[House Report 112-359]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 244

112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-359

                        SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORT

                           ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                                for the

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS






 December 30, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed



                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

19-006                       WASHINGTON : 2011











                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio                 RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia                CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana     MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida                  JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia               TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York               C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada                     BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois            COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey               KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
                  Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
             Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Washington, DC, December 30, 2011.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith the 
second semiannual report on the activities of the Committee on 
Armed Services for the 112th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                 Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
                                                          Chairman.















                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Powers and Duties................................................     1
    Background...................................................     1
    Constitutional Powers and Duties.............................     2
    House Rules on Jurisdiction..................................     3
    Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight............     3
Committee Rules..................................................     4
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services...................    16
Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services.................    17
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............    17
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel...........................    18
    Subcommittee on Readiness....................................    19
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces...............    20
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................    21
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................    22
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................    23
Committee Panels.................................................    24
    Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform    24
    Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry.....    25
Committee Staff..................................................    26
Committee Meetings...............................................    28
Legislative Activities...........................................    28
    Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress................    28
    Legislation Reported by the Committee on Armed Services......    32
    Legislation Not Reported but Managed by the Committee on 
      Armed Services on the Floor of the House of Representatives    33
Budget Activity..................................................    34
Oversight Activities.............................................    35
    Policy Issues................................................    36
    Fiscal Responsibility and Efficiency.........................    43
    Other Policy Issues..........................................    47
    Readiness....................................................    48
    Energy and Environment.......................................    53
    Military Construction and Infrastructure.....................    55
    Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues...............    57
    Modernization and Investment Issues..........................    62
    Emerging Threats and Capabilities............................    77
Additional Oversight Activities of the Full Committee............    80
Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees and the 
  Panels.........................................................    82
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............    82
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel...........................    83
    Subcommittee on Readiness....................................    86
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces...............    87
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................    87
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................    88
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................    89
    Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform    91
    Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry.....    93
Publications.....................................................    95
    Committee Prints.............................................    95
    Published Proceedings........................................    95
    House Reports................................................   102
Press Releases...................................................   103
    First Session................................................   103












                                                 Union Calendar No. 244
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-359

======================================================================



 
 SECOND SEMIANNUAL REPORTS ON THE ACTIVITES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 
                    SERVICES FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 December 30, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. McKeon, from the Committee on Armed Services,
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                           POWERS AND DUTIES

                               BACKGROUND

    The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee 
of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by 
merging the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs. 
The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were 
established in 1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and 
naval appropriations was taken from the Committee on 
Appropriations and given to the Committees on Military Affairs 
and Naval Affairs, respectively. This practice continued until 
July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over all appropriations was 
again placed in the Committee on Appropriations.
    In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select 
Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the 
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3, 
1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas 
of the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially 
unchanged. However, oversight functions were amended to require 
each standing committee to review and study on a continuing 
basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the 
Committee on Armed Services was to review and study on a 
continuing basis all laws, programs, and government activities 
dealing with or involving international arms control and 
disarmament and the education of military dependents in school.
    The rules changes adopted by the House (H. Res. 5) on 
January 4, 1977, placed new responsibilities in the field of 
atomic energy in the Committee on Armed Services. Those 
responsibilities involved the national security aspects of 
atomic energy previously within the jurisdiction of the Joint 
Committee on Atomic Energy. Public Law 95-110, effective 
September 20, 1977, abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic 
Energy.
    With the adoption of H. Res. 658 on July 14, 1977, which 
established the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence, the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed 
Service over intelligence matters was changed.
    That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and 
intelligence-related activities and programs of the U.S. 
Government. Specifically, the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding 
the Central Intelligence Agency and the director of Central 
Intelligence, including authorizations. Also, legislative 
jurisdiction over all intelligence and intelligence-related 
activities and programs was vested in the permanent select 
committee except that other committees with a jurisdictional 
interest may request consideration of any such matters. 
Accordingly, as a matter of practice, the Committee on Armed 
Services shared jurisdiction over the authorization process 
involving intelligence-related activities.
    The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over 
military intelligence activities as set forth in rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives.
    With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4, 
1995, the Committee on National Security was established as the 
successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was 
granted additional legislative and oversight authority over 
merchant marine academies, national security aspects of 
merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals. 
Rules for the 104th Congress also codified the existing 
jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence 
matters and the intelligence related activities of the 
Department of Defense.
    On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for 
the 106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security 
was redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services.

                    CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES

    The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national 
defense matters stem from Article I, Section 8 of the United 
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that 
Congress shall have power to:
    Raise and support Armies;
    Provide and maintain a Navy;
    Make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land 
and naval Forces;
    Provide for calling forth the militia;
    Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the 
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed 
in the Service of the United States;
    Exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all places 
purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, 
dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and
    Make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.

                      HOUSE RULES ON JURISDICTION

    Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
established the jurisdiction and related functions for each 
standing committee. Under the rule, all bills, resolutions, and 
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of 
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The 
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant 
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
    (1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and 
Air Force reservations and establishments.
    (2) Common defense generally.
    (3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum 
and oil shale reserves.
    (4) The Department of Defense generally, including the 
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
    (5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures 
relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of 
interoceanic canals.
    (6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
    (7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
    (8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related 
activities of the Department of Defense.
    (9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including 
financial assistance for the construction and operation of 
vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair 
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant 
marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the 
national security.
    (10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and 
privileges of members of the Armed Forces.
    (11) Scientific research and development in support of the 
armed services.
    (12) Selective service.
    (13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 
and Air Force.
    (14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
    (15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the 
common defense.
    (16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of Defense.
    In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general 
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special 
oversight functions with respect to international arms control 
and disarmament and military dependent education.

           INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT

    H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority 
for each committee to investigate matters within its 
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent 
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the 
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative 
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each 
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated, 
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight 
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by 
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on 
Armed Services.
    H. Res. 147 was approved by the House on March 17, 2011, 
and provided funds for, among other things, committee oversight 
responsibilities to be conducted in the 112th Congress. The 
committee derives its authority to conduct oversight from, 
among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight 
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special 
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to 
investigations and studies).

                            COMMITTEE RULES

    The committee held its organizational meeting on January 
20, 2011, and adopted the following rules governing rules and 
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full 
committee and its subcommittees.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-1; Committee Print No. 1)

                       RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

    (a) The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules 
of the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in 
these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far 
as applicable.
    (b) Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee's rules shall be 
publicly available in electronic form and published in the 
Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the chair of 
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.

                  RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

    (a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., 
when the House of Representatives is in session, and at such 
other times as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Chairman''), or by written 
request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of 
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
    (b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed 
with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a 
written request of a majority of the members of the Committee.

                   RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES

    Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, 
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters 
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee 
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee 
Chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the 
Chairman, other subcommittee Chairmen, and the Ranking Minority 
Member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding, 
whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and 
subcommittee meetings or hearings.

   RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEES


                            (a) Jurisdiction

          (1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all 
        subjects listed in clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule 
        X of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
        retains exclusive jurisdiction for: defense policy 
        generally, ongoing military operations, the 
        organization and reform of the Department of Defense 
        and Department of Energy, counter-drug programs, 
        security and humanitarian assistance (except special 
        operations-related activities) of the Department of 
        Defense, acquisition and industrial base policy, 
        technology transfer and export controls, joint 
        interoperability, the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
        program, Department of Energy nonproliferation 
        programs, detainee affairs and policy, intelligence 
        policy, force protection policy and inter-agency reform 
        as it pertains to the Department of Defense and the 
        nuclear weapons programs of the Department of Energy. 
        While subcommittees are provided jurisdictional 
        responsibilities in subparagraph (2), the Committee 
        retains the right to exercise oversight and legislative 
        jurisdiction over all subjects within its purview under 
        rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
          (2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of 
        seven standing subcommittees with the following 
        jurisdictions:
          Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All 
        Army, Air Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs 
        (except Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle 
        programs, strategic missiles, space, lift programs, 
        special operations, science and technology programs, 
        and information technology accounts). In addition, the 
        subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and Marine 
        Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army, Air 
        Force and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and 
        ammunition programs.
          Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military 
        personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and 
        employment issues, military health care, military 
        education, and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the 
        subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare 
        and Recreation issues and programs.
          Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, 
        training, logistics and maintenance issues and 
        programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be 
        responsible for all military construction, depot 
        policy, civilian personnel policy, environmental 
        policy, installations and family housing issues, 
        including the base closure process, and energy policy 
        and programs of the Department of Defense.
          Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces: Navy 
        acquisition programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and 
        Marine Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs 
        (except strategic weapons, space, special operations, 
        science and technology programs, and information 
        technology programs), deep strike bombers and related 
        systems, lift programs, and seaborne unmanned aerial 
        systems. In addition, the subcommittee will be 
        responsible for Maritime programs under the 
        jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated in 
        paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of the 
        Rules of the House of Representatives.
          Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic weapons 
        (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space 
        programs, ballistic missile defense, national 
        intelligence programs, and Department of Energy 
        national security programs (except non-proliferation 
        programs).
          Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities: 
        Defense-wide and joint enabling activities and programs 
        to include: Special Operations Forces; counter-
        proliferation and counter-terrorism programs and 
        initiatives; science and technology policy and 
        programs; information technology programs; homeland 
        defense and Department of Defense related consequence 
        management programs; related intelligence support; and 
        other enabling programs and activities to include cyber 
        operations, strategic communications, and information 
        operations.
          Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Any 
        matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee, 
        subject to the concurrence of the Chairman of the 
        Committee and, as appropriate, affected subcommittee 
        chairmen. The subcommittee shall have no legislative 
        jurisdiction.
    (b) Membership of the Subcommittees
          (1) Subcommittee memberships, with the exception of 
        membership on the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
        Investigations, shall be filled in accordance with the 
        rules of the Majority party's conference and the 
        Minority party's caucus, respectively.
          (2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
        Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be 
        filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority 
        party's conference and the Minority party's caucus, 
        respectively. Consistent with the party ratios 
        established by the Majority party, all other Majority 
        members of the subcommittee shall be appointed by the 
        Chairman of the Committee, and all other Minority 
        members shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority 
        Member of the Committee.
          (3) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking 
        Minority Member thereof may sit as ex officio members 
        of all subcommittees. Ex officio members shall not vote 
        in subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into 
        consideration for the purpose of determining the ratio 
        of the subcommittees or establishing a quorum at 
        subcommittee hearings or meetings.
          (4) A member of the Committee who is not a member of 
        a particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee 
        and participate during any of its hearings but shall 
        not have authority to vote, cannot be counted for the 
        purpose of achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point 
        of order at the hearing.

                RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES

    (a) Committee Panels
          (1) The Chairman may designate a panel of the 
        Committee consisting of members of the Committee to 
        inquire into and take testimony on a matter or matters 
        that fall within the jurisdiction of more than one 
        subcommittee and to report to the Committee.
          (2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue 
        in existence for more than six months after the 
        appointment. A panel so appointed may, upon the 
        expiration of six months, be reappointed by the 
        Chairman for a period of time which is not to exceed 
        six months.
          (3) Consistent with the party ratios established by 
        the Majority party, all Majority members of the panels 
        shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
        and all Minority members shall be appointed by the 
        Ranking
Minority Member of the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee 
shall choose one of the Majority members so appointed who does 
not currently chair another subcommittee of the Committee to 
serve as Chairman of the panel. The Ranking Minority Member of 
the Committee shall similarly choose the Ranking Minority 
Member of the panel.
          (4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction.
    (b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces
          (1) The Chairman of the Committee, or a Chairman of a 
        subcommittee with the concurrence of the Chairman of 
        the Committee, may designate a task force to inquire 
        into and take testimony on a matter that falls within 
        the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee, 
        respectively. The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member 
        of the Committee or subcommittee shall each appoint an 
        equal number of members to the task force. The Chairman 
        of the Committee or subcommittee shall choose one of 
        the members so appointed, who does not currently chair 
        another subcommittee of the Committee, to serve as 
        Chairman of the task force. The Ranking Minority Member 
        of the Committee or subcommittee shall similarly 
        appoint the Ranking Minority Member of the task force.
          (2) No task force appointed by the Chairman of the 
        Committee or subcommittee shall continue in existence 
        for more than three months. A task force may only be 
        reappointed for an additional three months with the 
        written concurrence of the Chairman and Ranking 
        Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee whose 
        Chairman appointed the task force.
          (3) No task force shall have legislative 
        jurisdiction.

           RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

    (a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters 
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
    (b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup 
only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or 
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee 
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
    (c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a 
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter 
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by 
the Committee.
    (d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not 
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of 
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the 
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee, 
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee.
    (e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority 
Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation 
and other matters to be considered by the House of 
Representatives, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not 
conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
other applicable rules.

          RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

    (a) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee, or 
of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, shall make a public 
announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any 
hearing or meeting before that body at least one week before 
the commencement of a hearing and at least three days before 
the commencement of a meeting. However, if the Chairman of the 
Committee, or of any subcommittee, panel, or task force, with 
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, 
determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing or 
meeting sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or 
task force so determines by majority vote, a quorum being 
present for the transaction of business, such chairman shall 
make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any 
announcement made under this rule shall be promptly published 
in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee 
scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and 
promptly made publicly available in electronic form.
    (b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a 
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an 
announcement under paragraph (a) made within 24 hours before 
such meeting, the Chairman of the Committee, or of any 
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall cause the text of such 
measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic 
form as provided in clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

        RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

    (a) Pursuant to clause 2(e)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee shall, to the 
maximum extent practicable, provide audio and video coverage of 
each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a 
manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the 
proceedings. The Committee shall maintain the recordings of 
such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the 
public.
    (b) Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

            RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

    (a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of 
business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the 
Committee, or any subcommittee, panel, or task force, to the 
extent that the respective body is authorized to conduct 
markups, shall be open to the public except when the Committee, 
subcommittee, panel, or task force in open session and with a 
majority being present, determines by record vote that all or 
part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day 
shall be in executive session because disclosure of testimony, 
evidence, or other matters to be considered would endanger the 
national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement 
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of 
Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of the 
preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in 
attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee, 
subcommittee, panel, or task force may vote to close a hearing 
or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony 
or evidence to be received would endanger the national 
security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement 
information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of 
Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive 
session, the vote must be by record vote and in open session, a 
majority of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force 
being present.
    (b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the Committee or 
subcommittee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may 
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is 
asserted by a witness that the evidence or testimony that the 
witness would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or 
incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of 
(a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or 
testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a 
majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no 
fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the 
Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may 
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. A majority 
of those present, there being in attendance no fewer than two 
members of the Committee or subcommittee may also vote to close 
the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing 
whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend to 
defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. The Committee or 
subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open 
session only if the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being 
present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not 
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person.
    (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of 
the Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by 
letter to the Chairman, one member of that member's personal 
staff, and an alternate, which may include fellows, with Top 
Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee, 
or that member's subcommittee(s), panel(s), or task force(s) 
(excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of 
committee rule 9(a)), which have been closed under the 
provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes 
for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff 
member or fellow at such hearings is subject to the approval of 
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force as dictated 
by national security requirements at that time. The attainment 
of any required security clearances is the responsibility of 
individual members of the Committee.
    (d) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance 
at any hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the 
House of Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the 
Committee or subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series 
of hearings on a particular article of legislation or on a 
particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to 
Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same 
procedures designated in this rule for closing hearings to the 
public.
    (e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same 
procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five 
additional consecutive days of hearings.

