[House Report 109-731]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Union Calendar No. 435
109th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 109-731
REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
for the
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
December 15, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Ninth Congress
DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York LANE EVANS, Illinois
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
California SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri STEVE ISRAEL, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia RICK LARSEN, Washington
JEFF MILLER, Florida JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOE WILSON, South Carolina JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio TIM RYAN, Ohio
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota MARK UDALL, Colorado
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
Robert L. Simmons, Staff Director
Holly Graning, Director of Legislative Operations
----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 15, 2006.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to House Rule XI 1(d), there is
transmitted herewith the report of activities of the Committee
on Armed Services for the 109th Congress.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter, Chairman.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Powers and Duties, Committee on Armed Services--109th Congress... 1
Background................................................... 1
Constitutional Powers and Duties............................. 2
House Rules on Jurisdiction.................................. 3
Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight............ 4
Committee Rules.................................................. 4
Rules Governing Procedure.................................... 4
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services--109th Congress... 13
Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services--109th Congress. 14
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces................. 14
Subcommittee on Readiness.................................... 15
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities............................................... 15
Subcommittee on Military Personnel........................... 16
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces............................. 16
Subcommittee on Projection Forces............................ 16
Committee Staff.................................................. 17
Committee Meetings............................................... 19
Legislative Actions.............................................. 19
Legislation Enacted Into Law................................. 19
Public Law 109-100 (S. 37)............................... 19
Public Law 109-104 (H.R. 4326)........................... 19
Public Law 109-142 (H.J. Res. 38)........................ 20
Public Law 109-159 (S. 1988)............................. 20
Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815)........................... 20
Public Law 109-164 (H.R. 972)............................ 23
Public Law 109-272 (H.R. 5683)........................... 23
Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122)........................... 24
Public Law 109-366 (S. 3930)............................. 26
Legislation Reported but Not Enacted......................... 27
H. Res. 417.............................................. 27
H. J. Res. 65............................................ 27
H. Res. 645.............................................. 28
H. Res. 685.............................................. 28
H.R. 6054................................................ 29
Oversight Activities............................................. 31
Summary of Oversight Plan.................................... 31
Actions and Recommendations.................................. 31
Additional Oversight Activities.............................. 56
Other Activities of the Full Committee........................... 77
Budget Activity.............................................. 77
Full Committee Hearings...................................... 82
Other Activities of the Subcommittees............................ 93
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces................. 93
Subcommittee on Readiness.................................... 94
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities............................................... 95
Subcommittee on Military Personnel........................... 97
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces............................. 97
Subcommittee on Projection Forces............................ 98
Publications..................................................... 101
Published Proceedings........................................ 101
House Reports................................................ 110
Public Laws.................................................. 111
Press Releases................................................... 113
Union Calendar No. 435
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-731
======================================================================
REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR THE
109TH CONGRESS
_______
December 15, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hunter, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
ON
POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--109TH CONGRESS
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 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 diminished.
That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and
intelligence-related activities and programs of the U.S.
Government. Specifically, the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding
the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of Central
Intelligence, including authorizations. Also, legislative
jurisdiction over all intelligence and intelligence-related
activities and programs was vested in the permanent select
committee except that other committees with a jurisdictional
interest may request consideration of any such matters.
Accordingly, as a matter of practice, the Committee on Armed
Services shared jurisdiction over the authorization process
involving intelligence-related activities.
The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives.
With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4,
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals.
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence
matters and the intelligence related activities of the
Department of Defense.
On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.
Constitutional Powers and Duties
The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8, of the
Constitution, which provides, among other things, that the
Congress shall have power to:
Raise and support armies;
Provide and maintain a navy;
Make rules for the government and regulation of the
land and naval forces;
Provide for calling forth the militia;
Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be
employed in the service of the United States;
Exercise exclusive legislation . . . over all places
purchased . . . for the erection of forts, magazines,
arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and
Make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers.
House Rules on Jurisdiction
Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each
standing committee. Under that rule, all bills, resolutions,
and other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction
of any standing 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; 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 the 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.
In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special
oversight functions with respect to international arms control
and disarmament and military dependents' education.
Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight
H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority
for each committee to investigate matters within its
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated,
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on
Armed Services.
H. Res. 224, approved by the House on April 27, 2005,
provided funds for, among other things, committee oversight
responsibilities to be conducted in the 109th Congress,
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House
of Representatives (relating to general oversight
responsibilities), clause 3(h) 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
25, 2005, and adopted the following rules governing procedure
and rules for investigative hearings conducted by
subcommittees.
(H.A.S.C. No. 109-1)
Rules Governing Procedure
RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES
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.
RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE
(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m.,
and at such other times as may be fixed by the chairman of the
Committee (hereinafter referred to in these rules 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, the other subcommittee chairmen, and the ranking
minority member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding
simultaneous scheduling of committee and subcommittee meetings
or hearings wherever possible.
RULE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES
Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 3(b), relating
to Separate Orders, of H. Res. 5 as adopted by the House of
Representatives on January 4, 2005, the Committee shall be
organized to consist of six standing subcommittees with the
following jurisdictions:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All Army and
Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and
lift programs, special operations and information technology
accounts). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible
for all Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard
and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition
programs.
Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, training,
logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for all military construction,
installations and family housing issues, including the base
closure process.
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities: Department of Defense counter proliferation and
counter terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations Forces,
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, information
technology and programs, force protection policy and oversight,
and related intelligence support.
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 Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except
deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense
and Department of Energy national security programs (except
non-proliferation programs).
Subcommittee on Projection Forces: Navy and Marine Corps
programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations
and information technology programs), deep strike bombers and
related systems, and strategic lift programs.
RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS
(a) 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.
(b) No panel so appointed shall continue in existence for
more than six months. A panel so appointed may, upon the
expiration of six months, be reappointed by the Chairman.
(c) No panel so appointed 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 those present
and voting.
(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.
RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
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 or panel shall make public announcement of the
date, place, and subject matter of any committee or
subcommittee hearing at least one week before the commencement
of the hearing. However, if the Chairman of the Committee or of
any subcommittee or panel, with the concurrence of the
respective ranking minority member of the Committee,
subcommittee or panel, determines that there is good cause to
begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee or
panel 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 posted to the
internet web page maintained by the Committee.
RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS
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 a subcommittee shall be open to the public except
when the Committee or subcommittee, 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 or
subcommittee, 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 or
subcommittee being present.
(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee
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, a member of that member's personal
staff with Top Secret security clearance to attend hearings of
the Committee, or that member's subcommittee(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 at such
hearings is subject to the approval of the Committee or
subcommittee 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) 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 to exceed 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) Members 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.
(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, or
panel 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 are
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, 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 Chairman.
(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 at least 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 at least 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.
(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 his or her argument.
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.
(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire
shall have not to exceed five minutes to interrogate each
witness or panel of witnesses until such time as each member
has had an opportunity to interrogate each witness or panel of
witnesses; thereafter, additional rounds for questioning
witnesses by members are discretionary with 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 and mark-ups conducted by
the Committee or a subcommittee that are decided by the
Chairman to be officially published will be published in
verbatim form, with the material requested for the record
inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record,
as appropriate. Any requests to correct any errors, other than
those in transcription, or disputed errors in transcription,
will be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where
the change is requested will be footnoted.
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.
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. 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.
RULE 19. POINTS OF ORDER
No point of order shall lie with respect to any measure
reported by the Committee or any subcommittee on the ground
that hearings on such measure were not conducted in accordance
with the provisions of the rules of the Committee; except that
a point of order on that ground may be made by any member of
the Committee or subcommittee which reported the measure if, in
the Committee or subcommittee, such point of order was (a)
timely made and (b) improperly overruled or not properly
considered.
RULE 20. 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. Information so available for public inspection
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 21. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY 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 received
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 who has requested
the opportunity to review such material.
RULE 22. COMMITTEE STAFFING
The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees,
and any panel designated by the Chairman shall be subject to
the rules of the House of Representatives.
RULE 23. 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 24. HEARING PROCEDURES
Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--109TH CONGRESS
Pursuant to H. Res. 32, election of the Chairman (adopted
January 6, 2005), H. Res. 48, election of majority members,
(adopted January 26, 2005), H. Res. 33, election of the Ranking
Member (adopted January 6, 2005), and H. Res. 49, election of
minority members (adopted January 26, 2005), the following
members served on the Committee on Armed Services in the 109th
Congress:
DUNCAN HUNTER California, Chairman
IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Ranking MemberCURT WELDON, Pennsylvania, Vice
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina Chairman
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
LANE EVANS, Illinois JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii TERRT EVERETT, Alabama
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas California\1\
ADAM SMITH, Washington MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California JIM RYUN, Kansas
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California KEN CALVERT, California
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
STEVE ISRAEL, New York JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
RICK LARSEN, Washington W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JIM COOPER, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES,Virginia
JiIM MARSHALL, Georgia JEFF MILLER, Florida
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida JOE WILSON, South Carolina
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
TIM RYAN, Ohio JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire
MARK E. UDALL, Colorado MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California\2\
----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.
SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 109TH CONGRESS
The following subcommittees were established at the
committee's organizational meeting on January 25, 2005.
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative
jurisdiction over all Army and Air Force acquisition programs
(except strategic weapons and lift programs, special operations
and information technology accounts). In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for all Navy and Marine Corps
aviation programs, National Guard and Army and Air Force
reserve modernization, and ammunition programs.
Mr. WELDON, Chairman
Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member Mr. McKEON \1\ Vice Chairman
Mr. SKELTON Mr. GIBBONS
Mr. SPRATT Mr. CALVERT
Mr. ORTIZ Mr. LoBIONDO
Mr. EVANS Mr. BRADLEY
Mr. SMITH Mr. TURNER
Mr. McINTYRE Mr. CONAWAY
Mr. BRADY Mr. EVERETT
Mr. ISRAEL Mr. BARTLETT
Mr. COOPER Mr. JONES
Mr. MEEK Mr. RYUN (KS)
Mr. RYAN (OH) Mr. AKIN
Mr. BUTTERFIELD Mr. FORBES
Mr. BOREN Mr. WILSON
Mr. SHUSTER
Mr. BILBRAY \2\
----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.
Subcommittee on Readiness
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative
jurisdiction over military readiness, training, logistics and
maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the subcommittee
will be responsible for all military construction,
installations and family housing issues, including the base
closure process.
Mr. HEFLEY, Chairman
Mr. ORTIZ, Ranking Member Mr. HOSTETTLER, Vice Chairman
Mr. EVANS Mr. JONES
Mr. TAYLOR Mr. RYUN (KS)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE Mr. FORBES
Mr. REYES Mr. MILLER
Dr. SNYDER Mr. ROGERS
Mr. BRADY Dr. SCHWARZ
Ms. DAVIS (CA) Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS
Mr. MARSHALL Mr. McHUGH
Mr. MEEK Mr. McKEON \1\
Ms. BORDALLO Mr. HAYES
Mr. RYAN (OH) Mr. SIMMONS
Mr. UDALL Mr. BRADLEY
Mr. BUTTERFIELD Mrs. MILLER
Mr. FRANKS
Mr. BILBRAY \2\
----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative
jurisdiction over Department of Defense counter proliferation
and counter terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition,
the subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations
Forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
information technology and programs, force protection policy
and oversight and related intelligence support.
Mr. SAXTON, Chairman
Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member Mr. HAYES, Vice Chairman
Mr. SMITH Mr. AKIN
Mr. McINTYRE Mr. WILSON
Ms. TAUSCHER Mr. KLINE
Mr. ANDREWS Mr. SHUSTER
Mr. LANGEVIN Mr. DAVIS
Mr. LARSEN Mr. HEFLEY
Mr. COOPER Mr. THORNBERRY
Mr. MARSHALL Mr. GIBBONS
Ms. McKINNEY Mr. MILLER
Mr. LoBIONDO
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative
jurisdiction over military personnel policy, reserve component
integration and employment issues, military health care,
military education and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the
subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and
Recreation issues and programs.
Mr. McHUGH, Chairman
Dr. SNYDER, Ranking Member Mrs. DAVIS (VA)
Mr. MEEHAN Mr. KLINE
Ms. SANCHEZ Mrs. DRAKE, Vice Chairman
Mr. ANDREWS Mr. CONAWAY
Ms. DAVIS (CA) Mr. SAXTON
Mr. UDALL Mr. JONES
Ms. McKINNEY Mr. RYUN (KS)
Mr. HAYES
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative
jurisdiction over Strategic Forces (except deep strike
systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense and
Department of Energy national security programs (except
nonproliferation).
Mr. EVERETT, Chairman
Mr. REYES, Ranking Member Mr. THORNBERRY, Vice Chairman
Mr. SPRATT Mr. FRANKS
Ms. SANCHEZ Mr. TURNER
Ms. TAUSCHER Mr. ROGERS
Mr. LARSEN Dr. SCHWARZ
Mr. COOPER Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS
Mr. DAVIS
Subcommittee on Projection Forces
Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative
jurisdiction over Navy and Marine Corps programs (except
strategic weapons, space, special operations and information
technology programs), deep strike bombers and related systems,
and strategic lift programs.
Mr. BARTLETT, Chairman
Mr. TAYLOR, Ranking Member Mr. SIMMONS, Vice Chairman
Ms. TAUSCHER Mrs. DAVIS (VA)
Mr. LANGEVIN Mrs. MILLER
Mr. ISRAEL Mrs. DRAKE
Mr. MARSHALL Mr. WELDON
Ms. BORDALLO Mr. SAXTON
Mr. BOREN Mr. HOSTETTLER
Mr. CALVERT
COMMITTEE STAFF
By committee resolution adopted at the organizational
meeting on January 25, 2005, or by authority of the Chairman,
the following persons were appointed to the staff of the
committee during the 109th Congress:
Robert L. Simmons, Staff Director
Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
(resigned May 31, 2005)
Hugh N. Johnston, Jr., Deputy
Staff Director/Chief Counsel
Rita D. Thompson, Professional
Staff Member (resigned January 4,
2005)
Brenda J. Wright, Professional
Staff Member
Frank A. Barnes, Staff Assistant
Betty B. Gray, Staff Assistant
Ernest B. Warrington, Jr., Staff
Assistant (resigned April 1, 2005)
Diane W. Bowman, Staff Assistant
(resigned February 16, 2005)
Michael R. Higgins, Professional
Staff Member
Jean D. Reed, Professional Staff
Member (resigned September 1,
2005)
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff
Member
B. Ryan Vaart, Professional Staff
Member
Robert W. Lautrup, Professional
Staff Member (resigned September
1, 2005)
John F. Sullivan, Professional
Staff Member
Nancy M. Warner, Professional
Staff Member
Thomas E. Hawley, Professional
Staff Member
William H. Natter, Professional
Staff Member
Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
Mary Ellen Fraser, Counsel
(resigned January 12, 2006)
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff
Member
Henry J. Schweiter, Counsel
(resigned August 31, 2005)
Erin C. Conaton, Professional
Staff Member
Douglas C. Roach, Professional
Staff Member
Alexis R. Lasselle, Professional
Staff Member
Danleigh S. Halfast, Staff
Assistant (resigned January 14,
2005)
Justin P. Bernier, Research
Assistant (resigned January 7,
2005)
Curtis Flood, Staff Assistant
(resigned December 4, 2005)
Linda Burnette, Printing Clerk
Hugh Brady, Professional Staff
Member (resigned June 15, 2005)
Harald Stavenas, Director of
Legislative Affairs and
Communications (resigned June 6,
2006)
Joseph Fengler, Professional Staff
Member (resigned September 30,
2006)
William R. Marck, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
(resigned March 1, 2005)
Uyen T. Dinh, Counsel (resigned
August 1, 2005)
Eric Sterner, Professional Staff
Member (resigned March 17, 2006)
W. Holly Graning, Director,
Legislative Operations
William C. Ostendorff, Counsel
Claire E. Dunne, Program Analyst
(resigned November 24, 2006)
James William Godwin, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
Lindsay Young, Staff Assistant
(resigned September 2, 2005)
Jennifer E. Giglio, Executive
Assistant (resigned July 14, 2006)
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff
Member
Katherine A. Croft, Staff
Assistant (resigned September 8,
2006)
E. Hayes Arendall, Staff Assistant
(resigned June 22, 2005)
Loren Dealy, Communications
Assistant
Joshua T. Hartman, Professional
Staff Member (resigned March 6,
2006)
Heather L. Messera, Staff
Assistant
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff
Member
Carrie M. Sloan, Press Secretary
(resigned April 30, 2005)
Jeffery A. Green, Counsel
Jeanette S. James, Professional
Staff Member
Chandler T. Lockhart, Staff
Assistant (resigned May 5, 2006)
Miriam E. Wolff, Communications
Advisor (appointed January 1,
2005)
Brian R. Anderson, Staff Assistant
(appointed January 3, 2005)
Richard A. Pawloski, Professional
Staff Member (appointed January
10, 2005)
Jordan Redmond, Intern (appointed
January 11, 2005; resigned June
10, 2005)
Taylor L. Clukey, Staff Assistant
(appointed January 18, 2005;
resigned January 11, 2006)
Rebecca A. Ross, Professional
Staff Member (appointed February
1, 2005)
Sarah Gelinas, Staff Assistant
(appointed February 14, 2005;
resigned November 10, 2006)
Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff
Member (appointed March 1, 2005)
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff
Member (appointed March 14, 2005)
Lynn M. Williams, Professional
Staff Member (appointed March 14,
2005)
Diana Schimmel, Intern (appointed
March 10, 2005; resigned May 6,
2005)
Mark Epley, Counsel (appointed
March 28, 2005; resigned March 3,
2006)
Paul Lewis, Counsel (appointed
March 28, 2005)
Stephanie Sanok, Professional
Staff Member (appointed April 4,
2005)
Jennifer C. Guy, Staff Assistant
(appointed April 13, 2005;
resigned August 4, 2006)
Joshua C. Holly, Director of
Communications (appointed May 2,
2005)
Brady DeRemer, Intern (appointed
May 9, 2005; resigned August 5,
2005)
Lydia Chao, Intern (appointed May
16, 2005; resigned August 5, 2005)
John Wason, Professional Staff
Member (appointed June 6, 2005)
Harry Cartland, Professional Staff
Member (appointed June 10, 2005)
Regina Burgess, Research Assistant
(appointed June 14, 2005)
Kathleen Kelly, Intern (appointed
June 14, 2005; resigned July 29,
2005)
Ben Kohr, Staff Assistant
(appointed July 25, 2005)
Catherine K. Steadman, Staff
Assistant (appointed August 9,
2005)
Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr.,
Professional Staff Member
(appointed August 22, 2005)
Roger Zakheim, Counsel (appointed
August 29, 2005)
Diana Schimmel, Intern (appointed
August 31, 2005; resigned November
7, 2005)
Kristine Ellison, Staff Assistant
(appointed September 7, 2005)
Jeness Simler, Professional Staff
Member (appointed October 3, 2005)
Doug Lane, Professional Staff
Member (appointed October 14,
2005)
Julie Unmacht, Counsel (appointed
October 31, 2005)
Kevin P. Coughlin, Counsel
(appointed January 4, 2006)
Anne Skelly, Professional Staff
Member (appointed January 30,
2006; resigned December 4, 2006)
Lorry M. Fenner, Professional
Staff Member (appointed February
15, 2006)
Norman R. Morse, Professional
Staff Member (appointed February
17, 2006; resigned June 30, 2006)
Christine Roushdy, Staff Assistant
(appointed March 1, 2006)
Derek Scott, Staff Assistant
(appointed March 1, 2006)
Eryn Robinson, Professional Staff
Member (appointed March 6, 2006)
Alexander Kugajevsky, Professional
Staff Member (appointed March 10,
2006)
Kari Bingen, Professional Staff
Member (appointed April 24, 2006)
Margee Meckstroth, Staff Assistant
(appointed May 1, 2006)
John Kruse, Professional Staff
Member (appointed May 8, 2006)
Henry Nuzum, National Security
Analyst (appointed May 15, 2006)
Ryan Burke, Intern (appointed June
12, 2006; resigned August 4, 2006)
Caroline Tripp, Intern (appointed
June 12, 2006; resigned August 11,
2006)
Kathleen Kelly, Intern (appointed
July 11, 2006; resigned August 11,
2006)
Andrew H. Tabler, Staff Assistant
(appointed August 9, 2006)
Aileen K. Alexander, Professional
Staff Member (appointed August 28,
2006)
Jason Hagadorn, Staff Assistant
(appointed September 11, 2006)
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
A total of 301 meetings and mark-ups were held by the
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the
109th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows:
Full Committee.................................................... 152
Subcommittees:
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................. 27
Subcommittee on Readiness..................................... 14
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities................................................ 38
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................ 23
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................. 23
Subcommittee on Projection Forces............................. 24
LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Legislation Enacted Into Law
PUBLIC LAW 109-100 (S. 37)
To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for two
years.
Public Law 109-100 extends by two years the breast cancer
research special postage stamp. After passing the Senate by
unanimous consent on September 27, 2005, S. 37 was referred to
the Committee on Armed Services on September 28, 2005. The bill
was considered by unanimous consent on October 27, 2005, and
passed by the House. On November 11, 2005, the President signed
S. 37 into law.
PUBLIC LAW 109-104 (H.R. 4326)
To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for the
nuclear refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-
70).
Public Law 109-104 authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a contract for the nuclear refueling and complex
overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-70). The bill makes
fiscal year 2006 funds available for commencement of work on
the contract authorized during fiscal year 2006 but only for
obligations in an amount not to exceed $89,000,000. The bill
allows that additional amounts may be obligated for such work
for fiscal year 2006 only to the extent to which authority is
expressly provided by law, and funds are appropriated by law,
for such obligations after the date of enactment of this Act.
On November 15, 2005, H.R. 4326 was introduced and referred
to the Committee on Armed Services. The measure was considered
under suspension of the rules and passed the House on November
16, 2005 by voice vote. The Senate passed the measure without
amendment by Unanimous Consent on November 18, 2005. On
November 19, 2005, H.R. 4326 was signed by the President and
became law.
PUBLIC LAW 109-142 (H.J. RES. 38)
Recognizing Commodore John Barry as the first flag officer of the
United States Navy.
Public Law 109-142 recognizes and honors Commodore John
Barry as the first flag officer of the United States Navy. The
measure commends Commodore Barry and honors his efforts and
accomplishments in raising the United States Navy. H.J. Res. 38
was introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed Services
on March 17, 2005. On December 14, 2005, the joint resolution
passed the House under suspension of the rules. The measure was
passed in the Senate without amendment and with a preamble on
December 16, 2005. The measure was signed by the President and
became law on December 22, 2005.
PUBLIC LAW 109-159 (S. 1988)
To authorize the transfer of items in the War Reserves Stockpile for
Allies, Korea.
Public Law 109-159 authorizes the President to transfer to
the Republic of Korea, any munitions, equipment, and/or
materiel in the War Reserves Stockpile for Allies, Korea. After
passing the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on
November 9, 2005, S. 1988 was referred to the Committee on
International Relations and Armed Services on November 14,
2005. The bill was considered under suspension of the rules and
passed the House on December 18, 2005. On December 30, 2005,
the President signed
S. 1988.
PUBLIC LAW 109-163 (H.R. 1815)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe
personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for
other purposes.
Public Law 109-163, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006, authorizes funds totaling
$435,970,473,000 for national defense functions for fiscal year
2006 and provides a budget authority level of $441,536,600,000.
Division A
Division A of Public Law 109-163 authorizes funds for
fiscal year 2006 for the Department of Defense.
Subtitle A of title I authorizes $76,914,011,000 for
procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed
forces, defense agencies, and reserve components of the armed
forces.
Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional
program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of,
or funds for specified programs for the armed forces,
including: multiyear procurement authority for the C-17
aircraft and utility helicopters, the shipbuilding
modernization initiative, the prohibition on the retirement of
KC-135 and the F-117 aircraft; and restructuring the advanced
SEAL delivery system.
Subtitle A of title II authorizes $70,199,859,000 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 six separate
research and development-related matters, including: Future
Combat Systems, requirements for the heavy lift rotorcraft,
limitations on the VXX presidential helicopter and requirements
for the development of the Joint Tactical Radio System.
Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile
defense programs and miscellaneous matters, including high-
performance defense manufacturing technology research and
development.
Subtitle A of title III authorizes $125,715,202,000 for
operation and maintenance, $22,429,849,000 for other programs,
and $3,129,057,000 for working capital funds for the armed
forces and defense agencies.
Subtitles B through H of title III address environmental
provisions, workplace and depot issues, extensions of program
authorities, outsourcing, studies and reports relating to
military readiness, the Utah Test and Training Range, and other
miscellaneous matters.
Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2004 and authorizes
appropriations of $108,942,746,000 for military personnel for
fiscal year 2006. The end strengths for active duty personnel
for fiscal year 2006 are as follows:
Army, 512,400
Navy, 352,700
Marine Corps, 179,000
Air Force, 357,400
The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2006 are
as follows:
Army National Guard, 350,000
Army Reserve, 205,000
Naval Reserve, 73,100
Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600
Air National Guard, 106,800
Air Force Reserve, 74,000
Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000
The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserve components for fiscal year 2006 are as follows:
Army National Guard, 27,396
Army Reserve, 15,270
Naval Reserve, 13,392
Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261
Air National Guard, 13,123
Air Force Reserve, 2,290
Title V sets military personnel policy, including
provisions that address officer personnel policy; the reserve
component management; education and training, including, DOD
schools, ROTC, and the Naval postgraduate school; general
service requirements; military justice and legal assistance
matters; issues relating to casualties; defense dependents
education; consumer protection; 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; retiree
and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund
instrumentality benefits; and other matters.
Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as
enhanced benefits for reservists; TRICARE program improvements;
programs concerning mental health issues; reports; and other
matters.
Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition
management and related matters, including amendments to general
contracting authorities, and matters relating to the United
States defense industrial base.
Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and
management provisions, including space activities; chemical
demilitarization; and intelligence-related matters.
Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial
matters; naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities;
homeland security; reports; military mail; and other matters.
Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel
matters, including the Veteran's preferences, and other federal
government civilian personnel matters.
Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations,
including: assistance and training; nonproliferation and
countries of concern; related reports; and other issues.
Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with
states of the Former Soviet Union.
Title XIV addresses matters relating to detainees.
Title XV includes authorization for increased cost due to
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Division B
Division B of Public Law 109-163 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $12,166,611,000 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 2006. In addition, Division B contains military
construction and family housing program changes; property and
facilities administration; provisions concerning base closure
and realignment land conveyances, and other matters.
Division C
Division C of Public Law 109-163 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $16,554,857,000 for Department of Energy
national security programs for fiscal year 2006. Division C
also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; National Defense Stockpile;
Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration.
The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 1815, as
amended, to the House on May 20, 2005. The measure passed the
House, as amended, on May 25, 2005. The Senate passed by
unanimous consent H.R. 1815, as amended, on November 15, 2005,
subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and
inserting in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure,
S. 1042. The conference report was agreed to in the House on
December 18, 2005, and in the Senate on December 21, 2005. H.R.
1815 was signed by the President and became law on January 6,
2006.
(H. Rept. 109-89; S. Rept. 109-69; H. Rept. 109-360;
H.A.S.C. 109-2; H.A.S.C. 109-3; H.A.S.C. 109-4; H.A.S.C. 109-5;
H.A.S.C. 109-6; H.A.S.C. 109-7; H.A.S.C. 109-8; H.A.S.C. 109-9;
H.A.S.C. 109-10; H.A.S.C. 109-11; H.A.S.C. 109-13; H.A.S.C.
