[House Report 112-575]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 415
112th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-575
THIRD SEMIANNUAL REPORT
ON THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
June 29, 2012.--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 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
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 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 HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
CHRIS GIBSON, New York BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JOE HECK, Nevada KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois JACKIE SPEIER, California
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey RON BARBER, Arizona
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, June 29, 2012.
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
third 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............ 4
Committee Rules.................................................. 5
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services................... 17
Full Committee............................................... 17
Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services............. 18
Panels of the Committee on Armed Services.................... 21
Committee Staff.................................................. 22
Committee Meetings and Hearings.................................. 24
Legislative Activities........................................... 25
Legislation Enacted into Law................................. 25
Legislation Passed in the House of Representatives........... 29
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
Oversight Activities............................................. 36
Policy Issues................................................ 36
Fiscal Responsibility and Efficiency......................... 51
Other Policy Issues.......................................... 59
Readiness.................................................... 60
Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues............... 71
Modernization and Investment Issues.......................... 78
Emerging Threats and Capabilities............................ 98
Additional Oversight Activities of the Full Committee........ 100
Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees and the
Panels..................................................... 103
Publications..................................................... 120
House Reports................................................ 120
Conference Reports........................................... 120
Committee Prints............................................. 120
Published Proceedings........................................ 120
Press Releases............................................... 129
Union Calendar No. 415
112th Congress } { Report
2d Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { 112-575
=======================================================================
THIRD SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS
_______
June 29, 2012.--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.
On January 5, 2012, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 112th Congress, which clarified the Committee on Armed
Services jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered
cemeteries.
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;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make rules for the Government and Regulation of
the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia;
To 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;
To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all
Places purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings; and
To 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 the education of military dependents in
schools.
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
FULL COMMITTEE
Pursuant to H. Res. 6 (agreed to January 5, 2011), H. Res.
7 (agreed to January 5, 2011), H. Res. 33 (agreed to January
12, 2011), H. Res. 39 (agreed to January 19, 2011), H. Res. 377
(agreed to July 28, 2011), and H. Res. 553 (agreed to February
16, 2012), the following Members have served on the Committee
on Armed Services in the 112th Congress:
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
California, Chairman
ADAM SMITH, Washington ROSCOE 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\1\ 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\2\ JOE HECK, Nevada
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\3\ AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
JACKIE SPEIER, California\4\ TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
----------
\1\Ms. Giffords resigned from the House of Representatives on January
25, 2012.
\2\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\3\Ms. Hochul was elected to the committee on July 28, 2011.
\4\Ms. Speier was elected to the committee on February 16, 2012.
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.
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JEFF MILLER, Florida
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
TIM RYAN, Ohio CHRIS GIBSON, New York
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida\5\ TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\6\ DUNCAN HUNTER, California
----------
\5\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\6\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the subcommittee 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.
JOE WILSON, South Carolina,
Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam TOM ROONEY, Florida
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa JOE HECK, Nevada
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
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.
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia,
Chairman
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas JOE HECK, Nevada
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona\7\ CHRIS GIBSON, New York
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
BILL OWENS, New York BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
TIM RYAN, Ohio JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
JACKIE SPEIER, California\8\ STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
----------
\7\Ms. Giffords resigned from the House of Representatives on January
25, 2012.
\8\Ms. Speier was assigned to the subcommittee on February 17, 2012.
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.
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri, Chairman
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
RICK LARSEN, Washington TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
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).
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio, Chairman
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
RICK LARSEN, Washington MO BROOKS, Alabama
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
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.
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland,
Chairman
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
JIM COOPER, Tennessee TOM ROONEY, Florida
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona\9\ TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
BILL OWENS, New York WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KATHY CASTOR, Florida\10\ MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\11\ BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JACKIE SPEIER, California\12\ DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
----------
\9\Ms. Giffords resigned from the House Representatives on January 25,
2012.
\10\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\11\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the subcommittee on August 2, 2011.
\12\Ms. Speier was assigned to the subcommittee on February 17, 2012.
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.
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman
JIM COOPER, Tennessee K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey MO BROOKS, Alabama
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California\13\ TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania\14\ TOM ROONEY, Florida
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
----------
\13\Ms. Sanchez resigned from the subcommittee on December 21, 2011.
\14\Mr. Critz was appointed to the subcommittee on December 21, 2011.
PANELS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability
Reform was appointed on July 13, 2011, and reappointed on
November 17, 2011. The Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry was appointed on September 12, 2011.
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel was
asked to examine the Department of Defense's financial
management system and possible ways to improve its financial
management and audit readiness effort.
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas,
Chairman
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
TIM RYAN, Ohio TODD YOUNG, Indiana
Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel was
asked to examine: (1) contracting or regulatory issues facing
the defense industry; (2) the use of incentives and mandates to
meet goals; (3) structural challenges facing various sectors
within the industrial base, including universities and research
institutes; (4) impact of the current fiscal environment on the
defense industry, at both the prime and subcontractor levels;
and (5) opportunities to reduce barriers to entry.
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania,
Chairman
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
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, Communications
Director (resigned June 12, 2011)
John Wason, Professional Staff
Member
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff
Member
Alex Kugajevsky, Professional
Staff Member (resigned February
15, 2012)
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 (resigned February 3, 2012)
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
Craig Greene, Professional Staff
Member
Mary Kate Cunningham, Staff
Assistant (resigned January 2,
2012)
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
Alejandra Villarreal, Staff
Assistant (resigned January 31,
2012)
Megan Howard, Staff Assistant
(resigned October 21, 2011)
Peter Villano, Professional Staff
Member
Paul Lewis, Counsel
Jim Weiss, Staff Assistant
Jeff Cullen, Staff Assistant
Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff
Member
Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant
(resigned September 14, 2011)
Michele Pearce, Counsel
Famid Sinha, Staff Assistant
(resigned May 9, 2011)
Katie Sendak, Research Assistant
Ben Runkle, Professional Staff
Member (resigned April 4, 2012)
Melissa Tuttle, Staff Assistant
(resigned July 27, 2011)
Catherine A. McElroy, Counsel
Robert J. McAlister, Deputy
Spokesman
Michael Amato, Professional Staff
Member
Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed
January 3, 2011, resigned May 5,
2011)
Jonathan Shepard, Intern
(appointed January 4, 2011,
resigned February 18, 2011)
Christopher J. Bright,
Professional Staff Member
(appointed February 1, 2011)
Dustin Walker, Staff Assistant
(appointed February 7, 2011,
resigned June 15, 2012)
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, resigned May 31, 2012)
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)
Lucy Shafer, Intern (appointed
January 5, 2012, resigned January
20, 2012)
Nathaniel Madden, Intern
(appointed January 15, 2012,
resigned April 27, 2012)
Elee Wakim, Intern (appointed
January 17, 2012, resigned May 9,
2012)
Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed
January 19, 2012, resigned May 11,
2012)
Emily Waterlander, Staff Assistant
(appointed February 1, 2012)
Gabriel G. Surratt, Intern
(appointed February 13, 2012,
resigned June 1, 2012)
Kathryn Thompson, Staff Assistant
(appointed February 21, 2012)
Alexander Gallo, Professional
Staff Member (appointed March 14,
2012)
Eric L. Smith, Staff Assistant
(appointed March 21, 2012)
Ben Fox, Intern (appointed April
19, 2012)
Kelly McRaven, Intern (appointed
June 4, 2012)
Nevada C. Schadler, Intern
(appointed June 4, 2012)
Matthew Schorr, Intern (appointed
June 4, 2012)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
A total of 218 meetings and hearings have been held by the
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees and panels
during the 112th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and
hearings follows:
Full Committee 71
Subcommittees:
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............. 22
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................ 29
Subcommittee on Readiness..................................... 20
Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................ 10
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................. 21
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................. 15
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................. 12
Panels:
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform. 9
Panel on Business Challenges Within the Defense Industry...... 9
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES
Legislation Enacted Into Law
PUBLIC LAW 112-81 (H.R. 1540)
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012
On April 14, 2011, H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced by
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and referred to the
Committee on Armed Services. On May 11, 2011, the Committee on
Armed Services held a markup 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 recorded vote, 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 the Senate by unanimous consent. The
Senate then struck all after the enacting clause, substituted
the language of S. 1867, as 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). On December 31, 2011, H.R. 1540 was signed by the
President and became Public Law 112-81.
Public Law 112-81 does the following: (1) Authorizes
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for procurement and for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for operation
and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)
Authorizes 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) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal
year 2012 for military construction and family housing; (6)
Authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations;
(7) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modifies
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9)
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the Maritime
Administration.
Public Law 112-81 is a key mechanism through which Congress
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, 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. Public Law 112-81 includes the large majority
of the findings and recommendations resulting from its
oversight activities in the previous year, as informed by the
experience gained over the previous decades of the committee's
existence.
Public Law 112-81 authorizes $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 Public Law 112-81 authorizes funds for fiscal
year 2012 for the Department of Defense.
Subtitle A of title I authorizes $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 establish additional program requirements,
restrictions, and limitations for specified programs for the
Armed Forces.
Subtitle A of title II authorizes $ 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 establishes certain program requirements, restrictions, and
limitations on separate research and development-related
matters. Subtitles C through E of title II address missile
defense programs, reports and miscellaneous matters.
Subtitle A of title III authorizes $ 162.2 billion for
operation and maintenance. Subtitles B through G of title III
address 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 provides military personnel authorizations for the
Active and Reserve Forces for fiscal year 2012 and authorizes
appropriations of $142.0 billion for military personnel for
fiscal year 2012.
The end strengths for Active Duty personnel for fiscal year
2012 are 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 are
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 are 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 establishes 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 addresses 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 the Republic of Iraq or the Islamic
Republic of 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 the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and reports
and other matters.
Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Title XIV authorizes 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 authorizes 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 authorizes 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
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; Naval Petroleum
Reserves; and the Maritime Administration.
Division D
Division D provides 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 reauthorizes the Small Business Innovation
Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer programs
for 6 years. It also expands 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, H. Rept. 112-78 Part 2; H. Rept. 112-329)
PUBLIC LAW 112-120 (H.R. 4045)
TO MODIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM GUIDANCE RELATING TO THE
AWARD OF POST-DEPLOYMENT/MOBILIZATION RESPITE ABSENCE ADMINISTRATIVE
ABSENCE DAYS TO MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS TO EXEMPT ANY MEMBER
WHOSE QUALIFIED MOBILIZATION COMMENCED BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2011, AND
CONTINUED ON OR AFTER THAT DATE, FROM THE CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM
GUIDANCE THAT TOOK EFFECT ON THAT DATE
H.R. 4045 was introduced by Representative John Kline on
February 15, 2012, and was referred to the House Committee on
Armed Services. On May 15, 2012, Representative Kline moved to
consider H.R. 4045, as amended, under suspension of the rules.
The bill passed the House, as amended, by voice vote. On May
17, 2012, H.R. 4045 passed the Senate without amendment by
unanimous consent. On May 25, 2012, H.R. 4045 was signed by the
President and became Public Law 112-120.
H.R. 4045 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to determine
that the changes made to the program guidance relating to the
award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence
administrative absence days or other authorized benefits
included in the legislation, to members and former members of
the Reserves under a specified Department of Defense
instruction shall not apply to current or former Reservists
whose qualified mobilization commenced before October 1, 2011,
and continued until the termination of the mobilization.
Legislation Passed in the House of Representatives
H.R. 4310
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, was introduced by Chairman Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon on March 29, 2012, and referred to the Committee on
Armed Services. On May 9, 2012, the Committee on Armed Services
held a markup session to consider H.R. 4310. The committee, a
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 4310, as amended,
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 56-5.
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 18, 2012, by
recorded vote, 299-120 (Roll no. 291). On June 19, 2012, H.R.
4310 was received in the Senate, read twice, and referred to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services. No further action has
been taken on H.R. 4310.
H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, would: (1) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for procurement and for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for operation and
maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize
for fiscal year 2013: (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 2013 for military construction and family housing; (6)
Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations;
(7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for the
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for the Maritime
Administration.
H.R. 4310 is a key mechanism through which Congress
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, 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 House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the
Department of Defense generally, and over the military
application of nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed
Services. The bill includes the large majority of the findings
and recommendations resulting from the oversight activities of
Committee on Armed Services in the current year, as informed by
the experience gained over the previous decades of the
committee's existence.
H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, would authorize $635.3
billion for national defense discretionary programs and
includes $528.6 billion for the base budget of the Department
of Defense, $88.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations,
and $18.1 billion for national security programs in the
Department of Energy.
Division A
Division A of H.R. 4310 would authorize funds for fiscal
year 2013 for the Department of Defense.
Subtitle A of title I would authorize funds at the levels
identified in division D for procurement for the Army, the Navy
and the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and Defense-wide
activities. Subtitles B through E of title I would establish
additional program requirements, restrictions, and limitations
for specified programs of the Armed Forces.
Subtitle A of title II would authorize funds at the levels
identified in division D 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
other matters.
Subtitle A of title III would authorize funds at the levels
identified in division D for operation and maintenance.
Subtitles B through G of title III addresses energy and
environmental issues, logistics and sustainment issues,
readiness, 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 2013 and
would authorize appropriations at the levels identified in
division D for military personnel for fiscal year 2013.
The end strengths for Active Duty personnel for fiscal year
2013 would be as follows:
(1) The Army, 552,100.
(2) The Navy, 322,700.
(3) The Marine Corps, 197,300.
(4) The Air Force, 330,383.
The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2013
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, 62,500.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,005.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 72,428.
(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 9,000.
The end strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in support of
the Reserve Components for fiscal year 2013 would be as
follows:
(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060.
(2) The Army Reserve, 16,277.
(3) The Navy Reserve, 10,114.
(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 14,952.
(6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,888.
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;
decorations and awards; defense dependents' education and
military family readiness matters; improved sexual assault
prevention and response in the Armed Forces; and other matters.
Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; benefits
and services for members being separated or recently separated;
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, acquisition
management and related matters, including amendments to general
contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations;
provisions relating to contracts in support of contingency
operations in Iraq or Afghanistan; and other matters.
Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and
management provisions, including space activities;
intelligence-related matters; total force management;
cyberspace-related matters; and other miscellaneous matters.
Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial
matters; counter-drug activities; naval vessels and shipyards;
counterterrorism; nuclear forces; financial management; 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; matters relating to the Islamic
Republic of Iran; and reports and other matters.
Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
Title XIV would authorize miscellaneous authorizations at
the levels identified in division D, and also includes
provisions addressing the National Defense stockpile and other
matters.
Title XV includes authorization of appropriations at the
levels identified in division D for Overseas Contingency
Operations; provisions relating to financial matters; and
limitations and other matters.
Title XVI contains provisions regarding industrial base
matters.
Title XVII contains provisions that address trafficking in
Government contracting.
Division B
Division B would authorize appropriations at the levels
identified in division D for military construction and military
family housing in support of the Active Forces, the Reserve
Components, the NATO security investment program for fiscal
year 2013, and base realignment and closure activities. In
addition, division B contains military construction and family
housing program changes; real property and facilities
administration; provisions related to Guam realignment; and
provisions concerning land conveyances, energy security, and
other matters.
Division C
Division C would authorize appropriations at the levels
identified in division D for Department of Energy national
security programs for fiscal year 2013. Division C also
includes authorization for and/or 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 would also require
that a decision by an agency head to commit, obligate, or
expend funds to a specific entity on the basis of such funding
tables 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.
(H. Rept. 112-479; H. Rept. 112-479 Part 2)
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
markup session to consider H. Res. 208. 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 was introduced on March 29, 2011, by
Representative Allen B. West and was referred to the House
Committee on Armed Services. Within the committee, the bill was
referred to the Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman J. Randy
Forbes of the Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee
consideration of H.R. 1246, and Chairman Howard P. ``Buck''
McKeon waived full committee consideration of the bill. On
April 4, 2011, Representative West moved to consider H.R. 1246,
as introduced, under suspension of the rules. The bill passed
the House by recorded vote, 393-0 (Roll no. 225). On April 5,
2011, H.R. 1246 was received in the Senate, read twice, and
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. No further action
has been taken.
H.R. 1246 would reduce by 10 percent the amount authorized
to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 to the Department of
Defense for printing and reproduction.
H.R. 1339
TO DESIGNATE THE CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, AS THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE
NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
H.R. 1339 was introduced on April 1, 2011, by
Representative John F. Tierney and was referred to the House
Committee on Armed Services. On March 28, 2012, Representative
Todd Russell Platts moved to consider H.R. 1339, as amended,
under suspension of the rules. The bill passed the House, as
amended, by recorded vote, 413-6, 4 present (Roll no. 141). On
March 29, 2012, H.R. 1339 was received in the Senate, read
twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services.
No further action has been taken.
H.R. 1339, as passed in the House, would designate Salem,
Massachusetts, as the birthplace of the National Guard. In
addition, it would direct the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau to provide military ceremonial support at the dedication
of any monument, plaque, or other official recognition
celebrating such designation, and would prohibit Federal funds
from being used in connection with such recognition.
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 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 in the House under a closed
rule on June 24, 2011. H. Res. 328 provided 1 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. On June 24, 2011,
passage of H.R. 2278 failed in the House by recorded vote, 180-
238 (Roll no. 494).
H.R. 2278 would prohibit, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by law, funds appropriated or otherwise available to
the Department of Defense from being obligated or expended for
U.S. Armed Forces in support of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya,
except for: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4)
operational planning.
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 in the House under a closed rule on June 24, 2011.
The resolution provided for 1 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. On June
24, 2011, passage of H.J. Res. 68 failed in the House by
recorded vote, 123-295 (Roll no. 493).