                            RULE 10. QUORUM

    (a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving 
evidence, two members shall constitute a quorum.
    (b) One-third of the members of the Committee or 
subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action, 
with the following exceptions, in which case a majority of the 
Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum:
          (1) Reporting a measure or recommendation;
          (2) Closing Committee or subcommittee meetings and 
        hearings to the public;
          (3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas;
          (4) Authorizing the use of executive session 
        material; and
          (5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to 
        close to discuss whether evidence or testimony to be 
        received would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate 
        any person.
    (c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the 
House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is 
actually present.

                     RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE

    (a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address 
the Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under 
consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when 
the member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee 
chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be 
exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall 
be recognized for not more than five minutes to address the 
Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the 
member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-
minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee.
    (b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the 
Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened 
shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, 
as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving 
subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority Member will take precedence upon their arrival. In 
recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the 
Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the 
Majority to Minority members present and shall establish the 
order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to 
disadvantage the members of either party.
          (2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a 
        member of the Committee who is not a member of a 
        subcommittee may be recognized by a subcommittee 
        chairman in order of their arrival and after all 
        present subcommittee members have been recognized.
          (3) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, 
        with the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority 
        Member, may depart with the regular order for 
        questioning which is specified in paragraphs (a) and 
        (b) of this rule provided that such a decision is 
        announced prior to the hearing or prior to the opening 
        statements of the witnesses and that any such departure 
        applies equally to the Majority and the Minority.
    (c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in 
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, panel, 
or task force hearings and meetings.

             RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

    (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions 
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee is 
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
          (1) to sit and act at such times and places within 
        the United States, whether the House is in session, has 
        recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
          (2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the 
        attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
        production of such books, records, correspondence, 
        memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not 
        limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers 
        necessary.
    (b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the 
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full 
Committee Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee, under subparagraph (a)(2) in 
the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations 
or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the 
members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee 
being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the 
Chairman, or by any member designated by the Committee.
          (2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules 
        of the House of Representatives, compliance with any 
        subpoena issued by the Committee or any subcommittee 
        under subparagraph (a)(2) may be enforced only as 
        authorized or directed by the House of Representatives.

                      RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS

    (a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to 
the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the 
Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of 
presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the 
Committee or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less 
than 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such 
prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in 
electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national 
security information bearing a classification of Secret or 
higher, the statement shall be made available in the Committee 
rooms to all members of the Committee or subcommittee as soon 
as practicable but not less than 24 hours in advance of 
presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from 
the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule may be 
waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a 
quorum being present. In cases where a witness does not submit 
a statement by the time required under this rule, the Chairman 
of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, with the 
concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may 
elect to exclude the witness from the hearing.
    (b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each 
witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee 
in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the 
proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such 
appearance to a brief summary of the submitted written 
statement.
    (c) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, written witness statements, with 
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness, 
shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later 
than one day after the witness appears.

               RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES

    (a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman, 
may administer oaths to any witness.
    (b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following 
oath:
        ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony 
        you will give before this Committee (or subcommittee) 
        in the matters now under consideration will be the 
        truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
        help you God?''

                   RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES

    (a) When a witness is before the Committee or a 
subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may put 
questions to the witness only when recognized by the Chairman 
or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose 
according to rule 11 of the Committee.
    (b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire 
shall have not more than five minutes to question each witness 
or panel of witnesses, the responses of the witness or 
witnesses being included in the five-minute period, until such 
time as each member has had an opportunity to question each 
witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter, additional rounds 
for questioning witnesses by members are within the discretion 
of the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.
    (c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or 
subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that 
may be before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration.

         RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS

    The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the 
Committee, subcommittee, or panel will be published officially 
in substantially verbatim form, with the material requested for 
the record inserted at that place requested, or at the end of 
the record, as appropriate. The transcripts of markups 
conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee may be published 
officially in verbatim form. Any requests to correct any 
errors, other than those in transcription, will be appended to 
the record, and the appropriate place where the change is 
requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published under 
this rule shall include the results of record votes conducted 
in the session covered by the transcript and shall also include 
materials that have been submitted for the record and are 
covered under rule 19. The handling and safekeeping of these 
materials shall fully satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No 
transcript of an executive session conducted under rule 9 shall 
be published under this rule.

                     RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS

    (a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote, 
division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.
    (b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-
fifth of those members present.
    (c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a 
subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be 
cast by proxy.
    (d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in 
attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference 
committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of 
that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon 
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
    (e) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, as 
appropriate, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority 
Member or the most senior Minority member who is present at the 
time, may elect to postpone requested record votes until such 
time or point at a markup as is mutually decided. When 
proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any 
intervening order for the previous question, the underlying 
proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment 
to the same extent as when the question was postponed.

                       RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS

    (a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by 
the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice 
of intention to file supplemental, Minority, additional or 
dissenting views, that member shall be entitled to not less 
than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in 
which to file such views, in writing and signed by that member, 
with the Staff Director of the Committee, or the Staff 
Director's designee. All such views so filed by one or more 
members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be 
a part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to 
that measure or matter.
    (b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report 
any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and 
against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief 
description of the question, shall be included in the Committee 
report on the measure or matter.
    (c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any 
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee, 
the Chairman shall cause the text of each such amendment to be 
made publicly available in electronic form as provided in 
clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

           RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

    The result of each record vote in any meeting of the 
Committee shall be made available by the Committee for 
inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of 
the Committee and also made publicly available in electronic 
form within 48 hours of such record vote pursuant to clause 
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. Information so available shall include a 
description of the amendment, motion, order, or other 
proposition and the name of each member voting for and each 
member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or 
proposition and the names of those members present but not 
voting.

     RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER INFORMATION

    (a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security 
information bearing a classification of Secret or higher which 
has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be 
deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be 
given appropriate safekeeping.
    (b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval 
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in 
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any national security information that is 
received which is classified as Secret or higher. Such 
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by 
any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives, staff of 
the Committee, or staff designated under rule 9(c) who have the 
appropriate security clearances and the need to know, who has 
requested the opportunity to review such material.
    (c) The Chairman of the Committee shall, in consultation 
with the Ranking Minority Member, establish such procedures as 
in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any proprietary information that is received by 
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such 
procedures shall be consistent with the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and applicable law.

                      RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING

    The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, 
and any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or 
chairmen of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                       RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS

    The records of the Committee at the National Archives and 
Records Administration shall be made available for public use 
in accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority 
Member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 
4(b) of rule VII, to withhold a record otherwise available, and 
the matter shall be presented to the Committee for a 
determination on the written request of any member of the 
Committee.

                      RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES

    Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

                  RULE 24. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS

    Not later than the 30th day after June 1 and December 1, 
the Committee shall submit to the House a semiannual report on 
its activities, pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives.

             COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    Pursuant to H. Res. 6, election of the Chairman (adopted 
January 5, 2011), H. Res. 7, election of the Ranking Member 
(adopted January 5, 2011), H. Res. 33, election of majority 
members (adopted January 12, 2011), H. Res. 39, election of 
minority members (adopted January 19, 2011), and H. Res. 377, 
election of a minority member (adopted July 28, 2011), the 
following members served on the Committee on Armed Services in 
the first session of the 112th Congress:

    HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, 
       California, Chairman

ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking MemberOSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RICK LARSEN, Washington              MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa                  BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina        DUNCAN HUNTER, California
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
BILL OWENS, New York                 MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California        TOM ROONEY, Florida
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania          TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM RYAN, Ohio                       SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland   CHRIS GIBSON, New York
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
KATHY CASTOR, Florida\1\             JOE HECK, Nevada
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii             JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\2\      AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
                                     TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
                                     STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
                                     ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
                                     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
                                     MO BROOKS, Alabama
                                     TODD YOUNG, Indiana

----------
\1\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\2\Ms. Hochul was appointed to the committee on July 28, 2011.
            SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The following subcommittees were established at the 
committee's organizational meeting on January 20, 2011.

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Defense-wide and 
joint enabling activities and programs to include: Special 
Operations Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism 
programs and initiatives; science and technology policy and 
programs; information technology programs; homeland defense and 
Department of Defense related consequence management programs; 
related intelligence support; and other enabling programs and 
activities to include cyber operations, strategic 
communications, and information operations.

     Mr. Thornberry, Chairman

Mr. Langevin, Ranking Member         Mr. Miller
Ms. Sanchez                          Mr. Kline
Mr. Andrews                          Mr. Shuster
Mrs. Davis                           Mr. Conaway
Mr. Ryan                             Mr. Gibson
Mr. Ruppersberger                    Mr. Schilling
Mr. Johnson                          Mr. West
Mrs. Castor\1\                       Mr. Franks
Ms. Hochul\2\                        Mr. Hunter

----------
\1\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\2\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities on August 2, 2011.
                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military 
personnel policy, Reserve Component integration and employment 
issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA 
issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 
Morale, Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.

       Mr. Wilson, Chairman

Mrs. Davis, Ranking Member           Mr. Jones
Mr. Brady                            Mr. Coffman
Ms. Bordallo                         Mr. Rooney
Mr. Loebsack                         Dr. Heck
Ms. Tsongas                          Mr. West
Ms. Pingree                          Mr. Scott
                                     Mrs. Hartzler
                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military 
readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and 
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 
all military construction, depot policy, civilian personnel 
policy, environmental policy, installations and family housing 
issues, including the base closure process, and energy policy 
and programs of the Department of Defense.

       Mr. Forbes, Chairman

Ms. Bordallo, Ranking Member         Mr. Rogers
Mr. Reyes                            Dr. Heck
Mr. Courtney                         Mr. Scott
Mr. Loebsack                         Mr. LoBiondo
Ms. Giffords                         Mr. Gibson
Mr. Kissell                          Mrs. Hartzler
Mr. Owens                            Mr. Schilling
Mr. Ryan                             Mr. Runyan
Mrs. Hanabusa                        Mr. Griffin
                                     Mr. Palazzo
                                     Mrs. Roby
             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy acquisition 
programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and Marine Corps amphibious 
assault vehicle programs (except strategic weapons, space, 
special operations, science and technology programs, and 
information technology programs), deep strike bombers and 
related systems, lift programs, and seaborne unmanned aerial 
systems. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 
Maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the committee as 
delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

        Mr. Akin, Chairman

Mr. McIntyre, Ranking Member         Mr. Hunter
Mrs. Davis                           Mr. Coffman
Mr. Langevin                         Mr. Rigell
Mr. Larsen                           Mr. Griffin
Mr. Courtney                         Mr. Palazzo
Ms. Pingree                          Mr. Young
Mr. Critz                            Mr. Bartlett
Mr. Johnson                          Mr. Forbes
Ms. Sutton                           Mr. Wittman
                                     Mr. Platts
                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Strategic 
weapons (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space 
programs, ballistic missile defense, national intelligence 
programs, and Department of Energy national security programs 
(except non-proliferation programs).

       Mr. Turner, Chairman

Ms. Sanchez, Ranking Member          Mr. Franks
Mr. Langevin                         Mr. Lamborn
Mr. Larsen                           Mr. Brooks
Mr. Heinrich                         Mr. Thornberry
Mr. Garamendi                        Mr. Rogers
Mr. Ruppersberger                    Dr. Fleming
Ms. Sutton                           Mr. Rigell
                                     Mr. Scott
              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--All Army, Air 
Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except Marine 
Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs, strategic missiles, 
space, lift programs, special operations, science and 
technology programs, and information technology accounts). In 
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and 
Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army, Air 
Force and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition 
programs.

      Mr. Bartlett, Chairman

Mr. Reyes, Ranking Member            Mr. LoBiondo
Mr. McIntyre                         Dr. Fleming
Mr. Cooper                           Mr. Rooney
Ms. Giffords                         Mr. Platts
Ms. Tsongas                          Mrs. Hartzler
Mr. Kissell                          Mr. Runyan
Mr. Heinrich                         Mrs. Roby
Mr. Owens                            Mr. Jones
Mr. Garamendi                        Mr. Akin
Mr. Critz                            Mr. Wilson
Mrs. Castor\1\                       Mr. Turner
Ms. Hochul\2\                        Mr. Shuster
                                     Mr. Lamborn

----------
\1\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\2\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces on August 2, 2011.
              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Any matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee, subject to the 
concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee and, as 
appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee 
shall have no legislative jurisdiction.

       Mr. Wittman, Chairman

Mr. Cooper, Ranking Member           Mr. Conaway
Mr. Andrews                          Mr. Brooks
Ms. Sanchez                          Mr. Young
Mrs. Hanabusa                        Mr. Rooney
                                     Mr. Coffman

                            COMMITTEE PANELS

    The following panel of the committee was appointed on July 
13, 2011, and reappointed on November 17, 2011.

     PANEL ON DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDITABILITY REFORM

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel has 
been tasked to examine the Department of Defense's financial 
management system and possible ways to improve its financial 
management and audit readiness effort.

       Mr. Conaway, Chairman

Mr. Andrews, Ranking Member          Mr. Rigell
Mr. Courtney                         Mr. Palazzo
Mr. Ryan                             Mr. Young
    The following panel of the committee was appointed on 
September 12, 2011.

        PANEL ON BUSINESS CHALLENGES WITHIN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel has 
been tasked to examine the current defense business environment 
and to seek to understand how the Department of Defense could 
spur innovation, competition, and cost savings by encouraging 
new entrants into the industrial base and fostering the 
transition of technology.