109-14; H.A.S.C. 109-15; H.A.S.C. 109-16; H.A.S.C. 109-17;
H.A.S.C. 109-18; H.A.S.C. 109-19; H.A.S.C. 109-20; H.A.S.C.
109-21; H.A.S.C. 109-22; H.A.S.C. 109-23; H.A.S.C. 109-24;
H.A.S.C. 109-25; H.A.S.C. 109-26; H.A.S.C. 109-27)
PUBLIC LAW 109-164 (H.R. 972)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes.
Public Law 109-164, the Trafficking Victims Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2005, which authorized appropriations
for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to combat international
trafficking in persons and domestic trafficking in persons. The
measure is meant to assist in the prevention of trafficking in
conjunction with post-conflict and humanitarian emergency
assistance, protection of victims of trafficking in person, and
enhancing prosecutions of trafficking in persons offenses
especially when they are employed by or accompanying the
Federal Government outside the United States.
H.R. 972 was introduced and referred to the Committee on
International Relations, as well as the Committees on Armed
Services, the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce on February
17, 2005. On December 14, 2005, the bill, as amended, passed
the House under suspension of the rules. The Senate passed the
measure on December 22, 2005 by unanimous consent without
amendment. It was signed by the President and became law on
January 10, 2006.
PUBLIC LAW 109-272 (H.R. 5683)
To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California,
by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the
United States.
Public Law 109-272, to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans
Memorial in San Diego, California, for the immediate
acquisition of the memorial by the United States. The measure
vests title and possession of the Mt. Soledad Veterans
Memorial, a national memorial honoring American veterans of all
wars, including the War on Terrorism, in the United States.
On June 26, 2006, H.R. 5683 was introduced and referred to
the Committee on Resources, as well as the Committee on Armed
Services. On July 19, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5683 under
suspension of the rules. The Senate passed the measure on
August 1, 2006 by unanimous consent without amendment. On
August 14, 2006, H.R. 5683 was signed by the President and
became law.
PUBLIC LAW 109-364 (H.R. 5122)
To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military
activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes.
Public Law 109-364, the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, authorizes funds
totaling $455,383,431,000 for national defense functions for
fiscal year 2006 and provides a budget authority level of
$462,760,229,000.
Division A
Division A of Public Law 109-364 authorizes funds for
fiscal year 2007 for the Department of Defense.
Subtitle A of title I authorizes $84,153,588,000 for
procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat
vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed
forces, defense agencies, and reserve components of the armed
forces.
Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional
program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of,
or funds for specified programs for the armed forces,
including: acquisition strategy for tactical wheeled vehicles;
multiyear procurement authority for the MH-60R helicopter, the
V-22 aircraft, and the F-22A fighter aircraft; sense of
Congress on the size of the attack submarine force;
modernization of the intercontinental ballistic missile;
description of the bomber force structure and strategic airlift
force structure.
Subtitle A of title II authorizes $73,607,976,000 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 six separate
research and development-related matters, including: Future
Combat Systems, acquisition and cost estimate for the joint
strike fighter propulsion system.
Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile
defense programs and miscellaneous matters, including
limitation on funds for space-based interceptor.
Subtitle A of title III authorizes $129,018,149,000 for
operation and maintenance, $23,847,112,000 for other programs,
and $2,436,430,000 for working capital funds for the armed
forces and defense agencies.
Subtitles B through F of title III address environmental
provisions; program requirements, restrictions, and
limitations; workplace and depot issues; studies and reports
relating to military readiness; and other miscellaneous
matters.
Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2004 and authorizes
appropriations of $110,098,628,000 for military personnel for
fiscal year 2007. The end strengths for active duty personnel
for fiscal year 2007 are as follows:
Army, 512,400
Navy, 340,700
Marine Corps, 180,000
Air Force, 334,200
The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2007 are
as follows:
Army National Guard, 350,000
Army Reserve, 205,000
Naval Reserve, 73,100
Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600
Air National Guard, 106,800
Air Force Reserve, 74,000
Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000
The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of
the reserve components for fiscal year 2006 are as follows:
Army National Guard, 27,396
Army Reserve, 15,270
Naval Reserve, 13,392
Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261
Air National Guard, 13,123
Air Force Reserve, 2,290
Title V sets military personnel policy, including
provisions that address officer personnel policy, including
officer promotion policy and joint officer management
requirements; the reserve component management; education and
training, including service academies, JROTC, and scholarships
and financial assistance programs; general service authorities;
military justice matters; decorations and awards; issues
relating to casualties; impact aid and defense dependents
education; the armed forces retirement home; reports; 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; retired
pay and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund
instrumentality benefits; and other matters.
Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as
TRICARE program improvements; selected studies and reports;
planning, programming and management of military health care;
and other matters.
Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition
management and related matters, including: issues relating to
Major Defense Acquisition Programs; amendments to general
contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations; and
matters relating to the United States defense industrial base.
Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and
management provisions, including space activities; chemical
demilitarization; and intelligence-related matters.
Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial
matters; policy relating to vessels and shipyards; counter-drug
activities; force structure and defense policy matters;
reports; general authorities and limitations of the
availability and use of funds; matters involving detainees; and
additional issues.
Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel
matters.
Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations,
including: assistance and training; nonproliferation and
countries of concern.
Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with
states of the Former Soviet Union.
Title XIV addresses matters relating to defense against
terrorism and other related security matters.
Title XV includes authorization for increased cost due to
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
Division B
Division B of Public Law 109-364 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $17,098,423,000 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 2007.
In addition, Division B contains military construction and
family housing program changes; property and facilities
administration; provisions concerning base closure and
realignment; land conveyances; energy security; and other
matters.
Division C
Division C of Public Law 109-364 authorizes appropriations
in the amount of $15,840,330,000 for Department of Energy
national security programs for fiscal year 2007. Division C
also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; National Defense Stockpile;
Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration.
The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 5122, as
amended, to the House on May 5, 2006. The measure passed the
House, as amended, on May 11, 2006. The Senate passed by
unanimous consent H.R. 5122, as amended, on June 22, 2006,
subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and
inserting in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure,
S. 2766. The conference report was agreed to in the House on
September 29, 2006, and in the Senate on September 30, 2006.
H.R. 5122 was signed by the President and became law on October
17, 2006.
(H. Rept. 109-452; S. Rept. 109-254; H. Rept. 109-702;
H.A.S.C. 109-48; H.A.S.C. 109-53; H.A.S.C. 109-54; H.A.S.C.
109-57; H.A.S.C. 109-60; H.A.S.C. 109-62; H.A.S.C. 109-68;
H.A.S.C. 109-69; H.A.S.C. 109-72; H.A.S.C. 109-73; H.A.S.C.
109-74; H.A.S.C. 109-76; H.A.S.C. 109-95; H.A.S.C. 109-99;
H.A.S.C. 109-101; H.A.S.C. 109-102)
PUBLIC LAW 109-366 (S. 3930)
To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of
war, and for other purpose.
Public Law 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006,
was enacted by Congress in response to the Supreme Court's
decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. _, 126 S. Ct. 2749
(June 29, 2006). The measure provides for congressional
authorization of military commissions to try alien unlawful
enemy combatants for war crimes committed before, on or after
September 11, 2001. In addition, the measure eliminates Federal
court jurisdiction over pending and future habeas and civil
suits by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay and in
other U.S. facilities and limits judicial review by the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals to find judgments of military
commissions on matters of law. After being introduced in the
Senate on September 22, 2006, and laid before the Senate by
unanimous consent on September 27, 2006, S. 3930 passed the
Senate with an amendment on September 28, 2006. A House bill
pertaining to the same subject matter, H.R. 6054 was introduced
on September 12, 2006; it was referred to the Committee on
Armed Services, as well as the Committees on the Judiciary and
International Relations. On September 13, 2006, the Committee
on Armed Services met to consider H.R. 6054 and ordered the
bill to be reported, as amended. On September 25, 2006, another
bill pertaining to the same subject matter, H.R. 6166 was
introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services, as well as the Committees on the Judiciary and
International Relations. H.R. 6166 passed the House on
September 27, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the House passed S.
3930, a similar measure to H.R. 6166, without amendment. On
October 17, 2006, the President signed S. 3930 into law.
(H. Rept. 109-664, Part I)
Legislation Reported but Not Enacted
H. RES. 417
Directing Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption
of this resolution documents in the possession of the Secretary of
Defense relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of
Ms. Valerie Plame.
H. Res. 417 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request
specific factual information from the President of the United
States or the head of one of the executive departments. The
Rules of the House of Representatives provide for a committee
to report on a qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14
legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the
committee is in order. H. Res. 417 would have directed the
Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the
adoption of the resolution all documents, including telephone
and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, personnel
records, and records of internal discussions in the possession
of the Secretary of Defense relating to the disclosure of the
identity of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central
Intelligence Agency during the period beginning on May 6, 2003,
and ending on July 31, 2003.
H. Res. 417 was introduced and referred to Committee on
Armed Services on July 29, 2005. On September 20, 2005, the
Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and ordered
the resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No further
action was taken.
(H. Rept. 109-234)
H.J. RES. 65
Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission.
H.J. Res. 65 is a joint resolution which states that
Congress disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission as submitted by the
President on September 15, 2005. H.J. Res. 65 was introduced on
September 20, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Armed
Services. On September 29, 2005, the Committee on Armed
Services held a mark-up session and ordered the joint
resolution to be reported adversely. The measure failed in the
House on October 27, 2005. No further action was taken.
(H. Rept. 109-243)
H. RES. 645
Requesting the President and directing Secretary of Defense to transmit
to the House of Representatives all information in the possession of
the President or the Secretary of Defense relating to the collection of
intelligence information pertaining to persons inside the United States
without obtaining court-ordered warrants authorizing the collection of
such information and relating to the policy of the United States with
respect to the gathering of counterterrorism within the United States.
H. Res. 645 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request
specific factual information from the President of the United
States or the head of one of the executive departments. The
Rules of the House of Representatives provide for a committee
to report on a qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14
legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the
committee is in order. H. Res. 645 would have requested the
President and directed the Secretary of Defense to transmit to
the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the
date of the adoption of this resolution, all documents,
including telephone and electronic mail records, logs,
calendars, minutes, and memos, in the possession of the
President relating to the scope of the activities undertaken by
the Department of Defense, the Counterintelligence Field
Activity, or any related agency with regard to Threat and Local
Observation Notice reports; and the legal authority upon which
surveillance by the National Security Agency or the Department
of Defense of persons inside the United States and the
gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within the United
States without obtaining court-ordered warrants is based.
H. Res. 645 was introduced on December 22, 2005 and
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On March 1, 2006
the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and
ordered the resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No
further action was taken.
H. RES. 685
Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State and
Secretary of Defense provide to the House of Representatives certain
documents in their possession relating to any entity with which the
United States has contracted for public relations purposes concerning
Iraq.
H. Res. 685 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request
specific factual information from the President of the United
States or the head of one of the executive departments. The
Rules of the House of Representatives provide for a committee
to report on a qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14
legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the
committee is in order. H. Res. 685 would have requested the
President and directed the Secretary of State and Secretary of
Defense to provide to the House of Representatives, not later
than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, all
documents in the possession of the President, the Secretary of
State, or the Secretary of Defense, respectively, relating to
any entity (including the Rendon Group and the Lincoln Group)
with which the United States has entered into a contract for
public relations purposes concerning Iraq insofar as such
documents relate to such contract.
H. Res. 685 was introduced and referred to the Committee on
Armed Services on February 15, 2006. The Committee on Armed
Services held a mark-up session to consider the measure and
ordered the resolution to be reported adversely on March 16,
2006. No further action was taken.
(H. Rept. 109-397)
H.R. 6054
To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military
commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was a bill
to provide for congressional authorization of military
commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for war
crimes, and other offenses committed before, on or after
September 11, 2001. H.R. 6054 was introduced on September 12,
2006, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, as well
as, the Committees on the Judiciary and International
Relations. On September 13, 2006, the Committee on Armed
Services held a mark-up session and ordered the bill reported,
as amended. No further action was taken.
(H. Rept. 109-664, Part I)
OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
The oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Armed
Services were conducted primarily within the context of the
committee's consideration of the annual defense authorization
bills, which cover the breadth of the operations of the
Department of Defense (DOD) and a significant portion of the
operating budget of the Department of Energy. The annual
national defense budget of approximately $462.8 billion
involves millions of military and civilian personnel, thousands
of facilities, and hundreds of agencies, departments, and
military commands located throughout the world.
SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT PLAN
In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on
the United States and the ongoing U.S. military operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee conducted extensive
oversight activities during the 109th Congress, paying
particular attention to the conduct of the global war on
terrorism and force protection of military personnel,
installations, and equipment. The committee regularly received
briefings on national security threats and conducted a series
of hearings and briefings on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq
and Afghanistan, including the significant threat posed by
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). In addition, prior to
consideration of the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 defense budgets,
the committee conducted oversight hearings with the Secretary
of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
individual service secretaries and chiefs of staff, combatant
commanders, other officials of the Department of Defense and
the military departments, officials of the Central Intelligence
Agency, and other defense-related intelligence agencies, and
the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, and other officials of the Department
of Energy. The committee also received testimony from outside
experts in academia, industry, associations, and those in
private life on these matters.
While the majority of the committee's oversight was planned
to support the annual defense authorization bill, the committee
also conducted oversight activities as demanded by critical
current events.
ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following specific areas and subjects were designated
for special attention during the 109th Congress:
NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY AND OTHER DEFENSE POLICY ISSUES
During the 109th Congress, the committee took particular
interest in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and other
strategic documents of the Department of Defense. The
committee's interest included a focus on DOD transformation
efforts to improve U.S. military capabilities to address 21st
Century security challenges. Throughout both sessions of
Congress, the committee received numerous presentations and
briefings from representatives of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense, the joint staff, the services, and the combatant
commands.
On June 15, 2006, the committee received a top secret
briefing from the Department on its national defense strategy,
national military strategy, and its process for conducting the
2005 QDR. On September 14, 2005, the committee conducted an
open hearing and received testimony from former DOD officials
and outside experts on the goals and principles of the QDR. The
witnesses included the Honorable Dov S. Zakheim; Ms. Michele
Flournoy, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Dr.
Daniel Goure, Lexington Institute; and Dr. Andrew F.
Krepinevich, Jr., Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments. Following the release of the QDR on February 6,
2006, the committee turned its attention to the DOD plan to
implement the QDR's strategic direction. On March 14, 2006, the
committee conducted a hearing and received testimony on the
QDR's key findings and implementation roadmaps. Members heard
from a panel comprised of the Honorable Gordon England, Deputy
Secretary of Defense and Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr.,
United States Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Following that panel, the committee heard testimony from
outside experts, including Mr. Thomas Donnelly, Resident
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Dr. Andrew F.
Krepinevich, Jr., Executive Director, Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments; and Mr. Lawrence J. Korb, Senior Fellow,
Center for American Progress. These two panels offered
different perspectives on the overall QDR process, key
findings, and the DOD implementation plan.
Following these oversight efforts, the committee concluded
that the 2006 QDR was ``resource constrained,'' which affected
DOD assessment of threats and the capabilities required to meet
them; contradictory in its conclusions about force structure;
and at odds regarding some programmatic decisions. As a result,
in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee amended
section 118 of title 10, United States Code. This amendment
required that the analysis and recommendations in the DOD QDR
are not to be constrained by the budget request; the
identification of specific capabilities to achieve strategic
and warfighting objectives; an independent assessment of the
QDR; and a more comprehensive risk assessment from the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee also included a
provision in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requiring the
Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports on the
implementation of recommendations described in the 2006 QDR.
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD)
has conducted continuous military operations against those who
might threaten the security of the United States or its allies.
While the United States and allied forces have successfully
weakened al-Qaeda's senior leadership by capturing or killing
many al-Qaeda leaders, like the U.S. military operation which
killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist organization has
morphed into an affiliated network of terrorist cells that is
diffuse and decentralized. The al-Qaeda-affiliated network
operates in cells of varying size and organization in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. In the
Middle East, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan
and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) place new demands on the
armed forces and require new strategies that alter standard
operating procedures, training, doctrine, and traditional
concepts of operations. Moreover, as the enemy adapts their
tactics and techniques to exploit those areas where U.S.
capabilities might not be as strong, the United States requires
increased cooperation between and among federal departments and
agencies to fill those gaps.
Committee delegations visited the U.S. Central Command area
of operations to assess progress in OIF and OEF, as well as
other regions where U.S. forces are engaged in the global war
on terrorism (GWOT). In addition to oversight activities
reviewing ongoing military operations in OEF and OIF, the
committee conducted numerous hearings and classified
briefingson our military strategy for the global war on terrorism. In
November 2005, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats
and Capabilities held a classified briefing with representatives from
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the joint staff on DOD
roles, missions, and capabilities in counterterrorism. On February 8,
2006, following the release of the National Military Strategic Plan for
the global war on terrorism, administration officials, representatives
from the joint staff, and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM)
briefed the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and
Capabilities on the new strategic plan. The briefing clarified how the
military had refined its plan to meet its top priorities for defeating
al-Qaeda and affiliated movements; how the GWOT operational planning
process works; and identified those tasked with the execution of
command and control of counterterrorism operations.
The committee's review of newly published plans for the
GWOT reinforced the conclusion that winning the global war on
terrorism requires improved interagency coordination, greater
synchronization within the Department, and increased capability
to carry out irregular warfare missions, such as training and
equipping security forces in countries where terrorist
organizations operate or in countries that have large
ungoverned spaces. The Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and the full committee
held hearings in March and April 2006, on improving interagency
coordination. In both hearings, administration officials,
general officers, and outside experts all testified that
interagency coordination needs to be improved and that the U.S.
Government is insufficiently applying all elements of national
power in the GWOT. A number of witnesses advised the committee
to monitor and oversee the work of the National
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the implementation of the
NCTC's National Implementation Plan for the global war on
terrorism, which provides operational direction to all
government agencies, including the Department, on the execution
of a synchronized, national effort in the GWOT.
With respect to improving intra-agency execution of the
GWOT strategy, on June 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities held a hearing that
looked at how USSOCOM is executing its role as the lead
combatant command for planning, synchronizing, and executing
global operations against terrorist networks. This hearing, and
subsequent classified briefings, reviewed the DOD Global
Campaign Plan for the global war on terrorism, which was
completed in 2005. In light of the military strategic plan's
emphasis on unconventional warfare operations in the global war
on terrorism, as well as the 2006 QDR's irregular warfare
roadmap, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats,
and Capabilities held a hearing on September 27, 2006, on steps
the Department is taking to increase and improve the military's
irregular warfare capability.
As a result of these oversight activities, the committee
recommended the statutory adoption of several provisions
designed to oversee and enhance implementation of U.S. strategy
in the global war on terrorism. These provisions, contained in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Public Law 109-163) and the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
required the Secretary of Defense to issue quarterly reports on
the war strategy in Iraq, to report on the findings of the
assessment process relating to the global war on terrorism, and
authorized enhancements to the regional combating terrorism
fellowship program. In the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702)
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee
directed the Secretary to submit a report that clarifies the
roles and responsibility of the commander of USSOCOM in his
capacity as the supported combatant commander in the GWOT.
Committee hearings and briefings on the need for improved
interagency coordination in the global war on terrorism
contributed to a provision in the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364),
which required a presidential report on building interagency
capacity and enhancing integration of civilian capabilities of
the executive branch with capabilities of the armed forces.
Similarly, in the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702)
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee
directed the Secretary to provide a report on how the
Department is improving and strengthening internal Department
of Defense mechanisms for global war on terrorism interagency
coordination at the strategic, operational, and tactical
levels. Finally, the committee's emphasis on increasing our
capability to operationalize the global war on terrorism
strategy, particularly increasing the military's irregular
warfare capability, contributed to a provision in the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364), which required the Secretary to report on
the implementation of the 2006 QDR recommendations.
IRAQ
The committee closely observed the Iraqi political events
in 2005 and 2006, which established an inclusive constitutional
process for Iraq. In January 2005, Iraq held elections as
scheduled to select a 275-seat Transitional National Assembly,
with a 58 percent voter turnout. In April 2005, interim Prime
Minister Ayad Allawi stepped down after the Assembly selected
Ibrahim al-Jaafari as the permanent prime minister. By August
2005, the Iraqi Constitutional Committee completed its final
draft of the constitution to replace the Transitional
Administrative Law. In October, more than 63 percent of
eligible Iraqis voted in the referendum with the constitution
passing by a 79 percent majority. Parliamentary elections were
held in December 2005, with the final results certified in
January 2006. There was close to 80 percent voter turnout and
minimal violence surrounding the election. Iraqi leaders formed
a broad, unity government in April 2006, with significant Sunni
representation and Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister.
While the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) continued to grow in
numbers and capability in 2006, violence escalated, notably in
Baghdad, after the February 2006, bombing of the Askariya
mosque. The death of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June
2006, was a major success for coalition forces and the
government of Iraq. Also in June, the Director of National
Intelligence, John Negroponte, released unclassified key points
from a National Ground Intelligence Center report on the
recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. In November 2006, an
Iraqi court, independent of the political process, convicted
Saddam Hussein for murdering his own people and sentenced him
to death.
To exercise proper oversight, the committee conducted
briefings and hearings with representatives from the Department
of Defense (DOD) and policy community. In January 2005, the
committee received a top secret briefing on operations and
intelligence in support of Iraq, tsunami relief, and activities
in Afghanistan; and a secret briefing on the efforts to train
Iraqi security forces and on the then-upcoming Iraqi elections.
The committee met on February 2, 2005, to receive a secret
briefing on the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom force protection initiatives and on March 8, 2005, to
receive a secret briefing from General George W. Casey, Jr.,
United States Army, Commander, Multi-National Forces, Iraq. The
committee met again on March 17, 2005, to receive testimony on
current operations and the political transition in Iraq from
witnesses, including Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Executive
Director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Dr.
Steven Metz, Chairman, Regional Strategy, and Planning,
Research Professor of National Security Affairs, United States
Army War College Strategic Studies Institute; and the Honorable
Walter B. Slocombe, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
and former Senior Advisor for Defense and Security Sector
Affairs to the Coalition Provisional Authority for Iraq.
On April 6, 2005, the committee received testimony on
Iraq's past, present, and future from General Wesley Clark,
United States Army (Ret.), Former Combatant Commander, European
Command and the Honorable Richard Perle, Former Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. In June
2005, committee members attended a session to review the most
recent reports from the International Committee of the Red
Cross related to the Iraq theater of operations detention
facilities and received a top secret brief from joint staff
officials on metrics, trends, and the Iraqi security forces; a
briefing from General Barry McCaffrey, United States Army
(Ret.) on his experiences and observation in Iraq; and a closed
briefing with DOD officials on Iraqi Security Forces. The
committee also received testimony on June 23, 2005, on the
Progress of the Iraqi Security Forces from witnesses, including
the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; General
Richard B. Myers, United States Air Force, Chairman, Joint
Chiefs of Staff; General John Abizaid, United States Army,
Commander, Central Command; and General George W. Casey, Jr.,
United States Army, Commander, Multi-National Forces--Iraq. On
July 21, 2005, the committee received a secret brief on the DOD
work in developing and tracking metrics for OIF.
On September 29, 2005, the committee held an open hearing
and closed briefing on operations in Iraq. The Honorable Donald
Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, refuted the notion that
commanders on the ground had been reluctant to request an
increase in troop strength, stating that the needs of the
commanders on the ground for force levels would be met. Al-
Qaeda and its associated extremists, according to General John
Abizaid, United States Army, Commander, U.S. Central Command,
were the main threat to peace and stability in the region.
General George W. Casey, Jr., United States Army, Commander,
Multi-National Forces, Iraq, warned that the United States
should expect a protracted conflict in Iraq.
On June 29, 2006, the director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency, Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, United States
Army, testified in an open session on the revelations
concerning weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. He stated
that the munitions in question--containing mustard and Sarin
nerve agent--qualified as chemical weapons and would be capable
of causing mass casualties under certain circumstances. Mr.
Frank J. Gaffney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Center for Security Policy, started off a second panel of
civilian witnesses by stressing that these chemical weapons
were precisely the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam
Hussein had been required by the United Nations Security
Council to destroy. In his written testimony for the panel, Mr.
Terence Taylor, Director of the International Council for Life
Sciences and former commissioner to the United Nations Special
Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq, underscored the dangers posed by
insurgents obtaining and using these weapons. David Kay,
weapons inspector and the first director of the Central
Intelligence Agency's Iraq Survey Group, expressed disagreement
about the lethality of the munitions. Immediately following
that open hearing, the committee attended a highly classified
briefing from intelligence officials on the contents of the
report.
On November 15, 2006, the committee held an open hearing to
assess the ongoing military operations in Iraq. General John
Abizaid, United States Army, Commander, U.S. Central Command,
addressed the level of sectarian violence, noting its
concentration in the vicinity of Baghdad, and the need for
meaningful national reconciliation to quell it. He stated that
Iraq could still be stabilized and supported managing force
levels without specific timetables for withdrawal. Ambassador
David Satterfield, Senior Advisor on Iraq to the Secretary of
State, stressed that Iraqis do not want to see their country
torn apart. He advised that the dissolution of Iraq into
separate political entities would come at a price in human
suffering that the United States would not be willing to bear.
Attaching importance to the acceleration of transitioning
responsibility for security and stability to the Iraqi Security
Forces, the committee responded with an emergency authorization
of $1.7 billion in the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
This additional authorization for the Iraq Security Forces Fund
Program will enhance the ability of the commander, Multi-
National Security Transition Command--Iraq, to provide
equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and
infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction for the
Iraqi Security Forces.
The committee recognized the good will of the Iraqi people
that accrued from the humanitarian support for Iraqi children
in urgent need of medical care. Therefore, it recommended a
provision adopted in the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
that authorized $1.0 million and expressed a sense of Congress
that the Secretary of Defense continue to provide space-
available transportation on military aircraft from Baghdad to
Amman, Jordan for Iraqi children.
Finally, in expressing appreciation for the actions that
resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Committee on
Armed Services joined with the Senate Committee on Armed
Services in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to commend the U.S.
armed forces, the intelligence community, other Federal
agencies and coalition partners. The provision also contained a
sense of Congress that exhorted Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to
end ethnic and sectarian violence.
Detainee Policy and Military Commissions
On May 11, 2005, the U.S. Southern Command announced that
General John Craddock, commander, U.S. Southern Command, had
directed an inquiry into allegations of mishandling of the
Koran at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The inquiry was prompted by allegations in the media in May
2005 that U.S. personnel at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down
a toilet. Additional media allegations of torture, harsh
interrogations techniques, and improper medical treatment
involving detainees continued to focus public attention on
detainee affairs and the committee continued its intensive
oversight into detainee policy begun in the 108th Congress.
Because the detainee treatment issue involved sensitive matters
associated with criminal investigations and prosecutions and
into classified matters associated with intelligence collection
techniques, much of the committee's oversight of detainee
matters was conducted in classified forums. Thus, in addition
to the four public hearings specifically on detainee treatment
and one posture hearing devoted in part to detainee matters,
the committee conducted eight member briefings (including
several opportunities for members to review reports by the
International Committee of the Red Cross) and fourteen staff
briefings related to detainee affairs. Additionally, many
committee members and several staff made separate trips to
reviewdetainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
committee also received documents detailing the results of three
investigations by the Department of Defense regarding alleged detainee
mistreatment. Finally, the committee received 108,000 pages of
documents from the Department of Defense related to Freedom of
Information Act requests regarding detainee matters. The conferees for
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law
109-163), consisting of 26 members of the committee and 23 members of
the Senate Armed Services Committee, added a Title to that measure
regarding detainee treatment and the committee reported out one bill
concerning detainee matters.