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 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 for 1 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 recorded vote, 268-145-1 (Roll no.
441).
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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, is a key
mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its primary
responsibilities as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. H.R.
4310 includes the large majority of the findings and
recommendations resulting from the committee's oversight
activities in the current year, as informed by the experience
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.
H.R. 4310 reflects the committee's steadfast support of the
courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the
U.S. Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the
sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions.
Events of the last year, ranging f 2(n) from on-going
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, to support
for Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, robust counter-terrorism
efforts around the globe, and time-sensitive disaster and
humanitarian responses, serve to highlight the U.S. military's
flexibility and responsiveness in defending the Nation's
interests and addressing security challenges, wherever and
whenever they may arise. The committee understands that the
capabilities of the Armed Forces are underpinned by the
dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense and
the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration, as well as the defense industrial base. Each of
these elements is required to enable the U.S. military to be
the guarantor of peace and economic security that it has been
for generations.
The committee is committed to providing full authorization
for the funding required for the readiness of our military; to
enhance the quality of life of military service members and
their families; to sustain and improve the Armed Forces; and to
properly safeguard the national security of the United States.
H.R. 4310 ensures our troops deployed in Afghanistan and around
the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training,
and time needed to successfully complete their missions and
return home; provides warfighters and their families with the
resources and support they need, deserve, and have earned;
invests in the capabilities and force structure needed to
protect the United States from current and future threats; and
mandates fiscal responsibility, transparency and accountability
within the Department of Defense.
In January 2012, the President and the Secretary of Defense
released new strategic guidance for the Department of Defense.
The new guidance is intended to be consistent with the
anticipated funding available for national defense during the
next 10 years. The committee held a series of staff briefings
and member-level briefings to further explore the evolution of
U.S. defense strategies and budgets, including a closed
briefing on February 2, 2012, on ``New Strategic Guidance for
the Department of Defense.'' The committee sought to ensure
that H.R. 4310 was fully informed by the new defense strategy
and that appropriate resources were applied to fulfill such a
strategy.
Furthermore, the committee continued its oversight of the
application of defense sequestration in accordance with the
terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25).
Unless resolved by a subsequent act of Congress, sequestration
would result in automatic cuts to the budget of the Department
of Defense, beginning in January 2013, and would obviate the
new defense strategic guidance. As the committee explored the
potential impacts of sequestration to national defense and the
defense industrial base over the last year, the committee
focused its most recent oversight efforts on understanding the
mechanics of sequestration. To that end, on March 27, 2012, the
committee held a closed briefing on ``Mechanisms of
Sequestration and its Effect on Defense Operations.''
Equipment, Resources, Authorities, Training, and Time To Accomplish
Missions
The committee considers it critical that the capabilities
and capacity of the Armed Forces continue to improve so they
can accomplish the full range of diverse missions in the 21st
century, minimize risks associated with such challenges, and
effectively engage in hostilities, when necessary, as far from
American shores as possible. Thus, a top priority remains
ensuring that military personnel receive the best equipment,
weapons systems, and training possible. H.R. 4310 provides for
both near- and longer-term military personnel and force
structure requirements.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) reaffirmed the military's authority to
detain terrorists who are part of or substantially supporting
Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. H.R. 4310, through
the incorporation of the Right to Habeas Corpus Act, affirms
that any person detained in the United States pursuant to the
Authorization for Use of Military Force has the right to
challenge the legality of their detention. The measure also
includes several additional provisions to strengthen detention
policies and procedures.
Additionally, the committee remains concerned about the
actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee is
discouraged by Iran's continuing commitment to its nuclear
weapon program in spite of increasing international pressure
and sanctions. Therefore, H.R. 4310 seeks to clarify that the
United States should use all elements of national power,
including military force if necessary, to prevent Iran from
threatening the United States, its allies, or its neighbors
with a nuclear weapon. Moreover, H.R. 4310 would require the
President to develop a plan to enhance the credibility of U.S.
military capabilities to counter Iranian military aggression
and its nuclear weapon program, including military exercises
and the prepositioning of supplies. The committee is also
increasingly concerned about instability on the Korean
peninsula, particularly given anticipated leadership changes
within the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Therefore,
the committee seeks to extend the requirement for a detailed
report on the military and security developments involving
North Korea in order to more accurately assess U.S.
capabilities required in the western Pacific. Also included in
H.R. 4310 is a requirement for the Commander, U.S. Pacific
Command to provide an annex to this report that identifies any
gaps in intelligence, capabilities, capacity, or authority to
address threats from North Korea. As in previous years, the
committee continues to address the Department of Defense's
global train and equip authorities, to ensure that the United
States has willing and capable partners in the war against
terrorism and radical extremism.
With the Nation at war, but still preparing for an
uncertain future security environment, the committee further
addresses adversarial use of the Internet as a new battle
space. The committee included a provision in H.R. 4310 that
would affirm the Department's authority to use cyberspace to
confront certain threats. The committee also maintains a focus
on increasing oversight of cyberspace operations, as well as
fostering a better understanding of the challenges facing the
Department when operating in cyberspace by also calling for
quarterly operational briefings, an assessment of the legal
authorities and policy challenges in conducting full spectrum
cyber operations, and a briefing on the National Guard's role
in providing cyber defense capabilities.
Additionally, the committee is aware that the ballistic
missile threat continues to increase both qualitatively and
quantitatively. Therefore, H.R. 4310 would provide additional
resources for development, testing, and fielding of missile
defenses to protect the U.S. homeland, including a new East
Coast site for missile defense, and support the implementation
of the Administration's European phased adaptive approach for
missile defense, with increased focus on equitable distribution
of the costs of the system with our allies who would benefit
from its defense capability. The committee believes that a
credible and reliable nuclear deterrent has been fundamental to
U.S. security for decades and will continue to be for the
foreseeable future. As such, the committee recommends
additional funding beyond the President's request to meet the
promised level of funding for nuclear modernization activities,
including nuclear warhead life extension programs, consistent
with the Administration's pledge during the 2009-10
consultations with the U.S. Senate in preparation for the
ratification of the New START Treaty (Treaty Doc. 111-5). In
addition, H.R. 4310 would provide funding for the next
generation ballistic missile submarine, require the next
generation bomber to be nuclear-capable, and require that the
Administration ensure the next generation cruise missile be
nuclear-capable. Moreover, H.R. 4310 would make significant
changes to governance, management, and oversight of the
Nation's nuclear security enterprise.
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.
During the 112th Congress, the committee, through formal
activity to include hearings, classified briefings, and
interaction with Government Accountability Office (GAO)
auditors, continued to maintain rigorous oversight of the Joint
IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's
(DOD's) focal point for the battle against IEDs, during the
112th Congress. To date, Congress has provided approximately
$25.0 billion to JIEDDO to address the IED threat through
JIEDDO's three main objectives: attacking the network,
defeating the device, and training the force. 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 (C-IED)
technologies to the military services, and why JIEDDO is not
actively leading all DOD C-IED efforts. The committee continued
to work with JIEDDO and the GAO to require DOD development of a
comprehensive counter-IED program database that would
effectively track and manage all DOD counter-IED efforts.
Further, the committee continued to receive monthly updates on
JIEDDO's financial management and funding rates of obligation
and execution. Committee staff also visited the JIEDDO Counter-
IED Operations/Intelligence Center to continue oversight
activities and review potential duplication of effort.
The committee continued to have concerns regarding the
Department's ability to effectively combat and counter the IED
threat, specifically in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
During the 112th Congress, the committee 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 continued to rise in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan. The committee noted that although overall enemy
IED effectiveness 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 cited DOD efforts to mitigate the IED
threat to dismounted forces as a top priority. The committee
continued to receive monthly updates on the Department of
Defense's efforts to mitigate the IED threat to dismounted
operations. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) 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. H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, would
authorize $1.9 billion, the full amount requested for JIEDDO.
H.R. 4310 would also broaden the scope of monthly reporting
requirements to improve the committee's ability to conduct
oversight.
The committee continued to devote substantial attention to
the oversight of individual body armor and personnel protection
programs through: legislation; informal and formal discussions
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army and Marine
Corps senior leadership; briefings and hearings; coordination
with GAO audit teams; and other formal and informal activities.
The committee continued to maintain interest in: significant
ergonomic and ballistic improvements to current body armor
systems to include body armor specifically designed for female
service-members, pelvic protection and ballistic undergarments,
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
continued to encourage standardization, fidelity, and
transparency in body armor test and evaluation procedures and
encouraged the validation of operationally realistic
performance specification requirements. In the committee report
(H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed
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. In H. Rept. 112-479,
the committee also noted that the total body armor program has
evolved from a $40.0 million program in 1999, to over $6.0
billion through 2012. The committee noted that maintaining a
cost-effective body armor industrial base sufficient to meet
strategic objectives, should continue to be an important
consideration when developing current and future acquisition
strategies for all body armor components. H.R. 4310 would
authorize $227.0 million for fiscal year 2013, the full amount
requested for body armor.
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. The committee held related hearings
including on June 22, 2011, on the evolution of the terrorist
threat since 9/11, and on March 27, 2012, on understanding
future irregular warfare challenges. Members received testimony
on Special Operations Forces and emerging threats from Admiral
Eric Olson, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command
(USSOCOM) during the fiscal year 2012 USSOCOM posture hearing
on March 3, 2011, and from Admiral William McRaven, Commander,
U.S. Special Operations Command during the fiscal year 2013
SOCOM posture hearing on March 7, 2012.
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; a
classified briefing on counter-terrorism Policy and initiatives
in Yemen, Somalia, and the region on November 17, 2011; a
classified briefing on global counter-terrorism operations on
March 4, 2012; and a classified briefing on global counter-
terrorism operations on June 7, 2012.
H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House, contained several
provisions related to terrorism, emerging threats, building
partnership capabilities, and counter-proliferation 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; a provision requiring the Department
of State to determine if Boko Haram qualifies for Foreign
Terrorist Organization status; a provision authorizing an
increase in the number of National Guard Civil Support Teams;
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.
Public Law 112-81 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
elsewhere in this report.
(H.A.S.C. 112-14; H.A.S.C. 112-123; H.A.S.C. 112-112)
Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters
The committee continued to conduct extensive oversight over
detainee policy, military commissions, and related matters. In
particular, the committee conducted numerous member and staff
level briefings. While much of the committee's oversight of
detainee issues was conducted in classified form, 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, and detention operations in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan.
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, contained numerous
legislative provisions relating to detainee policy.
Specifically, H.R. 4310 includes provisions that would affirm
the availability of the writ of habeas corpus for any person
detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); prohibit travel to
the United States by Guantanamo detainees repatriated to the
Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the
Republic of the Marshall Islands; prohibit the use of funds to
construct or modify facilities in the United States to house
detainees held at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
prohibit transfers or releases of Guantanamo and certain other
detainees to the United States; require rigorous certification
requirements for certain transfers or releases of Guantanamo
detainees elsewhere overseas; require reports on recidivism of
Guantanamo detainees; require notice and a report on the use of
naval vessels for detention of individuals captured outside
Afghanistan pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military
Force; require notice to transfer of certain individuals
detained at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan; and
require a report on recidivism of individuals formerly detained
at the Detention Facility at Parwan.
Asia
The Department of Defense's new strategic guidance
recognizes the importance of the Asia-Pacific region to the
economic and security interests of the United States. Two of
the world's four largest economies are in the region and
approximately 40 percent of the world's trade passes through
the Strait of Malacca. Regional stability and open sea lanes of
communication are vital to the global and U.S. economies. The
committee supports the renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific
region, but continues to request further specific details on
the strategy, including how each of the services will support
the strategy and ensure the needs of the combatant commander to
respond to crises are fulfilled.
The committee focused its oversight on the rebalancing
effort through several hearings, as discussed elsewhere in this
report, a classified briefing on current operations and
intelligence in the Asia-Pacific region, and numerous staff-
level briefings on current and future U.S. force posture in the
region, the U.S. Marine Corps rotational deployment to
Australia, the future forward deployment of the Littoral Combat
Ship (LCS) to Singapore, and other regional developments
affecting U.S. national security interests. The committee
believes the new rotational deployments of the Marines and the
forward deployment of the LCS are steps towards building,
strengthening, and deepening the military-to-military
relationship with regional allies and partners.
The committee addressed oversight mechanisms in H.R. 4310,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
passed by the House. Section 1231 of H.R. 4310 would modify the
requirements for the ``Annual Report on Military and Security
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China,'' adding
assessments of space and cyber strategies, goals, and
capabilities of the People's Liberation Army. The provision
would also require the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command to
provide an assessment of gaps in intelligence, capabilities,
capacity, and authorities to address challenges from the
People's Republic of China. Section 1232 of H.R. 4310 would
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a second report on
the military and security developments involving the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea, which would be due on November 1,
2013. The section would also require the Commander, U.S.
Pacific Command to provide an assessment of gaps in
intelligence, capabilities, capacity, and authorities to
counter North Korean threats to U.S. Armed Forces and interests
in the region.
Security Assistance and Partnerships in the Middle East Region
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee noted the challenges with respect to military-to-
military and security force assistance efforts. The committee
acknowledged the significant improvements that have resulted
from U.S. investments in the capacity of partner nations to
conduct counter-terrorism, stability, counter-narcotics, and
related operations. The committee further noted that
partnership building activities are instrumental to the ability
of the United States military to defend the homeland and to
conserve its fiscal resources. Nevertheless, as the investment
in these programs has increased, the committee wanted to ensure
that the Department of Defense fully addressed the challenges
to military-to-military and security-related assistance. Among
these challenges is the potential of creating negative
incentive structures for nations seeking such assistance, which
may adversely affect their internal political environment. In
particular, the committee desired to ensure these military-to-
military and security force assistance efforts are not causing
certain parties, who become insulated from risk, to behave
differently from how they would behave if they were fully
exposed to the risk. Therefore, the committee directed the
Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing
to the House Committee on Armed Services on the procedures the
Department of Defense has in place to control for the
challenges inherent to the provision of assistance and
associated efforts to foreign partners.
Additionally, the committee supported the longstanding
partnership between the United States and the Kingdom of
Bahrain and noted that Naval Support Activity-Bahrain is a
valuable strategic asset for the United States and a key
component of continued mutually beneficial United States-
Bahrain strategic cooperation. While reaffirming its commitment
to the United States-Bahrain partnership, the committee called
upon Bahrain to continue to support protections of human rights
and reduce sectarian divisions in all facets of society. The
committee also commended Bahrain for establishing the Bahrain
Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI). The committee further
commended Bahrain for establishing a National Commission to
implement the BICI's recommendations to expand political rights
and reduce sectarian divisions in Bahrain. The committee
asserted that peaceful resolution of domestic political
disputes and the implementation of meaningful political reforms
that uphold the rights of all Bahraini citizens will facilitate
further strengthening of the United States-Bahrain strategic
partnership.
Finally, the committee expressed support for the U.S. Armed
Forces security cooperation efforts with the Hashemite Kingdom
of Jordan, including the development of interoperability,
augmentation self-defense capability, and support of their
deployment capability.
Continent of Africa
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee noted the efforts of the Department of Defense and
U.S. Africa Command, consistent with the Lord's Resistance Army
Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-172), to assist the Ugandan People's Defense Force as
they combat the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and attempt to
bring Joseph Kony to justice. The committee viewed the
deployment of approximately 100 U.S. Special Operations Forces
personnel in support of this mission as a step in addressing a
2 decade reign of terror that has killed and brutalized
thousands while destabilizing the region. The committee noted
that Congress has provided the authority in section 1206 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) to support this effort and commended it to the
attention of the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, the
committee also cautioned that special operations forces should
be employed judiciously and within circumstances that fully
leverage the unique skill sets that these highly trained units
possess, in keeping with important U.S. national security
interests.
The committee further noted that stability in Africa is in
the United States' national interest. Supporting justice, human
rights, and poverty reduction, as well as facilitating access
of African goods and services to world markets, brings
stability to the region that could have a positive impact upon
the United States and our global partners. Therefore, the
committee encouraged the Administration to continue its
interagency approach to stabilization efforts and security
sector reform programs across the region, including the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic,
and South Sudan, among others. The committee encouraged the
Administration to use the authorities granted by the Global
Security Contingency Fund, which was crafted for this sort of
multi-faceted security challenge. The committee noted that the
Administration has used the Global Train and Equip authority
(i.e. ``1206'') for this purpose, but cautioned that this was a
special case use of that authority.
Additionally, the committee focused oversight efforts
towards the positioning of the U.S. Africa Command
headquarters. 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
conduct an analysis of the placement of the headquarters of the
U.S. Africa Command and to report the findings to the
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2012. The
committee was disappointed that the report was not completed by
that deadline, but has granted the Secretary of Defense an
extension through July 1, 2012. In H. Rept. 112-479, the
committee expressed that the establishment of U.S. Africa
Command as a geographic combatant command was an appropriate
response to meet the national security challenges originating
in, and transiting through, the African region. The committee
also believes that the physical location of the command's
headquarters must balance operational requirements with
resource constraints to enable the command to function both
effectively and efficiently. Therefore, the committee directed
the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of options for the permanent placement
of the U.S. Africa Command headquarters. The committee
requested that the study consider locations both in the United
States and overseas, or a combination thereof.
Finally, the committee noted that the execution of
Operation Unified Protector led to the ousting of Muammar
Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, former leader of Libya. While
the committee celebrated the ousting of Gaddafi, it expressed
concern that this multi-lateral operation, which was conducted
in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), was unable to be initiated, executed, or sustained
without robust operational and logistical support from the
United States. The committee asserted that the President and
the Secretary of Defense must rigorously consider when to join
future operations with NATO and expressed that these operations
will continue to require a significant resource contribution
from the United States. Moreover, the committee expressed
concern for the democratic transition and future in Libya.
