ProTact by Haartz

The Full Text Of The Enyart Amendment

This is the full text of what I will from here on out refer to as the Enyart Amendment to the House version of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (HR 1960). The original idea and hence the name of the amendment comes from Rep William Enyart (D-IL) who happens to also be a Retired Major General and former State Adjutant General of the Illinois Army National Guard.

The “Requirement to Establish Policy on Joint Combat Uniforms” passed yesterday 32-30 in a session of the House Armed Services Committee. As I am told the waiver for SOCOM was added after opposition to a blanket requirement for all of DoD to adopt the same uniform. Additionally, you will note that the 2010 legislation regarding joint combat uniforms will be repealed by this act. As I have read multiple accounts of what it says or doesn’t say I felt it best to offer the actual language.

Enyart Amendment to the 2014 NDAA (HR 1960) by solsys

And as I published earlier today, this is still far from law.

First off, for those of you unfamiliar with the legislative process, this is just the first hurdle and it’s still quite a way from becoming law. It’s not as bad as I had feared but I’m concerned it still ham strings the individual services. Below is a simplified version of what still has to happen.

In order to become the law of the land, it must first pass a vote in the full House of Representatives. Then, the Senate will vote on their version of the NDAA which may or may not include similar language. Either way, the two versions of the NDAA will most assuredly contain differences which will have to be hammered out in Conference Committee made up of members of both chambers of Congress. Once those differences are worked out, a conference report detailing what is in the final legislation is voted on by both the Senate and House of Representatives. After approval, it goes to the President to be signed. Barring a veto it becomes law. At any point in this process expect the services to weigh in.

This is by no means a quick process. The NDAA will become law some time after the Army’s anticipated June 14th announcement of a new family of camouflage patterns.

I still feel that it isn’t the job of Congress to dictate to the Services which uniforms to wear but I understand the frustration felt by many (although those that yell the loudest are oftentimes unaffected by the issue). Ultimately, the individual Services have brought this oversight upon themselves by not complying with earlier legislation.


41 Responses to “The Full Text Of The Enyart Amendment”

  1. bulldog76 says:

    so the marines will lose their 8 pointed covers ???

  2. Anonyous says:

    Though I am not a Marine nor have I been in the military myself, law enforcement brat here, it would be a sad day in history for the Marines to lose their 8 point covers. JMHO.
    I wholeheartedly agree with the issue that Congress should not dictate to the services about uniforms and camo. I think that ANY law should take into account the opinion of those who wear and have to use it. Obviously that could be a huge undertaking, but you could take a sampling of those instead. I think at this point with the Army getting ready to make an announcement, it should be looked at by all services and considered, if not adopted by all. Why? Because so much time, effort and money has been spent to come up with the conclusions. It would benefit all, in more ways than one. So the question I can see coming from the other side is how to distinguish between the different services? Well, from a not all inclusive viewpoint; the same way they did it prior to all this. Is that such a bad idea? Can’t have as many negative impacts as the UCP did, IMHO. People really need to start looking at the money involved and the money saved. And yes, scrap just one F-35 and get the job done for the men and women who are getting the job done on the ground, that’s where it counts. Not that the flyboys don’t deserve their credit because they do. Just my humble rant. Take it for it $0.02.

  3. Sal Palma says:

    I understood this to mean that with exception of USSOCOM, the services must design, develop and field a standardized camouflage combat uniform. This does not apply (I think) to in garrison or working uniforms. Just combat uniforms.

    Am I understanding this correctly, SSD?

    • Anonyous says:

      I’m not SSD, but in Sec 3.c.1; it states that all services will be required to adopted a joint uniform adopted by all. This does leave it broad enough that they can do what they have just accomplished, as long as they all adopt a joint uniform. The exception is written in for SOCOM. And as you stated, this will not cover gear, headwear, and footwear.

  4. ian says:

    I still don’t see why socom should be excluded. If the army’s new camo is going to be the best out there why should they care, other than the assinine need to feel special and show it off. Which by the way is the opposite of the low profile they should have.