The first statutory provision, the ``Detainee Treatment Act
of 2005'' (Title XIV of Public Law 109-163) originated in the
Senate amendment to H.R. 1815, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The Senate amendment
contained three provisions (secs. 1074, 1075, and 1092)
relating to detainees. The first provision (sec. 1074) provided
for uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under
the detention of the Department of Defense. The second
provision (sec. 1075) prohibited cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control
of the U.S. Government. The third provision (section 1092)
provided procedures for the legal review of detainees held by
the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The House
bill contained no similar provisions. The House receded with an
amendment that would establish a new title of the bill, Title
XIV, addressing matters relating to detainees. Section 1401
designated the title as the ``Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.''
Section 1402 contained the text of Senate section 1074 without
change. Section 1403 contained the text of Senate section 1075
without change. Section 1404 was a new provision providing for
an affirmative defense in any civil action or criminal
prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the armed
forces, or other agent of the U.S. Government, arising out of
that person's engaging in specific operation practices
involving detention or interrogation of aliens who the
President or his designees determined to be engaged in or
associated with international terrorist activity. Section 1405
amended Sec. 1092 of the Senate amendment and addressed the
procedures for legal review of detainees held by the Department
of Defense. Section 1406 was a new provision requiring the
Department of Defense to train Iraqi military forces regarding
the international obligations and laws applicable to the humane
detention of detainee, including protections afforded under the
Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and
providing for Arabic translation and distribution of the Army
Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation to Iraqi security
forces. The conference report for H.R. 1815 was agreed to
without amendment by the House of Representatives on December
19, 2005 by a reported vote of 374-41. The Senate agreed to the
Conference report by Voice Vote on December 21, 2005. The
President signed H.R. 1815 on January 6, 2006 and it became
Public Law 190-163. Similar legislation was passed as Title X
of Public Law 109-148, signed by the President on December 30,
2005.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 109-148, the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 contained an earlier draft of the Detainee
Treatment Act of 2005 than adopted by Congress in Public Law 109-163.
Public Law 109-148 contained a minor punctuation difference between
Section 1005(b) and Section 1405(b) of Public Law 109-168. Sections
1006(a)(1) (required policies in general); Section 1006(b)(91) (provide
portions of Field Manual) and Section 1006(b)(2) (distrubution of Field
Manual) of Public Law 109-148 did not include modifications later
written into Sections 1406(a)(1), 1406(b)(1) and 1406(b)(2) of Public
Law 109-163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second statutory provision, the ``Military Commissions
Act of 2006'' (``MCA') was enacted by Congress in response to
the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. _,
126 S. Ct. 2749 (June 29, 2006). In a 5-3 decision, the court
held that military commissions set up by the Bush
Administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay were illegal
under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and common
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Court also found that
Section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-148, December 30, 2005) did not deprive the Court of
jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court ruled absent clear
congressional intent, there would be a presumption against
retroactive application of the statute and also found that
because the provision excluding the Court of jurisdiction
lacked explicit language regarding pending cases contained in
two other jurisdictional provisions, a negative inference could
be drawn because of the exclusion of the language. After the
Hamdan decision the committee held three oversight hearings
into military commissions and related matters and on September
12, 2006 Mr. Hunter introduced H.R. 6054, which was referred to
the Committee on Armed Services and to the Committees on the
Judiciary and International Relations. On September 13, 2006,
the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and
ordered the bill to be reported, as amended. On September 25,
2006, Mr. Hunter introduced a similar measure, H.R. 6166, which
was the result of a compromise between the Administration, the
Senate and House Republican. On September 27, 2006, H.R. 6166
was considered and passed by the House, 253-168, without
amendment. On September 28, 2006, the Senate considered and
passed S. 3930, an identical measure to H.R. 6166, by a
recorded vote of 65-34. On September 29, 2006, the House
considered S. 3930 and passed it without amendment by a vote of
250-170. On October 17, 2006, the President signed S. 3930 into
law. As adopted, sections 2 and 3 of the MCA provide
congressional authorization for military commissions to try
alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes and other
offenses committed before, on or after September 11, 2001.
Section 3 also establishes procedures for the use of classified
evidence, hearsay and statements allegedly obtained by coercive
methods. Section 5 of the MCA clarifies that the Geneva
Conventions are not an enforceable source of rights in any
habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding by an
individual in U.S. courts. Section 6 of the MCA amends the War
Crimes Act (18 USC-2441) to criminalize grave breaches of
common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and provides that
the amended War Crimes Act fully satisfies U.S. treaty
obligations under common Article 3. Section 6 of the MCA also
provides that the President may promulgate standards for
violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches
of the Geneva Conventions. Sections 7 and 10 of the MCA
eliminates Federal court jurisdiction over pending and future
habeas and civil suits by enemy combatants detained at
Guantanamo Bay and in other U.S. facilities and limits judicial
review by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to find judgments
of military commissions on matters of law. These cases will be
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. Finally, Sections 8-10 of the MCA
amend the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to conform with
military commissions established under the Military Commissions
Act.
INTELLIGENCE
The committee worked closely with the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for Intelligence in monitoring the transition by the
Department of Defense from the prior Joint Military
Intelligence Program/Tactical Intelligence and Related
Activities Program to the new Military Intelligence Program.
The committee held a number of classified intelligence
briefings dealing with both the global war on terrorism (GWOT)
and matters of strategic intelligence. On February 8, 2006, the
committee received briefings by the Department of Defense on
the gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within the
United States (the Threat and Local Observation Notice program)
and by the Department of Justice on the legal basis for the
National Security Agency's electronic surveillance program. On
March 1, 2006, the committee held a mark-up of a resolution of
inquiry (H. Res. 645) on these two issues.
On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces held a joint hearing on a Special Operations
Command project conducted in the 1999-2000 timeframe. This
project, known as ``Able Danger,'' involved the use of data-
mining tools to perform ``linkage analysis'' to map out certain
features of the al-Qaeda network. There had been certain
allegations made that prior to the September 11th terrorist
attacks certain elements of the Department of Defense knew the
identity of one or more of the September 11th hijackers.
Testimony at the hearing was focused on the value of the ``Able
Danger'' data-mining intelligence program and what information
was known prior to September 11, 2001. The joint subcommittee
hearing concluded that the intelligence community did not know
the identity or intended actions of the hijackers prior to the
attacks and that nothing known in the ``Able Danger'' project
could have prevented the tragedy.
SPACE PROGRAMS
The committee remained focused on the policies and programs
associated with the protection of national security space
assets and the development of space-based effects in military
operations. Committee members regularly received briefings on
threats to our space assets and space security issues. A
hearing on space and U.S. national power provided a greater
understanding of the importance of space to national security
and the economy, bringing together perspectives from the
combatant commands, civil agencies, industry, and academia. The
committee's recognition of the expanding role of space in
military operations and increasing threats led to a requirement
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Public Law 109-163) for the Department of Defense (DOD) to
develop a space situational awareness strategy and conduct a
space control mission review and assessment for ensuring
freedom to operate domestic space assets.
In addition, particular attention was given to efforts that
increase the responsiveness of space capabilities to meet the
evolving needs of the warfighter. The committee has been at the
forefront of encouraging the Department to develop low-cost,
rapid reaction, operationally responsive space (ORS) satellite
and launch capabilities that can provide prompt, focused space
support to warfighters in their theaters of operations and more
rapidly fill the void that exists between space science,
technology efforts, and operational space requirements
development. In an effort to focus ORS activities to better
support military users, the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
established an operationally responsive space program office.
With a number of military space programs behind schedule
and over cost, the committee continued its strong oversight of
Department space acquisitions. The committee continued tracking
the performance of several high profile space programs
including Space Radar, Transformational Satellite
Communications System, Space-Based Infrared System High, and
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
System, and tasked the Government Accountability Office to
examine several of these programs and the cost estimating
processes employed by the Department. A hearing was conducted
on national security space acquisitions with government and
industry officials to discuss acquisition problems and provide
a forum for potential solutions. Committee delegations visited
the United States Strategic Command and several military
installations to gain insight into warfighter needs and the
integration of space in military operations, as well as service
laboratories and industry sites to assess technology
development in tactical satellites, responsive launch vehicles,
and progress on major space acquisition programs.
MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS
In addition to the annual Missile Defense Agency budget
hearings, the committee held several briefings on the status of
the development, operational testing, and fielding of specific
elements of the ballistic missile defense system to include
Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, Airborne Laser,
and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. The committee received
several briefings on the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA)
corrective actions in the aftermath of two unsuccessful tests
of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. The committee
explored various options for accelerating the development of
the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, specifically how to
increase the production rate of SM-3 Block IA interceptors. The
committee also met with the services and the MDA to review
plans to transition individual ballistic missile defense
elements from the MDA to the services.
ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
The committee examined a wide range of issues related to
DOD management and guidance during the 109th Congress. As a
result of the legislation enacted, the Department will be able
to respond more effectively and flexibly to the needs of the
country. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee standardized
policies regarding gifts to regional centers for security
studies. The committee continued to refine policies related to
regional centers for security studies in the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364). New language to streamline center management
allowed for personnel to conduct research and facilitated the
exchange of ideas among United States and foreign military
personnel, civilian government personnel, and non-governmental
personnel. In addition, during the second session the committee
authorized the creation of a tenth Assistant Secretary of
Defense (ASD) billet, in order to develop a balanced set of
portfolios among ASDs that would allow for more effective
interaction with both commanders of the unified combatant
commands and other Federal departments and agencies.
MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
In addition to the annual budget hearings for the Atomic
Energy Defense Activities programs, the committee received
several briefings on topics relating to the nuclear weapons
complex, including the Reliable Replacement Warhead, nuclear
weapons complex transformation, the nuclear weapons stockpile
stewardship program, consolidation of nuclear materials, the
Department of Energy's Design Basis Threat, nuclear weapons
complex physical security, and cyber-security practices.
Additionally, committee delegations visited the national
security laboratories and several industrial sites to gain
further insight into the nuclear weaponscomplex activities,
management, operations, and challenges. Recognizing the need for
transformation, the committee established objectives and directed the
Department of Energy to develop a plan for the transformation of the
nuclear weapons complex in the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
The committee established key objectives for the Reliable
Replacement Warhead program in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-363). In
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee further directed
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the
methodology used by the national security laboratories for the
certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile. This study was
directed in order to reduce the likelihood that the Reliable
Replacement Warhead will require a resumption of underground
nuclear weapons testing.
The committee conducted oversight of the management of
defense nuclear waste. The committee received briefings to
address problems associated with the Waste Treatment Plant
construction project at Hanford, Washington, and radioactive
tank waste processing and disposition at the Savannah River
Site in South Carolina. The committee conducted oversight of
the implementation of Waste Incidental to Reprocessing
legislation and recommendations made by the National Academy of
Sciences study on nuclear waste, which was required by the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).
NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND THREAT REDUCTION
The committee examined execution of Department of Energy
nuclear non-proliferation programs, paying close attention to
unobligated account balances in those non-proliferation
programs involving the Russian Federation. The committee
convened a hearing on July 26, 2006, to examine the United
States and Russian plutonium disposition strategy, as well as
the future of the United States Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Facility
construction project.
The committee conducted oversight of the Cooperative Threat
Reduction (CTR) program. In the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee
authorized a permanent waiver on restrictions for use of CTR
funds in the states of the former Soviet Union. Additionally,
the committee modified authorities to allow for the use of CTR
funds outside of the former Soviet Union. The committee
authorized a study on the proliferation of biological weapons
by the National Academy of Sciences in the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364).
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS AND EXPORT CONTROLS
During the first session of the 109th Congress, the
committee took particular interest in the potential transfer of
European advanced technologies to China in an effort to enhance
its military modernization program. On April 14, 2005, the
committee conducted a joint hearing with the Committee on
International Relations and received testimony on arms exports
to the People's Republic of China by member states of the
European Union. The committee heard testimony from the
Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political
Affairs, Department of State; the Honorable Peter Rodman,
Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs,
Department of Defense; and the Honorable Peter Lichtenbaum,
Acting Undersecretary for Industry and Security, Department of
Commerce.
In both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the committee was careful to ensure consistently that all
training and equipment provided to allies and coalition
partners remains subject to existing export control laws. For
example, section 1207 of (Public Law 109-364) requires that any
transfer of learning content and information technology is
subject to the Arms Control Act and any other export control
regime under law relating to the transfer of military
technology for foreign nations.
HOMELAND DEFENSE AND SUPPORT TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES
During the 109th Congress, the committee conducted
substantial oversight over the DOD homeland defense and support
to civil authorities missions. These activities included a
committee delegation visit to U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM),
and a March 15, 2005, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on how the Department,
particularly NORTHCOM, is setting and implementing homeland
defense policy, and how it is improving its coordination with
Department of Homeland Security. As a result of this oversight,
the committee included a provision in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163)
that required the Secretary of Defense to report on the use of
DOD aerial reconnaissance assets to support border security
missions. During the second session, the committee focused its
attention on the military's role in securing our borders. The
committee held a hearing on the border security mission of the
National Guard and held two field hearings on the security of
our northern and southern borders.
In response to Hurricane Katrina and to assess the lessons
learned from the federal response, a committee delegation
visited Mississippi and Louisiana to view the disaster zone,
the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and
Capabilities held a hearing that evaluated DOD roles and
responsibilities during catastrophic disasters, and committee
staff supported the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate
the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. As a
result of the committee's findings, in its review of the
federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the committee included a
number of provisions in the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
The committee included a provision in the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) that authorized the National Guard's weapons of
mass destruction civil support teams to respond within the
United States to intentional or unintentional releases of
nuclear, biological, radiological, toxic, or poisonous chemical
materials, or to natural or manmade disasters that could result
in the catastrophic loss of life or property. In addition, the
committee included a provision directing the Secretary of
Defense to maintain a database of emergency response
capabilities, which would include the types of emergency
response capabilities that each State's National Guard may
provide in response to a domestic disaster and the types of
capabilities the Department may provide in support of the
National Response Plan's emergency support functions. The
committee authorized the Secretary of Defense to consult with
the Secretary of Homeland Security and state governments in the
development of Department of Defense concept plans for
providing support to civil authorities.
In the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee included a
Katrina-inspired provision that amended chapter 15 of the title
10, United States Code, the so called ``Insurrection Act'', to
authorize the President to use the armed forces to restore
public order and enforce the laws of the United States, until
state authorities are capable of maintaining order, in the
event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident,
epidemic, or other serious public health emergency to such an
extent that the constituted authorities of the state are
incapable of maintaining public order and the violence impedes
the execution of the laws of the United States.
Acquisition Issues
ACQUISITION POLICY
The oversight of ever increasing costs of providing goods
and services to the warfighter was of particular importance to
the Committee on Armed Services during the 109th Congress. In
that vein, the committee held numerous briefings and hearings
related to acquisition policy and acquisition reform. In the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public
Law 109-163), the committee took aggressive steps to reform the
defense acquisition process. Notably, the committee passed
legislation requiring certification of numerous precautionary
steps before major defense acquisition programs may proceed to
the system development and demonstration phase. In addition,
the committee required a determination by the Secretary of
Defense and notification to Congress before procurement of
major weapons systems, as commercial items, is allowed.
Furthermore, the committee enacted a major change in the
procurement system by modifying the parameters of the long-
standing ``Nunn-McCurdy'' reporting requirements for programs
that exceed certain cost thresholds. By enacting stricter
reporting mechanisms, the committee ensured greater
transparency and accountability related to the purchase of
major defense acquisition programs. The committee's legislative
efforts also resulted in a wide-arching mandate that the
Department of Defense (DOD) create a management structure for
the procurement of contract services, as well as a total
reorganization of the Board of Contract Appeals. Finally, in
fiscal year 2006, the committee mandated that the Department's
review and report on DOD efforts to identify contract fraud,
waste and abuse.
On November 2, 2005, the full committee held a hearing on
the future of acquisition reform. Witnesses included: the
Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Honorable Claude M.
Bolton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition,
Logistics and Technology); the Honorable John J. Young, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development and
Acquisition; and Lieutenant General Donald J. Hoffman, United
States Air Force, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. On November 9,
2005, the full committee met in a follow-on hearing to discuss
issues related to the Defense Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor
Program. Witnesses included: the Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg,
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, and Vice Admiral Keith W. Lippert, United States
Navy, Director, Defense Logistics Agency.
In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee
continued its aggressive push to reform DOD's acquisition
system. By requiring, through legislation, a requirements
management certification-training program, the committee hopes
to drive down acquisition costs by forcing the Department to
ensure better control over ``requirements creep'' in its major
weapons procurements.
The committee also acted on several recommendations of
various acquisition reform study groups by passing legislation
allowing for a pilot program on time-certain development in
acquisition of major weapon systems, the establishment of a
panel on contracting integrity, and a formally required
determination of contract type for development programs. In
addition, the committee noted several areas of concern and
required the Department to address issues related to the use of
lead system integrators and a report and regulations on
excessive pass-through charges. In reaction to the committee's
observation of contracting in support of the global war on
terrorism, a requirement now exists for the Department to
capture the ``lessons learned'' of these operations through
formal joint policies on requirements definition, contingency
program management, and contingency contracting. Finally, the
committee signaled its concern regarding the outsourcing of
critical acquisition functions to private industry, which
raises serious concerns over potential organizational conflicts
of interest. In response, the committee passed legislation in
the annual defense bill requiring government performance of
critical acquisition functions, such as program management,
cost estimation, and systems engineering, within five years.
To address the issues surrounding the need for significant
acquisition reform, the committee held two full committee
hearings devoted to the issue. The first hearing, on March 29,
2006, addressed numerous acquisition reform studies conducted
by the Department, academia, and the private sector. Witnesses
included: Mr. Pierre Chao, Senior Fellow and Director of
Defense Industrial Initiatives, International Security Program,
Center for Strategic and International Studies; the Honorable
Robert J. Hermann, Task Force Co-Chair, Defense Science Board
Summer Study on Transformation; Lieutenant General Ronald T.
Kadish, United States Air Force (Ret.), Chairman, Defense
Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel; and Mr. Terry R.
Little, Acquisition Advisor to the Director, Missile Defense
Agency. The second hearing, on April 5, 2006, addressed the
approach by the Department in addressing the recommendations of
the various acquisition reform studies. Witnesses included: the
Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United
States, Government Accountability Office; the Honorable Kenneth
Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics; Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, United States
Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Mr. David
Patterson, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense,
Comptroller.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF WEAPONS PROGRAMS
Major weapons system development and acquisition programs
continued to experience cost growth and schedule delays over
the past several years. The committee assessed the need for
legislative action by examining causes of these problems
including: proceeding with development with immature
technology, requirements growth, late determination of
requirements, poor cost estimating, improper funding profiles,
labor, and material cost increases, poor program execution, and
program instability.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Public Law 109-163) included the following legislation to
address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance
issues with programs: Virginia-Class submarine program (section
121); LHA replacement amphibious assault ship program (section
122); cost limitation for next generation destroyer program
(section 123); Littoral Combat Ship program (section 124);
limitation on initiation of new unmanned aerial vehicle systems
(section 142); annual Comptroller General report on the Future
Combat Systems program (section 211 single set of requirements
for Army and Marine Corps heavy lift rotorcraft program
(section 217); limitation on systems development and
demonstration of Personnel Recovery Vehicle (section 219);
limitation on VXX helicopter program (section 220); report on
capabilities and costs of operational boost/ascent phase
missile defense systems (section 231); requirement for
certification before major defense acquisition program may
proceed to milestone B (section 801); and report on lead
systems integrators in the acquisition of major systems
(section 805).
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-163) included the following legislation to
address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and
performanceissues with programs: funding profile for the Modular Force
Initiative of the Army (section 113); Bridge to Future Networks Program
(section 114); Comptroller General report on the contract for the
Future Combat Systems program (section 115); CVN-21 class aircraft
carrier procurement (section 121); adherence to cost estimates for CVN-
21 class of aircraft carriers (section 122); modification of limitation
on total cost procurement of CVN-77 aircraft carrier (section 123);
construction of the first two vessels of the DDG-1000 Next Generation
Destroyer program (section 124); adherence to Navy cost estimates for
LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship program (section 125); cost
limitation for the San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship program
(section 126); procurement of Joint Primary Aircraft Training System
aircraft after fiscal year 2006 (section 138); acquisition of, and
independent cost analyses for, the Joint Strike Fighter propulsion
system (section 211); independent estimate of the costs of the Future
Combat Systems program (section 216); limitation on use of funds for
the space-based interceptor (section 222); study and report on
revisions to the Selected Acquisition Report requirements (section
803); additional certification requirements for major defense
acquisition programs before proceeding to Milestone B (section 805);
original baseline estimate for major defense acquisition programs
(section 806); and linking of award and incentive fees to acquisition
outcomes (section 814).
MILITARY MODERNIZATION
Throughout the 109th Congress, particular attention was
given to the following: a continuing examination of military
equipment modernization with respect to military capability;
Army modularity; tactical aviation; shipbuilding requirements;
unmanned aerial vehicles; missile defense; and development of
joint-service transformation programs.
The National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2006
included the following legislation to address issues related to
military modernization: Virginia-Class submarine program
(section 121); LHA replacement amphibious assault ship program
(section 122); Cost limitation for next generation destroyer
program (section 123); Littoral Combat Ship Program (section
124); Authorization of Two Additional Arleigh Burke Class
Destroyers (section 125); Limitation on initiation of new
unmanned aerial vehicle systems (section 142); Annual
Comptroller General report on Future Combat Systems program
(section 211); Single set of requirements for Army and Marine
Corps heavy lift rotorcraft program (section 217); Limitation
on systems development and demonstration of Personnel Recovery
Vehicle (section 219); Limitation on VXX helicopter program
(section 220); Report on capabilities and costs of operational
boost/ascent phase missile defense systems (section 231);
Requirement for certification before major defense acquisition
program may proceed to milestone B (section 801); and Report on
lead systems integrators in the acquisition of major systems
(section 805).
The National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007
included the following legislation to address issues related to
military modernization: Funding profile for the Modular Force
Initiative of the Army (section 113); Bridge to Future Networks
Program (section 114); Comptroller General report on the
contract for the Future Combat Systems program (section 115);
CVN-21 class aircraft carrier procurement (section 121);
Adherence to cost estimates for CVN-21 class of aircraft
carriers (section 122); Modification of limitation on total
cost procurement of CVN-77 aircraft carrier (section 123);
Construction of first two vessels under the DDG-1000 Next
Generation Destroyer program (section 124); Adherence to navy
cost estimates for LHA Replacement amphibious assault ship
program (section 125); Cost limitation for San Antonio (LPD-17)
class amphibious ship program (section 126); Procurement of
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System aircraft after fiscal
year 2006 (section 138); Acquisition of, and independent cost
analyses for, the Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system
(section 211); Independent estimate of costs of the Future
Combat Systems Program (section 216); Limitation on use of
funds for space-based interceptor (section 222); and Additional
certification requirements for major defense acquisition
programs before proceeding to Milestone B (section 805).
Military Readiness
BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT (BRAC)
On May 13, 2005, the President submitted base closure and
realignment recommendations to the BRAC Commission. Over the
next 4 months, the committee reviewed the process used by the
Department of Defense to reach recommendation decisions,
evaluated the recommendations for consistency with the BRAC
legal requirements, and ensured that the Department complied
with procedural requirements associated with the BRAC statute.
On September 8, 2005, the commission submitted amended base
realignment and closure recommendations to the President. On
September 15, 2005, the President approved the commission's
list of closures and realignments, triggering a 45
``legislative day'' clock upon expiration of which the
recommendations would become final, unless a resolution of
disapproval was enacted.
On September 29, 2005, the committee considered and
reported adversely, H.J. Res. 65, a joint resolution
disapproving the recommendations of the BRAC commission. On
October 27, 2005, the House of Representatives did not agree to
the resolution by an 85-324 vote, with one member voting
present. In the absence of an enacted joint resolution of
disapproval, the BRAC recommendations became final on November
9, 2005.
Throughout the 109th Congress, the committee reviewed the
costs and savings associated with base realignment and closure
actions, as well as anticipated budgets for BRAC
implementation. Through hearings and briefings, the committee
uncovered significant shortfalls in planned BRAC funding levels
and resolved to authorize funding to fully support executable
expenses for BRAC during fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
In addition, the committee reviewed the impact of BRAC on
affected local communities, military readiness, and the
management of the BRAC process by the military services. These
efforts resulted in a number of modifications to statutes
governing BRAC, including increased requirements for
information on the status of closure, realignment, and reuse
activities in annual reports; improved authority for the
Department to assist communities adversely affected by mission
realignments; termination of authority for construction of
projects at bases approved for closure; and additional
requirements to encourage interaction between the Department
and local communities affected by increases in military
populations resulting from BRAC.
Force Readiness and Adequacy
END STRENGTH
The committee sustained its initiatives from the previous
Congress to increase the size of both the active Army and
active Marine Corps, despite proposals in the budget requests
to maintain the authorized end strengths for those services at
fiscal year 2004 levels. As a result, the 109th Congress, in
the National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2006
and 2007, adopted committee recommendations for increases in
active Army end strength from 502,400 to 512,400 (or more than
6 percent above the 2004 levels), and for increases in active
Marine Corps end strength from 178,000 to 180,000 (or 2.9
percent above the 2004 levels). Also enacted were the
committee's recommendations for continued growth in the Army's
end strength to 532,400 and the Marine Corps end strength to
184,000 by fiscal year 2009.
During the second session of the 109th Congress, committee
concerns arose over Army plans for fiscal year 2007 to reduce
Army National Guard end strength to 332,900, which was more
than 17,000 below the 2006 authorization. Although a revised
budget request eventually restored the Army National Guard end
strength authorization to 350,000--the same as authorized in
fiscal year 2006--the committee acted to provide the additional
funding to sustain the increased end strength in the revised
budget request. As a result, the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
provided an additional $500.0 million to Army National Guard
military personnel, operations and maintenance, and defense
health accounts and $318.0 million for procurement.
MOBILIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS
Increased reliance on the reserve components to perform a
broader range of missions required the committee to consider
revisions to the statutory authorities governing the scope of
activities that could be performed by full-time support
personnel, such as military technicians (dual status) and
active guard and reserve (AGR) personnel. In general, such
personnel had been limited to missions involved in organizing,
administering, recruiting, training or instructing only the
reserve components. As a result, the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) expanded that authority to permit AGRs and military
technicians to support operational missions assigned to the
reserve components and to instruct or train active-duty members
of the armed forces, foreign military forces and Department of
Defense civilian employees and contractors, as long as that
training was conducted in the United States.
During the second session of the 109th Congress, committee
members testified before the Commission on the National Guard
and Reserves, which had been established by the Ronald W.
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005
(Public Law 108-375), providing recommendations and
perspectives with regard to the future roles and missions, pay,
benefits, support and sustainment of the reserve components. To
ensure that the commission had sufficient time to complete its
important work, the committee supported an extension of the
commission's reporting deadline to January 31, 2008. This
extension was enacted in the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
That Public Law also expanded the scope of the commission's
work by requiring an assessment be provided to the Congress not
later than March 1, 2007, of matters directly related to the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the role of the Bureau.
HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL READINESS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
Continuing the commitment to the medical readiness for
members of the reserve components, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) enhanced the TRICARE benefits for reservists and
their family members. In the first session, the 109th Congress
extended eligibility for TRICARE Standard benefits to family
members under the TRICARE Reserve Select program for six months
following the death of a covered service member. In addition,
all members of the Selected Reserve who committed to continued
service in the Selected Reserves and their families became
eligible for TRICARE Standard when not on active duty, with
cost shares ranging from 28 percent to 85 percent. The second
session of the 109th Congress standardized the cost share at 28
percent for all members of the Selected Reserve and their
families who enrolled in TRICARE Standard.
RECRUITING AND RETENTION
The committee continued to monitor recruiting and retention
trends closely throughout the 109th Congress to ensure that
programs remained effective in response to the low private
sector unemployment rate, the increasing college attendance
rate by America's youth, and the growing awareness of the
hardships and risks of war. The committee worked to anticipate
aspects of the wide array of active duty and reserve recruiting
and retention programs that require improvement and to develop
legislative solutions. To that end, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007
(Public Law 109-364) included legislation that:
(1) Increased the maximum active duty enlistment
bonus from $60,000 to $90,000 and reenlistment bonus
from $20,000 to $40,000.
(2) Authorized a new bonus to encourage members to
transfer between services and set the maximum amount at
$10,000.
(3) Increased the reserve enlistment bonus from
$10,000 to $20,000.
(4) Made reservists eligible for a critical skill
retention bonus of up to $100,000 over a career.
(5) Increased medical education loan repayment
authority from $22,000 to $60,000.
(6) Increased the stipend under the Health
Professions Scholarship Program from $579 a month to a
maximum of $30,000 a year.
(7) Increased the maximum grant under the Health
Professions Scholarship Program from $15,000 to
$45,000.
(8) Increased the reserve critical health skill
special pay from $10,000 to $25,000.
(9) Increased the accession bonus for dentists from
$30,000 to $200,000.
(10) Established a $400,000 accession bonus for
critical physician and dentist skills.
(11) Authorized a $50,000 bonus to encourage retired
members and separated members to return to active duty
to fill shortage manpower requirements in units with
high-demand, low-density missions.
(12) Increased the maximum amount of the nuclear
career accession bonus from $20,000 to $30,000.
(13) Increased the Army bonus for referral of
recruits from $1,000 to $2,000 and expands the eligible
population to retirees and civilian employees.
(14) Established an $8,000 bonus for enlistments to
enter a commissioning program.
MILITARY COMPENSATION
The committee continued to closely monitor compensation
programs during the 109th 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 privatesector standards. The
committee's active oversight of these issues resulted in legislation in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law
109-163) and John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007
(Public Law 109-364) that authorized a 3.1 percent raise in basic pay
during fiscal year 2006 and a 2.2 percent raise in basic pay during
fiscal year 2007. Public Law 109-364 also included additional targeted
pay raises for warrant officers and mid-grade and senior enlisted
personnel. The combination of the basic pay raise and the targeted pay
raise resulted in an average pay increase during fiscal year 2007 of
2.7 percent. The two military pay raises in the 109th Congress were
both one-half of one percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and
extended to eight the number of consecutive years where Congress
authorized pay raises above the ECI level. As a result of the pay
raises in fiscal year 2006 and 2007, the gap between military and
private sector pay during the 109th Congress was reduced from 5.0
percent to 4.0 percent, well below the peak pay gap of 13.5 percent in
fiscal year 1999. With the addition of the fiscal year 2007 pay raise,
average pay levels have increased 41 percent over the last 8 years.
In addition, the committee saw the need to increase
benefits for deployed service members, to include mobilized
reserve component members serving at locations inside the
United States and overseas. As a result, legislation enacted
during the 109th Congress: increased the maximum hardship duty
pay from $300 to $750 per month; authorized income replacement
of up to $3,000 per month for reservists who experienced
reduced income while serving extended or frequent tours on
active duty; set the reserve component rates for basic
allowance for housing (BAH) at active duty levels when
reservists are mobilized for over 30 days, thereby eliminating
the discriminatory Type II BAH for reserve members; and
authorized an allowance to pay the premiums for the full cost
of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance premiums for service
members serving in the Iraq or Afghanistan combat zone.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
During the 109th Congress the committee spent considerable
time assessing the adequacy of mental heath services available
to service members and their families. In particular, the
committee focused on the continuum of mental health services
provided throughout the deployment cycle. The committee staff
continued to visit military installations to gather information
from returning service members and their families regarding the
availability and adequacy of mental health programs. These
visits led to a Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing on
mental health in July 2005, and several legislative initiatives
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Public Law 109-163) and John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364). As a result,
Congress required the Secretary of Defense to establish a task
force to examine mental health issues in the armed forces and
to develop a long-term plan for improving mental health
services provided to service members and their families. In
addition, legislative provisions authorized pilot projects that
focused on early diagnosis and treatment of post traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) and required the use of internet-based
tools to assist family members to identify early signs of PTSD.
In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee
recognized the increased incidence of traumatic brain injury in
service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Of
particular concern are injuries suffered as a result of blasts
that may not be accompanied by obvious head trauma and thus may
never be diagnosed. The committee took action in the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law
109-364) to ensure deployment medical screening included
screening for traumatic brain injury and directed a
longitudinal study on the long term physical and mental effects
of traumatic brain injury incurred by service members. The
purpose of the study was to identify the health care needs, the
availability of long-term health care and the effects of a
traumatic brain injured service member on family members.
MILITARY AND MILITARY RETIREE HEALTH CARE
Throughout the 109th 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 to the long term viability of the military
health system. For several years the committee was 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 closely examined
DOD's proposal to sustain the military health care benefit and
contain costs by shifting costs to military beneficiaries,
particularly military retirees. As a result, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
2007 (Public Law 109-364) included several legislative
initiatives to control the cost of the military health system
while ensuring the future of the military health benefit. For
example, Congress established a task force to conduct a
comprehensive assessment on the future of military health care
and provide the Department with recommendations for improving
and sustaining the military health system; required the
Comptroller General to study the pharmacy benefits program and
to audit DOD's health care costs and cost saving measures; and
imposed temporary prohibitions on cost increases in the retail
pharmacy program and TRICARE fees. In addition, committee
action led to the enactment of a demonstration project on
coverage of over-the-counter drugs under the pharmacy benefits
program and a feasibility study of using Medicare Advantage
managed care methods for TRICARE-Medicare dual eligible
beneficiaries.
The committee continued to focus attention on the
availability of health care providers under TRICARE and access
to care for military beneficiaries. Responding to concerns
raised by health care providers over the administrative
requirements of the TRICARE program, Congress adopted
legislation to standardize claims processing under the TRICARE
and Medicare programs.
SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY
In the 109th Congress, the committee took an active role in
reviewing how the military justice system treated sexual
assaults and in preventing sexual assaults in the armed forces.
Specifically with regard to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (UCMJ), the committee devoted much effort to examining
the recommendations from the Joint Service Committee on
Military Justice for amending the Code to improve the ability
of the military justice system to address sexual assault
offenses and conform more closely to other Federal laws. As a
result of this review, Congress adopted legislation amending
the UCMJ, including: establishing stalking as a separate
offense; providing a series of graded offenses relating to
rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct based on
aggravating factors; and extending the statute of limitations
for murder and child abuse. The Congress further clarified that
under the UCMJ the offense of rape has an unlimited statute of
limitations.
The committee remained vigilant in ensuring that the
efforts to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the
military continued as a Department of Defense priority. The
committee became aware that the majority of the cadets and
midshipmen at the military service academies considered the
annual requirement for gathering information on sexual assault
and sexual harassment to be burdensome, an attitude that
threatened the quality and reliability of the survey data. To
address these concerns the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364) changed the
frequency of the service academy sexual assault survey from an
annual requirement to one in which surveys would be conducted
in odd numbered years. In any year that a survey is not
required, the secretary of the military service will provide
focus groups to gather information regarding sexual assault and
sexual harassment issues at the academy.
MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR) PROGRAMS
The committee acted throughout the 109th Congress to
improve the effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and
commissaries and MWR programs and to protect these critical
programs for future generations of service members. As a
result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006 (Public Law 109-163) and John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364) included a
number of legislative initiatives to address the many concerns
that had been brought to the attention of the committee. The
legislation that the 109th Congress adopted included
initiatives that:
(1) Protected commissaries from contracting out
competitions under Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-76 until December 31, 2008.
(2) Mandated the use of appropriated dollars to
support second destination transportation costs for
shipping exchange products to overseas stores.
(3) Allocated $7.0 million to Armed Forces Recreation
Centers to reimburse for costs of facilities used to
support the Rest and Recuperation Leave Program.
(4) Clarified that the revenue for products that are
sold in commissaries as special exceptions to the
standard surcharge of five percent shall be applied to
the surcharge fund as if the products were uniform
surcharge products.
(5) Protected the right for exchanges, commissaries,
and MWR activities to provide support services in
enhanced use leases of government property.
(6) Required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study to determine the cost effectiveness of non-
appropriated fund activities purchasing commercial
insurance to protect financial interests in facilities.
Science, Technology and Environmental Issues
INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL BASE
Perhaps one of the most overlooked and underappreciated
components of our national defense is the criticality of
ensuring a strong industrial and technological base. Beyond
simply providing American workers jobs and economic
opportunity, the role of the industrial and technological base
is a vital component of our national security. In its efforts
to strengthen the industrial base, the committee enacted
significant reforms related to section 2533a of title 10,
United States Code, commonly known as the Berry Amendment. In
the first session of the 109th Congress, the committee included
in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), requirements for
training of the defense acquisition workforce on the
requirements of the Berry Amendment. In addition, a change was
made to the Berry amendment to clarify domestic source
requirements relating to clothing materials and components.
On July 13, 2005, the full committee addressed the issue of
the national security implications of the possible merger of
the China National Offshore Oil Corporation with Unocal
Corporation. Witnesses included: R. James Woolsey, former
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Honorable C.
Richard D'Amato, Chairman, U.S.-China Economic and Security
Review Commission, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO,
Center for Security Policy, and Jerry Taylor, Director of
Natural Resources Studies, CATO Institute.
In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee
took even stronger action to strengthen the industrial base by
enacting major reform of the Berry amendment through the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364). By dividing the Berry amendment into two
separate sections of the United States Code, sections 2533a and
2533b, the committee created a distinction between the
requirements for protection of domestic sources of different
types of materials. In section 2533b of title 10, United States
Code, the committee created a separate section to signify the
strategic and national security significance of ensuring a
reliable supply of specialty metals. By requiring the
Department of Defense to create a robust and workable waiver
process, to include transparency and compliance plans, the
committee sought to capitalize on market forces to strengthen
our industrial base. The committee hopes that the market will
recognize the opportunities presented by awareness of Berry
waivers to stimulate new producers to meet the growing, and
transparent, needs of the Department.
To ensure that the Department continues to recognize the
strategic significance of domestic protection for certain
materials, the committee created a Strategic Materials
Protection Board, within the Department of Defense, which will
meet on a bi-annual basis. The purpose of the board is to
leverage the assets of the Executive Branch to conduct a
periodic analysis of those items whose domestic availability is
critical to national security. The committee is hopeful that
those analyses will result in thoughtful recommendations for
the inclusion or exclusion of certain materials from future
domestic preference legislation.
ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
The Committee on Armed Services addressed the following
areas and subjects in addition to those designated for special
attention during the 109th Congress:
Global Force Posture
During the 109th Congress, the committee continued its
oversight of Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to realign its
forces around the world. Over the last two years, the committee
conducted several hearings and received briefings on those
efforts. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee included a
provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop
criteria, as part of the Global Force Posture Review, for
assessing the costs and benefits of deploying to particular
overseas locations and for establishing new overseas
facilities. The committee also included a provision requiring
the Secretary of Defense to notify the committee within 30 days
after the United States entered into an agreement with a
foreign country to support the deployment of elements of the
U.S. armed forces in that country.
During the second session of the 109th Congress, the
committee received an update on DOD force realignment plans and
used the hearing to assess whether the Department is prepared
to address the many resulting requirements of those realignment
plans. On June 20, 2006, the committee heard testimony from the
Honorable Ryan Henry, Principal Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy; the Honorable Philip W. Grone, Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Installations and Environment; and Rear Admiral
William D. Sullivan, Vice Director for Strategic Plans and
Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Interagency Reform
During the 109th Congress, the committee noted that the
United States faces a more diverse set of national security
challenges than those faced during the Cold War and that the
major national security institutions designed for the Cold War
lack adequate capacity to address the security challenges of
the 21st Century. The committee recognized that the executive
branch and Congress must continue to strengthen Federal
institutions to ensure that interagency structure, policies,
and processes support integrated planning and unified action in
response to current and future national security challenges. On
April 4, 2006, the committee conducted a hearing and received
testimony on both existing deficiencies in interagency
collaboration and the executive branch's efforts to improve
interagency coordination for current conflicts and beyond. The
witnesses included the Honorable Thomas W. O'Connell, Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity
Conflict, Department of Defense; Admiral Edmund P.
Giambastiani, United States Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs
of Staff; Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, Coordinator for
Counterterrorism, Department of State; and Vice Admiral John
Scott Redd, United States Navy (Retired), Director, National
Counterterrorism Center.
In an effort to improve the effective employment of all
instruments of U.S. national power, the committee included
legislation on interagency reform in the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). This provision requires the President to submit a report
to Congress on building interagency capacity and enhancing the
integration of civilian and military capabilities to achieve
U.S. national security goals and objectives. This report should
also include recommendations for specific legislative proposals
to improve interagency coordination to be considered in the
future. In addition, the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the committee on interagency counter-drug
implementation plans for Afghanistan and 10 other countries in
South and Central Asia.
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
During the 109th Congress, the committee spent considerable
time examining the practices of the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in terms of how it
reviews the national security implications of foreign
acquisitions of, or mergers with, U.S. companies. On July 13,
2005, the committee conducted a hearing on the national
security implications of the possible merger of the China
Offshore National Oil Corporation with Unocal Corporation,
where witness testimony advocated a more rigorous and
transparent national security-minded CFIUS process. Similarly
in response to CFIUS' approval of Dubai Ports World's
acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation
Company, the committee held a hearing on March 2, 2006, on the
national security implications of the deal and the CFIUS
process, and on November 14, 2006, the committee held a closed
briefing on the Lucent Technologies-Alcatel merger. Both
activities included witness testimony which advocated
legislative reform of CFIUS.
In addition to these committee activities, committee staff
investigated the national security implications of other
pending CFIUS cases, such as the Toshiba Westinghouse
acquisition and Dubai International Capital's acquisition of
Doncasters Group Limited. The committee also participated in
the drafting of the National Security Foreign Investment Reform
and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2006, which the House of
Representatives approved by a vote of 424-0 on July 26, 2006.
The Senate has not taken action on the National Security
Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act,
but if codified, the legislation would improve how CFIUS
monitors and enforces mitigation agreements in CFIUS-approved
deals, and would increase Congressional oversight of the CFIUS
process. Finally, in the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702)
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee
directed the Secretary of Defense to report on how the
Department of Defense evaluates national security implications
of mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers subject to CFIUS review.
Foreign Assistance
During the second session of the 109th Congress, the
committee received testimony on building the capacity of
foreign military forces to address the broader authority that
allows the Department of Defense to work with the Department of
State to enable foreign militaries to carry out such missions
as combating terrorism and stability operations. On April 7,
2006, the committee heard testimony from Ambassador Eric S.
Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of
Defense; Dr. John Hillen, Assistant Secretary for Political-
Military Affairs, Department of State; and General James L.
Jones, United States Marine Corps, Commander, U.S. European
Command.
The committee came to several conclusions from its
observations of allies and coalition partners, who are
participating in the global war on terrorism and in security,
stabilization, transition, and reconstruction operations around
the world. In particular, the committee determined that
commanders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan need access to
funds to use in local rehabilitation projects. As a result, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public
Law 109-163) authorized the use of $500.0 million annually in
fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 funds for the Commander's
Emergency Response Program and a similar program to assist the
people of Afghanistan.
Additionally, the committee improved authorities regarding
the transfer of defense articles and to provide defense
services to the military and security forces of Iraq and
Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) authorized the President to
transfer $500.0 million in defense articles and related
services during fiscal year 2006 to the military and security
forces of Iraq and Afghanistan to support efforts to restore
and maintain peace and security in those countries.
The committee also took action to support coalition forces
in Iraq and Afghanistan through the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). This legislation provided temporary authority for the
Secretary of Defense to use Acquisition and Cross-Servicing
Agreements to lend certain significant military equipment to
the military forces of foreign nations that are participating
in combined operations with U.S. armed forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Limited to fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and to
specific categories of ``significant military equipment'' on
the U.S. munitions list, this authority allows the United
States to help its allies and coalition partners to better
protect their forces against weapons, such as IEDs, in theater.
Committee members also showed support for the goal of
enabling foreign militaries to carry out counterterrorism and
stability missions so that U.S. troops can focus their energies
in other arenas. In the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee
established a pilot program within the Department of Defense to
allow the Administration to establish a successful track record
for the Department, in coordination with the Department of
State, to take on this type of limited, focused mission and to
allow the Administration to address the larger issue of how the
Department of State administers the nation's traditional
foreign assistance programs. This authority, known as ``section
1206 authority,'' allowed the President to direct the Secretary
of Defense to conduct or support such a program, using up to
$200.0 million annually. This provision required the Secretary
of Defense to work with the Secretary of State to formulate and
implement such programs and provide a notification to specified
congressional committees before initiating any activities under
this authority. It further required a report from the President
on the strengths and weaknesses of current laws governing and
relating to the provision of this type of foreign assistance;
recommended changes, if any, to those laws; any organizational
and procedural changes that should be made in the Department of
Defense and the Department of State to improve their ability to
conduct such programs; and the resources and funding mechanisms
required to assure adequate funding for such programs.
Originally, this authority would have expired on September 30,
2007, but the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) extended ``section
1206 authority'' until September 30, 2008. This legislation
also modified the authority by providing it directly to the
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of
State, and allowing the Secretary of Defense to use up to
$300.0 million annually.
The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) also expanded the
Combatant Commander Initiative Fund, allowing geographic
combatant commanders to provide urgent and unanticipated
humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance, particularly
to countries in which the United States is engaged in
contingency operations. Moreover, this legislation authorized
the Secretary of Defense to use up to $100.0 million to provide
logistic support, supplies, and services to allied forces that
are participating in operations alongside U.S. forces and an
additional $5.0 million to improve interoperability of
logistical support systems of allied forces.
Finally, the committee recognized the importance of
Department of Defense support for the Department of State's
effort to provide reconstruction, security, and stabilization
assistance to foreign countries. To help the two Departments to
work together in addressing the stability and reconstruction
needs of foreign nations, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) authorized the
Secretary of Defense to provide services to, and transfer
defense articles and funds to, the Secretary of State toward
that end. The authority, which expires on September 30, 2007,
limits the aggregate value of such services, articles, and
funds to $100.0 million annually.
Committee Defense Review
During the 109th Congress, the committee conducted a
defense review to complement the 2006 QDR. During the summer of
2005, a bipartisan group of members developed a three-phase
format to address the future national security environment.
First, members established a threat panel to identify and
categorize the many threats found around the world. Second,
members created six gap panels to address the categories of
threats, evaluating whether the current and future U.S.
military would have the capabilities and capacity to protect
U.S. national security. Finally, senior members of the
committee formed an integration panel to examine the gap
panels' evaluation and create an integrated product reflective
of future threats and U.S. military capabilities. Each panel
functioned on a strictly bipartisan basis, equally halving
membership and alternating control of the chairmanship from
meeting to meeting.
Fifty-five of the 62 members of the committee participated
in the CDR process. The threat panel held numerous hearings and
briefings, as well as an on-site briefing at the Central
Intelligence Agency. The gap panels (Regional Powers, Regional
Conflicts, Asymmetric and Unconventional Threats, Current and
Emerging Nuclear Powers, Terrorism and Radical Islam, and Non-
Traditional Missions and Catastrophic Disasters) met for a
total of 10 hearings and 24 briefings. The integration panel
met three times and edited multiple CDR drafts. The final CDR
was released in December 2006.
While the final CDR is a bipartisan creation, it is not a
unanimous document. Rather, it is a product endorsed by those
committee members who reviewed the final product and chose to
participate as signatories.
Wounded, Disabled and Deceased Service Members and Their Families
The committee devoted substantial attention during the
109th Congress to the emerging needs of active duty and reserve
wounded and disabled service members and their families. The
committee investigated a wide range of problems involving
transitional compensation, medical treatment, evaluation and
rating of disabilities, retention of members with disabilities
on active duty, and post separation programs to assist members
and families as they transition to civilian life. As the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law
109-364) included a number of legislative initiatives to
address the many concerns that had been brought to the
attention of the committee. For example, a new payment of $430
per month was authorized to ensure that hospitalized combat
wounded service members did not suffer a reduction in income
after departing the combat zone. Legislation revamped the
military services' physical evaluation boards to ensure that
members receive consistent, fair, and timely judgments
delivered by efficient, well-trained personnel who are prepared
to reach out to service members with information and insight
into the disability process. The Congress also clarified that
assistive technology provided to severely injured members would
be provided on a permanent basis and that the service member
would be authorized to retain such equipment after separation.
In addition, the Congress required the Department of Defense to
ensure that the military departments used uniform procedures
and standards for assisting severely wounded and injured
members of the armed forces. To augment the programs operated
by each of the military services in support severely injured
and wounded service members and their families, legislation
authorized a Military Severely Injured Center and required that
a central data base be established to track support provided by
the center to severely wounded and injured service members.
Furthermore, Congress authorized service members on active duty
with disabilities to participate in the Paralympic Games.
Benefits for Surviving Family Members
During the examination of benefits for wounded and disabled
service members, the committee recognized that a greater level
of benefit was required to fully meet the needs of surviving
family members of those service members who die while on active
duty. Accordingly, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) authorized an increase in
the death gratuity payment from just over $12,000 to $100,000
for the survivors of all active duty deaths. The legislative
remedy also authorized survivors of all military deaths after
October 7, 2001 to receive a retroactive payment of both the
increased $100,000 death gratuity and a $150,000 payment to
recognize the increase in Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) coverage from $250,000 to $400,000. As a result of the
increase in death gratuity and SGLI, the up-front cash payments
to survivors of service members who die on active duty were
increased to over $500,000. Additionally, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163)
increased from 180 to 365 days the period that surviving
families may remain in housing or receive military housing
allowances.
Respectful Transportation and Preservation of Remains
In the 109th Congress the committee took a number of steps
to ensure that the remains of military personnel who die during
combat operations or who die of non-combat related injuries in
the theater of combat are handled with dignity and respect. The
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) required the remains of military personnel be
moved by dedicated military or military contracted aircraft
from Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, to the military airfield
nearest to the service member's place of interment or to a
location designated by the next of kin. It also required that
proper military honors be rendered by military personnel at the
destination airfield.
The Act also required each military department to provide
pre-deployment training of health care professionals in the
preservation of remains. In addition, the Act required a
comprehensive review of the mortuary affairs process focused on
the capabilities and standards employed in combat theaters that
could preserve the remains of deceased personnel and expedite
the return of remains to the United States in a non-decomposed
state.
Protections for Service Members Against Predatory Lenders
The committee expressed strong concerns about predatory
lending practices and the hidden costs that many service
members and their dependents face. Accordingly, the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) provided the additional safeguards for service members and
their dependents who are extended credit. These safeguards
include:
(1) Unambiguous coverage to any service member on
active duty regardless of deployment status;
(2) Extension of ``predatory lender'' coverage to the
service member's dependents;
(3) Giving the Secretary of Defense direct control
and oversight over the program;
(4) Prohibiting creditors from charging service
members an annual interest percentage rate for loans
that is higher than that charged the legal residents of
the state, and capping the annual percentage rate at 36
percent, including fees;
(5) Expanding the definition of interest to include
all costs associated with the credit, including credit
insurance, premiums, or any ancillary product sold with
any extension of credit;
(6) Prohibiting creditors from extending credit if
the borrower's legal rights are waived, the creditor
demands unreasonable notice from the borrower,
arbitration is required in case of dispute, a creditor
uses a check or other means of access to borrower's
financial account as security for the obligation, the
creditor requires an allotment as a condition of the
extension of credit, or if the borrower is prohibited
from prepaying loan or charged a fee for repaying;
(7) Prohibiting rollovers, and
(8) Requiring that the Secretary with other
regulatory agencies, establish the implementing
regulations of this provision.
Military Chaplains
The committee became concerned about Air Force and Navy
policies governing the conduct of military chaplains,
especially polices that regulated the manner and form in which
chaplains might pray. As a result the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364)
directed that the Secretary of the Air Force rescind the policy
and revised interim guidelines concerning the exercise of
religion in the Air Force issued on February 9, 2006, and
reinstate the policy that was set forth in Air Force Policy
Directive 52-1, dated 1 July, 1999. The Act also directed that
the Secretary of the Navy rescind Secretary of the Navy
Instruction 1730.7C, dated February 21, 2006, titled
``Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy'' and
directed that the Secretary of the Navy reinstate the policy
that was set forth in Secretary of the Navy Instruction
1730.7B, dated October 12, 2000.
Force Protection
The committee selected force protection for special
oversight, focusing on areas having a direct impact on the
safety of our military personnel engaged in operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. The objective of committee activity was to
expedite the promulgation of policies and the fielding of
technology and equipment that would prevent or reduce combat
casualties. The committee was also concerned by inflated claims
with respect to the capabilities of certain products, some of
which were targeted at the families of military personnel
serving overseas, and the committee viewed exposure of inferior
capabilities as equally important.
This special oversight was conducted within the formal
committee structure under the jurisdiction of the full
committee, and supplemented by dedicated staffing with
specialized expertise. In addition to the methods of past
congresses, the committee engaged in more in-depth oversight
activities, including: visits to contractor and government
production sites and assembly lines, and assessment of
manufacturing processes and schedules; active oversight of
various aspects of testing, including developmental testing,
field testing and source selection testing; and identification
and referral to the Department of Defense (DOD) of sources and
vendors with capability and capacity to meet critical
deployment timelines. Focus areas included the following: body
and vehicle armor capabilities and quantities; counter
improvised explosive device (IED) technologies, especially
electronic countermeasures to radio control initiated devices;
tactical persistent surveillance in support of ground
operations, particularly prevention of IED emplacement; and
technologies to counter indirect fires.
RAPID ACQUISITION AUTHORITY
The committee has long been concerned by the length of time
required by the Department to acquire even comparatively simple
technologies and equipment to meet warfighting needs. The
recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and particularly the
evolution of the IED as a weapon of strategic influence, have
illustrated the ability of an adaptive enemy to work to
advantage inside a normal defense acquisition cycle. To ensure
the prompt fielding of critical warfighting capabilities, the
committee recommended, and Congress approved, section 811 of
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) granting to the Secretary
of Defense a rapid acquisition authority. This authority
specifically allows the Secretary to waive all federal
acquisition regulations to eliminate capability deficiencies
that have resulted in combat fatalities.
ADD-ON ARMOR
Immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the
committee recognized the dire need to armor tactical vehicles
used in convoys and combat patrols. Insurgents were using small
arms, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive
devices IEDs to attack U.S. forces in unarmored tactical
wheeled vehicles.