       Mr. Shuster, Chairman

Mr. Larsen, Ranking Member           Mr. Schilling
Ms. Sutton                           Mr. Runyan
Ms. Hanabusa                         Mr. West

                            COMMITTEE STAFF

    By committee resolution adopted at the organizational 
meeting on January 20, 2011, or by authority of the chairman, 
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the 
committee during the 112th Congress:

    Bob Simmons, Staff Director
   Roger Zakheim, Deputy Staff 
     Director/General Counsel
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
 Michael R. Higgins, Professional 
           Staff Member
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff 
              Member
  John F. Sullivan, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Nancy M. Warner, Professional 
           Staff Member
     Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr., 
     Professional Staff Member
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Douglas C. Roach, Professional 
           Staff Member
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff 
              Member
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Jeanette S. James, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Rebecca A. Ross, Professional 
           Staff Member
Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned February 26, 
               2011)
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Lynn M. Williams, Professional 
           Staff Member
   Joshua C. Holly, Director of 
Communications (resigned June 12, 
               2011)
  John Wason, Professional Staff 
              Member
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Alex Kugajevsky, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned September 7, 
               2011)
  Cyndi Howard, Security Manager
 Douglas Bush, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Lara Battles, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned March 25, 2011)
 Cathy Garman, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Vickie Plunkett, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Timothy McClees, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Kevin Gates, Professional Staff 
              Member
Michael Casey, Professional Staff 
              Member
David Sienicki, Professional Staff 
              Member
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative 
            Operations
  Everett Coleman, Professional 
           Staff Member
   Mary Kate Cunningham, Staff 
             Assistant
 Craig Greene, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Phil MacNaughton, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Jack Schuler, Professional Staff 
              Member
   Scott Bousum, Staff Assistant
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff 
              Member
 John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
    William S. Johnson, Counsel
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff 
 Member and Senior Advisor to the 
             Chairman
    Jim Weiss, Staff Assistant
   Alejandra Villarreal, Staff 
             Assistant
  Megan Howard, Staff Assistant 
    (resigned October 21, 2011)
Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant 
   (resigned September 14, 2011)
Peter Villano, Professional Staff 
              Member
        Paul Lewis, Counsel
   Jeff Cullen, Staff Assistant
      Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff 
              Member
      Michele Pearce, Counsel
   Famid Sinha, Staff Assistant 
      (resigned May 9, 2011)
 Katie Sendak, Research Assistant
  Ben Runkle, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Melissa Tuttle, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned July 27, 2011)
   Catherine A. McElroy, Counsel
Michael Amato, Professional Staff 
              Member
       Robert J. McAlister, 
     Communications Assistant
  Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed 
 January 3, 2011, resigned May 5, 
               2011)
     Jonathan Shepard, Intern 
   (appointed January 4, 2011, 
    resigned February 18, 2011)
  Dustin Walker, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed February 7, 2011)
  Thomas MacKenzie, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed March 7, 
               2011)
 Lauren Hauhn, Research Assistant 
     (appointed March 8, 2011)
John Noonan, Deputy Communications 
  Director (appointed March 21, 
               2011)
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed April 1, 2011)
 Arthur Milikh, Intern (appointed 
 April 1, 2011, resigned July 15, 
               2011)
  Elizabeth Nathan, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed April 8, 
               2011)
  Elizabeth McWhorter, Executive 
  Assistant (appointed April 18, 
               2011)
 Nicholas Rodman, Staff Assistant 
      (appointed May 2, 2011)
 Stephen Bosco, Intern (appointed 
 May 17, 2011, resigned July 29, 
               2011)
Aaron Applbaum, Intern (appointed 
  May 23, 2011, resigned July 8, 
               2011)
 Kelly McRaven, Intern (appointed 
 June 1, 2011, resigned August 4, 
               2011)
  Andrew T. Walter, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed June 2, 
               2011)
Ken Orvick, Intern (appointed June 
  16, 2011, resigned August 12, 
               2011)
  Claude Chafin, Communications 
Director (appointed July 12, 2011)
   Aaron Falk, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed August 1, 2011)
  Arthur Milikh, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed August 1, 2011)
 Tim Morrison, Counsel (appointed 
          August 1, 2011)
    Jonathan D. Roger, Intern 
   (appointed August 29, 2011, 
    resigned December 8, 2011)
Kimberly Shaw, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed September 1, 
               2011)
  Ryan Jacobs, Intern (appointed 
   September 8, 2011, resigned 
        December 15, 2011)
 Stephen Bosco, Intern (appointed 
   September 9, 2011, resigned 
        December 16, 2011)
 Martin Hussey, Intern (appointed 
   September 9, 2011, resigned 
        December 16, 2011)
Stephen Kitay, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed October 11, 
               2011)
   James Mazol, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed December 5, 2011)

                           COMMITTEE MEETINGS

    A total of 153 meetings and markups have been held by the 
Committee on Armed Services, its subcommittees, and panels 
during the 112th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows:

FULL COMMITTEE....................................................    47
SUBCOMMITTEES:
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.............    16
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................    20
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................    15
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................     6
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................    16
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces..................    11
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................     7
PANELS:
    Panel on Defense Financial Management and Audibility Reform...     9
    Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry......     6

                         LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

             LEGISLATION PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS


    H.R. 1540--To Authorize Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2012 for 
    Military Activities of the Department of Defense, for Military 
 Construction, and for Defense Activities of the Department of Energy, 
To Prescribe Military Personnel Strengths for Such Fiscal Year, and for 
                             Other Purposes

    On April 14, 2011, H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced by 
Chairman McKeon and referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services held 
a mark-up session to consider H.R. 1540. The committee, a 
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 1540, as amended, 
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-1. 
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 26, 2011, by a 
recorded vote of 322--96 (Roll no. 375). On June 6, 2011, the 
bill was received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services. On December 1, 2011, the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services was discharged and the 
measure was laid before Senate by unanimous consent. The Senate 
then struck all after the enacting clause, substituted the 
language of S. 1867 amended, and then passed H.R. 1540 with an 
amendment by unanimous consent. On December 7, 2011, Chairman 
McKeon moved that the House disagree to the Senate amendment, 
and agree to a conference by unanimous consent. On December 12, 
2011, the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540 (H. Rept. 
112-329) was filed. On December 14, 2011, the conference report 
was agreed to in the House by recorded vote, 283-136 (Roll no. 
932). The next day, December 15, 2011, the conference report 
was agreed to in Senate, 86-13 (Record Vote Number: 230).
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 would: (1) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for procurement and for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) 
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for operation and 
maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize 
for fiscal year 2012: (a) the personnel strength for each 
active duty component of the military departments; (b) the 
personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve 
Component of the Armed Forces; (c) the military training 
student loads for each of the active and Reserve Components of 
the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of 
compensation for military personnel and impose certain 
requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the 
defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2012 for military construction and family housing; (6) 
Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations; 
(7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the 
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify 
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) 
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the Maritime 
Administration.
    H.R. 1540 is a key mechanism through which Congress 
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in 
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, 
which grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; 
to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the 
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X 
of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides 
jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally, and over 
the military application of nuclear energy, to the Committee on 
Armed Services. The conference report on H.R. 1540 includes the 
large majority of the findings and recommendations resulting 
from its oversight activities in the current year, as informed 
by the experience gained over the previous decades of the 
committee's existence.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 would authorize $662.4 
billion for national defense discretionary programs and 
includes $530.0 billion for the base budget of the Department 
of Defense, $115.5 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, 
and $16.9 billion for national security programs in the 
Department of Energy and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety 
Board.

Division A

    Division A of the conference report on H.R. 1540 would 
authorize funds for fiscal year 2012 for the Department of 
Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I would authorize $103.6 billion for 
procurement for the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps, the 
Air Force, and Defense-wide activities. Subtitles B and C of 
title I would establish additional program requirements, 
restrictions, and limitations for specified programs for the 
Armed Forces
    Subtitle A of title II would authorize $ 71.6 billion for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed 
Forces and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic 
research and development-related matters. Subtitle B of title 
II would establish certain program requirements, restrictions, 
and limitations on separate research and development-related 
matters. Subtitles C through E of title II addresses missile 
defense programs, reports and miscellaneous matters.
    Subtitle A of title III would authorize $ 162.2 billion for 
operation and maintenance. Subtitles B through G of title III 
addresses energy and environmental issues, logistics and 
sustainment issues, studies and reports relating to military 
readiness, limitations and extensions of authority, and other 
miscellaneous matters.
    Title IV would provide military personnel authorizations 
for the active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2012 and 
would authorize appropriations of $142.0 billion for military 
personnel for fiscal year 2012.
    The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 
2012 would be as follows:
    (1) The Army, 562,000.
    (2) The Navy, 325,739.
    (3) The Marine Corps, 202,100.
    (4) The Air Force, 332,800.
    The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2012 
would be as follows:
    (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 358,200.
    (2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
    (3) The Navy Reserve, 66,200.
    (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
    (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,700.
    (6) The Air Force Reserve, 71,400.
    (7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.
    The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of 
the Reserve Components for fiscal year 2012 would be as 
follows:
    (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060.
    (2) The Army Reserve, 16,261.
    (3) The Navy Reserve, 10,337.
    (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
    (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 14,833.
    (6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,662.
    Title V would establish military personnel policy, 
including provisions addressing officer personnel policy; 
Reserve Component management; general service authorities; 
military justice and legal matters; education and training; 
Army National Military Cemeteries; Armed Forces Retirement 
Home; defense dependents' education and military family 
readiness matters; improved sexual assault prevention and 
response in the Armed Forces; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title VI would address compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; 
consolidation and reform of travel and transportation 
authorities; commissary and nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality benefits and operations; disability, retired 
pay and survivor benefits; and other matters.
    Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as 
improvements to military health benefits; health care 
administration; and reports and other matters.
    Title VIII addresses acquisition policy and management, 
amendments to general contracting authorities, procedures, and 
limitations; provisions relating to major defense acquisition 
programs; provisions relating to contracts in support of 
contingency operations in Iraq or Afghanistan; defense 
industrial base matters; and other matters.
    Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and 
management provisions, including space activities; 
intelligence-related matters; total force management; 
quadrennial roles and missions and related matters; and other 
matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; counter-drug activities; naval vessels and shipyards; 
counterterrorism; nuclear forces; financial management; repeal 
and modification of reporting requirements; studies and 
reports; miscellaneous authorities and limitations; and other 
matters.
    Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel 
matters.
    Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, 
including assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and reports and other matters.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
    Title XIV would authorize miscellaneous authorizations 
totaling $37.6 billion and also includes provisions addressing 
the National Defense stockpile; and other matters.
    Title XV includes authorization of $115.5 billion for 
overseas contingency operations.

Division B

    Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$13.1 billion for military construction and military family 
housing in support of the active forces, the Reserve 
Components, and the NATO security investment program for fiscal 
year 2012. In addition, Division B contains military 
construction and family housing program changes; real property 
and facilities administration; provisions related to Guam 
realignment; provisions concerning land conveyances; energy 
security; and other matters.

Division C

    Division C would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$16.9 billion for Department of Energy national security 
programs for fiscal year 2012. Division C also includes 
authorization for and addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime 
Administration.

Division D

    Division D would provide for the allocation of funds among 
programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the 
tables in division D, subject to reprogramming guidance in 
accordance with established procedures, and that a decision to 
commit, obligate, or expend funds with or to a specific entity 
on the basis of a dollar amount be based on merit-based 
selection procedures in accordance with the requirements of 
section 2304(k) and 2374 of title 10, United States Code, and 
other applicable provisions of law.

Division E

    Division E would reauthorize the Small Business Innovation 
Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technology Transfer 
(STTR) programs for 6 years. The conference agreement would 
also expand the allowance of venture capital firms to include 
participation by firms that are majority owned by multiple 
hedge funds or private equity firms.
    (H. Rept. 112-78, Parts I & II; H. Rept. 112-329)

        LEGISLATION REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES


H. Res. 208--Resolution Directing the Secretary of Defense To Transmit 
   to the House of Representatives Copies of Any Official Document, 
Record, Memo, Correspondence, or Other Communication of the Department 
of Defense in the Possession of the Secretary of Defense That Refers or 
 Relates to any Consultation With Congress Regarding Operation Odyssey 
                Dawn or NATO Operation Unified Protector

    H. Res. 208 was introduced by Representative Tom Cole on 
April 7, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 
The resolution, as introduced, would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of 
any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other 
communication of the Department of Defense, or any portion of 
such communication, that refers or relates to any consultation 
with Congress regarding Operation Odyssey Dawn or military 
actions in or against Libya.
    On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services held a 
mark-up session to consider H. Res. 208, as introduced. The 
committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. 
Res. 208, as amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation by a voice vote. H. Res. 208 was amended to 
direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 
Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of such resolution, copies of any official document, 
record, memo, correspondence, or other communication of the 
Department of Defense in the possession of the Secretary of 
Defense that was created on or after February 15, 2011, and 
refers or relates to any of the following: (1) consultation or 
communication with Congress regarding the employment or 
deployment of the United States Armed Forces for Operation 
Odyssey Dawn or North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation 
Unified Protector; and (2) the War Powers Resolution and 
Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation Unified Protector. 
Additionally, the title of H. Res. 208 was amended.
    On May 12, 2011, H. Res. 208 was placed on the House 
Calendar, Calendar No. 38. No further action has been taken.
    (H. Rept. 112-77)

LEGISLATION NOT REPORTED BUT MANAGED BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 
              ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


      H.R. 1246--To Reduce the Amounts Otherwise Authorized To Be 
Appropriated to the Department of Defense for Printing and Reproduction

    H.R. 1246, ``To reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to 
be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and 
reproduction'' was introduced on March 29, 2011, by 
Represenative Allen B. West and was referred to the House Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman Forbes of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee consideration of 
H.R. 1246, and Chairman McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the bill. On April 4, 2011, Mr. West moved to 
consider H.R. 1246, as introdcued, under suspension of the 
rules of the House, and the motion to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 393-0 (Roll 
no. 225). On April 5, 2011, H.R. 1246 was received in the 
Senate and read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services. No further action has been taken.

H. Res. 292--Declaring That the President Shall Not Deploy, Establish, 
  or Maintain the Presence of Units and Members of the United States 
      Armed Forces on the Ground in Libya, and for Other Purposes

    H. Res. 292, ``Declaring that the President shall not 
deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and 
members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in 
Libya, and for other purposes'' was introduced on June 2, 2011, 
by Speaker John Boehner, and was referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 294, H. Res. 292 was 
considered under a closed rule by the House on June 3, 2011. H. 
Res. 294 waived all points of order against consideration of H. 
Res. 292, and provided one hour of debate, with 40 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. On June 3, 
2011, H. Res. 292 was agreed to in the House by the yeas and 
nays, 268-145-1 (Roll no. 441).

 H.J. Res. 68--Authorizing the Limited Use of the United States Armed 
             Forces in Support of the NATO Mission in Libya

    H.J. Res. 68, ``Authorizing the limited use of the United 
States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya'' 
was introduced on June 22, 2011, by Representative Alcee L. 
Hastings and was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 
and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a 
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Pursuant to the 
provisions of H. Res. 328, H.J. Res. 68 was considered by the 
House under a closed rule on June 24, 2011. The resolution 
provided one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 68 with 40 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The 
resolution waived all points of order against consideration of 
H.J. Res. 68 as well as all provisions in H.J. Res. 68. H. Res. 
328 also provided one motion to recommit H.J. Res. 68. On June 
24, 2011, H.J. Res. 68 was agreed to in the House by the yeas 
and nays, 240-167 (Roll no. 492).

H.R. 2278--To Limit the Use of Funds Appropriated to the Department of 
  Defense for United States Armed Forces in Support of North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector With Respect to Libya, 
            Unless Otherwise Specifically Authorized by Law

    H.R. 2278, ``To limit the use of funds appropriated to the 
Department of Defense for United States Armed Forces in support 
of North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified 
Protector with respect to Libya, unless otherwise specifically 
authorized by law'' was introduced on June 22, 2011, by 
Representative Thomas J. Rooney and was referred to the House 
Committee on Armed Services. Pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Res. 328, H.R. 2278 was considered by the House under a closed 
rule on June 24, 2011. H. Res. 328 provided one hour of debate 
on H.R. 2278 equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The 
resolution waived all points of order against consideration of 
H.R. 2278 as well as provisions in H.R. 2278, and provided that 
H.R. 2278 shall be considered as read. Finally, the resolution 
provided one motion to recommit H.R. 2278. On June 24, 2011, 
passage of H.R. 2278 failed in the House by a recorded vote, 
180-238 (Roll no. 494).

