The Capitol Hill Playbook: The "Core Four" Committees That Determine Defense Outcomes
- Jordan Clayton
- Jan 2
- 6 min read
In the complex architecture of national defense, the Pentagon is frequently mistaken for the sole arbiter of power. Founders and industry leaders often over-index on the executive branch - Program Executive Offices (PEOs), Combatant Commands (COCOMs), and innovation hubs like DIU - treating them as the final decision-makers in the acquisition process.
This is a fundamental error of market intelligence.
While the Department of Defense (DoD) executes the mission, it is Congress that provides the authority to act and the resources to sustain it. The Pentagon proposes; Congress disposes. For technology companies seeking to transition from pilot programs to Programs of Record, understanding this distinction is not merely a civics lesson - it is a market necessity.
The defense ecosystem orbits four specific legislative bodies, colloquially known as the "Core Four." These committees control the two distinct levers of government power: Authorization (policy) and Appropriation (funding). Misaligning a capture strategy with these legislative realities is a primary cause of the "Valley of Death," where validated requirements fail for lack of funded authority.
To navigate the federal market effectively, one must understand the specific gravitational pull of each committee, the stakeholders who drive them, and the operational cadence of their influence.
The Dual Levers of Power: Authorization vs. Appropriation
Before dissecting the committees, one must understand the functional separation of powers that governs the US budget. The federal government operates on a two-step process:
Authorization: This establishes the legal basis for a program. It defines the mission, sets policy, and sets a ceiling on how much money can be spent. It is the "License to Operate."
Appropriation: This provides the actual budget authority. It allows the Treasury to cut the check. It is the "Fuel in the Tank."
A program can be authorized but not appropriated (a "hollow program"). Conversely, money cannot be legally appropriated to a program that has not been authorized. Success requires synchronization of both vectors.
The Architects of Policy: HASC and SASC
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) and the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) are the architects of defense policy. Their primary vehicle is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a "must-pass" piece of legislation that establishes the legal framework for the DoD.
1. House Armed Services Committee (HASC)
The Role: The HASC sets the strategic direction for the military. It creates new programs, terminates failing ones, and establishes the "ceilings" for force structure and acquisition. Because House members are elected every two years, the HASC is often more responsive to immediate industrial base concerns and emerging technology trends.
The Stakeholders:
The Chairman & Ranking Member: They set the agenda and control the "mark."
Subcommittees: This is where the work happens. For tech founders, the Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation (CITI) subcommittee is the center of gravity.
Professional Staff Members (PSMs): These are the unelected power brokers. They write the legislative language and advise the members. Engaging a PSM with a white paper is often more effective than a 5-minute meeting with a Representative.
Strategic Relevance: For emerging technology companies, the HASC is often the engine of reform. This committee writes the language that creates rapid prototyping authorities (like Section 804), establishes pilot programs for commercial technology, and mandates acquisition agility. If you need a policy waiver or a new authority to bypass a bureaucratic hurdle, the HASC is your forum.
2. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC)
The Role: The SASC serves as the Senate's mirror to the HASC, writing its own version of the NDAA. Historically, the SASC takes a longer-term view, focusing heavily on strategic stability, personnel policy, and the high-level confirmation of DoD appointees (like the Secretary of Defense).
The Stakeholders:
Airland, Seapower, and Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittees are key targets depending on your domain.
The "Conference" Filter: The differences between the House and Senate versions of the NDAA are reconciled in a "Conference Committee." This is a critical chokepoint. A provision included in the House bill but rejected by the Senate may disappear entirely. Understanding the SASC’s specific priorities—which often differ from the House—is essential for ensuring your legislative language survives the final cut.
The Authorization Reality: HASC and SASC give you the "license to drive." They define the mission and authorize the program. However, an authorized program with no money is a hollow structure. This leads to the second, equally critical front.