The committee visited Aberdeen Proving Ground to review
testing of potential vehicle add-on armor solutions and
assisted with the establishment of a direct mechanism for
receiving armor coupons from the commercial sector for
immediate testing. After reviewing the Army's original
production schedule, which called for completion of 7,000 high
mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) add-on armor
kits by December, 2004, the committee determined that a best
production effort could reach that objective no later than
April 30, 2004. The committee sent a formal memo to the Army
noting that arsenals, depots, industry, and steel mills were
not operating at maximum capacity. Committee and Army teams
visited U.S. steel mills and reached an agreement with
management and union officials to voluntarily set aside
commercial work and dedicate 100% capacity to vehicle add-on
armor plate production. Through on-site visits using a hands-on
approach, the committee was active in the resolution of other
problems affecting the delivery schedule.
The original Army installation plan required the cycling of
vehicles from Iraq into Kuwait for add-on armor kit
installation. The committee determined that U.S. production
would outpace installation capability in Kuwait, and issued a
memo to the Army's Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command
suggesting that 11 sites be opened in Iraq to install HMMWV and
tactical truck add-on armor kits. The Army adopted the
committee's recommendation, greatly enhancing kit installation
capacity.
Ultimately, as a direct result of committee efforts, the
Army completed 6,670 HMMWV add-on armor kits one week late to
the committee's best production effort schedule, but eight
months ahead of the original Army schedule.
In February 2005, the committee met with senior DOD staff
and Marine Corps officials to discuss a potential interim
solution for underbody add-on armor kits to mitigate an
intensifying stacked mine threat to Marines engaged in combat
operations in Iraq. In April the committee learned that the
Marine Corps was proceeding down a path for underbody armor
protection that would take considerable time to deploy. The
committee located readily available excess \3/8\th inch armor
panels at an Army Materiel Command depot in Kuwait,
recommending their use in an in-theater fabricated interim
solution to the HMMWV underbody protection requirement.
Largely as a result of committee leadership, Congress
authorized and appropriated over $3.0 billion for vehicle add-
on armor between fiscal years 2004 and 2007.
GUN TRUCK
At the encouragement of the committee, the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency teamed to produce a relatively low-cost, up-
armor kit to convert 5-ton tactical trucks to ``gun trucks''
for use as convoy security vehicles and for other defensive
missions. The larger cargo capacity of the 5-ton trucks allows
for heavier armor and therefore better protection than is
possible with lighter vehicles. There are currently 112 of
these gun trucks in Iraq and Afghanistan serving multiple
missions and protecting U.S. forces.
STRYKER STEEL
During a time when troops in Iraq were using mild steel and
even plywood to armor their tactical trucks, the committee
located a supply of military specification armor steel plate
left over from Stryker production stored at a steel mill. At
the committee's insistence, the armor plate was procured, and
half of the armor plates were shipped to the Marine Corps to be
converted into an armor shield for gunner's turrets and the
other half were delivered to the Army to be converted into
armored box kits for protecting soldiers transported by 5-ton
trucks.
GUNNER PROTECTION KITS
Early versions of gunner's armor shields were made entirely
from opaque armor and did not provide adequate protection from
IED attack. The committee strongly encouraged both the Marine
Corps and the Army to develop improved Gunner's Protection Kits
(GPK) which incorporated transparent armor. The transparent
armor allows gunners to maintain situational awareness while
protected from IED and small arms attack. The Marines are
currently fielding a GPK called Marine Corps transparent armor
gun shield and the Army is about to start producing an upgraded
GPK. Both systems incorporate several panels of transparent
armor.
FRAG KIT PRODUCTION
Both the Army and the Marine Corps have recognized the need
to further upgrade factory up-armored HMMWVs (UAH) to a
threshold level of protection, and have developed add-on armor
kits (``frag kits'') for this purpose. However, the schedule
for producing and installing these upgrade kits was not
acceptable and the committee strongly encouraged the two
departments to accelerate production of objective kits, and to
continue to produce interim armor kits to provide added
protection until objective kits could be installed.
As a result of committee efforts, 1,300 additional UAH
interim door kits were produced. In addition, the schedule for
fielding of the Marine Corps's objective door kits was
acceleratedfrom February 2007, to December 2006. The schedule
for fielding the Army's M1151 objective door kits was accelerated from
July 2007, to April 2007. And the schedule for fielding the Army's
M1114 objective door kits was accelerated from June 2007, to March
2007. The committee continues to work with both departments to further
accelerate production.
REDEFINITION OF ARMOR PROTECTION LEVELS
The efforts to quickly armor tactical vehicles resulted in
three basic methods of installing armor, including: armor
integrated into the vehicle on the assembly line; armor added
as a DOD-approved kit specifically designed for a particular
vehicle; and armor added in the field. These three methods of
armor installation were designated Levels I, II, and III,
respectively. Although these levels only refer to the method of
armor installation, they are generally viewed as defining level
of crew protection with I being the greatest and III being the
least. After careful review of all the tactical vehicles and
their true armor protection level, the committee found that the
levels as currently defined do not necessarily indicate a level
of protection.
The committee has strongly advocated the development of new
definitions for armor protection level and has provided
suggestions on how this might be done. The Joint Staff is
working on these new definitions and expects to complete them
by early 2007. The committee continues to encourage the Joint
Staff to move faster so that commanders and their troops
understand the true level of protection offered by myriad armor
configurations present in the force.
VEHICLE USE POLICY
In conjunction with committee efforts on redefinition of
armor protection levels, the committee has strongly encouraged
the Secretary of Defense to promulgate policies restricting
tactical vehicles to use on secure military operating bases
unless those vehicles meet a threshold level of armor
protection. The committee remains concerned that there are many
thinly armored vehicles in theater, and that these should
either be upgraded to the threshold level or not be used
outside of secure bases. The Department is considering the
implementation of such a policy in early 2007.
BODY ARMOR
Under intense committee scrutiny, by April 2004, initial
shortfalls in body armor were resolved and all DOD civilians
and military personnel in Iraq had been issued interceptor body
armor and small arms protective inserts (SAPI). The committee
continued its intensive oversight of personal armor programs
throughout the 109th Congress, advocating in 2005 for
replacement of SAPI with an enhanced version capable of
defeating more challenging ballistic threats, and in 2006 for
accelerated production of enhanced side SAPI plates to protect
vulnerable torso areas.
In the area of head protection, a Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces hearing was followed by the Marine Corps'
adoption of the padded combat helmet suspension system already
in use by the Army, which provides ballistic protection
equivalent to the legacy sling suspension system and better
blunt trauma survivability.
NEW BODY ARMOR TECHNOLOGIES
The committee maintains strong interest in new developments
that could lead to significant improvements in body armor. The
committee closely followed and encouraged Army testing of
alternative flexible body armor systems. Although the Army
determined that alternatives do not meet current body armor
requirements, they appear to offer some advantages for
specialty use. The committee also followed vendor development
and encouraged Army testing of mosaic tile body armor. The
initial test results have been favorable and this technology
may offer the next advancement in personnel armor.
MANNED SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT
During a January 2004, congressional delegation to Iraq,
the committee observed the need for persistent surveillance of
roads and other locations where IED attacks against U.S. forces
occur frequently. From that time to present the committee has
promoted a ``take back the roads'' campaign which encourages
the Department to provide tactical persistent surveillance
platforms coupled with quick reaction forces to neutralize IED
emplacers. In early 2006, the Army responded to this call from
the committee by establishing Task Force ODIN, which comprises
a specialized Army aviation battalion equipped with airborne
reconnaissance multi-sensor (ARMS) manned surveillance aircraft
and Warrior Alpha unmanned aerial vehicles for tactical use in
countering the IED threat. The Army is also sending medium
altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system (MARSS) manned
aircraft to theater in advance of the ARMS aircraft to provide
an interim capability. Though well intended, the schedule for
deploying both MARSS and ARMS has slipped significantly. To
fill the gap left by these delays, the committee has since
July, 2006, advocated the redeployment of two Airborne
Reconnaissance Low (ARL) aircraft from U.S. Southern Command,
where they were seeing little use, to U.S. Central Command
(CENTCOM), where they could be used to patrol the roads in
Iraq. One of the ARL aircraft has been redeployed.
The committee has further planned for the time when the
primary responsibility for security in Iraq falls to the Iraqi
Security Forces (ISF) and understands that the ISF will need
some airborne surveillance capability for that mission. Many of
the surveillance platforms that the committee has promoted for
use in Iraq can be left behind for the ISF, and the committee
has investigated contractor support for this activity,
conveying the results to the Army.
Although not included in the budget request, the committee
provided $100.0 million in title XV of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) to support tactical persistent surveillance programs.
JOINT SURVEILLANCE TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM
The committee ascertained during briefings and
Congressional delegation oversight visits to Iraq that the
joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) platform
was not optimally employed when used as a communications relay
platform, a role other aircraft are equipped to perform. The
committee believed this adversely impacted the ability of the
combined forces air component commander to wholly support Army
and Marine Corps ground component commanders' requests for
ground moving target indicator capability using this platform.
The committee was further troubled that no formal process
existed to analyze or assess JSTARS post-mission intelligence
data. Lastly, the committee became aware that a JSTARS mission-
crew shortfall existed, and that without fully manning 24
combat coded mission-crews, JSTARS was unable to perform at
surge-rate operational tempos for extended periods of time.
The committee strongly urged the CENTCOM combatant
commander to reassess the prioritization of missions assigned
to the JSTARS platform, and directed the Secretary of the Air
Force to implement formal procedures to analyze JSTARS post-
mission intelligence data to more effectively support the
warfighter at all levels. The committee authorized an increase
of 85 active guard and reserve (AGR) positions for the Air
National Guard, and encouraged the Secretary of the Air Force
to program the required funding in the Air Force Future Years
Defense Program to convert the remaining 107 part-time
positions to AGR positions.
AEROSTATS
Based on the success of the persistent threat detection
system (PTDS) at the Baghdad International Airport, the
committee has encouraged the deployment of additional aerostat
systems with upgraded equipment to help reduce the ``sensor-to-
shooter'' time after detection of a threat. At present, there
are six new PTDS systems being produced for deployment to both
Iraq and Afghanistan.
GROUND SURVEILLANCE
In addition to air surveillance platforms, the committee
promoted the use of ground-based overt and covert camera
surveillance systems of the types used with great success in
high-crime areas of large U.S. cities. As a direct result of
committee encouragement, a system was deployed in Baghdad by
the Army and has proven very useful in thwarting insurgent
activities. The Marine Corps selected another portable remote
surveillance system called the Tactical Concealed Video System
and have procured at least five of these systems for deployment
at the end of 2006.
ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES
Radio-control initiated IEDs (RCIED) have emerged as the
most lethal threat to coalition forces deployed to Iraq and
Afghanistan, currently accounting for more than half of all
combat deaths. Although extensive effort had gone into
protecting military personnel in vehicles by the spring of
2005, far less had been accomplished to protect dismounted
troops. In early 2005, the committee identified a lightweight
dismounted Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare (CREW) technology
capable of suppressing threats commonly encountered in urban
areas. Largely due to intensive committee oversight, this CREW
system, designated Warlock Blue, was designed, tested and
manufactured, with production deliveries to the Department
commencing 33 days after initial contract award in June 2005.
The 8000th production unit was shipped in August 2005, only 70
days after contract award and 6 months ahead of the
Department's original delivery schedule. This uncharacteristic
production and deployment timeline was enabled in part by the
first use of the rapid acquisition authority granted to the
Secretary under section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), and in part by direct participation of the committee in
identifying vendors with prototyping and production capacity
sufficient to meet an accelerated schedule.
Recognizing that deficiencies still existed, in August
2005, the committee initiated efforts to ensure the fielding of
more capable dismounted CREW technologies to combat the
evolving threat. Again largely due to intensive committee
oversight, in April 2006, the Navy initiated a Quick Reaction--
Dismounted (QRD) acquisition effort under the rapid acquisition
authority. In September 2006, the Navy announced a CREW QRD
source selection decision, awarding a base contract for an
initial quantity of 1400 Guardian dismounted systems, with
delivery to complete by early February 2007. Guardian will
provide a ``backpackable'' capability to suppress all known
RCIEDs.
Concurrent with the CREW QRD acquisition effort, the
committee pressed for further evolution of vehicle mounted CREW
systems to correct capability deficiencies in currently
deployed systems. In June 2006, the Navy initiated the CREW 2.1
acquisition effort. Source selection testing completed in
December 2006, and production contract award is scheduled for
January 2007.
Although not included in the budget request, the committee
provided $109.7 million in title XV of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) for acquisition and deployment of dismounted and mounted
CREW systems. Section 1403 of the Act further requires that the
Secretary take such steps as are necessary to ensure that, by
the end of fiscal year 2007, CREW systems protect all U.S.
military wheeled vehicles operating outside of secure military
bases.
JIEDDO REPORTING
The committee has exercised extensive oversight of the
Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and its institutional
predecessor, the Joint IED Defeat Task Force. The JIEDDO was
formally established as a permanent organization by the Deputy
Secretary of Defense in January 2006, to lead and coordinate
all DOD efforts to defeat improvised explosive devices as
weapons of strategic influence. The committee has strongly
supported the IED defeat effort, but grew concerned about its
ability to oversee the execution of funds entrusted to JIEDDO.
The committee understood the need for flexibility, security,
and expeditious action to counter the rapidly evolving IED
threat. However, at almost $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2006,
JIEDDO funding was completely ``off-budget'' with none of the
justification materials normally available to Congress for a
program of such size and importance. The committee was also
aware of other Department efforts to defeat the IED threat.
Consequently, the committee included section 1402 of the John
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364), which established a quarterly reporting
requirement on the status of the threat and efforts undertaken
to defeat it.
COUNTER-ROCKETS, ARTILLERY AND MORTARS
The committee's strong commitment to the adaptation,
further development, and testing of certain air defense
artillery technologies to combat rocket and mortar fire led to
deployment of an operational capability to defeat these threats
for the first time in history.
Special Studies
The committee engaged in other special studies and
oversight activities that crossed formal subcommittee
jurisdiction.
UNIT READINESS STUDY
From February 2005 through the end of the 109th Congress,
the committee conducted an extensive study on unit readiness in
relation to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Designed to provide
insight into the readiness challenges facing Army and Marine
Corps units and personnel, this ongoing study focuses on pre-
deployment activities such as training, logistics planning, and
family preparations. Over several months, committee staff
periodically embedded with one Army battalion and one Marine
Corps battalion as they prepared for deployment to Iraq. Close
observation revealed the development of individual and
collective skills throughout the training process, as well as
improved preparedness in areas such as medical, family, and
logistical readiness. During the units' deployments, staff
continued to monitor their status via correspondence,
classified data, media accounts, and a staff delegation to
Iraq. With the battalions' recent redeployment to the United
States, the staff continues to receive information on the
units' operational experiences and ``lessons learned.''
RETURNING UNITS STUDY
In March 2006, the committee commenced a systematic study
of Army and Marine Corps units (active, reserve, and Guard)
returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF). The intent of this study is to collect
information regarding units' deployment and operational
experiences through multiple, standard interviews of enlisted
personnel and officers from battalions that have recently
returned from theater. This study is ongoing, and no
conclusions or reports have been formulated.
IN LIEU OF FORCES
The need for additional military personnel to support
ground force troop rotations has led to the deployment in
significant numbers of Air Force and Navy ``in lieu of''
forces. The committee spent considerable time examining the
training and use of these airmen and sailors to provide
temporary augmentation in nontraditional combat environments
around the globe. This oversight is ongoing.
OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM OVERSIGHT TEAM
EFFORT
At the beginning of the 109th Congress, the chairman
temporarily reorganized the committee staff into ``oversight
teams'' and directed an extensive evaluation of key issue areas
pertinent to combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
oversight teams identified issue areas having the potential for
prompt benefit from committee review and involvement. The issue
areas were: vehicle armor protection, IED jammers, tactical
surveillance, ammunition, tactical weapons availability,
counter-rocket/mortar, contractor operations on the
battlefield, care for wounded and injured, post separation
support for wounded and injured service members and their
family members and survivors, training of Iraqi security
forces, active and reserve components' ability to sustain
rotation requirements, configurations of units deploying,
resetting the force, and the Joint Rapid Action Cell. Oversight
teams were encouraged to ``get out in the field'' and ``walk
the lines''. The activities of these teams, which included
actions such as site visits of production facilities,
interviews with service members, and reviews of DOD regulations
and military doctrine, led to a number of actions during the
109th Congress. In many cases, the efforts of these oversight
teams raised awareness in the Department and defense industry
of many pressing war-related issues, instigated internal DOD
review of the Department's policies or programs, spawned new
committee oversight activities on related matters, or
influenced committee legislative action throughout fiscal years
2006 and 2007. Examples of some of the teams' activities
follow.
The oversight team charged with investigating vehicle armor
protection continued from the 108th Congress the committee's
aggressive oversight activities of the Department's add-on
armor program for tactical wheeled vehicles. To evaluate if
maximum effort and productivity were achieved in providing add-
on armor kit solutions to OIF and OEF, the team engaged in
activities that included, but were not limited to: multiple
oversight delegations to the prime contractor for the UAH; the
primary arsenals and depots responsible for fabricating light
tactical vehicle add-on armor solutions; the prime contractors
producing add-on armor solutions for medium and heavy tactical
wheeled vehicles; the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to observe test
and evaluation procedures of add-on armor solutions as well as
discuss and analyze lessons learned regarding the performance
of existing add-on armor solutions in OIF and OEF; and the
primary U.S. steel mill that produced the majority of armor
plates. The team received weekly and monthly armor summaries
from the Army and Marine Corps and maintained direct links to
U.S. industry and the U.S. steel industry in helping to provide
better visibility into current and future add-on armor
requirements. Activities also resulted in several hearings that
addressed vehicle add-on armor concerns for medium and heavy
tactical vehicles as well as underbody armor protection for
Marine Corps light tactical vehicles. The activities of this
team also helped the committee to adequately address funding
requirements for armor solutions in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(109-364). During the 109th Congress, the committee provided an
additional $1.47 billion for add-on armor solutions. Also, the
committee noted the importance of a long term, sustained
armoring strategy that would utilize an ``A Kit''/``B Kit''
construct allowing for maximum protection and flexibility in
combat and non-combat situations.
The ammunition oversight team was created with the primary
mission of better understanding conventional ammunition
requirements, production rates and sustainability of production
for current usage levels and determine best course of actions
for meeting new requirements for small and medium caliber
ammunition. The overall approach was review of inventory
requirements, war reserves, consumption rates, production
rates, and abilities to deliver critical war related materials
in quantity, quality, and in the time frame required by the
warfighter. The team traveled to the Lake City Army Ammunition
Plant, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, and the Holston Army
Ammunition Plant to meet with officials and observe and
determine current capabilities of these plants and requirements
for production base upgrades. Meetings and conference calls
were also conducted by the team with other experts and
suppliers within the ammunition community including such
organizations as the Office of Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), the Joint Munitions
Command, the Joint Staff, the Army, the Marine Corps, Munitions
Industrial Base Task Force, and industry. The activities of the
team followed up on previous committee actions taken during the
108th Congress such as a June 2004 hearing that addressed
whether or not a shortage in small-caliber ammunition existed
for OIF and OEF. The team provided information to the committee
that determined no such shortage had prevented military
personnel from being able to conduct their mission. The team
continues to work with the Army to help create better
methodology for tracking current conventional ammunition
inventory. The services now provide to the committee annually
an inventory matrix that denotes previous year expenditures and
current year requirements. The committee during the 109th
Congress authorized an additional $245.6 million over the
President's budget requests for ammunition industrial base
upgrades and small-caliber ammunition production.
The tactical weapon shortfall oversight team was created
with the primary mission to better understand current usage and
OIF and OEF theater requirements for crew served weapons as
well as primary and secondary small arms. The team specifically
analyzed the current inventoried stock of M2 .50 caliber crew
served weapons. M2s were no longer in production but were being
used extensively and to great effect in OIF and OEF.
Operational needs statements (ONS) continued to to be generated
in theater. As such, the team traveled to the Anniston Army
Depot, the depot responsible for all small arms and crew served
weapon refurbishment activity for the U.S. military, including
the M2, in order to ascertain whether or not a shortage existed
for small arms and crew served weapons. The team walked the
production lines at Anniston Army depot and observed the M2 .50
caliber refurbishment program. The team found that Anniston
Army Depot and the prime contractor had substantial capability
to increase production and address any M2 requirements as well
as determined that all in theater validated requirements were
being fulfilled expediently. In addition to field travel the
team met with officials representing the Program Executive
Office--Soldier, the organization responsible for small arms
acquisition and program management in the Army, officials from
the Marine Corps, and industry in order to better understand
current and future small arms acquisition strategy and
capability. Activities led to even greater scrutiny of the
Army's Objective Individual Combat Weapon, Increment One
program; the program originally planned to replace all primary
small arms for the Army such as the M4 carbine and M16 rifle.
The committee during the 109th Congress provided $538.4 million
for small arms and modifications, in particular, providing
$20.0 million for quick change barrel kits for the M2, a
critical aspect to the .50 caliber refurbishment program. The
team continues to monitor new efforts such as the M240 medium
machine gun conversion program.
The team assembled to evaluate DOD policy for contractors
operating on the battlefield examined issues such as force
protection for civilian contractors, contractors' use of
personal weapons, the role of private security companies, and
the impact of these civilians on combatant commanders'
operations. Through more than 35 briefings with DOD agencies
and subordinate activities, private companies, and trade groups
responsible for aspects of contractor operations, the team
gathered a multitude of information, enabling the committee to
call for clarification and expansion of DOD guidance for
contractors. The committee introduced legislation in fiscal
year 2006 that would have taken steps to clarify and regulate
the growing sector of contractors that are present during
military operations.
A team assembled to understand the configuration of units
deploying in OIF 04-06, how this configuration differs from OIF
II and how these units compare to the new modular brigade
configuration. Particular attention was paid to the Army's
ongoing transformation to modularity while executing ongoing
combat operations. The team examined the tables of organization
and equipment for both a theoretical and actual deploying
modular brigade. The team received briefings on the subject
from the Joint Staff and Army G-3.
The Joint Rapid Action Cell team assembled to understand
the implementation of ``rapid acquisition authority,'' as
created in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) and modified in the
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375). The team was concerned that
after 18 months of authority, the Department of Defense had
only used the rapid acquisition authority twice. The JRAC is a
new organization within the Department designed to increase the
velocity of the acquisition system in meeting urgent
requirements from the combatant commander. The team received
briefings from various DOD officials including the Director of
the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell and the Director, Defense
Procurement and Acquisition Policy.
The committee pursued two closely aligned oversight
projects involving the care and support provided to wounded and
injured military personnel and their families (1) during their
active duty service and (2) during their transition from active
duty into their post separation lives. The later project also
examined the programs designed to support the surviving family
members of those who die in the theater of operations.
The two teams began their examination of the issues with
over 40 formal meetings in the months just preceding and
following the inauguration of the 109th Congress and remained
actively engaged throughout the 109th Congress. The
Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on the care
of injured and wounded service members early in the 109th
Congress. The oversight process involved extensive travel to
Department of Defense and other governmental activities, in-
office research, and informational briefings from the
Department, other governmental agencies, and private sector
organizations. The teams examined the following issues:
(1) Adequacy of medical treatment and support with
special attention paid to mental health services.
(2) Effectiveness and efficiency of the medical
holdover system.
(3) Identification and resolution of problems
encountered by wounded and injured members and their
families with particular attention paid to reservists.
(4) Effectiveness of new programs operated by the
military services to assist severely disabled service
members and their families.
(5) Fairness and effectiveness of physical disability
evaluation system.
(6) Effectiveness and efficiency of Department of
Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department
of Labor programs intended to provide a seamless
transition for wounded and injured service members and
families and survivors of deceased members.
(7) Scope and nature of the services and resources
available to wounded and injured service members and
families and survivors of deceased members from the
Department of Defense, other governmental agencies, and
the private sector and the ability of the Department of
Defense to integrate and coordinate access to those
services and resources.
The two oversight projects resulted in the following
legislation being enacted during the 109th Congress:
(1) The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) included the following
provisions:
a. Authority for members to participate in the
Paralympic Games.
b. Assessment and standardization of policy
and procedures involved in providing assistance
to survivors of casualties.
c. Assessment and standardization of policy
and procedures involved in providing assistance
to severely wounded service members.
d. Requirement for members to designate
persons to direct the disposition of remains
should they become a casualty.
e. Prohibition against charging the cost of
meals to hospitalized wounded and injured
members.
f. Increase in the length of time that
surviving family members may remain in
government housing or receive housing
allowances.
g. Transitional pay for hospitalized wounded
and injured members.
h. Increase in the length of time provided to
surviving family members to make a final home
of selection.
i. Authority to provide travel and
transportation allowances to families visiting
hospitalized members.
j. Increase in death gratuity provided to
survivors of members who die on active duty.
(2) The John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) included
the following provisions:
a. Authority for members to retain assistive
technology and devices after separation from
active duty.
b. Enhanced guidelines for the proper
transportation of remains to burial sites.
c. Standards and guidelines for the
establishment of a severely injured center by
the Secretary of Defense.
d. Comprehensive review of DOD mortuary
affairs procedures.
e. Requirement to deploy personnel trained in
techniques to better preserve remains under
combat conditions.
f. Reform of Physical Evaluation Board policy
and procedures to improve fairness and
efficiency.
g. Inclusion of military members in the
policy to provide continued housing allowances
at increased rates to spouses of members who
die while serving on active duty.
h. Inclusion of military members in the
policy to provide travel and transportation
allowances to family members visiting wounded
and injured service members.
i. Correction of effective date to
retroactively provide certain Survivor Benefit
Plan annuities to all surviving family members
of members who died on active duty during the
global war on terrorism.
In addition to the above legislative initiatives, the
committee devoted considerable effort to oversight of the
support provided wounded and injured service members and their
families at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National
Naval Medical Center, Bethesda. The effort focused not only on
the overall functioning of the patient support systems, but
also in resolving the specific problems related to housing,
pay, benefits, and care arising for military personnel and
their families.
As of the end of the 109th Congress, committee staff has
conducted seventy nine visits to Walter Reed Army Medical
Center and more than sixty visits to the National Naval Medical
Center at Bethesda interviewing an average of five severely
injured or wounded service members each visit and many of their
visiting family members. This effort prompted more than twenty
case inquires concerning pay, accommodations, and patient
support systems. Significant effort was also devoted to making
direct contact with severely injured service members following
their hospitalization to assist in their transition to civilian
life including guidance and support toward career, education
and financial recovery.
Formal staff visits to three of the four Veterans
Administration Poly-trauma Centers (Minneapolis, Minnesota;
Tampa, Florida; and Richmond, Virginia), together with
individual case inquiries from the remaining facility at Palo
Alto, California, prompted committee interest in the
establishment of Fisher House facilities near the California
and Virginia centers. These facilities are currently in the
development process. The extended care of military traumatic
brain and spinal cord patients at the Poly-trauma Centers is
facilitated by participation of family members in their
therapy.
Committee staff coordinated closely with the Department of
Labor to establish on-site employment specialists at the Walter
Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center
at Bethesda. These specialists will be readily available for
preliminary consultations with wounded service members and
their spouses concerning employment plans and objectives. This
effort included collecting and tracking skills and interest
data, resume preparation, and research into career
opportunities at or near their homes.
On December 5, 2006, the House of Representatives adopted
House Resolution 1070, a resolution expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that Members of the House should
actively engage with employers and the American public at large
to encourage the hiring of members and former members of the
armed forces who were wounded in service and are facing a
transition to civilian life. The resolution was sponsored by
Chairman Duncan Hunter and included a provision to eliminate
any perception of inappropriate conduct by Members of the House
when they contact private sector and government employers to
provide job search and hiring assistance to wounded service
members.
OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE
Budget Activity
On March 3, 2003, the committee forwarded its views and
estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function
050) for fiscal year 2006 to the Committee on the Budget. The
Committee noted that our security and defense environment is
rapidly changing and in flux. The daily headlines out of Iraq,
Afghanistan, Iran or North Korea reflect the unpredictable
security climate we faced. At the same time, our armed forces
were experiencing the most severe challenges and demands that
have been placed on them in decades. Our military--a critical
component of our national security structure--was undergoing
sweeping and fundamental change while simultaneously carrying
most of the free world's burden in the global war on terrorism.
Unfortunately, despite a concerted effort to improve
modernization and investment funding, our forces today rely on
heavily-used and rapidly aging equipment. Continued operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan require our critical warfighting
systems to be used at significantly higher rates (for some by a
factor of 5 to 10 times) than expected under peacetime
conditions. Critical equipment is aging quickly. For example:
our bomber fleet, which has been so successful in recent
operations, is on average 29 years old; our Marine helicopters
and ground combat vehicles are on average 24.7 and 15.2 years
old, respectively; and our Army helicopters and ground combat
vehicles are on average 18.5 and 14.3 years old. All of these
weapons systems are either at or past their projected half-
life. Clearly, our defense capability will erode if we continue
to rely on aged equipment. Against this backdrop, the President
submitted a defense budget request of $419.3 billion for Fiscal
Year 2006, an increase of $19.2 billion over the budget
authority appropriated for Fiscal Year 2005. However, the
Committee noted that even with this proposed increase, defense
spending would amount to a far lower percentage of the nation's
gross domestic product (GDP) than it did 20 years ago--a
projected 4.3 percent in 2005 compared to 6.0 percent in 1985.
While the annual defense budget should not be solely determined
by an arbitrary percentage of GDP, it does serve as a useful
measure of the relative means available to the nation to
properly fund the national defense function. Thus, for a nation
at war, the committee believes that defense spending remains
relatively low. Between Fiscal Years 2000 and 2005, equipment
modernization funding has increased by an average of 7.2
percent annually. However, the President's budget request
proposes to increase modernization accounts by less than one-
half of one percent relative to Fiscal Year 2005. Further, the
Fiscal Year 2006 Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) reduces
modernization funding between Fiscal Year 2006 and 2009 by
$12.9 billion. Therefore, the committee proposed that
additional funding be provided over this period in order to
sustain the needed pace of modernization of our military
forces. It is also important to note the President's budget
request proposed to continue the practice of deferring funding
for significant elements of the base defense program until
future supplemental appropriations requests. As expected, and
in keeping with historical practice, the budget request did not
include the costs of conducting operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Committee was also concerned, however, that
the proposed budget provided no funding for additional
Congressionally mandated military personnel end strength
increases, Army transformation, force protection initiatives
and other critical activities. Thus, the combination of this
strategy of deferred program funding and the expected costs
resulting from continued operations in the global war on
terrorism required the Committee to insist that the Budget
Resolution contain a contingency fund mechanism that would
allow the defense authorization and appropriations process to
pursue an appropriate level of ``bridge'' funding for the
initial quarters of Fiscal Year 2006. Finally, the
Administration included in the Fiscal Year 2005 supplemental
request a proposal to increase the benefits afforded to the
survivors of military members. The proposal had three
components. First, it provided an increase in the death
gratuity from $12,420 to $100,000 for deaths incurred in
designated combat zones. Second, it provided an increase in the
maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)
from $250,000 to $400,000 for service members. Third, it
provided $238,000 in retroactive payments to surviving family
members of combat deaths occurring on or after October 7, 2001.
The Committee requested the necessary discretionary and
mandatory spending increases in the military personnel accounts
to provide increases in the death gratuity and SGLI payments
for military deaths.
On March 3, 2006, the Committee forwarded its views and
estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function
050) for fiscal year 2007 to the Committee on the Budget. By
way of background, during the fall of 2005, the committee
initiated a comprehensive study of the Department of Defense's
ability to secure our national defense over the next 25 years.
The ``Committee Defense Review'' (CDR) brought together members
of the committee to receive testimony from experts in the
government, academia and the private sector. This independent
review, conducted in parallel with the Department of Defense
Quadrennial Defense Review, addressed the threats facing the
United States and gaps in our current capabilities. Given the
environment our nation is in today, the Committee noted that it
had serious concerns that the base budget for Fiscal Year 2007
was inadequate to support non-deployed programs not directly
involved in the day-to-day operations of the global war on
terrorism. In conjunction with the CDR initiative, and based on
our hearings and briefings from the Department of Defense and
Department of Energy, the budget request presented Congress
with the following challenges:
(1) $10.0 billion short for the minimum requirements
for training and maintenance;
(2) $5.0 billion needed to avoid delays in procuring
necessary weapon systems;
(3) $25.0 billion to fund the initial reset
requirements of our deployed equipment;
(4) $4.6 billion for military end strength and
TRICARE requirements;
(5) $45.0 million in mandatory authority for
shortfalls in death gratuity benefits;
(6) $600.0 million in mandatory authority for new
overseas housing; and
(7) $500.0 million in mandatory authority to extend
the maximum lease term permitted for family housing in
foreign nations.
The Committee did not make these observations lightly.
Against the current President's budget request, three
observations needed to be made about the proposed Fiscal Year
2007 budget request: (1) there is virtually no growth in the
defense budget from Fiscal Year 2006, (2) defense spending is
low compared to the 1980s, and (3) Congressionally mandated
savings and personnel spending over the past five years are
eroding our training and investment account. The President
submitted a budget request for national defense budget function
(050) of $513.0 billion for Fiscal Year 2007.
The discretionary budget request for the Department of
Defense includes two distinct elements. First, $439.3 billion
for military forces not deployed in the global war on
terrorism. This funding baseline request represented an
increase of $28.5 billion over the budget authority
appropriated to the Department of Defense last year for non-
global war on terrorism accounts. To the casual observer this 7
percent increase would seem to be a robust boost to our
national defense capabilities. Unfortunately, this growth can
be attributed to three things:
(1) $11.4 billion covers annual inflation and pay
raises;
(2) $3.0 billion finances increased fuel costs; and
(3) $4.1 billion funds Base Realignment and Closure
initiatives.
Of the remaining $10.0 billion increase for traditional
military programs and procurement, close to one-half supported
the implementation of the Army modularity program this fiscal
year. Aside from Army modularity, the remaining critical
investment, personnel, training and maintenance accounts only
experienced a $5.0 billion increase--which translates into 1.2
percent growth over Fiscal Year 2006. For the first time this
year, the President requested $50.0 billion for estimated
future emergency spending for the global war on terrorism. This
is a significant step in fiscal responsibility. Until now, the
global war on terrorism was funded outside the traditional
budget. Therefore, it was not included in the formal
calculation of the federal government's annual liabilities. By
including the $50.0 billion in the budget request, this
represents an important step towards accurately budgeting for
our nation's defense. It is important to note that even with
funding of $513.0 billion, defense spending amounts to a far
lower percentage of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP)
than it did twenty years ago--projected 4.0 percent in 2007
compared to 6 percent in 1985. While the annual defense budget
should not be solely determined by an arbitrary percentage of
GDP, it does serve as a useful measure of the relative means
available to the nation to properly fund the national defense
function. Another comparison that perhaps is a better metric is
the percentage of discretionary budget authority spent on
Department of Defense (function 051) in relation to the total
federal discretionary budget request. In 1985, the Department
of Defense discretionary budget authority was 62.9 percent of
the total federal discretionary budget. In 1986, that amount
grew to 64.4 percent. In contrast, this year's Department of
Defense discretionary budget authority is only 53 percent of
the total discretionary budget. Thus, for a nation at war, the
funding for our national defense remains relatively low. To
return spending on our nation's defense to 6 percent of GDP,
the amount required would translate to $734.0 billion for
Fiscal Year 2007. Similarly, if we were to fund the Department
of Defense at 62.9 percent of the $923 billion federal
discretionary budget authority requested for Fiscal Year 2007,
the total discretionary budget request for function 050 would
be $580.6 billion. The Committee further noted that while the
Department faced rising health care costs, fuel costs and
inflation, as well as congressionally imposed budget caps, the
most severe budget challenges were found in the operation and
maintenance accounts. Currently, all the services are funded
well below the levels required to conduct the minimal training
necessary to maintain adequate military readiness. For example,
the shortfalls in Fiscal Year 2007 budget request were as
follows:
(1) Navy funds only 36 steaming days a quarter versus
required 51 steaming days per quarter;
(2) Army funds 615 tank miles a year versus combined
arms training strategy requirement of 899 miles;
(3) Army funds 11.6 helicopter flying hours per month
versus 14.5 hours helicopter flying hours per month;
(4) Marine Corps funds 88 percent of the combat ready
days--equipment and training requirement; and
(5) Air Force funds 98 percent of the flying hour
training requirement while mission capable rates are
scheduled to fall to 75 percent for the first time
since 1998.
(6) In the Fiscal Year 2006 FYDP, the services
anticipated receiving $154.7 billion for operation and
maintenance programs in Fiscal Year 2007. Instead, this
year's request is $152.0 billion--a $2.7 billion
reduction. Combined with the $4.0 billion in price
growth due to inflation and the $3.0 billion in price
growth due to rising fuel costs, the budget request
would actually reduce critical training and maintenance
programs by close to $10.0 billion. With respect to
procurement and despite a concerted effort to improve
modernization and investment funding, the budget
request defered critical weapon systems by pushing
procurement quantities over the next 5 years--
increasing cost and delaying acquisition.
On the procurement side of the ledger, the services were
scheduled in the 2006 FYDP, to receive $91.6 billion for
procurement programs in Fiscal Year 2007. Instead, this year's
request was $84.2 billion for those accounts--a $7.4 billion
reduction. While some of these funds were transferred to
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation accounts, the
procurement accounts experienced a $5.0 billion reduction from
last year.
Finally, the Army and Marine Corps estimated that a large
percentage of equipment currently operating in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom will be unserviceable at
the conclusion of these campaigns. The Army and Marine Corps
are confronted with the challenging task of ``resetting'' their
forces, restoring heavily used operating equipment to combat
readiness and replacing worn out equipment. The initial cost
estimates for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset are close
to $50.0 billion. Given the rising costs of current and future
modernization programs and the ongoing global war on terrorism,
the Committee believes that the Army and Marine Corps' ability
to properly resource equipment reset is in jeopardy. The sheer
size of the unfunded reset bill is starting to impact future
force development. Last year the Army testified that with the
funding projected in the FYDP they could field between 77 to 82
Brigade Combat Teams. Yet, in less than one year, the Army plan
has been modified develop only 70 Brigade Combat Teams in order
to fit within the proposed budget this year.
The Committee has a responsibility to consider funding the
reset of our critical warfighting capability. Equipment reset
is critical to maintaining warfighting capability. Accordingly,
we believe the services have an immediate requirement of $25.0
billion for equipment reset. The budget request contained
legislative proposals designed to contain the cost of military
health care by substantially increasing the out-of-pocket costs
for military retirees under age 65 and their families. Those
proposals would also increase the pharmacy co-payments for all
beneficiaries--active duty members, retirees, Medicare-
eligibles and their families. In anticipation of enactment of
this legislation, the budget request reduces the Defense Health
Program by $735.0 million--the amount of savings estimated by
the Department that results from increased beneficiary cost
shares. The committee believed that these proposals depend too
exclusively on increasing cost shares and believes that no
action should be taken in Fiscal Year 2007 until a full review
of additional cost control options is completed. Circumventing
Congressional oversight by quickly implementing fundamental
changes to a highly viable medical benefit is not keeping the
promise to the sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines that serve
our country. The Committee was concerned that the proposed
budget did not provide funding for the additional 34,000
military personnel end strength congressionally mandated for
the active components of the Army and Marine Corps. The budget
request also funded Army National Guard end strength at
332,900, which was 17,100 below what was authorized in Fiscal
Year 2006. The Committee had estimated the cost to fully fund
the end strength for Fiscal Year 2007 was $3.9 billion.
The President included a proposal to permit the sale of the
remaining government-owned industrial commodities in the
National Defense Stockpile that were not needed for national
defense requirements. Furthermore, the proposal requested the
receipts from these additional sales be deposited in the
Treasury for deficit reduction. The savings identified in this
proposal are $1.0 million in Fiscal Year 2007 and $299.0
million between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2011. However,
against the $299.0 million in savings, the committee has
identified three mandatory proposals totaling more than $1.1
billion that need immediate attention in Fiscal Year 2007.
First, the committee had identified the need for an
amendment to the death gratuity provision in the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) to ensure that 300 surviving families of members who died
while on active duty after October 7, 2001, receive a
retroactive $150,000 payment. The payment was intended to
compensate surviving families of both combat and non combat
deaths for the increase in Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
(SGLI) that went into effect on September 1, 2005.
The death gratuity amendment would revise the effective
date of section 664 to cover the benefit population from May 5,
2005 through August 31, 2005. The amendment would incur a one-
time $45.0 million mandatory spending cost. Accordingly, the
committee requested $45.0 million in mandatory spending to
include the legislative authority to address this unintended
lack of coverage in the death gratuity benefits.
Finally, the committee requested that an additional $600.0
million be allocated in mandatory spending be allocated from
Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2015 to accelerate
rebasing plans and the acquisition of safe, secure housing for
U.S. military personnel and their families stationed in the
Republic of Korea. The Department is currently implementing a
global integrated presence and basing strategy to ensure our
military forces stationed overseas are adequately postured to
meet emerging threats to our national security. In order to
provide for the most efficient use of military resources, the
committee wanted to provide the Department with legislative
authorities which resulted in this mandatory increase to the
obligation authority in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget.
Full Committee Hearings
During the 109th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services
held numerous hearings in accordance with its legislative and
oversight roles. These hearings focused on areas including the
budget of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the posture of
the armed services, the global war on terrorism, detainee
policy, the creation of military commissions to try those
accused of illegal acts in the war on terrorism, force
protection initiatives, national security concerns, acquisition
reform, U.S. border security, and Department of Defense
management and strategy. A full account of these hearings is
below.
(H.A.S.C. 109-1; H.A.S.C. 109-2; H.A.S.C. 109-3; H.A.S.C.
109-4; H.A.S.C. 109-5; H.A.S.C. 109-6; H.A.S.C. 109-7; H.A.S.C.
109-31; H.A.S.C. 109-32; H.A.S.C. 109-33; H.A.S.C. 109-35;
H.A.S.C. 109-36; H.A.S.C. 109-37; H.A.S.C. 109-38; H.A.S.C.
109-39; H.A.S.C. 109-48; H.A.S.C. 109-53; H.A.S.C. 109-57;
H.A.S.C. 109-60; H.A.S.C. 109-63; H.A.S.C. 109-69; H.A.S.C.
109-79; H.A.S.C. 109-80; H.A.S.C. 109-81; H.A.S.C. 109-82;
H.A.S.C. 109-87; H.A.S.C. 109-88; H.A.S.C. 109-92; H.A.S.C.
109-93; H.A.S.C. 109-95; H.A.S.C. 109-96; H.A.S.C. 109-97;
H.A.S.C. 109-98; H.A.S.C. 109-99; H.A.S.C. 109-100; H.A.S.C.
109-101; H.A.S.C. 109-102; H.A.S.C. 109-103; H.A.S.C. 109-104;
H.A.S.C. 109-105; H.A.S.C. 109-106; H.A.S.C. 109-107; H.A.S.C.
109-108; H.A.S.C. 109-109; H.A.S.C. 109-110; H.A.S.C. 109-111;
H.A.S.C. 109-112; H.A.S.C. 109-113; H.A.S.C. 109-114; H.A.S.C.
109-115; H.A.S.C. 109-116; H.A.S.C. 109-117; H.A.S.C. 109-118;
H.A.S.C. 109-119; H.A.S.C. 109-120)
POSTURE AND BUDGET
During the 109th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services
held multiple hearings on the posture, financial requirements,
and status of the U.S. armed forces as they continue to fight
the global war on terrorism to protect and defend the United
States, her people, her interests, and her friends and allies
around the world. These hearings, combined with the committee's
responsibility for assembling the annual defense authorization
bill, are the primary means by which it leads Congress in the
latter's discharge of its Constitutional duties.
On February 9 and March 10, 2005, the committee convened a
hearing with Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General
Richard B. Myers, USAF, to review the budget request for
funding and authorities during fiscal year 2006. In addition to
this hearing, the committee sought and received testimony from
each of the services and several unified combatant commanders.
On February 9, 2005, Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army;
and the Chief of Staff of the Army, Peter J. Schoomaker,
appeared before the committee to discuss their service's
portion of the fiscal year 2006 budget request. They were
followed on February 17th by Gordon England, Secretary of the
Navy; Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vernon E. Clark; and
Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Michael W. Hagee, who
testified on the budget as it related to the U.S. Navy and
Marine Corps. The following month, Pete Teets, Acting Secretary
of the Air Force; and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General
John P. Jumper, appeared before the committee to testify on the
United States Air Force's portion of the fiscal year 2006
budget request.
In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily
responsible for training and equipping their respective forces,
commanders of the unified combatant commands, who are in the
chain of command, appeared before the committee to discuss the
security situation in their respective areas of responsibility.
These included General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S.
Central Command; and General Bryan D. Brown, USA, Commander of
U.S. Special Operations Command on March 2, 2005. They were
followed one week later by General James L. Jones, USMC,
Commander of U.S. European Command; Admiral William J. Fallon,
USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; and General Bantz J.
Craddock, USA, Commander of U.S. Southern Command on March 9,
2005.
During the second session of the 109th Congress in 2006,
the committee continued its tradition of conducting intensive
hearings in preparation of the National Defense Authorization
Act for fiscal year 2007. On February 8, 2006, the committee
received testimony from Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary
of Defense; General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff; and General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of
Staff of the Army, to review the budget request for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007. On February 15,
2006, Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army; and General
Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified on
the Army's portion of the fiscal year 2007 budget request. The
committee continued its hearings on the budget request by
inviting the senior leaders of the Department of the Air Force
to appear before it on March 1, 2006, when Michael T. Wynne,
Secretary of the Air Force, testified before the committee with
General T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.
The committee concluded its uniformed service posture hearings
that same day with a separate hearing when Donald C. Winter,
Secretary of the Navy, testified before the committee with
Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, and
General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
After completing its hearings with the leadership of the
uniformed services, the committee turned its attention to the
combatant commands. On March 2, 2006, General Norton A.
Schwartz, USAF, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command,
testified before the committeealong with General Duncan J.
McNabb, USAF, Commander of Air Mobility Command, Vice Admiral David L.
Brewer III, USN, Commander of Military Sealift Command, and Major
General Charles W. Fletcher, USA, Commander of Military Surface
Deployment and Distribution Command. They were followed by geographic
unified combatant commanders when on March 8, 2006, General James L.
Jones, USMC, Commander of U.S. European Command testified before the
committee. Admiral William J. Fallon, USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific
Command, and General B.B. Bell, USA, Commander of United Nations
Command, Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea, testified before
the committee on March 9, 2006. General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of
U.S. Central Command, testified before the committee on March 15, 2006.
In the last posture hearing of the 109th Congress, on March 16, 2006,
General Bantz J. Craddock, USA, Commander of U.S. Southern Command,
testified before the committee.
(H.A.S.C. 109-2; H.A.S.C. 109-3; H.A.S.C. 109-4; H.A.S.C.
109-5; H.A.S.C. 109-6; H.A.S.C. 109-7; H.A.S.C. 109-48;
H.A.S.C. 109-53; H.A.S.C. 109-57; H.A.S.C. 109-60; H.A.S.C.
109-69; H.A.S.C. 109-95; H.A.S.C. 109-99; H.A.S.C. 109-101;
H.A.S.C. 109-102)
GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM
The committee continued its work from the 108th Congress
with intensive oversight of the global war on terrorism. While
much of this oversight is necessarily classified, the committee
is committed to publicly reviewing the developments associated
with the activities and deployments of the U.S. armed forces.
On June 22, 2005, the committee received testimony on
operations and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan from Peter
Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
Security Affairs, Lieutenant General Walter Sharp, USA,
Director of Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Staff, and Nancy
Powell, Assistant Secretary of State for International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Oversight of operations
in Afghanistan continued in the second session on June 28,
2006, when the committee received testimony on the status of
security and stability from Karen Tandy, Administrator of the
Drug Enforcement Agency, Mary Beth Long, Principal Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs,
Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, USA, Commanding General of
Combined Forces Command--Afghanistan, and James Kunder,
Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near East for the U.S.
Agency for International Development. Both of the hearings
highlighted the committee's concern over the growing poppy
cultivation problem in Afghanistan. On June 29, 2005, the
committee met to review detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. Brigadier General Jay Hood, USA, Commander of Joint Task
Force Guantanamo, Commander Cary Ostergaard, USN, Detainee
Hospital Commander, and Command Sergeant Major Anthony Mendez,
USA, Joint Detention Group testified.
(H.A.S.C. 109-38; H.A.S.C. 109-114; H.A.S.C. 109-37)
IRAQ
The committee continued to spend large amounts of time on
the war in Iraq as members sought to ensure that U.S. military
forces had every thing necessary to assist in Iraq's eventual
successful transition to a fully functioning stable and
autonomous state. On March 17, 2005, Dr. Andrew Krepinevich,
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Dr. Steven
Metz, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, and
Walter B. Slocombe, former Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy and Senior Adviser for Defense and Security Sector
Affairs to the Coalition Provisional Authority met with the
committee to discuss current operations and the political
transition in Iraq. On April 4, 2005, General Wesley K. Clark,
USA (Ret.), former Commander of U.S. European Command, and
Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Policy, testified before the committee
on Iraq's past, present, and future. Soon after these outside
experts testified, senior Department of Defense leaders
including Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, General
Richard B. Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General
John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command, and
General George W. Casey, Jr., USA, Commander of Multi-National
Forces--Iraq, appeared before the committee on June 23, 2005,
to examine the progress of the Iraqi Security Forces. On
September 29, 2005, the committee met to receive an update on
operations in Iraq from Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of
Defense, General Richard B. Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs, General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central
Command, and General George W. Casey, Jr., USA, Commander of
Multi-National Forces--Iraq. The committee met on November 3,
2005, to recognize and discuss the contributions of
servicemembers with testimony from a representative panel of a
few of America's finest: Brigadier John F. Kelly, USMC,
Legislative Assistant to the Commandant, Colonel Robert Abrams,
USA, Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry Division, and Command Sergeant
Major Neil Citola, USA, Command Sergeant Major, III Corps.
In the second session of the 109th Congress on June 29,
2006, the committee me to review reports of weapons of mass
destruction findings in Iraq with Lieutenant General Michael D.
Maples, USA, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr.
Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, Dr.
David Kay, former Director of the Iraq Survey Group, and Dr.
Terence Taylor, Former Commissioner, U.N. Special Commission on
Iraq. On November 15, 2006, the committee received testimony on
the current situation and military operations in Iraq from
Ambassador David M. Satterfield, Senior Adviser to the
Secretary of State and Coordinator for Iraq, and General John
Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command. For the last
full committee hearing of the 109th Congress, on December 7,
2006, the committee received testimony from Lieutenant General
James J. Lovelace, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations,
Major General Carter F. Ham, USA, Commanding General of the 1st
Infantry Division, and Major General George F. Flynn, USMC,
Commanding General of Training and Education Command, on
military transition teams in Iraq.
(H.A.S.C. 109-31; H.A.S.C. 109-32; H.A.S.C. 109-33;
H.A.S.C. 109-87; H.A.S.C. 109-93; H.A.S.C. 109-115; H.A.S.C.
109-92; H.A.S.C. 109-97)
FORCE PROTECTION
All members of the committee are dedicated to making
certain that every servicemember who enters a theater of combat
operations has the necessary force protection equipment to give
them the best opportunity to come home safe. In light of this
commitment, the members met on May 5, 2005, to discuss the
status of tactical wheeled vehicle armoring initiatives and
improvised explosive device jammer initiatives in Operation
Iraqi Freedom with Dr. Steven J. deTeresa, Engineer, Laurence
Livermore National Laboratory, Brigadier General Joseph L.
Votel, USA, Director, Joint IED Defeat Task Force, Brigadier
General Jeffrey A. Sorenson, USA, Deputy for Acquisition and
Systems Management, Department of the Army, Brigadier General
William D. Catto, USMC, Commanding General of the Marine Corps
System Command, Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, USMC,
Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development
Command, and Lieutenant Colonel Paul J. Kennedy, USMC, former
battalion commander, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st
Marine Division. On June 21, 2005, the committee met to review
Marine Corps force protection with General William L. Nyland,
Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Brigadier General
William D. Catto, Commanding General of the Marine Corps System
Command. The committee invited Hon. Francis J. Harvey,
Secretary of the Army, and General Richard Cody, Vice Chief of
Staff of the Army, to testify on the Army's M1114 up-armor high
mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle distribution strategy on
October 20, 2005.
(H.A.S.C. 109-79; H.A.S.C. 109-80; H.A.S.C. 109-88)
MILITARY COMMISSIONS
To prosecute expeditiously those individuals who have
wreaked terror on the United States, the committee devoted a
large segment of its second session to enacting law governing
military commissions. On July 12, 2006, the committee summoned
Mr. Steven J. Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mr.
Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Principal Deputy General Counsel for the
Department of Defense, Honorable Theodore Olson, former
Solicitor General of the United States, and Rear Admiral John
Hutson, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General to testify on
the standards of military commissions and tribunals. Two weeks
later the committee met again on July 26, 2006, to hear from
Honorable Patricia M. Wald, former Chief Judge for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Gerald
Gahima, former Judge for the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of
Bosnia Herzegovina and former Deputy Chief Justice and Attorney
General for Rwanda, Mr. Michael P. Scharf, Professor of Law and
Director of the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at
Case Western Reserve University, and Ms. Jennifer Elsea,
Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional
Research Service on the same topic. On September 7, 2006, the
committee met again to discuss the standards of military
commissions and tribunals with Mr. Steven Bradbury, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Major General Scott C. Black, The
Judge Advocate General of the Army, Rear Admiral Bruce E.
MacDonald, The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, Major
General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., Deputy Judge Advocate General
of the Air Force, Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, and
Colonel Ronald Reed, USAF, Legal Counsel to the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
(H.A.S.C. 109-116; H.A.S.C. 109-117; H.A.S.C. 109-120)
National Security Concerns
As part of its larger responsibility to oversee matters
related to national security, the committee hosted a joint
hearing with the House Committee on International Relations on
April 14, 2005, to discuss arms exports to the People's
Republic of China by member states of the European Union.
Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political
Affairs at the Department of State, Honorable Peter W. Rodman,
Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs for the
Department of Defense, and Mr. Peter Lichtenbaum, Acting Under
Secretary for Industry and Security for the Department of
Commerce testified on the importance maintaining the embargo
for U.S. national security.
On July 27, 2005, the committee met to receive testimony on
Chinese military power from Honorable Franklin Kramer, former
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security
Affairs, Dr. Richard D. Fisher, Vice President of the
International Assessment and Strategy Center, and Mr. John J.
Tkacik, Jr., Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. In the
second session, the committee met on June 22, 2006, to discuss
the military power of the People's Republic of China with
Honorable Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary for
International Security Affairs for the Department of Defense,
Mr. Mark Cozad, China Forces Senior Intelligence Officer for
the Defense Intelligence Agency, and COL Robert Carr, USA,
Assistant Director of Intelligence for the Joint Staff.