Syria
The committee conducted regular oversight of the evolving
security situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, including staff
level briefings and a full committee hearing, described
elsewhere in this report.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee noted with grave concern that the conflict in the
Syrian Arab Republic has now entered its second year. President
Assad's crackdown has been ruthless, including flagrant human
rights violations; extrajudicial killings; use of force against
noncombatant civilians, including children; and interference
with the provision of medical aid and humanitarian assistance.
Although a tenuous ceasefire has been put in place, instances
of violence continue. The committee is concerned that the
situation remains both uncertain and dire.
The committee also expressed concern about the implications
for regional conflict. Assad-backed military units have shot
across the border into Syrian refugee camps located in the
Republic of Turkey, killing five individuals. Violence spilled
into the Lebanese Republic as well. Moreover, the committee
expressed that the situation in Syria could present a strategic
opportunity to deal a blow to known supporters of terrorism in
the region, as the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to back
the Assad Government, and groups such as Hezbollah have enjoyed
support and residence in Syria.
The President has stated that the violence in Syria must
end and that Assad must go. However, the committee remains
concerned that the means available to achieve such goal may be
insufficient. The committee noted that much remains unknown
about the opposition and that Syria maintains robust air
defenses that limit military options. Given these factors and
the significant budget constraints facing the military, the
committee acknowledged that United States military intervention
is not a viable option at this time. The committee further
asserted that such a decision should only be taken in the event
U.S. vital national security interests are at stake. In the
interim, the committee encouraged the Secretary of Defense and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct robust
planning to provide the President an array of options, should
such U.S. interests be threatened.
Iran
The committee continued to conduct oversight of the growing
threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran to United States
interests, U.S. allies, and Iran's neighbors posed by Iran's
pursuit of a nuclear weapon. A number of staff-level and
member-level briefings were held, including a classified
briefing on security and economic developments concerning Iran
on January 18, 2012. Further, on January 25, 2012, the
committee held a briefing in closed session regarding ongoing
Middle East Intelligence and Operations. As described elsewhere
in this report, additional hearings were held in relation to
Iran, including the testimony of the commander of U.S. Central
Command.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee noted that Iran has long sought to foment instability
and promote extremism throughout the Middle East and may soon
attain a nuclear weapons capability. Section 1221 of H.R. 4310
would state that it is the policy of the United States to take
all necessary measures, including military action if necessary,
to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies,
and the Middle East with a nuclear weapon. Section 1222 of H.R.
4310 would direct the Secretary of Defense to prepare and
submit a plan to Congress to enhance the presence of the U.S.
5th Fleet in the Middle East and conduct military deployments,
exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness
activities as a demonstration of U.S. policy. Additional
provisions would require the development of plans to support
the capabilities of the State of Israel, other regional allies,
and the development of strategic partnerships to expand the
geographic approaches to Iran. Moreover, section 1223 of H.R.
4310 would modify the annual report on military power of Iran
by requiring the Commander, U.S. Central Command to include a
classified or unclassified annex with an identification and
assessment of critical gaps in intelligence, capabilities,
capacity, and authorities, needed to counter threats from Iran
to the United States, its allies, and its interests in the
region.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
The committee maintained its focus on efforts to disrupt,
dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in the Islamic Republic of
Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as well as
the transition of security responsibilities from international
forces to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). The
committee's oversight activities included staff and member-
level briefings, including a briefing in closed session on
February 16, 2012, concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan
Intelligence and Operations. As well, a number of hearings were
held to conduct further oversight on current operations,
described elsewhere in this report.
In addition, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, contains a
number of authorities and mechanisms that further congressional
oversight of our operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. H.R.
4310 would reauthorize the Commanders' Emergency Response
Program (CERP), reintegration activities in Afghanistan, and
support to coalition forces. The committee supported the
International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) mission and
directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct an analysis of
corruption within Afghanistan related to the stewardship of
U.S. provided funds. The committee applauds the Department of
Defense and ISAF for efforts to develop the ANSF, the Afghan
National Army (ANA), and Afghan National Police (ANP) and
required the development of additional metrics to further
assess progress as coalition forces redeploy. Likewise, the
committee noted that the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan
will evolve over the next several years as the ANSF takes more
responsibility for security and U.S. forces become more limited
in size and mission after 2014. Therefore, the committee
directed the Comptroller General of the United States to study
the nature and extent of Department planning for the U.S. role
in Afghanistan post-2014.
The committee expressed concern over Afghanistan's control
of its border areas with Pakistan. The committee encouraged the
United States and Pakistan to continue to improve partnership,
but also required the Secretary of Defense to certify key
aspects of the partnership with Pakistan before providing
reimbursements to Pakistan through the Coalition Support Fund.
The committee expressed concern about Pakistan's closure of the
Ground Lines of Communication (GLOC) and encouraged the
Government of Pakistan to reconsider its closure of the supply
routes into Afghanistan. Section 1217 of H.R. 4310 also would
extend the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) through fiscal
year 2013 and limit the authority of the Secretary of Defense
to obligate or expend funds made available to the PCF during
fiscal year 2013 to not more than 10 percent of the amount
available, until such time as an updated report is submitted to
Congress that includes the strategy and metrics used to
determine progress with respect to the fund.
Section 1533 of H.R. 4310 would extend the existing
limitations on Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) through
fiscal year 2013. Additionally, section 1533 would impose a
limitation on the use of ASFF for the Afghan Public Protection
Force (APPF). Section 1214 would prohibit the obligation or
expenditure of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for the purpose of contracting for security-guard functions at
a military installation or facility in Afghanistan at which
members of the armed forces deployed to Afghanistan are
garrisoned or housed; are otherwise employing private security
contractors to provide security for members of the Armed Forces
deployed to Afghanistan; or are employing the Afghan Public
Protection Force to provide security for such members or to
perform security-guard functions at a military installation or
facility. This section would further require the U.S. Armed
Forces to provide such functions organically and for the
President to provide sufficient members of the Armed Forces to
ensure that such duties do not detract from other missions in
Afghanistan. The section would also authorize the President to
waive the requirements of this section if the President
certifies that private security contractors or the APPF can
provide at least equivalent security force protection as
members of the Armed Forces and that such contractors or APPF
are independently screened and vetted by the Armed Forces.
Additionally, H.R. 4310 would extend the authority for Task
Force Business Stability Operations (TFBSO) but narrowed the
scope of authorized projects to those associated with
Afghanistan's mining and natural resource industries. The
measure would also reduce the amount of funds authorized for
TFBSO to $50.0 million for fiscal year 2013. TFBSO funds are
restricted from being obligated or expended until such time as
the Secretary notifies the appropriate congressional committees
that the activities of the Task Force will be transitioned to
the Department of State by September 30, 2013.
Iraq
Although U.S. forces deployed to the Republic of Iraq are
limited to those associated with the Office of Security
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I), the committee continues to conduct
oversight of the security environment in the Republic of Iraq
and the activities of OSC-I. A number of staff-level briefings
were conducted on this subject, as well as additional oversight
at the hearing with the Commander of U.S. Central Command,
described elsewhere in this report.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee expressed concern regarding the Islamic Republic of
Iran's influence within Iraq. Iran projects political and
social influence as well as covert support for militant groups
that undermine U.S. policy goals in the region. Likewise, the
committee noted the importance of the stability and security of
the Republic of Iraq and expressed concerns about ``essential
gaps'' in Iraqi Security Forces capabilities. Section 1212 of
H.R. 4310 would specify that the Secretary of Defense, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, may use funds provided
to OSC-I to provide training and assistance to Iraqi Ministry
of Defense personnel. The section would also limit the total
funding authorized for OSC-I to $508.0 million for fiscal year
2013. The committee encouraged OSC-I to minimize unnecessary
staffing or overhead, to provide adequate force protection, and
to address the Iraqi Security Forces capability gaps.
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. The
committee examined the need for changes to the organization and
management of the Department in light of the new defense
strategic guidance issued in January 2012. In particular, 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. In light of enacted budget cuts to
the Department of Defense and the new defense strategic
guidance, the committee believes it is more important than ever
to ensure any reductions to military or civilian end strength
are made only following a thorough review of the total force.
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. 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.
Total Force Management
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) directed the Department of Defense to shift
its focus from solely managing to budgetary targets and take a
holistic approach to its manpower requirements. The Secretary
of Defense was required to develop a total force management
plan to establish the balance of manpower to complete the
Department's mission in consideration of the distinct role of
each component of the plan depending on if military, civilian,
or contractor personnel are involved. The budget request for
fiscal year 2013, however, did not reflect this holistic
approach. As a result, the committee has tasked the Comptroller
General of the United States to review and report on the
measures the Department is taking to balance its workforce
structure, the process the Department uses to identify its
civilian workforce requirements, the analysis the Department
conducted in order to identify core or critical functions and
which personnel should carry them out, the role of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in determining workforce
levels, and how the defense agencies and military departments
used the inventory of contracted services in inform their
fiscal year 2013 and 2014 budget submissions.
In addition, the committee included a provision in H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013, as passed by the House, that would limit funding for
certain other contracts or other services until the Secretary
of Defense certifies that the collection of data for the
purpose of developing an inventory of contract services
required by section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, has
begun. In addition, the committee included two provisions in
H.R. 4310 which would require the Secretaries of the military
departments or head of a defense agency to ensure that
sufficient levels of government management, control and
oversight are in place in cases where contractor personnel are
performing functions that are closely associated with
inherently governmental functions.
Defense Supply Chain Management
The committee remains concerned that the authority for
critical materials policy is diffused throughout the Department
of Defense into offices that inadequately oversee this policy.
For example, section 187 of title 10, United States Code,
establishes a Strategic Materials Protection Board and charges
the Board with identifying and proposing risk mitigation steps
for such materials, but the Board has not met in accordance
with statutory requirements and, in its tenure, has only
labeled one material as critical, despite the reality of a
complex global supply chain for many materials upon which the
Department of Defense relies. Likewise, the Defense Logistics
Agency has done little to respond to the recommendations from
the Department's April 2009 report ``Reconfiguration of the
National Defense Stockpile Report to Congress''. The committee
also notes that the focus of the Office of Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy
continues to be on the capability and viability of original
equipment manufacturers and prime contractors, to the exclusion
of the raw materials suppliers and other critical segments of
the supply chain that support the defense industrial base. The
committee believes that centralizing and focusing policy for
supply of critical materials within the greater industrial base
strategy of the Department should aid in mitigating some of the
risk of supply chain interruption. Therefore, the committee
included a provision in H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
that would expand the role and responsibility of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Policy and to restructure the Strategic Materials Protection
Board in order to create a balanced approach that looks at the
supply chain issues from the bottom up, and gives a top-down
view from prime contractors.
Requirements Development and Certification
The committee remains concerned that the Department of
Defense lacks discipline and accountability in developing
requirements for equipping the force. The committee is aware
that this weakness has led to cost and schedule overruns on
many programs and believes that requirements development is
paramount to successful acquisition outcomes. Therefore, the
committee included a provision in H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by
the House, that would amend section 153 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify the role of the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in identifying, assessing, and approving
military requirements to meet the national military strategy,
and in ensuring that life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance
objectives are achieved in the acquisition of material
solutions to meet such requirements. The provision would also
amend section 181 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify
the role of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in
assisting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in these
matters. Additionally, the provision would amend section 2547
of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the role of the
Chiefs of the Armed Forces in the development and certification
of requirements for equipping the Armed Force concerned.
National Security Space Programs
The committee has continued close oversight of national
security space programs and is concerned that space and ground
segments of multiple major defense acquisition programs are not
sufficiently synchronized. To place greater management focus on
this issue, the committee included a provision in H.R. 4310,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
passed by the House, that would require the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit an
annual assessment of the synchronization of satellite, ground,
and user terminal segments of space major defense acquisition
programs.
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY
Fiscal Responsibility, Transparency, and Accountability
The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense's
budget and identified inefficiencies to capture and reinvest
savings into higher national security priorities. H.R. 4310,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
passed by the House, reflects the fact that the Nation must
examine every aspect of the defense enterprise to find ways to
accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more
effectively. Over the past year, in order to enhance the
committee's oversight of fiscal responsibility within the
Department of Defense and to identify opportunities to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse, the committee established both the
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform
and the Panel on Business Challenges Within the Defense
Industry, which examined the role of defense regulations and
the defense auditing agencies. The findings of both panels have
guided the committee's consideration of legislation included in
H.R. 4310.
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, including
its efforts to meet the Secretary of Defense's goal of
achieving audit readiness on the Statement of Budgetary
Resources by 2014, 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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) contained several provisions to
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. Public Law 112-81
also included a provision that directed the Comptroller General
to assess the extent to which the Department is tracking and
realizing savings proposed pursuant to the Secretary's
efficiencies initiatives through fiscal year 2016. In addition,
the committee organized the 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 performed a 6-month
review, holding eight hearings and two briefings covering a
broad range of issues in defense financial management. It
delivered its final findings and recommendations to the full
committee on January 24, 2012. The panel's recommendations
served as the basis for provisions included in H.R. 4310, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
passed by the House.
Acquisition Issues
Acquisition System and Acquisition Policy
The committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Defense'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 continues to
believe that competition in procurement actions can reduce
costs, improve contractor performance, and result in a better
product being delivered to our warfighters. However, the
committee has been provided little evidence that the Department
of Defense is introducing more competition in procurement and
sustainment activities as required by Weapon Systems
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23). In H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013, as passed by the House on May 18, 2012, the committee
includes a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of
Defense from obligating or expending more than 80 percent of
the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the
Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 2013, until such time as
the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that the Department is implementing the requirements of section
202(d) of Public Law 111-23, as amended. The committee also
seeks to enhance the role of product support managers for major
weapon systems and includes a provision in H.R. 4310 that
requires the use advanced predictive analysis technologies to
improve material availability and reliability, increase
operational availability rates, and reduce operation and
sustainment costs of major weapon systems.
Additionally, the committee continues to remain concerned
about the risk of counterfeit parts in the defense supply chain
and, in particular, the risk posed by growing obsolescence of
parts required by many of our aging weapon systems. Section 818
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) took steps to reduce the presence, and
associated risks, of counterfeit electronic parts in the supply
chain. The committee built on this effort in H.R. 4310 by
including a provision that would further assist the Department
of Defense in holding accountable those who fail to implement
avoidance and detection systems, obtain counterfeit parts from
untrustworthy sources without implementing additional detection
strategies, or fail to notify the government of counterfeits
once they have knowledge.
Rapid Acquisition Authority and Joint Urgent Operational Needs Process
The committee continued its oversight of the urgent
operational needs (UONS) and rapid acquisition processes across
the Department of Defense and the military services. The
committee continued to engage the Office of the Secretary of
Defense and the military services with formal requests for
information regarding the processes used to address UONS
through official correspondence and classified briefings. At
the request of the committee, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has completed a number of reviews of Department of
Defense rapid acquisition, quick reaction, and counter-
improvised explosive device (C-IED) programs. In each review,
GAO concluded that the Department does not have a comprehensive
policy or process to oversee the variety of programs and
projects established to respond to urgently needed capabilities
requested by the warfighter in overseas contingency operations.
Section 902 of H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior
official to be the focal point within Department to lead its
urgent operational needs and rapid acquisition efforts. This
official would ensure that all tools and mechanisms are being
used to track, monitor, and manage the status of urgent
operational needs, from validation through the transition,
including a formal feedback mechanism or channel for the
military services to provide feedback on how well fielded
solutions met urgent operational needs. Section 831 expanded
the scope of the ongoing comprehensive bottom-up review
required by section 804 of the Ike Skelton National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) of
the Department's rapid acquisition processes used for
fulfilling urgent operational needs.
Furthermore, in the report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, the committee recommended consolidating programs and
processes established to rapidly develop and field solutions
for units in combat and combatant commands. The committee noted
that given the escalating budgetary challenges, the committee
believes 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 needs requests from the warfighter.
H.R. 4310 would authorize $50.0 million for a joint urgent
operational needs fund, a reduction of $150.0 million from the
fiscal year 2013 budget request, because of the concerns noted
by the committee in the current process.
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 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, per fiscal year, to waive any necessary statutes
for quick response to immediate warfighter capability
requirements in response to combat fatalities.
Defense Industrial Base Matters
The committee is aware that the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy is
undertaking an effort to conduct a comprehensive, repeatable,
and fact based approach to mapping the defense industrial base.
The ``Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier'' (S2T2) review is aimed
at creating a common taxonomy across multiple sectors of the
industrial base to better identify and quantify the defense
industrial base. The committee is encouraged by this effort and
believes that both the Department of Defense and the industrial
base would benefit from the identification of early-warning
indicators of risk, single points of failure, and areas where
the Department has an over-reliance on foreign sourcing. The
committee is aware that the drawdown of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan has caused, and will continue to cause,
manufacturing workload to diminish. The committee believes this
diminished workload and workforce reductions ultimately could
lead to the loss of critical industrial base capabilities.
Furthermore, the committee believes the Secretary of Defense
should expand efforts to identify and consider critical
manufacturing capabilities across the various components of the
industrial base in the public and private sectors and to
evaluate workload requirements for sustaining critical
activities across the industrial base to support military
operations. Therefore, the committee included a provision in
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, as passed by the House, which would amend section
2501 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary
of Defense to develop a national security strategy for the
technology and industrial base. The provision would require
that the strategy ensure the national technology and industrial
base is capable of supplying, equipping, and supporting the
force structure necessary to achieve the objectives set forth
in the national security strategy. The provision would also
codify the requirements of section 852(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), relating to a strategy for securing the defense supply
chain and industrial base, within section 2504 of title 10,
United States Code. Finally, the provision would amend section
2440 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the
national technology and industrial base strategy developed
pursuant to section 2501 of such title be considered in the
development and implementation of acquisition plans for each
major defense acquisition program
Furthermore, based on the findings and recommendations of
the committee's Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense
Industry, the committee includes several provisions in H.R.
