[House Report 112-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 244
112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-359
SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORT
ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
December 30, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
19-006 WASHINGTON : 2011
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 30, 2011.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith the
second semiannual report on the activities of the Committee on
Armed Services for the 112th Congress.
Sincerely,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Powers and Duties................................................ 1
Background................................................... 1
Constitutional Powers and Duties............................. 2
House Rules on Jurisdiction.................................. 3
Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight............ 3
Committee Rules.................................................. 4
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services................... 16
Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services................. 17
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............ 17
Subcommittee on Military Personnel........................... 18
Subcommittee on Readiness.................................... 19
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces............... 20
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces............................. 21
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces................. 22
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations................. 23
Committee Panels................................................. 24
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform 24
Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry..... 25
Committee Staff.................................................. 26
Committee Meetings............................................... 28
Legislative Activities........................................... 28
Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress................ 28
Legislation Reported by the Committee on Armed Services...... 32
Legislation Not Reported but Managed by the Committee on
Armed Services on the Floor of the House of Representatives 33
Budget Activity.................................................. 34
Oversight Activities............................................. 35
Policy Issues................................................ 36
Fiscal Responsibility and Efficiency......................... 43
Other Policy Issues.......................................... 47
Readiness.................................................... 48
Energy and Environment....................................... 53
Military Construction and Infrastructure..................... 55
Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues............... 57
Modernization and Investment Issues.......................... 62
Emerging Threats and Capabilities............................ 77
Additional Oversight Activities of the Full Committee............ 80
Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees and the
Panels......................................................... 82
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............ 82
Subcommittee on Military Personnel........................... 83
Subcommittee on Readiness.................................... 86
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces............... 87
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces............................. 87
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces................. 88
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations................. 89
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform 91
Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry..... 93
Publications..................................................... 95
Committee Prints............................................. 95
Published Proceedings........................................ 95
House Reports................................................ 102
Press Releases................................................... 103
First Session................................................ 103
Union Calendar No. 244
112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 112-359
======================================================================
SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
_______
December 30, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McKeon, from the Committee on Armed Services,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
POWERS AND DUTIES
BACKGROUND
The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee
of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by
merging the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs.
The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were
established in 1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and
naval appropriations was taken from the Committee on
Appropriations and given to the Committees on Military Affairs
and Naval Affairs, respectively. This practice continued until
July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over all appropriations was
again placed in the Committee on Appropriations.
In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select
Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3,
1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas
of the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially
unchanged. However, oversight functions were amended to require
each standing committee to review and study on a continuing
basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the
Committee on Armed Services was to review and study on a
continuing basis all laws, programs, and government activities
dealing with or involving international arms control and
disarmament and the education of military dependents in school.
The rules changes adopted by the House (H. Res. 5) on
January 4, 1977, placed new responsibilities in the field of
atomic energy in the Committee on Armed Services. Those
responsibilities involved the national security aspects of
atomic energy previously within the jurisdiction of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy. Public Law 95-110, effective
September 20, 1977, abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy.
With the adoption of H. Res. 658 on July 14, 1977, which
established the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed
Service over intelligence matters was changed.
That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities and programs of the U.S.
Government. Specifically, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding
the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of Central
Intelligence, including authorizations. Also, legislative
jurisdiction over all intelligence and intelligence-related
activities and programs was vested in the permanent select
committee except that other committees with a jurisdictional
interest may request consideration of any such matters.
Accordingly, as a matter of practice, the Committee on Armed
Services shared jurisdiction over the authorization process
involving intelligence-related activities.
The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4,
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals.
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence
matters and the intelligence related activities of the
Department of Defense.
On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.
CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES
The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national
defense matters stem from Article I, Section 8 of the United
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that
Congress shall have power to:
Raise and support Armies;
Provide and maintain a Navy;
Make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
Provide for calling forth the militia;
Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States;
Exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all places
purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals,
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and
Make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
HOUSE RULES ON JURISDICTION
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each
standing committee. Under the rule, all bills, resolutions, and
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
(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.
(16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special
oversight functions with respect to international arms control
and disarmament and military dependent education.
INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT
H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority
for each committee to investigate matters within its
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated,
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on
Armed Services.
H. Res. 147 was approved by the House on March 17, 2011,
and provided funds for, among other things, committee oversight
responsibilities to be conducted in the 112th Congress. The
committee derives its authority to conduct oversight from,
among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of
the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to
investigations and studies).
COMMITTEE RULES
The committee held its organizational meeting on January
20, 2011, and adopted the following rules governing rules and
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full
committee and its subcommittees.
(H.A.S.C. 112-1; Committee Print No. 1)
RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules
of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in
these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far
as applicable.
(b) Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee's rules shall be
publicly available in electronic form and published in the
Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the chair of
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.
RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.,
when the House of Representatives is in session, and at such
other times as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Chairman''), or by written
request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed
with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a
written request of a majority of the members of the Committee.
RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES
Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee
Chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the
Chairman, other subcommittee Chairmen, and the Ranking Minority
Member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding,
whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and
subcommittee meetings or hearings.
RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEES
(a) Jurisdiction
(1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all
subjects listed in clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule
X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
retains exclusive jurisdiction for: defense policy
generally, ongoing military operations, the
organization and reform of the Department of Defense
and Department of Energy, counter-drug programs,
security and humanitarian assistance (except special
operations-related activities) of the Department of
Defense, acquisition and industrial base policy,
technology transfer and export controls, joint
interoperability, the Cooperative Threat Reduction
program, Department of Energy nonproliferation
programs, detainee affairs and policy, intelligence
policy, force protection policy and inter-agency reform
as it pertains to the Department of Defense and the
nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy.
While subcommittees are provided jurisdictional
responsibilities in subparagraph (2), the Committee
retains the right to exercise oversight and legislative
jurisdiction over all subjects within its purview under
rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of
seven standing subcommittees with the following
jurisdictions:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All
Army, Air Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs
(except Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle
programs, strategic missiles, space, lift programs,
special operations, science and technology programs,
and information technology accounts). In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine
Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army, Air
Force and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and
ammunition programs.
Subcommittee on 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.
Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness,
training, logistics and maintenance issues and
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be
responsible for all military construction, depot
policy, civilian personnel policy, environmental
policy, installations and family housing issues,
including the base closure process, and energy policy
and programs of the Department of Defense.
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces: Navy
acquisition programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and
Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs
(except strategic weapons, space, special operations,
science and technology programs, and information
technology programs), deep strike bombers and related
systems, lift programs, and seaborne unmanned aerial
systems. 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.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic weapons
(except deep strike bombers and related systems), space
programs, ballistic missile defense, national
intelligence programs, and Department of Energy
national security programs (except non-proliferation
programs).
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities:
Defense-wide and joint enabling activities and programs
to include: Special Operations Forces; counter-
proliferation and counter-terrorism programs and
initiatives; science and technology policy and
programs; information technology programs; homeland
defense and Department of Defense related consequence
management programs; related intelligence support; and
other enabling programs and activities to include cyber
operations, strategic communications, and information
operations.
Subcommittee on 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.
(b) Membership of the Subcommittees
(1) Subcommittee memberships, with the exception of
membership on the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, shall be filled in accordance with the
rules of the Majority party's conference and the
Minority party's caucus, respectively.
(2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be
filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority
party's conference and the Minority party's caucus,
respectively. Consistent with the party ratios
established by the Majority party, all other Majority
members of the subcommittee shall be appointed by the
Chairman of the Committee, and all other Minority
members shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority
Member of the Committee.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking
Minority Member thereof may sit as ex officio members
of all subcommittees. Ex officio members shall not vote
in subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into
consideration for the purpose of determining the ratio
of the subcommittees or establishing a quorum at
subcommittee hearings or meetings.
(4) A member of the Committee who is not a member of
a particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee
and participate during any of its hearings but shall
not have authority to vote, cannot be counted for the
purpose of achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point
of order at the hearing.
RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES
(a) Committee Panels
(1) The Chairman may designate a panel of the
Committee consisting of members of the Committee to
inquire into and take testimony on a matter or matters
that fall within the jurisdiction of more than one
subcommittee and to report to the Committee.
(2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue
in existence for more than six months after the
appointment. A panel so appointed may, upon the
expiration of six months, be reappointed by the
Chairman for a period of time which is not to exceed
six months.
(3) Consistent with the party ratios established by
the Majority party, all Majority members of the panels
shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee,
and all Minority members shall be appointed by the
Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee
shall choose one of the Majority members so appointed who does
not currently chair another subcommittee of the Committee to
serve as Chairman of the panel. The Ranking Minority Member of
the Committee shall similarly choose the Ranking Minority
Member of the panel.
(4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction.
(b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces
(1) The Chairman of the Committee, or a Chairman of a
subcommittee with the concurrence of the Chairman of
the Committee, may designate a task force to inquire
into and take testimony on a matter that falls within
the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee,
respectively. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member
of the Committee or subcommittee shall each appoint an
equal number of members to the task force. The Chairman
of the Committee or subcommittee shall choose one of
the members so appointed, who does not currently chair
another subcommittee of the Committee, to serve as
Chairman of the task force. The Ranking Minority Member
of the Committee or subcommittee shall similarly
appoint the Ranking Minority Member of the task force.
(2) No task force appointed by the Chairman of the
Committee or subcommittee shall continue in existence
for more than three months. A task force may only be
reappointed for an additional three months with the
written concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee whose
Chairman appointed the task force.
(3) No task force shall have legislative
jurisdiction.
RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION
(a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
(b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup
only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
(c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by
the Committee.
(d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee,
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a
quorum of the Committee.
(e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority
Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation
and other matters to be considered by the House of
Representatives, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules
of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not
conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives and
other applicable rules.
RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee, or
of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, shall make a public
announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any
hearing or meeting before that body at least one week before
the commencement of a hearing and at least three days before
the commencement of a meeting. However, if the Chairman of the
Committee, or of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, with
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member,
determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing or
meeting sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or
task force so determines by majority vote, a quorum being
present for the transaction of business, such chairman shall
make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any
announcement made under this rule shall be promptly published
in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee
scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and
promptly made publicly available in electronic form.
(b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an
announcement under paragraph (a) made within 24 hours before
such meeting, the Chairman of the Committee, or of any
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall cause the text of such
measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic
form as provided in clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
(a) Pursuant to clause 2(e)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide audio and video coverage of
each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a
manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the
proceedings. The Committee shall maintain the recordings of
such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the
public.
(b) Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
(a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of
business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the
Committee, or any subcommittee, panel, or task force, to the
extent that the respective body is authorized to conduct
markups, shall be open to the public except when the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force in open session and with a
majority being present, determines by record vote that all or
part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day
shall be in executive session because disclosure of testimony,
evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the
preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in
attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee,
subcommittee, panel, or task force may vote to close a hearing
or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony
or evidence to be received would endanger the national
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of
Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive
session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session, a
majority of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force
being present.
(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the Committee or
subcommittee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is
asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the
witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or
incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of
(a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or
testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a
majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no
fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the
Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. A majority
of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two
members of the Committee or subcommittee may also vote to close
the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing
whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend to
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. The Committee or
subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open
session only if the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being
present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of
the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by
letter to the Chairman, one member of that member's personal
staff, and an alternate, which may include fellows, with Top
Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee,
or that member's subcommittee(s), panel(s), or task force(s)
(excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of
committee rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the
provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes
for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff
member or fellow at such hearings is subject to the approval of
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force as dictated
by national security requirements at that time. The attainment
of any required security clearances is the responsibility of
individual members of the Committee.
(d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance
at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the
House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the
Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series
of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a
particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same
procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the
public.
(e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same
procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five
additional consecutive days of hearings.
RULE 10. QUORUM
(a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving
evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.
(b) One-third of the members of the Committee or
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action,
with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of the
Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:
(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;
(2) Closing Committee or subcommittee meetings and
hearings to the public;
(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;
(4) Authorizing the use of executive session
material; and
(5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to
close to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be
received would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate
any person.
(c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the
House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is
actually present.
RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE
(a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address
the Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under
consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when
the member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee
chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be
exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall
be recognized for not more than five minutes to address the
Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the
member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-
minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee.
(b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the
Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened
shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman,
as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving
subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member will take precedence upon their arrival. In
recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the
Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the
Majority to Minority members present and shall establish the
order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to
disadvantage the members of either party.
(2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a
member of the Committee who is not a member of a
subcommittee may be recognized by a subcommittee
chairman in order of their arrival and after all
present subcommittee members have been recognized.
(3) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee,
with the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority
Member, may depart with the regular order for
questioning which is specified in paragraphs (a) and
(b) of this rule provided that such a decision is
announced prior to the hearing or prior to the opening
statements of the witnesses and that any such departure
applies equally to the Majority and the Minority.
(c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, panel,
or task force hearings and meetings.
RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER
(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee is
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
(1) to sit and act at such times and places within
the United States, whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
(2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the
attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the
production of such books, records, correspondence,
memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not
limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers
necessary.
(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full
Committee Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee, under subparagraph (a)(2) in
the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations
or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the
members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee
being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the
Chairman, or by any member designated by the Committee.
(2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, compliance with any
subpoena issued by the Committee or any subcommittee
under subparagraph (a)(2) may be enforced only as
authorized or directed by the House of Representatives.
RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS
(a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to
the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the
Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of
presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the
Committee or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less
than 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such
prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in
electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national
security information bearing a classification of Secret or
higher, the statement shall be made available in the Committee
rooms to all members of the Committee or subcommittee as soon
as practicable but not less than 24 hours in advance of
presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from
the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule may be
waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a
quorum being present. In cases where a witness does not submit
a statement by the time required under this rule, the Chairman
of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, with the
concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may
elect to exclude the witness from the hearing.
(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each
witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee
in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the
proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such
appearance to a brief summary of the submitted written
statement.
(c) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, written witness statements, with
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness,
shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later
than one day after the witness appears.
RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES
(a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman,
may administer oaths to any witness.
(b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following
oath:
``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony
you will give before this Committee (or subcommittee)
in the matters now under consideration will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God?''
RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES
(a) When a witness is before the Committee or a
subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may put
questions to the witness only when recognized by the Chairman
or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose
according to rule 11 of the Committee.
(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire
shall have not more than five minutes to question each witness
or panel of witnesses, the responses of the witness or
witnesses being included in the five-minute period, until such
time as each member has had an opportunity to question each
witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter, additional rounds
for questioning witnesses by members are within the discretion
of the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.
(c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or
subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that
may be before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration.
RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS
The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the
Committee, subcommittee, or panel will be published officially
in substantially verbatim form, with the material requested for
the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of
the record, as appropriate. The transcripts of markups
conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee may be published
officially in verbatim form. Any requests to correct any
errors, other than those in transcription, will be appended to
the record, and the appropriate place where the change is
requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published under
this rule shall include the results of record votes conducted
in the session covered by the transcript and shall also include
materials that have been submitted for the record and are
covered under rule 19. The handling and safekeeping of these
materials shall fully satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No
transcript of an executive session conducted under rule 9 shall
be published under this rule.
RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS
(a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote,
division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.
(b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-
fifth of those members present.
(c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a
subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be
cast by proxy.
(d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in
attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference
committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of
that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
(e) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, as
appropriate, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority
Member or the most senior Minority member who is present at the
time, may elect to postpone requested record votes until such
time or point at a markup as is mutually decided. When
proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any
intervening order for the previous question, the underlying
proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment
to the same extent as when the question was postponed.
RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS
(a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by
the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice
of intention to file supplemental, Minority, additional or
dissenting views, that member shall be entitled to not less
than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal
holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in
which to file such views, in writing and signed by that member,
with the Staff Director of the Committee, or the Staff
Director's designee. All such views so filed by one or more
members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be
a part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to
that measure or matter.
(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report
any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and
against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief
description of the question, shall be included in the Committee
report on the measure or matter.
(c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee,
the Chairman shall cause the text of each such amendment to be
made publicly available in electronic form as provided in
clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS
The result of each record vote in any meeting of the
Committee shall be made available by the Committee for
inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of
the Committee and also made publicly available in electronic
form within 48 hours of such record vote pursuant to clause
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. Information so available shall include a
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other
proposition and the name of each member voting for and each
member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or
proposition and the names of those members present but not
voting.
RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER INFORMATION
(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security
information bearing a classification of Secret or higher which
has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be
deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be
given appropriate safekeeping.
(b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure of any national security information that is
received which is classified as Secret or higher. Such
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by
any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or
Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives, staff of
the Committee, or staff designated under rule 9(c) who have the
appropriate security clearances and the need to know, who has
requested the opportunity to review such material.
(c) The Chairman of the Committee shall, in consultation
with the Ranking Minority Member, establish such procedures as
in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized
disclosure of any proprietary information that is received by
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such
procedures shall be consistent with the Rules of the House of
Representatives and applicable law.
RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING
The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees,
and any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or
chairmen of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS
The records of the Committee at the National Archives and
Records Administration shall be made available for public use
in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority
Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause
4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise available, and
the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a
determination on the written request of any member of the
Committee.
RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES
Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
RULE 24. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS
Not later than the 30th day after June 1 and December 1,
the Committee shall submit to the House a semiannual report on
its activities, pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Pursuant to H. Res. 6, election of the Chairman (adopted
January 5, 2011), H. Res. 7, election of the Ranking Member
(adopted January 5, 2011), H. Res. 33, election of majority
members (adopted January 12, 2011), H. Res. 39, election of
minority members (adopted January 19, 2011), and H. Res. 377,
election of a minority member (adopted July 28, 2011), the
following members served on the Committee on Armed Services in
the first session of the 112th Congress:
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking MemberOSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RICK LARSEN, Washington MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina DUNCAN HUNTER, California
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
BILL OWENS, New York MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California TOM ROONEY, Florida
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM RYAN, Ohio SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland CHRIS GIBSON, New York
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
KATHY CASTOR, Florida\1\ JOE HECK, Nevada
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\2\ AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
----------
\1\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\2\Ms. Hochul was appointed to the committee on July 28, 2011.
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The following subcommittees were established at the
committee's organizational meeting on January 20, 2011.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Defense-wide and
joint enabling activities and programs to include: Special
Operations Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism
programs and initiatives; science and technology policy and
programs; information technology programs; homeland defense and
Department of Defense related consequence management programs;
related intelligence support; and other enabling programs and
activities to include cyber operations, strategic
communications, and information operations.
Mr. Thornberry, Chairman
Mr. Langevin, Ranking Member Mr. Miller
Ms. Sanchez Mr. Kline
Mr. Andrews Mr. Shuster
Mrs. Davis Mr. Conaway
Mr. Ryan Mr. Gibson
Mr. Ruppersberger Mr. Schilling
Mr. Johnson Mr. West
Mrs. Castor\1\ Mr. Franks
Ms. Hochul\2\ Mr. Hunter
----------
\1\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\2\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities on August 2, 2011.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--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.
Mr. Wilson, Chairman
Mrs. Davis, Ranking Member Mr. Jones
Mr. Brady Mr. Coffman
Ms. Bordallo Mr. Rooney
Mr. Loebsack Dr. Heck
Ms. Tsongas Mr. West
Ms. Pingree Mr. Scott
Mrs. Hartzler
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military
readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for
all military construction, depot policy, civilian personnel
policy, environmental policy, installations and family housing
issues, including the base closure process, and energy policy
and programs of the Department of Defense.
Mr. Forbes, Chairman
Ms. Bordallo, Ranking Member Mr. Rogers
Mr. Reyes Dr. Heck
Mr. Courtney Mr. Scott
Mr. Loebsack Mr. LoBiondo
Ms. Giffords Mr. Gibson
Mr. Kissell Mrs. Hartzler
Mr. Owens Mr. Schilling
Mr. Ryan Mr. Runyan
Mrs. Hanabusa Mr. Griffin
Mr. Palazzo
Mrs. Roby
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy acquisition
programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and Marine Corps amphibious
assault vehicle programs (except strategic weapons, space,
special operations, science and technology programs, and
information technology programs), deep strike bombers and
related systems, lift programs, and seaborne unmanned aerial
systems. 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.
Mr. Akin, Chairman
Mr. McIntyre, Ranking Member Mr. Hunter
Mrs. Davis Mr. Coffman
Mr. Langevin Mr. Rigell
Mr. Larsen Mr. Griffin
Mr. Courtney Mr. Palazzo
Ms. Pingree Mr. Young
Mr. Critz Mr. Bartlett
Mr. Johnson Mr. Forbes
Ms. Sutton Mr. Wittman
Mr. Platts
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Strategic
weapons (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space
programs, ballistic missile defense, national intelligence
programs, and Department of Energy national security programs
(except non-proliferation programs).
Mr. Turner, Chairman
Ms. Sanchez, Ranking Member Mr. Franks
Mr. Langevin Mr. Lamborn
Mr. Larsen Mr. Brooks
Mr. Heinrich Mr. Thornberry
Mr. Garamendi Mr. Rogers
Mr. Ruppersberger Dr. Fleming
Ms. Sutton Mr. Rigell
Mr. Scott
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--All Army, Air
Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except Marine
Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs, strategic missiles,
space, lift programs, special operations, science and
technology programs, and information technology accounts). In
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and
Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army, Air
Force and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition
programs.
Mr. Bartlett, Chairman
Mr. Reyes, Ranking Member Mr. LoBiondo
Mr. McIntyre Dr. Fleming
Mr. Cooper Mr. Rooney
Ms. Giffords Mr. Platts
Ms. Tsongas Mrs. Hartzler
Mr. Kissell Mr. Runyan
Mr. Heinrich Mrs. Roby
Mr. Owens Mr. Jones
Mr. Garamendi Mr. Akin
Mr. Critz Mr. Wilson
Mrs. Castor\1\ Mr. Turner
Ms. Hochul\2\ Mr. Shuster
Mr. Lamborn
----------
\1\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\2\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces on August 2, 2011.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--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.
Mr. Wittman, Chairman
Mr. Cooper, Ranking Member Mr. Conaway
Mr. Andrews Mr. Brooks
Ms. Sanchez Mr. Young
Mrs. Hanabusa Mr. Rooney
Mr. Coffman
COMMITTEE PANELS
The following panel of the committee was appointed on July
13, 2011, and reappointed on November 17, 2011.
PANEL ON DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDITABILITY REFORM
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel has
been tasked to examine the Department of Defense's financial
management system and possible ways to improve its financial
management and audit readiness effort.
Mr. Conaway, Chairman
Mr. Andrews, Ranking Member Mr. Rigell
Mr. Courtney Mr. Palazzo
Mr. Ryan Mr. Young
The following panel of the committee was appointed on
September 12, 2011.
PANEL ON BUSINESS CHALLENGES WITHIN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel has
been tasked to examine the current defense business environment
and to seek to understand how the Department of Defense could
spur innovation, competition, and cost savings by encouraging
new entrants into the industrial base and fostering the
transition of technology.