                            BUDGET ACTIVITY

    On March 18, 2011, the Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget 
request for National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal 
year 2012 to the Committee on the Budget.
    The committee noted that the President's fiscal year 2012 
budget request totaled $578.2 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for national defense. Of this total, $553.1 billion 
was for the Department of Defense, $18.1 billion was for the 
Department of Energy's defense activities, and $7.0 billion was 
for other defense-related activities. The President's budget 
also included $6.8 billion in mandatory budget authority.
    In addition to the base budget request, the committee noted 
that as required by section 1008 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the President's budget for fiscal year 2012 included a 
separate request of $117.8 billion for war-related expenditures 
in support of ongoing military operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq, presented as 
Overseas Contingency Operations.
    Given the spectrum of threats to our national security, the 
diverse missions performed by our military, and the funding 
required for reset from current contingency operations, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services considered the 
budget request to be below the minimum level necessary to 
support our national security requirements, and recommended an 
increase in funding for national defense by $7 billion for 
fiscal year 2012 and $44 billion across fiscal years 2012-16 
above the budget request. The Chairman believed that an 
increase would ensure a smooth transition from one fiscal year 
to the next, move toward resolution of certain programmatic and 
economic concerns, ease the Department of Defense's concerns on 
pricing fluctuations such as fuel, and provide service members 
with a larger funding stream.
    In review of the budget request, the Chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services highlighted several concerns to the 
Committee on the Budget. First, with respect to proposed 
reductions by the Department of Defense, they were not 
performed from a strategic perspective. The reduction of $13 
billion in fiscal year 2012 was directed by the Office of 
Management and Budget. Second, the Chairman noted that the 
reductions in Army and Marine Corps manpower, totaling 47,000 
persons as programmed in the Future Year's Defense Program, 
were premature, both from a national security strategy 
standpoint and for the potential impact on the time between 
deployments, dwell time, experienced by members of the Armed 
Forces. Third, the Chairman suggested that high-profile 
programs such as the Air Force's new bomber program and the 
Navy's Ohio class ballistic missile submarine replacement may 
not be realized within currently planned cost and schedule 
constraints. Finally, the Chairman argued that the President's 
budget request may have adverse implications on the readiness 
of the Armed Forces due to funding shortfalls and inaccurate 
economic assumptions.
    The Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed Services did 
not join the Chairman in making these assertions, nor did he 
join the Chairman in recommending budgetary increases over the 
President's budget request. Instead, the Ranking Member 
expressed to the Committee on the Budget his support for the 
President's budget request as a balanced platform for military 
effectiveness from which justifiable savings may be realized.

                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

    Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, described below are actions taken and 
recommendations made with respect to specific areas and 
subjects that were identified in the oversight plan for special 
attention during the 112th Congress, as well as additional 
oversight activities not explicitly enumerated by the oversight 
plan.

                             POLICY ISSUES


  National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, and Related 
                         Defense Policy Issues

    During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued its 
traditional interest in the broad spectrum of national security 
challenges facing the United States, and how the Nation might 
best prepare itself to face such challenges in the near- and 
long-term. The committee particularly focused on conducting 
oversight of issues pertaining to the drawdown of U.S. military 
operations in the Republic of Iraq, the ongoing International 
Security Assistance Force operations in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan, the strategic relationship with the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, and the security challenge posed by the 
Islamic Republic of Iran. Throughout the second half of the 
first session of the 112th Congress, the committee received 
numerous briefings from representatives of the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense, the military services, the joint staff, 
academics, and other experts.
    The committee also held a series of seven hearings 
beginning on September 8, 2011, and concluding on November 2, 
2011, that examined the lessons learned for our military in the 
10 years since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and to 
apply those lessons to the future of national defense. The 
committee sought to thoroughly examine the national security 
consequences of budget cuts to the military, proposed by the 
President in April and enacted by Congress in the Budget 
Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). To date, over $465 
billion in cuts have been adopted. Should sequestration of the 
defense budget take effect in January 2013, the cuts to the 
military could exceed $1 trillion over 10 years. The hearings 
included testimony from former senior military leaders, outside 
defense experts, former chairmen of the Senate and House 
Committees on Armed Services, economists, the military service 
chiefs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff.
    In the conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees included 
several provisions relating to defense policy, such as 
improving interagency coordination in matters of national 
security; additional reporting on the military capabilities of 
certain potential aggressors, such as the Democratic People's 
Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran; independent 
assessments of global force posture, with a particular focus on 
East Asia; an assessment of the energy security risk to the 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization and U.S. Armed Forces 
stationed in Europe; and reporting on the national security 
risk posed by U.S. Federal debt owned by the People's Republic 
of China. The conferees also provided robust authorities for 
building partnership capacity, agreeing to extend section 1206 
authorities through fiscal year 2013 and enhanced the reporting 
requirements for a better understanding of counter terrorism. 
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision 
creating the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), a joint 
fund between the Department of State and the Department of 
Defense, to provide assistance to a foreign country to enhance 
the capabilities of that country's military forces and other 
security forces. The provision limited the total amount the 
Department of Defense may transfer into GSCF in any fiscal year 
to $200 million. The provision also provides authority, during 
the period prior to the date the GSCF becomes operational, for 
the Secretary of Defense to provide assistance to certain 
security forces in the Republic of Yemen, in the Horn of 
Africa, or those participations in the African Union Mission in 
Somalia to conduct counter terrorism operations.
    Much of the committee's oversight on overarching defense 
policy resulted from numerous hearings detailed elsewhere in 
this report.

                        Afghanistan and Pakistan

    The committee held several full committee hearings and 
briefings as part of its oversight of U.S. military operations 
in Afghanistan and security assistance to Pakistan. On June 23, 
2011, the committee held a hearing on Recent Developments in 
Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S. Forces. Witnesses 
included Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy 
and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. On July 20, 2011, the full committee received a 
classified briefing on Pakistan Assistance from representatives 
of the Department of State and Department of Defense. On July 
27, 2011, the full committee held a hearing on The Way Ahead in 
Afghanistan. Witnesses included former Vice Chief of Staff of 
the Army, General (Retired) Jack Keane; former Commander, 
Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan, Lieutenant General 
(Retired) David Barno; and former Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, the Honorable Bing West. On September 22, 2011, the 
full committee held a hearing on Afghan National Security 
Forces. Witnesses included Under Secretary of Defense Michele 
Flournoy and Lieutenant General Robert B. Neller, Director for 
Operations, J-3, Joint Staff.
    The committee held a full committee briefing on U.S. 
assistance to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to help combat 
Al Qaeda and other militant extremists within Pakistan. 
Committee members and professional staff also participated in 
numerous delegations to Pakistan to meet with U.S. diplomats, 
U.S. military officers, and Pakistani government officials in 
order to gain a better understanding of Pakistan-related policy 
issues.
    The conferees included a number of legislative provisions 
as part of the conference report on H.R. 1540 relating to 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. The conference report on H.R. 1540 
would extend the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund established 
under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). 
The conference report on H.R. 1540 also extended the 
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP), and extended 
section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), authorizing the 
Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation 
for logistical, military, and other support provided by that 
nation to or in connection with U.S. military operations in 
Afghanistan. H.R. 1540 also extended the ``Report on Progress 
toward Stability and Security in Afghanistan,'' as required by 
section 1230(a) of Public Law 110-181, thereby continuing its 
oversight role in the war in Afghanistan.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 would also authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to reimburse Pakistan for logistical 
support provided in connection with U.S. military operations in 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and for logistical and 
military support provided to confront the threat posed by Al 
Qaeda and other militant extremists in Pakistan. This provision 
would also require the Secretary to examine alternative options 
to achieve these objectives and to provide additional detail to 
Congress regarding operations reimbursed under this authority. 
The conferees extended the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund 
(PCF) to provide assistance to Pakistan's security forces to 
build and maintain their counterinsurgency capability. However, 
acknowledging concerns regarding Pakistan's political will to 
combat militant extremists, this provision would withhold 
authority to obligate more than 40 percent of the funds 
authorized to be appropriated for PCF until the Secretary of 
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, 
submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report on 
the strategy to utilize the fund, a discussion of the terrorist 
or extremist groups that the United States encourages Pakistan 
to combat, the gaps in capabilities of Pakistani security 
units, Pakistan's efforts to counter improvised explosive 
devices, how assistance provided utilizing the fund will 
address these capability gaps, and metrics of progress. This 
provision also would direct that future updates of the report 
be submitted concurrently with the President's budget request, 
and would require quarterly reporting on progress in achieving 
U.S. strategic objectives in Pakistan and progress made by 
programs supported by PCF. Thus, the conferees have continued a 
critical program for training and equipping the Pakistani 
security forces to be able to conduct counterinsurgency 
operations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of 
Pakistan, while strengthening congressional oversight of these 
programs.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-48; H.A.S.C. 112-56; H.A.S.C. 112-70)

                                  Iraq

    The committee held two full committee briefings as part of 
its exercise over U.S. military operations in the Republic of 
Iraq and the drawdown of troops from the country. On June 22, 
2011, the full committee received a briefing on Iraq Withdrawal 
and Transition from representatives of the Government 
Accountability Office, the Department of Defense and the 
Department of State. On November 16, 2011, the full committee 
received a classified briefing on the impending withdrawal of 
U.S. forces from Iraq from representatives of the Department of 
Defense and the Department of State.
    In addition to these hearings, the conferees included a 
provision and reporting requirements relating to the Republic 
of Iraq as part of the conference report on H.R. 1540 would 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to utilize funds available 
for operations and maintenance by the Air Force to support 
operations and activities of the Office of Security Cooperation 
in Iraq (OSC-I). This provision would also require Secretary of 
Defense, in cooperation with the Secretary of State, to submit 
a report outlining how Department of Defense participation in 
OSC-I programs will address capability gaps of the Iraqi 
Security Forces, should the Government of the Republic of Iraq 
request such assistance.

                            Force Protection

    The committee continued to emphasize force protection as a 
high priority issue for special oversight, focusing on areas 
having direct impact on the safety of military personnel 
engaged in operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. The objective of committee activity 
was to expedite the promulgation of policies and the fielding 
of technology and equipment to prevent and/or reduce combat 
casualties. In Iraq and Afghanistan, focus areas included but 
were not limited to: Effective requirements generation and test 
and evaluation procedures; family of mine resistant ambush 
protected (MRAP) vehicle production and fielding to include 
underbody improvement kits; adequate, effective, and properly 
resourced quantities of body and vehicle armor; effective 
counter improvised explosive device (IED) equipment throughout 
the force; persistent surveillance in support of ground 
operations, particularly prevention of IED emplacement; 
solutions to counter the IED threat to dismounted forces; 
capabilities to counter indirect fires; and personal equipment 
that mitigates traumatic brain injury.
    The committee continued to have concerns regarding the 
Department's ability to effectively combat and counter the IED 
threat, specifically in Afghanistan. During the 112th Congress, 
the committee has focused on activities and solutions being 
developed, procured, and fielded to address the IED threat in 
dismounted operations. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, the committee indicated that the number of 
dismounted operations conducted by U.S. and coalition forces 
continue to rise in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The 
committee noted that although overall enemy IED efficacy has 
decreased since October 2010, primarily due to early detection 
from dismounted forces, the severity of casualties increased 
when a dismounted IED effective attack occurred. The committee 
stated that efforts to mitigate the IED threat to dismounted 
forces should be a top priority for the Department of Defense. 
The committee, at the staff level, continues to receive monthly 
updates on the Department of Defense's efforts to mitigate the 
IED threat to dismounted operations.
    The committee, through formal activity, to include open 
hearings and classified briefings has also continued to 
maintain close oversight of the Joint IED Defeat Organization 
(JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's focal point for the 
battle against IEDs, during the 112th Congress. To date, 
Congress has provided approximately $21.0 billion to JIEDDO to 
address the IED threat through JIEDDO's three lines of 
operation: attacking the network, defeating the device, and 
training the force. The nearly 3,100-person strong JIEDDO 
obligates and executes approximately $3.0 billion annually and 
JIEDDO reports significant progress in the Counter-IED (C-IED) 
fight. The committee continued to examine and provide oversight 
on JIEDDO's current roles and missions, operational functions, 
organizational and force structure requirements, and current 
metrics for measuring success against countering the IED 
threat. The committee paid particular attention to whether 
JIEDDO has rectified previously identified deficiencies to 
include a lack of rigor in internal management and reporting, 
questions surrounding their reporting structure to the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, and JIEDDO's overall effectiveness in 
transferring counter-IED technologies to the military services, 
and why JIEDDO is not actively leading all DOD C-IED efforts. 
The committee continues to work with JIEDDO in developing a 
comprehensive counter IED program database that would 
effectively track and manage all DOD counter IED efforts. 
Further, the committee continues to receive monthly updates on 
JIEDDO's financial management and funding rates of obligation 
and execution. Committee staff has also traveled to the JIEDDO 
Counter-IED Operations/Intelligence Center to continue 
oversight activities and review potential duplication of 
effort.
    The committee maintained its intensive oversight of 
individual body armor and personnel protection programs through 
informal discussions with the Army's senior leadership, 
briefings, hearings, coordination with Government 
Accountability Office investigators, and other formal 
activities. The committee continued to maintain strong interest 
in: significant ergonomic and ballistic improvements in body 
armor to include combat helmet technology and ballistic 
protection for the face; advances in light-weight and flexible 
solutions; and improvements in non-ballistic, blast and blunt-
impact protection against traumatic brain injury. The committee 
also continued to encourage fidelity and transparency in body 
armor test and evaluation procedures; monitored the development 
and validation of operationally realistic performance 
specification requirements; and provide oversight on current 
body armor policy for Operation New Dawn and Operation Enduring 
Freedom. Finally, the committee continued to direct the 
Department of Defense to adequately plan, program, and budget 
for body armor and personnel protection programs as a specific 
area of research and development.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 authorized $2.5 billion 
for JIEDDO and continued to require the Director of JIEDDO to 
report to the congressional defense committees on monthly 
obligation rates. The conference report also authorized $2.7 
billion for continued MRAP vehicle procurement and sustainment.