4310 regarding the defense industrial base and the activities
of the Department of Defense related to small businesses. One
such provision would require the establishment of a pilot
program within the Department of Defense to assist in the
growth and development of advanced small business concerns.
Under the pilot program, competition for contract awards could
be restricted to advanced small business concerns under certain
conditions. Additionally, the committee included a provision
that would require the Secretary of Defense to designate an
official in each defense audit agency to advise the director of
the respective agency on all issues related to small business
concerns and to develop and implement processes and procedures
to improve the performance of the agency related to the
timeliness of audits of small businesses. In addition, the
committee directed the Inspector General of the Department of
Defense to conduct a review of the Department's compliance with
current laws and regulations related to intellectual property
rights and to provide recommendations to committee based on the
findings of the review.
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.
Public Law 112-81 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 information technology systems.
The committee included several legislative provisions
related to information technology in H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by
the House, to include: a provision that would direct a report
on three-dimensional integrated circuit manufacturing
capabilities; a provision that would direct the designation of
a senior Department of Defense official for enterprise resource
planning system data conversion; a provision that would require
a report on providing telecommunications services to uniformed
personnel transiting through foreign airports; and a
modification to the existing requirement on data center
consolidation.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee also included several directives related to
information technology, including a briefing on design research
to improve safety of health information technology, a report on
risk mitigation for enterprise planning systems; and a report
on testing of information system controls for enterprise
resource planning systems.
Incentivizing Competition
The committee remains steadfast in its belief that
competition reduces costs, increases quality, and improves
vendor performance. For this reason, the committee recommends a
provision that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from
obligating or expending more than 80 percent of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the Secretary
of Defense for fiscal year 2013, until such time as the
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees
that the Department of Defense is implementing the requirements
of section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), as amended. This section would
also require that the certification be accompanied by a
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the
processes and procedures that have been implemented across the
military departments and defense agencies to maximize
competition throughout the life-cycle of major defense
acquisition programs.
Similarly, the committee believes that assured access to
space remains critical to national security and the Air Force's
launch plan should maintain mission assurance, stabilize the
industrial base, reduce costs, and provide opportunities for
competition. Furthermore, the Panel on Business Challenges
Within the Defense Industry specifically examined barriers to
entry, contracting and regulatory burdens, and opportunities to
strengthen the defense industrial base. As a result of the
panel's efforts, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, includes
several provisions that are specifically aimed at fostering the
defense industrial base and increasing opportunities for small
and midsized businesses in order to increase competition.
Operational Contract Support
Since engaging in military operations in the Islamic
Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq over the past
decade, the Department of Defense has utilized a variety of
contractors, contract vehicles, authorities, and funds for
operational contract support to execute a variety of small- and
large-scale services and reconstruction projects in support of
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The committee
continues its longstanding oversight efforts regarding
operational contract support and believes that operational
contract support capabilities are critical to the success of
current and potential future contingency operations. The
committee acknowledges that the Department of Defense had
undertaken a variety of efforts to improve these activities in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and is undertaking planning for contract
support for future operations.
In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the
committee noted that operational contract support and
reconstruction activities of the Department of Defense have
faced substantial challenges. These challenges, as noted by
many observers, including the Commission on Wartime
Contracting, the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction, the Government Accountability Office, and the
Department of Defense itself, occurred along the full spectrum
of operational contract support and, at times, included the
failure to properly understand the operating environment and
actors in that environment, a lack of transparency in the
contracting network, and inchoate or improperly defined
requirements. In turn, the committee noted that, at times,
these challenges led to results that undermined the desired
effects of U.S. military operations, such as the diversion of
funds to enemy forces or corrupt actors and the creation of
perverse incentives for local actors to maintain instability.
In H. Rept. 112-479, the committee supported a vigorous
effort to capture lessons learned related to the full breadth
of operational contract support. The committee further noted
that past efforts to capture lessons learned were slowed by a
lack of resources and insufficient institutional support. The
committee believed that a joint force, commander-centric,
multi-disciplinary, holistic process is needed to capture and
ultimately codify effective solutions. Therefore, the committee
directed the Secretary of Defense to undertake an effort,
utilizing the National Defense University or another such
educational institution of the Department of Defense, to
capture lessons learned related to Department contract
activities, such as operational contract support, resource and
financial management, Commanders' Emergency Response Program,
and reconstruction programs. The committee believes this effort
should build upon already documented insights and observations,
including but not limited to those challenges noted above, as
well as successes of operational contract support efforts in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
The committee also included a provision in H.R. 4310 that
would extend authority to acquire products and services
produced in countries along a major route of supply to
Afghanistan through December 31, 2014. This provision would
also expand the authority to acquire products or services to be
used by U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, subject to a
determination by the Secretary of Defense that such products or
services will be acquired from a country that has agreed to
allow the retrograde of coalition personnel, equipment, and
supplies from Afghanistan. The provision would also prohibit
the preferential procurement of goods or services from the
Islamic Republic of Pakistan until such time as the Government
of Pakistan re-opens the ground lines of communication through
Pakistan in support of coalition operations in Afghanistan. The
committee believes these changes are necessitated by the
continued reliance on the Northern Distribution Network (NDN)
and encouraged the Secretary of Defense to use the expanded
authority to increase the capacity of the NDN. The committee
also included a provision in H.R. 4310 that would require the
Secretary of Defense to make a determination that the
Government of Afghanistan is not taxing assistance provided by
the United States to Afghanistan in violation of any bilateral
or other agreement with the United States before providing
preferential treatment for the acquisition of a product or
service produced in Afghanistan.
Transfer of Technology and Export Control Reform
The committee is aware that many U.S. companies that
participate in the defense industrial base are seeking to
expand their business in the global market. However, some of
these transactions and joint ventures may result in the
transfer of U.S. defense technologies, such as fighter aircraft
engine technologies, to foreign Governments and foreign
militaries. While the legal framework to address such
technology transfers rests within current export control law
and regulations, current law does not prevent the Secretary of
Defense from exercising due diligence to protect U.S. defense
technologies. Therefore, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directs the Director, Defense
Security Service, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base
Policy, to conduct an assessment of the impact of joint
ventures related to the cleared U.S. defense contractor
community, and the potential for transference of U.S.
technologies to another nation as a result of such ventures and
to provide findings from the assessment, along with
recommendations to reduce risk of transference of sensitive
U.S. technologies to foreign governments or foreign militaries.
Furthermore, the committee is aware of ongoing efforts to
reform the current U.S. export control system. While the
committee supports efforts to reduce the complexity of the
export control system by improving efficiency, increasing
transparency, and improving inter-agency coordination, the
committee remains steadfast in its belief that any efforts at
reform must be predicated on a full assessment of the potential
impact of the proposed reforms. In an effort to improve current
export control processes for satellites and related
technologies, the committee included several provisions in H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013, as passed by the House on May 18, 2012. These provisions
would provide the President authority to remove commercial
satellites and related components from the United Stated
Munitions List, consistent with the procedures in section 38(f)
of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), provided
the President determines that the transfer of such technology
does not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of
the United States. Furthermore, these provisions would
expressly prohibit the transfer, retransfer or re-export of any
commercial satellite or related component to any person or
entity of the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North
Korea, Sudan, Syria or any other country that would be denied
export of defense articles under section 126.1 of the
International Trafficking of Arms Regulations.
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 trips to areas of
ongoing hostilities during which intelligence activities were
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 evaluated the newly
established Defense Clandestine Service and continued 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.
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 Public Law 112-81.
(H.A.S.C. 112-57)
READINESS
Military Readiness
The Subcommittee on Readiness provided oversight of
Department of Defense military readiness, training, logistics,
maintenance, military construction, installations, family
housing, and the base closure and realignment 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 the 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 Republic of Iraq and
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its ability to maintain
a capable force structure in theater to respond to emerging
threats. Finally, the committee continues to assess Department
of Defense force generation capabilities and certification
authorities.
Force Readiness
The committee focused on the challenges facing the military
services to provide trained and ready forces for ongoing
operations, while maintaining capabilities to meet other
commitments and to posture the force for the long-term.
Specifically, the committee held hearings on the financial
implications of another round of base closure and realignment
actions, the Navy's readiness posture, Army and Marine Corps
reset, and the price of energy security. The committee also
examined the impact of large proposed budget cuts to the
Department of Defense and the resulting challenges in
maintaining readiness. The committee found that overall
readiness trends saw improvements in non-deployed unit
readiness, including equipment availability and condition,
personnel, and training in fiscal year 2012. However, it
continued to find areas of concern regarding the overall
readiness of the total force. The committee found that these
shortfalls continue to present an increased risk to national
security if the military had to respond quickly to emergent
contingencies. Specifically, 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 directed the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review readiness
trends and identify key areas of concern.
With the conclusion of operations in the Republic of Iraq
and the ongoing drawdown of operations in the Islamic Republic
of Afghanistan, the committee anticipates a continuing
realignment of funds from the Department's Overseas Contingency
Operations request to the operation and maintenance base
budgets to better represent normalized budget requirements, to
accommodate training across the full spectrum of conflict, and
to reset war-torn equipment. However, the committee found
reason to remain concerned about the pace at which this
transition is taking place and the risk associated with the
continued funding of enduring requirements outside of the base
budget. To address these issues, H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by
the House, would require the Department of Defense to provide
strategic guidance for non-standard, enduring equipment such as
mine resistant, ambush protected vehicles (MRAPs) and a
strategic training plan for operation and sustainment of
unmanned systems.
The committee found that while readiness has increased,
specifically within the Army, deployed readiness of ground
forces has continued to be at the expense 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 on how additional force structure changes
or budget cuts would further exacerbate force readiness levels.
While the Army's overseas contingency budget decreased, the
base budget increased to support the reset of equipment that
has been damaged or worn out through 10 years of demand, and
also to support increased home-station training for full
spectrum operations as the Army commits fewer units to combat
operations. Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of
the Army reset process. 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 also found through several briefings and
hearings that despite improvements in non-deployed unit
readiness, several shortfalls, especially within the National
Guard and Reserve Components remain. These shortfalls are
expected to begin seeing improvement now that combat forces
have withdrawn from Iraq and with initial reductions in the
number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. To accelerate this trend,
the committee addressed this issue in H.R. 4310 by providing
robust funding for some of the most serious shortfalls and by
increasing funds for both the National Guard and Reserve
Components. To address key training shortfalls, the committee
included a provision in H.R. 4310 that would require Army
medical evacuation crews be certified as paramedics within the
next 2 years and provided an additional $17 million. To address
equipment shortfall concerns, the committee included a
provision in H.R. 4310 that would clarify guidance for the
sustainment of key weapon systems and equipment reset and
retrograde, as well as a provision that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to examine key factors driving increased
levels of depot maintenance carryover to ensure that this key
function remains appropriately resourced.
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 following redeployment from Operation New Dawn in Iraq
and the drawdown of U.S. forces supporting Operation Enduring
Freedom in Afghanistan, such as what occurred with Operation
Northern Watch following Operation 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.
Despite this sustained operational tempo, the budget request
for fiscal year 2013 proposed significant reductions in Air
Force force structure and a disproportionate reduction in the
Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. To ensure that
the U.S. Air Force has the requisite force structure to support
ongoing operations, H.R. 4310 would retain the Air Force force
structure that existed as of May 31, 2012. An additional
provision was included in H.R. 4310 that would retain the
existing aerospace control alert locations.
Despite the drawdown in 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 GAO to review the Navy's initiatives to
improve amphibious and surface combatant ship material
readiness. Additionally, in H.R. 1540, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House,
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 Public Law
112-81. 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. Due to the increase in demand for naval assets,
H.R. 4310 would reinstate the requisite funding to operate and
maintain, modernize and upgrade three cruisers that the Navy
proposed to retire before the end of its expected service life.
Additionally, the Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on
March 22, 2012, regarding the Navy's Readiness Posture and the
fecal year 2013 budget request.
The committee has also monitored the impacts of force
structure reductions in the Marine Corps and its impacts on
``rebalancing'' the Corps which includes investments in special
skill sets needed to move the Marine Corps toward a force more
fully attuned to the lessons learned during 10 years of combat.
The committee has also been closely monitoring the Marine
Corps' reset operation to replace and refurbish equipment and
vehicles damaged in wartime operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
specifically combat vehicles, the Armored Amphibious Vehicle,
rotary-wing aircraft, and the repair and refurbishment of
communications equipment and crew-served weapons.
However, through hearings and site visits, the committee
expressed concern 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 end strength well below the 186,800 Marines
recommended by the Force Posture Review.
(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; H.A.S.C. 112-115; H.A.S.C. 112-126)
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 these 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.
In H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, there was an increase
of $10.3 million for advanced coating technologies for
corrosion mitigation. In the report accompanying the bill, the
committee addressed the importance of maximizing corrosion
information sharing tools as well as addressing the importance
of testing and evaluation of material degradation. As a result
of the Government Accountability Office's annual budget
submission review, the committee directed further review of the
payback associated with the funds being invested in corrosion
projects in addition to analyzing greater details regarding the
Department of Defense's Technical Corrosion Collaboration pilot
program.
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 of 2011, 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
also 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 Public Law 110-417. As a result, 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. Many of these provisions were
included in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
To fully assess the impacts of these changes included in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81), the committee participated in several
sessions with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to discuss
implementation guidance and the Department's interpretation of
the law. Further, the committee hosted several briefing
opportunities for Member office staff to learn more about
recent and anticipated changes. These included committee staff
briefings and a formal briefing with each of the military
departments. To address these issues, H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by
the House, included a provision to modify the depot statute and
clarify depot responsibilities.
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
has also 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 the 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 Act 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 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
House-passed version of H.R. 1540 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 has also 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.
In H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, several provisions
were included regarding civilian personnel, including a section
that would direct the Government Accountability Office to
assess the Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program
workforce requirements and report its findings to the
committee. Additionally, H.R. 4310 included provisions
regarding inherently governmental functions, expedited hiring
authority for individuals completing the National Security
Education Program, a 1-year extension of premium pay for
Federal civilian employees working overseas, interagency
personnel rotations, and the proposed development of a national
language service corps in the Department of Defense.
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 installation 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. Public Law 112-81 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 committee report (H. Rept. 111-491)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2011, the committee received a briefing from the
Departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security regarding
the domestic petroleum refining industry and its significance
to national security. On March 29, 2012, the Subcommittee on
Readiness received testimony from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense and each of the military services regarding Energy
Security: From Battlefields to Bases. The hearing highlighted
the investments the Department of Defense is making in energy
programs and what initiatives it is undertaking to reduce its
overall energy consumption.
In H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, several provisions
regarding energy focused on alternative fuel and energy
security specifically. (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 the 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.
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal
Year 2013, as passed by the House, included a provision that
would require a plan on how the Department of Defense will
address environmental exposures to members of the Armed Forces.
The measure also highlighted the importance of the impact of
encroachment on DOD facilities, and included funding above the
Department of Defense's request to purchase additional land
through the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative
in order to create additional buffer zones. H.R. 4310 also
would require an extension to the annual training range
sustainment plans report.
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 while the overseas
basing structure should be reexamined. Therefore, the conferees
requested two independent assessments 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.
The Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on March 8,
2012, to assess the administration's request for two additional
rounds of Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC). After
contemplating the information provided by the administration
supporting two additional rounds of BRAC, the committee
included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act
of Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, that
would prohibit the Department of Defense from proposing,
planning for, or executing another round of BRAC.
The committee also included several provisions in H.R. 4310
regarding the realignment of forces from Okinawa, Japan, to
Guam. The committee noted that the Department of Defense de-
linked an international agreement provision requiring tangible
progress at the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma Replacement
Facility before proceeding with the realignment of Marines to
Guam. The committee also noted that the Department of Defense
proposed an alternative Marine Corps preferred laydown in the
Pacific which reduced the number of Marines being realigned to
Guam. Considering these events, the committee included a
provision in H.R. 4310 that proposed to strike a requirement to
obtain tangible progress at the Futenma Replacement Facility
before moving forward with the Guam realignment. An additional
provision was included that would also strike a requirement to
receive a coordinated federal agency plan before proceeding on
the Guam realignment.
(H.A.S.C. 112-21, H.A.S.C. 112-115)
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.
In the budget request for fiscal year 2013, the
administration requested several military construction project
authorizations without an accompanying appropriations request.
The Subcommittee on Readiness included these project
authorizations in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, and
believes that this method will allow the Department of Defense
to provide prior year appropriations toward these requirements
through a future reprogramming request.
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 reviewed issues pertaining to
military construction, family housing, and Base Closure and
Realignment (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 Subcommittee on Readiness 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. The committee also proposed to increase
the facility sustainment accounts in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by
the House, to partially support systemic facility sustainment
deficits.
(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. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee
included language that that would provide additional oversight
and accountability for military housing privatization projects
to include an assessment of the financial viability of the
long-term project, a resident satisfaction assessment, and an
assessment of the backlog of maintenance and repair.
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.