Mr. Shuster, Chairman
Mr. Larsen, Ranking Member Mr. Schilling
Ms. Sutton Mr. Runyan
Ms. Hanabusa Mr. West
COMMITTEE STAFF
By committee resolution adopted at the organizational
meeting on January 20, 2011, or by authority of the chairman,
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the
committee during the 112th Congress:
Bob Simmons, Staff Director
Roger Zakheim, Deputy Staff
Director/General Counsel
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
Michael R. Higgins, Professional
Staff Member
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff
Member
John F. Sullivan, Professional
Staff Member
Nancy M. Warner, Professional
Staff Member
Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff
Member
Douglas C. Roach, Professional
Staff Member
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff
Member
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff
Member
Jeanette S. James, Professional
Staff Member
Rebecca A. Ross, Professional
Staff Member
Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff
Member (resigned February 26,
2011)
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff
Member
Lynn M. Williams, Professional
Staff Member
Joshua C. Holly, Director of
Communications (resigned June 12,
2011)
John Wason, Professional Staff
Member
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff
Member
Alex Kugajevsky, Professional
Staff Member
Kari Bingen, Professional Staff
Member (resigned September 7,
2011)
Cyndi Howard, Security Manager
Douglas Bush, Professional Staff
Member
Lara Battles, Professional Staff
Member (resigned March 25, 2011)
Cathy Garman, Professional Staff
Member
Vickie Plunkett, Professional
Staff Member
Timothy McClees, Professional
Staff Member
Kevin Gates, Professional Staff
Member
Michael Casey, Professional Staff
Member
David Sienicki, Professional Staff
Member
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative
Operations
Everett Coleman, Professional
Staff Member
Mary Kate Cunningham, Staff
Assistant
Craig Greene, Professional Staff
Member
Phil MacNaughton, Professional
Staff Member
Jack Schuler, Professional Staff
Member
Scott Bousum, Staff Assistant
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff
Member
John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
William S. Johnson, Counsel
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff
Member and Senior Advisor to the
Chairman
Jim Weiss, Staff Assistant
Alejandra Villarreal, Staff
Assistant
Megan Howard, Staff Assistant
(resigned October 21, 2011)
Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant
(resigned September 14, 2011)
Peter Villano, Professional Staff
Member
Paul Lewis, Counsel
Jeff Cullen, Staff Assistant
Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff
Member
Michele Pearce, Counsel
Famid Sinha, Staff Assistant
(resigned May 9, 2011)
Katie Sendak, Research Assistant
Ben Runkle, Professional Staff
Member
Melissa Tuttle, Staff Assistant
(resigned July 27, 2011)
Catherine A. McElroy, Counsel
Michael Amato, Professional Staff
Member
Robert J. McAlister,
Communications Assistant
Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed
January 3, 2011, resigned May 5,
2011)
Jonathan Shepard, Intern
(appointed January 4, 2011,
resigned February 18, 2011)
Dustin Walker, Staff Assistant
(appointed February 7, 2011)
Thomas MacKenzie, Professional
Staff Member (appointed March 7,
2011)
Lauren Hauhn, Research Assistant
(appointed March 8, 2011)
John Noonan, Deputy Communications
Director (appointed March 21,
2011)
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff
Member (appointed April 1, 2011)
Arthur Milikh, Intern (appointed
April 1, 2011, resigned July 15,
2011)
Elizabeth Nathan, Professional
Staff Member (appointed April 8,
2011)
Elizabeth McWhorter, Executive
Assistant (appointed April 18,
2011)
Nicholas Rodman, Staff Assistant
(appointed May 2, 2011)
Stephen Bosco, Intern (appointed
May 17, 2011, resigned July 29,
2011)
Aaron Applbaum, Intern (appointed
May 23, 2011, resigned July 8,
2011)
Kelly McRaven, Intern (appointed
June 1, 2011, resigned August 4,
2011)
Andrew T. Walter, Professional
Staff Member (appointed June 2,
2011)
Ken Orvick, Intern (appointed June
16, 2011, resigned August 12,
2011)
Claude Chafin, Communications
Director (appointed July 12, 2011)
Aaron Falk, Staff Assistant
(appointed August 1, 2011)
Arthur Milikh, Staff Assistant
(appointed August 1, 2011)
Tim Morrison, Counsel (appointed
August 1, 2011)
Jonathan D. Roger, Intern
(appointed August 29, 2011,
resigned December 8, 2011)
Kimberly Shaw, Professional Staff
Member (appointed September 1,
2011)
Ryan Jacobs, Intern (appointed
September 8, 2011, resigned
December 15, 2011)
Stephen Bosco, Intern (appointed
September 9, 2011, resigned
December 16, 2011)
Martin Hussey, Intern (appointed
September 9, 2011, resigned
December 16, 2011)
Stephen Kitay, Professional Staff
Member (appointed October 11,
2011)
James Mazol, Staff Assistant
(appointed December 5, 2011)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
A total of 153 meetings and markups have been held by the
Committee on Armed Services, its subcommittees, and panels
during the 112th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows:
FULL COMMITTEE.................................................... 47
SUBCOMMITTEES:
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............. 16
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................ 20
Subcommittee on Readiness..................................... 15
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................ 6
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................. 16
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................. 11
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................. 7
PANELS:
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Audibility Reform... 9
Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry...... 6
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
LEGISLATION PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS
H.R. 1540--To Authorize Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012 for
Military Activities of the Department of Defense, for Military
Construction, and for Defense Activities of the Department of Energy,
To Prescribe Military Personnel Strengths for Such Fiscal Year, and for
Other Purposes
On April 14, 2011, H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced by
Chairman McKeon and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services held
a mark-up session to consider H.R. 1540. The committee, a
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 1540, as amended,
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-1.
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 26, 2011, by a
recorded vote of 322--96 (Roll no. 375). On June 6, 2011, the
bill was received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services. On December 1, 2011, the
Senate Committee on Armed Services was discharged and the
measure was laid before Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate
then struck all after the enacting clause, substituted the
language of S. 1867 amended, and then passed H.R. 1540 with an
amendment by unanimous consent. On December 7, 2011, Chairman
McKeon moved that the House disagree to the Senate amendment,
and agree to a conference by unanimous consent. On December 12,
2011, the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540 (H. Rept.
112-329) was filed. On December 14, 2011, the conference report
was agreed to in the House by recorded vote, 283-136 (Roll no.
932). The next day, December 15, 2011, the conference report
was agreed to in Senate, 86-13 (Record Vote Number: 230).
The conference report on H.R. 1540 would: (1) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for procurement and for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for operation and
maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize
for fiscal year 2012: (a) the personnel strength for each
active duty component of the military departments; (b) the
personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve
Component of the Armed Forces; (c) the military training
student loads for each of the active and Reserve Components of
the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of
compensation for military personnel and impose certain
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the
defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for military construction and family housing; (6)
Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations;
(7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the Maritime
Administration.
H.R. 1540 is a key mechanism through which Congress
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States,
which grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army;
to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X
of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides
jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally, and over
the military application of nuclear energy, to the Committee on
Armed Services. The conference report on H.R. 1540 includes the
large majority of the findings and recommendations resulting
from its oversight activities in the current year, as informed
by the experience gained over the previous decades of the
committee's existence.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 would authorize $662.4
billion for national defense discretionary programs and
includes $530.0 billion for the base budget of the Department
of Defense, $115.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations,
and $16.9 billion for national security programs in the
Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board.
Division A
Division A of the conference report on H.R. 1540 would
authorize funds for fiscal year 2012 for the Department of
Defense.
Subtitle A of title I would authorize $103.6 billion for
procurement for the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps, the
Air Force, and Defense-wide activities. Subtitles B and C of
title I would establish additional program requirements,
restrictions, and limitations for specified programs for the
Armed Forces
Subtitle A of title II would authorize $ 71.6 billion for
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed
Forces and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic
research and development-related matters. Subtitle B of title
II would establish certain program requirements, restrictions,
and limitations on separate research and development-related
matters. Subtitles C through E of title II addresses missile
defense programs, reports and miscellaneous matters.
Subtitle A of title III would authorize $ 162.2 billion for
operation and maintenance. Subtitles B through G of title III
addresses energy and environmental issues, logistics and
sustainment issues, studies and reports relating to military
readiness, limitations and extensions of authority, and other
miscellaneous matters.
Title IV would provide military personnel authorizations
for the active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2012 and
would authorize appropriations of $142.0 billion for military
personnel for fiscal year 2012.
The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year
2012 would be as follows:
(1) The Army, 562,000.
(2) The Navy, 325,739.
(3) The Marine Corps, 202,100.
(4) The Air Force, 332,800.
The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2012
would be as follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 358,200.
(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
(3) The Navy Reserve, 66,200.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,700.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 71,400.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.
The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the Reserve Components for fiscal year 2012 would be as
follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060.
(2) The Army Reserve, 16,261.
(3) The Navy Reserve, 10,337.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 14,833.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,662.
Title V would establish military personnel policy,
including provisions addressing officer personnel policy;
Reserve Component management; general service authorities;
military justice and legal matters; education and training;
Army National Military Cemeteries; Armed Forces Retirement
Home; defense dependents' education and military family
readiness matters; improved sexual assault prevention and
response in the Armed Forces; and other miscellaneous matters.
Title VI would address compensation and other personnel
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances;
consolidation and reform of travel and transportation
authorities; commissary and nonappropriated fund
instrumentality benefits and operations; disability, retired
pay and survivor benefits; and other matters.
Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as
improvements to military health benefits; health care
administration; and reports and other matters.
Title VIII addresses acquisition policy and management,
amendments to general contracting authorities, procedures, and
limitations; provisions relating to major defense acquisition
programs; provisions relating to contracts in support of
contingency operations in Iraq or Afghanistan; defense
industrial base matters; and other matters.
Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and
management provisions, including space activities;
intelligence-related matters; total force management;
quadrennial roles and missions and related matters; and other
matters.
Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial
matters; counter-drug activities; naval vessels and shipyards;
counterterrorism; nuclear forces; financial management; repeal
and modification of reporting requirements; studies and
reports; miscellaneous authorities and limitations; and other
matters.
Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel
matters.
Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations,
including assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and reports and other matters.
Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Title XIV would authorize miscellaneous authorizations
totaling $37.6 billion and also includes provisions addressing
the National Defense stockpile; and other matters.
Title XV includes authorization of $115.5 billion for
overseas contingency operations.
Division B
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$13.1 billion for military construction and military family
housing in support of the active forces, the Reserve
Components, and the NATO security investment program for fiscal
year 2012. In addition, Division B contains military
construction and family housing program changes; real property
and facilities administration; provisions related to Guam
realignment; provisions concerning land conveyances; energy
security; and other matters.
Division C
Division C would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$16.9 billion for Department of Energy national security
programs for fiscal year 2012. Division C also includes
authorization for and addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime
Administration.
Division D
Division D would provide for the allocation of funds among
programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the
tables in division D, subject to reprogramming guidance in
accordance with established procedures, and that a decision to
commit, obligate, or expend funds with or to a specific entity
on the basis of a dollar amount be based on merit-based
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of
section 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and
other applicable provisions of law.
Division E
Division E would reauthorize the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer
(STTR) programs for 6 years. The conference agreement would
also expand the allowance of venture capital firms to include
participation by firms that are majority owned by multiple
hedge funds or private equity firms.
(H. Rept. 112-78, Parts I & II; H. Rept. 112-329)
LEGISLATION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
H. Res. 208--Resolution Directing the Secretary of Defense To Transmit
to the House of Representatives Copies of Any Official Document,
Record, Memo, Correspondence, or Other Communication of the Department
of Defense in the Possession of the Secretary of Defense That Refers or
Relates to any Consultation With Congress Regarding Operation Odyssey
Dawn or NATO Operation Unified Protector
H. Res. 208 was introduced by Representative Tom Cole on
April 7, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
The resolution, as introduced, would direct the Secretary of
Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of
any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other
communication of the Department of Defense, or any portion of
such communication, that refers or relates to any consultation
with Congress regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn or military
actions in or against Libya.
On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services held a
mark-up session to consider H. Res. 208, as introduced. The
committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H.
Res. 208, as amended, to the House with a favorable
recommendation by a voice vote. H. Res. 208 was amended to
direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of
Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the
adoption of such resolution, copies of any official document,
record, memo, correspondence, or other communication of the
Department of Defense in the possession of the Secretary of
Defense that was created on or after February 15, 2011, and
refers or relates to any of the following: (1) consultation or
communication with Congress regarding the employment or
deployment of the United States Armed Forces for Operation
Odyssey Dawn or North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation
Unified Protector; and (2) the War Powers Resolution and
Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation Unified Protector.
Additionally, the title of H. Res. 208 was amended.
On May 12, 2011, H. Res. 208 was placed on the House
Calendar, Calendar No. 38. No further action has been taken.
(H. Rept. 112-77)
LEGISLATION NOT REPORTED BUT MANAGED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
H.R. 1246--To Reduce the Amounts Otherwise Authorized To Be
Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Printing and Reproduction
H.R. 1246, ``To reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to
be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and
reproduction'' was introduced on March 29, 2011, by
Represenative Allen B. West and was referred to the House Armed
Services Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman Forbes of the
Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee consideration of
H.R. 1246, and Chairman McKeon waived full committee
consideration of the bill. On April 4, 2011, Mr. West moved to
consider H.R. 1246, as introdcued, under suspension of the
rules of the House, and the motion to suspend the rules and
pass the bill was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 393-0 (Roll
no. 225). On April 5, 2011, H.R. 1246 was received in the
Senate and read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services. No further action has been taken.
H. Res. 292--Declaring That the President Shall Not Deploy, Establish,
or Maintain the Presence of Units and Members of the United States
Armed Forces on the Ground in Libya, and for Other Purposes
H. Res. 292, ``Declaring that the President shall not
deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and
members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in
Libya, and for other purposes'' was introduced on June 2, 2011,
by Speaker John Boehner, and was referred to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 294, H. Res. 292 was
considered under a closed rule by the House on June 3, 2011. H.
Res. 294 waived all points of order against consideration of H.
Res. 292, and provided one hour of debate, with 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. On June 3,
2011, H. Res. 292 was agreed to in the House by the yeas and
nays, 268-145-1 (Roll no. 441).
H.J. Res. 68--Authorizing the Limited Use of the United States Armed
Forces in Support of the NATO Mission in Libya
H.J. Res. 68, ``Authorizing the limited use of the United
States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya''
was introduced on June 22, 2011, by Representative Alcee L.
Hastings and was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs,
and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Pursuant to the
provisions of H. Res. 328, H.J. Res. 68 was considered by the
House under a closed rule on June 24, 2011. The resolution
provided one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 68 with 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The
resolution waived all points of order against consideration of
H.J. Res. 68 as well as all provisions in H.J. Res. 68. H. Res.
328 also provided one motion to recommit H.J. Res. 68. On June
24, 2011, H.J. Res. 68 was agreed to in the House by the yeas
and nays, 240-167 (Roll no. 492).
H.R. 2278--To Limit the Use of Funds Appropriated to the Department of
Defense for United States Armed Forces in Support of North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector With Respect to Libya,
Unless Otherwise Specifically Authorized by Law
H.R. 2278, ``To limit the use of funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support
of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified
Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by law'' was introduced on June 22, 2011, by
Representative Thomas J. Rooney and was referred to the House
Committee on Armed Services. Pursuant to the provisions of H.
Res. 328, H.R. 2278 was considered by the House under a closed
rule on June 24, 2011. H. Res. 328 provided one hour of debate
on H.R. 2278 equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The
resolution waived all points of order against consideration of
H.R. 2278 as well as provisions in H.R. 2278, and provided that
H.R. 2278 shall be considered as read. Finally, the resolution
provided one motion to recommit H.R. 2278. On June 24, 2011,
passage of H.R. 2278 failed in the House by a recorded vote,
180-238 (Roll no. 494).
BUDGET ACTIVITY
On March 18, 2011, the Chairman of the Committee on Armed
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget
request for National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal
year 2012 to the Committee on the Budget.
The committee noted that the President's fiscal year 2012
budget request totaled $578.2 billion in discretionary budget
authority for national defense. Of this total, $553.1 billion
was for the Department of Defense, $18.1 billion was for the
Department of Energy's defense activities, and $7.0 billion was
for other defense-related activities. The President's budget
also included $6.8 billion in mandatory budget authority.
In addition to the base budget request, the committee noted
that as required by section 1008 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the President's budget for fiscal year 2012 included a
separate request of $117.8 billion for war-related expenditures
in support of ongoing military operations in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq, presented as
Overseas Contingency Operations.
Given the spectrum of threats to our national security, the
diverse missions performed by our military, and the funding
required for reset from current contingency operations, the
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services considered the
budget request to be below the minimum level necessary to
support our national security requirements, and recommended an
increase in funding for national defense by $7 billion for
fiscal year 2012 and $44 billion across fiscal years 2012-16
above the budget request. The Chairman believed that an
increase would ensure a smooth transition from one fiscal year
to the next, move toward resolution of certain programmatic and
economic concerns, ease the Department of Defense's concerns on
pricing fluctuations such as fuel, and provide service members
with a larger funding stream.
In review of the budget request, the Chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services highlighted several concerns to the
Committee on the Budget. First, with respect to proposed
reductions by the Department of Defense, they were not
performed from a strategic perspective. The reduction of $13
billion in fiscal year 2012 was directed by the Office of
Management and Budget. Second, the Chairman noted that the
reductions in Army and Marine Corps manpower, totaling 47,000
persons as programmed in the Future Year's Defense Program,
were premature, both from a national security strategy
standpoint and for the potential impact on the time between
deployments, dwell time, experienced by members of the Armed
Forces. Third, the Chairman suggested that high-profile
programs such as the Air Force's new bomber program and the
Navy's Ohio class ballistic missile submarine replacement may
not be realized within currently planned cost and schedule
constraints. Finally, the Chairman argued that the President's
budget request may have adverse implications on the readiness
of the Armed Forces due to funding shortfalls and inaccurate
economic assumptions.
The Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed Services did
not join the Chairman in making these assertions, nor did he
join the Chairman in recommending budgetary increases over the
President's budget request. Instead, the Ranking Member
expressed to the Committee on the Budget his support for the
President's budget request as a balanced platform for military
effectiveness from which justifiable savings may be realized.
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, described below are actions taken and
recommendations made with respect to specific areas and
subjects that were identified in the oversight plan for special
attention during the 112th Congress, as well as additional
oversight activities not explicitly enumerated by the oversight
plan.
POLICY ISSUES
National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Related
Defense Policy Issues
During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued its
traditional interest in the broad spectrum of national security
challenges facing the United States, and how the Nation might
best prepare itself to face such challenges in the near- and
long-term. The committee particularly focused on conducting
oversight of issues pertaining to the drawdown of U.S. military
operations in the Republic of Iraq, the ongoing International
Security Assistance Force operations in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan, the strategic relationship with the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, and the security challenge posed by the
Islamic Republic of Iran. Throughout the second half of the
first session of the 112th Congress, the committee received
numerous briefings from representatives of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, the military services, the joint staff,
academics, and other experts.
The committee also held a series of seven hearings
beginning on September 8, 2011, and concluding on November 2,
2011, that examined the lessons learned for our military in the
10 years since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and to
apply those lessons to the future of national defense. The
committee sought to thoroughly examine the national security
consequences of budget cuts to the military, proposed by the
President in April and enacted by Congress in the Budget
Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). To date, over $465
billion in cuts have been adopted. Should sequestration of the
defense budget take effect in January 2013, the cuts to the
military could exceed $1 trillion over 10 years. The hearings
included testimony from former senior military leaders, outside
defense experts, former chairmen of the Senate and House
Committees on Armed Services, economists, the military service
chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.
In the conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees included
several provisions relating to defense policy, such as
improving interagency coordination in matters of national
security; additional reporting on the military capabilities of
certain potential aggressors, such as the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran; independent
assessments of global force posture, with a particular focus on
East Asia; an assessment of the energy security risk to the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and U.S. Armed Forces
stationed in Europe; and reporting on the national security
risk posed by U.S. Federal debt owned by the People's Republic
of China. The conferees also provided robust authorities for
building partnership capacity, agreeing to extend section 1206
authorities through fiscal year 2013 and enhanced the reporting
requirements for a better understanding of counter terrorism.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision
creating the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), a joint
fund between the Department of State and the Department of
Defense, to provide assistance to a foreign country to enhance
the capabilities of that country's military forces and other
security forces. The provision limited the total amount the
Department of Defense may transfer into GSCF in any fiscal year
to $200 million. The provision also provides authority, during
the period prior to the date the GSCF becomes operational, for
the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to certain
security forces in the Republic of Yemen, in the Horn of
Africa, or those participations in the African Union Mission in
Somalia to conduct counter terrorism operations.
Much of the committee's oversight on overarching defense
policy resulted from numerous hearings detailed elsewhere in
this report.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
The committee held several full committee hearings and
briefings as part of its oversight of U.S. military operations
in Afghanistan and security assistance to Pakistan. On June 23,
2011, the committee held a hearing on Recent Developments in
Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S. Forces. Witnesses
included Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy
and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. On July 20, 2011, the full committee received a
classified briefing on Pakistan Assistance from representatives
of the Department of State and Department of Defense. On July
27, 2011, the full committee held a hearing on The Way Ahead in
Afghanistan. Witnesses included former Vice Chief of Staff of
the Army, General (Retired) Jack Keane; former Commander,
Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, Lieutenant General
(Retired) David Barno; and former Assistant Secretary of
Defense, the Honorable Bing West. On September 22, 2011, the
full committee held a hearing on Afghan National Security
Forces. Witnesses included Under Secretary of Defense Michele
Flournoy and Lieutenant General Robert B. Neller, Director for
Operations, J-3, Joint Staff.
The committee held a full committee briefing on U.S.
assistance to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to help combat
Al Qaeda and other militant extremists within Pakistan.
Committee members and professional staff also participated in
numerous delegations to Pakistan to meet with U.S. diplomats,
U.S. military officers, and Pakistani government officials in
order to gain a better understanding of Pakistan-related policy
issues.
The conferees included a number of legislative provisions
as part of the conference report on H.R. 1540 relating to
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The conference report on H.R. 1540
would extend the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund established
under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383).
The conference report on H.R. 1540 also extended the
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP), and extended
section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), authorizing the
Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation
for logistical, military, and other support provided by that
nation to or in connection with U.S. military operations in
Afghanistan. H.R. 1540 also extended the ``Report on Progress
toward Stability and Security in Afghanistan,'' as required by
section 1230(a) of Public Law 110-181, thereby continuing its
oversight role in the war in Afghanistan.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 would also authorize the
Secretary of Defense to reimburse Pakistan for logistical
support provided in connection with U.S. military operations in
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and for logistical and
military support provided to confront the threat posed by Al
Qaeda and other militant extremists in Pakistan. This provision
would also require the Secretary to examine alternative options
to achieve these objectives and to provide additional detail to
Congress regarding operations reimbursed under this authority.