(H.A.S.C. 109-35; H.A.S.C. 109-36; H.A.S.C. 109-112)
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES
The process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States (CFIUS) came under increasing scrutiny in the
109th Congress, as the committee sought to ensure important
national security matters were given due consideration in the
voluntary CFIUS process. On July 13, 2005, the committee met to
investigate the national security implications of the possible
merger of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation with
Unocal Corporation. The four witnesses were Honorable R. James
Woolsey, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
Honorable C. Richard D'Amato, Chairman of the U.S.-China
Economic and Security Review Commission, Mr. Frank J. Gaffney,
President of the Center for Security Policy, and Mr. Jerry
Taylor, Director of Natural Resource Studies for the Cato
Institute. On March 2, 2006, the committee met to receive
testimony on the national security implications of the Dubai
Ports World deal to take over management of U.S. ports from Mr.
Frank J. Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy,
Dr. James Carafano, Senior Fellow for National Security and
Homeland Security for the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Stephen
Flynn, Senior Fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr.
Edward H. Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer for Dubai Ports
World, Mr. George Dalton, General Counsel for Dubai Ports
World, Mr. Michael Moore, Senior Vice President for Commercial
Dubai Ports World, Mr. Robert Scavone, Executive Vice President
for Security for the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation
Company, Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy for the Department of Defense, Mr. Stewart Baker,
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and International
Affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Clay
Lowery, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs for the
Department of Treasury, Mr. Alan Misenheimer, Director of the
Office of Arabian Peninsula and Iran Affairs for the Department
of State, and Rear Admiral Thomas Gilmour, USCG, Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental
Protection.
(H.A.S.C. 109-81; H.A.S.C. 109-100)
IRAN
The committee continued to investigate the efforts of Iran
to develop nuclear capabilities. On February 1, 2006, the
committee received testimony on options in countering a nuclear
Iran from Mr. Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute
for Near East Policy, Dr. George Perkovich of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, and Dr. Ilan Berman of the
American Foreign Policy Council. On June 8, 2006, the committee
met to assess the geopolitical dynamics and U.S. policy options
in relation to Iran with testimony from Dr. Patrick Clawson,
Deputy Director of Research for the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, and Dr. Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle
Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations.
(H.A.S.C. 109-98; H.A.S.C. 109-109)
ACQUISITION REFORM
Recognizing the importance of a smoothly functioning,
efficient acquisition process to the members of the armed
services, the committee remained extremely interested in all
aspects of acquisition reform. On November 2, 2005, the
committee met to receive a general overview of all acquisition
reform efforts from Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
Honorable Claude M. Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Honorable John J.
Young, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research,
Development, and Acquisition, and Lieutenant General Donald J.
Hoffman, USAF, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition. One week later on November 9,
2005, the committee met to take a closer look at the Defense
Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor Program with testimony from
Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and Vice Admiral Keith
W. Lippert, USN, Director of the Defense Logistics Agency. In
the second session the committee continued to review
acquisition reform and related issues with a hearing on March
29, 2006, with testimony from Mr. Pierre Chao, Senior Fellow
and Director of Defense Industrial Initiatives for the Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Honorable Robert J.
Hermann, Task Force co-chair, Defense Science Board Summer
Study on Transformation, Lieutenant General Robert T. Kadish,
USAF (Ret.), Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Performance
Assessment Panel, and Mr. Terry R. Little, Acquisition Adviser
to the Director of the Defense Missile Agency. On April 5,
2006, the committee met to discuss further reviews of major
defense acquisition reforms with Honorable David M. Walker,
Comptroller General of the United States, Honorable Kenneth J.
Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN, Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr. David Patterson,
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller.
(H.A.S.C. 109-63; H.A.S.C. 109-96; H.A.S.C. 109-104;
H.A.S.C. 109-106)
BORDER SECURITY
The committee conducted several hearings over the course of
the Congress on border security, including two conducted in the
field. On May 24, 2006, the committee met to receive testimony
on the mission of the National Guard in regards to border
security from Honorable Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense, Major General Richard J. Rowe,
USA, Director of Operations for U.S. Northern Command,
Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the National
Guard Bureau, and Mr. David Aguilar, Chief of Border Patrol for
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. On August 1,
2006, the committee held a field hearing at Selfridge Air
National Guard Base, Michigan, to investigate U.S. Northern
border security with testimony from Brigadier General Michael
Peplinski, USAF, Commander 127th Wing, Selfridge Air National
Guard Base, Chief Patrol Agent John Bates, Sector Chief for
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, Captain Patrick
Brennan, USCG, Commanding Officer for Sector Detroit, Mr. John
Jamian, former Maritime Administrator for the Maritime
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Sheriff Dan
Lane, St. Clair County Sheriff's Department, St. Clair County,
Michigan, Colonel Paul Disney, USA, Director of Operations for
Joint Task Force North, U.S. Northern Command, and Mr. Ghurdit
Dillon, Director of Field Operations for the Detroit Field
Office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security. On August 2, 2006, the committee moved south
to receive testimony regarding U.S. Southern border security
from Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the
National Guard Bureau, Colonel Ben Hancock, USMC, Commanding
Officer for the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona, Deputy
Chief Patrol Agent Jeffrey Calhoon, Sector Deputy Chief, U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Agency, Major General Antonio J.
Pineda, National Commander of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, and
Ms. Vivian Juan-Saunders, Chairwoman of the Tohono O'odham
Nation.
(H.A.S.C. 109-108; H.A.S.C. 109-118; H.A.S.C. 109-119)
DEPARTMENT OF DFENSE MANAGEMENT AND STRATEGY
In preparation for the release of the February 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) the committee conducted a
hearing on September 14, 2005, on the goals and principles of
the QDR with testimony from outside experts Honorable Dov S.
Zakheim, former Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, Ms.
Michele Flournoy, Center for Strategic and International
Studies, Dr. Daniel Goure, Lexington Institute, and Dr. Andrew
F. Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
After the QDR was released the committee met again on March 14,
2006, to discuss the document with Honorable Gordon England,
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani,
USN, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mr. Thomas Donnelly,
American Enterprise Institute, Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich,
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and Mr.
Lawrence J. Korb, Center for American Progress.
(H.A.S.C. 109-82; H.A.S.C. 109-103)
OTHER
The committee held multiple hearings throughout the 109th
Congress to investigate issues at the full committee level that
functioned as stand alone hearings.
On July 20, 2005, the committee met to review the Air
Force's Future Total Force Plan with Lieutenant General Stephan
G. Wood, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs,
Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the National
Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Daniel James III, USAF,
Director of the Air National Guard, Lieutenant General John A.
Bradley, USAF, Chief of the Air Force Reserve, Major General
Roger P. Lempke, USAF, Adjutant General of Nebraska, and Major
General Mason C. Whitney, USAF, Adjutant General of Colorado.
On April 4, 2006, the committee received testimony on
improving interagency coordination for the global war on
terrorism and beyond from Honorable Thomas W. O'Connell,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN,
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ambassador Henry A.
Crumpton, Coordinator for Counterterrorism for the Department
of State, and Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, USN (Ret.),
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
On April 7, 2006, the committee met to investigate the
appropriateness of avenues for building the capacity of foreign
forces through the Department with the following witnesses:
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy, Dr. John Hillen, Assistant Secretary for Political-
Military Affairs for the Department of State, and General James
L. Jones, USMC, Commander of U.S. European Command.
On June 13, 2006, the committee examined issues related to
H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard
Empowerment Act of 2006, with Honorable Gordon England, Deputy
Secretary of Defense, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN, Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Cody,
USA, Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, General John D.W.
Corley, USAF, Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force, Brigadier
General Stephen Koper, USAF (Ret.), President of the National
Guard Association of the United States, and Major General
Francis D. Vavala, USA (Ret.), Vice President of the Adjutants
General Association of the United States.
On June 20, 2006, the committee received testimony on
significant force realignments of the Department, including
beddown, support, and other costs and requirements related to
those realignments from Honorable Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy
Secretary of Defense for Policy, Honorable Philip W. Grone,
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Management, and Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, Vice Director
for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Staff.
On June 27, 2006, the committee met to review Army and
Marine Corps reset strategies for ground equipment and
rotorcraft with General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of
the Army, and General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the
Marine Corps.
(H.A.S.C. 109-39; H.A.S.C. 109-105; H.A.S.C. 109-107;
H.A.S.C. 109-110; H.A.S.C. 109-111; H.A.S.C. 109-113)
OTHER ACTIVITIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces addressed
all Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic
airlift and weapons programs, space programs, special
operations and information technology programs); Navy and
Marine Corps aviation programs; National Guard, Army, and Air
Force reserve modernization programs; and ammunition programs
by conducting 14 oversight hearings during its consideration of
the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense
(DOD) budget requests, including: March 3, 2005, Navy and Air
Force aviation acquisition programs; March 9, 2005, DOD
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and joint unmanned combat air
system investment programs; March 16, 2005, Future Combat
Systems (FCS), modularity, and force protection initiatives;
April 14, 2005, DOD major rotorcraft programs; March 9, 2006,
DOD major rotorcraft programs; March 16, 2006, Navy and Air
Force aviation acquisition programs; April 4, 2006, FCS,
modularity, and force protection initiatives; April 6, 2006,
UAV and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities.
In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted
oversight hearing on the following: June 29, 2005, small
business technologies; October 20, 2005, aerial common sensor
program; February 1, 2006, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) ground forces vehicle and
personnel protection and rotary wing safety of flight update;
March 30, 2006, Army and Marine Corps reset strategies for
ground equipment and rotorcraft; June 15, 2006, the use of
combat helmets, vehicle armor, and body armor by ground forces
in OIF and OEF; September 21, 2006, combat vehicle active
protection systems. In addition to formal hearings, the
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following: major
rotorcraft programs, DOD intelligence programs, tactical
aviation programs, force protection initiatives, and active
protection systems.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
12, 2005, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163),
and considered and reported legislation on April 26, 2006, that
was included in the John W. Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
The legislation covered a range of issues, including multiyear
procurement authority for F-22 aircraft, and an independent
cost estimate for the Army's Future Combat Systems program.
Legislation initiated by the subcommittee also increased
funding for a Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, as well as
increased funding for M-1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicle
upgrades, and tactical wheeled vehicles.
(H.A.S.C. No. 109-8; H.A.S.C. No. 109-9; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
10; H.A.S.C. No. 109-11; H.A.S.C. No. 109-29; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
46; H.A.S.C. No. 109-66; H.A.S.C. No. 109-68; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
73; H.A.S.C. No. 109-74; H.A.S.C. No. 109-76; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
121; H.A.S.C. No. 109-122; H.A.S.C. No. 109-126)
Subcommittee on Readiness
The Subcommittee on Readiness reviewed the programs within
the operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal years 2006
and 2007 to ensure that appropriate funds were available to
maintain a high level of military readiness. Oversight
activities of the subcommittee included a hearing on March 3,
2005, as well as classified briefings on February 15, 2006, and
June 28, 2006, to examine the current state of military
readiness and the adequacy of the fiscal year 2006 and 2007
budget requests. As a result, the subcommittee authorized
$125.7 billion in the operation and maintenance accounts in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public
Law 109-163) and authorized $129.0 billion in operation and
maintenance accounts the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to
fund critical readiness needs.
In order to assess the military forces' preparedness for
the global war on terrorism and the effects of this ongoing
campaign on military readiness, the subcommittee performed a
number of oversight activities. The subcommittee met in joint
session with the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
on February 2, 2006, to receive testimony on vehicle and
personnel protection and rotary wing flight safety. During the
109th Congress, the subcommittee also evaluated programs for
the repair, modernization, and replacement of equipment used in
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The subcommittee
met on April 6, 2005, to hear testimony on the military
services' requirements to reset and reconstitute their forces.
The Subcommittees on Readiness and Tactical Air and Land Forces
met in a joint session on March 30, 2006, to investigate Army
and Marine Corps reset strategies for ground equipment and
rotorcraft. In continuation of this effort, the full committee
took up this topic in a hearing on June 27, 2006. In addition
to formal subcommittee meetings to evaluate equipment reset,
the subcommittee charged staff to conduct multiple meetings
with service representatives and undergo several fact-finding
staff delegations to military facilities in the United States
and the theater of operations. As a result, the subcommittee
recommended an increase of $23.8 billion in the fiscal year
2007 supplemental bridge fund to meet all outstanding
requirements for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset.
The subcommittee also reviewed the impacts of service
contracting on military readiness. On April 5, 2006, the
subcommittee held a hearing on the potential for the
inappropriate use of operation and maintenance funds for
military construction and procurement activities. As a result,
the subcommittee recommended a provision in the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public
Law 109-364) that would limit the use of service contracts for
the acquisition of certain major systems. The subcommittee also
received testimony on Navy transformation efforts on April 6,
2006, resulting in legislation requiring additional information
prior to the expenditures of funds for the Naval Expeditionary
Combat Command.
In addition, the subcommittee reviewed issues pertaining to
military construction, family housing, and base realignment and
closure activities (BRAC) of the Department of Defense (DOD).
The subcommittee held a hearing on March 15, 2005, on the
fiscal year 2006 budget request for military construction,
family housing, base realignment and closure activities, and
facilities operations and maintenance. The subcommittee also
met to receive testimony on the DOD management of historic and
historic-eligible facilities on March 8, 2006.
In relation to the BRAC process, the subcommittee held a
briefing on March 17, 2005, on reutilization of closed and
realigned military bases. Subsequently, the full committee met
on September 15, 2005, to consider H.J. Res. 65, a resolution
to disapprove the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Commission. On September 29, 2005, the
committee reported the resolution adversely to the House. The
resolution failed to pass the House on November 27, 2005.
On September 21, 2006, the subcommittee joined the
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities in closed session for a briefing on Northern
Command's (USNORTHCOM) decision to maintain the Cheyenne
Mountain Operations Center in a ``warm standby'' status and to
relocate some North American Aerospace Defense Command and
USNORTHCOM military and civilian positions to Peterson Air
Force Base, Colorado. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Readiness subsequently requested that the
Government Accountability Office investigate the relocation
decision.
Finally, the Subcommittees on Readiness and Terrorism, and
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on
September 26, 2006, to explore alternative energy and energy
efficiency programs of the Department of Defense. This hearing
resulted in legislation to establish an Energy Security chapter
of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate and improve
energy policy authorities of the Department of Defense.
(H.A.S.C. 109-12; H.A.S.C. 109-13; H.A.S.C. 109-14;
H.A.S.C. 109-46; H.A.S.C. 109-66; H.A.S.C. 109-123; H.A.S.C.
109-124; H.A.S.C. 109-125; H.A.S.C. 109-127)
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities conducted a series of hearings to review programs
included in the Department of Defense budget requests for
fiscal years 2006 and 2007 during the 109th Congress,
including: March 3, 2005, Tactical C-4 Systems: Why Does the
Department of Defense Have So Many Systems Performing the Same
Functionality?; March 10, 2005, Defense Science and Technology
in Support of the War on Terrorism and Beyond; March 15, 2005,
Department of Defense Responsibilities in Homeland Defense and
Homeland Security Missions; March 17, 2005, U.S. Special
Operations Command Policy and Programs; April 6, 2005,
Destruction of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile--Program
Status and Issues; March 8, 2006, Special Operations Command:
Transforming for the Long War; March 29, 2006, Defense Science
and Technology: Investments to Shape the Evolving Terrorist
Threat; April 6, 2006 Information Technology Issues and Defense
Transformation.
In addition to its optional oversight responsibilities
regarding the President's budget requests, the subcommittee
conducted oversight hearings on the following: July 21, 2005,
Counter Terrorism Technology Sharing (a joint hearing with the
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology
of the Committee on Homeland Security Committee); Financing the
Iraq Insurgency (a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigation of the Financial Services
Committee); September, 29, 2005, Understanding the Iran Threat;
November 9, 2005, Military and National Guard Roles in Disaster
Response; February 15, 2006, The Able Danger Program (a joint
hearing with the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the
Committee on Armed Services); February 16, 2006, Combating al
Qaeda and the Militant Jihadist Threat; March 15, 2006,
Implementing the Global War on Terror Strategy: Overcoming
Interagency Problems; April 5, 2006, Implementing the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review Recommendations to Combat Weapons of
Mass Destruction; May 25, 2006, Applying Lessons Learned from
Hurricane Katrina: How the Department of Defense is Preparing
for the Upcoming Hurricane Season; June 29, 2006, Assessing
U.S. Special Operations Command's Missions and Roles; September
26, 2006, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs of
the Department of Defense; September 27, 2006, Irregular
Warfare Roadmap.
Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics:
Middle Eastern Foreign Policy, U.S. Special Operations Command,
the global war on terrorism, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
Enduring Freedom, human intelligence issues, Alternative Energy
Policy, and Information Ops (Winning Hearts and Minds).
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
met to consider and report legislation on April 27, 2006, that
was included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation
covered a range of issues, including the following: Improved
interagency coordination in prosecuting the global war on
terrorism, Chemical Biological defense basic research, added
funding for counterterrorism technology development, Special
Operations Command unfunded requirements, Test and Evaluation
policy for rapid acquisition and Information technology program
concerns.
(H.A.S.C. 109-15; H.A.S.C. 109-16; H.A.S.C. 109-17;
H.A.S.C. 109-18; H.A.S.C. 109-19; H.A.S.C. 109-40; H.A.S.C.
109-41; H.A.S.C. 109-42; H.A.S.C. 109-43; H.A.S.C. 109-52;
H.A.S.C. 109-55; H.A.S.C. 109-56; H.A.S.C. 109-59; H.A.S.C.
109-71; H.A.S.C. 109-83; H.A.S.C. 109-84; H.A.S.C. 109-85;
H.A.S.C. 109-127; H.A.S.C. 109-128; H.A.S.C. 109-129)
Subcommittee on Military Personnel
The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a series
of hearings to review and evaluate matters under its
jurisdiction in the fiscal years 2006 and 2007 budget requests:
March 16, 2005, Recruiting, Retention and Military Personnel
Policy, and Benefits and Compensation Overview; April 7, 2005,
Military Resale and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Overview;
March 15, 2006, Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and
Recreation Overview; March 29, 2006, The Defense Health
Program--Department of Defense Initiatives to Control Costs;
and April 6, 2006, Policy, Compensation, and Benefits Overview.
In addition to its budget request hearings, the
subcommittee conducted hearings related to the following
topics: February 2, 2005, Adequacy of Army Forces; March 3,
2005, Care of Injured and Wounded Service Members; June 28,
2005, The Religious Climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy; July
19, 2005, Current Status of Military Recruiting and Retention;
July 26, 2005, Mental Health; October 19, 2005, Defense Health
Program Overview; June 21, 2006, Trafficking in Persons; and
September 27, 2006, The Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the
Selected Reserve.
The subcommittee also conducted briefings on the following
topics: March 18, 2005, Report on the Service Academy Sexual
Assault and Leadership Survey; April 6, 2005, Department of
Defense Briefing on Sexual Assault; April 11, 2005, the
Inspector General Report on Sexual Assault; April 21, 2005,
Proposed Changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice on
Rape and Sexual Assault; March 2, 2006, Combatant Commander
Warfighting Requirements and the Quadrennial Defense Review
Force (classified); June 14, 2006, The Viability of the
Selective Service; and June 20, 2006, Veterans? Affairs Data
Loss.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
met to consider and report legislation on April 26, 2006, that
was included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation
covered a range of issues, including the following: increased
active component end strength for the Armyand Marine Corps,
support for the Defense Health Program, protection of service members
from predatory lenders, and bonuses and incentive pay for service
members.
(H.A.S.C. 109-20; H.A.S.C. 109-21; H.A.S.C. 109-44;
H.A.S.C. 109-45; H.A.S.C. 109-64; H.A.S.C. 109-65; H.A.S.C.
109-70; H.A.S.C. 109-75; H.A.S.C. 109-78; H.A.S.C. 109-86;
H.A.S.C. 109-89; H.A.S.C. 109-90; H.A.S.C. 109-91)
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed the
Department of Energy's atomic energy defense activities, as
well as the missile defense and space programs of the
Department of Defense (DOD), by conducting hearings during its
consideration of the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007
budget requests, including: March 2, 2005, Department of
Energy's budget request for atomic energy defense activities;
March 9, 2005, the status of military space activities; March
15, 2005, budget request for missile defense programs; March 1,
2006, Department of Energy's budget request for atomic energy
defense activities; March 9, 2006, budget request for the
Missile Defense Agency and ballistic missile defense programs;
and on March 16, 2006, the status of military space activities.
Separate from the traditional budget oversight reviews, the
subcommittee held hearings on the following: July 12, 2005, on
space acquisitions; February 15, 2006, the Able Danger Program
(joint with the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional
Threats and Capabilities); April 5, 2006, future plans for the
Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex infrastructure;
June 21, 2006, space and U.S. national power; July 26, 2006, on
plutonium disposition and the U.S. mixed oxide fuel facility.
Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics:
adversarial information operations and cyber attacks as part of
a threat-based defense review to complement the DOD's on-going,
capabilities-based Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Conventional Trident Modification
program, Reliable Replacement Warhead program, National
Security Space Threat and Space Control, and strategic
implications of the QDR.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
considered and reported legislation on April 27, 2006, that was
included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation
covered a range of issues, including the following: the
Reliable Replacement Warhead program, transformation of the
nuclear weapons complex, consolidation of the
counterintelligence programs of the Department of Energy and
the National Nuclear Security Administration, plans for the
test and evaluation of the ballistic missile defense system,
the policy of the United States on priorities in the
development, testing and fielding of missile defense
capabilities, Space Situational Awareness Strategy, and
Operationally Responsive Space.
(H.A.S.C. 109-22, H.A.S.C. 109-23, H.A.S.C. 109-24,
H.A.S.C. 109-34, H.A.S.C. 109-54, H.A.S.C. 109-58, H.A.S.C.
109-62, H.A.S.C. 109-71, H.A.S.C. 109-72, H.A.S.C. 109-77,
H.A.S.C. 109-130)
Subcommittee on Projection Forces
The Subcommittee on Projection Forces conducted a series of
hearings to review programs included in the Department of
Defense (DOD) acquisition budget requests for fiscal years 2006
and 2007 during the 109th Congress, including: March 2, 2005,
Navy Research and Development: Programs in Support of the War
on Terrorism, Naval Transformation, and Future Naval
Capabilities; March 10, 2005, The Navy's Future Fleet:
Assessing the Strength of Today's Navy for Tomorrow; March 15,
2005, Navy Critical Enablers--The Department of the Navy's
Program and Antisubmarine Warfare, Mine Countermeasures, Ship
Self-Defense and Naval Surface Fire Support; and March 30,
2006, The Department of the Navy's Shipbuilding Acquisition
Strategy.
In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted
oversight hearings on the following: June 13, 2005, The Nuclear
Submarine Force--Past, Present and Future; June 29, 2005, Small
Business Technologies (joint with Subcommittee on Tactical Air
and Land Forces); July 19, 2005, Department of the Navy Fiscal
Year 2006 Plans and Programs for the DD(X) Next-Generation
Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship (Part I) and July 20,
2005, Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2006 Plans and
Programs for the DD(X) Next-Generation Multi-Mission Surface
Combatant Ship (Part II); February 28, 2006, U.S. Air Force
Aerial Refueling Recapitalization Requirements; March 15, 2006,
Evolving Missions of the U.S. Navy and the Role of Surface and
Subsurface Combatants; March 28, 2006, The U.S. Navy's Future
Submarine Force Structure; April 5, 2006, The U.S. Shipbuilding
Industrial Base; April 6, 2006, Integration of Energy Efficient
Propulsion Systems for Future U.S. Navy Vessels.
Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics:
antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures, alternate
propulsion systems, threats to U.S. naval forces, mobility
capability study, conventional trident modification, aircraft
carrier force structure, and alternate aircraft carrier
designs.
The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and
considered and report legislation on April 27, 2006, that was
included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation
covered a range of issues, including the following: measures to
enhance the force projection capabilities of the U.S. Navy and
U.S. Air Force; steps to assess the processes, technologies,
and performance incentives required to improve the efficiencies
and effectiveness of naval vessel construction; and efforts to
ensure that current capabilities are not permanently or
prematurely retired to fund future replacement capabilities
that are either undefined or unaffordable.
(H.A.S.C. 109-25; H.A.S.C. 109-26; H.A.S.C. 109-27;
H.A.S.C. 109-28; H.A.S.C. 109-29; H.A.S.C. 109-30; H.A.S.C.
109-47; H.A.S.C. 109-49; H.A.S.C. 109-50; H.A.S.C. 109-51;
H.A.S.C. 109-61; H.A.S.C. 109-67)
PUBLICATIONS
Published Proceedings
H.A.S.C. 109-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee
Organization. January 26, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-2--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Army. February 9, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-3--Full Committee hearings on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of Defense. February 16 and March 10, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-4--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Navy. February 17, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-5--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Combatant Commanders of the U.S. Central Command and U.S.
Special Operations Command. March 2, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-6--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Combatant Commanders of the U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific
Command and U.S. Southern Command. March 9, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-7--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Air Force. March 16, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-8--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The
Department of the Navy and Department of the Air Force Aviation
Acquisition Programs and Future Technology Initiatives. March
3, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-9--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
and Joint Unmanned Combat Air System Investment Programs. March
9, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-10--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Future Combat Systems, Modularity and Force
Protection Initiatives. March 16, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-11--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on the Department of Defense's Major Rotorcraft
Programs. April 14, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-12--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on The
Adequacy of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget to Meet Readiness
Needs. March 3, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-13--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Military Construction, Family Housing, Base Closures, and
Facilities Operations and Maintenance. March 15, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-14--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Military Services' Requirement on Reconstitution of Equipment.
April 6, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-15--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Tactical C4
Systems: Why Does the DOD Have so Many Systems Performing the
Same Functionality? March 3, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-16--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Defense
Science and Technology Policy Programs. March 10, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-17--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Department of
Defense Responsibilities in Homeland Defense and Homeland
Security Missions. March 15, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-18--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--U.S. Special Operations Command
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request. March 17, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-19--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Destruction
of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile--Program Status and
Issues. April 6, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-20--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on
Recruiting, Retention and Military Personnel Policy, and
Benefits and Compensation Overview. March 16, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-21--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on
Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview.
April 7, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-22--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request
from the Department of Energy on Atomic Energy Defense
Activities. March 2, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-23--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Space Activities. March 9, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-24--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Missile Defense Programs. March 15, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-25--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on
Navy Research and Development: Programs in Support of the War
on Terrorism, Naval Transformation, and Future Naval
Capabilities. March 2, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-26--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request--
The Navy's Future Fleet: Assessing the Strength of Today's Navy
for Tomorrow. March 10, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-27--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on
Navy Critical Enablers: The Department of the Navy's Program
and Budget Request for Antisubmarine Warfare, Mine Counter
Measures, Ship Self-Defense, and Naval Surface Fire Support.