The budget request for Fiscal Year 2013 reduced the end
strengths of the Active and Reserve Components by 31,300
service members, with further reductions of 92,600 service
members over the following 4 years. The committee supported the
end strengths of the services by including the Department of
Defense request in H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
of with the exception of an increase to the Air Force request
to reflect the required corresponding manpower to maintain 18
Air Force Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks and the committee's
limitation on retiring, divesting, or transferring any aircraft
assigned to the Air Force. Although the committee supported the
President's request for the Army and Marine Corps for Fiscal
Year 2013, it remains concerned with the Department's
determination that the current force structure and size of the
Armed Forces can be reduced to meet the defense strategic
guidance. This guidance, coupled with the proposed cuts in the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), has led the
military services to alter their force structure and reduce end
strengths. The committee is also concerned with the pace of the
proposed reductions and the impact it will have on national
security, while the United States is engaged in ongoing
contingency operations in Afghanistan. The Army and the Marine
Corps will make the largest reductions over the next 5 years of
72,000 and 20,000 respectively from their fiscal year 2012
authorization levels. These issues were addressed in full
committee and subcommittee hearings as well as in H.R. 4310
which limits the end strength reductions for the Regular
Component of the Army and Marine Corps to no more than 15,000
and 5,000 members per year respectively.
In an effort to provide the services additional tools to
facilitate the drawdown of forces over the next 3 to 5 years,
the conference report for 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 for
H.R. 1540 extended the authority to pay voluntary separation
pay through December 31, 2018.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House and the accompanying
report continued the effort to provide the services additional
authorities in connection with the drawdown of forces. H.R.
4310 includes provisions that would: extend the authority to
reduce from 10 to 8 years the minimum length of commissioned
service to qualify for retirement as an officer; increase the
percentages of officers in grades 0-5 through 0-8 who may be
retired with less than 3 years' service-in-grade; make Reserve
Component service members eligible to participate in the Career
Intermission Pilot Program; and afford involuntarily separated
service members and their families continued access to
commissaries, exchanges, and Government-provided family
housing.
(H.A.S.C. 112-28; H.A.S.C. 112-105, H.A.S.C. 112-110)
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 first 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.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, and the committee
report that accompany the Act (H. Rept. 112-479) also included
a series of initiatives to sustain morale, welfare, and
recreation and military resale activities. H.R. 4310 included
provisions that would: address the concern that nonappropriated
funds activities are restricted from service contracts that
involve multiple installations and extend over several years;
establish new guidelines for clearing charitable food banks,
food pantries, and soup kitchens to receive donations of
unusable food; simplify record keeping and reporting
requirements for overseas commissaries and exchanges; and
require the governing bodies giving management direction to
commissaries and exchanges to establish guidelines for
identifying food and other products that are produced using
sustainable methods.
(H.A.S.C. 112-3; H.A.S.C. 112-4; H.A.S.C. 112-133)
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.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, provided the services
greater flexibility to address mental health issues by
including a provision that would allow clinical social workers
and psychiatric nurse practitioners to conduct pre-
administrative separation medical examinations.
(H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23; H.A.S.C. 112-62;
H.A.S.C. 112-120)
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.
Committee actions contained in H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, passed by the
House, continued to address sexual assault matters.
Specifically, with regard to cases involving rape, sexual
assault, and forcible sodomy prosecuted under the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, the disposition authority would be no
lower than the special court-martial convening authority, who
holds the grade of colonel, or in the case of the Navy, the
grade of captain, who has a legal advisor and is in the chain
of command of the person accused of committing the offense.
Furthermore, H.R. 4310 mandated the establishment of Special
Victims Teams in connection with child abuse, serious domestic
violence, or sexual offenses under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
In addition, H.R. 4310 would further improve the Department
of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program by
requiring sexual assault training during pre-command and
command courses; prominently posted information on sexual
assault prevention and response throughout the Department of
Defense; additional detailed information on sexual assault
cases and information on sexual harassment in the annual report
on sexual assaults; increased frequency of the Armed Forces
Workplace and Gender Relations Survey, including sexual assault
items in annual organizational climate assessments and tracking
compliance of commanders conducting organizational climate
assessments; allowing members of the Reserve Components to
remain on Active Duty or be recalled to Active Duty for up to
180 days to complete a line of duty determination in cases of
sexual assault and the inclusion of substantiated reports of
sexual harassment made against a member of the military
services in the service record of the member.
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.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, and the committee
report that accompanied the bill (H. Rept. 112-479), also
included a provision that for the first time sets the co-
payments for prescription medications under the TRICARE
Pharmacy Program as $5 for generic medications, $17 for
formulary medications and $44 for non-formulary medications
obtained through retail pharmacies, and $0 for generic
medications, $13 for formulary medications and $43 for non-
formulary medications obtained through the TRICARE mail order
pharmacy. Furthermore, any increase in cost-sharing rates under
the TRICARE pharmacy program are limited to the amount equal to
the percentage increase by which retiree pay is increased
beginning October 1, 2013.
H.R. 4310 also establishes a 5-year pilot program that
would require TRICARE for Life eligible beneficiaries to obtain
refill prescriptions for maintenance medication from the
TRICARE mail order pharmacy. Beneficiaries are allowed to opt
out of the mail order program after 1 year.
Additionally, in response to the military services' plans
to draw down the force, H.R. 4310 would authorize TRICARE
Reserve Select and TRICARE dental insurance coverage for 180
days for involuntarily separated members of the Selected
Reserve.
(H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23, H.A.S.C. 112-120)
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.
The committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,
required a report on the effectiveness of Physical Evaluation
Board Liaison Officers (PEBLOs) to examine the adequacy
manning, training, and experience within the PEBLO force.
H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, also includes a
provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct pilot programs to provide transitional assistance to
members of the Armed Forces with a focus on science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
(H.A.S.C. 112-28; H.A.S.C. 112-120)
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 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 traveled 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.
The committee remains concerned with the Secretary of
Defense's efforts to increase the effectiveness, integration,
capability, and capacity to account for missing persons has not
complied with section 541 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The committee
believes that a lack of oversight by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff is a contributing
factor to the current situation and must be improved upon in
the future. Therefore, the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, directed the Comptroller General of the United
States to conduct a review of the Secretary of Defense's
efforts to significantly increase the capability and capacity
of the Department of Defense to account for missing persons in
accordance with section 1509 of title 10, United States Code.
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 examine military equipment
modernization with respect to military capability. How Congress
chooses to fund Department of Defense (DOD) 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 new
National Military Strategy announced by the Department in 2012
and current annual budget projections could result in a
significant reduction in ground vehicles, ships, space systems
and aircraft.
The committee remains concerned by continued cost growth
and schedule delays among acquisition programs. 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;
inadequate funding profiles; over estimating potential
production rates; and program instability.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012, (Public Law 112-81) included funding and legislation
described elsewhere in this report 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. H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
also addresses these concerns.
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 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. In
the conference report (H. Rept. 112-329) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the
conferees authorized an additional $255.0 million for upgrades
to the M1 Abrams tank.
The committee held numerous briefings and hearings in
second session of the 112th Congress and remains concerned
about the Army's proposal to let the Heavy Brigade Combat Team
(HBCT) vehicle production lines go ``cold'' for 3 to 4 years
and the associated impact this decision would have on the
industrial base at both the prime contractor and vendor level.
The HBCT industrial base is not dependent upon one platform.
The committee believes insufficient information is available to
the Army and Congress to make an informed decision on what the
potential risks would be of closing HBCT production lines. The
committee needs to understand the ramifications to the future
HBCT industrial base capabilities regarding the Abrams tank,
Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer, Hercules recovery
vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and the Ground Combat
Vehicle. The committee needs to be informed of the Army's
projected requirements in fiscal year 2017 to maintain a public
and private workforce to sustain the current level of HBCTs,
and what capabilities the Army will need in the future to
produce new platforms. The committee also believes that Foreign
Military Sales (FMS) may help to mitigate some of the risk to
the industrial base, but believes FMS alone will not be enough
to ensure that the HBCT industrial base is maintained at viable
levels in the near term. In the absence of a force mix Brigade
Combat Team (BCT) analysis, and a detailed quantitative
analysis of the impacts to the HBCT industrial base, the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, recommends an
additional $181.0 million to Abrams tank upgrades; an
additional $140.0 million to the Bradley fighting vehicle
program; and an additional $62.0 million for the Improved
Recovery Vehicle above the budget request. H. Rept. 112-479
also directs the Army to consider opportunities to accelerate
the Paladin integrated management program and the Armored-
Multi-Purpose Vehicle.
H. Rept. 112-479 also includes a directive for the Army to
brief the congressional defense committees on the results of
the on-going force mix analysis. At a minimum, the briefing
should include the assumptions and scenarios used to determine
the type and mix of Brigade Combat Teams, the rationale for the
force mix, and the risks involved with the recommended force
mix. In H. Rept. 112-479, the committee also included a
directive for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or a
designee, to brief the congressional defense committees on how
the Army's recent force structure and BCT mix analysis meet the
needs of the combatant commanders, and what the Joint Staff
believes are the potential risks regarding the adequacy of the
force mix, if the assumptions behind the scenarios used do not
materialize.
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 (Public Law 112-
81) that restricted 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.
The committee held hearings and multiple briefings
regarding the Army's tactical network strategy as it pertains
to the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The committee continued
to believe that in the interest of increased competition, it is
imperative that subsequent full-rate production procurements
for tactical networks include a strategy for including any non-
program of record vendors that meet appropriate qualification
standards in accordance with section 141 of Public Law 112-81.
The committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,
directed the Secretary of the Army to ensure that all
qualification standards are documented and approved by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and
Technology and available to vendors prior to any additional
full-rate procurements. In addition, the committee directed the
Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees by July 31, 2012, on the Army's plan for
production competition for each element of the JTRS program,
including potential acquisition strategies for JTRS-tested
capabilities that allow JTRS-tested products from non-program
of record suppliers to be contracted through full and open
competition with the Government in a streamlined manner.
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 report
(H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 requested that the Army
define ``permissive'' versus ``non-permissive'' environments.
In addition, the committee requested additional information on
what 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 are 13 short of its program of
record requirement for 112 HH-60Gs. At a hearing on March 27,
2012, before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
the Air Force witnesses testified that only 93 of the 99 HH-
60Gs are currently flyable due to unscheduled depot
maintenance, that major structural cracks have been found on 66
of the 99 aircraft, and that 47 have sustained battle damage in
the last two years. 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 Combat Rescue Helicopter
(CRH) 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 CRH program, formerly known
as the HH-60G recapitalization program, will be a full and open
competition intended to replace the entire CSAR fleet. Contract
award for the CRH program is planned in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2013. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) authorized the budget
request of $104.7 million for three HH-60Ms. Public Law 112-81
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. H.R. 4310,
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
passed by the House, would authorize the budget request of
$60.6 million for the OLR program, $26.2 million for HH-60G
modifications, and $123.2 million for the CRH program.
F-22 Aircraft Program
During the 112th Congress, the committee 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 resulting in a total
procurement of 187 F-22 aircraft, including the 4 additional F-
22s appropriated in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009
(Public Law 111-32). The current F-22 fleet inventory is 185
aircraft since 2 aircraft have been destroyed in mishaps. The
final F-22 aircraft was delivered on May 2, 2012. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) authorized the F-22 modification budget request for $232.0
million, but decreased the F-22 research, development, test,
and evaluation budget request of $718.4 million by $147.0
million due to program cost growth. H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by
the House, would authorize the budget request of $283.9 million
for F-22 modifications and $511.8 million for F-22 research,
development, test and evaluation.
F-35 Fighter Aircraft Program
During the 112th Congress, the committee continued
oversight of the F-35 program, including the F-35 competitive
propulsion system 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 originally
supported the competitive engine initiative, beginning in 1996,
but the Department has not included funding for the competitive
propulsion system program in its budget requests since 2006.
The Department terminated the F136 development program on April
25, 2011. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) included a provision
that would have required 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 also required the Secretary
to identify how he intended to obtain maximum benefit to the
U.S. Government from the investment already made in developing
the F136. Public Law 112-81 also included a provision that
prevented the obligation of more than 80 percent of the
research and development funding for the F-35 program until the
Secretary of Defense certified to the congressional defense
committees that the acquisition strategy for the F-35 program
included 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). Additionally, Public Law 112-81 authorized $5.8 billion
for the procurement of 31 F-35s, a reduction of 1 F-35A for the
Air Force from the budget request, and $2.7 billion for F-35
research, development, test and evaluation, a reduction of
$38.0 million requested for development of Navy and Marine
Corps software capabilities.
Since the F-35 production program began, in fiscal year
2006 with the first request for advance procurement, the
committee has been concerned about the excessive overlap of
development and production, also known as concurrency. At a
hearing on March 20, 2012, before the Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces, the Government Accountability Office
Director of Acquisition and Sourcing testified that most of the
instability in the program has been and continues to be the
result of highly concurrent development, testing, and
production. The Director also noted that in February 2012, the
Department of Defense reduced planned procurement quantities by
179 aircraft through 2017, marking the third time in three
years that F-35 procurement has been deferred to years beyond
2017. Also, at the March 20, 2012, hearing before the
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, the acting Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
testified that earlier development and production plans had
unfounded optimism in time and resource requirements, driven by
assumptions about design stability, throughout the conduct of
test program and that the development program has been taking
longer and costing more to overcome technical issues that have
been discovered. The Department has restructured the F-35
program to account for the development and production delays,
resulting in less program concurrency. H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by
the House, would authorize the budget request of $5.5 billion
for procurement of 29 F-35s, and $2.7 billion for F-35
research, development, test and evaluation.
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 20, 2012 at which 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. Navy witnesses further noted
that the Department of the Navy's strike fighter shortfall
would reach a manageable level of 65 aircraft in the 2020s.
Also, at the hearing on March 20, 2012, the Air Force witness
testified to an Air Force requirement for 1,900 fighter
aircraft, a decrease of 100 aircraft since last year based on
the new National Military Strategy, and noted that a
comprehensive review of current and projected force structure
does not now reveal a strike fighter shortfall through 2030.
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. The
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) authorized 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, Public Law 112-81 decreased the A-10 wing
replacement modification request by $140.0 million. Public Law
112-81 also decreased the Air Force F-35A budget request by
$151.0 million and one F-35A aircraft, resulting in the
authorization of a total of 31 F-35 aircraft for the Navy,
Marine Corps and Air Force. H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
would authorize the budget request of 38 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G
aircraft for the Navy and the requested procurement to extend
the life of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B fleets, and included an
increase of $45.0 million for advance procurement of additional
EA-18G aircraft in fiscal year 2014. H.R. 4310 would also
authorize the entire Air Force request for modifications to its
A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35 fleets. Additionally, H.R.
4310 would authorize the budget request of $5.5 billion for 29
F-35 aircraft and $2.7 billion for F-35 development.
The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2013 also
included a plan to retire 123 fighter aircraft, many of which
are assigned to Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units.
Concerned about the adequacy of Air Force fighter force
structure, the committee included a provision in H.R. 4310 that
would prohibit the use of any fiscal year 2013 funds to retire,
divest or transfer any aircraft of the Air Force and C-23
Sherpa aircraft of the Army.
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 (Public Law 112-81) that restricted the
use of funds until the Secretary of the Army provided and
updated analysis of alternatives (AOA) to the congressional
defense committees that included 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. In the conference report (H. Rept. 112-
329) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees withheld 20 percent of funds
for the GCV program until the Army provided additional
information in regard to the dynamic AOA and alternative
assessment.
The committee continued to closely observe the Army's
progress in regards to the GCV program. The committee remains
interested in the results of the Army's dynamic AOA update and
alternative assessments. The results of these efforts will
influence to what extent the committee supports the GCV program
in the future.
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs
In the 112th Congress, the committee continued to provide
close oversight over myriad Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (ISR) projects and programs operated throughout
the Department of Defense (DOD).
The Department employs a large inventory of manned and
unmanned vehicles to perform intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance in support of the military services. The fiscal
year 2012 budget request contained over $3.6 billion and the
fiscal year 2013 budget request contained $3.5 billion, for
tactical ISR aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for
the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. 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 of UAVs in
U.S. airspace in support of training and operational
requirements and to provide support to civil authorities to
support crisis response.
The committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81) included specific mention of the Enhanced Medium
Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System program,
airborne reconnaissance low, and Global Hawk unmanned aerial
vehicle programs.
In the conference report (H. Rept. 112-329) accompanying
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012,
the conferees included ISR-related provisions limiting DOD
retirement of U-2 aircraft (sec. 133); limiting the
availability of funds for the unmanned carrier-launched
surveillance and strike system (sec. 213); requiring a report
on the implementation of recommendations by the Comptroller
General on intelligence information sharing (sec. 921);
requiring a report on integration of unmanned aircraft systems
into the national airspace system (sec. 1074); and requiring
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to
establish a plan to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into
the national airspace system at six test ranges (sec. 1097).
During the second session of the 112th Congress, the
Department's budget request for fiscal year 2013 for ISR
acquisition programs included proposed actions that were of
concern to the committee, including terminating the Global Hawk
Block 30 Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (UAV) program and reducing
procurement of the Reaper UAV. Both programs have played a
critical role in meeting the ISR requirements of the combatant
commanders. The Department of Defense certified in June 2011,
just 8 months prior to the submission of the fiscal year 2013
budget request, that the Global Hawk UAV was essential to the
national security. The committee included a provision (sec.