    • Martin says:

      Just because it makes it through a bureaucracy there isn’t any reason to assume it is the best. This same crowd selected UCP.

  5. Mac says:

    Mission specific equipment. Key point being that SOCOM conducts special operations in places where looking like US military might not be something the US government wants. Another benefit is that with them free to develop uniform items, some of them may trickle down to the GPF, ie cold weather kit.

    • ian says:

      Still doesn’t answer the ISSUED COMBAT UNIFORM question. This obviously doesn’t apply to false flag ops/going native and cold weather gear.

      • SSD says:

        Selection is twice a year…

        • Mac says:


          • ian says:

            Just because someone users common sense doesn’t make them jealous. A socom only camo makes you stick out instead of blend in. Not only that but one of the combat related reasons is battlefield identification. Having more than 1 frendly uniform slows down your shoot no shoot decision making and increased the chance of friendly fire.

      • Mac says:

        Ironically I’d venture most of SOCOM is in their branch’s respective uniform for day to day business. The exception for SOCOM is to grant them the leeway to develop things as needs are identified to accomplish their missions, basically it keeps them from getting pigeon-holed in the future. It’s not a “hey you special people, go develop a 5th branch with a distinct uniform”.

  6. This guy says:

    I see the following happening if this pans out and passes to become law.

    Army says: We just spent millions developing brand new Armycamo, so everyone else should adopt this.

    Sister Services Say: That’s not fair for us to adopt Armycamo we didn’t help develop it. We need to have input in what Camo we where.

    Congress says: Develop Newcamo to used by all services with input from all. Armycamo is shelved and millions of dollars more are wasted developing Newcamo.


    • Anonyous says:

      I can see that to.

      Very real possibility.

    • majrod says:

      Guy – could happen though I doubt it. Don’t think the Air Force is going to have a problem adopting the Army pattern. First there are reports the Air Force is watching the Army effort closely and airmen are wearing multicam and being issued Army ACUs in OCP (multicam). Then there’s the fact that the Navy and Air Force have had troops wearing Army uniforms (to include ACU’s over the last decade) with no issues.

      The Navy developed AOR because they wanted an effective camo pattern and ACU wasn’t cutting it and the Marines wouldn’t let them use MARPAT.

      The only branch that may have a problem is the Corps the same branch that started the mess when they prohibited any branch use of its pattern.

      Most likely we’ll go back to doing business like we did for the 60 years before MARPAT that being shared patterns. It’s not hard or complicated unless one let’s one ego determine one’s path.

      • SSD says:

        The Navy didn’t develop AOR, SOCOM did. In the end, only NSW wanted to use it so it was offered up to Big Navy.

        • majrod says:

          “I’ve called and confirmed with the NAVFAC NWU Program Manager that the NWU II and III patterns used are in fact AOR1 and AOR2, patterns which have been in development for many years now by Naval Special Warfare.”

          Beyond Tactical has been developing camo patterns for the group, including combat ensembles in AOR-1 (a SEAL version of the Marine desert digital) and AOR-2 (a woodland MarPat).
          Kit Up!

          and Strike Hold

          My understanding is the SEALs developed AOR for them. Are the SEALs not Navy personnel? They may or may have not offered it to SOCOM but it was not a SOCOM program. It was an NSW program. There is a difference (the SCAR is a good example of a SOCOM project, every branch had representation). Please feel free to correct me if I’m getting this wrong and my occasional discussions with operators and the acquisition types.

          • SSD says:

            First off, I hate to break it to you but just because someone publishes something doesn’t make it fact. For example, Beyond has NEVER developed camouflage patterns. I happen to have a great deal more fidelity on the AOR program than many other people but have not published much on it simply because it doesn’t belong in the public domain. It’s amazing how many people want to go on and on and on about something they know little about.