The conferees extended the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund
(PCF) to provide assistance to Pakistan's security forces to
build and maintain their counterinsurgency capability. However,
acknowledging concerns regarding Pakistan's political will to
combat militant extremists, this provision would withhold
authority to obligate more than 40 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for PCF until the Secretary of
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State,
submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report on
the strategy to utilize the fund, a discussion of the terrorist
or extremist groups that the United States encourages Pakistan
to combat, the gaps in capabilities of Pakistani security
units, Pakistan's efforts to counter improvised explosive
devices, how assistance provided utilizing the fund will
address these capability gaps, and metrics of progress. This
provision also would direct that future updates of the report
be submitted concurrently with the President's budget request,
and would require quarterly reporting on progress in achieving
U.S. strategic objectives in Pakistan and progress made by
programs supported by PCF. Thus, the conferees have continued a
critical program for training and equipping the Pakistani
security forces to be able to conduct counterinsurgency
operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of
Pakistan, while strengthening congressional oversight of these
programs.
(H.A.S.C. 112-48; H.A.S.C. 112-56; H.A.S.C. 112-70)
Iraq
The committee held two full committee briefings as part of
its exercise over U.S. military operations in the Republic of
Iraq and the drawdown of troops from the country. On June 22,
2011, the full committee received a briefing on Iraq Withdrawal
and Transition from representatives of the Government
Accountability Office, the Department of Defense and the
Department of State. On November 16, 2011, the full committee
received a classified briefing on the impending withdrawal of
U.S. forces from Iraq from representatives of the Department of
Defense and the Department of State.
In addition to these hearings, the conferees included a
provision and reporting requirements relating to the Republic
of Iraq as part of the conference report on H.R. 1540 would
authorize the Secretary of Defense to utilize funds available
for operations and maintenance by the Air Force to support
operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation
in Iraq (OSC-I). This provision would also require Secretary of
Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, to submit
a report outlining how Department of Defense participation in
OSC-I programs will address capability gaps of the Iraqi
Security Forces, should the Government of the Republic of Iraq
request such assistance.
Force Protection
The committee continued to emphasize force protection as a
high priority issue for special oversight, focusing on areas
having direct impact on the safety of military personnel
engaged in operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. The objective of committee activity
was to expedite the promulgation of policies and the fielding
of technology and equipment to prevent and/or reduce combat
casualties. In Iraq and Afghanistan, focus areas included but
were not limited to: Effective requirements generation and test
and evaluation procedures; family of mine resistant ambush
protected (MRAP) vehicle production and fielding to include
underbody improvement kits; adequate, effective, and properly
resourced quantities of body and vehicle armor; effective
counter improvised explosive device (IED) equipment throughout
the force; persistent surveillance in support of ground
operations, particularly prevention of IED emplacement;
solutions to counter the IED threat to dismounted forces;
capabilities to counter indirect fires; and personal equipment
that mitigates traumatic brain injury.
The committee continued to have concerns regarding the
Department's ability to effectively combat and counter the IED
threat, specifically in Afghanistan. During the 112th Congress,
the committee has focused on activities and solutions being
developed, procured, and fielded to address the IED threat in
dismounted operations. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, the committee indicated that the number of
dismounted operations conducted by U.S. and coalition forces
continue to rise in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The
committee noted that although overall enemy IED efficacy has
decreased since October 2010, primarily due to early detection
from dismounted forces, the severity of casualties increased
when a dismounted IED effective attack occurred. The committee
stated that efforts to mitigate the IED threat to dismounted
forces should be a top priority for the Department of Defense.
The committee, at the staff level, continues to receive monthly
updates on the Department of Defense's efforts to mitigate the
IED threat to dismounted operations.
The committee, through formal activity, to include open
hearings and classified briefings has also continued to
maintain close oversight of the Joint IED Defeat Organization
(JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's focal point for the
battle against IEDs, during the 112th Congress. To date,
Congress has provided approximately $21.0 billion to JIEDDO to
address the IED threat through JIEDDO's three lines of
operation: attacking the network, defeating the device, and
training the force. The nearly 3,100-person strong JIEDDO
obligates and executes approximately $3.0 billion annually and
JIEDDO reports significant progress in the Counter-IED (C-IED)
fight. The committee continued to examine and provide oversight
on JIEDDO's current roles and missions, operational functions,
organizational and force structure requirements, and current
metrics for measuring success against countering the IED
threat. The committee paid particular attention to whether
JIEDDO has rectified previously identified deficiencies to
include a lack of rigor in internal management and reporting,
questions surrounding their reporting structure to the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, and JIEDDO's overall effectiveness in
transferring counter-IED technologies to the military services,
and why JIEDDO is not actively leading all DOD C-IED efforts.
The committee continues to work with JIEDDO in developing a
comprehensive counter IED program database that would
effectively track and manage all DOD counter IED efforts.
Further, the committee continues to receive monthly updates on
JIEDDO's financial management and funding rates of obligation
and execution. Committee staff has also traveled to the JIEDDO
Counter-IED Operations/Intelligence Center to continue
oversight activities and review potential duplication of
effort.
The committee maintained its intensive oversight of
individual body armor and personnel protection programs through
informal discussions with the Army's senior leadership,
briefings, hearings, coordination with Government
Accountability Office investigators, and other formal
activities. The committee continued to maintain strong interest
in: significant ergonomic and ballistic improvements in body
armor to include combat helmet technology and ballistic
protection for the face; advances in light-weight and flexible
solutions; and improvements in non-ballistic, blast and blunt-
impact protection against traumatic brain injury. The committee
also continued to encourage fidelity and transparency in body
armor test and evaluation procedures; monitored the development
and validation of operationally realistic performance
specification requirements; and provide oversight on current
body armor policy for Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring
Freedom. Finally, the committee continued to direct the
Department of Defense to adequately plan, program, and budget
for body armor and personnel protection programs as a specific
area of research and development.
The conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 authorized $2.5 billion
for JIEDDO and continued to require the Director of JIEDDO to
report to the congressional defense committees on monthly
obligation rates. The conference report also authorized $2.7
billion for continued MRAP vehicle procurement and sustainment.
Global War on Terrorism and Emerging Threats
The committee conducted extensive oversight, often in
classified form, over terrorism issues and emerging threats,
with particular attention given to special operations
capabilities, the changing nature of Al Qaeda's organization
and operations, and efforts to build partner nation counter-
terrorism capability. Related hearings included: June 22, 2011,
Hearing on the Evolution of the Terrorist Threat and, at the
full committee level, members received testimony on special
operations forces and emerging threats from Admiral Eric Olson,
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) during the
SOCOM posture hearing on March 3, 2011.
Committee members and staff made numerous trips to
countries impacted by terrorism, to include areas where U.S.
forces are engaged in combat operations to understand the
resources leveraged against terrorism and other emerging
threats, the authorities applied in these efforts, and the
Department of Defense's interaction with its interagency and
international partners. Additionally, the committee received a
classified briefing on the Osama Bin Laden raid on May 4, 2011;
a classified briefing on Al Qaeda on October 4, 2011; and a
classified briefing on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Initiatives
in Yemen, Somalia, and the region on November 17, 2011.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011,
contained several provisions related to terrorism, emerging
threats, and building partnership capabilities, to include: a
provision to modify and extend authority provided under section
1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 (Public Law 109-163) to build the capacity of foreign
military forces; a provision to extend authority provided under
section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to reimburse certain
coalition nations for support provided to U.S. military
operations; and several provisions directing reports on
military capabilities of nations such as the People's Republic
of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and on
the national security risk posed by U.S. federal debt held by
China. Additionally, recognizing terrorist use of cyberspace to
conduct terrorist operations against U.S. forces, the committee
included a provision that would affirm the authority for the
Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities in
cyberspace.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 affirmed the authority
for the Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities in
cyberspace; and extended the authority for the Department of
Defense to make rewards to persons providing information and
non-lethal aid to U.S. personnel through September 30, 2013.
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
conducted detailed oversight of specific issues related to
special operations capabilities, counter-proliferation efforts,
and counter-insurgency and unconventional warfare operations.
Further details on these subcommittee activities are provided
in the ``Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees
and the Panels'' section.
(H.A.S.C. 112-14)
Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters
The committee continued to conduct extensive oversight over
detainee policy, military commissions, and related matters. On
July 26, 2011, the committee held a full committee hearing to
discuss Ten Years After the 2001 AUMF: Current Status of Legal
Authorities, Detention, and Prosecution in the War on Terror.
Witnesses included former Attorney General and Chief Judge of
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Michael B. Mukasey; former Deputy General Counsel and
Acting General Counsel, Daniel Dell'Orto; former Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Steven Engel; and Professor Robert
Chesney. In addition to the full committee hearing, the
committee conducted numerous member and staff level briefings.
While much of the committee's oversight of detainee issues
was conducted in classified form and cannot be addressed in
this report, committee members and staff generally focused on
issues relating to the legal authorities under which detention
operations are undertaken, policies regarding future captures,
reengagement amongst former detainees, resources devoted to the
Office of Military Commissions, detention operations in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and detention operations
during the withdrawal of forces from the Republic of Iraq.
Committee staff traveled to the Republic of Iraq in order
to discuss counterterrorism, detention matters, and to evaluate
lessons learned for detention operations in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan. Committee staff also traveled to
Morocco, Algeria, France, and Kuwait specifically to further
study counterterrorism and issues relating to detention as
well.
There were numerous legislative provisions relating to
detainee policy in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
Specifically, the conference report includes provisions that
would clarify the right to plead guilty in a trial of a capital
offense by military commission; affirm the President's
authority to detain Al Qaeda terrorists; require a national
security protocol regarding detainee communications; require
military custody for certain foreign Al Qaeda terrorists;
establish an administrative review procedure for detainees held
at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; prohibit the use
of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States
to house Guantanamo detainees; prohibit transfers or releases
of Guantanamo and certain other detainees to the United States;
and require rigorous certification requirements for certain
transfers or releases of Guantanamo detainees elsewhere
overseas.
(H.A.S.C. 112-53)
Iran and the Middle East
The committee held several full committee briefings as part
of its oversight of U.S. response to strategic threats in Iran
and the Middle East. On June 2, 2011, the full committee held a
classified operations and intelligence briefing on NATO
military operations in Libya from the Department of State,
Department of Defense, and from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence (ODNI). On June 15, 2011, the full
committee received a classified operations and intelligence
briefing on developments in the Middle East and their impact on
U.S. strategic interests from representatives of the Department
of Defense and ODNI. On July 13, 2011, the full committee
received a classified briefing on Iranian Activity in the
Middle East from representatives of the Department of Defense
and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. On
September 14, 2011, the full committee received a classified
briefing on the National Military Strategy to Counter Iran from
representatives of the Department of Defense and the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence. The committee held a
full committee briefing in October as part of its oversight of
U.S. military training operations in Africa. On October 25,
2011, the full committee received a classified briefing on the
Deployment of U.S. Forces to Central Africa from
representatives of the Department of Defense.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Organization and Management of the Department of Defense
The committee continued to undertake a review of the
organization and management of the Department of Defense in
order to ensure that it is properly postured to meet the
complex and evolving security threats of the 21st century. In
addition to examining this issue from the perspective of
lessons learned 10 years after 9/11, as discussed elsewhere in
this report, the committee held a hearing on July 14, 2011, to
examine Human Capital Management: a High-Risk Area for the
Department of Defense. Specifically, the committee remains
concerned that the Department of Defense's recent focus on
efficiencies without a thorough business case analysis and risk
assessment potentially undermines the Department's ability to
appropriately plan and budget for its total manpower
requirements. The committee believes that the Department of
Defense should aggressively undertake a more holistic look at
its manpower requirements in order to achieve the appropriate
balance in its total workforce, rather than managing simply to
an arbitrary civilian authorization level. The committee notes
that total force management would improve manpower requirements
determination and planning to facilitate decisions on which
sector is most appropriate to perform the requirement with
consideration of the distinct value of each component, whether
military, civilian, or contractor personnel. To achieve that
end, the conference report on H.R. 1540 includes several
provisions related to total force management, including
provisions requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a
total force management plan that would establish the most
appropriate and cost-efficient mix of manpower (military,
civilian and contractor personnel) and ensuring that in making
such determinations risk mitigation should be considered over
cost.
Financial Management
The Comptroller General of the United States has
consistently identified the Department of Defense's financial
management as a high-risk area since 1995. The Department's
inability to track and account for billions of dollars annually
in funding and tangible assets continues to undermine its
management approach. It also creates a lack of transparency
that significantly limits congressional oversight. The
Department's inability to produce auditable financial
statements undermines its efforts to reform defense acquisition
processes and to realize efficiencies. Without these objective
tools, neither the Department nor Congress can verify that
greater value is being created. As a result, the committee
continues to monitor the Department's efforts to implement the
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan to
correct the weaknesses in its financial statements and monitor
closely the interdependencies between FIAR and the hundreds of
millions of dollars being spent on business systems
modernization programs that the Department has proposed to
address its financial management problems. The conference
report on H.R. 1540 contains several provisions that would
strengthen the Department's financial management, improve the
reliability of defense financial statements, increase the
competency of the financial management workforce, and add
additional requirements to the FIAR plan. The conference report
also includes a provision that would direct the Comptroller
General to assess the extent to which the Department is
tracking and realizing savings proposed pursuant to the
Secretary of Defense's efficiencies initiatives through fiscal
year 2016.
Elsewhere in this report, the committee organized a panel
on defense financial management and auditability reform
pursuant to Committee rule 5(a) to carry out a comprehensive
review of the Department's financial management system. The
review was initiated to oversee the Department's financial
management system's capacity for providing timely, reliable,
and useful information for decision making and reporting.
Acquisition Issues
The acquisition system and acquisition policy
The committee conducted oversight of the Department's
process for reviewing and certifying requirements for major
defense acquisition programs, development of the acquisition
workforce, protection of strategic materials, and management of
services contracting. The committee also continued oversight of
the implementation of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act
of 2008 (Public Law 110-181) and the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of
2010, as included in the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to
ensure these major acquisition reform efforts are implemented
in a timely and effective manner.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense acquisition system fails to fully consider the total
ownership costs of a weapon system when making decisions.
Therefore, the conferees included a provision in the conference
report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, which amends the requirements for
Milestone A and Milestone B exit criteria to increase
consideration and planning for sustainment of the weapon
system. The provision also requires that before entering into a
low-rate initial production contract, the Secretary of Defense
shall ensure that detailed requirements for core depot-level
maintenance and repair capabilities, as well as the associated
logistics capabilities, be defined. Furthermore, the conferees
included a provision in the conference report on H.R. 1540 that
requires the Secretary to issue guidance on actions to be taken
to assess, manage, and control Department of Defense costs for
the operation and support of major weapon systems.
The committee maintains that competition reduces costs,
increases quality, and improves vendor performance. For this
reason, the conferees included several provisions in the
conference report to foster competition in defense acquisitions
and weapon systems sustainment. Department of Defense
acquisition officials often find that they are locked into
sole-source acquisition strategies because the government does
not own sufficient technical data rights to enable competition.
As a result, the conference report includes a provision that
ensures that in addition to technical data that is already
subject to a contract delivery requirement, any data that
pertains to an item or process developed with Federal funds,
shall be made available for only the reasonable costs incurred
by the contractor for having to convert and deliver the data to
the government in the required form.
According to the recently submitted Inventory of Contracts
for Services, the Department of Defense obligated $204 billion
in contracts to the private sector for services provided during
fiscal year 2010, an amount greater than the $166 billion
obligated for supplies and equipment (i.e., hardware). The
committee continues its oversight activities in this area and
worked closely with the Department to improve its inventory on
contracting for services for all the military departments and
defense agencies. The conferees also included a provision in
the conference report on H.R. 1540 which requires the
development of a plan and procedures for the use of this
information in the development of service contracting budgets
and strategic workforce planning. In addition, the conference
report includes a provision calling for the Under Secretary of
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to develop a plan for
implementing the recommendations of the Defense Science Board
Task Force on Improvements to Service Contracting.
The committee continued its efforts to strengthen the
acquisition workforce and enhance professional development of
government personnel working in acquisition. The committee
continued oversight of implementation of the Department of
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, and other
efforts by the Department to expand and improve the acquisition
workforce and the financial management community. The
conference report on H.R. 1540 includes a provision clarifying
the use of the Defense Acquisition Workforce funds, as well as
a provision that would promote acquisition training on a
government-wide basis. In addition, the Act includes language
that would strengthen the authority of the Secretary of Defense
to establish certification and training requirements for
Department of Defense financial management positions and to
include planning for the financial management workforce in the
Department's biennial strategic workforce plan.
While the committee has done a significant amount of work
to improve the contingency contracting practices of the
Department of Defense, the committee took additional steps to
ensure that contingency contracting can be used as an effective
tool of counter-insurgency operations. At the request of
General Petraeus, the former Commander, United States Central
Command, the conference report on H.R. 1540 provides the
Secretary of Defense specific authorities to address cases
where it is determined that an insurgency is directly
benefitting from a Department of Defense contract. The
provision prohibits contracting with the enemy and allows the
Secretary to void or terminate for default any contract in the
Central Command theater of operations if it is determined that
a person who is actively supporting the insurgency is receiving
funds under the contract. In addition, the conferees acted on
findings from the Commission on Wartime Contracting and
included provisions in the conference report aimed at
addressing shortfalls in Operational Contract Support,
increasing competition in contingency contracting, and
enhancing contract management.
In order to keep the acquisition process free from
political influence, the conferees included a provision in the
conference report on H.R. 1540 that prohibits the Secretary of
Defense from requiring potential contractors to first declare
their political contributions before applying for business with
the Department of Defense.
Rapid acquisition authority and joint urgent operational needs process
The natures of the conflicts in the Republic of Iraq and
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have illustrated the need
for the defense acquisition cycle to be flexible enough to
respond to the rapid changes on the battlefield. In the
conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees expanded
the Rapid Acquisition Authority provided by the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public
Law 107-314) to include not only supplies, but also the
associated support services needed in connection with the
deployment of supplies procured under the authority. The
committee continued its oversight of the joint urgent
operational needs (JUONS) process and included authority in the
conference report on H.R. 1540 for the establishment of a JUONS
fund to ensure the Secretary of Defense has immediate access to
funding for capabilities that he determines are suitable for
rapid fielding in response to urgent operational needs.
Defense industrial base and technology transfers
The committee continued its close monitoring of the health
of the defense industrial base. Elsewhere in this report, the
committee organized a panel on Defense Challenges within the
Business Industry. The panel was instated to examine the
current defense business environment and to better understand
how the Department can encourage growth in the defense
industrial base [DIB]. In addition to the work done in this
area by the panel, the committee continued its broader
oversight efforts in this area. The industrial base for complex
major weapons systems has shrunk dramatically in the last
decade, limiting the ability of the Department of Defense to
control costs and encourage innovation through the use of
competition. The committee is greatly concerned about the
impact of cuts to defense funding and worked aggressively to
ensure that Congress and, specifically, the members of the
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction were aware of the
consequences of proposed reductions on the defense industrial
base. The committee examined the policies and funding tools
available to the Department to ensure the health of the DIB
and, as a result, the conferees included provisions in the
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, for enhancing the Department's
ability to monitor and manage supplier risk, and to address
supplier-base vulnerabilities. The conference report also
includes a provision that would improve detection and avoidance
of counterfeiting of electronic parts in the defense supply
chain and would improve contractor systems for detecting
counterfeit electronic parts before they could impact the
warfighter.
The committee continues to await the Department's delivery
of the assessment required by Section 1248 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84). In that assessment, the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretary of State are required to examine national security
risks of removing satellites and related components from the
U.S. Munitions List. The committee plans to hold an oversight
hearing to review space export control policy once that report
is received. The consolidation of the defense industry and its
increasingly global nature will continue to challenge the
capabilities of current systems for industrial security.
Information technology
The committee continued its oversight of information
technology acquisition issues, to include implementation of
section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The committee scrutinized
the Department of Defense's plan for budget reductions and
efficiencies initiatives, and the impacts those changes would
have on information technology programs. As the military
services are the primary acquirers of information technology
systems, particular attention was given to service information
technology programs during the service posture hearings and
during other committee oversight activities.
The committee remains concerned about the projected
dissolution of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Networks & Information Integration) and other information
technology-related realignment within the Department, and will
continue to monitor Department of Defense efforts to achieve
efficiencies and leverage information technology.
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
conducted detailed oversight of specific programmatic issues
related to information technology. Further details on these
subcommittee activities are provided in the ``Additional
Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees'' section of this
report.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision
directing the Comptroller General of the United States to
report on the major automated information system programs of
the Department of Defense, and a provision extending the
Defense mentor-protege program through September 30, 2018; a
provision updating and clarifying the management of Department
of Defense business systems; and clarifying language for key
milestones and definitions for business IT systems.
OTHER POLICY ISSUES
Intelligence
The committee focused on several areas of oversight related
to intelligence activities of the Department of Defense. The
committee held numerous classified briefings to discuss
intelligence activities, with a particular emphasis on
activities in support of ongoing hostilities and the division
of responsibilities and authorities between the military and
other components of the intelligence community.
Committee members and staff also made several trips to
areas of ongoing hostilities during which intelligence
activities were carefully evaluated. The committee continued
its efforts to ensure that the Department of Defense has the
resources and legal authorities needed to provide effective and
efficient intelligence support to military operations.
While much of the committee's oversight of intelligence
issues was conducted in classified form and cannot be addressed
in this report, the committee specifically began an examination
of how Department of Defense intelligence programs are
designated as part of either the Military Intelligence Program
or the National Intelligence Program and efforts to reform
guidelines related to these designations. The committee also
continued its examination of the Department's security
practices following recent extensive unauthorized disclosures
of classified information. This effort resulted in a
legislative provision that would require a comprehensive
insider threat detection program being included in the
conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
National Guard and Reserves
The committee continued its efforts to review the
requirements for full time support of the Reserve Component.
Oversight visits were made to National Guard state headquarters
to discuss the military technicians program. The committee is
committed to working with the Administration to ensure the
proper structure is resourced to support an operational reserve
force.
The committee conducted a hearing on July 27, 2011, to
examine the Reserve Components as an operational force and
review potential legislative and policy changes to enhance the
flexibility of the services for continued use of the reserves.
The committee remains supportive of the operational reserve
concept and will work to ensure that legislative and policy
changes are broad enough to ensure access and flexibility; but
does not create the ability for the services to over rely on
the reserves. The committee is also concerned with the ability
to properly resource an operational reserves so it remains a
viable and ready force.
An initiative to make the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and providing a
Vice Chief of Staff in the leadership of the Bureau was
included in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
(H.A.S.C. 112-57)
READINESS
The Subcommittee on Readiness provided oversight of
Department of Defense military readiness, training, logistics,
maintenance, military construction, installations, family
housing, and the base realignment and closure process. The
subcommittee also provided oversight on civilian personnel,
energy security, and environmental issues that affect the
Department of Defense.
The committee visited numerous overseas bases to assess the
skills of assigned forces, the material condition of equipment,
the readiness of capabilities provided, and appropriate
application of military construction in an overseas and
sometimes contingency environment. Specifically, the committee
has extensively visited the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and
examined U.S. Central Command's plans to sustain operations in
theater. The committee also has continued to assess the
logistics and readiness challenges facing the Department of
Defense as it withdraws forces from the Islamic Republic of
Iraq and its ability to maintain a capable force structure in
theater to respond to emerging threats.