152) in H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, which would require
the Department of Defense to continue to operate its Global
Hawk Block 30 aircraft through December 31, 2014. H.R. 4310
also included legislative provisions that would facilitate
competition in the acquisition of common data links (sec. 153);
facilitate competition in the acquisition of the unmanned
carrier-launched surveillance and strike system (sec. 213);
limit expenditure of funds until certification of the
requirement for the MQ-18 UAV (sec. 215); and restore funding
for the Reaper UAV (sec. 1502)
The committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
addressed several issues relating to ISR programs, including
establishment by the Department of Defense of common metrics
for evaluating the utility of ISR programs and projects;
establishment of service-common acquisition of cargo-carrying-
capable unmanned aircraft systems; integration and coordination
of acquisition programs furthering operation of unmanned
aircraft system operation in the national airspace system;
review of life-cycle costs and the effect on operations of
transferring the MC-12W from the Active Component of the Air
Force to the Air National Guard; the completion of a strategic
plan for training for unmanned aircraft systems; a strategic
portfolio review of airborne ISR systems to eliminate
redundancies and lower priority systems; use of a cost-benefit
analysis tool to enable cost benefit analysis and effective
allocation of ISR assets; examination of the future role of the
ISR Task Force; and Government Accountability Office
examination of DOD processes, management, communications
architecture, training, and investment for improving ISR
processing, exploitation, and dissemination within the
Department of Defense.
Rapid Acquisition Authority and Joint Urgent Operational Needs Process
The committee continued its oversight of the urgent
operational needs (UONS) and rapid acquisition process across
the Department of Defense and the military services. The
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces continued to
engage the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military
services with formal requests for information regarding the
processes used to address UONS through official correspondence
and classified briefings. At the request of the committee, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has completed a number
of reviews of DOD rapid acquisition, quick reaction, and
counter-improvised explosive device programs. In each review,
GAO concluded that the Department does not have a comprehensive
policy or process to oversee the variety of programs and
projects established to respond to urgently needed capabilities
requested by the warfighter in overseas contingency operations.
Section 902 of H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior
official to be the focal point within the Department of Defense
to lead the Department's urgent operational needs and rapid
acquisition efforts. This official would ensure that all tools
and mechanisms are being used to track, monitor, and manage the
status of urgent operational needs, from validation through the
transition, including a formal feedback mechanism or channel
for the military services to provide feedback on how well
fielded solutions met urgent operational needs. Section 831
expanded the scope of the ongoing comprehensive bottom-up
review required by section 804 of the Ike Skelton National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) of the Department's rapid acquisition processes used for
fulfilling urgent operational needs.
Further, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479)
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, the committee recommended consolidating programs and
processes established to rapidly develop and field solutions
for units in combat and combatant commands. The committee noted
that 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.
H.R. 4310, would authorize $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.
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 Public Law 111-383
wherever necessary, in order to guarantee that military
personnel receive required equipment in a timely manner. This
rapid acquisition authority provided the Secretary of Defense
with $200.0 million, per 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
(TWV), 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 continued to
present many challenges and required intensive oversight by the
committee. The committee continued to monitor and focus on the
Department's attempts at generating a joint tactical wheeled
vehicle acquisition strategy that would limit the potential
risk of unplanned overlap in capabilities throughout the
military services in the tactical wheeled vehicle fleets, takes
into consideration the development of realistic and affordable
joint requirements, and incorporates sustainment costs.
Specifically, the committee continued to focus on and support
the Department's revised acquisition strategy for the Joint
Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program; continued to support and
monitor the integration of the family of mine resistant ambush
protected vehicles into the current fleet, as well as monitored
other TWV modernization efforts to help sustain the industrial
base.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
(Public Law 112-81) authorized $2.4 billion for tactical
wheeled vehicle procurement, to include $155.0 million for the
JLTV program. Public Law 112-81 authorized $2.6 billion for the
continued procurement and sustainment of MRAP vehicles. H.R.
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013, as passed by the House, would authorize $116.8 million,
full funding for the JLTV program. H.R. 4310 would also
authorize full funding, $2.6 billion, for MRAP sustainment.
Department Projection Aviation (Bombers, Mobility, UAV and Tanker)
Programs
Through its oversight activities, the committee was made
aware of the Air Force proposal to reduce the mobility
capacity. The Air Force indicated that the new strategic
guidance and the parallel reductions in land forces, retiring
all 27 C-5As, retiring or canceling procurement of all 38
planned C-27Js, and retiring the 65 oldest C-130s. The Air
Force points to greater savings and efficiency with the
proposed changes.
In reaction to the large number of aircraft listed for
retirement or cancellation the committee took action to restore
a proper balance of efficiency and risk. The committee passed
legislation in the H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
that would prevent the Secretary of the Air Force from
divesting or retiring C-27J aircraft from the Air Force's
inventory during fiscal year 2013 and until the Congressional
Budget Office submits to the congressional defense committees a
life-cycle cost analysis of C-27J aircraft, C-130H aircraft,
and C-130J aircraft. H.R. 4310 also would require the Secretary
of the Air Force to maintain 36 combat-coded B-1 bomber
aircraft beyond fiscal year 2013 and prevents the Secretary
from terminating the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
until 180 days after the Institute for Defense Analyses submits
to the congressional defense committees a cost-benefit analysis
of modernizing the legacy C-130 airlift fleet with a C-130 AMP
as compared to only modernizing the legacy C-130 airlift fleet
with reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning
systems.
The committee supports continued 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. H.R. 4310 would require the Secretary of the Air
Force to make certain that the new long-range strike bomber
will be certified to use strategic weapons within two years of
declaration of initial operation capability. 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.
Through its oversight activities and the passage of H.R.
4310, the committee did not support the Secretary's request for
temporary relief from maintaining a minimum floor of 301 inter-
theater aircraft. 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 that 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 of Defense.
Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized
that the Department 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 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 with that current action. The committee
included a provision that requires an annual report from the
Secretary of the Army describing time-sensitive, mission-
critical airlift requirements of the Army and which airlift
missions are supported by the Department of the Air Force.
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 remains concerned that despite a 2-year delay
in the operational fielding date, the Unmanned Carrier-Launched
Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system's milestone
activities associated with technology development for UCLASS
and the high-level of concurrency with the Unmanned Combat Air
System (UCAS) program remain essentially the same. The
committee is also concerned with the Secretary of the Navy's
plan to down-select to one contractor during the phase of
preliminary design review. Additionally, the committee believes
there are further risk reduction activities that would benefit
the UCLASS program that could be performed in the UCAS program
were it properly resourced to do so. The committee recommended
a transfer of $75.0 million from the UCLASS program to the UCAS
program for risk-reduction activities.
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 KC-46A program
office has complied with the committee request 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 hearings.
The committee continued its oversight of the KC-46A program
and the entire Air Mobility Fleet through a March 7, 2012
hearing on Assessing Mobility Airlift Capabilities and
Operational Risks under the Revised 2012 Defense Strategy.
(H.A.S.C. 112-77; H.A.S.C. 112-113)
Shipbuilding Programs
The committee continued its oversight of the Department of
Defense's shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments
are made and 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 during this time of economic constraints.
Through its oversight activities, the committee faced the
challenge, along with Navy and Marine Corps, to balance current
demands on an aging fleet within the current economic
constraints. The Navy's budget request was for 10 new-
construction battle-force ships, this was a decrease of three
ships from the fiscal year 2012 Future Years Defense Plan
(FDYP). A decrease of 16 ships from the fiscal year 2012 FDYP.
This combined with the proposed early decommissioning of seven
cruisers concerned the committee. As the Department moves its
strategy to a more focused theater in the pacific the committee
seeks to obtain the required capability and to provide
stability to the fragile shipbuilding industrial base.
CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford class of aircraft
carriers. The committee amended the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) by
extending the incremental funding of the Ford class aircraft
carriers from a 5-year period to a 6-year period. The committee
also expressed the importance of minimizing changes from ship
to ship, not only for continuity in training but also to
maintain a lower procurement cost.
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 an ever-
decreasing time span for construction and delivery have given
the committee the ability to authorize multiyear contracts for
the procurement of up to 10 Virginia class submarines beginning
in fiscal year 2014 using incremental funding.
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 multiyear 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 Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces received
testimony at the March 29, 2012, Oversight of U.S. Naval Vessel
Acquisition Programs and Force Structure hearing 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 30 operational ships. The concern of the
subcommittee is that the U.S. Navy is taking an unnecessary
risk. The subcommittee will continue to oversee Naval
Construction and the force structure of the Armed Forces.
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, and; the new construct known as the Air-Sea Battle.
These briefings involved travel to Dahlgren, Virginia, and
Lakehurst, New Jersey.
(H.A.S.C. 112-16; H.A.S.C. 112-127)
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 (MDA) 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 (Public Law 112-74)
ultimately cut the MDA directed energy program to $50 million;
MDA has had to take steps to severely curtail the program as a
result.
The committee also took action regarding the Department's
directed energy programs in the second session of the 112th
Congress. During the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces' March 6,
2012, hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 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 continue
technology development, and retain a uniquely skilled workforce
led the committee to recommend additional resources for the
directed energy research programs of the MDA in H.R. 4310, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
passed by the House.
Nuclear Deterrence and Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise
In the 112th Congress, 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.
In the first session of the 112th Congress, 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 their 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.
In the second session of the 112th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on April 17,
2012, on the fiscal year 2013 Budget Request for DOE Atomic
Energy Defense Activities and DOD Nuclear Forces Programs.
Continuing in the tradition of its successful joint DOD-NNSA
hearing during the previous session, this annual nuclear
posture and budget hearing included witnesses from both DOD and
NNSA. The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held a hearing
on February 16, 2012, on governance, management, and oversight
of the nation's nuclear security enterprise. The hearing
focused on recent independent reports, including by the
National Academies of Science, that have highlighted
significant problems in NNSA and DOE's management of the
laboratories and plants responsible for the sustaining the U.S.
nuclear weapons stockpile. The hearing featured witnesses from
the National Academies of Science and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO), as well as a witness panel
comprised of former NNSA laboratory directors.
In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces held numerous classified and closed oversight
briefings on nuclear deterrence topics during the second
session. On March 7, 2012, the subcommittee held a classified
briefing on U.S. nuclear targeting policy and process with
former senior government and military officials. In addition,
the subcommittee held a closed briefing on the nuclear triad
with nongovernmental experts on March 21, 2012. On February 2,
2012, and March 27, 2012, the subcommittee conducted closed
briefings with former laboratory, Government, and military
officials to discuss governance and management at NNSA and the
Department of Energy.
The committee included a number of legislative provisions
related to nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons policy in
H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013, as passed by the House. Among others, these include
provisions related to congressional oversight of changes to
U.S. nuclear weapons employment strategy; require reports from
the President, and various other officials, if certain funding
levels are not met; create limitations on nuclear forces
reductions if certain conditions are not met; require continued
construction of a key nuclear enterprise infrastructure
modernization project; require analysis of requirements and
alternatives; and make improvements to the joint DOD-DOE
Nuclear Weapons Council.
In addition, based upon its extensive oversight activities
during the second session of the 112th Congress, the committee
included several legislative provisions in H.R. 4310 that would
improve the governance and management of the nuclear security
enterprise. These include provisions to strengthen the semi-
autonomy of NNSA from the Department of Energy; require NNSA to
eliminate transaction-based oversight wherever possible; cap
the number of employees in NNSA's Office of the Administrator
and reduce the number of employees; clarify that the NNSA
Administrator has full authority for setting and overseeing
policies and regulations regarding health, safety, and security
for NNSA; and require NNSA and the Department of Energy to
streamline the myriad rules, regulations, directives, orders,
and policies that govern the nuclear security enterprise.
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. 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 from
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.
H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House, contained 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 U.S. 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.
On November 16, 2011, the subcommittee held a classified
briefing with the National Air and Space Intelligence Center
concerning developments in ballistic missile threats to the
United States. On March 6, 2012, the Subcommittee on Strategic
Forces conducted a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense
Programs. On March 22, 2012, the subcommittee held a classified
briefing with the Institute for Defense Analyses on its recent
report, ``Independent Review and Assessment of the Ground-Based
Midcourse Defense System'', conducted pursuant to section 228
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). On April 18, 2012, the
subcommittee held a classified briefing with the National
Academies on its report, ``U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in
Comparison to Other Alternatives'', conducted pursuant to
section 232 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, contains several
missile defense-related legislative provisions and funding
recommendations, to include: A requirement for an analysis of
alternatives for the Precision Tracking Surveillance System; a
requirement for allied funding of the European Phased Adaptive
Approach to missile defense; a requirement that the SM3-IIB
missile be capable of deployment in both a land- and sea-based
configuration; a prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS
program; a limitation on providing the Russian Federation with
access to classified U.S. missile defense technology;
additional testing of the ground-based midcourse defense
system; and funding and policy recommendations for U.S.-Israel
missile defense programs, including the Iron Dome short-range
rocket defense system. The committee, mindful of the
Administration's failure to provide Congress with a ``hedging
strategy'' for homeland missile defense, as required by section
233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2012 (Public Law 112-81), also recommended a provision for the
development of a plan for, and authorization of funding for,
the deployment of a homeland missile defense site on the East
Coast of the United States.
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, contained 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.
On March 8, 2012, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held
a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space
Activities. Members' oversight questions addressed a range of
topics, including: space policy, Space Test Program, space
situational awareness, export control of commercial satellites
and related components, international agreements for space
activities, Operationally Responsive Space (ORS), space launch,
and concerns about potential interference with the Global
Positioning System.
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, 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 Space Based Infrared Systems; a limitation of funds for
the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program until details of
the Air Force acquisition approach are provided to the
committee; a requirement for the development of a strategic
plan and increased funding for the ORS program; prohibition of
funds for use to limit the activities of the Department of
Defense or the intelligence community in outer space to
implement or comply with an international agreement concerning
outer space activities unless such agreement is ratified by the
Senate or authorized by statute; and a report regarding
sharing, fusion, coordination, and exploitation of overhead
persistent infrared sensor data.
National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment
The committee devoted substantial attention during the
112th Congress to assessing the adequacy of modernized
equipment for the National Guard and Reserve Components. In the
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee
noted that the specific amount of resources, including
equipment, needed to adequately sustain the National Guard and
Reserve Component's new operational reserve status remains a
concern because of the fiscal environment, especially given the
dual mission responsibility of the National Guard and Reserve
Components, in particular the National Guard. The committee
noted the National Guard and Reserve Components still have
significant equipment shortages in modernized equipment,
specifically in rotorcraft and the tactical wheeled vehicle
fleet. Over the past 8 years, National Guard and Reserve
Component equipment procurement averaged $7.0 billion annually.
The committee noted that across the Future Years Defense
Program, procurement is expected to average $3.8 billion
annually, a significant reduction from previous years'
requests. The committee also noted with concern that National
Guard and Reserve Component equipment modernization is not
funded to 100 percent of what the National Guard and Reserve
Components believe its requirements to be. For example, the
Army National Guard will require additional funding over the
next 10 years for tactical wheeled vehicles and aviation
systems of $500.0 million and $1.3 billion, respectively. The
Air National Guard equipment modernization shortfall is $1.4
billion over the next 10 years.
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, would authorize an
additional $500.0 million for National Guard and Reserve
Component equipment. The National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) authorized an additional
$325.0 million for National Guard and Reserve Component
equipment.
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.
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; July 26, 2011, Department of
Defense Investment in Technology and Capability to Meet
Emerging Security Threats; and February 29, 2012 on Department
of Defense Fiscal Year 2013 Science and Technology Programs. 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.
The subcommittee included several legislative provisions
related to future capabilities, and science and technology in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013,
H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, to include: a provision
regarding eligibility for Department of Defense laboratories to
enter into educational partnerships with educational
institutions in territories and possessions of the United
States; a provision directing a National Research Council
review of defense science and technical graduate education
needs; a provision directing a report on efforts to field new
directed energy weapons; a provision allowing the Department of
Defense to support regional advanced technology clusters; a
provision amending the responsibilities for the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and
Evaluation; a provision directing a report on defense forensic
data; and a provision directing a report and assessment of
Department use of electromagnetic spectrum.
(H.A.S.C. 112-9; H.A.S.C. 112-107)
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?; March 16, 2011,
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request
for U.S. Cyber Command; February 29, 2012 on Department of
Defense Fiscal Year 2013 Science and Technology Programs; and
March 20, 2012 on Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for Information Technology and
Cyber Operations Programs.
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; September 8, 2011, Classified Roundtable Discussion on
the Defense Industrial Base Program; and March 22, 2012 on U.S.
Cyber Operations Policy.
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.
The subcommittee included several legislative provisions
related to information technology and cybersecurity in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R.
4310, as passed by the House, to include: a provision directing
quarterly cyber operations briefings; a provision directing a
report on three-dimensional integrated circuit manufacturing
capabilities; a provision directing the designation of a senior
Department of Defense official for enterprise resource planning
system data conversion; a provision directing a report on
providing telecommunications services to uniformed personnel
transiting through foreign airports; a modification to the
existing requirement on data center consolidation; a provision
requiring a report on Air Force cyber operations; and a
provision to improve organization for computer network
operations.
In the committee report accompanying H.R. 4310, as passed
by the House, the subcommittee also included several items of
directive report language related to cybersecurity, including a
report on the role of National Guard cyber defense units, and
an assessment of legal authorities for cyberspace operations.
(H.A.S.C. 112-5; H.A.S.C. 112-26; H.A.S.C. 112-107;
H.A.S.C. 112-118)
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.
The committee included a legislative provision related to
strategic communication in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, to
modify and update the statutory limitation on the Department of
State for the dissemination abroad of information about the
United States.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
Full Committee Hearings
During the second session of the 112th Congress in 2012,
the committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in
preparation for the fiscal year 2013 budget. These hearings,
combined with the committee's responsibility for assembling the
annual defense authorization bill, 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 February 15, 2012, the committee received testimony from
Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense; and General Martin E.
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to review the
budget request for funding and authorities during fiscal year
2013.