The Power of the Purse: HAC-D and SAC-D
The Defense Subcommittees of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees (HAC-D and SAC-D) hold the constitutional "power of the purse." They write the Defense Appropriations Bill, which converts policy intent into liquid resources.
3. House Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee (HAC-D)
The Role: The HAC-D acts as the primary allocator. They determine the specific dollar amount allocated to every account and line item in the DoD budget. They fund Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), Procurement, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M).
The Mechanism:
The "Plus Up": The HAC-D has the power to add funding to a Program Element (PE) that supports your technology, even if the President's Budget Request (PBR) asked for less.
The "Mark": Conversely, they can cut a program that is underperforming or lacks justification.
Report Language: They issue accompanying reports that can "fence" funding—restricting access to money until specific conditions (like a successful test event) are met.
Strategic Relevance: This is where "New Starts" find their capital. If you have successfully shaped a requirement with the HASC, you must ensure the HAC-D allocates the dollars to execute it.
4. Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee (SAC-D)
The Role: The SAC-D writes the Senate’s version of the spending bill. Like the authorizers, the appropriators must reconcile their bills. The final number that becomes law is a negotiated settlement between the HAC-D and SAC-D.
The "Four Corners" Dynamic: Once a budget is passed, the DoD has limited flexibility. If a program needs to move significant funds mid-year (a process known as "reprogramming"), it often requires the explicit approval of the leadership of all four committees—the "Four Corners." This makes maintaining broad, bicameral support essential for program resilience.
The "Color of Money" Interaction
The interplay between these committees dictates the liquidity of the market.
HASC/SASC create the "bucket" (the Program of Record).
HAC-D/SAC-D fill the bucket with water (Appropriations).
The DoD decides when to pour the water (Execution).
A founder who pitches a PEO without understanding if the PEO has an authorized bucket with appropriated water is wasting their time.
The Founder's Playbook: Navigating the Hill
Success in the federal market requires a synchronized engagement strategy that addresses both vectors. You are not "lobbying"; you are educating.
Phase 1: Intelligence Preparation (Q1 - Feb/Mar)
Event: The President’s Budget Request (PBR) is released.
Action: Analyze the PBR to identify which Program Elements (PEs) align with your technology. Are they funded? Are they growing or shrinking? This is your baseline.
Phase 2: The Policy Campaign (Q2 - Apr/May)
Event: HASC and SASC hold hearings and draft the NDAA (The "Markup").
Action: Engage with Professional Staff Members. Provide "Information Papers" that highlight the capability gap your technology solves.
The Ask: You are asking for Report Language in the NDAA that directs the DoD to explore or prioritize your specific capability area.
Phase 3: The Funding Campaign (Q3 - Jun/Jul)
Event: HAC-D and SAC-D draft the appropriations bills.
Action: Ensure that the PE codes identified in Phase 1 receive the necessary funding. If the HASC created a new pilot program for you, you must ensure the HAC-D funds it.
The Ask: You are advocating for a Program Increase (Plus-Up) or protecting an existing line item from cuts.
Phase 4: The Reconciliation (Q4 - Oct/Dec)
Event: The "Conference" process where House and Senate bills are merged.
Action: Monitor the negotiations. Ensure your provision is not traded away in the final deal.
Risk: If this process fails or is delayed, a Continuing Resolution (CR) goes into effect. A CR freezes funding at prior-year levels and creates a statutory prohibition on "New Starts." This is the "Winter" that startups must plan for.
Strategic Synthesis: The Value of Legislative Synchronization
Navigating the legislative landscape is not an optional "extra" for defense technology companies; it is a critical component of a mature capture strategy. Aligning innovation with mission requires not just technical superiority, but legislative synchronization.
The Pentagon can want your product, but only Congress can write the check.
We operate at the intersection of technological capability and legislative reality. At DualSight, we provide the Market Intelligence to identify your relevant committees and the Strategic Advisory to map your capability against the NDAA and Appropriations cycles. We ensure your path to a Program of Record is both authorized and funded.