              Global War on Terrorism and Emerging Threats

    The committee conducted extensive oversight, often in 
classified form, over terrorism issues and emerging threats, 
with particular attention given to special operations 
capabilities, the changing nature of Al Qaeda's organization 
and operations, and efforts to build partner nation counter-
terrorism capability. Related hearings included: June 22, 2011, 
Hearing on the Evolution of the Terrorist Threat and, at the 
full committee level, members received testimony on special 
operations forces and emerging threats from Admiral Eric Olson, 
Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) during the 
SOCOM posture hearing on March 3, 2011.
    Committee members and staff made numerous trips to 
countries impacted by terrorism, to include areas where U.S. 
forces are engaged in combat operations to understand the 
resources leveraged against terrorism and other emerging 
threats, the authorities applied in these efforts, and the 
Department of Defense's interaction with its interagency and 
international partners. Additionally, the committee received a 
classified briefing on the Osama Bin Laden raid on May 4, 2011; 
a classified briefing on Al Qaeda on October 4, 2011; and a 
classified briefing on Counter-Terrorism Policy and Initiatives 
in Yemen, Somalia, and the region on November 17, 2011.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, 
contained several provisions related to terrorism, emerging 
threats, and building partnership capabilities, to include: a 
provision to modify and extend authority provided under section 
1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 (Public Law 109-163) to build the capacity of foreign 
military forces; a provision to extend authority provided under 
section 1233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to reimburse certain 
coalition nations for support provided to U.S. military 
operations; and several provisions directing reports on 
military capabilities of nations such as the People's Republic 
of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and on 
the national security risk posed by U.S. federal debt held by 
China. Additionally, recognizing terrorist use of cyberspace to 
conduct terrorist operations against U.S. forces, the committee 
included a provision that would affirm the authority for the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities in 
cyberspace.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 affirmed the authority 
for the Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities in 
cyberspace; and extended the authority for the Department of 
Defense to make rewards to persons providing information and 
non-lethal aid to U.S. personnel through September 30, 2013.
    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
conducted detailed oversight of specific issues related to 
special operations capabilities, counter-proliferation efforts, 
and counter-insurgency and unconventional warfare operations. 
Further details on these subcommittee activities are provided 
in the ``Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees 
and the Panels'' section.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-14)

       Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters

    The committee continued to conduct extensive oversight over 
detainee policy, military commissions, and related matters. On 
July 26, 2011, the committee held a full committee hearing to 
discuss Ten Years After the 2001 AUMF: Current Status of Legal 
Authorities, Detention, and Prosecution in the War on Terror. 
Witnesses included former Attorney General and Chief Judge of 
the United States District Court for the Southern District of 
New York, Michael B. Mukasey; former Deputy General Counsel and 
Acting General Counsel, Daniel Dell'Orto; former Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General, Steven Engel; and Professor Robert 
Chesney. In addition to the full committee hearing, the 
committee conducted numerous member and staff level briefings.
    While much of the committee's oversight of detainee issues 
was conducted in classified form and cannot be addressed in 
this report, committee members and staff generally focused on 
issues relating to the legal authorities under which detention 
operations are undertaken, policies regarding future captures, 
reengagement amongst former detainees, resources devoted to the 
Office of Military Commissions, detention operations in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and detention operations 
during the withdrawal of forces from the Republic of Iraq.
    Committee staff traveled to the Republic of Iraq in order 
to discuss counterterrorism, detention matters, and to evaluate 
lessons learned for detention operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan. Committee staff also traveled to 
Morocco, Algeria, France, and Kuwait specifically to further 
study counterterrorism and issues relating to detention as 
well.
    There were numerous legislative provisions relating to 
detainee policy in the conference report on H.R. 1540. 
Specifically, the conference report includes provisions that 
would clarify the right to plead guilty in a trial of a capital 
offense by military commission; affirm the President's 
authority to detain Al Qaeda terrorists; require a national 
security protocol regarding detainee communications; require 
military custody for certain foreign Al Qaeda terrorists; 
establish an administrative review procedure for detainees held 
at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; prohibit the use 
of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States 
to house Guantanamo detainees; prohibit transfers or releases 
of Guantanamo and certain other detainees to the United States; 
and require rigorous certification requirements for certain 
transfers or releases of Guantanamo detainees elsewhere 
overseas.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-53)

                        Iran and the Middle East

    The committee held several full committee briefings as part 
of its oversight of U.S. response to strategic threats in Iran 
and the Middle East. On June 2, 2011, the full committee held a 
classified operations and intelligence briefing on NATO 
military operations in Libya from the Department of State, 
Department of Defense, and from the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence (ODNI). On June 15, 2011, the full 
committee received a classified operations and intelligence 
briefing on developments in the Middle East and their impact on 
U.S. strategic interests from representatives of the Department 
of Defense and ODNI. On July 13, 2011, the full committee 
received a classified briefing on Iranian Activity in the 
Middle East from representatives of the Department of Defense 
and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. On 
September 14, 2011, the full committee received a classified 
briefing on the National Military Strategy to Counter Iran from 
representatives of the Department of Defense and the Office of 
the Director of National Intelligence. The committee held a 
full committee briefing in October as part of its oversight of 
U.S. military training operations in Africa. On October 25, 
2011, the full committee received a classified briefing on the 
Deployment of U.S. Forces to Central Africa from 
representatives of the Department of Defense.

                  FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY


        Organization and Management of the Department of Defense

    The committee continued to undertake a review of the 
organization and management of the Department of Defense in 
order to ensure that it is properly postured to meet the 
complex and evolving security threats of the 21st century. In 
addition to examining this issue from the perspective of 
lessons learned 10 years after 9/11, as discussed elsewhere in 
this report, the committee held a hearing on July 14, 2011, to 
examine Human Capital Management: a High-Risk Area for the 
Department of Defense. Specifically, the committee remains 
concerned that the Department of Defense's recent focus on 
efficiencies without a thorough business case analysis and risk 
assessment potentially undermines the Department's ability to 
appropriately plan and budget for its total manpower 
requirements. The committee believes that the Department of 
Defense should aggressively undertake a more holistic look at 
its manpower requirements in order to achieve the appropriate 
balance in its total workforce, rather than managing simply to 
an arbitrary civilian authorization level. The committee notes 
that total force management would improve manpower requirements 
determination and planning to facilitate decisions on which 
sector is most appropriate to perform the requirement with 
consideration of the distinct value of each component, whether 
military, civilian, or contractor personnel. To achieve that 
end, the conference report on H.R. 1540 includes several 
provisions related to total force management, including 
provisions requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a 
total force management plan that would establish the most 
appropriate and cost-efficient mix of manpower (military, 
civilian and contractor personnel) and ensuring that in making 
such determinations risk mitigation should be considered over 
cost.

                          Financial Management

    The Comptroller General of the United States has 
consistently identified the Department of Defense's financial 
management as a high-risk area since 1995. The Department's 
inability to track and account for billions of dollars annually 
in funding and tangible assets continues to undermine its 
management approach. It also creates a lack of transparency 
that significantly limits congressional oversight. The 
Department's inability to produce auditable financial 
statements undermines its efforts to reform defense acquisition 
processes and to realize efficiencies. Without these objective 
tools, neither the Department nor Congress can verify that 
greater value is being created. As a result, the committee 
continues to monitor the Department's efforts to implement the 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan to 
correct the weaknesses in its financial statements and monitor 
closely the interdependencies between FIAR and the hundreds of 
millions of dollars being spent on business systems 
modernization programs that the Department has proposed to 
address its financial management problems. The conference 
report on H.R. 1540 contains several provisions that would 
strengthen the Department's financial management, improve the 
reliability of defense financial statements, increase the 
competency of the financial management workforce, and add 
additional requirements to the FIAR plan. The conference report 
also includes a provision that would direct the Comptroller 
General to assess the extent to which the Department is 
tracking and realizing savings proposed pursuant to the 
Secretary of Defense's efficiencies initiatives through fiscal 
year 2016.
    Elsewhere in this report, the committee organized a panel 
on defense financial management and auditability reform 
pursuant to Committee rule 5(a) to carry out a comprehensive 
review of the Department's financial management system. The 
review was initiated to oversee the Department's financial 
management system's capacity for providing timely, reliable, 
and useful information for decision making and reporting.

                           Acquisition Issues


The acquisition system and acquisition policy

    The committee conducted oversight of the Department's 
process for reviewing and certifying requirements for major 
defense acquisition programs, development of the acquisition 
workforce, protection of strategic materials, and management of 
services contracting. The committee also continued oversight of 
the implementation of the Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2008 (Public Law 110-181) and the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 
2010, as included in the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) to 
ensure these major acquisition reform efforts are implemented 
in a timely and effective manner.
    The committee remains concerned that the Department of 
Defense acquisition system fails to fully consider the total 
ownership costs of a weapon system when making decisions. 
Therefore, the conferees included a provision in the conference 
report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, which amends the requirements for 
Milestone A and Milestone B exit criteria to increase 
consideration and planning for sustainment of the weapon 
system. The provision also requires that before entering into a 
low-rate initial production contract, the Secretary of Defense 
shall ensure that detailed requirements for core depot-level 
maintenance and repair capabilities, as well as the associated 
logistics capabilities, be defined. Furthermore, the conferees 
included a provision in the conference report on H.R. 1540 that 
requires the Secretary to issue guidance on actions to be taken 
to assess, manage, and control Department of Defense costs for 
the operation and support of major weapon systems.
    The committee maintains that competition reduces costs, 
increases quality, and improves vendor performance. For this 
reason, the conferees included several provisions in the 
conference report to foster competition in defense acquisitions 
and weapon systems sustainment. Department of Defense 
acquisition officials often find that they are locked into 
sole-source acquisition strategies because the government does 
not own sufficient technical data rights to enable competition. 
As a result, the conference report includes a provision that 
ensures that in addition to technical data that is already 
subject to a contract delivery requirement, any data that 
pertains to an item or process developed with Federal funds, 
shall be made available for only the reasonable costs incurred 
by the contractor for having to convert and deliver the data to 
the government in the required form.
    According to the recently submitted Inventory of Contracts 
for Services, the Department of Defense obligated $204 billion 
in contracts to the private sector for services provided during 
fiscal year 2010, an amount greater than the $166 billion 
obligated for supplies and equipment (i.e., hardware). The 
committee continues its oversight activities in this area and 
worked closely with the Department to improve its inventory on 
contracting for services for all the military departments and 
defense agencies. The conferees also included a provision in 
the conference report on H.R. 1540 which requires the 
development of a plan and procedures for the use of this 
information in the development of service contracting budgets 
and strategic workforce planning. In addition, the conference 
report includes a provision calling for the Under Secretary of 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to develop a plan for 
implementing the recommendations of the Defense Science Board 
Task Force on Improvements to Service Contracting.
    The committee continued its efforts to strengthen the 
acquisition workforce and enhance professional development of 
government personnel working in acquisition. The committee 
continued oversight of implementation of the Department of 
Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, and other 
efforts by the Department to expand and improve the acquisition 
workforce and the financial management community. The 
conference report on H.R. 1540 includes a provision clarifying 
the use of the Defense Acquisition Workforce funds, as well as 
a provision that would promote acquisition training on a 
government-wide basis. In addition, the Act includes language 
that would strengthen the authority of the Secretary of Defense 
to establish certification and training requirements for 
Department of Defense financial management positions and to 
include planning for the financial management workforce in the 
Department's biennial strategic workforce plan.
    While the committee has done a significant amount of work 
to improve the contingency contracting practices of the 
Department of Defense, the committee took additional steps to 
ensure that contingency contracting can be used as an effective 
tool of counter-insurgency operations. At the request of 
General Petraeus, the former Commander, United States Central 
Command, the conference report on H.R. 1540 provides the 
Secretary of Defense specific authorities to address cases 
where it is determined that an insurgency is directly 
benefitting from a Department of Defense contract. The 
provision prohibits contracting with the enemy and allows the 
Secretary to void or terminate for default any contract in the 
Central Command theater of operations if it is determined that 
a person who is actively supporting the insurgency is receiving 
funds under the contract. In addition, the conferees acted on 
findings from the Commission on Wartime Contracting and 
included provisions in the conference report aimed at 
addressing shortfalls in Operational Contract Support, 
increasing competition in contingency contracting, and 
enhancing contract management.
    In order to keep the acquisition process free from 
political influence, the conferees included a provision in the 
conference report on H.R. 1540 that prohibits the Secretary of 
Defense from requiring potential contractors to first declare 
their political contributions before applying for business with 
the Department of Defense.

Rapid acquisition authority and joint urgent operational needs process

    The natures of the conflicts in the Republic of Iraq and 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have illustrated the need 
for the defense acquisition cycle to be flexible enough to 
respond to the rapid changes on the battlefield. In the 
conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees expanded 
the Rapid Acquisition Authority provided by the Bob Stump 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public 
Law 107-314) to include not only supplies, but also the 
associated support services needed in connection with the 
deployment of supplies procured under the authority. The 
committee continued its oversight of the joint urgent 
operational needs (JUONS) process and included authority in the 
conference report on H.R. 1540 for the establishment of a JUONS 
fund to ensure the Secretary of Defense has immediate access to 
funding for capabilities that he determines are suitable for 
rapid fielding in response to urgent operational needs.

Defense industrial base and technology transfers

    The committee continued its close monitoring of the health 
of the defense industrial base. Elsewhere in this report, the 
committee organized a panel on Defense Challenges within the 
Business Industry. The panel was instated to examine the 
current defense business environment and to better understand 
how the Department can encourage growth in the defense 
industrial base [DIB]. In addition to the work done in this 
area by the panel, the committee continued its broader 
oversight efforts in this area. The industrial base for complex 
major weapons systems has shrunk dramatically in the last 
decade, limiting the ability of the Department of Defense to 
control costs and encourage innovation through the use of 
competition. The committee is greatly concerned about the 
impact of cuts to defense funding and worked aggressively to 
ensure that Congress and, specifically, the members of the 
Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction were aware of the 
consequences of proposed reductions on the defense industrial 
base. The committee examined the policies and funding tools 
available to the Department to ensure the health of the DIB 
and, as a result, the conferees included provisions in the 
conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, for enhancing the Department's 
ability to monitor and manage supplier risk, and to address 
supplier-base vulnerabilities. The conference report also 
includes a provision that would improve detection and avoidance 
of counterfeiting of electronic parts in the defense supply 
chain and would improve contractor systems for detecting 
counterfeit electronic parts before they could impact the 
warfighter.
    The committee continues to await the Department's delivery 
of the assessment required by Section 1248 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84). In that assessment, the Secretary of Defense and the 
Secretary of State are required to examine national security 
risks of removing satellites and related components from the 
U.S. Munitions List. The committee plans to hold an oversight 
hearing to review space export control policy once that report 
is received. The consolidation of the defense industry and its 
increasingly global nature will continue to challenge the 
capabilities of current systems for industrial security.

Information technology

    The committee continued its oversight of information 
technology acquisition issues, to include implementation of 
section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The committee scrutinized 
the Department of Defense's plan for budget reductions and 
efficiencies initiatives, and the impacts those changes would 
have on information technology programs. As the military 
services are the primary acquirers of information technology 
systems, particular attention was given to service information 
technology programs during the service posture hearings and 
during other committee oversight activities.
    The committee remains concerned about the projected 
dissolution of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Networks & Information Integration) and other information 
technology-related realignment within the Department, and will 
continue to monitor Department of Defense efforts to achieve 
efficiencies and leverage information technology.
    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
conducted detailed oversight of specific programmatic issues 
related to information technology. Further details on these 
subcommittee activities are provided in the ``Additional 
Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees'' section of this 
report.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision 
directing the Comptroller General of the United States to 
report on the major automated information system programs of 
the Department of Defense, and a provision extending the 
Defense mentor-protege program through September 30, 2018; a 
provision updating and clarifying the management of Department 
of Defense business systems; and clarifying language for key 
milestones and definitions for business IT systems.