March 15, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-28--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
The Nuclear Submarine Force--Past, Present and Future. June 13,
2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-29--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
joint hearing with the Projection Forces Subcommittee on Small
Business Technologies. June 29, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-30--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on
the Department of the Navy Plans and Programs for the DD(X)
Next-Generation Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship. July 19
and 20, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-31--Full Committee hearing on Current
Operations and the Political Transition in Iraq. March 17,
2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-32--Full Committee hearing on Iraq's Past,
Present and Future. April 6, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-33--Full Committee hearing on Progress of the
Iraqi Security Forces. June 23, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-34--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
Space Acquisitions. July 12, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-35--Full Committee joint hearing with the
Committee on International Relations--Arms Exports to the
People's Republic of China by Member States of the European
Union. April 14, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-36--Full Committee hearing on Chinese Military
Power. July 27, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-37--Full Committee hearing on Detainee
Operations at Guantanamo Bay. June 29, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-38--Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan:
Operations and Reconstruction. June 22, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-39--Full Committee hearing on The Air Force's
Future Total Force Plan. July 20, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-40--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Subcommittee
on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology of the
Homeland Security Committee on Counter Terrorism Technology
Sharing. July 21, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-41--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Financial
Services--Financing of the Iraq Insurgency. July 28, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-42--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Understanding the Iran
Threat. September 29, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-43--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Combating al Qaeda and the
Militant Jihadist Threat. February 16, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-44--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
The Current Status of Military Recruiting and Retention. July
19, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-45--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
The Care of Injured and Wounded Service Members. March 3, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-46--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
joint hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on Operation
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Ground Forces
Vehicle and Personnel Protection and Rotary Wing Safety of
Flight Update. February 1, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-47--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Recapitalization Requirements.
February 28, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-48--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the United
States Transportation Command and Component Commands. March 2,
2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-49--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
Evolving Missions of the U.S. Navy and the Role of Surface and
Subsurface Combatants. March 15, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-50--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the Department of the Navy's Shipbuilding Acquisition Strategy.
March 30, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-51--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
U.S. Navy's Future Submarine Force Structure. March 28, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-52--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Implementing the Global
War on Terrorism Strategy: Overcoming Interagency Problems.
March 15, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-53--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Air Force. March 1, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-54--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
the Missile Defense Agency and Ballistic Missile Defense
Programs. March 9, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-55--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Special Operations
Command: Transforming for the Long War. March 8, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-56--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Defense Science and
Technology: Investments to Shape the Evolving Terrorist Threat.
March 29, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-57--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Navy. March 1, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-58--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
Future Plans for the Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons
Complex Infrastructure. April 5, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-59--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Information Technology
Issues and Defense Transformation. April 6, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-60--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S.
Central Command. March 15, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-61--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
The Integration of Energy Efficient Propulsion Systems for
Future U.S. Navy Vessels. April 6, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-62--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
the Department of Energy's Atomic Energy Defense Activities.
March 1, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-63--Full Committee hearing on Acquisition
Reform. November 2, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-64--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
Mental Health. July 26, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-65--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
Defense Health Program Overview. October 19, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-66--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
joint hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on Army and
Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and
Rotorcraft. March 30, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-67--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on
The U.S. Shipbuilding Industrial Base. April 5, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-68--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on the Department of the Navy and Department of
the Air Force Aviation Acquisition Programs. March 16, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-69--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of the Army. February 15, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-70--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
The Religious Climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy. June 28,
2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-71--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Strategic
Forces Subcommittee on The Able Danger Program. February 15,
2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-72--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for
Space Activities. March 16, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-73--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on the Department of Defense Major Rotorcraft
Programs. March 9, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-74--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Future Combat Systems, Modularity, and Force
Protection Initiatives. April 4, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-75--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
the Adequacy of Army Forces. February 2, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-76--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)
Capabilities. April 6, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-77--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
Space and U.S. National Power. June 21, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-78--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
Policy, Compensation and Benefits Overview. April 6, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-79--Full Committee hearing on The Status of
the Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armoring Initiatives and
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Jammer Initiatives in
Operation Iraqi Freedom. May 5, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-80--Full Committee hearing on Review of Marine
Corps Force Protection. June 21, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-81--Full Committee hearing on National
Security Implications of the Possible Merger of the China
National Offshore Oil Corporation (Cnooc) with Unocal
Corporation. July 13, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-82--Full Committee hearing on the Quadrennial
Defense Review: Goals and Principles. September 14, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-83--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Military and National
Guard Roles in Disaster Response. November 9, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-84--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Implementing the 2006
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Recommendations to Combat
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). April 5, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-85--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on The Irregular Warfare
Roadmap. September 27, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-86--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview.
March 15, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-87--Full Committee hearing on Operations in
Iraq. September 29, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-88--Full Committee hearing on The Army's M1114
Up-Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH)
Distribution Strategy. October 20, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-89--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
The Defense Health Program--Department of Defense initiatives
to Control Costs. March 29, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-90--Military Personnel Subcommittee joint
hearing with the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on
International Relations on Trafficking in Persons. June 21,
2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-91--Military Personnel Subcommittee joint
hearing with the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee on The Montgomery G.I. Bill for
Members of the Selected Reserve. September 27, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-92--Full Committee hearing on the Current
Situation and Military Operations in Iraq. November 15, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-93--Full Committee hearing on Your Troops:
Their Story. November 3, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-94--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on
Examination of Criteria for Awards and Decorations. December 6,
2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-95--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S.
Southern Command. March 16, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-96--Full Committee hearing on the Defense
Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor Program. November 9, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-97--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Military
Transition Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. December 7, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-98--Full Committee hearing on Countering a
Nuclear Iran. February 1, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-99--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
Department of Defense. February 8, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-100--Full Committee hearing on National
Security Implications of the Dubai Ports World Deal to Take
over Management of U.S. Ports. March 2, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-101--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the
European Command. March 8, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-102--Full Committee hearing on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S.
Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. March 9, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-103--Full Committee hearing on the Department
of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review. March 14, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-104--Full Committee hearing on Issues Relating
to Defense Acquisition Reform. March 29, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-105--Full Committee hearing on Improving
Interagency Coordination for the Global War on Terrorism and
Beyond. April 4, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-106--Full Committee hearing on Review of Major
Defense Acquisition Reform Initiatives. April 5, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-107--Full Committee hearing on Building the
Capability of Foreign Military Forces. April 7, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-108--Full Committee hearing on Border
Security--Mission of the National Guard. May 24, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-109--Full Committee hearing on Iran: Assessing
Geopolitical Dynamics and U.S. Policy Options. June 8, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-110--Full Committee hearing on Issues Related
to H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement and National
Guard Empowerment Act of 2006. June 13, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-111--Full Committee hearing on Significant
Force Realignments of the Department of Defense, Including
Beddown, Support, and Other Costs and Requirements Related to
those Realignments. June 20, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-112--Full Committee hearing on Military Power
of the People's Republic of China. June 22, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-113--Full Committee hearing on Army and Marine
Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and Rotorcraft.
June 27, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-114--Full Committee hearing on The Status of
Security and Stability in Afghanistan. June 28, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-115--Full Committee hearing on Reports of
Weapons of Mass Destruction Findings in Iraq. June 29, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-116--Full Committee hearing on Standards of
Military Commissions and Tribunals. July 12, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-117--Full Committee hearing on Standards of
Military Commissions and Tribunals. July 26, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-118--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Northern
Border Security--National Security Implications and Issues for
the Armed Services. August 1, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-119--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Southern
Border Security--National Security Implications and Issues for
the Armed Services. August 2, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-120--Full Committee hearing on Standards of
Military Commissions and Tribunals. September 7, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-121--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical
Intelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
on Aerial Common Sensor Program. October 20, 2005.
H.A.S.C. 109-122--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on an Update on the Use of Combat Helmets, Vehicle
Armor and Body Armor by Ground Forces in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. June 15, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-123--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the
Department of Defense Management of Historic and Historic-
Eligible Facilities. March 8, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-124--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Service
Contracting's Impact on Military Readiness. April 5, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-125--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Navy
Transformation. April 6, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-126--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
hearing on Combat Vehicle Active Protection Systems. September
21, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-127--Readiness Subcommittee joint hearing with
the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee on Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency
Programs of the Department of Defense. September 26, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-128--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Applying Lessons Learned
from Hurricane Katrina: How the Department of Defense is
Preparing for the Upcoming Hurricane Season. May 25, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-129--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Assessing United States
Special Operations Command's Missions and Roles. June 29, 2006.
H.A.S.C. 109-130--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on
Plutonium Disposition and the U.S. Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility.
July 26 2006.
HOUSE REPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report number Date filed Bill number Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-89............................. May 20, 2005.......... H.R. 1815............. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2006 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes.
109-234............................ Sept. 22, 2005........ H. Res. 417........... Directing Secretary of
Defense to transmit to the
House of Representatives
not later than 14 days
after the date of the
adoption of this
resolution documents in
the possession of the
Secretary of Defense
relating to the disclosure
of the identity and
employment of Ms. Valerie
Plame.
109-243............................ Sept. 29, 2005........ H.J. Res. 65.......... Disapproving the
recommendations of the
Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission.
109-360............................ Dec. 18, 2005......... H.R. 1815 Conf. Rept.. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2006 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes.
109-384............................ Mar. 7, 2006.......... H.Res. 645............ Requesting the President
and directing Secretary of
Defense to transmit to the
House of Representatives
all information in the
possession of the
President or the Secretary
of Defense relating to the
collection of intelligence
information pertaining to
persons inside the United
States without obtaining
court-ordered warrants
authorizing the collection
of such information and
relating to the policy of
the United States with
respect to the gathering
of counterterrorism within
the United States.
109-397............................ Mar. 16, 2006......... H.Res. 685............ Requesting the President
and directing the
Secretary of State and
Secretary of Defense
provide to the House of
Representatives certain
documents in their
possession relating to any
entity with which the
United States has
contracted for public
relations purposes
concerning Iraq.
109-452............................ May 5, 2006........... H.R. 5122............. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2007 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2007, and for
other purposes.
109-664, Part I.................... Sept. 15, 2006........ H.R. 6054............. To amend title 10, United
States Code, to authorize
trial by military
commission for violations
of the law of war, and for
other purposes.
109-702............................ Sept. 29, 2006........ H.R. 5122 Conf. Rept.. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2007 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2007, and for
other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLIC LAWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public law number Date enacted Bill number Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-59............................. Dec. 30, 2005......... S. 1988............... To authorize the transfer
of items in the War
Reserves Stockpile for
Allies, Korea.
109-100............................ Nov. 11, 2005......... S. 37................. A bill to extend the
special postage stamp for
breast cancer research for
2 years.
109-104............................ Nov. 19, 2005......... H.R. 4326............. To authorize the Secretary
of the Navy to enter into
a contract for the nuclear
refueling of the U.S.S.
``Carl Vinson'' (CVN-70).
109-142............................ Dec. 22, 2005......... H.J. Res. 38.......... Recognizing Commodore John
Barry as the first flag
officer of the United
States.
109-163............................ Jan. 6, 2006.......... H.R. 1815............. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2006 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes.
109-164............................ Jan. 6, 2006.......... H.R. 972.............. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal years 2006 and
2007 for the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of
2000, and for other
purposes.
109-272............................ Aug. 14, 2006......... H.R. 5683............. To preserve the Mt. Soledad
Veterans Memorial in San
Diego, California, by
providing for the
immediate acquisition of
the memorial by the United
States.
109-364............................ Oct. 17, 2006......... H.R. 5122............. To authorize appropriations
for fiscal year 2007 for
military activities of the
Department of Defense, to
prescribe military
personnel strengths for
fiscal year 2007, and for
other purposes.
109-366............................ Oct. 17, 2006......... S. 3930............... A bill to authorize trial
by military commission for
violations of the law of
war, and for other
purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESS RELEASES
First Session
January 24, 2005--Hunter Statement on Intelligence
Activities of the Department of Defense (DOD)
January 26, 2005--Hunter, Hyde, Manzullo Urge Treasury to
Extend Review of IBM's Computer Sale to Chinese Firm
January 28, 2005--Hunter Statement on Awarding of
Presidential Helicopter Contract
February 7, 2005--Hunter Statement on the DOD Budget
Proposal
February 9, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Army
Budget Request
February 16, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Department of Defense's Budget Request
February 17, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Department of the Navy's Budget Request
February 23, 2005--Hunter Statement on Secretary Rumsfeld's
Recent Appearance at the Committee on Armed Services and the
Inaccurate Washington Post Coverage That Followed
March 2, 2005--Hunter Statement on the Passing of Former
Rep. Tillie Fowler (FL)
March 15, 2005--Emergency Supplemental Wartime
Appropriations Act Includes Congressman Terry Everett's Death
Benefits Expansion Proposal
March 15, 2005--Cole Amendment Keeps Military Benefits on
Track
March 16, 2005--Chairman Hunter Announces Committee on
Armed Services Subcommittee Vice Chairmen for the 109th
Congress
March 31, 2005--Hunter Statement on Silberman-Robb
Commission Report on WMD Intelligence
April 6, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Progress in Iraq
May 5, 2005--Hunter Opening Statement on the Status of
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armoring Initiatives and IED Jammer
Initiatives in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
May 11, 2005--Committee on Armed Services Prohibits Women
in Combat
May 13, 2005--Hunter Statement on Base Realignment and
Closure Commission
May 19, 2005--Mark-up of H.R. 1815--the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
May 19, 2005--Hunter Announces Changes in Committee Staff
Leadership
May 25, 2005--Hunter Statement on DOD Direct Ground Combat
Policy
May 25, 2005--House Approves Fiscal Year 2006 Defense
Authorization Bill; Focuses on Major Procurement Overhaul,
Force Protection and Personnel Benefits
June 13, 2005--Hunter Statements on Guantanamo Bay,
including Menus for Detainees
June 16, 2005--Hunter Condemns Durbin Statements on
Guantanamo Bay
June 21, 2005--Members of the Committee on Armed Services
Issue Statements in Response to Calls to Form a Select
Committee to Investigate Alleged Abuses against Terrorists Held
at Guantanamo Bay
June 21, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Status of U.S. Marine Corps HMMWV
Underbody Armor Kits in OIF
June 22, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Afghanistan: Operations and Reconstruction
June 23, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Progress of the Iraqi Security Forces
June 27, 2005--Congressional Delegation Inspects Guantanamo
Detainee Facility
June 29, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Detainee Operations at Guantanamo
July 13, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the National Security Implications of the
Possible Merger of the China National Offshore Oil Corporations
(CNOOC) and the Unocal Corporation
July 13, 2005--Hunter Statement on CNOOC's Attempted
Purchase of UNOCAL
July 20, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Air Force's Future Total Force
July 25, 2005--Gun Truck Armor Kits Provide Protection for
U.S. Troops in Iraq
July 25, 2005--Congressional Delegation Visits With British
Prime Minister Tony Blair to Express America's Condolences
July 27, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on China's Grand Strategy and Military
Modernization
July 29, 2005--Hunter Appoints Three Distinguished
Individuals to the Commission on National Guard and the
Reserves
September 14, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Quadrennial Defense Review: Goals and
Principles
September 29, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing to Review the Current Operations in Iraq
October 20, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Army's M-1114 Up-Armor HMMWV
Distribution Strategy
October 27, 2005--Hunter Statement on Floor Consideration
of Base Realignment and Closure Commission Recommendations
November 2, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Acquisition Reform
November 3, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Your Troops--Their Stories
November 9, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Defense Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor
Program
November 10, 2005--Everett Addresses Space and National
Security Implications
November 15, 2006--Hunter Calls on American Media to Print
U.S. Laws Banning Torture
November 17, 2005--Hunter Calls on Americans to ``Hold
Steady'' in Iraq
November 22, 2005--Rep. Hayes Named to the Conference
Committee on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense
Authorization Act
December 15, 2005--Detainee Deal Now Resolved as Hunter
Gains Protections for American Personnel; Hunter Gets Letter of
Assurance from Director of National Intelligence
December 18, 2005--House and Senate Conferees Reach
Agreement on H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2006.
Second Session
January 6, 2006--Congressional Delegation Visits Troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan
January 20, 2006--Hunter Statement on Pete Geren's
Nomination for Undersecretary of the Army
February 1, 2006--Weldon Statement at Joint Hearing on Body
and Vehicle Armor, Rotorcraft Safety
February 1, 2006--Hefley Statement at Joint Hearing on Body
and Vehicle Armor, Rotorcraft Safety
February 1, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Options Available to the United States to
Counter a Nuclear Iran
February 3, 2006--Hunter Statement on the DOD Quadrennial
Defense Review
February 6, 2006--Hunter Statement on President Bush's
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2007
February 8, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Posture Hearing on the DOD Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
Request
February 15, 2006--Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Posture Hearing on the Army's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
Request
February 15, 2006--Hunter Statement on the Final Select
Committee Report on Hurricane Katrina
February 16, 2006--Saxton Opening Statement at the Joint
Hearing on the Able Danger Program
February 16, 2006--Weldon Opening Statement at the Joint
Hearing on the Able Danger Program
February 16, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on
Combating al-Qaeda and the Militant Jihadists
February 17, 2006--Hunter Statement on Rep. Joel Hefley's
(CO) Retirement
February 17, 2006--Hunter Statement on the Release of
Additional Photographs from Abu Ghraib
February 28, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on
Projection Forces Hearing on the Aerial Refueling and
Recapitalization Program
March 1, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request on the Department of
Energy's Atomic Energy Defense Activities
March 1, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Posture Hearing on the Department of the Air Force's
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
March 1, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Posture Hearing on the Department of the Navy's Fiscal
Year 2007 Budget Request
March 2, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the National Security Implications of Dubai
Ports World's Takeover of U.S. Ports
March 2, 2006--Hunter Statement on Dubai and U.S. Ports
March 2, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Posture Hearing on the United States Transportation
Command's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
March 6, 2006--Hunter Statement on U.S. Supreme Court
Ruling Allowing Military Recruiters Access to College Campuses
March 7, 2006--Hunter Statement on Dubai Ports World's
Announcement to Divest U.S. Holdings
March 8, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on
the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for the Special Operations Command
March 8, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request from the U.S. European Command
March 9, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National
Defense Authorization Budget Request for the Missile Defense
Agency and Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
March 9, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
for DOD Major Rotorcraft Programs
March 9, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the National Defense Authorization Budget
Request from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea
March 14, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Department of Defense's Quadrennial
Defense Review
March 15, 2006--McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on
Military Personnel Hearing on the Current Status of Military
Commissaries, Morale, Welfare and Recreation Activities
March 15, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on
Projection Forces Hearing on the Evolving Missions of the U.S.
Navy and the Role of Surface and Subsurface Combatants
March 15, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on
Overcoming Interagency Problems in Implementing the Global War
on Terror Strategy
March 15, 2006--Hunter Statement on Dubai Ports World's
Release of Additional Information on Its Divestment of U.S.
Holdings
March 15, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Central Command
March 16, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
for Space Activities
March 16, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
Request for Navy and Air Force Aviation Acquisition Programs
March 16, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Southern Command
March 17, 2006--Hunter Calls on American Citizens to
Emulate ``Purpose and Mission'' of Brave U.S. Troops on Third
Anniversary of OIF
March 29, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on
Projection Forces Hearing on the Future Submarine Force
Structure
March 29, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Acquisition Reform: Bringing Change to the
Process
March 29, 2006--McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on
Military Personnel Hearing on the Defense Health Program and
Department of Defense Initiatives to Control Cost
March 29, 2006--Subcommittee on Readiness Chairman Hefley's
Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Acquisition
Reform: Bringing Change to the Process
March 29, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on
the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget
Request for Defense Science and Technology--Investments to
Shape the Evolving Terrorist Threat
March 29, 2006--Hunter Statement Honoring Casper
Weinburger's Services to America
March 30, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on
Projection Forces Hearing on the Navy's Fiscal Year 2007
Shipbuilding Acquisition Strategy
March 30, 2006--Hefley Statement at Joint Hearing on Army
and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and
Rotorcraft
March 30, 2006--Weldon Statement at Joint Hearing on Army
and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and
Rotorcraft
March 31, 2006--Prime Vender Investigation a Win for
American Taxpayers; Committee on Armed Services Members Release
Results from DOD Investigation into Exorbitant Pricing
April 4, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces Posture Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Future Combat
Systems, Modularity and Force Protection Initiatives
April 4, 2006--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional
Threats, and Capabilities Chairman Saxton Statement at
Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Improving Interagency
Coordination in the Global War on Terrorism and Beyond
April 4, 2006--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces
Chairman Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed Services
Hearing on Improving Interagency Coordination in the Global War
on Terrorism and Beyond
April 5, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on
Projection Forces Hearing on the United States Shipbuilding
Industrial Base
April 5, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Hearing on Plans for Transforming the
Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex
April 5, 2006--Hefley Statement at Subcommittee on
Readiness Hearing on the Impact of Service Contracting on
Military Readiness
April 5, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on
Improving the Department of Defense's Capability to Combat
Weapons of Mass Destruction
April 5, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Major Defense Acquisition Reform
Initiatives
April 6, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on
Projection Forces Hearing on Efficient Propulsion Systems for
Navy Vessels
April 6, 2006--Hefley Statement at Subcommittee on
Readiness Hearing on the Navy's Transformation
April 6, 2006--McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on Military
Personnel Hearing on Recruitment and Retention and Military
Personnel Policy, Compensation and Benefits
April 6, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on
Information Technology Issues and Defense Transformation
April 7, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Building the Capacity of Foreign Military
Forces
April 7, 2006--New Congressionally-Mandated Reporting
Requirement Highlights Dramatic Cost Increases in 36 Major
Weapons Systems
April 18, 2006--Hunter expresses Strong Support for
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
April 22, 2006--U.S. Congressional Delegation Attends
Historic Meeting of Iraqi Parliament
April 28, 2006--Hunter Letter to President Bush Outlining
His Grave Concerns with the Potential Merger Between French-
owned Alcatel and American-Owned Lucent Technologies
May 3, 2006--Mark-up of H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007
National Defense Authorization Act
May 19, 2006--Hunter: ``Don't Tar the Service of 922,000
Brave American Troops''
May 24, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the National Guard's Border Security
Mission
May 25, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on
the Department of Defense's Preparedness for the Upcoming
Hurricane Season
June 8, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Iran: Geopolitical Dynamics and U.S. Policy
Options
June 8, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Members Comment
on the Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
June 13, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement
and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006
June 15, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical
Air and Land Forces Hearing on Combat Helmets, Body and Vehicle
Armor in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
June 16, 2006--Hunter Speech during House Debate on H. Res.
861, Declaring that the United States Will Prevail in the
Global War on Terror
June 20, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on DOD Global Defense Posture Strategy
Including Beddown, Support and Other Requirements
June 20, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses
on DOD Global Defense Posture Strategy
June 20, 2006--Hunter Statement: ``Potential North Korea
Missile Test Underscores Need for Ballistic Missile Defense
System''
June 21, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Hearing on Space and U.S. National Power
June 21, 2006--Subcommittee for Strategic Forces Hearing
Focuses on Protecting Space and U.S. National Power
June 21, 2006--McHugh Statement at Joint Hearing on Global
Human Rights, Specifically Human Trafficking
June 21, 2006--Subcommittee on Military Personnel and
Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Africa
Joint Hearing Focuses on Global Human Rights, specifically
Human Trafficking
June 22, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Military Power of the People's Republic of
China
June 26, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces Hearing on Plutonium Deposition and the U.S.
Mixed Oxide Facility
June 27, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Army and Marine Corps Reset Programs for
Ground Equipment Utilized in OIF and OEF
June 27, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses
on Army and Marine Corps Reset Strategies
June 28, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on the Status of Safety and Security in
Afghanistan
June 28, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Receives Update
on the Status of Safety and Security in Afghanistan
June 29, 2006--Hunter to Explore all Legislative Options
Available to Try Terrorists
June 29, 2006--Rep. Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on New Discovery of Weapons of Mass
Destruction in Iraq
June 29, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses
on Reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction Findings in Iraq
June 29, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on
the Missions and Responsibilities of the U.S. Special
Operations Command
June 29, 2006--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional
Threats, and Capabilities Focuses on the United States Special
Operations Command's Roles and Missions
July 10, 2006--Hunter Statement Clarifying House Position
on Legal Immigrants Serving in the U.S. Armed Services
July 12, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Tribunals
July 12, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses
on Possible Legislative Initiatives to Try Detainees for War
Crimes
July 20, 2006--Hunter Supports President Bush on Oman Free
Trade Agreement
July 25, 2006--Committee on Armed Services to Hold Field
Hearing in Michigan to Address Border Security
July 26, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Standards Utilized
in Trying Detainees
July 26, 2006--Hunter Statement Regarding the National
Foreign Investment and Strengthened Transparency Act
July 31, 2006--Committee on Armed Services to Hold Field
Hearing in Arizona
August 23, 2006--Hunter Announces Increase in Funding for
Combat Readiness, Equipment Reset
September 1, 2006--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces
Chairman Everett Lauds Successful Missile Defense Test
September 6, 2006--Hunter Statement Regarding President
Bush's Proposal for the Treatment and Prosecution of Terrorists
September 7, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Standards Utilized
in Trying Detainees
September 7, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing
Focuses on White House Legislative Initiative to Try Detainees
September 11, 2006--Hunter Unveils Military Commissions Act
of 2006
September 12, 2006--Hunter Reacts to Democrat Leader's
Osama bin Laden Comments
September 13, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Mark-up on H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of
2006
September 13, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Votes to
Create New Process to Prosecute Terrorists, Protect Troops on
the Battlefield
September 21, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing on Combat Vehicle Active
Protection Systems
September 21, 2006--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land
Forces hearing focuses on Combat Vehicle Active Protection
Systems
September 26, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on
Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy Programs of the
Department of Defense
September 26, 2006--Joint Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and Subcommittee on
Readiness Hearing Focuses on Energy Efficiency and Alternative
Energy Programs of the Department of Defense
September 26, 2006--Hunter Responds to Democrat Allegations
about the Iraq War
September 26, 2006--Hunter, Sensenbrenner Introduce
Military Commissions Agreement Reached Among House, Senate and
Bush Administration
September 27, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on
the Department of Defense's Irregular Warfare Map
September 27, 2006--Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing Focuses on
Irregular Warfare Map
September 27, 2006--Hunter Floor Statement during Debate on
H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act of 2006
September 27, 2006--McHugh Opening Statement at Joint
Hearing on the Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected
Reserve
September 27, 2006--Joint Subcommittee on Military
Personnel and Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity Hearing Focuses on the Montgomery G.I.
Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve
September 28, 2006--Hunter, Warner Reach Deal on Annual
Defense Authorization Bill
September 29, 2006--House and Senate Conferees Approve the
Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007
October 24, 2006--Hunter: Send Iraqi Military Battalions to
Baghdad
October 31, 2006--Hunter Calls on Kerry to Apologize to
U.S. Troops
November 3, 2006--Hunter Corrects New York Times Regarding
Special Inspector General for Iraq Provision in National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
November 8, 2006--Hunter Comments on Secretary Rumsfeld's
Resignation
November 14, 2006--Hunter Statement on Lucent Alcatel
Merger
November 15, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed
Services Hearing on Current Situation and Military Operations
in Iraq
November 15, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing
Focuses on Situation in Iraq
November 15, 2006--Hunter Statement Regarding Rep. Simmons
November 20, 2006--Hunter: Best Option is to ``Go Iraqi''
December 5, 2006--House Overwhelmingly Approves Resolution
to Help Wounded Servicemembers Find Employment
December 6, 2006--Hunter: ``American Policy Should Flow
From Our Shores With One Voice''
December 6, 2006--Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Chairman McHugh Holds Hearing to Assess Criteria, Consistency
and Timeliness of Valor Awards and Decoration
December 6, 2006--Chairman Hunter, Members of the House
Armed Services Committee Release Comprehensive Defense Review
December 7, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Holds Hearing
to Assess Military Training Teams Embedded With Iraqi Units
December 13, 2006--Hunter: ``Goodyear Tire and Steelworkers
Need to Step Up For America''