Force Readiness
The committee held several hearings focused on the
challenges facing the military services to provide trained and
ready forces for ongoing operations while maintaining the
capability to meet other commitments and to posture the force
for long-term required readiness to respond to future real-
world contingencies. The committee also held a series of
hearings on the potential impact of possible large cuts to the
Department of Defense's budget and the resulting challenges in
maintaining readiness. The committee found that while deployed
ground forces have, in most cases, the equipment, personnel,
and training they require for their missions, this deployed
readiness has come at the continued expense of non-deployed
ground-force units. The committee remains concerned about the
number of non-deployed units reporting that they are not ready
for combat operations, or would need additional time,
personnel, and equipment to prepare for deployment, and intends
to hold additional hearings to conduct further oversight on
force readiness levels. In addition, the committee found that
these personnel challenges are especially acute in key
categories such as warrant officers and certain enlisted
specialties which have experienced shortages as the number of
medically non-deployable personnel has increased. The committee
also is concerned that these manning challenges will become
more acute as the Army executes its planned end strength
reduction from 579,000 to 520,000 or lower as future budgets
may dictate. Therefore, the committee tasked the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of Army
personnel readiness.
Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of the Army
reset process. The budget request for fiscal year 2012 moved an
increasing share of the enduring depot maintenance requirements
back to the base budget, providing funds for the restoration of
equipment, damaged or worn out through nearly 10 years of
constant operations. However, the committee remains concerned
about the Army's ability to accurately forecast its total reset
liability and the amount of synchronization of reset needed for
current operations and those likely to be undertaken in the
future. The committee's concerns are especially acute in regard
to the growing amount of theater-provided equipment (TPE) on
which scheduled reset has been deferred to support current
operations. The committee has taken numerous briefings from the
Army Materiel Command on the current execution and status of
its reset efforts. To ensure the proper materiel readiness of
another key enabler, the prepositioned stocks, the committee
tasked the Secretary of Defense to annually certify
prepositioned stocks as meeting operation plans requirements.
The committee has also tasked the Secretary of Defense to
report in greater detail on the condition, composition, and
status of such stocks in an effort to increase materiel
readiness. Finally, to further ensure that prepositioned stocks
properly support future missions, the conference report on H.R.
1540 included a provision to prohibit the placement of U.S.
European Command prepositioned ships into a reserve status back
in the United States until the impacts on the joint force are
fully understood.
The Army also has increased funding for home-station full
spectrum training, reflecting anticipated increases in training
tempo as the Army commits fewer units to overseas combat
operations. Because of concerns that the full-spectrum training
mile may not adequately measure training tempo, the committee
directed GAO to review the Army's transition to the full-
spectrum training mile as a readiness metric. Additionally, the
committee has visited numerous Army Training and Doctrine
Command (TRADOC) installations to assess the Army's progress
and its challenges in returning to full spectrum operations
training.
The committee also remains concerned that while the Army
has made targeted investments in the Reserve's critical combat
service support capabilities, the Guard and Reserve may not
have the level of access to training resources necessary for a
return to full spectrum operations training. The committee also
requested GAO conduct a review of the Department's mix of live
versus simulated training for all the military services,
including the Reserve Components.
The committee found that the Air Force continues to
experience a high operational tempo, which has resulted in
detrimental effects on equipment such as engine and structural
fatigue, deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of
component failures. The increased tempo also delays routine
maintenance. As a result, the committee intends to continue its
review of the significant shortfalls experienced by the Air
Force in depot maintenance, particularly in its baseline
program for Active and Reserve forces which the Air Force has
made up only through Overseas Contingency Operations funding.
The committee also has found that challenges are expected to
persist as operational tempo is anticipated to remain at high
levels after the scheduled redeployment from Operation New Dawn
in Iraq and the drawdown of U.S. forces supporting Operation
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, such as occurred with
Operation Northern Watch following Desert Storm, or even more
recently with the simultaneous operations in Libya. This will
be particularly problematic for the Air Guard and Reserve as
they also continue to provide support for U.S. domestic
operations, which was highlighted during the Subcommittee on
Readiness hearing on the Army and Air Reserve components. For
example, the continued high operational temp can cause
significant challenges for those Air Guard air sovereignty
alert (ASA) units that must train for their primary contingency
operations support missions while simultaneously training and
manning their ASA mission.
Despite the drawdown in the Republic of Iraq, naval
operational tempo is expected to remain high, as demand for the
Navy's services is up, including anti-piracy and ballistic
missile defense operations as well as operations in support of
U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Pacific Command. Because of
concerns over the impact on the Navy's non-nuclear surface
fleet material readiness as a result of its increased
operational tempo, the committee requested the GAO review the
Navy's initiatives to improve amphibious and surface combatant
ship material readiness. Additionally, in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House on May 26, 2011, the committee included additional
funds for ship and aircraft depot maintenance to address the
backlog of requirements and to prevent further degradation to
the fleet. Additional funding to address ship depot maintenance
was also included in the conference report on H.R. 1540. To
garner a greater appreciation for organic and private-sector
depot capabilities, in September 2011, the chairman and ranking
member of the Subcommittee on Readiness led a visit to
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Electric Boat Shipbuilding.
Furthermore, the Marine Corps recently concluded a Force
Posture Review that emphasized ``rebalancing'' the Marine Corps
to better ``focus on future contingencies.'' As such, the
budget request for fiscal year 2012 reflects some initial
investments in special skill sets needed to move the Marine
Corps toward a force more fully attuned to the lessons learned
during nine years of combat. Despite this positive trend, the
Marine Corps faces significant challenges in migrating its core
maintenance and logistical requirements into the base budget.
Based on testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness by
General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., Assistant Commandant of the
Marine Corps, the committee is also concerned about the Marine
Corps' ability to reset its force in a budget-constrained
environment as well as its ability to meet the current one
Major Contingency Operation construct with an end strength that
could drop below the FRP-recommended level of 186,800 Marines.
(H.A.S.C. 112-13; H.A.S.C. 112-17; H.A.S.C. 112-21;
H.A.S.C. 112-33; H.A.S.C. 112-40; H.A.S.C. 112-55; H.A.S.C-67;
H.A.S.C. 112-84)
Life-Cycle Sustainment
Without appropriate and timely input from the logistics
community, decisions made during weapon systems design can
create unnecessary sustainment problems that increase depot-
level maintenance once the system is fielded. To address this,
the committee amended the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) to include subsystems and
components of a major weapon system in the requirement for
consideration of competition throughout the operation and
sustainment of major weapon systems. The committee also
directed improved sustainment planning using predictive
modeling tools to assure that the proper source of repair is
being considered.
Despite a 38-to-1 return on investment from corrosion
mitigation and control projects, the Department of Defense
consistently underfunds corrosion efforts. The Government
Accountability Office recently determined that the Department
of Defense requested $11.1 million of its total projected
funding requirements of $43.2 million. Therefore, the committee
included several provisions in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House on May 26, 2011, that address corrosion.
Specifically, the committee increased funding for corrosion
mitigation by an additional $33 million, directed the
Department of Defense to take corrective action regarding the
F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and
directed the Department of Defense to evaluate corrosion for
facilities and infrastructure and report the findings.
Depot and Arsenal Capability
A critical piece of equipment sustainment is the capability
provided by the nation's organic arsenals and depots, including
air logistics centers and shipyards. In February, the committee
received a study on the future capability of the Department of
Defense maintenance depots directed by section 322 of the
Duncan Hunter Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public
Law 110-417). The study assessed organic depot maintenance
capabilities and made several recommendations to address the
challenges facing the organic depots. The committee included
several of the study's recommendations in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House on May 26, 2011, including revising the statutory
definitional framework for depot maintenance, strengthening the
core determination process, expanding the designation for
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence, and improving
depot maintenance reporting. In addition to these steps, the
committee continues to closely monitor the location and types
of maintenance performed at the depots and in forward-deployed
locations. The committee also has participated in an extensive
series of exchanges, in coordination with the National Defense
University's Center for Joint and Strategic Logistics, with
Department of Defense, industry and union representatives and
other interested stakeholders on the recommendations detailed
in the report required by Section 322 of the Duncan Hunter
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and the
resulting statutory changes proposed in the House-passed
version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (H.R. 1540). Many of these provisions were included
in the conference report on H.R. 1540. The committee also has
provided oversight of the implementation of a new, consolidated
command structure within the new Marine Corps' depot enterprise
and is closely monitoring the changes and challenges associated
with a reduction in workload. Furthermore, the committee will
continue oversight of the planned reorganization of the Air
Force Materiel Command's air logistics centers and the
potential impacts on manpower and workload.
Civilian Personnel
The Department of Defense has long relied on the Federal
civilian workforce to support its missions around the world,
often requiring civilians to serve in active combat zones, and
it is clear that the Department's civilian workforce plays a
critical role in the readiness of U.S. military forces. The
committee included provisions in the National Defense
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the
House on May 26, 2011, to extend authorities for premium pay
and to expand death gratuity benefits for deployed civilians.
These provisions were included in the conference report on H.R.
1540.
The committee also included provisions in the House-passed
version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (H.R. 1540), that would require the Secretary of
Defense to develop a total force management plan that would
provide the means to establish the appropriate mix of manpower,
military, civilian, and contractor personnel, to perform the
mission of the Department of Defense, and to make changes to
requirements for manpower reporting and civilian strategic
human capital plans. Elements of these provisions were also
included in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
In addition, the committee continued its oversight of the
Department's transition from the National Security Personnel
System (NSPS) and implementation of the authorities provided to
the Department for performance management and hiring
flexibilities which would apply across the Department's
civilian workforce, within the context of the existing General
Schedule system. The committee is aware that the NSPS
transition office has been moving forward in its efforts to
develop the new authorities, starting with a ``New Beginnings''
conference and establishing design teams to begin the
development of a plan for implementing the performance
management and hiring flexibilities. Recognizing that
additional legislative authorities may be necessary as the
process moves forward, the committee included provisions in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to further
facilitate the Department's ability to implement a fair and
transparent performance management system. The conference
report on H.R. 1540 included these provisions. The committee
also focused on the Department's process for recruiting,
selecting and hiring qualified individuals. The committee
subsequently has met on a regular basis with the New Beginnings
design teams (comprised of both Department of Defense
management and employee union representatives). In November
2011, the committee was made aware that the work of the New
Beginnings design teams has been completed and is awaiting the
results of their recommendations and the Department's proposals
for moving forward with a performance management system.
The committee also has continued to closely monitor the
implementation of the each military department's efficiencies
initiatives that are being levied on the civilian workforce.
These initiatives have led to a civilian hiring freeze for all
the military departments as well as significant personnel
reductions in 2012, with the Air Force planning to reduce its
civilian workforce by 16,500 and the Army to reduce its force
by 8,700.
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Energy Security
The committee conducted vigorous oversight of the
Department's energy activities and closely examined the
strategies and policies for both installations energy and
operational energy to reduce consumption and dependence on
foreign oil. The committee believes that Department of Defense
installations provide significant opportunity for advancing
renewable energy technologies, pursuing energy security, and
reducing overall demand through demonstrated return on
investment. The Subcommittee on Readiness took action in this
area in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, and
carried through in the conference report on H.R. 1540, to
include Navy metering of piers, as well as other activities
that will help advance energy efficient technologies and reduce
overall demand for energy. There were several legislative
provisions that also sought to enhance installation energy
security, to include a requirement to establish a core
curriculum and certification for Department of Defense energy
managers, metering of navy piers, and consideration for energy
security when contracting for renewable energy projects through
third-party financing.
The Subcommittee on Readiness continued its oversight and
emphasis of reducing demand for operational energy at forward-
deployed locations to relieve the significant logistical burden
and force protection requirements, and decrease operational
vulnerabilities. Specifically, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House on May 26, 2011, increased funding for operational
energy capability improvement and the U.S. Marine Corps'
Experimental Forward Operating Base. The conference report on
H.R. 1540 contains several legislative provisions that seek to
advance operational energy security by streamlining alternative
fuels investments through the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Operational Energy, and designate a Department of Defense
policy for energy efficient technologies in logistics support
contracts for contingency operations.
On April 13, 2011, the Subcommittee on Readiness received
testimony from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each
of the military services regarding military construction and
installation energy. Each of the witnesses highlighted the
importance of energy efficiency and the impact of a vulnerable
electric power grid and the potential to jeopardize the
security of military installations and mission capabilities.
The witnesses also highlighted the importance of innovative,
cost-effective solutions as critical to their success,
operationally necessary, fiscally prudent, and mission
essential.
As directed by House Report 111-491, accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011,
committee staff received a briefing from the Departments of
Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security regarding the domestic
petroleum refining industry and the significance to national
security.
(H.A.S.C. 112-43)
Environment
The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to
include the military services' environmental restoration
program and adherence to federal, state and local cleanup,
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. In the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011 and carried forward
in the conference report on H.R. 1540 the committee had several
environmental provisions including one which codified Navy
requirements for discharge of waste at sea to ensure minimum
impact on the environment, preserving Navy operational
readiness, and averting $2.0 billion of expenses for Navy fleet
modifications. The committee also included provisions that
would limit the use of property in airfield clear zone areas to
mitigate encroachment on military installations. Additionally,
the committee directed language regarding requirements relating
to ongoing investigations and studies of exposure to
contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Basing
The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant
change in force structure both in the United States and
overseas as a result of the 2005 BRAC decisions and the Global
Defense Posture Review. These rebasing movements affect not
only U.S. global presence, but they also have significant
repercussions for readiness, surge capability, military
construction, and quality of life for military members and
their families.
After concluding a hearing on Long-Term Readiness
Challenges in the Pacific on March 15, 2011, the Subcommittee
on Readiness supported the proposed realignment of 8,000
Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam and supported the budget
request for $155 million for the fiscal year 2012 effort. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, also included a
legislative subsection that would support the realignment of
Marine Corps assets to Guam that includes the following
provisions: use of operations and maintenance funding to
support community adjustment; requirements to support H2B visa
workers that support the construction effort; and,
modifications to utility conveyance authority. In the
conference report on H.R. 1540, the conferees determined that
the Department of Defense should not continue additional
construction efforts to support the realignment of Marine Corps
assets to Guam until several reports were submitted to the
congressional defense committees. Furthermore, the conference
report on H.R. 1540 struck the military construction funds
requested by the executive branch in the budget request for
fiscal year 2012 to support this realignment.
In the conference report on H.R. 1540, the conferees
determined that significant changes in the overseas force
structure were expected in the short term and the overseas
basing structure should be reexamined. Therefore, the conferees
requested two independent assessment of the overseas base
structure to include a comprehensive review of the entire
overseas basing structure and a specific base structure
assessment of the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility.
(H.A.S.C. 112-21)
Military Construction Programming
The Department of Defense programs construction projects at
25 to 40 percent above market pricing to account for several
programmatic initiatives to include Federal contracting
requirements (including Davis-Bacon wages, Federal
subcontracting and small business goals, and bonding
requirements), Federal design requirements (including Anti-
Terrorism, Force Protection standards) and energy efficiency
objectives. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report that assesses these program increases and
provides a plan to reduce these costs.
With regards to construction programming, the committee
continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited
authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to
address emerging construction requirements. The conference
report on H.R. 1540 contained a provision that authorized the
use of operations and maintenance funds for contingency
construction.
Real Property Acquisition, Maintenance, and Disposal
The real property management process requires extensive
oversight to maintain more than $810.0 billion in
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $50.0 billion, or
nearly 11 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. The
Subcommittee on Readiness in the 112th Congress reviewed issues
pertaining to military construction, family housing, and Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities of the Department of
Defense. The Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on April
13, 2011, to examine the fiscal year 2012 budget request to
review military construction, family housing, BRAC activities,
and facility operations and maintenance. The Readiness
Subcommittee also provided additional oversight as the
Department of Defense completed almost all of the BRAC 2005
recommendations on September 15, 2011.
As a result of this oversight, the committee determined
that the Department of Defense needed additional authorities to
manage those BRAC recommendations that were having difficulty
in timely completion. Additional BRAC authorities were included
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to extend the
completion date of up to seven BRAC 2005 recommendations to
September 15, 2012. The committee also included requirements
for the Department of Defense to include transportation impact
assessments at local communities significantly impacted by
Department of Defense realignment actions. The conference
report on H.R. 1540 broadened the BRAC authority and requested
that the Secretary of Defense expeditiously complete remaining
BRAC recommendations and specifically extended a conditional
BRAC recommendation for the Umatilla Chemical Depot. This
extension would provide additional latitude to the Secretary of
Defense to ensure continuity of mission and services for those
activities impacted by BRAC 2005.
The committee also reviewed the Department of Defense
facility sustainment accounts and the Army Base Operating
Services account and found that significant shortfalls needed
to be addressed to manage basic services. The committee
proposed increased funding to these accounts in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540,
passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to address critical
shortfalls in facility maintenance and operations. The
conference report on H.R. 1540 did not include the increased
maintenance funding.
(H.A.S.C. 112-43)
Military Infrastructure Privatization
The Department of Defense has made extensive use of
privatization of military assets including family housing,
bachelor quarters, and utility-related infrastructure. The
Department has leveraged available capital in Department of
Defense infrastructure and entered into long-term contracts
with private property managers. The Subcommittee on Readiness
in the 112th Congress reviewed this privatization initiative
and included a provision in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26,
2011, that would encourage the Department of Defense to more
aggressively and effectively implement utilities privatization
as part of an asset management strategy to allow each military
service to focus on core defense missions and functions.
TOTAL FORCE, PERSONNEL, AND HEALTH CARE ISSUES
Manpower Sufficient in Quantity and Quality to Meet Global Commitments
The committee continued its support for the end strengths
of the services by including the Department of Defense request
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. The committee
has concerns about the future size of the force and whether
proposed reductions in end strength will provide the services
with sufficient manpower to meet global commitments. The
committee is equally concerned with dwell time of service
members and the impact this will have on readiness. Both of
these issues were addressed in full committee and subcommittee
hearings.
The committee continued to closely monitor compensation
programs during the first session of the 112th Congress to
ensure an adequate quality of life for service members and
their families and to ensure that pay and benefits met the
needs of the wartime military and kept pace with private sector
standards. The committee's active oversight of these issues
resulted in legislation in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May
26, 2011, that authorized a 1.6 percent raise in basic pay
during fiscal year 2012. This military pay raise matches the
rate of compensation increases in the private sector as
measured by the Employment Cost Index and thus ensures that
military pay increases are keeping pace with private sector
contemporaries. The committee extended the authorities to pay
bonuses and special pays during fiscal year 2012 and monitored
the value of those bonuses and special pays to ensure they were
sufficient to achieve the recruiting and retention objectives
for which they were developed. The committee also included
legislation that reforms, consolidates, and simplifies travel
and transportation authorities to enhance the utility,
flexibility, efficiency, and relevancy of the law in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. These pay and travel
benefit matters were also included in the conference report on
H.R. 1540.
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel met in a closed
session on September 15, 2011, to receive a classified brief in
order to better understand the capability of the Army's
currently planned force reduction to 520,000 and its ability to
meet the range of Army mission requirements, especially those
most stressful wartime requirements, based on the combatant
commander requirements. The briefing gave members a better
understanding of the current level of risk associated with the
Army's 520,000 force and to begin to assess the levels of risk
when funding levels drop below those associated with a 520,000
force.
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel met in a closed
session on October 5, 2011, to receive a classified brief in
order to better understand the capability of the Marine Corps'
currently planned force reduction to 186,800 and its ability to
meet the range of Marine Corps mission requirements, especially
those most stressful wartime requirements, based on the
combatant commander requirements. The briefing provided the
committee with a better understanding of the current level of
risk associated with the Marine Corps' 186,800 force and to
begin to assess the levels of risk when funding levels drop
below those associated with an 186,800 force.
In an effort to provide the services additional tools to
facilitate the drawdown of forces over the next three to five
years, the conference report on H.R. 1540 included authorities
to provide service members an early retirement for service
concluding with less than 20 years of service but more than 15
years of service and a voluntary early retirement incentive
payment for service members with between 20 and 29 years of
service. In addition to the two new authorities that were
authorized through December 31, 2018, the conference report on
H.R. 1540 extended the authority to pay voluntary separation
pay through December 31, 2018.
(H.A.S.C. 112-28)
Sustaining Cost Efficient Operation of Morale, Welfare and Recreation
Programs, Military Resale Programs and Department of Defense School
System
During the 112th Congress, the committee acted to improve
the effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and
commissaries and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs
and to protect these critical programs for future generations
of service members. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel
conducted two hearings during the 1st session of the 112th
Congress that explored policy issues and the fiscal status of
the commissary and military exchange stores and the service-
operated MWR programs. The Department of Defense consulted the
committee on a wide range of management proposals regarding new
construction or facility renovation, store expansions or
closures, public-private ventures, business practices, and new
business opportunities and models. In each case, the committee
provided guidance and decisions, as requested. The committee
included legislative initiatives in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House on May 26, 2011, to address the concerns that had
been brought to the attention of the committee and to improve
the policies and processes used to manage military resale and
MWR programs. These issues included: expansion of the authority
for nonappropriated fund activities to employ a uniform funding
concept to include permanent change of station and temporary
duty billeting facilities; clarification of the multi-year
contracting authority by nonappropriated funding activities;
authorization for the Secretary of the Navy to select
categories of merchandise to sell in ship stores; authorization
for military retail stores to borrow funding for business
operations from the Federal Financing Bank; and authorization
for the Defense Commissary Service to conduct a pilot program
to test the cost effectiveness of enhanced commissary stores.
Of these initiatives, the conference report on H.R. 1540
included the authorization for the Secretary of the Navy to
select categories of merchandise to sell in ship stores and the
authorization for military retail stores to borrow funding for
business operations from the Federal Financing Bank.
(H.A.S.C. 112-3; H.A.S.C. 112-4)
Mental Health Services for Members of the Armed Forces
The committee continued its efforts to ensure that service
members and their families have access to quality mental health
services. Some members of the Armed Forces, particularly in the
Reserve Components, continue to struggle with mental health
issues that ultimately result in suicide. Members of the
Reserve Components are often in rural communities and may not
have sufficient access to mental health care, as there is a
nationwide shortage of qualified mental health professionals.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included legislation to
expand the capacity of the military health system to provide
mental health care to members of the Reserve Components at the
location of the unit during scheduled unit training and
provided training on suicide prevention and response. In
addition, the Department is required to undertake several
projects that would further advance the knowledge and
understanding of traumatic brain injury and combat related
mental health issues to enhance the care provided to members of
the Armed Forces.
On September 9, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel conducted a hearing to receive testimony from the
military services on the current status of suicide prevention
programs in the military. The hearing provided members with the
opportunity to examine the implementation of suicide prevention
programs in each of the military services.
(H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23; H.A.S.C. 112-62)
Sexual Assault in the Military
The committee remained vigilant on ensuring that the
efforts to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the
military continue as a priority for the Department of Defense.