            While SEALs are in fact members of the US Navy, you have to determine who pays the bills. In the case of the AOR camouflage program, that was paid for by MFP-11 funds and the patterns were developed for SOCOM. It just so happened that the organization that had lead was NSW. For a time, Army elements of SOCOM used AOR patterns but eventually stopped using them. Additionally, certain USAF SOF units have issued AOR patterns. However, the patterns were not adopted SOF-wide although they remain under the control of USSOCOM. While the Navy uses the patterns, they have to go ask a SOCOM office each time they want to use the patterns for something.

            Those are all facts, written by someone who actually knows. Not some conjecture or guesstimate.

          • majrod says:

            No doubt you have more insight to what’s going on but your interpretation is not infallible nor is your knowledge omniscient. You’ve been making much of the Enyart amendment which isn’t accurate.

            NSW may have been the lead agency for AOR. They may have been the ONLY agency. Use by other SOCOM units doesn’t make it a “SOCOM” program like the SCAR program was which NSW also led but had representation from all of SOCOM.

            Saying AOR is a SOCOM developed camo because NSW is in SOCOM is as strong an argument as saying MARPAT is a DoD program because the Corps is part of DoD.

            SOF is fond of portraying itself as a fifth branch. All kudos to all the great things SOF does but there are strong links back to their parent branches and if they don’t want that link they should consider starting their own pipeline from civilian to operator.

            IF NSW got tagged by the SOCOM commander (even if he was a SEAL) to do some research for a pattern for the whole SOCOM I would happily concur that AOR was a SOCOM program but if the SEALs developed AOR because the Corps was having a hard time with furry faced SEALs wearing MARPAT and the SEALs were tired of the static it’s NOT a SOCOM project. (BTW, came across that nugget back in ’07 & ’08 from SEAL friends working at SOCOM and JSOC when I used traveled down there on business. ALL insight into acquisition isn’t an SSD exclusive. I’ve been careful to provide kudos to SSD at every turn but humility isn’t a bad thing for everyone. As well as claims that one may not know what one is talking about. not realizing what the other person knows.)

            There’s a reason AOR1 is only allowed for NSW. When you complain about SEALs wearing MARPAT and the SEALs develop their own pattern it gets hard to keep resisting since you risk the blowback of your out of control hubris coming back at you by the military’s most celebrated and popular heroes.

            • SSD says:

              What makes something a “SOF” program is who pays for it. That’s not my take on it. That’s law. In the case of AOR, MFP-11 paid for it, making it a SOF program. I’ve said this multiple times. If you’ve come to some incorrect conclusions from some SEALs, I’m sorry someone told you something that didn’t know what they were talking about. If you believe that every SEAL has the skinny on every program, you are sadly mistaken. It amazes me that you are arguing so hard about something you know so little about.

              Once again, AOR was not developed to make the Marines happy. A wide range of patterns were investigated. The pixelated patterns were settled on for a variety of reasons.

              As for SOCOM, if you were familiar with the command and its creation, you would know that it almost was a fifth service. Rather than create that service, lawmakers settled on the creation of a unified command and the creation of Major Force Program 11 which funds SOCOM (including manpower billets which are provided by the services), and gives it an Acquisition Executive that allows it to create requirements and to purchase and provide life-cycle management for SOF-unique capabilities.

          • majrod says:

            According to Ethos Magazine Issue 7,

            “As the Navy decided to change the uniform issued in the sea bag and go to the Navy Working Uniform (NWU) type I blue digital camouflage, NSW jumped on the opportunity to come up with a uniform specifically for its expeditionary forces. Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DEVGRU) took that opportunity to create an Integrated Process Team (IPT) to develop a new uniform. The IPT consisted of combat-experienced personnel who had firsthand knowledge of the requirements of the current wartime areas of operation and what would work best for an operator in the field.”

            “The IPT progressed and is currently testing two, four-color digital camouflage patterns. They are the Area of Responsibility 1 (AOR 1), which is designed for use in the desert, tundra and arid regions, and AOR 2 for jungle, woodland and temperate regions. These patterns are now serving as the basis for the NWU type II (AOR 1) and type III (AOR 2).”