In addition to these hearings, the committee held posture
hearings in which it sought and received testimony from each of
the military departments. On February 16, 2012, Ray Mabus,
Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, the Chief
of Staff of the Navy; and General James F. Amos, the Commandant
of the Marine Corps, appeared before the committee to discuss
the United States Navy and Marine Corps' portion of the fiscal
year 2013 budget request. On February 17, 2012, the committee
convened a hearing to receive testimony from John McHugh,
Secretary of the Army; and General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of
Staff of the Army, on the United States Army's portion of the
fiscal year 2013 budget request. On February 28, 2012, Michael
B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force; and General Norton A.
Schwartz, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified on the
budget as it related to the United States Air Force.
In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily
responsible for training and equipping their respective forces,
commanders of the unified combatant commands appeared before
the committee to discuss the security situation in their
respective areas of responsibility. These hearings began with
testimony from Admiral James G. Stavridis, Commander of U.S.
European Command; and General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S.
Africa Command, on February 29, 2012. This hearing was followed
by Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific
Command, on March 1, 2012, who testified on his command's
budget request for fiscal year 2013. On March 6, 2012, the
committee received testimony from General Douglas M. Fraser,
Commander of U.S. Southern Command; and General Charles H.
Jacoby, Jr., Commander of U.S. Northern Command, who testified
on their combatant commands' fiscal year 2013 budget requests.
The following day, on March 7, 2012, the committee heard
testimony from General James N. Mattis, Commander of U.S.
Central Command; Admiral William H. McRaven, Commander of U.S.
Special Operations Command; and General William M. Fraser III,
Commander of U.S. Transportation Command.
This year the committee also convened a hearing to receive
testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense
priorities for the fiscal year 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act, which took place on April 17, 2012.
In addition, the committee closed out its Panel on Defense
Financial Management and Auditability Reform with a full
committee hearing on January 24, 2012, in which members
received testimony from Robert F. Hale, Under Secretary of
Defense (Comptroller); and Elizabeth A. McGrath, Deputy Chief
Management Officer, on Department of Defense Perspectives on
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Efforts.
Additionally, the committee held a series of hearings in
accordance with its legislative and oversight roles which
focused on the United States' ongoing military operations and
related strategies. The committee convened a hearing on March
20, 2012, in which it sought and received information on
developments in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan pertaining
to progress of U.S. operations. General John Allen, Commander
of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan; and Dr. James Miller, Acting Undersecretary of
Defense for Policy, appeared before the committee to testify on
this important matter. On March 28, 2012, the committee met to
receive testimony from Dr. Peter Lavoy, Acting Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Policy) for Asia and Pacific Security
Affairs; and General James D. Thurman, Commander of United
Nations Command, Republic of Korea--United States Combined
Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea, on the Security
Situation on the Korean Peninsula. On April 19, 2012, the
committee received testimony from Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of
Defense; and General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, on the Security Situation in the Syrian Arab
Republic. (H.A.S.C. 112-96; H.A.S.C. 112-100; H.A.S.C. 112-101;
H.A.S.C. 112-103; H.A.S.C. 112-104; H.A.S.C. 112-106; H.A.S.C.
112-108; H.A.S.C. 112-109; H.A.S.C. 112-112; H.A.S.C. 112-117;
H.A.S.C. 112-125; H.A.S.C. 112-129; H.A.S.C. 112-132)
Budget Oversight
On March 9, 2012, 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 2013 to the Committee on the Budget.
The committee noted that the President's fiscal year 2013
budget request totaled $550.6 billion in discretionary budget
authority for national defense. Of this total, $525.4 billion
was for the Department of Defense, $17.8 billion was for the
Department of Energy's defense activities, and $7.4 billion was
for other defense-related activities. The President's budget
also included $8.3 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 request for fiscal year 2013 included a
separate request of $88.5 billion for war-related expenditures
in support of ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq, presented as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
The committee discussed that the 050 budget category
required an increase to the current budget request to support
critical shortfalls and underestimated economic assumptions
within the President's request. The committee argued that a
significant number of program reductions could be restored and
readiness risks mitigated if the National Defense Budget
Function received an increase in budget authority above the
current President's Budget submission levels within the Budget
Resolution.
In review of the budget request, the committee chairman
highlighted several concerns to the budget committee. First, of
particular concern to the committee was the Administration's
request to fund additional end strength (personnel levels above
the fiscal year 2017 end state) for the Army (49,700) and
Marine Corps (15,200) in the OCO beginning in fiscal year 2013.
The committee strongly supported that funding for the Army and
Marine Corps end strength above the fiscal year 2017 end state
levels be included in the base budget, regardless of the
Administration's view that it is non-enduring and war-related.
Second, the committee was concerned with the significant
increases in TRICARE fees proposed by the Administration.
Secretary Panetta testified to the Committee on the Budget
regarding Tricare . . . ``[W]hat we've done in Tricare is
basically provided fee increases for those that are covered by
Tricare''. . . I've got to do something to try to control those
costs and this was one of the ways we thought made sense. The
committee's position is that increasing fees merely funds the
increased costs, not controls them. Third, the Navy announced
with the request that it intended to retire seven cruisers and
two amphibious ships within the FYDP before the end of their
service lives. The committee noted that the Navy currently had
285 ships, and with fewer new construction starts than planned
and early retirements, the Navy would still be at 285 ships at
the end of the FYDP, lower than the floor of 313 established to
meet its assigned tasking. The shortfall was of particular
concern to the committee with the shift in strategy to the
Pacific region, an area where the Navy is particularly
necessary. Finally, the committee noted that the current
missile defense policy should be reevaluated, and national
missile defense should be adequately funded.
The committee's ranking member 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 request, citing
it as the appropriate starting point for making a national
defense budget function allocation for fiscal year 2013 that is
consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-
25) and stating that it provided a balanced platform for
maintaining military effectiveness from which justifiable
savings may be garnered.
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 of Defense'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; November 3,
2011, Institutionalizing Irregular Warfare Capabilities; and on
March 27, 2012, on Understanding Future Irregular Warfare
Challenges.
The subcommittee continued to examine the Department's
investment and management of information technology systems and
science and technology. Related hearings included: April 6,
2011 on Improving Management and Acquisition of Information
Technology Systems in the Department of Defense; February 29,
2012 on Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2013 Science and
Technology Programs; and March 20, 2012 on Fiscal Year 2013
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Information
Operations 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.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 (Public Law 112-
81) 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.
Public Law 112-81 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. It also included provisions that: establish 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 held
various briefings and events to conduct oversight including: an
introduction to U.S. Special Operations Forces display and
presentation on February 11, 2011; 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; 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; a classified
briefing on April 22, 2011, covering the future of U.S. Special
Operations Forces; a classified briefing on March 7, 2012, on
U.S. Special Operations Forces and counterterrorism operations;
and a briefing on March 22, 2012 on U.S. cyber operations
policy.
The subcommittee considered and reported on legislation on
April 26, 2012, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by
the House on May 18, 2012. The legislative provisions covered a
range of issues to include: cybersecurity, counter-terrorism,
and funding for procurement, research and development, and
operations and maintenance. The subcommittee included several
legislative provisions related to terrorism authorities and
special operations forces in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, to
include: a provision to extend the authority for the Secretary
of Defense to make combating terrorism rewards; a provision
requiring a report on counter-proliferation capabilities and
limitations for special operations forces; a provision
requiring the Department of State to determine if Boko Haram
qualifies as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; and a provision
increasing the authorized number of National Guard Civil
Support Teams. The subcommittee included several legislative
provisions related to information technology, cybersecurity,
and research and development in H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House,
to include: a provision directing quarterly cyber operations
briefings; a provision regarding eligibility for Department of
Defense laboratories to enter into educational partnerships
with educational institutions in territories and possessions of
the United States; a provision regarding regional advanced
technology clusters; a provision directing a national research
council review of defense science and technical graduate
education needs; a provision directing a report on three-
dimensional integrated circuit manufacturing capabilities; a
provision directing a report on efforts to field new directed
energy weapons; a provision directing the designation of a
senior Department of Defense official for enterprise resource
planning system data conversion; a provision amending
additional responsibilities for the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation; a provision
making technical and clarifying changes to a separate provision
requiring a report on the transitioning away from live tissue
use in medical training; and a provision directing a report and
assessment of Department use of electromagnetic spectrum.
(H.A.S.C. 112-18; H.A.S.C. 112-39; H.A.S.C. 112-123;
H.A.S.C. 112-107; H.A.S.C. 112-118)
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Religious Freedom and Defense of Marriage
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.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, includes section 536,
which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate the moral
principles and religious beliefs of service members concerning
appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and
that such beliefs may not be used as a basis for any adverse
personnel actions. This section would also prohibit any member
of the Armed Forces from: (1) requiring a chaplain to perform
any duty or religious ceremony that is contrary to the tenets
of the chaplain's moral principles or religious faith; or (2)
discriminating or taking any adverse personnel action against a
chaplain because of refusal to comply with a direction to
perform a duty or religious ceremony that is contrary to the
tenets of the chaplain's moral principles or religious faith.
In addition, section 537 of H.R. 4310 would preclude marriage
and marriage-like ceremonies from being conducted on military
installations or other property under the control of the
Department of Defense, unless the ceremony involves the union
of one man with one woman.
(H.A.S.C. 112-34, H.A.S.C. 112-41)
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 David H. Petraeus, then Commander of
International Security Assistance Force and 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.
(H.A.S.C. 112-97)
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.
The budget request for fiscal year 2013 included a
provision that would establish a Military Retirement
Modernization Commission to examine options for reforming
military retirement and to acquire the concurrence of Congress
using a Base Realignment and Closure process calling for a vote
on the Commission recommendations without the opportunity for
Congress to amend the proposal. In the committee report (H.
Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee expressed concern that
the proposal includes provisions that would unnecessarily limit
the legislative authority of the House of Representatives by
imposing a legislative process that eliminates the ability of
the House of Representatives to amend the legislation proposed
by the President. The committee noted that the Secretary of
Defense should submit the retirement modernization proposal
that he and the uniformed leaders of the military departments
consider necessary to the President for submission to Congress.
The committee contended that Congress, with the benefit of a
retirement modernization proposal that reflects the best
judgment of the civilian and military leaders of the Department
of Defense, can debate and, if judged appropriate, improve and
finalize a reform proposal.
(H.A.S.C. 112-80; H.A.S.C. 112-105, H.A.S.C. 112-110)
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.
Hazing in the Military
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a hearing
entitled ``Hazing in the Military'' on Thursday, March 22,
2012, to provide members an opportunity to hear testimony from
the service senior enlisted advisors concerning the services
policies, training and enforcement with respect to hazing. The
hearing resulted in a provision included in H.R. 4310, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as
passed by the House that would require the Secretary of Defense
to execute a plan to establish the Department of Defense effort
to prevent hazing in the Armed Forces, and to respond to and
resolve alleged hazing incidents. This section would also
require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit
a report on the policies to prevent hazing and systems
initiated to track incidents in each of the Armed Forces.
(H.A.S.C. 112-122)
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.
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 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 and conducting a hearing on March 31,
2011, ``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
departments, 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 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.
Additionally, the subcommittee met on July 12, 2011, to receive
testimony on ``How Does the Navy Get Ready and Where Are We
Today.'' The subcommittee met 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.''
On March 8, 2012, the subcommittee met to receive testimony
on ``The Request for Authorization of Another BRAC Round and
Additional Reductions in Overseas Bases,'' in light of the
Administration request for two additional rounds of BRAC. The
subcommittee met on March 22, 2012, to receive testimony on the
Navy's readiness posture which addressed the Navy's overall
readiness with regards to fleet size, ship and aircraft
operation and maintenance, and combatant command requirements.
On March 28, 2012, the subcommittee met to receive testimony on
Army and Marine Corps reset, in light of the recent drawdown of
U.S. forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the
status of equipment from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
New Dawn. The subcommittee also met on March 29, 2012, to
receive testimony on Department of Defense energy security
entitled: ``What is the Price of Energy Security: from
Battlefields to Bases.'' The witnesses provided testimony on
the Department's efforts to promote energy security in light of
a tightening budget environment.
(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,
H.A.S.C. 112-90, H.A.S.C. 112-115, H.A.S.C. 112-121, H.A.S.C.
112-126, H.A.S.C. 112-128)
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 2013, including the Fiscal Year 2013 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the
Navy on February 16, 2012.
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; March 7, 2012,
Assessing Mobility Airlift Capabilities and Operational Risks
Under the Revised 2012 Defense Strategy; March 29, 2012,
Oversight of U.S. Naval Vessel Acquisition Programs and Force
Structure of the Department of the Navy in the Fiscal Year 2013
National Defense Authorization Budget Request.
The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces also
held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Readiness 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; March 28, 2012, Fiscal Year 2013
Shipbuilding Plan.
The subcommittee also held a joint briefing with the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on the SSBN(X) Program and the
Future of Sea-Based Strategic Deterrence on September 21, 2011.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on
April 26, 2012, that was included in H.R. 4310, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. 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; H.A.S.C. 112-113; H.A.S.C. 112-127)
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 U.S. 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, the 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. In addition, the subcommittee considered and reported
legislation on May 4, 2011, that was included in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81).
During the second session of the 112th Congress, the
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed the programs in its
area of oversight responsibility by conducting hearings during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2013 budget request,
including: March 6, 2012, missile defense programs; March 8,
national security space activities; and, April 18, 2012,
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 February 16, 2012, on the report of the National
Academies Phase I Study on Managing for High Quality Science
and Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories.
The subcommittee also held several briefings on the
following oversight topics: March 7, 2012, on the history and
practice of U.S. nuclear weapons planning and targeting by Mr.
Franklin Miller and General Larry Welch (USAF Ret); March 7,
2012 with the National Air and Space Intelligence Center and
the Defense Security Service on the diversion of U.S. export
controlled technology; March 21, 2012, on the history and
practice of U.S. nuclear weapons planning and targeting by
Admiral Rich Mies (USN Ret) and Mr. Bruce Blair; and, March 27,
2012, on reform of the National Nuclear Security Administration
with Ambassador Linton Brooks and General James Cartwright
(USMC Ret). In addition, the subcommittee considered and
reported legislation on April 26, 2012, that was included in
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013.
(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 National Guard and Reserve equipment programs.
The Subcommittee conducted five oversight hearings during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense
(DOD) budget request prior to the markup of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). Subcommittee 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 Public Law 112-81 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 DOD 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.
The subcommittee conducted three oversight hearings during
its consideration of the fiscal year 2013 Department of Defense
budget request prior to the markup of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, passed by
the House May 18, 2012. Hearings included: March 8, 2012: Army
and Marine Corps Ground System Modernization Programs; March
20, 2012: Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Tactical Aviation
Programs; and March 27, 2012: Fiscal Year 2013 DOD Rotorcraft
Modernization Programs.
(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; H.A.S.C. 112-91; H.A.S.C. 112-114;
H.A.S.C. 112-119; H.A.S.C. 112-124)
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was
reestablished by the 112th Congress to conduct studies and
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 conducts comprehensive,
in-depth oversight of major issues and makes recommendations to
the committee for consideration and potential legislative
action.
Transfer and Release of Guantanamo Bay Detainees and Reengagement
In March 2011, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and
Ranking Minority Member Adam Smith directed the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations to undertake an in-depth,
comprehensive bipartisan investigation of procedures to
dispatch detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility
(GTMO) over the past decade. This necessarily included an
examination of mechanisms intended to prevent former detainees
from reengaging in terror-related activities.
In conducting this study, committee staff traveled to 11
countries, interviewed nearly every senior official directly
involved in these matters in both the Bush and Obama
Administrations, received briefings from the Department of
Defense and Department of State, consulted with 18 subject
matter experts, met with 2 former detainees, and reviewed
thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents.
Subcommittee members convened a hearing, three Member briefings
(including one that was classified), and traveled to several
relevant locations.
At the conclusion of the investigation, the subcommittee
issued a report which found that the Bush and Obama
administrations, in reaction to domestic political pressures, a
desire to earn goodwill abroad, and in an attempt to advance
strategic national security goals, sought to ``release'' or
``transfer'' GTMO detainees elsewhere (Committee Print No. 4).
Those ``released'' were judged a sufficiently low threat that
they were sent to countries with no expectation of follow up.
``Transferred'' detainees, because they were assessed as
relatively more dangerous, were conveyed with the expectation
that some process would be applied in the receiving nation to
mitigate the threat they potentially posed.
The report stated that despite earnest and well-meaning
efforts by officials in both administrations, properly
evaluating detainees and ensuring that their cases were handled
appropriately by receiving countries was, and remains, a
challenge. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) estimated in
September 2011 that 27 percent of the 600 former detainees who
have left GTMO were confirmed or suspected to be presently or
previously reengaged in terrorist activities.
The report noted that this total percentage has
consistently increased. Furthermore, the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence noted in 2010 that the intelligence
community ``assesses that if additional detainees are
transferred from GTMO, some of them will reengage in terrorist
or insurgent activities.'' Five of 66 detainees who left GTMO
in the 20 months between February 2009 and October 2010 are
confirmed (2) or suspected (3) by ODNI of involvement in
terrorist or insurgent activities. Although two of the five
were released pursuant to court orders, this nonetheless yields
a 7.5 percent reengagement rate. Although it is difficult to
compare two disparate groups of former detainees (a smaller
pool which left GTMO relatively recently and a much larger pool
which has been gone for a much longer period), the reengagement
rate indicates that challenges remain.
The report posited four findings:
Finding 1. Mechanisms to reduce the GTMO population were
first contemplated when the facility was established in 2002.
However, procedures to accomplish this took about eight months
to finalize, and were spurred by persistent concerns that some
detainees should not be held.
Finding 2. After the first review process began, political
and diplomatic pressures to reduce the GTMO population arose,
resulting in releases and transfers.