The committee was concerned that the Department of Defense and
the military service sexual assault and prevention programs
were not consistent or coordinated resulting in unnecessary
confusion for military service members. To address these
concerns legislation in the conference report on H.R. 1540
improved sexual assault prevention and response in the Armed
Forces by requiring standardized training for sexual assault
response coordinators and victim advocates and requiring at
least one full time sexual assault response coordinator and
victim advocate be assigned to each brigade equivalent military
unit. In addition, access to legal assistance counsel and
victim advocates was expanded to include dependents of active
duty service members who live on or in the vicinity of a
military post.
Military Health Care System
Since the start of the 112th Congress, the committee
exercised vigorous oversight on the military health system. The
committee focused substantial attention on the cost of military
health care to the Department of Defense (DOD) and to military
beneficiaries and the long term viability of the military
health system for future generations of military beneficiaries.
The committee is aware of the rising cost of providing health
care to military beneficiaries and the potential negative
impact of health care costs on other critical readiness
programs. The committee received detailed input from DOD health
affairs and comptroller personnel on the five cost saving
initiatives proposed by the department. The Subcommittee on
Military Personnel held a hearing devoted to understanding the
views of various beneficiary organizations impacted by the
Department of Defense proposed changes. The committee also
heard the views of health care organizations and retail drug
store chains impacted by the proposals. The Congressional
Budget Office assisted the committee to fully understand
estimates of costs and savings inherent in the DOD proposals.
As a result, the conference report on H.R. 1540 included a
provision that caps TRICARE Prime enrollment fee increases,
beginning in fiscal year 2013, to the percentage of a COLA
increase in military retired pay. Additional health care
legislation required beneficiaries who are enrolled in the U.S.
Family Health Plans to transition to TRICARE for Life when they
reach age 65.
(H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23)
Wounded Warrior Care (Wounded and Disabled Service Members and Their
Families)
The committee continued to provide oversight of the
disability evaluation system to ensure that service members
receive disability rating that accurately and fairly reflect
their illnesses and injuries. These activities included
monitoring of the implementation of the integrated disability
evaluation system (IDES) and the deployment of IDES to
locations throughout the world by September 2011.
Following the completion of the expansion of the IDES to
all world-wide locations, the services have begun to access
weaknesses within the system. The committee has noted that the
time required for wounded warriors to move through the
disability system has increased to over 400 days, 39 percent
above the 295 day goal. The Army has highlighted the growing
concern about the increase in wounded warriors with the force
that has reached 20,000 and is having an impact on combat
readiness. The Army has also noted that the wounded warrior
program is undermanned by 700 personnel. The committee is
monitoring the Army's effort to increase manning to appropriate
levels and shorten the time required for wounded warriors to
receive a disability assessment and be processed for separation
or retirement.
(H.A.S.C. 112-28)
Military Voting
The committee continued oversight of the military and
overseas voting program to ensure all members of the Armed
Forces and their families have the opportunity to exercise
their right to vote in each election. In February 2011, the
committee provided assistance to the House Committee on
Administration in preparation for a hearing they conducted on
the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. The hearing
explored the implementation of the Military and Overseas Voter
Empowerment (``MOVE'') Act during this past election cycle. The
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel were invited and attended the hearing.
On July 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
conducted a hearing on military voting to receive testimony
from a variety of officials involved in the military voting
process including the director of the Federal Voting Assistance
Program, local, county voting directors, and a voting
assistance officer in the military. The hearing provided an
opportunity for Members to examine the implementation of the
MOVE Act and its effects on the Federal Voting Assistance
Program at all levels from the director to individual service
members overseas.
(H.A.S.C. 112-52)
Prisoner of War and Missing in Action
The committee continued its efforts to monitor efforts by
the Department of Defense to meet the mandate in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) requiring the Secretary of Defense to institute a plan to
increase the number of identifications to a rate of 200 per
year by 2015. The committee met with an official from the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy regarding
the status of key decisions pending in the Secretariat on
command and control and integration of functions in the POW/MIA
accounting community. Although decisions have not been formally
made, the resources to increase manpower and to create a
satellite laboratory for identifications were requested in the
fiscal year 2012 President's budget request. The committee also
received an update from the Commander of Joint POW/MIA
Accounting Command (JPAC) on the organization's plans to meet
the 2010 mandate. The committee also received information from
the Defense Prisoner of War and Missing Office (DPMO) to
receive updates on potential changes to staff requirements for
the Joint U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIA.
Committee staff travelled to the People's Republic of China
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in November 2011 to
observe MIA Field Recovery Operations conducted by JPAC. This
oversight visit provided valuable insight into how recovery
operations are conducted and the challenges associated with the
recovery of remains.
Innovative Readiness Training
The committee continued to provide oversight of the
Innovative Readiness Training program by visiting a road
improvement project at the Bechtel Family Preserve, New River
Gorge, West Virginia. This is a multi-service project executed
from March thru September during the units annual training
period; with the potential to extend for the next 5 years. This
oversight effort related directly to the legislation adopted by
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, but not included in
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. The heavy reliance
on the Reserve Component over the past 10 years has reduced the
need for some of sustainment training requirements of the
Reserve Component.
MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES
During the 112th Congress, particular attention has been
given by the committee to examination of military equipment
modernization with respect to military capability. How the
Congress chooses to fund Department of Defense future
acquisition programs will dramatically affect the size, health,
age, and supporting industrial base of the air, sea, and land
force structure available to U.S. forces to support the
National Military Strategy and the Nation's vital interests.
The ground vehicles, ships, and aircraft available to support
the vital national interests will have to be greatly reduced
under the annual budgets projected for the next decade.
The negative impact on national security of currently
projected budgets for major weapons system development and
procurement programs is compounded by continued cost growth and
schedule delays. The committee continued to assess the need for
legislative action by examining causes of these problems
including: late determination of requirements, requirements
growth, and failure to properly control requirements changes;
inadequate analyses of alternatives, military services
proceeding prematurely with development with immature
technology; poor cost estimating; improper funding profiles;
over estimating potential production rates; and program
instability.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, included the
following action to, in part, address the committee's concern
with the force structure and supporting industrial base
available to U.S. forces to support the National Military
Strategy: provided authorization of an additional $272.0
million for sustainment of the Abrams Tank industrial base; and
the authorization of an additional $153.0 million for Bradley
Infantry Fighting Vehicle industrial base. The conference
report on H.R. 1540 included authorization of $255.0 million
for the Abrams Tank industrial base and no funding for the
Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle industrial base.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, also
included the following legislative provisions to, in part,
address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance
issues with programs: multiyear procurement authority for
airframes, mission avionics, and common cockpits for Army UH-
60M/HH-60M helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S helicopters; a
limitation on obligation of funds for the Ground Combat Vehicle
program until the Army provides an update analysis of
alternatives; a requirement for submission of an analysis of
alternatives for the individual carbine program; a limitation
on the obligation of funds for performance improvements to the
F-35 aircraft propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense
ensures the competitive development and production of such a
propulsion system; a limitation on the obligation of funds for
the Joint Replacement Fuze program until submission of a report
on the feasibility of such a program; and a limitation on the
obligation of funds for the future unmanned carrier-based
strike system until 60 days after specified certification and a
report is provided on the program. The conference report on
H.R. 1540 removed the provision which limited the obligation of
funds for improvements to the F-35 aircraft propulsion system
unless the Secretary of Defense ensures the competitive
development and production of such a propulsion system.
Army Armored Vehicle Modernization
The committee focused closely on the Army's plans for
upgrading current combat vehicles and starting new replacement
programs. With regard to existing armored vehicles, the
committee sought to protect and strengthen vehicle upgrade
programs, for which the Army showed varying levels of support.
The committee maintained its high priority on upgrades to the
M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles,
and Paladin Artillery Vehicles on a firm footing for the future
by ensuring the Army carried through with upgrade plans and
used authorized funds as directed. In particular, the committee
took necessary initial actions to prevent a production break of
the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle programs These
oversight efforts included hearings, site visits, close
coordination with Army leadership, and careful scrutiny of
reprogramming requests. The conference report on H.R. 1540
authorized an additional $255.0 million for upgrades to the M1
Abrams tank.
Army Tactical Network Programs
Due to a significant increase in Army funding for tactical
communications equipment, the committee pursued aggressive
oversight efforts to shape the Army's plans for future
battlefield networking equipment. These efforts stemmed from
the committee's concern that the Army was procuring an
incompatible combination of commercial and military
communications equipment based on redundant programs, unclear
requirements, and uncoordinated acquisition plans. In response,
the committee pursued a combination of legislative
restrictions, funding adjustments to select programs, hearings,
reprogramming decisions, and outside expert reports to help
guide the Army to a more suitable and affordable path forward.
The committee included a legislative provision in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540,
passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would restrict
procurement funds for the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)
until the Secretary of the Army submits written certification
that the acquisition strategy for full rate production includes
full and open competition.
Army Aviation Programs
The Army sustained limited operations in the Republic of
Iraq in the first half of 2011 and continued the drawdown of
forces while Army operations maintained at surge levels in the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Large numbers of legacy
rotorcraft deployed to the Central Command area of operations
continued to be operated at high tempos. Aircraft deployed
included the CH-47, UH-60, AH-64, and OH-58. The committee
fully supported funding requirements for these aircraft,
including research and development and procurement of
significant aircraft survivability equipment upgrades to
provide warning and protection against the insurgent surface-
to-air missile threat. Further, due to committee concerns that
the Army may not be fully utilizing the UH-72A Lakota
helicopter in all operational situations, the committee
requested in the report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that the Army define
``permissive'' versus ``non-permissive'' environments. In
addition, the committee requested additional information on
what the associated survivability modifications would be
required and if such modifications would be feasible given,
size, weight, and power limitations, if the mission envelope of
the UH-72A was expanded beyond ``permissive'' environments.
Combat Search and Rescue Programs
The committee continued to remain concerned about the Air
Force combat search and rescue (CSAR) programs since the Combat
Search and Rescue-X (CSAR-X) program was canceled by the
Department of Defense in 2009. Currently, the Air Force has 99
HH-60G CSAR helicopters which is 13 short of its program of
record requirement for 112 HH-60Gs, and over 50 percent of the
HH-60G fleet has major structural cracks. At a hearing on March
15, 2011 before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces, the Air Force witnesses testified that on-going HH-60G
modification programs are attempting to keep the HH-60G as a
viable asset until the Air Force's replacement programs are
complete. The Air Force is procuring replacement rotary wing
aircraft based upon currently fielded CSAR capabilities with
the HH-60 Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) program and the
HH-60 recapitalization program. The OLR program is designed to
bring the fleet back to the program of record of 112
helicopters and is procuring UH-60M aircraft that will be
modified with CSAR equipment to create an airframe comparable
to the HH-60G, and will be designated the HH-60M. The HH-60G
recapitalization program is designed to recapitalize the entire
CSAR fleet and the Air Force is currently examining acquisition
strategies to determine how to ensure the warfighter receives
the best product, on schedule and within budget. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540,
passed by the House May 26, 2011, authorized $34.8 million for
one HH-60M which was two fewer than the budget request since
those two helicopters were provided for in the Department of
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011
(Public Law 112-10). The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011,
also authorized the Overseas Contingency Operations request for
$39.3 million for two additional HH-60M helicopters, and the
$34.3 million budget request for H-60 modifications. The
conference report on H.R. 1540 authorized the budget request of
$104.7 million for three HH-60M helicopters, and the $34.3
million budget request for H-60 modifications.
F-22 Aircraft Program
During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued
oversight of the Air Force F-22 aircraft procurement program.
Fiscal Year 2009 was the final year of a 3 year, 60-aircraft F-
22 aircraft multiyear procurement program that will result in a
force structure of 187 F-22 aircraft, including the 4
additional F-22s appropriated in the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32). The final F-22
aircraft will be delivered in 2012. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House May 26, 2011, authorized the F-22 modification budget
request for $232.0 million and the F-22 research, development,
test, and evaluation budget request for $718.4 million. The
conference report on H.R. 1540 authorized the budget request of
$232.0 million for F-22 modification, but decreased the
research, development, test and evaluation budget request by
$147.0 million due to program cost growth.
F-35 Fighter Aircraft Program
During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued
oversight of the F-35 program, particularly the competitive
propulsion system, the F136 alternate engine, program. The F-35
competitive propulsion system program was developing the F136
engine, which was intended to eventually provide F-35 equipped
forces a competitive choice between the primary F135 engine and
the F136 engine. Congress and the Department of Defense had
originally supported the competitive engine initiative
beginning in 1996, but the Department of Defense has not
included funding for the competitive propulsion system program
in its budget requests since 2006. At the Tactical Air and Land
Forces Subcommittee hearing on March 15, 2011, the Air Force
Acquisition Executive and the F-35 Program Executive Officer
testified that the Department of Defense believes that
maintaining a single engine supplier provides the best balance
of cost and risk. The Department of Defense terminated the F136
development program on April 25, 2011. However, the F136
contractor offered to continue F136 development at its expense,
and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, included a
provision that would ensure that the Secretary of Defense, at
no cost to the Federal Government, provides support and allows
for the use of F136 property by the contractor under a contract
to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation of the
F136 engine, if such activities are self-funded by the
contractor. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, also
included a provision that would limit the obligation or
expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-35
Lightning II propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense
ensures the competitive development and production of such
propulsion system.
Since the House passed H.R. 1540 on May 26, 2011, the F136
contractor withdrew its offer to continue F136 development at
its expense, and as a result, the conference report on H.R.
1540 included a provision that would require that the Secretary
of Defense develop a plan that would provide for the long-term
sustainment and repair of F136 property pending a determination
of whether such property: (1) can be used within the F-35
Lightning II aircraft program, in other Government development
programs, or in other contractor-funded development activities;
(2) should be stored for use in future Government development
programs; or (3) should be disposed. The provision would also
require the Secretary to identify how he intends to obtain
maximum benefit to the U.S. Government from the investment
already made in developing the F136. The conference report on
H.R. 1540 also changed the House-passed provision concerning
the expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-
35 Lightning II propulsion system to a provision that would
prevent the obligation of more than 80 percent of the research
and development funding for the F-35 program until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense
committees that the acquisition strategy for the F-35 program
includes a plan for achieving competition throughout operation
and sustainment, in accordance with section 202(d) of the
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
23).
Fighter Aircraft Force Structure Adequacy
During the 112th Congress, the committee investigated the
adequacy of fighter force structure in both the Navy and the
Air Force. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
held a hearing on March 15, 2011. The Navy witness testified
that F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft are reaching their projected
service-life and will require replacement or modifications to
further extend their service-life to eventual deployment of the
F-35 aircraft, and noted that the Department of the Navy's
strike fighter shortfall would reach a manageable level of 65
aircraft in 2018. The committee later learned that Department
of the Navy's estimated strike fighter shortfall is further,
projected to be reduced to 52 aircraft in 2018 with the
increase of nine additional F/A-18E/F aircraft for fiscal year
2011. Also at the hearing on March 15, 2011, the Air Force
witness testified to an Air Force requirement for 2,000 fighter
aircraft, and noted that a comprehensive review of current and
projected force structure revealed a shortfall of approximately
3 to 5 percent in the future years defense program. The Air
Force officials also noted that shortfall mitigation will
include executing funded sustainment and fleet management
actions for older F-16 Block 25, 30 and 32 aircraft, newer
block 40 and 50 service life extension, and targeted
modernization and examination of the overall force structure to
ensure viable warfighting capabilities are maintained. At a
hearing held by the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces on November 2, 2011, the Air Force witness testified
that 300-350 F-16 block 40 and 50 aircraft would receive a
service life extension modification which would allow these
aircraft to be flown until approximately 2030. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540,
passed by the House May 26, 2011, authorized the budget request
for 40 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the Navy, other Navy
and Air Force requests for the modification of existing fighter
aircraft, and the budget request for 32 F-35s for the Navy,
Marine Corps, and Air Force. The conference report on H.R. 1540
authorized the 40 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the Navy
but decreased the budget request by a total of $211.3 million
for cost growth in certain procurement components. For the Air
Force, the conference report on H.R. 1540 decreased the A-10
wing replacement modification request by $140.0 million. The
conference report on H.R. 1540 also decreased the Air Force F-
35A budget request by $51.0 million and F-35A aircraft,
authorized a total of 31 F-35 aircraft for the Navy, Marine
Corps and Air Force.
The committee has also been concerned about the Air Force
fighter aircraft used to conduct the aerospace control alert
(ACA) mission, many of which are assigned to the Air National
Guard. On October 26, 2011, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces and one other subcommittee Member
formally requested that the Secretary of the Air Force provide
the committee with a plan by the end of the 2011 calendar year
for modernizing the Air National Guard's ACA mission fleet and
applicable fighter wings. At the Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces hearing on November 2, 2011, the Air Force
witness testified that most of the Air National Guard's F-16
block 30 ACA mission fleet would be replaced by F-16 block 40
and 50 aircraft when the F-35A completes the development
process and becomes an operational Air Force fighter asset.
Ground Combat Vehicle Program
The committee devoted considerable oversight efforts to the
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. The committee included a
legislative provision in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26,
2011, that restricts the use of funds until the Secretary of
the Army provides and updated analysis of alternatives to the
congressional defense committees that includes a quantitative
comparison of upgraded existing systems against the revised GCV
design concept. In addition, the committee encouraged the Army
to establish another red team prior to the milestone B review
to assess the cost, schedule, and technical risks of the GCV
acquisition strategy. The conference report on H.R. 1540
withholds 20 percent of funds for the Ground Combat Vehicle
program until the Army provides additional information in
regards to the dynamic Analysis of Alternatives and alternative
assessment.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs
In the 112th Congress, the committee continued to provide
close oversight over myriad ISR projects and programs operated
throughout the Department of Defense.
The Department of Defense employs a large inventory of
manned and unmanned vehicles to perform tactical, non-space-
based, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR).
For fiscal year 2012, the budget request included over $3.6
billion for new tactical ISR aircraft and unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV) for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force.
Nearly 20 different ISR acquisition programs were requested by
the Army, Air Force, and Department of the Navy. The committee
has consistently sought to avoid the unnecessary proliferation
and duplication of ISR capabilities among the services. The
committee has also acted to facilitate the operation in U.S.
air space of UAVs in support of training and operational
requirements and to provide support to civil emergencies.
The committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
included specific mention of the Enhanced Medium Altitude
Reconnaissance and Surveillance System program, airborne
reconnaissance low, and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle
programs.
Rapid Acquisition Authority and Joint Urgent Operational Needs Process
The conflicts in the Republic of Iraq and Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan, and particularly the evolution of the
improvised explosive device (IED) as a highly effective weapon
of strategic influence, have illustrated the ability of an
adaptive enemy to work to advantage inside a normal defense
acquisition cycle. The committee continued its oversight of the
urgent operational needs system (UONS) process across the
Department of Defense and the military services and continued
to leverage and evaluate recommendations put forth by the
congressionally mandated Defense Science Board report required
by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as well as recent
reports issued by the Government Accountability Office in April
2010 and March 2011. These reports noted there were significant
shortcomings in existing Department of Defense processes for
meeting urgent operational needs for the warfighter in a
timely, expeditious manner.
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces fully
engaged the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military
services with formal requests for information regarding the
processes used to address urgent operational needs through
official correspondence, classified briefings, and open
hearings. Further, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, the committee noted the Department of Defense lacks
complete visibility to readily identify the total cost of its
urgent operational needs and lacks the internal controls
necessary to manage these efforts. For instance, the Department
has no comprehensive database for which to track, monitor, and
evaluate urgent operational requests and no set of universal
metrics used to effectively evaluate their performance once the
system is fielded. The committee highlighted that the Secretary
of Defense has not issued Department-wide policy guidance that
provides for a unified approach for managing quick reaction
programs and urgent need efforts to include managing funding
requirements. Given the escalating budgetary challenges, the
committee believed that it was and continues to be critical for
the Department to reevaluate the current processes of how it
fulfills its urgent needs and whether there is potential to
reduce duplication, fragmentation, and overlap to achieve
increased efficiencies or cost savings, or both. The committee
will continue to work with the Department and the military
services to improve upon the rapid acquisition process used to
address urgent operational need requests from the warfighter.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, authorized
$50.0 million, for a joint urgent operational needs fund, a
reduction of $150.0 million from the President's request
because of the concerns noted by the committee in the current
process.
Additionally the conference report on H.R. 1540, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
authorized a joint urgent operational needs fund.
The committee also continued to urge the Secretary of
Defense to leverage previous efforts of the committee to take
advantage of the rapid acquisition authority provided to the
Department of Defense as part of Section 806(c) of the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
(Public Law 107-314), as amended by Section 811 of the Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375) and section 803 of the Ike Skelton
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public
Law 111-383) wherever necessary, in order to guarantee that
military personnel receive required equipment in a timely
manner. This authority provided the Secretary of Defense with
$200.0 million in authority, each fiscal year, to waive any
necessary statutes for quick response to immediate warfighter
capability requirements in response to combat fatalities.
Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
From 2003 to 2011, Congress provided $43.0 billion for the
procurement and recapitalization of tactical wheeled vehicles
(TWVs), averaging approximately $6.0 billion per year. The
Army's TWV fleet alone currently consists of 260,000 light,
medium and heavy vehicles and represents an investment of over
$70.0 billion. The magnitude of the TWV fleet will present many
challenges and warrants intensive oversight by the committee.
The committee continued to monitor and examine the Department's
attempt to develop a comprehensive, joint tactical wheeled
vehicle strategy that would limit the potential risk of
unplanned overlap in capabilities throughout the military
services, takes into consideration the development of realistic
and affordable joint requirements, and incorporates sustainment
costs. The committee continued to focus on the Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, the integration of the family
of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles into the current
fleet, and other TWV modernization efforts, most notably the
Up-Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH)
recapitalization program.
The committee devoted particular attention towards the JLTV
program and the UAH Recapitalization program in the committee
report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House May 26, 2011. The committee noted that the Army and
the Marine Corps both plan to competitively recapitalize their
respective UAH fleets with improvements to automotive
performance and survivability in order to improve overall
capability and extend life cycles. The committee supported this
competitive approach to improving the Army and the Marine Corps
UAH fleets and noted this strategy should be based on a best
value, full and open competition among public, private, and/or
public-private partnerships. The committee encouraged the Army
and the Marine Corps to accelerate this program as a means to
stabilize the industrial base and provide a bridge to the JLTV
program.
The JLTV program is the largest new procurement of tactical
wheeled vehicles planned for DOD. No firm quantities have been
determined for the JLTV, but the current estimate is that the
Army alone would like to have one-third of the light tactical
vehicle fleet be JLTVs, approximately 50,000 vehicles. The
committee expressed concerns over the JLTV program's projected
costs of at least $9.7 billion for fiscal years 2011-2015. The
committee noted that initial test results indicate that the
JLTV program faces many operational and technical challenges.
Because of the ambitious schedule which has resulted in several
delays, projected cost estimates, and lack of stable
requirements, the committee recommended a reduction of $50.0
million for the JLTV program in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House May 26, 2011. Also, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House May 26, 2011, authorized the President's request of
$2.4 billion for tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 authorized $2.4 billion
for tactical wheeled vehicle procurement, to include $155.0
million for the JLTV program.