                          OTHER POLICY ISSUES


                              Intelligence

    The committee focused on several areas of oversight related 
to intelligence activities of the Department of Defense. The 
committee held numerous classified briefings to discuss 
intelligence activities, with a particular emphasis on 
activities in support of ongoing hostilities and the division 
of responsibilities and authorities between the military and 
other components of the intelligence community.
    Committee members and staff also made several trips to 
areas of ongoing hostilities during which intelligence 
activities were carefully evaluated. The committee continued 
its efforts to ensure that the Department of Defense has the 
resources and legal authorities needed to provide effective and 
efficient intelligence support to military operations.
    While much of the committee's oversight of intelligence 
issues was conducted in classified form and cannot be addressed 
in this report, the committee specifically began an examination 
of how Department of Defense intelligence programs are 
designated as part of either the Military Intelligence Program 
or the National Intelligence Program and efforts to reform 
guidelines related to these designations. The committee also 
continued its examination of the Department's security 
practices following recent extensive unauthorized disclosures 
of classified information. This effort resulted in a 
legislative provision that would require a comprehensive 
insider threat detection program being included in the 
conference report on H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

                      National Guard and Reserves

    The committee continued its efforts to review the 
requirements for full time support of the Reserve Component. 
Oversight visits were made to National Guard state headquarters 
to discuss the military technicians program. The committee is 
committed to working with the Administration to ensure the 
proper structure is resourced to support an operational reserve 
force.
    The committee conducted a hearing on July 27, 2011, to 
examine the Reserve Components as an operational force and 
review potential legislative and policy changes to enhance the 
flexibility of the services for continued use of the reserves. 
The committee remains supportive of the operational reserve 
concept and will work to ensure that legislative and policy 
changes are broad enough to ensure access and flexibility; but 
does not create the ability for the services to over rely on 
the reserves. The committee is also concerned with the ability 
to properly resource an operational reserves so it remains a 
viable and ready force.
    An initiative to make the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and providing a 
Vice Chief of Staff in the leadership of the Bureau was 
included in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-57)

                               READINESS

    The Subcommittee on Readiness provided oversight of 
Department of Defense military readiness, training, logistics, 
maintenance, military construction, installations, family 
housing, and the base realignment and closure process. The 
subcommittee also provided oversight on civilian personnel, 
energy security, and environmental issues that affect the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee visited numerous overseas bases to assess the 
skills of assigned forces, the material condition of equipment, 
the readiness of capabilities provided, and appropriate 
application of military construction in an overseas and 
sometimes contingency environment. Specifically, the committee 
has extensively visited the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and 
examined U.S. Central Command's plans to sustain operations in 
theater. The committee also has continued to assess the 
logistics and readiness challenges facing the Department of 
Defense as it withdraws forces from the Islamic Republic of 
Iraq and its ability to maintain a capable force structure in 
theater to respond to emerging threats.

                            Force Readiness

    The committee held several hearings focused on the 
challenges facing the military services to provide trained and 
ready forces for ongoing operations while maintaining the 
capability to meet other commitments and to posture the force 
for long-term required readiness to respond to future real-
world contingencies. The committee also held a series of 
hearings on the potential impact of possible large cuts to the 
Department of Defense's budget and the resulting challenges in 
maintaining readiness. The committee found that while deployed 
ground forces have, in most cases, the equipment, personnel, 
and training they require for their missions, this deployed 
readiness has come at the continued expense of non-deployed 
ground-force units. The committee remains concerned about the 
number of non-deployed units reporting that they are not ready 
for combat operations, or would need additional time, 
personnel, and equipment to prepare for deployment, and intends 
to hold additional hearings to conduct further oversight on 
force readiness levels. In addition, the committee found that 
these personnel challenges are especially acute in key 
categories such as warrant officers and certain enlisted 
specialties which have experienced shortages as the number of 
medically non-deployable personnel has increased. The committee 
also is concerned that these manning challenges will become 
more acute as the Army executes its planned end strength 
reduction from 579,000 to 520,000 or lower as future budgets 
may dictate. Therefore, the committee tasked the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of Army 
personnel readiness.
    Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of the Army 
reset process. The budget request for fiscal year 2012 moved an 
increasing share of the enduring depot maintenance requirements 
back to the base budget, providing funds for the restoration of 
equipment, damaged or worn out through nearly 10 years of 
constant operations. However, the committee remains concerned 
about the Army's ability to accurately forecast its total reset 
liability and the amount of synchronization of reset needed for 
current operations and those likely to be undertaken in the 
future. The committee's concerns are especially acute in regard 
to the growing amount of theater-provided equipment (TPE) on 
which scheduled reset has been deferred to support current 
operations. The committee has taken numerous briefings from the 
Army Materiel Command on the current execution and status of 
its reset efforts. To ensure the proper materiel readiness of 
another key enabler, the prepositioned stocks, the committee 
tasked the Secretary of Defense to annually certify 
prepositioned stocks as meeting operation plans requirements. 
The committee has also tasked the Secretary of Defense to 
report in greater detail on the condition, composition, and 
status of such stocks in an effort to increase materiel 
readiness. Finally, to further ensure that prepositioned stocks 
properly support future missions, the conference report on H.R. 
1540 included a provision to prohibit the placement of U.S. 
European Command prepositioned ships into a reserve status back 
in the United States until the impacts on the joint force are 
fully understood.
    The Army also has increased funding for home-station full 
spectrum training, reflecting anticipated increases in training 
tempo as the Army commits fewer units to overseas combat 
operations. Because of concerns that the full-spectrum training 
mile may not adequately measure training tempo, the committee 
directed GAO to review the Army's transition to the full-
spectrum training mile as a readiness metric. Additionally, the 
committee has visited numerous Army Training and Doctrine 
Command (TRADOC) installations to assess the Army's progress 
and its challenges in returning to full spectrum operations 
training.
    The committee also remains concerned that while the Army 
has made targeted investments in the Reserve's critical combat 
service support capabilities, the Guard and Reserve may not 
have the level of access to training resources necessary for a 
return to full spectrum operations training. The committee also 
requested GAO conduct a review of the Department's mix of live 
versus simulated training for all the military services, 
including the Reserve Components.
    The committee found that the Air Force continues to 
experience a high operational tempo, which has resulted in 
detrimental effects on equipment such as engine and structural 
fatigue, deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of 
component failures. The increased tempo also delays routine 
maintenance. As a result, the committee intends to continue its 
review of the significant shortfalls experienced by the Air 
Force in depot maintenance, particularly in its baseline 
program for Active and Reserve forces which the Air Force has 
made up only through Overseas Contingency Operations funding. 
The committee also has found that challenges are expected to 
persist as operational tempo is anticipated to remain at high 
levels after the scheduled redeployment from Operation New Dawn 
in Iraq and the drawdown of U.S. forces supporting Operation 
Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, such as occurred with 
Operation Northern Watch following Desert Storm, or even more 
recently with the simultaneous operations in Libya. This will 
be particularly problematic for the Air Guard and Reserve as 
they also continue to provide support for U.S. domestic 
operations, which was highlighted during the Subcommittee on 
Readiness hearing on the Army and Air Reserve components. For 
example, the continued high operational temp can cause 
significant challenges for those Air Guard air sovereignty 
alert (ASA) units that must train for their primary contingency 
operations support missions while simultaneously training and 
manning their ASA mission.
    Despite the drawdown in the Republic of Iraq, naval 
operational tempo is expected to remain high, as demand for the 
Navy's services is up, including anti-piracy and ballistic 
missile defense operations as well as operations in support of 
U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Pacific Command. Because of 
concerns over the impact on the Navy's non-nuclear surface 
fleet material readiness as a result of its increased 
operational tempo, the committee requested the GAO review the 
Navy's initiatives to improve amphibious and surface combatant 
ship material readiness. Additionally, in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, the committee included additional 
funds for ship and aircraft depot maintenance to address the 
backlog of requirements and to prevent further degradation to 
the fleet. Additional funding to address ship depot maintenance 
was also included in the conference report on H.R. 1540. To 
garner a greater appreciation for organic and private-sector 
depot capabilities, in September 2011, the chairman and ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on Readiness led a visit to 
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Electric Boat Shipbuilding.
    Furthermore, the Marine Corps recently concluded a Force 
Posture Review that emphasized ``rebalancing'' the Marine Corps 
to better ``focus on future contingencies.'' As such, the 
budget request for fiscal year 2012 reflects some initial 
investments in special skill sets needed to move the Marine 
Corps toward a force more fully attuned to the lessons learned 
during nine years of combat. Despite this positive trend, the 
Marine Corps faces significant challenges in migrating its core 
maintenance and logistical requirements into the base budget.
    Based on testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness by 
General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., Assistant Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, the committee is also concerned about the Marine 
Corps' ability to reset its force in a budget-constrained 
environment as well as its ability to meet the current one 
Major Contingency Operation construct with an end strength that 
could drop below the FRP-recommended level of 186,800 Marines.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-13; H.A.S.C. 112-17; H.A.S.C. 112-21; 
H.A.S.C. 112-33; H.A.S.C. 112-40; H.A.S.C. 112-55; H.A.S.C-67; 
H.A.S.C. 112-84)

                         Life-Cycle Sustainment

    Without appropriate and timely input from the logistics 
community, decisions made during weapon systems design can 
create unnecessary sustainment problems that increase depot-
level maintenance once the system is fielded. To address this, 
the committee amended the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) to include subsystems and 
components of a major weapon system in the requirement for 
consideration of competition throughout the operation and 
sustainment of major weapon systems. The committee also 
directed improved sustainment planning using predictive 
modeling tools to assure that the proper source of repair is 
being considered.
    Despite a 38-to-1 return on investment from corrosion 
mitigation and control projects, the Department of Defense 
consistently underfunds corrosion efforts. The Government 
Accountability Office recently determined that the Department 
of Defense requested $11.1 million of its total projected 
funding requirements of $43.2 million. Therefore, the committee 
included several provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, that address corrosion. 
Specifically, the committee increased funding for corrosion 
mitigation by an additional $33 million, directed the 
Department of Defense to take corrective action regarding the 
F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and 
directed the Department of Defense to evaluate corrosion for 
facilities and infrastructure and report the findings.

                      Depot and Arsenal Capability

    A critical piece of equipment sustainment is the capability 
provided by the nation's organic arsenals and depots, including 
air logistics centers and shipyards. In February, the committee 
received a study on the future capability of the Department of 
Defense maintenance depots directed by section 322 of the 
Duncan Hunter Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417). The study assessed organic depot maintenance 
capabilities and made several recommendations to address the 
challenges facing the organic depots. The committee included 
several of the study's recommendations in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, including revising the statutory 
definitional framework for depot maintenance, strengthening the 
core determination process, expanding the designation for 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence, and improving 
depot maintenance reporting. In addition to these steps, the 
committee continues to closely monitor the location and types 
of maintenance performed at the depots and in forward-deployed 
locations. The committee also has participated in an extensive 
series of exchanges, in coordination with the National Defense 
University's Center for Joint and Strategic Logistics, with 
Department of Defense, industry and union representatives and 
other interested stakeholders on the recommendations detailed 
in the report required by Section 322 of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and the 
resulting statutory changes proposed in the House-passed 
version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (H.R. 1540). Many of these provisions were included 
in the conference report on H.R. 1540. The committee also has 
provided oversight of the implementation of a new, consolidated 
command structure within the new Marine Corps' depot enterprise 
and is closely monitoring the changes and challenges associated 
with a reduction in workload. Furthermore, the committee will 
continue oversight of the planned reorganization of the Air 
Force Materiel Command's air logistics centers and the 
potential impacts on manpower and workload.

                           Civilian Personnel

    The Department of Defense has long relied on the Federal 
civilian workforce to support its missions around the world, 
often requiring civilians to serve in active combat zones, and 
it is clear that the Department's civilian workforce plays a 
critical role in the readiness of U.S. military forces. The 
committee included provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the 
House on May 26, 2011, to extend authorities for premium pay 
and to expand death gratuity benefits for deployed civilians. 
These provisions were included in the conference report on H.R. 
1540.
    The committee also included provisions in the House-passed 
version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (H.R. 1540), that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to develop a total force management plan that would 
provide the means to establish the appropriate mix of manpower, 
military, civilian, and contractor personnel, to perform the 
mission of the Department of Defense, and to make changes to 
requirements for manpower reporting and civilian strategic 
human capital plans. Elements of these provisions were also 
included in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
    In addition, the committee continued its oversight of the 
Department's transition from the National Security Personnel 
System (NSPS) and implementation of the authorities provided to 
the Department for performance management and hiring 
flexibilities which would apply across the Department's 
civilian workforce, within the context of the existing General 
Schedule system. The committee is aware that the NSPS 
transition office has been moving forward in its efforts to 
develop the new authorities, starting with a ``New Beginnings'' 
conference and establishing design teams to begin the 
development of a plan for implementing the performance 
management and hiring flexibilities. Recognizing that 
additional legislative authorities may be necessary as the 
process moves forward, the committee included provisions in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to further 
facilitate the Department's ability to implement a fair and 
transparent performance management system. The conference 
report on H.R. 1540 included these provisions. The committee 
also focused on the Department's process for recruiting, 
selecting and hiring qualified individuals. The committee 
subsequently has met on a regular basis with the New Beginnings 
design teams (comprised of both Department of Defense 
management and employee union representatives). In November 
2011, the committee was made aware that the work of the New 
Beginnings design teams has been completed and is awaiting the 
results of their recommendations and the Department's proposals 
for moving forward with a performance management system.
    The committee also has continued to closely monitor the 
implementation of the each military department's efficiencies 
initiatives that are being levied on the civilian workforce. 
These initiatives have led to a civilian hiring freeze for all 
the military departments as well as significant personnel 
reductions in 2012, with the Air Force planning to reduce its 
civilian workforce by 16,500 and the Army to reduce its force 
by 8,700.

                         ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT


                            Energy Security

    The committee conducted vigorous oversight of the 
Department's energy activities and closely examined the 
strategies and policies for both installations energy and 
operational energy to reduce consumption and dependence on 
foreign oil. The committee believes that Department of Defense 
installations provide significant opportunity for advancing 
renewable energy technologies, pursuing energy security, and 
reducing overall demand through demonstrated return on 
investment. The Subcommittee on Readiness took action in this 
area in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, and 
carried through in the conference report on H.R. 1540, to 
include Navy metering of piers, as well as other activities 
that will help advance energy efficient technologies and reduce 
overall demand for energy. There were several legislative 
provisions that also sought to enhance installation energy 
security, to include a requirement to establish a core 
curriculum and certification for Department of Defense energy 
managers, metering of navy piers, and consideration for energy 
security when contracting for renewable energy projects through 
third-party financing.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness continued its oversight and 
emphasis of reducing demand for operational energy at forward-
deployed locations to relieve the significant logistical burden 
and force protection requirements, and decrease operational 
vulnerabilities. Specifically, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, increased funding for operational 
energy capability improvement and the U.S. Marine Corps' 
Experimental Forward Operating Base. The conference report on 
H.R. 1540 contains several legislative provisions that seek to 
advance operational energy security by streamlining alternative 
fuels investments through the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Operational Energy, and designate a Department of Defense 
policy for energy efficient technologies in logistics support 
contracts for contingency operations.
    On April 13, 2011, the Subcommittee on Readiness received 
testimony from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each 
of the military services regarding military construction and 
installation energy. Each of the witnesses highlighted the 
importance of energy efficiency and the impact of a vulnerable 
electric power grid and the potential to jeopardize the 
security of military installations and mission capabilities. 
The witnesses also highlighted the importance of innovative, 
cost-effective solutions as critical to their success, 
operationally necessary, fiscally prudent, and mission 
essential.
    As directed by House Report 111-491, accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 
committee staff received a briefing from the Departments of 
Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security regarding the domestic 
petroleum refining industry and the significance to national 
security.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-43)

