers, Combat Rescue Officers, Pararescuemen, Special Operations Weather Officers and Airmen, Air Liaison Officers, Tactical Air Control Party operators, and a number of combat support Airmen which compromise 58 Air Force specialties.

These unique skills provide a full-spectrum, air-focused special operations capability to the combatant commander in order to ensure airpower success. With their unique skill sets, Special Tactics operators are often the first special operations elements deployed into crisis situations. Special Tactics Airmen often embed with Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets and Rangers to provide everything from combat air support to medical aid and personnel recovery, depending on their specialty.

AFSOC's Special Tactics experts include Combat Controllers, Pararescuemen, Special Operations Weather Teams, Combat Aviation Advisors, and Tactical Air Control Party (TACPs). As a collective group, they are known as Special Tactics and have also been referred to as "Battlefield Airmen." Their basic role is to provide an interface between air and ground forces, and these airmen have highly developed skill sets. Usually embedded with Army, Navy, or Marine SOF units, they provide control of air fire support, medical and rescue expertise, or weather support, depending on the mission requirements.

AFSOC's active duty and reserve component flying units operate fixed and rotary-wing aircraft, including the CV-22B, AC-130, C-130, EC-130, MC-130, MQ-1, MQ-9, U-28A, C-145A, C-146A, and PC-12.

The Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) is composed of approximately 10,000 personnel, including active-duty Special Warfare Operators, known as SEALs; Special Warfare Boat Operators, known as Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen (SWCC); reserve personnel; support personnel; and civilians. NSWC is organized around 10 SEAL Teams, 2 SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Teams, and 3 Special Boat Teams. SEAL Teams consist of six SEAL platoons each, consisting of 2 officers and 16 enlisted personnel. The major operational components of NSWC include Naval Special Warfare Groups One, Three, and Eleven, stationed in Coronado, CA, and Naval Special Warfare Groups Two, Four, and Ten and the Naval Special Warfare Development Group in Little Creek, VA. These components deploy SEAL Teams, SEAL Delivery Vehicle Teams, and Special Boat Teams worldwide to meet the training, exercise, contingency, and wartime requirements of theater commanders. Because SEALs are considered experts in special reconnaissance and direct action missions—primary counterterrorism skills—NSWC is viewed as well postured to fight a globally dispersed enemy ashore or afloat. NSWC forces can operate in small groups and have the ability to quickly deploy from Navy ships, submarines and aircraft, overseas bases, and forward-based units.

U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC)20

On November 1, 2005, DOD announced the creation of the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) as a component of USSOCOM. Now referred to as the U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, MARSOC consists of the Marine Raider Regiment, which includes 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd Marine Raider Battalions; the Marine Raider Support Group; 1 st , 2 nd , and 3 rd Marine Raider Support Battalions; and the Marine Special Operations School. MARSOC headquarters, the 2 nd and 3 rd Marine Raider Battalions, the Marine Special Operations School, and the Marine Raider Support Group are stationed at Camp Lejeune, NC. The 1 st Marine Raider Battalion is stationed at Camp Pendleton, CA. MARSOC forces have been deployed worldwide to conduct a full range of special operations activities. MARSOC missions include direct action, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, counterterrorism, and information operations. MARSOC currently has approximately 3,000 personnel assigned.

Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)22

The Joint Special Operations Command, located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is a sub-unified command of the U.S. Special Operations Command. It is charged to study special operations requirements and techniques, ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct Special Operations exercises and training, and develop joint Special Operations tactics.

USSOCOM's FY2020 budget request of $13.8 billion represents an increase of $381 million (2.8%) from the FY2019-enacted position. USSOCOM's FY2020 base budget request totals $9.6 billion, a $435 million (5%) increase from the FY2019-enacted position of $9.2 billion, while overall FY2020 personnel increases by 1,358 (increases military personnel by 1,407 and reduces civilian personnel by 49). The FY2020 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request totals $4.2 billion, a $54 million decrease (-1%) from the FY2019-enacted position.

FY2020 USSOCOM Requested Force Structure

USSOCOM's FY2020 budget request seeks a 2.2% manpower increase, from 71,612 personnel in FY2019 to 73,204 in FY2020.

After 17 years at the forefront of the global military campaign against terrorism, policymakers, defense officials, and academics are questioning the future role of USSOCOM and U.S. SOF. Three legislative provisions in the FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act ( P.L. 115-232 ) suggest growing congressional concern with misconduct, ethics, and professionalism; roles and responsibilities for ASD SOLIC; and SOF's ability to counter future threats across the spectrum of conflict.

SEC. 1066. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF PROFESSIONALISM AND ETH ICS PROGRAM S FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a comprehensive review of the ethics programs and professionalism programs of the United States Special Operations Command and of the military departments for officers and other military personnel serving in special operations forces.

(b) ELEMENTS OF THE REVIEW.—The review conducted under subsection (a) shall specifically include a description and assessment of each of the following:

(1) The professionalism and ethics standards of the United States Special Operations Command and affiliated component commands.

(2) The ethics programs and professionalism programs of the military departments available for special operations forces.