Department Projection Aviation (Bombers, Mobility, UAV and Tanker)
Programs
Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized
the Air Force planned to retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft and
reduce the current combat-coded force structure from 36 B-1
bomber aircraft down to 30 in fiscal year 2012. The committee
supported the Air Force's plan to retire six B-1 bomber
aircraft but did not support the plan to reduce the combat-
coded force structure of B-1 bomber aircraft. In the report
``2007 Long-Range Strike White Paper'' required by the
committee report (S. Rept. 109-254) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the Air Force
stated that 96 combat-coded bomber aircraft total (36 B-1s, 16
B-2s, and 44 B-52s) were required to meet combatant commander
requirements until a next-generation long-range strike aircraft
is fielded. Furthermore, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review
validated the requirement to maintain up to 96 combat-coded
bomber aircraft. The committee will continue to emphasize that
retirement of any bomber aircraft that reduces the combat-coded
force structure below 96 total bombers is premature prior to a
replacement long-range strike bomber aircraft reaching initial
operational capability status.
The committee supports the decision to restart the
development of a new bomber aircraft and acknowledges that the
current fleet of bomber aircraft are still effective and
relevant in meeting the combatant commanders'' warfighting
requirements in the near and mid-terms, but believes that the
long-range strike requirements have been sufficiently analyzed
on numerous occasions over the last 18 years against forecasted
threats and that a recapitalization program must begin. The
committee maintained oversight through staff-level briefings
and is encouraged by the development effort completed thus far
and looks forward to engaging with the Air Force in future
briefings once firm key performance parameters are documented.
The committee will continue to work with Air Force program
officials in understanding intentions regarding nuclear
capability and nuclear certification plans of the new bomber.
The committee remains concerned with the workload being
levied on the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and
will monitor the acquisition governance structure to ensure
that AFRCO is staffed with acquisition officials that represent
an appropriate and sufficient cross-section of recent
operational experience, major defense acquisition program
management, requirements development, technology integration,
and cost estimation to effectively execute the bomber program.
The committee remains concerned that the Secretary of the Air
Force has not performed a comprehensive life-cycle cost
analysis comparing the development of one bomber platform,
integrating all long-range strike capabilities, to a ``family
of long-range strike systems'' to determine the affordability
of the Department of Defense's long-range strike portfolio
strategy. The committee continues to work with the Department
as the life-cycle cost analysis is being formulated and will
continue to receive regular updates through staff-level
briefings.
Through its oversight activities, the subcommittee
recognized that the Secretary of the Air Force requested to
repeal section 8062(g) of title 10, United States Code, which
provides that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain a minimum
inventory of 316 strategic inter-theater airlift aircraft. The
committee did not support repeal and believes that a minimum
inventory of 316 airlift aircraft provides a prudent balance of
operational risk, affordability and sufficient organic
capabilities in meeting the ever-increasing mobility
requirements in support of the National Military Strategy and
combat operations. The committee's actions stemmed from
concerns regarding the questionable viability of the Civil
Reserve Airlift Fleet, the reliance of transporting oversize
and outsize cargo using foreign aircraft leasing arrangements,
the unforeseen over-utilization rates of the current fleet of
inter-theater airlift aircraft, the consistent under-estimation
of deploying units Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data
regarding the amount of equipment to support combat operations,
and the Mobility Capability and Requirements Study of 2016 did
not address or characterize the operational risk in meeting
combatant commander warfighting requirements or timelines. The
committee also understands that the force planning constructs
used to justify the most recent mobility study were not the
same force planning constructs used to develop the most recent
Quadrennial Defense Review which sets the military strategy for
the Department.
Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized
that the Department of Defense continues to struggle with
sufficiently, and comprehensively, analyzing and defining
intra-theater airlift mobility requirements for active and
reserve components, as well as National Guard units supporting
both title 10 and title 32, United States Code, airlift
mobility operations. The committee recognized that a reduction
in the C-130H/J inventory from 395 to 335 aircraft, a reduction
in the inventory of C-27J aircraft from 78 to 38, and a
wholesale inventory reduction by the Army of 42 C-23 aircraft
was unjustified, premature and based on insufficient analytics,
and moreover, likely executed for budgetary reasons.
Furthermore, the subcommittee recognized that neither the
``2006 Mobility Capability Study'' or the ``2010 Mobility
Capability and Requirements Study'' did not comprehensively
analyze all aspects of intra-theater airlift requirements in
the mission areas of time sensitive-direct support, homeland
security, Air Force and Army National Guard domestic airlift
operations in support of contingencies resulting from natural
disasters, humanitarian crises, emergencies, and combatant
commander warfighting requirements. The committee will continue
to emphasize that without a comprehensive analysis of the
aforementioned mission areas, it is impossible to justify such
a decrease in intra-theater airlift capabilities. The committee
is also concerned that the Army has begun divestment of the C-
23 aircraft despite congressional concerns and disagrees with
that current action.
Through its oversight activities, the committee supported
the Chief of Naval Operations' stated desire to investigate the
feasibility of sea-basing unmanned, low-observable aircraft on
aircraft carriers to potentially provide intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance and limited strike capabilities.
However, the committee remains concerned with the Navy's
execution strategy for developing systems in this mission area
and will continue to engage with officials from the Navy.
The committee's concerns include: the Navy plans not to
accomplish a thorough future unmanned carrier-based strike
system analysis of alternatives; the desired aircraft fielding
date of fiscal year 2018 was randomly selected and was not
derived through a threat-based analysis for the system; the
current engineering and technology development strategy is
considered high-risk by Navy officials to meet the fiscal year
2018 date; the Navy has been unable to articulate to the
committee the required capabilities and performance
characteristics of the system; and the lessons learned from the
technology demonstrator known as the unmanned combat air
system, which is a precursor to the future unmanned carrier-
based strike system, is not sufficiently integrated into the
acquisition strategy.
Through its oversight activities, the committee supported
the attributes and benefits regarding the KC-46A competition
and acknowledged that the source-selection process was
conducted fairly amongst all competitors. The committee
discovered, according to Department of Defense acquisition
officials, that the competition resulted in at least a 20
percent savings for the unit cost of the aircraft and a savings
of $3.0 to $4.0 billion as compared to the source-selection
competition held for the tanker in 2008.
The committee plans to closely monitor the KC-46A
engineering, manufacturing and development program to ensure
that the taxpayer dollars are wisely invested and that the
platform will result in a capability that enhances the
warfighter's global reach capabilities. The committee requested
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics provide the committee quarterly reviews of the
Air Force's KC-46A program to maintain sufficient and effective
oversight and the committee also requested that the Comptroller
General of the United States provide the committee with an
annual review of the development program. Through an oversight
hearing regarding KC-46, the committee gained a further
understanding of the KC-46 program and was provided a thorough
update of the KC-46 Integrated Baseline Review completed in
August, 2011. The committee will continue oversight of the KC-
46 program through staff level briefings and future hearing
events.
(H.A.S.C. 112-77)
Shipbuilding Programs
The committee continued its oversight of the Department's
shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments are made
to ensure the Navy achieves the force structure, with
appropriate capabilities, needed to meet requirements.
Protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of
credible combat power, global presence, and humanitarian
assistance are all core missions of the Navy that the committee
remains focused on.
Through its oversight activities, the committee was pleased
that the Navy has apparently reversed the downward spiral in
battle force ship quantities, and believes the plan to achieve
the floor of 313 ships is achievable. To obtain the required
capability and to provide the required stability to the fragile
shipbuilding industrial base, the committee focused on the
major shipbuilding programs.
CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford-class of aircraft
carriers. The subcommittee was critical when the Navy changed
construction starts of these carriers from 4 year to 5 year
centers. The committee has encouraged the Navy to keep these
aircraft carriers on 5 year centers at the most, with fiscal
year 2013 being the first year of detail design and
construction funding for CVN-79. The committee has also
expressed that it is essential to minimize changes from ship to
ship in the class.
The committee was impressed with the progress of the
Virginia-class submarine program, which has proven to be a
model shipbuilding program. Cost reduction efforts and ever-
decreasing span time for construction and delivery have allowed
the Navy to fund two ships a year starting in fiscal year 2011,
a year earlier than previously contemplated
The committee is most concerned about how the Navy will
fund and maintain the current shipbuilding plan once the Navy
begins to acquire replacements for the Ohio-class ballistic
missile submarine fleet.
The committee, in reviewing the budget request, and knowing
that the Navy has re-started the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class of
destroyers, included authorization of a multi-year procurement
program. These ships are vital for their traditional roles, as
well as modifications that make them a key component for
ballistic missile defense.
The committee received testimony that the Marine Corps'
requirement for amphibious ships is 38 ships, but that the
number of ships that are absolutely necessary with acceptable
risk is 33. The committee encouraged the Navy to continue
pursuing a minimum of 33 amphibious ships.
Through its oversight activities, the committee examined
the schedule for the Littoral Combat Ship, both the sea frame
and the mission modules. The committee included two provisions
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would
increase the transparency and allow for adequate oversight of
this program.
Through its oversight activities, the committee delved into
the Department's rationale for cancelling the Expeditionary
Fighting Vehicle program. The committee included a provision in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would not
allow expenditure of funds on a replacement for this vital
capability until adequate analyses are completed
Additional oversight activities included briefings to
committee staff on the Maritime Administration's program for
scrapping and recycling ships; the Navy's electromagnetic rail-
gun program; the Navy's electromagnetic aircraft launching
system (EMALS), and; the new construct known as the Air-Sea
Battle. These briefings involved travel to Dahlgren, Virginia,
and Lakehurst, New Jersey.
Committee staff also traveled to San Diego, California, and
Norfolk, Virginia, to visit private shipyards and operational
Navy ships.
Directed Energy Programs
The committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Defense's directed energy programs, to specifically include
directed energy technologies with missile defense applications.
During the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces' March 31, 2011,
hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization
Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs, subcommittee
members inquired about the status of directed energy research
and development efforts, testing, and resources. Concerns about
the sufficiency of funds to maintain the Airborne Laser Test-
bed platform and conduct further testing, continue technology
development, and retain a uniquely skilled workforce led the
committee to recommend additional resources for the directed
energy research programs of the Missile Defense Agency in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, as passed by the House. Division A of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055) ultimately cut the MDA
directed energy program to $50 million; MDA has had to take
steps to severely curtail the program as a result.
Nuclear Deterrence
The committee continued its oversight of the atomic energy
defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) and
nuclear policies and programs of the Department of Defense
(DOD) to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and
credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. On April 5, 2011,
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on the
fiscal year 2012 Budget Request for Department of Energy Atomic
Energy Defense Activities and Department of Defense Nuclear
Forces Programs. For the first time in recent years, this
annual nuclear posture and budget hearing included witnesses
from the Department of Defense, who testified on the
Department's nuclear programs and budgets, and linkages with
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). At the
hearing, members inquired about DOE and DOD nuclear weapons and
infrastructure modernization plans, implementation of the New
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), defense
environmental cleanup, defense nuclear nonproliferation, safety
at defense nuclear facilities, and resources.
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on July
27, 2011, on sustaining nuclear deterrence after New START in
order to examine the United States' post-New START nuclear
policy and posture. A follow-up hearing with officials from the
Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the
Department of State was held on November 2, 2011, to assess the
current status and future direction for U.S. nuclear weapons
policy and posture. The subcommittee also held a hearing on
October 14, 2011, on understanding the impacts of nuclear
weapons modernization in Russia and China on the United States.
In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces held a classified briefing on March 10, 2011,
on the status of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile with the
NNSA Administrator and the directors of the Nation's three
nuclear weapons laboratories. The subcommittee also held a
classified briefing on June 15, 2011, on the nuclear fuel cycle
and countries of proliferation concern, a classified briefing
on July 13, 2011, on foreign nuclear weapons programs, and a
joint classified briefing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and
Projection Forces on September 21, 2011, on the SSBN(X) program
and the future of sea-based strategic deterrence.
The committee included several legislative provisions and
reporting requirements related to the nuclear enterprise in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, as passed by the House. These include reporting
requirements on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, nuclear
modernization plans, New START implementation plans, NNSA
construction project management, nuclear employment strategy,
limitations on nuclear force reductions, security at nuclear
facilities, and efficiencies at nuclear complex sites.
The conference report on H.R.1540 included several modified
versions of the House provisions.
Missile Defense
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held several missile
defense sessions in support of its oversight of the Department
of Defense's efforts to develop, test and field layered missile
defense capabilities to protect the United States, its deployed
forces, and its friends and allies against the full range of
ballistic missile threats. On March 31, 2011, the Subcommittee
on Strategic Forces conducted a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile
Defense Programs. Members' oversight questions addressed a
range of missile defense programs and issues, including Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
(BMD), Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), and directed
energy research, as well as U.S. homeland missile defense
capabilities, implementation of the European Phased Adaptive
Approach (EPAA), testing, force structure and inventory
requirements, cooperative international missile defense
activities, and workforce issues.
On February 5, 2011, and March 30, 2011, the subcommittee
held classified briefings on the Status of the GMD Program
after recent flight test failures and the Missile Defense
Agency's plans for fixing the program. On April 6, 2011, the
subcommittee received a classified briefing from the
intelligence community on ballistic missile threats. Lastly, on
April 14, 2011, the subcommittee received a classified briefing
from the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization
on the results of the Joint Capabilities Mix-3 study, which
examined the role and capabilities of U.S. missile defenses in
various military engagement scenarios to identify inventory
requirements and needed capabilities.
Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also
participated in a congressional delegation visit to Europe, May
16-23, 2011, to see firsthand how the EPAA is being
implemented. Members received missile defense briefings from
experts at U.S. European Command; toured the Aegis BMD cruiser
USS Monterey, which deployed to the European theater in March
2011 in support of the EPAA; and discussed missile defense with
senior government leaders in the Republic of Poland and
Romania.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, contains several
missile defense-related legislative provisions and funding
recommendations, to include: reporting requirements on
acquisition accountability, the Department's homeland defense
hedging strategy, a plan for addressing GMD flight-test
failures, and study on space-based interceptor technology. It
also included a limitation on funds for the MEADS program and a
limitation on providing the Russian Federation with access to
sensitive U.S. missile defense technology. The conference
report to H.R. 1540 included a modified version of this
provision that would require that no classified United States
ballistic missile defense information may be provided to Russia
unless, 60 days prior to any instance in which the U.S.
Government plans to provide such information to the Russian
Federation, the President provides notification (which must
include specific terms spelled out in the provision) to the
appropriate congressional committees.
National Security Space
The committee continued its oversight of the Department's
national security space programs. On March 15, 2011, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on the Fiscal
Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for
National Security Space Activities. Members' oversight
questions addressed a range of topics, including: space policy;
a new space acquisition approach, Evolutionary Acquisition for
Space Efficiency; space launch; space industrial base;
Operationally Responsive Space, space situational awareness;
space intelligence analysis; and concerns about potential
interference with the Global Positioning System (GPS).
Additionally, on April 6, 2011, the subcommittee received a
classified briefing from the intelligence community on Threats
to U.S. Space Capabilities.
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces conducted oversight of
the potential effects of the LightSquared commercial wireless
broadband network on Department of Defense GPS receivers. On
September 8, 2011, the committee received a classified briefing
on LightSquared's Interference with GPS, and subsequently held
a hearing on September 21, 2011, to receive testimony on
Sustaining GPS for National Security.
Additionally, the subcommittee received a classified
briefing on October 25, 2011, on the U.S. Air Force and
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) New Entrant Strategy on
Space Launch; a classified briefing on November 16, 2011, on
Counter Space and Ballistic Missile Threats; and a classified
briefing on November 18, 2011, on United States Space Systems,
including an overview of NRO systems and capabilities, the
recent launch campaign, and a program status update.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, contains several
national security space-related legislative provisions, funding
recommendations and reporting requirements, to include:
authorization for the Air Force to use incremental funding to
procure Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites, a
limitation on funds for the Joint Space Operations Center
Management System until an acquisition strategy is submitted to
the committee, a requirement that the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) resolve concerns of widespread harmful
interference to GPS devices used by the Department of Defense
prior to permitting certain commercial terrestrial
communications operations, and reports on a rocket propulsion
strategy and hosted payloads.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision
concerning the GPS-LightSquared issue that would maintain the
requirement that the FCC resolve concerns of widespread harmful
interference to GPS and it would add the reporting requirements
contained in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1540. The Senate
provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to review and
assess the ability of national security GPS receivers to
receive the signals of the GPS satellites without interruption
or interference and determine if commercial communications
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful
interference with national security GPS receivers. In the event
that the review determines that commercial communications
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful
interference with national security GPS receivers, the
Secretary would be required to promptly notify the
congressional defense committees.
EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
provided oversight of Department of Defense science and
technology, cyber, and counter-terrorism programs and other
activities under the subcommittee's jurisdictional
responsibility. The subcommittee considered and reported
legislation on May 4, 2011, that was included in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540,
passed by the House on May 26, 2011.
Investment in Future Capabilities Science and Technology
The committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Defense's science and technology policies and programs to
ensure balanced investments are made in developing capabilities
to meet emerging challenges to national security. Related
hearings included: March 1, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of Defense
Science and Technology Programs; and July 26, 2011, Department
of Defense Investment in Technology and Capability to Meet
Emerging Security Threats. In addition to formal hearings, the
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a
briefing on April 5, 2011, on Defense Advanced Research Project
Agency's Directed Energy, Cyber and Stealth Programs, and a
briefing on July 14, 2011, on Department of Defense
Laboratories.
Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized
critical shortcomings in capabilities for special operations
forces and accordingly authorized in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, an
additional $60.0 million for special operations combatant craft
systems and an additional $87.8 million for special operations
communications capabilities. Further, due to concerns regarding
the management and performance of several procurement and
research programs, the subcommittee included legislative
provisions to limit the availability of funds for commercial
satellite procurement and for Special Operations Command's
aviation foreign internal defense program, which also received
a reduction in authorized funding level by $50 million.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included several
provisions related to science and technology efforts,
including: a provision extending hiring authorities for defense
laboratories through September 30, 2016; a provision expanding
developmental test and evaluation management for major defense
acquisition programs; a provision expanding an acquisition
pilot program to integrate technology protection features
during research and development to include contractor cost-
sharing; a provision directing an assessment of mechanisms to
employ non-U.S. citizens with critical scientific and technical
skills; and provides $200 million to the Rapid Innovation
Program.
(H.A.S.C. 112-9)
Cybersecurity Information Technology
The committee devoted substantial attention to cyber
operations and information technology to ensure the Department
appropriately defends its networks and has needed capability to
conduct its mission across the operational spectrum. Related
hearings included: February 11, 2011, What Should the
Department of Defense's Role in Cyber Be?; and March 16, 2011,
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request
for U.S. Cyber Command.
In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a total of five
briefings and roundtable discussions which included: February
9, 2011, Classified Cyber Threat Briefing; April 15, 2011,
Classified Briefing on Security of Classified Networks; June 2,
2011, Sandia National Lab Overview and Capabilities Briefing;
June 3, 2011, Briefing on Recent Cyber Attacks on Lockheed
Martin; and September 8, 2011, Classified Roundtable Discussion
on the Defense Industrial Base Program.
The committee included several legislative provisions
related to cybersecurity information technology in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to
include: a provision to establish a cybersecurity fellowship
program within the Department of Defense that would extend the
partnership and educational opportunities between the
Department of Defense and foreign militaries. Further, the
committee directed an independent review and assessment of the
cryptographic modernization program and an assessment of the
defense industrial base pilot program.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision
requiring the Department of Defense develop a strategy to
acquire capabilities to detect previously unknown cyber-
attacks; a provision to assess the defense industrial pilot
program; a provision to implement a program for insider threat
protection; and a provision directing increased collaboration
between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland
Security on cybersecurity.
(H.A.S.C. 112-5; H.A.S.C. 112-26)
Strategic Communication and Information Operations
The committee continued its review of the Department of
Defense's strategic communications and information operations
programs. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
held a hearing on July 12, 2011, Ten Years On: The Evolution of
Strategic Communications and Information Operations Since 9/11.
Additionally, the subcommittee directed several reviews in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, to include: an assessment of counter adversarial
narrative efforts; an assessment of countering network-based
threats, and a report on Military Information Support
Operations.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included several
provisions related to strategic communication and information
operations, including: a provision re-designating psychological
operations as military information support operations in title
10, including a required report on strategy and implementation;
and a provision limiting the availability of funds for the
Trans Regional Web Initiative.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
Full Committee Hearings
The committee held numerous hearings in preparation for
completing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012. These hearings are a central element in the
discharge of the committee's oversight responsibilities.
In upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud,
abuse, or mismanagement in federal government programs, and
pursuant to clauses 2(n) and (o) rule XI of the House of
Representatives, the committee met several times to conduct
oversight over Department of Defense activities, as noted in
this report. On June 23, 2011, the committee convened a hearing
on Recent Developments in Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown
of U.S. Forces with the Honorable Michele Flournoy,
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and Admiral Michael
Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Pursuant to clause 2(p) of rule XI of the House of
Representatives, the committee also held a hearing on Human
Capital Management: A High Risk Area for the Department of
Defense, as identified by the Comptroller General in his High
Risk Series. Witnesses included Ms. Brenda Farrell, Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Mr. John Hutton, Director, Acquisition
and Sourcing Management Team, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; Mr. Pasquale (Pat) M. Tamburrino, Jr., Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy; and Mr. Keith
Charles, Director, Human Capital Initiatives, Office of the
Under Secretary of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee held a
hearing on July 26, 2011 to receive testimony on Ten Years
After the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Current
Status of Legal Authorities. Witnesses included the Honorable
Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United
States and Former Chief Judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York; Daniel Dell Orto,
Former Principal Deputy General Counsel and Acting General
Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense; Steven Engel, Former
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel; and Robert Chesney, Charles I. Francis
Professor in Law, University of Texas Law School and Former
Advisor to the Detainee Policy Task Force created by Executive
Order 13493.
The committee met again on July 27, 2011, to receive
testimony on The Way Ahead in Afghanistan. Witnesses included
General (ret.) Jack Keane, Chairman of the Board, Institute for
the Study of War, Former Vice Chief of Staff of the United
States Army; Lieutenant General (ret.) David Barno, Center for
a New American Security, Former Commander, Combined Forces
Command-Afghanistan (2003-2005); and the Honorable Bing J.
West, Author, ``The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out
of Afghanistan'', Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs.
The committee held a series of hearings to examine the
Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years
after 9/11. The seven-part series focused on the Department of
Defense's role in the past decade of conflict and sought to
examine the consequences of these lessons learned to the future
of our force. Likewise, the committee sought to examine the
consequences of cuts to the future budget of the Department of
Defense, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
On September 8, 2011, the committee held the first hearing
in this series regarding the Future of National Defense and the
U.S. Military Ten Years after 9/11 with former Chairmen and a
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These witnesses
included General (ret.) Richard Myers, USAF; General (ret.)
Peter Pace, USMC; and Admiral (ret.) Edmund Giambastiani, USN.