            “… It is not yet known when personnel can expect to wear the new type II and type III uniforms but NSW is rigorously working with the Navy to settle on the configuration and pursuing full issue of these uniforms before the current fleet-wide timeline in FY12.”

            Ethos is an “authorized official production of the Naval Special Warfare Command Public Affairs Office”. Nowhere in the article is SOCOM mentioned (though I’m sure funding from DoD came through SOCOM to NSW but not at SOCOM’s direction). I’m glad I’m not the only one that “didn’t know what they were talking about.”

    • Jesse says:

      The Army used many of the existing patterns as baselines. If the research shows that the new pattern selection is more effective then it would be hard to argue its use. Obviously there is plenty of room for errors in judgement. There is some legitimacy in the logic to reduce redundancy which is fraught in many different developments other than camouflage. The timeline gives plenty of room to bring on new uniforms/equipment without overlapping existing supply or in other woods creating “waste”.

      There can definitely be unforeseen consequences for allowing congress to lay down blanket policy for the military. This could certainly set a negative precedent in regards to many other issues with defense spending and how Congress lays down the law.

      • SSD says:

        All four of the down selected families of patterns outperformed baseline in picture-in-picture testing.

  7. majrod says:

    SSD – “I still feel that it isn’t the job of Congress to dictate to the Services which uniforms to wear”

    Congress isn’t telling any service what uniform to wear. They aren’t touching dress uniforms which are the symbols of each branch and the legislation even allows for unique headgear for those that want to go a little farther. It’s telling the military to work together to find a common solution for the common battlefield they all fight on next to each other. Congress isn’t picking the uniform or the pattern. It’s simply saying “wear the same thing” after a decade of insanity Gucciflage has created EIGHT patterns.

    The military has plenty of room to develop and select effective patterns. SOCOM even more. It’s time for Prima Donnaship to take a back seat to common sense.

  8. majrod says:

    Thanks for getting the full text!!! That’s why SSD is King! (but not the Pope, he’s supposed to be infallible 🙂

  9. This guy says:

    I just wish someone would spill the beans on what the Army picked.

  10. USMColddawg says:

    Does this mean there may be a halt in a new camo decision for the Army? I know the Senate and POTUS need to approve but this decision is 4.5 years away if passed.

  11. Bill says:

    Out of curiosity, what do other friendly countries do, like the Canadians, who obviously influenced MARPAT, Brits, Australians, and so forth? Is there commonality across branches when it comes to battle dress?

    LE brat, too. My camo is Carhartt and Wranglers.

    • stewpidbear says:

      Brits use the same camo throughout all branches, was Dpm, now Mtp (multicam).

  12. CapnTroy says:

    If this actually came to fruition, something tells me we’d see big Army in MARPAT before we’d see the Marines donning MurthaCam…

    • Valhalla says:

      There is no chance of the Army in MARPAT anymore. They have just completed an expensive selection process for new camouflage. That effort isn’t going to be ditched now to wear yesterdays technology (MARPAT is over 10 years old now). Besides, the Army (over 1 million strong) has more clout than the Marines (being the few isn’t an advantage).

      • majrod says:

        Numbers doesn’t count in this debate. There is only one chief for each branch. The Corps is seen as the most prestigious of branches while the Army is seen as the most important (latest PEW poll).

        The Army does have buying power but the corps has an infrastructure well tuned to maintaining its rep and is adroit at controlling publicity while the Army is frankly clumsy.

        Totally agree MARPAT and Multicam won’t be “it” because of the reasons you cited,

  13. Lcon says:

    Just a question if the US military as a whole is pushed to standardise one uniform set based on one camoflage family would that also mean that they would have to standardise a new snow set to? The Army program targets what desert, jungle and transition. But the Marines, Navy, Air Force and Army. All must at some point admit that although unlikely to fight a war in the artic their is a need to manouver and possibly fight in snow.

  14. Stefan S says:

    Glad I retired. The inmates are running the asylum. The only thing a politician is good for is to show us all how honest we are!