(3) The ethics programs and professionalism programs of the United States Special Operations Command and affiliated component commands.

(4) The roles and responsibilities of the military departments and the United States Special Operations Command and affiliated component commands in administering, overseeing, managing, and ensuring compliance and participation of special operations forces in ethics programs and professionalism programs, including an identification of—

(A) Any gaps in the administration, oversight, and management of such programs and in ensuring the compliance and participation in such programs; and

(B) Any additional guidance that may be required for a systematic, integrated approach in administering, over- seeing, and managing such programs and in ensuring compliance with and participation in such programs in order to address issues and improve adherence to professionalism and ethics standards.

(5) The adequacy of the existing management and oversight framework for ensuring that all ethics programs and professionalism programs available to special operations forces meet Department standards.

(6) Tools and metrics for identifying and assessing individual and organizational ethics and professionalism issues with respect to special operations forces.

(7) Tools and metrics for assessing the effectiveness of existing ethics programs and professionalism programs in improving or addressing individual and organizational ethics-related and professionalism issues with respect to special operations forces.

(8) Any additional actions that may be required to address or improve individual and organizational ethics and professionalism issues with respect to special operations forces.

(9) Any additional actions that may be required to improve the oversight and accountability by senior leaders of ethics and professionalism-related issues with respect to special operations forces.

(c) LIMITATION ON DELEGATION.—The Secretary of Defense may only delegate responsibility for any element of the review required by subsection (a) to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, in coordination with other appropriate offices of the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments.

(d) DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTAL OF REVIEW.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit the review required by subsection (a) to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by not later than March 1, 2019.

(1) The term ''ethics program'' means a program that includes—

(A) Compliance-based ethics training, education, initiative, or other activity that focuses on adherence to rules and regulations; and

(B) Values-based ethics training, education, initiative, or other activity that focuses on upholding a set of ethical principles in order to achieve high standards of conduct and incorporate guiding principles to help foster an ethical culture and inform decision-making where rules are not clear.

(2) The term ''professionalism program'' means a program that includes training education, initiative, or other activity that focuses on values, ethics, standards, code of conduct, and skills as related to the military profession.

SEC. 917. DEADLINE FOR COMPLETION OF FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIREMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR MANAGEMENT OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS

The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the implementation of Section 922 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 ( P.L. 114-114 –328; 130 Stat. 2354) and the amendments made by that section is fully complete by not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 914. ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS AND LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT REVIEW OF UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

(a) REVIEW REQUIRED.—The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict shall, in coordination with the Commander of the United States Special Operations Command, conduct a comprehensive review of the United States Special Operations Command for purposes of ensuring that the institutional and operational capabilities of special operations forces are appropriate to counter anticipated future threats across the spectrum of conflict.

(b) SCOPE OF REVIEW.—The review required by subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) An assessment of the adequacy of special operations forces doctrine, organization, training, materiel, education, personnel, and facilities to implement the 2018 National Defense Strategy, and recommendations, if any, for modifications for that purpose.

(2) An assessment of the roles and responsibilities of special operations forces as assigned by law, Department of Defense guidance, or other formal designation, and recommendations, if any, for additions to or divestitures of such roles or responsibilities.

(3) An assessment of the adequacy of the processes through which the United States Special Operations Command evaluates and prioritizes the requirements at the geographic combatant commands for special operations forces and special operations-unique capabilities and makes recommendations on the allocation of special operations forces and special operations unique capabilities to meet such requirements, and recommendations, if any, for modifications of such processes.

(4) Any other matters the Assistant Secretary considers appropriate.

(1) COMPLETION OF REVIEW.—The review required by subsection (a) shall be completed by not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after completion of the review, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report on the review, including the findings and any recommendations of the Assistant Secretary as a result of the review.

These three legislative provisions, in addition to directing the Secretary of Defense to fully implement directed changes in ASD SOLIC, call for ASD SOLIC and USSOCOM to take an introspective look at U.S. SOF's culture, roles and responsibilities, adequacy of resources, organizational structure, and the adequacy of train ing, education, and personnel. Some have suggested these provisions are a precursor for congressional and DOD actions to "rein in and reorient" U.S. SOF from fighting terrorists to taking on nation-states instead. Others, citing reportedly nonsanctioned military combat operations in Africa, where U.S. SOF are said to have strayed from their train and assist mandate, have questioned whether or not U.S. SOF was involved in direct combat in Niger. Some believe this situation calls into question the adequacy of civilian oversight and control of U.S. SOF. Others assert that the size of U.S. SOF and the scope of their missions have expanded beyond the ability of USSOCOM to handle them and that congressional actions to increase ASD SOLIC oversight and control of U.S. SOF are necessary to improve the current state of affairs. Aware that U.S. SOF are overburdened and that there is a need to find the right balance between continuing to challenge terrorist organizations while simultaneously addressing growing irregular warfare threats posed by nation-states, policymakers will likely make good use of the two forthcoming congressionally mandated reviews. It is possible that over the next few years, significant public policy debates on the future of USSOCOM and U.S. SOF will be undertaken, potentially resulting in a number of changes for ASD SOLIC, USSOCOM, and U.S. SOF.