The committee's second hearing in the series was held on
September 13, 2011 to solicit outside experts views on the
Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years
after 9/11. The witnesses included Mr. Jim Thomas, Vice
President and Director of Studies, Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments; Dr. Michael E. O'Hanlon, Director of
Research and Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution; Mr. Thomas
Donnelly, Resident Fellow and Director, Center for Defense
Studies, American Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Max Boot, Jeane
J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies,
Council on Foreign Relations.
On September 22, 2011, the committee paused from its
hearing series to conduct further oversight on contingency
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with a
hearing on the Afghan National Security Forces. Witnesses
included the Honorable Michele Flournoy, Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense; and Lieutenant
General Robert B. Neller, Director for Operations, J-3, Joint
Staff.
On October 4, 2011, the committee resumed its Future of
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years after 9/11
series with testimony from former Service Chiefs and Vice
Chiefs. The witnesses were General (ret.) John Jumper, Former
Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; General (ret.) Richard Cody,
Former Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; and Lieutenant General
(ret.) H. Steven Blum, Former Chief, National Guard Bureau,
USA.
The committee's fourth hearing in this series was held on
October 12, 2011. The committee received perspectives from
former Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services
Committee including Senator John Warner, Congressman Duncan
Hunter, and Congressman Ike Skelton.
On October 13, 2011, the committee held the fifth hearing
in the series of examining the future of National Defense and
the U.S. Military Ten Years after 9/11 with the Secretary of
Defense, the Honorable Leon E. Panetta; and General Martin
Dempsey, USA, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. This hearing was
the first conducted in this series with current administration
officials and military leaders to examine these issues.
The sixth hearing in the series was conducted on October
26, 2011. This hearing examined the economic consequences of
defense sequestration. The witnesses included Mr. Martin
Feldstein, President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic
Research; Dr. Stephen Fuller, Director, Center for Regional
Analysis at the School of Public Policy, George Mason
University; and Dr. Peter Morici, Professor of International
Relations, University of Maryland.
On November 2, 2011, the committee held its last hearing in
the series with the current military service chiefs to receive
testimony on the Future of the Military Services and
Consequences of Defense Sequestration. The witnesses were
General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army; Admiral
Jonathan W. Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations; General Norton
A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force; and General James
F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
(H.A.S.C. 112-48; H.A.S.C. 112-51; H.A.S.C. 112-53;
H.A.S.C. 112-56; H.A.S.C. 112-61; H.A.S.C. 112-63; H.A.S.C.
112-70; H.A.S.C. 112-72; H.A.S.C. 112-74; H.A.S.C. 112-76;
H.A.S.C. 112-81; H.A.S.C. 112-86)
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THE PANELS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES
The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
continued its oversight of the Department's counter-terrorism,
counter-insurgency, and counter-weapons of mass destruction
proliferation activities to ensure the Department is prepared
to address terrorism and other emerging threats. Related
hearings included: March 11, 2011, Counterproliferation
Strategy; the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization
Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the
Chemical Biological Defense Program; September 22, 2011, The
Future of U.S. Special Operations Forces: Ten Years After 9/11
and Twenty-Five Years After Goldwater-Nichols; and November 3,
2011, Institutionalizing Irregular Warfare Capabilities.
The subcommittee continued to examine the Department's
investment and management of information technology systems.
Related hearings included: April 6, 2011, Improving Management
and Acquisition of Information Technology Systems in the
Department of Defense.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
4, 2011, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by
the House on May 26, 2011. The legislative provisions covered a
range of issues, to include: cybersecurity, counter terrorism,
and funding for procurement and research and development
programs. The subcommittee included several legislative
provisions related to terrorism authorities and special
operations in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to include: a provision to extend the
authority for the Secretary of Defense to make combating
terrorism rewards; a provision to enhance section 1208
authority by increasing the amount authorized from $45.0
million to $50.0 million and extending the authority through
fiscal year 2014; a provision directing quarterly briefings on
counterterrorism operations; and a provision extending the
authorization for the Department of Defense to develop Non-
Conventional Assisted Recovery capabilities through fiscal year
2016. The subcommittee also included several legislative
provisions related to information technology in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to
include: a provision revising the structure and process of the
defense business systems investment review boards; and a
provision to amend reporting of critical changes to Major
Automated Information Systems.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 extended the authority
provided under section 1208 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375)
through fiscal year 2015 and increased the authorized amount
from $45 million to $50 million; included a provision
establishing increased oversight mechanisms on U.S. Special
Operations Command undersea mobility and non-standard aviation
programs; directed U.S. Special Operations Command to develop
memoranda of agreement with the military services regarding
enabling capabilities to support special operations forces;
directed quarterly briefings on counterterrorism operations;
and extended the authorization for the Department of Defense to
develop Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery capabilities through
fiscal year 2013.
In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee hosted an
introduction to U.S. Special Operations Forces display and
presentation on February 11, 2011, held a classified briefing
on April 1, 2011, covering U.S. Special Operations Command
Fiscal Year 2012 Request and Future Challenges for U.S. Special
Operations Forces, and a briefing on June 15, 2011, on counter-
proliferation research and development programs for the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, and U.S. Special Operations Command, and a classified
briefing on April 22, 2011, covering the future of U.S. Special
Operations Forces.
(H.A.S.C. 112-18; H.A.S.C. 112-39)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL
Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military
During the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel continued the process of examining the law and policy
surrounding the repeal of the law limiting the military service
of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals known as ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell.'' The subcommittee held a hearing to determine if the
Department of Defense (DOD) is prepared to implement repeal of
Don't Ask, Don't Tell without jeopardizing morale, unit
cohesion, good order, discipline, and combat readiness.
Committee members had particular concerns about the
effectiveness of training programs, the impact of repeal on
recruiting and retention programs, and the adequacy of service
policies for dealing with billeting issues, public displays of
affection, and the religious freedom rights of service members
with strong beliefs opposed to gay and lesbian lifestyles, to
include military chaplains. During consideration of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, amendments were
adopted to: include the views of the service chiefs concerning
readiness of the force in the formal repeal certification
process; preclude the use of DOD facilities and resources and
the participation of DOD personnel in same sex marriage
ceremonies; and reaffirm that the provisions of the Defense of
Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) regarding the definition of marriage
as being between a man and woman shall apply to the process for
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress or any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation within the Department of Defense
applicable to military personnel or DOD civilian employees.
On July 22, 2011, President Obama transmitted to Congress
his certification along with the certifications of Secretary of
Defense Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Mullen that they had:
(1) Considered the Report of the Comprehensive Review
Working Group and the Report's proposed plan of action.
(2) Prepared the necessary policies and regulations to
implement repeal.
(3) Agreed that implementation of the necessary policies
and regulations pursuant to repeal are consistent with the
standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit
cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
On July 28, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services received
a briefing regarding the decision to certify preparedness to
implement repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Member questioning
focused on the need to provide clear policy guidelines
regarding the protection of religious freedom of speech and
action for those service members with strong moral and
religious beliefs opposing gay and lesbian lifestyles.
Additional oversight will be required to review the policy
regulations and other documents needed to implement repeal.
The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was effective on
September 20, 2011, 60 days after the certification by the
President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, as required by current law. The committee
continued to provide oversight to the Department of Defense
actions to review and modify policies, programs, and benefits
to accommodate the open service of gays and lesbians and the
presence of their family members.
On November 30, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel held a briefing for Members of the committee to
examine the legal and policy rationale leading to the
Department of Defense approval of same-sex ceremonies conducted
by DOD personnel on military installations. The briefing
highlighted the need for the subcommittee to provide additional
oversight of these issues in the future.
The conference report on H.R. 1540 does not contravene or
amend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), nor is the Department
of Defense relieved from the prohibition on federal recognition
of same sex marriage therein. The conference report does
include a conscience clause provision to protect chaplains'
rights to not perform same sex marriages on the basis of their
conscience or moral principles. The conference report on H.R.
1540 does retain the current UCMJ Article 125 prohibition on
sodomy.
(H.A.S.C. 112-34)
Armed forces retirement home
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
visited the Armed Forces Retirement Home, District of Columbia,
on May 2, 2011. During the visit the chairman received an
update on the facilities operations, construction and personnel
issues. This oversight effort related directly to the
legislation adopted by the subcommittee and included in
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R.
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011.
Casualties inflicted on U.S. personnel by Afghan nationals working as
contractors, police, or security forces
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel investigated several
reports of Afghan nationals serving as contract personnel,
national police, and military personnel who, without warning,
attacked and killed U.S. military personnel. As a result of the
investigation, the committee requested that the Secretary of
Defense, General Petraeus, the Commander of International
Security Assistance Force & Commander of U.S. Forces
Afghanistan, and the Secretary of the Army review current
screening and evaluations of Afghans hired to work closely with
U.S. forces and to take disciplinary action, if merited,
against the Afghan security guard contractor whose employee
attacked U.S. personnel.
Hiring of a highly qualified expert for the defense health program
The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
hired former Maine governor John Baldacci as a highly qualified
expert to review military health care and propose reforms to
it. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, out
of concern that such a hiring was duplicative of capabilities
and personnel already available to the undersecretary and
wasteful of funding and resources, sought a fuller explanation
of the rationale for the hiring. In addition, the chairman
sought an explanation of how the hiring and individual hired
met the Department of Defense criteria for highly qualified
experts. The inquiry will be continued.
Military retirement
On October 25, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Subcommittee conducted a hearing entitled ``Military Retirement
Reform'' to examine the current status of initiatives to reform
military retirement. The subcommittee received testimony from
Department of Defense and military association officials that
allowed Members to examine reform proposals and understand the
advantages and disadvantages associated with each. The
subcommittee will continue to consider military retirement
reform options in the future.
(H.A.S.C. 112-80)
Treatment of service member remain at the Dover Port Mortuary
On November 17, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military
Personnel held a briefing in which all committee members were
invited to attend to hear from the Air Force and the Office of
Special Counsel about the investigation into allegations of
improper handling, processing and transport of human remains of
military personnel and family members by the Air Force Mortuary
Affairs Operations, Port Mortuary Division, Dover Air Force
Base, Delaware, and the Office of Special Counsel analysis of
the Air Force Investigation.
The briefing highlighted concerns by the Special Counsel
about the findings and conclusions in the Air Force
investigation report. The Air Force focused on the way ahead
and the plan to address the findings by the Air Force Inspector
General. The committee examined how the Air Force will support
the Secretary of Defense directed independent review of the
corrective actions taken at Dover Mortuary and the
appropriateness of the disciplinary action taken by the Air
Force. The briefing highlighted the need for the Subcommittee
to provide additional oversight of these issues in the future.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS
The Subcommittee on Readiness continued oversight of
military readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues;
military construction, installations, and family housing
issues; energy policy and programs of the Department of
Defense; and civilian personnel and service contracting issues.
The subcommittee conducted six oversight hearings and a markup
of the National Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2012,
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011.
On March 3, 2011, the subcommittee met for its first
oversight hearing to receive testimony on the Required
Readiness Posture of U.S. Forces from an independent panel. The
panel explored the frameworks of resourcing decisions,
including the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, the
2010 Global Defense Posture (GDP) Report, the QDR Independent
Panel Review, and the recent National Military Strategy.
The subcommittee met in a follow-on session on March 10,
2011, to receive testimony on the President's Fiscal Year 2012
Budget Request and Global Challenges to Readiness. In this
hearing, the services provided testimony on the required
readiness of the U.S. forces to respond to a range of near- and
far-term global threats.
On March 15, 2011, the subcommittee met to receive
testimony on Long-Term Readiness Challenges in the Pacific;
which addressed the readiness of U.S. forces to respond to
conflicts in the Pacific region.
The subcommittee provided oversight of the ongoing
challenge to jointness in a hearing on March 31, 2011 titled
``the Status of and Future Plans for Military Jointness and the
Impact on our Nation's Readiness.'' The witnesses provided
testimony on the progress the military has made towards
jointness and interoperability across the military department,
and its impact on the readiness of our forces. The subcommittee
also addressed the challenges of sustaining the force in a
hearing on April 7, 2011.
The subcommittee met in open session on April 13, 2011, to
receive testimony on the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for Military Construction, Base
Closure, Environment, Facilities Operation and Maintenance. The
subcommittee met in open session on July 12, 2011 to receive
testimony on ``How Does the Navy Get Ready and Where Are We
Today.'' The subcommittee met in open session on July 26, 2011
to receive testimony on ``Total Force Readiness.'' The
subcommittee also met in open session on September 21, 2011 to
receive testimony on the Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and
Air National Guard training and operations. The subcommittee
met in open session on October 27, 2011 to receive testimony on
``Readiness in the Age of Austerity.'' The subcommittee met in
open session jointly with the Seapower Subcommittee on November
3, 2011, to receive testimony about a day without seapower and
projection forces.
(H.A.S.C. 112-13; H.A.S.C. 112-17; H.A.S.C. 112-21;
H.A.S.C. 112-33; H.A.S.C. 112-40; H.A.S.C. 112-43; H.A.S.C.
112-50; H.A.S.C. 112-55; H.A.S.C. 112-67, H.A.S.C. 112-84)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES
The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in
the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget request for
fiscal year 2012 during the 112th Congress, including; March 9,
2011, Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs and Budget
Requirements of the Navy's Shipbuilding and Construction Plan.
In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted
oversight hearings on the following topics: March 16, 2011,
Amphibious Operations; October 13, 2011, Update on KC-46A and
Legacy Aerial Refueling Aircraft Programs.
The Seapower and Projection Forces also held a joint
hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on November 3, 2011, A
Day without Seapower and Projection Forces.
In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted
numerous briefings on the following topics: February 11, 2011,
Necessary Considerations in Challenging Times for Effective
Projection of Navy and Air Force Forces; March 2, 2011, OHIO-
class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program
(SSBN(X)); March 30, 2011, Air Force Long-Range Strike Efforts;
April 7, 2011, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle; July 28, 2011,
KC-46A and Legacy Tankers.
The subcommittee also held a joint briefing with the
Strategic Forces subcommittee on the SSBN(X) Program and the
Future of Sea-Based Strategic Deterrence on September 21, 2011.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
5, 2011, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by
the House on May 26, 2011. The legislation covered a range of
issues, including authorization of appropriations for
procurement programs and research, development, test and
evaluation programs for the Department of the Navy.
(H.A.S.C. 112-16; H.A.S.C. 112-25; H.A.S.C. 112-77;
H.A.S.C. 112-90)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed strategic
forces programs (except deep strike systems), space programs,
ballistic missile defense programs, intelligence policy and
national programs, as well as Department of Energy national
security programs (except nuclear non-proliferation programs),
by conducting hearings during its consideration of the fiscal
year 2012 budget request, including: March 15, 2011, national
security space activities; March 31, 2011, missile defense
programs; and April 5, 2011, Department of Energy Atomic Energy
Defense Activities and Department of Defense Nuclear Programs.
In addition to its oversight responsibilities regarding the
budget requests, the subcommittee conducted an oversight
hearing on March 2, 2011, on the Status of United States
Strategic Forces.
The subcommittee also held several briefings on the
following oversight topics: February 10, 2011 and March 30,
2011, Status of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Program;
March 10, 2011, Status of the United States Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile; April 14, 2011, Joint Capability Mix-III Study; and
June 15, 2011, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Countries of
Proliferation Concern.
The committee held informal educational briefings on the
following topics: February 9, 2011, missile defense policy and
posture; February 15, 2011, history and evolution of nuclear
policy and posture; March 1, 2011, Administration's nuclear
policy and posture; March 9, 2011, space fundamentals and space
policy and strategy; March 30, 2011, missile defense programs;
April 6, 2011, space and ballistic missile threats; and April
13, 2011, Department of Energy environmental management
programs.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
4, 2011, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
(H.A.S.C. 112-12; H.A.S.C. 112-22; H.A.S.C. 112-32;
H.A.S.C. 112-36; H.A.S.C. 112-58; H.A.S.C. 112-65, H.A.S.C.
112-78; H.A.S.C. 112-88)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces provided
oversight of all Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense Acquisition
programs providing tactical aircraft and missile; armor and
ground vehicle; munitions; and associated support equipment,
including Reserve and National Guard equipment programs. The
subcommittee conducted five oversight hearings prior to the
markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense
budget request. Hearings included: March 1, 2011: Equipping the
Warfighter in Afghanistan; March 9, 2011: Army Modernization
Programs; March 15, 2011: Air Force Tactical Aviation Programs;
March 17, 2011: Soldier and Marine Equipment for Dismounted
Operations; April 1, 2011: and Army and Air Force National
Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Posture. The subcommittee
conducted an additional four oversight hearings subsequent to
the passage of H.R. 1540 by the House: October 12, 2011: Army
and Air Force National Guard and Reserve Component Acquisition
Programs; October 26, 2011: Army Acquisition and Modernization;
November 2, 2011: Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs
Update; and, November 16, 2011: United States Marine Corps
Acquisition and Modernization.
In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee received a
briefing from representatives of the Department of Defense on
the following: a classified briefing on provision of force
protection for forces in Afghanistan and a classified briefing
on special access programs included in the budget request for
fiscal year 2012.
(H.A.S.C. 112-10; H.A.S.C. 112-15; H.A.S.C. 112-20;
H.A.S.C. 112-27; H.A.S.C. 112-35; H.A.S.C. 112-75; H.A.S.C.
112-82; H.A.S.C. 112-87; and H.A.S.C. 112-91)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was
reestablished by the 112th Congress to conduct investigations
as directed by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee
on Armed Services after coordination with the Chairman and
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations. The subcommittee spent nearly one year
investigating the drawdown of the detainee population at the
U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) and the
escalating rate at which detainees have reengaged in the fight
against the United States and its allies. Currently, the
publically reported confirmed or suspected reengagement rate is
twenty-seven percent.
In addition to the long-term investigation, the
subcommittee worked closely with the Subcommittees on Military
Personnel, Tactical Air and Land Forces, and Seapower and
Projection Forces to conduct oversight on a number of issues,
including accountability at Arlington National Cemetery and the
Dover Air Force Base Port Mortuary, and DOD's 30-Year Aviation
and Shipbuilding plans.
Transfer and release of Guantanamo Bay detainees and reengagement
In connection with a March 16, 2011 request from the
Chairman and Ranking Member, the subcommittee conducted an in-
depth investigation focused on transfers and releases of GTMO
detainees and related reengagement issues and trends.
Specifically, the subcommittee was tasked to review and analyze
``the circumstances and mechanisms for post-transfer security
measures and assurances for humane treatment for those
transferred from Guantanamo Bay.'' The subcommittee's draft
report, accompanied by a classified annex, provides a
comprehensive policy review detailing assessments of past
practices accompanied by recommendations for future policy
determinations. The draft classified annex details reengagement
numbers and rates and provides analysis by country and
timeframe of transfer or release.
The subcommittee conducted a classified briefing followed
by a public hearing on April 13, 2011 entitled ``Guantanamo
Detainee Transfer Policy and Recidivism.'' Witnesses included
Ambassador Daniel Fried, the Special Envoy for the Closure of
the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility from the Department of
State, the Honorable William K. Lietzau, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, and representatives
from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and
Department of Justice.
On June 2, 2011, the subcommittee conducted a briefing
entitled ``The Terrorist Threat: A Profile on Reengagement--The
Abdullah Rassoul Zakir Story.'' Witnesses for the briefing
included Dr. Seth Jones, a senior political scientist at the
RAND Corporation and Mr. Thomas Joscelyn, Executive Director of
the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, Foundation for Defense
of Democracies. Finally, on June 15, 2011, the subcommittee
conducted a briefing entitled ``Al-Qaeda in Yemen: Profiles in
Terror--The Othman Ahmed al Ghamdi and Abu Sufyanal-Azdi al-
Shihri stories.'' Witnesses included Mr. Jeremy Sharp, a
Specialist in Middle East Affairs with the Congressional
Research Service, Ms. Katherine Zimmerman, the Gulf of Aden
Team Lead for the American Enterprise Institute's Critical
Threats Project; and Mr. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in
Governance Studies at Brookings.
Subcommittee members conducted two oversight delegations to
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in March and November 2011.
Additionally, members traveled to the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan and the U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Staff conducted oversight delegations to the United Kingdom,
U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Kingdom of
Morocco, the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, the
French Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of
Tajikistan, Turkey, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the State
of Kuwait, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In each country,
with the exception of Russia where officials refused repeated
meeting requests, staff met with United States embassy
officials and foreign government officials from relevant
ministries of justice, defense, and foreign affairs. Staff also
met with foreign non-governmental agencies including the
International Federation for Human Rights, International
Committee of the Red Cross, Sidi Moumen Cultural Center for
Children, and Pakistan Human Rights Commission.
Committee staff conducted over 100 formal and informal
meetings and interviews with officials and senior policymakers
from the Department of State and Department of Defense,
including United States Southern Command and the Defense
Intelligence Agency. Staff also reviewed approximately 2,000
pages of documentary evidence.
The following organizations provided information and data
for subcommittee consideration: the Center for Law and
Counterterrorism, Foundation for Defense of Democracies,
American Civil Liberties Union, Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, Center for Constitutional Rights, Columbia
Law School's Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human
Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the Brookings Institution,
and the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University.
Arlington National Cemetery/Dover Air Force Base Port Mortuary
The subcommittee conducted two hearings on accountability
at Arlington National Cemetery. On April 14, 2011, the
subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Accountability at
Arlington National Cemetery'' with Ms. Kathyrn Condon,
Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program, and
Mr. Patrick Hallinan, Superintendent of Arlington National
Cemetery appearing as witnesses. A second hearing entitled
``Update on Arlington Cemetery Reforms'' was held on September
23, 2011 aimed at addressing the progress of implementation of
reform measures. Witnesses for the second hearing included
Major General William McCoy, Deputy Inspector General, United
States Army, Ms. Kathyrn Condon, and Mr. Patrick Hallinan. In
connection with the latter hearing, the subcommittee received a
statement for the record from the American Legion and a report
entitled ``Implementation of Army Directive on Army National
Cemeteries Program'' dated September 18, 2011. Subcommittee
members also conducted an on-site inspection of the cemetery
and received monthly updates from senior officials on
management practices, accountability issues, and reform
implementation efforts.
The subcommittee conducted a joint briefing with members of
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel focused on
accountability and management issues at the Dover Port Mortuary
on November 17, 2011. Air Force and Office of Special Counsel
officials briefed members on allegations of improper handling,
processing and transport of human remains of military personnel
and family members. Witnesses from the Department of Defense
included the Honorable Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air
Force, Lieutenant General Marc Rogers, Inspector General,
United States Air Force, and Mr. Charles Blanchard, General
Counsel, United States Air Force. Witnesses from the Office of
Special Counsel included: Ms. Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel,
Office of the Special Counsel and Ms. Jennifer Pennington,
Attorney, Disclosure Unit, Office of the Special Counsel.
Department of Defense 30-year aviation and shipbuilding plans
Working with the Subcommittees on Tactical Air and Land
Forces and Seapower and Projection Forces, the subcommittee
conducted a briefing entitled, ``Efficacy of DOD's 30-Year
Shipbuilding and Aviation Plans.'' Witnesses from the
Department included Vice Admiral John Blake, Lt. General George
Flynn, and Vice Admiral P. Stephen Stanley. A separate panel of
civilian experts included Dr. Eric Labs of the Congressional
Budget Office, Mackenzie Eaglen, of the Heritage Foundation,
and Mr. Ronald O'Rourke of the Congressional Research Service.