Finding 3. Pressures to reduce the GTMO population
accelerated in the second Bush term, before reengagement
dangers became fully apparent.
Finding 4. While changes in the GTMO transfer and release
process instituted by the Obama administration differed in some
important respects from the Bush administration, there are
sufficient continuities so that the threat of reengagement may
not be lessened in the long term.
In addition to chapters discussing each finding in depth,
the report included several companion articles illustrating
specific issues. A classified section set forth additional
information and findings.
The report offered the following recommendations, which led
to legislative provisions in H.R. 4310, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House:
(1) The Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence collaborate produce a report (in
classified and unclassified versions) to congressional
committees of jurisdiction assessing factors causing or
contributing to reengagement; including a discussion of trends,
by country and region, where reengagement has occurred; (2) The
Department of Defense and the Department of State produce a
report (in classified and unclassified versions) to
congressional committees of jurisdiction assessing the
effectiveness of agreements in each country where transfers
have occurred; (3) Congress continue the certification
requirements on GTMO transfers which are contained in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public
Law 112-81), at least until receiving and reviewing the
specified reports; and (4) Additional action as outlined in the
classified annex.
The report was not signed by the minority members of the
subcommittee. The four minority members of the subcommittee
collectively signed Dissenting Views in which they concluded
they believed the report was incomplete and indicated
disagreement with several of the key findings and
recommendations. In particular, the minority members disagreed
with recommendation no. 3. In addition, the ranking minority
member submitted an additional statement, which was signed by
the other minority members.
Afghan National Security Forces Sizing and Transition to Security Lead
Decisions
In June 2012, the chairman of the committee directed the
subcommittee to convene a series of hearings and briefings
about the projected growth of the Afghan National Security
Forces, the conditions and timetable in which those forces will
assume security responsibility from United States and
International Security Assistance Forces, and the related
schedule for the drawdown of these forces.
The first hearing was held on June 20, 2012, and was
titled, ``Afghan National Security Forces: Resources, Strategy,
and Timetable for Security Lead Transition.'' In connection
with this work, subcommittee members participated in an
oversight delegation to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Members and staff met with
military commanders, U.S. embassy officials and foreign
government officials from relevant ministries, including a
governor and chief minister from Peshawar.
Arlington National Cemetery Accountability and Reform
In February 2012, the subcommittee held a joint hearing
with the Subcommittee on Military Personnel to receive an
update on the actions taken by the Army to improve its
accountability of the Arlington National Cemetery, with
particular emphasis on the Gravesite Accountability Task Force
responsible for validating gravesite records. The hearing was
part of a long-term effort aimed at overseeing accountability
and reform efforts to ensure past contractual and
administrative mismanagement issues had been addressed. Hearing
witnesses were: Lieutenant General Peter M. Vangjel, the
Inspector General of the U.S. Army, Ms. Belva Martin, Director,
Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, U.S. Government
Accountability Office; Mr. Brian J. Lepore, Director of Defense
Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability
Office; and Ms. Kathryn Condon, the Executive Director of the
Army's National Cemeteries Program.
(H.A.S.C. 112-98)
U.S. Navy 30 Year Shipbuilding Plan--Assumptions and Associated Risks
to National Security
In connection with a series of hearings focused on the
efficacy of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, the
subcommittee conducted oversight visits to Electric Boat
Shipbuilding in Groton, Connecticut, and Quonset Point, Rhode
Island; Bath Iron Works in Maine; and General Dynamics NASSCO
in San Diego, California. The purpose of the visits was to meet
with shipyard leaders, inspect facilities, and learn about
industry concerns and challenges.
In April 2012, the subcommittee conducted a hearing titled,
``The Navy's 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan: Assumptions and
Associated Risks to National Security.'' Witnesses were: Mr.
Ronald O'Rourke, Defense Policy and Arms Control Section,
Congressional Research Service, Dr. Seth Cropsey, Senior
Fellow, Hudson Institute; and Ms. Mackenzie Eaglen, Resident
Fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies,
American Enterprise Institute.
(H.A.S.C. 112-131)
Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry
On September 20, 2011, the committee formally established
the Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry.
This seven-member panel was initiated by the chairman and
ranking member of the committee to examine the challenges for
the private sector in doing business with the Department of
Defense. The panel was commissioned for 6 months and tasked
with examining the defense business environment and developing
an understanding of 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. Although it was not provided legislative
jurisdiction, the panel reported its findings, including
recommendations for possible legislation, to the full committee
on March 19, 2012.
The panel examined 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 three
hearings and five industry roundtable sessions between January
and March of 2012.
The panel's first hearing of 2012 was held on January 17,
2012, entitled `Unique Challenges Faced by Small and Mid-Sized
Businesses.' The focus of the hearing was to gain a better
understanding of the challenges of small and mid-sized
businesses in receiving opportunities to work with the
Department of Defense, and the challenges they had once that
work had begun. The witnesses included Mr. A. John Shoraka,
Acting Associate Administrator for Government Contracting and
Business Administration, United States Small Business
Administration; Ms. Linda Hillmer, Chair, Small Business
Division of the National Defense Industrial Association; and
Ms. Lynn M. Schubert, President, The Surety and Fidelity
Association of America.
The panel's next hearing was held on January 23, 2012,
entitled `Doing Business with DOD: Getting Innovative Solutions
from Concept to the Hands of the Warfighter.' This hearing
focused on the role of universities, non-profit research
institutions and federally funded research and development
centers (FFRDCs) in the development and research activities in
order to get innovative tools and technologies from the
academia to the warfighter. The hearing's witnesses were Dr.
Stephen E. Cross, Executive Vice President for Research,
Georgia Institute of Technology; Dr. Norman Winarsky, Vice
President, SRI Ventures, Stanford Research Institute (SRI); and
Dr. Stephen Huffman, Vice President and Chief Technology
Officer, the MITRE Corporation.
On February 6, 2012, the panel held its final hearing
addressing `Doing Business with DOD: Contracting and Regulatory
Challenges.' This hearing examined contracting and regulatory
issues that may be creating barriers to entry, reduce
competition, stifling innovation, or otherwise negatively
impacting the defense industrial base. The witnesses were Dr.
Allan V. Burman, President, Jefferson Solutions; Mr. Raj
Sharma, President and Co-Chair of the Board of Directors for
the FAIR Institute; and Mr. Joel L. Johnson, former Vice
President, International at the Aerospace Industries
Association of America, Inc.
In addition to the hearings, the panel conducted five
industry roundtables. The purpose of these events was to
directly solicit industry views on challenges they face and to
ensure such views were collected from a cross-section of
industries and businesses, operating in a variety of
congressional districts that have a strong defense industry
presence. These events included a roundtable with 15 to 20
industry participants and were 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 of 2012 was held at
Santa Clarita City Hall in Santa Clarita, California on January
8, 2012. At this field roundtable, there were several points of
discussion. These included concerns about the backlogs at the
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and challenges in
transitioning technology to production from the Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program. In addition, the roundtable
discussed the need for increased flexibility in cost and
pricing. There was also discussion about the International
Trafficking of Arms Regulations (ITARs) and the frustration
associated with current export licensing requirements.
The panel's next roundtable event was held at the State
Capitol building in Honolulu, Hawaii, on January 9, 2012. The
industry roundtable included 10 industry participants. Points
of discussion included the SBIR program with recommendations to
restructure the program and improve transition assistance. In
addition, several participants commented on the acquisition
system and processes including the levels of bureaucracy and
sole-source contracting.
The panel's third roundtable event of 2012 was held in San
Diego, California at the Admiral Kidd Club, Naval Base Point
Loma. In addition to the panel Members, two additional Members
of the Committee on Armed Services, Congressman Duncan Hunter
and Congresswoman Susan Davis, joined the roundtable. There
were 18 industry participants in attendance. Among the issues
discussed were the benefits to small business regarding
congressionally-directed funding in increasing the market for
technologies that DOD may not know is available. In addition,
the roundtable touched on the issues pertaining to intellectual
property rights of small businesses, the risk-averse culture of
DOD acquisition officials and the lack of flexibility in the
acquisition process. Once again, issues and challenges
surrounding ITARs and the SBIR program were presented to the
panel.
The following industry roundtable was held on January 21,
2012 at the Florida Atlantic University's MacArthur Campus in
Jupiter, Florida. The Small Business Committee Chairman,
Congressman Sam Graves, also attended the event. There were 21
industry participants in this roundtable. During the
roundtable, the issue of consistency in work loading the
industrial base was discussed. Several participants suggested
that the Department of Defense needs to work with industry to
provide a level workload to prevent inconsistencies and
inefficiencies such as laying off and rehiring workers and
short-term contracts. Challenges with the Defense Logistics
Agency (DLA) and DCAA once again resurfaced at this event.
The final roundtable event of the panel was held on
February 27, 2012. The roundtable had 16 industry participants.
During the event industry participants pointed out challenges
with the DLA regarding accountability within the Agency as well
as their `reverse auctions' program. Another item which several
participants discussed was the need for incentive programs
within the system to receive a better product and a more
efficient acquisition and procurement process. In addition,
Government Services Administration schedules, challenges
gaining direct access to the customer, and the prime
contractor-sub contractor relationship challenges were all
discussed at the event.
The committee included several provisions in title XVI of
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013, as passed by the House, addressing many of the
panel's recommendations.
(H.A.S.C. 112-94; H.A.S.C. 112-95; H.A.S.C. 112-99)
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 of Defense'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 with
the appointment set to expire on January 13, 2012, but was
extended to January 31, 2012.
During the 6-month period, the Panel on Defense Financial
Management and Auditability Reform held eight 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.
On January 24, 2012, the panel concluded its work with the
chairman of the panel presenting the panel's findings and
recommendations to the full committee. Immediately following
the chairman's briefing, the committee received testimony on
the Department's views of the panel's report, to offer more
detail on the Department's revised FIAR Plan for achieving an
auditable Statement of Budgetary Resources by 2014 and to
report on the status of the Department's efforts to achieve
audit readiness on all financial statements by 2017.
(H.A.S.C. 112-96)
PUBLICATIONS
HOUSE REPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Number Date Filed Bill Number Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
112-77........... May 12, 2011......... H. Res. 208.. Directing the
Secretary of
Defense to
transmit to
the House of
Representative
s 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
112-78........... May 17, 2011......... H.R. 1540.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2012
112-78 Part 2.... May 23, 2011......... H.R. 1540.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2012
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 30, 2011.... N/A.......... Second
Semiannual
Report on the
Activities of
the Committee
on Armed
Services for
the 112th
Congress
112-479.......... May 11, 2012......... H.R. 4310.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2013
112-479 Part 2... May 15, 2012......... H.R. 4310.... National
Defense
Authorization
Act for Fiscal
Year 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONFERENCE REPORTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report Number Date Filed Bill Number Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
112-329.......... December 12, 2011.... Conference National
Report To Defense
Accompany Authorization
H.R. 1540. Act for Fiscal
Year 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Committee Print No. 4--Leaving Guantanamo--Policies,
Pressures, and Detainees Returning to the Fight. January 2012.
PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS
H.A.S.C. 112-1--Full 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 Requests 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 Budget Request 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, and 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: The 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 The Defense Industrial Base: The
Role of the Department of Defense. 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.
H.A.S.C. 112-94--Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry hearing on Doing Business with DOD: Unique
Challenges Faced by Small and Mid-Sized Businesses. January 17,
2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-95--Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry hearing on Doing Business with DOD: Getting
Innovative Solutions from Concept to the Hands of the
Warfighter. January 23, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-96--Full Committee hearing on Department of
Defense Perspectives on Financial Improvement and Audit
Readiness Efforts. January 24, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-97--Full Committee hearing on Use of Afghan
Nationals to Provide Security to U.S. Forces in Light of
Attacks on U.S. Personnel at FOB Frontenac, Afghanistan, in
March 2011. February 1, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-98--Subcommittees on Military Personnel and
Oversight and Investigations joint hearing on Update on
Accountability at Arlington National Cemetery. February 3,
2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-99--Panel on Business Challenges within the
Defense Industry hearing on Doing Business with DOD:
Contracting and Regulatory Issues. February 6, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-100--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of Defense. February 15, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-101--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Navy. February 16, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-102--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Governance, Oversight, and Management of the Nuclear
Security Enterprise to Ensure High Quality Science,
Engineering, and Mission Effectiveness in an Age of Austerity.
February 16, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-103--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Army. February 17, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-104--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Air Force. February 28, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-105--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Military Personnel Budget Overview--Office of the
Secretary of Defense Perspective. February 28, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-106--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from U.S.
European Command and U.S. Africa Command. February 29, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-107--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2013
Science and Technology Programs. February 29, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-108--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from U.S.
Pacific Command. March 1, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-109--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from U.S.
Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command. March 6, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-110--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Military Personnel Budget Overview--Service
Personnel Chiefs' Perspectives. March 6, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-111--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Budget Request for Missile Defense. March 6, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-112--Full Committee hearing on National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from U.S.
Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S.
Transportation Command. March 7, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-113--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces hearing on Assessing Mobility Airlift Capabilities and
Operational Risks Under the Revised 2012 Defense Strategy.
March 7, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-114--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Army and Marine Corps Ground System
Modernization Programs. March 8, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-115--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on
Request for Authorization of Another BRAC Round and Additional
Reductions in Overseas Bases. March 8, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-116--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for National Security Space Activities. March 8, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-117--Full Committee hearing on Recent
Developments in Afghanistan. March 20, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-118--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of Previously Authorized
Programs--Budget Request for Information Technology and Cyber
Operations Programs. March 20, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-119--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Fiscal Year 2013 Navy, Marine Corps and Air
Force Tactical Aviation Programs. March 20, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-120--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Defense Health Program Budget Overview. March 21,
2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-121--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The
Navy's Readiness Posture. March 22, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-122--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Hazing in the Military. March 22, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-123--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities hearing on Understanding Future Irregular Warfare
Challenges. March 27, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-124--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing on Fiscal Year 2013 DOD Rotorcraft Modernization
Programs. March 27, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-125-- Full Committee hearing on The Security
Situation on the Korean Peninsula. March 27, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-126--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Army
and Marine Corps Materiel Reset. March 28, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-127--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection
Forces Oversight of U.S. Naval Vessel Acquisition Programs and
Force Structure of the Department of the Navy in the Fiscal
Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request. March
29, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-128--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on What
is the Price of Energy Security: from Battlefields to Bases.
March 29, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-129--Full Committee hearing on Testimony from
Members on their national defense priorities for the fiscal
year 2013 national defense authorization bill. April 17, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-130--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing
on Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Budget Request for Atomic
Energy Defense Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs. April
17, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-131--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on The Navy's 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan:
Assumptions and Associated Risks to National Security. April
18, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-132--Full Committee hearing on Recent
Developments in the Middle East: The Security Situation in the
Syrian Arab Republic. April 19, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-133--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
hearing on Military Resale Programs Overview. June 6, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-134--Full Committee hearing on Addressing the
Iranian Nuclear Challenge: Understanding the Military Options.
June 20, 2012.
H.A.S.C. 112-135--Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations hearing on Afghan National Security Forces:
Resources, Strategy, and Timetable for Security Lead
Transition. June 20, 2012.
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
Second Session
January 2, 2012--McKeon Warns President's New Defense
Strategy is ``Lead From Behind''
January 24, 2012--Members Make Appeal to President to
Reverse Damaging Sequestration Cuts to Our Military
January 26, 2012--McKeon Warns President's Military Cuts
are Real and Dramatic
February 10, 2012--House Armed Services Committee Releases
Report on Risk Levels in the Release of Detainees from
Guantanamo Bay
February 13, 2012--McKeon Statement on President's 2013
Budget Submission
February 17, 2012--Thirty Four Members of Congress Express
Concern to President over Nuclear Reductions
February 17, 2012--McKeon Welcomes Congresswoman Speier to
Committee
February 21, 2012--Business Panel Meets to Discuss
Challenges Within the Defense Industry
March 20, 2012--Panel on Business Challenges Within the
Defense Industry Releases Final Report on Doing Business with
DOD
March 20, 2012--McKeon Comments on Republican Budget
Proposal
March 27, 2012--McKeon Comments on Israeli Missile Defense
March 29, 2012--McKeon, Smith Introduce Department of
Defense Legislative Proposals for the FY13 National Defense
Authorization Act
April 4, 2012--McKeon Comments on Referral of Charges For
KSM and other 9/11 Conspirators
April 13, 2012--McKeon Reacts to North Korean Missile
Launch
April 18, 2012--Subcommittee Markup Schedule for FY 2013
NDAA
April 25, 2012--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Released
April 25, 2012--Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee Mark Released
April 25, 2012--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee
Mark Released
April 25, 2012--Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman
Releases Mark for FY13 NDAA
April 26, 2012--Readiness Mark Released
April 26, 2012--Tactical Air and Land Forces Mark Released
May 1, 2012--McKeon Statement on the President's Visit to
Afghanistan
May 3, 2012--Full Committee Markup Schedule
May 7, 2012--McKeon Releases Details about National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
May 9, 2012--Fact Sheet: Small Business and the FY13 NDAA
May 10, 2012--McKeon Addresses Sequestration
May 10, 2012--Committee Overwhelmingly Passes the FY13
National Defense Authorization Act
May 11, 2012--McKeon Responds To Secretary Panetta's
Criticism of Defense Bill
May 16, 2012--McKeon Floor Statement for General Debate on
H.R. 4310-FY13 NDAA
May 18, 2012--Chairman McKeon Statement on Final Passage of
H.R. 4310 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2013
June 1, 2012--McKeon Accepts Prestigious Eisenhower Award
June 19, 2012--McKeon, Turner Joint Statement Regarding
Reports of Unilateral Reductions to U.S. Nuclear Weapons