                              Environment

    The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues 
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military 
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to 
include the military services' environmental restoration 
program and adherence to federal, state and local cleanup, 
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. In the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011 and carried forward 
in the conference report on H.R. 1540 the committee had several 
environmental provisions including one which codified Navy 
requirements for discharge of waste at sea to ensure minimum 
impact on the environment, preserving Navy operational 
readiness, and averting $2.0 billion of expenses for Navy fleet 
modifications. The committee also included provisions that 
would limit the use of property in airfield clear zone areas to 
mitigate encroachment on military installations. Additionally, 
the committee directed language regarding requirements relating 
to ongoing investigations and studies of exposure to 
contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

                MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE


                                 Basing

    The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant 
change in force structure both in the United States and 
overseas as a result of the 2005 BRAC decisions and the Global 
Defense Posture Review. These rebasing movements affect not 
only U.S. global presence, but they also have significant 
repercussions for readiness, surge capability, military 
construction, and quality of life for military members and 
their families.
    After concluding a hearing on Long-Term Readiness 
Challenges in the Pacific on March 15, 2011, the Subcommittee 
on Readiness supported the proposed realignment of 8,000 
Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam and supported the budget 
request for $155 million for the fiscal year 2012 effort. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, also included a 
legislative subsection that would support the realignment of 
Marine Corps assets to Guam that includes the following 
provisions: use of operations and maintenance funding to 
support community adjustment; requirements to support H2B visa 
workers that support the construction effort; and, 
modifications to utility conveyance authority. In the 
conference report on H.R. 1540, the conferees determined that 
the Department of Defense should not continue additional 
construction efforts to support the realignment of Marine Corps 
assets to Guam until several reports were submitted to the 
congressional defense committees. Furthermore, the conference 
report on H.R. 1540 struck the military construction funds 
requested by the executive branch in the budget request for 
fiscal year 2012 to support this realignment.
    In the conference report on H.R. 1540, the conferees 
determined that significant changes in the overseas force 
structure were expected in the short term and the overseas 
basing structure should be reexamined. Therefore, the conferees 
requested two independent assessment of the overseas base 
structure to include a comprehensive review of the entire 
overseas basing structure and a specific base structure 
assessment of the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-21)

                   Military Construction Programming

    The Department of Defense programs construction projects at 
25 to 40 percent above market pricing to account for several 
programmatic initiatives to include Federal contracting 
requirements (including Davis-Bacon wages, Federal 
subcontracting and small business goals, and bonding 
requirements), Federal design requirements (including Anti-
Terrorism, Force Protection standards) and energy efficiency 
objectives. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report that assesses these program increases and 
provides a plan to reduce these costs.
    With regards to construction programming, the committee 
continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited 
authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to 
address emerging construction requirements. The conference 
report on H.R. 1540 contained a provision that authorized the 
use of operations and maintenance funds for contingency 
construction.

          Real Property Acquisition, Maintenance, and Disposal

    The real property management process requires extensive 
oversight to maintain more than $810.0 billion in 
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $50.0 billion, or 
nearly 11 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. The 
Subcommittee on Readiness in the 112th Congress reviewed issues 
pertaining to military construction, family housing, and Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities of the Department of 
Defense. The Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on April 
13, 2011, to examine the fiscal year 2012 budget request to 
review military construction, family housing, BRAC activities, 
and facility operations and maintenance. The Readiness 
Subcommittee also provided additional oversight as the 
Department of Defense completed almost all of the BRAC 2005 
recommendations on September 15, 2011.
    As a result of this oversight, the committee determined 
that the Department of Defense needed additional authorities to 
manage those BRAC recommendations that were having difficulty 
in timely completion. Additional BRAC authorities were included 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to extend the 
completion date of up to seven BRAC 2005 recommendations to 
September 15, 2012. The committee also included requirements 
for the Department of Defense to include transportation impact 
assessments at local communities significantly impacted by 
Department of Defense realignment actions. The conference 
report on H.R. 1540 broadened the BRAC authority and requested 
that the Secretary of Defense expeditiously complete remaining 
BRAC recommendations and specifically extended a conditional 
BRAC recommendation for the Umatilla Chemical Depot. This 
extension would provide additional latitude to the Secretary of 
Defense to ensure continuity of mission and services for those 
activities impacted by BRAC 2005.
    The committee also reviewed the Department of Defense 
facility sustainment accounts and the Army Base Operating 
Services account and found that significant shortfalls needed 
to be addressed to manage basic services. The committee 
proposed increased funding to these accounts in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to address critical 
shortfalls in facility maintenance and operations. The 
conference report on H.R. 1540 did not include the increased 
maintenance funding.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-43)

                 Military Infrastructure Privatization

    The Department of Defense has made extensive use of 
privatization of military assets including family housing, 
bachelor quarters, and utility-related infrastructure. The 
Department has leveraged available capital in Department of 
Defense infrastructure and entered into long-term contracts 
with private property managers. The Subcommittee on Readiness 
in the 112th Congress reviewed this privatization initiative 
and included a provision in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 
2011, that would encourage the Department of Defense to more 
aggressively and effectively implement utilities privatization 
as part of an asset management strategy to allow each military 
service to focus on core defense missions and functions.

             TOTAL FORCE, PERSONNEL, AND HEALTH CARE ISSUES


 Manpower Sufficient in Quantity and Quality to Meet Global Commitments

    The committee continued its support for the end strengths 
of the services by including the Department of Defense request 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. The committee 
has concerns about the future size of the force and whether 
proposed reductions in end strength will provide the services 
with sufficient manpower to meet global commitments. The 
committee is equally concerned with dwell time of service 
members and the impact this will have on readiness. Both of 
these issues were addressed in full committee and subcommittee 
hearings.
    The committee continued to closely monitor compensation 
programs during the first session of the 112th Congress to 
ensure an adequate quality of life for service members and 
their families and to ensure that pay and benefits met the 
needs of the wartime military and kept pace with private sector 
standards. The committee's active oversight of these issues 
resulted in legislation in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 
26, 2011, that authorized a 1.6 percent raise in basic pay 
during fiscal year 2012. This military pay raise matches the 
rate of compensation increases in the private sector as 
measured by the Employment Cost Index and thus ensures that 
military pay increases are keeping pace with private sector 
contemporaries. The committee extended the authorities to pay 
bonuses and special pays during fiscal year 2012 and monitored 
the value of those bonuses and special pays to ensure they were 
sufficient to achieve the recruiting and retention objectives 
for which they were developed. The committee also included 
legislation that reforms, consolidates, and simplifies travel 
and transportation authorities to enhance the utility, 
flexibility, efficiency, and relevancy of the law in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. These pay and travel 
benefit matters were also included in the conference report on 
H.R. 1540.
    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel met in a closed 
session on September 15, 2011, to receive a classified brief in 
order to better understand the capability of the Army's 
currently planned force reduction to 520,000 and its ability to 
meet the range of Army mission requirements, especially those 
most stressful wartime requirements, based on the combatant 
commander requirements. The briefing gave members a better 
understanding of the current level of risk associated with the 
Army's 520,000 force and to begin to assess the levels of risk 
when funding levels drop below those associated with a 520,000 
force.
    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel met in a closed 
session on October 5, 2011, to receive a classified brief in 
order to better understand the capability of the Marine Corps' 
currently planned force reduction to 186,800 and its ability to 
meet the range of Marine Corps mission requirements, especially 
those most stressful wartime requirements, based on the 
combatant commander requirements. The briefing provided the 
committee with a better understanding of the current level of 
risk associated with the Marine Corps' 186,800 force and to 
begin to assess the levels of risk when funding levels drop 
below those associated with an 186,800 force.
    In an effort to provide the services additional tools to 
facilitate the drawdown of forces over the next three to five 
years, the conference report on H.R. 1540 included authorities 
to provide service members an early retirement for service 
concluding with less than 20 years of service but more than 15 
years of service and a voluntary early retirement incentive 
payment for service members with between 20 and 29 years of 
service. In addition to the two new authorities that were 
authorized through December 31, 2018, the conference report on 
H.R. 1540 extended the authority to pay voluntary separation 
pay through December 31, 2018.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-28)

 Sustaining Cost Efficient Operation of Morale, Welfare and Recreation 
  Programs, Military Resale Programs and Department of Defense School 
                                 System

    During the 112th Congress, the committee acted to improve 
the effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and 
commissaries and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs 
and to protect these critical programs for future generations 
of service members. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
conducted two hearings during the 1st session of the 112th 
Congress that explored policy issues and the fiscal status of 
the commissary and military exchange stores and the service-
operated MWR programs. The Department of Defense consulted the 
committee on a wide range of management proposals regarding new 
construction or facility renovation, store expansions or 
closures, public-private ventures, business practices, and new 
business opportunities and models. In each case, the committee 
provided guidance and decisions, as requested. The committee 
included legislative initiatives in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, to address the concerns that had 
been brought to the attention of the committee and to improve 
the policies and processes used to manage military resale and 
MWR programs. These issues included: expansion of the authority 
for nonappropriated fund activities to employ a uniform funding 
concept to include permanent change of station and temporary 
duty billeting facilities; clarification of the multi-year 
contracting authority by nonappropriated funding activities; 
authorization for the Secretary of the Navy to select 
categories of merchandise to sell in ship stores; authorization 
for military retail stores to borrow funding for business 
operations from the Federal Financing Bank; and authorization 
for the Defense Commissary Service to conduct a pilot program 
to test the cost effectiveness of enhanced commissary stores. 
Of these initiatives, the conference report on H.R. 1540 
included the authorization for the Secretary of the Navy to 
select categories of merchandise to sell in ship stores and the 
authorization for military retail stores to borrow funding for 
business operations from the Federal Financing Bank.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-3; H.A.S.C. 112-4)

         Mental Health Services for Members of the Armed Forces

    The committee continued its efforts to ensure that service 
members and their families have access to quality mental health 
services. Some members of the Armed Forces, particularly in the 
Reserve Components, continue to struggle with mental health 
issues that ultimately result in suicide. Members of the 
Reserve Components are often in rural communities and may not 
have sufficient access to mental health care, as there is a 
nationwide shortage of qualified mental health professionals. 
The conference report on H.R. 1540 included legislation to 
expand the capacity of the military health system to provide 
mental health care to members of the Reserve Components at the 
location of the unit during scheduled unit training and 
provided training on suicide prevention and response. In 
addition, the Department is required to undertake several 
projects that would further advance the knowledge and 
understanding of traumatic brain injury and combat related 
mental health issues to enhance the care provided to members of 
the Armed Forces.
    On September 9, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel conducted a hearing to receive testimony from the 
military services on the current status of suicide prevention 
programs in the military. The hearing provided members with the 
opportunity to examine the implementation of suicide prevention 
programs in each of the military services.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23; H.A.S.C. 112-62)

                     Sexual Assault in the Military

    The committee remained vigilant on ensuring that the 
efforts to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the 
military continue as a priority for the Department of Defense. 
The committee was concerned that the Department of Defense and 
the military service sexual assault and prevention programs 
were not consistent or coordinated resulting in unnecessary 
confusion for military service members. To address these 
concerns legislation in the conference report on H.R. 1540 
improved sexual assault prevention and response in the Armed 
Forces by requiring standardized training for sexual assault 
response coordinators and victim advocates and requiring at 
least one full time sexual assault response coordinator and 
victim advocate be assigned to each brigade equivalent military 
unit. In addition, access to legal assistance counsel and 
victim advocates was expanded to include dependents of active 
duty service members who live on or in the vicinity of a 
military post.

                      Military Health Care System

    Since the start of the 112th Congress, the committee 
exercised vigorous oversight on the military health system. The 
committee focused substantial attention on the cost of military 
health care to the Department of Defense (DOD) and to military 
beneficiaries and the long term viability of the military 
health system for future generations of military beneficiaries. 
The committee is aware of the rising cost of providing health 
care to military beneficiaries and the potential negative 
impact of health care costs on other critical readiness 
programs. The committee received detailed input from DOD health 
affairs and comptroller personnel on the five cost saving 
initiatives proposed by the department. The Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel held a hearing devoted to understanding the 
views of various beneficiary organizations impacted by the 
Department of Defense proposed changes. The committee also 
heard the views of health care organizations and retail drug 
store chains impacted by the proposals. The Congressional 
Budget Office assisted the committee to fully understand 
estimates of costs and savings inherent in the DOD proposals. 
As a result, the conference report on H.R. 1540 included a 
provision that caps TRICARE Prime enrollment fee increases, 
beginning in fiscal year 2013, to the percentage of a COLA 
increase in military retired pay. Additional health care 
legislation required beneficiaries who are enrolled in the U.S. 
Family Health Plans to transition to TRICARE for Life when they 
reach age 65.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23)

 Wounded Warrior Care (Wounded and Disabled Service Members and Their 
                               Families)

    The committee continued to provide oversight of the 
disability evaluation system to ensure that service members 
receive disability rating that accurately and fairly reflect 
their illnesses and injuries. These activities included 
monitoring of the implementation of the integrated disability 
evaluation system (IDES) and the deployment of IDES to 
locations throughout the world by September 2011.
    Following the completion of the expansion of the IDES to 
all world-wide locations, the services have begun to access 
weaknesses within the system. The committee has noted that the 
time required for wounded warriors to move through the 
disability system has increased to over 400 days, 39 percent 
above the 295 day goal. The Army has highlighted the growing 
concern about the increase in wounded warriors with the force 
that has reached 20,000 and is having an impact on combat 
readiness. The Army has also noted that the wounded warrior 
program is undermanned by 700 personnel. The committee is 
monitoring the Army's effort to increase manning to appropriate 
levels and shorten the time required for wounded warriors to 
receive a disability assessment and be processed for separation 
or retirement.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-28)

                            Military Voting

    The committee continued oversight of the military and 
overseas voting program to ensure all members of the Armed 
Forces and their families have the opportunity to exercise 
their right to vote in each election. In February 2011, the 
committee provided assistance to the House Committee on 
Administration in preparation for a hearing they conducted on 
the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. The hearing 
explored the implementation of the Military and Overseas Voter 
Empowerment (``MOVE'') Act during this past election cycle. The 
Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel were invited and attended the hearing.
    On July 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
conducted a hearing on military voting to receive testimony 
from a variety of officials involved in the military voting 
process including the director of the Federal Voting Assistance 
Program, local, county voting directors, and a voting 
assistance officer in the military. The hearing provided an 
opportunity for Members to examine the implementation of the 
MOVE Act and its effects on the Federal Voting Assistance 
Program at all levels from the director to individual service 
members overseas.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-52)

                 Prisoner of War and Missing in Action

    The committee continued its efforts to monitor efforts by 
the Department of Defense to meet the mandate in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) requiring the Secretary of Defense to institute a plan to 
increase the number of identifications to a rate of 200 per 
year by 2015. The committee met with an official from the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy regarding 
the status of key decisions pending in the Secretariat on 
command and control and integration of functions in the POW/MIA 
accounting community. Although decisions have not been formally 
made, the resources to increase manpower and to create a 
satellite laboratory for identifications were requested in the 
fiscal year 2012 President's budget request. The committee also 
received an update from the Commander of Joint POW/MIA 
Accounting Command (JPAC) on the organization's plans to meet 
the 2010 mandate. The committee also received information from 
the Defense Prisoner of War and Missing Office (DPMO) to 
receive updates on potential changes to staff requirements for 
the Joint U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIA.
    Committee staff travelled to the People's Republic of China 
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in November 2011 to 
observe MIA Field Recovery Operations conducted by JPAC. This 
oversight visit provided valuable insight into how recovery 
operations are conducted and the challenges associated with the 
recovery of remains.