(H.A.S.C. 112-42; H.A.S.C. 112-45; H.A.S.C. 112-46)
PANEL ON DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDITABILITY REFORM
On July 13, 2011, the committee organized a panel on
defense financial management and auditability reform pursuant
to Committee Rule 5(a) to carry out a comprehensive review of
the Department's financial management system. The review was
initiated to oversee the Department's financial management
system's capacity for providing timely, reliable, and useful
information for decision making and reporting. The panel was
established for an initial period of 6 months, but has been
extended to January 31, 2012.
The Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability
Reform held seven hearings and two briefings in support of its
mandate to examine the Department of Defense's financial
management system. The panel focused its examination on: the
Department of Defense's Financial Improvement and Audit
Readiness (FIAR) strategy and methodology; the challenges
facing the Department in achieving financial management reform
and auditability; financial management workforce competency;
and the Department's enterprise resource planning (ERP) system
implementation efforts.
To provide context on the scope of the Department's
financial management activities, the panel, on July 21, 2011,
received an overview briefing from the Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller), the Honorable Robert Hale, on the
mission, organizational structure, and functions performed
within the Department's financial management.
On July 28, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on the
Department's strategy and methodology for improving its
financial management system and achieving audit readiness and a
high level description of the challenges the Department faces
in achieving its financial improvement goals.
On September 8, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on
the Department's components' approach to implementing the FIAR
strategy and methodology and the challenges faced and lessons
learned from this effort. As part of the hearing, the panel
received testimony on the challenges faced and lessons learned
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers financial statement audit
and the U.S. Marine Corps Statement of Budgetary Resources
audit.
On September 15, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony
to offer more detail on the challenges faced by a select cross-
section of Department organizations that play a key role in the
FIAR effort. These organizations represented military commands,
the logistics community, and the Defense Finance and Accounting
Service.
On September 22, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony
on the Department's efforts to improve payment and funds
control. The hearing examined efforts to address improper
payments, anti-deficiency act violations, and problematic
disbursements.
The Department's financial management workforce needs to be
well-grounded in specific skills to perform duties that
include: financial and budgetary accounting, information
systems, internal control, audit readiness, and related
functions. Ensuring that the financial management workforce is
adequately staffed, proficiently skilled, and well-trained is
instrumental to the Department's improvement efforts. On
October 6, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on whether
the Department's financial management workforce (including
those individuals involved in the audit readiness effort) has
the appropriate skills, performance incentives, and staffing
levels for the successful accomplishment of financial
management.
The Department of Defense maintains that successful
implementation of ERP systems is critical to transforming its
business and logistical operations, and it is key to improving
financial management and achieving audit readiness. On October
27, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on how the
implementation of the ERPs is intended to improve the
Department of Defense's financial management, the scope of the
ERP efforts, the resources required for the ERP efforts, and
the impact of ERP delays and cost overruns on financial
management reform and audit readiness milestones.
On November 3, 2011, the panel received a briefing from on
the November 2011 FIAR Plan Status Report from Mr. Mark E.
Easton, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Department of Defense;
and Mr. Joseph O. Quinn, Director, Financial Improvement and
Audit Readiness, Department of Defense. On November 17, 2011,
the panel convened a hearing to receive testimony from
independent public accounting firm representatives to obtain
their perspective on the impediments to the Department of
Defense achieving audit readiness and the actions the
Department needs to take to become audit ready.
The panel is in process of drafting its report and plans to
hold a final hearing in January 2012 to obtain the Department's
views on the panel's findings and recommendations.
(H.A.S.C. 112-59; H.A.S.C. 112-60; H.A.S.C. 112-64;
H.A.S.C. 112-68; H.A.S.C. 112-73; H.A.S.C. 112-83; H.A.S.C.
112-92)
PANEL ON BUSINESS CHALLENGES WITHIN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
On September 20, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the committee formally announced the Panel on Business
Challenges within the Defense Industry. This seven-member panel
was initiated to examine the challenges of the private sector
in doing business with the Department of Defense. The panel is
tasked to examine the current defense business environment and
to seek to understand how the Department of Defense could
better spur innovation, competition, and cost savings by
encouraging new entrants into the industrial base and fostering
the transition of technology. Although it does not have
legislative jurisdiction, the panel will report its findings,
including any recommendations for possible legislation, to the
full committee. The panel was established for 6 months,
pursuant to rule 5(a) of the Rules of the Committee on Armed
Services.
The panel looked at a variety of issues and topics covering
the broad scope of contracting, industrial base security, small
business programs, and efforts to increase innovation and
transition technology for the warfighter. The panel held four
hearings, several briefings and three industry roundtable
sessions.
The panel's first hearing was on September 20, 2011 on
Challenges to Doing Business with the Department of Defense.
The focus of the hearing was to gain a better understanding of
the opportunities and challenges facing businesses looking to
participate in the development and procurement of critical
technologies or the provision of services for national
security. The second hearing was held on October 24, 2011 and
focused on The Defense Industrial Base: A National Security
Imperative. This hearing concentrated on gaining a better
understanding of the Defense Industrial Base [DIB] and the role
of the DIB in the future of national defense.
On November 1, 2011, the panel held a hearing addressing
The Defense Industrial Base: The Role of the Department of
Defense. This hearing was complementary to the panel's second
hearing focusing on understanding DOD's conception of the DIB,
the Department's role in shaping the industrial base's future
and to receive testimony on how Congress might strengthen the
DIB and improve the defense business environment, with
particular attention paid to the Department's Small Business
Office. The fourth hearing of the panel was held on November
18th, 2011. This hearing took at a look at understanding how
our current defense industrial base practices compare with the
strategies of other nations, what characteristics a 21st
century defense industrial base strategy should have, and
changes that might be necessary to areas such as workforce and
acquisition policies in order to transform to achieve that 21st
century vision.
In addition to the hearings, the panel conducted three
industry roundtables at field sites. The purpose of these
events is to visit various U.S. communities that have a strong
defense industry presence. Events included roundtable
discussions with 15 to 20 industry participants and offered an
opportunity for panel members and industry to connect and
discuss in an open dialogue about strengths and weaknesses of
the defense acquisition system. In addition, the panel also
used the events to meet with representatives from local
colleges and universities who conduct research and provide
analysis for the Department of Defense on a myriad of issues.
The panel's first roundtable event was held at Blackhawk
Community College in Moline, Illinois on October 7, 2011.
Moline borders with Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois. At this
field roundtable, there were several points of discussion.
These included concerns about the backlogs at the Defense
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), concerns about the Department not
meeting its small business goals and contracting officials not
doing enough to hold prime contractors accountable for meeting
the Small Business Contracting Plans. In addition, the
roundtable discussed flexibility in contract cost and pricing.
There was discussion about the Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) Program and difficulties in utilizing the
Program. There was general consensus from roundtable
participants that partnering with defense organic industrial
facilities, such as arsenals and depots, was complicated but
good for small businesses.
The panel's second roundtable event was held at the
University of Akron in Akron, Ohio on October 28, 2011. The
University is most widely known for its research programs in
polymers and advanced materials, both of which have significant
implications for the defense industry. The industry roundtable
included 12 industry participants. Points of discussion
included export controls delays, International Trafficking of
Arms Regulations (ITAR) issues, dealing complacency on the part
of those responsible for making decisions and lack of capital
to sustain businesses' programs/technology to make it through
the ITAR process. In addition, DCAA was again listed as an
issue of concern regarding their processes and conduct of
audits. Participants indicated the need for better direct
access to the customers in order for industry to find out what
the true requirements are for services/products. Department
programs such as SBIR and the Mentor-Protege program were
discussed with positive feedback.
The panel's third roundtable event was held in Mt. Laurel,
New Jersey at Burlington County College on December 9, 2011. In
addition to the panel members, there were approximately 20
roundtable participants from industry, trade associations and
universities. Among the issues discussed were growing pains
resulting from base realignment effecting Joint Base Maguire-
Dix-Lakehurst, as well as concerns about multiple award
contracts being costly and ineffective. In addition, industry
participants expressed frustration at a perceived bias against
small business in the Department of Defense and in general,
among contracting officers. The relationships with contracting
officers were a point of concern for many participants in
receiving information and competing for contracts.
In addition to these industry roundtables, the panel had
two briefings. The first briefing was with the Director,
Counterintelligence Directorate of the Defense Security Service
to discuss security threats to the industrial base.
The second briefing was held with the Director of DCAA, Mr.
Patrick Fitzgerald and the Director of the Defense Contract
Management Agency, Mr. Charlie Williams, to discuss the
functions of these government oversight agencies and the
challenges they face in auditing and managing defense
contracts.
(H.A.S.C. 112-66; H.A.S.C. 112-79; H.A.S.C. 112-85;
H.A.S.C. 112-93)
PUBLICATIONS
COMMITTEE PRINTS
Committee Print No. 1--Committee Rules of the Committee on
Armed Services, House of Representatives, adopted January 20,
2011.
Committee Print No. 2a--Title 10, United States Code Armed
Forces, Volume I, amended December 31, 2010.
Committee Print No. 2b--Title 10, United States Code Armed
Forces, Volume II, amended December 31, 2010.
Committee Print No. 2c--Title 10, United States Code Armed
Forces, Volume III, amended December 31, 2010.
Committee Print No. 3--The Future of the U.S. Military Ten
Years after 9/11 and the Consequences of Defense Sequestration.
November, 2011.
PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS
H.A.S.C. 112-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee
Organization. January 20, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-2--Full Committee hearing on Proposed
Department of Defense Budget Reductions and Efficiencies
Initiatives. January 26, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-3--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Morale, Welfare,
and Recreation Programs Overview. February 9, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Resale
Programs Overview. February 10, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-5--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on What Should the Department of Defense's
Role in Cyber Be? February 11, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-6--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of Defense. February 16, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-7--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Air Force. February 17, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-8--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Navy. March 1, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-9--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Budget Request for Department of Defense Science and
Technology Programs. March 1, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-10--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Equipping the Warfighter in Afghanistan.
March 1, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-11--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Army. March 2, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-12--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on The Status of United States Strategic Forces. March 2, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-13--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Are
We Ready? An Independent Look at the Required Readiness Posture
of U.S. Forces. March 3, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-14--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S.
Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command. March 3,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-15--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Army Modernization. March 9, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-16--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs and
Budget Requirements of the Navy's Shipbuilding and Construction
Plan. March 9, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-17--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Global Challenges to Readiness and the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget
Request. March 10, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-18--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Counterproliferation Strategy and
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs for the Defense
Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense
Program. March 11, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-19--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Health
System Overview and Defense Health Program Cost Efficiencies.
March 15, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-20--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Tactical
Aviation Programs. March 15, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-21--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Long-
Term Readiness Challenges in the Pacific. March 15, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-22--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
National Security Space Activities. March 15, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-23--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Health
System Overview and Defense Health Program Cost Efficiencies: A
Beneficiary Perspective. March 16, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-24--Full Committee hearing on Developments in
Afghanistan. March 16, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-25--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Amphibious Operations. March 16, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-26--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command. March 16,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-27--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Soldier and Marine Equipment for Dismounted
Operations. March 17, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-28--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Personnel
Overview. March 17, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-29--Full Committee hearing on Law of War
Detention and the President's Executive Order Establishing
Periodic Review Boards for Guantanamo Detainees. March 17,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-30--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for U.S.
European Command, U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Northern Command,
and U.S. March 30, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-31--Full Committee hearing on Operation
Odyssey Dawn and U.S. Military Operations in Libya. March 31,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-32--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Missile Defense. March 31, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-33--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Improving the Readiness of U.S. Forces Through Military
Jointness. March 31, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-34--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Review of the
Implementation Plans for the Repeal of Law and Policies
Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members.
April 1, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-35--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve
Component Equipment Posture. April 1, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-36--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities and
Department of Defense Nuclear Forces Programs. April 5, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-37--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for the U.S.
Transportation Command and U.S. Africa Command. April 5, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-38--Full Committee hearing on National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for the U.S.
Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. April 6, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-39--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Improving Management and Acquisition of
Information Technology Systems in the Department of Defense.
April 6, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-40--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Sustaining the Force: Challenges to Readiness. April 7, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-41--Full Committee hearing on Repeal of Law
and Policies Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian
Service Members. April 7, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-42--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Guantanamo Detainee Transfer Policy
and Recidivism. April 13, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-43--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Military Construction, Base Closure, Environment, Facilities
Operation and Maintenance. April 13, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-44--Full Committee hearing on Testimony from
Members on Their National Defense Priorities for the Fiscal
Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Bill. April 14, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-45--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Accountability at Arlington National
Cemetery. April 14, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-46--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Efficacy of the Department of
Defense's Thirty Year Aviation and Shipbuilding Plans. June 1,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-47--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Ten Years On: Evolution of the
Terrorist Threat. June 22, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-48--Full Committee hearing on Recent
Developments in Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S.
Forces. June 23, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-49--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Ten Years On: The Evolution of
Strategic Communication and Information Operations Since 9/11.
July 12, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-50--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on How
Does the Navy Get Ready, and Where Are We Today? July 12, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-51--Full Committee hearing on Human Capital
Management: A High Risk Area for the Department of Defense.
July 14, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-52--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Military Voting. July 15, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-53--Full Committee hearing on Ten Years After
the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Current
Status of Legal Authorities, Detention, and Prosecution in the
War on Terror. July 26, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-54--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Department of Defense Investment in
Technology and Capability to Meet Emerging Security Threats.
July 26, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-55--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Total
Force Readiness. July 26, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-56--Full Committee hearing on The Way Forward
in Afghanistan. July 27, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-57--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on the Reserve Components as an Operational Force: Potential
Legislative and Policy Changes. July 27, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-58--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Sustaining Nuclear Deterrence After New START. July 27,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-59--Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Plans for Financial
Management Improvement and Achieving Audit Readiness. July 28,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-60--Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Auditability Reform hearing on Department of Defense Component
Audit Efforts. September 8, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-61--Full Committee hearing on The Future of
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11:
Perspectives from Former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
September 8, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-62--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on The Current Status of Suicide Prevention Programs in the
Military. September 9, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-63--Full Committee hearing on The Future of
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11:
Perspectives from Outside Experts. September 13, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-64--Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Auditability Reform hearing on Organizational Challenges in
Achieving Sound Financial Management and Audit Readiness.
September 15, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-65--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Sustaining GPS for National Security. September 15, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-66--Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry hearing on Challenges to Doing Business with
the Department of Defense. September 20, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-67--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Army
Reserve, Army National Guard and Air National Guard Readiness,
Training and Operations. September 21, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-68--Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Efforts to Improve Payment
and Funds Control. September 22, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-69--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on The Future of U.S. Special Operations
Forces: Ten Years After 9/11 and Twenty-Five Years After
Goldwater-Nichols. September 22, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-70--Full Committee hearing on Afghan National
Security Forces. September 22, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-71--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on An Update on Arlington Cemetery Reforms (joint with the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations). September 23,
2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-72--Full Committee hearing on The Future of
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11:
Perspectives from Former Service Chiefs and Vice Chiefs.
October 4, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-73--Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Auditability Reform hearing on Is the Financial Management
Workforce Positioned to Achieve DOD's Financial Improvement
Goals? October 6, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-74--Full Committee hearing on The Future of
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11:
Perspectives of Former Chairmen of the Committee on Armed
Services. October 12, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-75--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on National Guard and Reserve Component
Acquisition and Modernization. October 12, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-76--Full Committee hearing on The Future of
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11:
Perspectives of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. October 13, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-77--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on An Update on KC-46A and Legacy Aerial
Refueling Aircraft Programs. October 13, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-78--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Nuclear Weapons Modernization in Russia and China:
Understanding Impacts to the United States. October 14, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-79--Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry hearing on The Defense Industrial Base: A
National Security Imperative. October 24, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-80--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing
on Military Retirement Reform. October 25, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-81--Full Committee hearing on Economic
Consequences of Defense Sequestration. October 26, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-82--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Army Acquisition and Modernization Programs.
October 26, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-83--Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Enterprise Resource
Planning (ERP) System Implementation Efforts. October 27, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-84--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Readiness in the Age of Austerity. October 27, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-85--Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry hearing on H.A.S.C. 112-79--Panel on Business
Challenges within the Defense Industry. November 1, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-86--Full Committee hearing on The Future of
the Military Services and Consequences of Defense
Sequestration. November 2, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-87--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs
Update. November 2, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-88--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on The Current Status and Future Direction for U.S. Nuclear
Weapons Policy and Posture. November 2, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-89--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Institutionalizing Irregular Warfare
Capabilities. November 3, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-90--Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection
Forces and Readiness hearing on A Day Without Seapower and
Projection Forces. November 3, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-91--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on United States Marine Corps Acquisition and
Modernization. November 16, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-92--Panel on Defense Financial Management and
Audibility Reform hearing on Industry Perspectives on Achieving
Audit Readiness. November 17, 2011.
H.A.S.C. 112-93--Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry hearing on Creating a 21st Century Defense
Industry. November 18, 2011.
HOUSE REPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report number Date filed Bill number Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112-77............................. May 12, 2011.......... H. Res. 208........... Resolution directing the
Secretary of Defense to
transmit to the House of
Representatives copies of
any official document,
record, memo,
correspondence, or other
communications of the
Department of Defense in
the possession of the
Secretary of Defense that
relates to any
consultation with Congress
regarding Operation
Odyssey Dawn or NATO
Operation Unified
Protector.
112-78 Part 1...................... May 17, 2011.......... H.R. 1540............. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2012 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, for
military construction, and
for defense activities of
the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military
personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.
112-78 Part 2...................... May 23, 2011.......... H.R. 1540............. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2012 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, for
military construction, and
for defense activities of
the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military
personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.
112-123............................ June 24, 2011......... N/A................... First Semiannual Report on
the Activities of the
Committee on Armed
Services for the 112th
Congress.
112-329............................ December 12, 2011..... Conference Report to To authorize appropriations
accompany H.R. 1540. for fiscal year 2012 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, for
military construction, and
for defense activities of
the Department of Energy,
to prescribe military
personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for
other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESS RELEASES
FIRST SESSION
January 6, 2011--McKeon: New $78 Billion in Defense Cuts Is
a Dramatic Shift for a Nation at War
January 6, 2011--McKeon Supportive of New Troop Deployment
to Afghanistan
January 7, 2011 --McKeon: Presidential Signing Statement
Out of Touch with Public Will to Keep Terrorists off American
Soil
January 8, 2011--McKeon Statement on Rep. Gabrielle
Giffords
January 20, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leaders Announce
Subcommittee Membership for the 112th Congress
January 25, 2011--McKeon Statement on President's State of
the Union Address
February 18, 2011--New Report on Maintenance Depots Wins
Bipartisan Praise
February 24, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leaders Comment
on Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Award
March 1, 2011--McKeon Testifies before the Administration
Committee on Armed Services Committee Budget for the 112th
Congress
March 7, 2011--McKeon Criticizes White House Executive Fiat
on Detainees
March 8, 2011--McKeon, Armed Services Members Introduce
Legislation regarding America's Terrorist Prosecution and
Detention Policies
March 20, 2011--McKeon Statement on Operation Odyssey Dawn
March 22, 2011--McKeon Welcomes John Noonan to the House
Armed Services Committee Staff
March 24, 2011--McKeon Criticizes Pentagon Decision to
Issue Stop Work Order on Joint Strike Fighter Competitive
Engine Program
March 29, 2011--McKeon Statement on President's Speech on
Libya Operations
April 4, 2011--McKeon Statement on Administration Decision
to Try 9/11 Co-Conspirators through Military Commissions
Process
April 4, 2011--McKeon Statement Applauds West YouCut
Proposal
April 5, 2011--McKeon Statement Applauds Ryan Budget
April 13, 2011--McKeon Responds to White House Plan to Cut
$400 Billion from National Security Spending
April 15, 2011--McKeon Applauds Passage of Ryan Budget
April 28, 2011--McKeon on National Security Leadership
Changes within the Administration; Praises Gates for His
Service
May 2, 2011--McKeon Statement on Death of Osama bin Laden
May 3, 2011--Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman
Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012
May 3, 2011--Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee
Leadership Release Details of National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2012
May 3, 2011--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman
Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012
May 3, 2011--Bartlett Releases Details of National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
May 3, 2011--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee
Chairman Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012
May 3, 2011--Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Releases
Details of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012
May 5, 2011--McKeon Praises GE, Rolls Royce for Funding
Joint Strike Fighter Engine Without Taxpayer Support
May 9, 2011--McKeon Releases Details about National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
May 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Overwhelmingly
Approves Defense Authorization Bill
May 20, 2011--Former US Attorney General Lauds Affirmation
of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force
May 26, 2011--House Approves Defense Authorization Bill
with Bipartisan Support
May 30, 2011--McKeon Welcomes New Senior Military Leaders;
Praises Admiral Mullen for His Service
June 11, 2011--McKeon Presses Defense Department for
Details on Libya Operations
June 16, 2011--McKeon Statement on White House Libya Report
June 21, 2011--McKeon: Don't Reverse Progress in
Afghanistan
June 21, 2011--McKeon Congratulates Director Panetta on
Confirmation
June 23, 2011--Armed Services Chairman Expresses Concern
over Afghanistan Drawdown
June 23, 2011--McKeon Statement on Recent Developments in
Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S. Forces
June 24, 2011--McKeon Releases Committee Activities Report
and Highlights Transparency Efforts
July 7, 2011--McKeon on 9th Circuit Don't Ask Don't Tell
Ruling
July 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leadership
Announces Bipartisan Fiscal Management Panel
July 19, 2011--Republican National Security Leadership
Calls On Obama To Define Detainee Policy
July 30, 2011--McKeon Statement on Reid Plan and Defense
Cuts
August 1, 2011--McKeon Statement on the Debt Ceiling
Compromise
August 24, 2011--China's Increasing Assertiveness and
Military Capabilities a Growing Concern
September 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leadership
Announces Bipartisan Defense Business Panel
September 13, 2011--McKeon Statement for hearing on ``The
Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years
After
9/11: Perspectives from Outside Experts''
September 30, 2011--McKeon Statement on Death of Anwar al-
Awlaki Death
October 21, 2011--McKeon Statement on Withdrawal of U.S.
Combat Forces from Iraq
October 19, 2011--McKeon Hails Reid Pledge To Pass Defense
Bill
October 21, 2011--McKeon Statement on Withdrawal of U.S.
Combat Forces from Iraq
November 10, 2011--McKeon Thanks America's Veterans
November 21, 2011--Chairman McKeon on the Joint Select
Committee and Sequestration
December 2, 2011--McKeon Statement on the Discontinuation
of Self-funded Development of F-35 Engine
December 12, 2011--Chairman McKeon Files NDAA's Conference
Report
December 14, 2011--McKeon hails passage of 50th National
Defense Authorization Act
December 15, 2011--McKeon Statement on the End of American
Military Presence in Iraq