                     Innovative Readiness Training

    The committee continued to provide oversight of the 
Innovative Readiness Training program by visiting a road 
improvement project at the Bechtel Family Preserve, New River 
Gorge, West Virginia. This is a multi-service project executed 
from March thru September during the units annual training 
period; with the potential to extend for the next 5 years. This 
oversight effort related directly to the legislation adopted by 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, but not included in 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. The heavy reliance 
on the Reserve Component over the past 10 years has reduced the 
need for some of sustainment training requirements of the 
Reserve Component.

                  MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES

    During the 112th Congress, particular attention has been 
given by the committee to examination of military equipment 
modernization with respect to military capability. How the 
Congress chooses to fund Department of Defense future 
acquisition programs will dramatically affect the size, health, 
age, and supporting industrial base of the air, sea, and land 
force structure available to U.S. forces to support the 
National Military Strategy and the Nation's vital interests. 
The ground vehicles, ships, and aircraft available to support 
the vital national interests will have to be greatly reduced 
under the annual budgets projected for the next decade.
    The negative impact on national security of currently 
projected budgets for major weapons system development and 
procurement programs is compounded by continued cost growth and 
schedule delays. The committee continued to assess the need for 
legislative action by examining causes of these problems 
including: late determination of requirements, requirements 
growth, and failure to properly control requirements changes; 
inadequate analyses of alternatives, military services 
proceeding prematurely with development with immature 
technology; poor cost estimating; improper funding profiles; 
over estimating potential production rates; and program 
instability.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, included the 
following action to, in part, address the committee's concern 
with the force structure and supporting industrial base 
available to U.S. forces to support the National Military 
Strategy: provided authorization of an additional $272.0 
million for sustainment of the Abrams Tank industrial base; and 
the authorization of an additional $153.0 million for Bradley 
Infantry Fighting Vehicle industrial base. The conference 
report on H.R. 1540 included authorization of $255.0 million 
for the Abrams Tank industrial base and no funding for the 
Bradley Infantry Fighting vehicle industrial base.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, also 
included the following legislative provisions to, in part, 
address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance 
issues with programs: multiyear procurement authority for 
airframes, mission avionics, and common cockpits for Army UH-
60M/HH-60M helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S helicopters; a 
limitation on obligation of funds for the Ground Combat Vehicle 
program until the Army provides an update analysis of 
alternatives; a requirement for submission of an analysis of 
alternatives for the individual carbine program; a limitation 
on the obligation of funds for performance improvements to the 
F-35 aircraft propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense 
ensures the competitive development and production of such a 
propulsion system; a limitation on the obligation of funds for 
the Joint Replacement Fuze program until submission of a report 
on the feasibility of such a program; and a limitation on the 
obligation of funds for the future unmanned carrier-based 
strike system until 60 days after specified certification and a 
report is provided on the program. The conference report on 
H.R. 1540 removed the provision which limited the obligation of 
funds for improvements to the F-35 aircraft propulsion system 
unless the Secretary of Defense ensures the competitive 
development and production of such a propulsion system.

                   Army Armored Vehicle Modernization

    The committee focused closely on the Army's plans for 
upgrading current combat vehicles and starting new replacement 
programs. With regard to existing armored vehicles, the 
committee sought to protect and strengthen vehicle upgrade 
programs, for which the Army showed varying levels of support. 
The committee maintained its high priority on upgrades to the 
M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles, 
and Paladin Artillery Vehicles on a firm footing for the future 
by ensuring the Army carried through with upgrade plans and 
used authorized funds as directed. In particular, the committee 
took necessary initial actions to prevent a production break of 
the Abrams tank and Bradley fighting vehicle programs These 
oversight efforts included hearings, site visits, close 
coordination with Army leadership, and careful scrutiny of 
reprogramming requests. The conference report on H.R. 1540 
authorized an additional $255.0 million for upgrades to the M1 
Abrams tank.

                     Army Tactical Network Programs

    Due to a significant increase in Army funding for tactical 
communications equipment, the committee pursued aggressive 
oversight efforts to shape the Army's plans for future 
battlefield networking equipment. These efforts stemmed from 
the committee's concern that the Army was procuring an 
incompatible combination of commercial and military 
communications equipment based on redundant programs, unclear 
requirements, and uncoordinated acquisition plans. In response, 
the committee pursued a combination of legislative 
restrictions, funding adjustments to select programs, hearings, 
reprogramming decisions, and outside expert reports to help 
guide the Army to a more suitable and affordable path forward. 
The committee included a legislative provision in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would restrict 
procurement funds for the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) 
until the Secretary of the Army submits written certification 
that the acquisition strategy for full rate production includes 
full and open competition.

                         Army Aviation Programs

    The Army sustained limited operations in the Republic of 
Iraq in the first half of 2011 and continued the drawdown of 
forces while Army operations maintained at surge levels in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Large numbers of legacy 
rotorcraft deployed to the Central Command area of operations 
continued to be operated at high tempos. Aircraft deployed 
included the CH-47, UH-60, AH-64, and OH-58. The committee 
fully supported funding requirements for these aircraft, 
including research and development and procurement of 
significant aircraft survivability equipment upgrades to 
provide warning and protection against the insurgent surface-
to-air missile threat. Further, due to committee concerns that 
the Army may not be fully utilizing the UH-72A Lakota 
helicopter in all operational situations, the committee 
requested in the report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that the Army define 
``permissive'' versus ``non-permissive'' environments. In 
addition, the committee requested additional information on 
what the associated survivability modifications would be 
required and if such modifications would be feasible given, 
size, weight, and power limitations, if the mission envelope of 
the UH-72A was expanded beyond ``permissive'' environments.

                   Combat Search and Rescue Programs

    The committee continued to remain concerned about the Air 
Force combat search and rescue (CSAR) programs since the Combat 
Search and Rescue-X (CSAR-X) program was canceled by the 
Department of Defense in 2009. Currently, the Air Force has 99 
HH-60G CSAR helicopters which is 13 short of its program of 
record requirement for 112 HH-60Gs, and over 50 percent of the 
HH-60G fleet has major structural cracks. At a hearing on March 
15, 2011 before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, the Air Force witnesses testified that on-going HH-60G 
modification programs are attempting to keep the HH-60G as a 
viable asset until the Air Force's replacement programs are 
complete. The Air Force is procuring replacement rotary wing 
aircraft based upon currently fielded CSAR capabilities with 
the HH-60 Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) program and the 
HH-60 recapitalization program. The OLR program is designed to 
bring the fleet back to the program of record of 112 
helicopters and is procuring UH-60M aircraft that will be 
modified with CSAR equipment to create an airframe comparable 
to the HH-60G, and will be designated the HH-60M. The HH-60G 
recapitalization program is designed to recapitalize the entire 
CSAR fleet and the Air Force is currently examining acquisition 
strategies to determine how to ensure the warfighter receives 
the best product, on schedule and within budget. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House May 26, 2011, authorized $34.8 million for 
one HH-60M which was two fewer than the budget request since 
those two helicopters were provided for in the Department of 
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
(Public Law 112-10). The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, 
also authorized the Overseas Contingency Operations request for 
$39.3 million for two additional HH-60M helicopters, and the 
$34.3 million budget request for H-60 modifications. The 
conference report on H.R. 1540 authorized the budget request of 
$104.7 million for three HH-60M helicopters, and the $34.3 
million budget request for H-60 modifications.

                         F-22 Aircraft Program

    During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued 
oversight of the Air Force F-22 aircraft procurement program. 
Fiscal Year 2009 was the final year of a 3 year, 60-aircraft F-
22 aircraft multiyear procurement program that will result in a 
force structure of 187 F-22 aircraft, including the 4 
additional F-22s appropriated in the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32). The final F-22 
aircraft will be delivered in 2012. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011, authorized the F-22 modification budget 
request for $232.0 million and the F-22 research, development, 
test, and evaluation budget request for $718.4 million. The 
conference report on H.R. 1540 authorized the budget request of 
$232.0 million for F-22 modification, but decreased the 
research, development, test and evaluation budget request by 
$147.0 million due to program cost growth.

                     F-35 Fighter Aircraft Program

    During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued 
oversight of the F-35 program, particularly the competitive 
propulsion system, the F136 alternate engine, program. The F-35 
competitive propulsion system program was developing the F136 
engine, which was intended to eventually provide F-35 equipped 
forces a competitive choice between the primary F135 engine and 
the F136 engine. Congress and the Department of Defense had 
originally supported the competitive engine initiative 
beginning in 1996, but the Department of Defense has not 
included funding for the competitive propulsion system program 
in its budget requests since 2006. At the Tactical Air and Land 
Forces Subcommittee hearing on March 15, 2011, the Air Force 
Acquisition Executive and the F-35 Program Executive Officer 
testified that the Department of Defense believes that 
maintaining a single engine supplier provides the best balance 
of cost and risk. The Department of Defense terminated the F136 
development program on April 25, 2011. However, the F136 
contractor offered to continue F136 development at its expense, 
and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, included a 
provision that would ensure that the Secretary of Defense, at 
no cost to the Federal Government, provides support and allows 
for the use of F136 property by the contractor under a contract 
to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation of the 
F136 engine, if such activities are self-funded by the 
contractor. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, also 
included a provision that would limit the obligation or 
expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-35 
Lightning II propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense 
ensures the competitive development and production of such 
propulsion system.
    Since the House passed H.R. 1540 on May 26, 2011, the F136 
contractor withdrew its offer to continue F136 development at 
its expense, and as a result, the conference report on H.R. 
1540 included a provision that would require that the Secretary 
of Defense develop a plan that would provide for the long-term 
sustainment and repair of F136 property pending a determination 
of whether such property: (1) can be used within the F-35 
Lightning II aircraft program, in other Government development 
programs, or in other contractor-funded development activities; 
(2) should be stored for use in future Government development 
programs; or (3) should be disposed. The provision would also 
require the Secretary to identify how he intends to obtain 
maximum benefit to the U.S. Government from the investment 
already made in developing the F136. The conference report on 
H.R. 1540 also changed the House-passed provision concerning 
the expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-
35 Lightning II propulsion system to a provision that would 
prevent the obligation of more than 80 percent of the research 
and development funding for the F-35 program until the 
Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense 
committees that the acquisition strategy for the F-35 program 
includes a plan for achieving competition throughout operation 
and sustainment, in accordance with section 202(d) of the 
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
23).

               Fighter Aircraft Force Structure Adequacy

    During the 112th Congress, the committee investigated the 
adequacy of fighter force structure in both the Navy and the 
Air Force. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
held a hearing on March 15, 2011. The Navy witness testified 
that F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft are reaching their projected 
service-life and will require replacement or modifications to 
further extend their service-life to eventual deployment of the 
F-35 aircraft, and noted that the Department of the Navy's 
strike fighter shortfall would reach a manageable level of 65 
aircraft in 2018. The committee later learned that Department 
of the Navy's estimated strike fighter shortfall is further, 
projected to be reduced to 52 aircraft in 2018 with the 
increase of nine additional F/A-18E/F aircraft for fiscal year 
2011. Also at the hearing on March 15, 2011, the Air Force 
witness testified to an Air Force requirement for 2,000 fighter 
aircraft, and noted that a comprehensive review of current and 
projected force structure revealed a shortfall of approximately 
3 to 5 percent in the future years defense program. The Air 
Force officials also noted that shortfall mitigation will 
include executing funded sustainment and fleet management 
actions for older F-16 Block 25, 30 and 32 aircraft, newer 
block 40 and 50 service life extension, and targeted 
modernization and examination of the overall force structure to 
ensure viable warfighting capabilities are maintained. At a 
hearing held by the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces on November 2, 2011, the Air Force witness testified 
that 300-350 F-16 block 40 and 50 aircraft would receive a 
service life extension modification which would allow these 
aircraft to be flown until approximately 2030. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House May 26, 2011, authorized the budget request 
for 40 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the Navy, other Navy 
and Air Force requests for the modification of existing fighter 
aircraft, and the budget request for 32 F-35s for the Navy, 
Marine Corps, and Air Force. The conference report on H.R. 1540 
authorized the 40 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the Navy 
but decreased the budget request by a total of $211.3 million 
for cost growth in certain procurement components. For the Air 
Force, the conference report on H.R. 1540 decreased the A-10 
wing replacement modification request by $140.0 million. The 
conference report on H.R. 1540 also decreased the Air Force F-
35A budget request by $51.0 million and F-35A aircraft, 
authorized a total of 31 F-35 aircraft for the Navy, Marine 
Corps and Air Force.
    The committee has also been concerned about the Air Force 
fighter aircraft used to conduct the aerospace control alert 
(ACA) mission, many of which are assigned to the Air National 
Guard. On October 26, 2011, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces and one other subcommittee Member 
formally requested that the Secretary of the Air Force provide 
the committee with a plan by the end of the 2011 calendar year 
for modernizing the Air National Guard's ACA mission fleet and 
applicable fighter wings. At the Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces hearing on November 2, 2011, the Air Force 
witness testified that most of the Air National Guard's F-16 
block 30 ACA mission fleet would be replaced by F-16 block 40 
and 50 aircraft when the F-35A completes the development 
process and becomes an operational Air Force fighter asset.

                     Ground Combat Vehicle Program

    The committee devoted considerable oversight efforts to the 
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. The committee included a 
legislative provision in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 
2011, that restricts the use of funds until the Secretary of 
the Army provides and updated analysis of alternatives to the 
congressional defense committees that includes a quantitative 
comparison of upgraded existing systems against the revised GCV 
design concept. In addition, the committee encouraged the Army 
to establish another red team prior to the milestone B review 
to assess the cost, schedule, and technical risks of the GCV 
acquisition strategy. The conference report on H.R. 1540 
withholds 20 percent of funds for the Ground Combat Vehicle 
program until the Army provides additional information in 
regards to the dynamic Analysis of Alternatives and alternative 
assessment.

        Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs

    In the 112th Congress, the committee continued to provide 
close oversight over myriad ISR projects and programs operated 
throughout the Department of Defense.
    The Department of Defense employs a large inventory of 
manned and unmanned vehicles to perform tactical, non-space-
based, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). 
For fiscal year 2012, the budget request included over $3.6 
billion for new tactical ISR aircraft and unmanned aerial 
vehicles (UAV) for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. 
Nearly 20 different ISR acquisition programs were requested by 
the Army, Air Force, and Department of the Navy. The committee 
has consistently sought to avoid the unnecessary proliferation 
and duplication of ISR capabilities among the services. The 
committee has also acted to facilitate the operation in U.S. 
air space of UAVs in support of training and operational 
requirements and to provide support to civil emergencies.
    The committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
included specific mention of the Enhanced Medium Altitude 
Reconnaissance and Surveillance System program, airborne 
reconnaissance low, and Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle 
programs.

 Rapid Acquisition Authority and Joint Urgent Operational Needs Process

    The conflicts in the Republic of Iraq and Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan, and particularly the evolution of the 
improvised explosive device (IED) as a highly effective weapon 
of strategic influence, have illustrated the ability of an 
adaptive enemy to work to advantage inside a normal defense 
acquisition cycle. The committee continued its oversight of the 
urgent operational needs system (UONS) process across the 
Department of Defense and the military services and continued 
to leverage and evaluate recommendations put forth by the 
congressionally mandated Defense Science Board report required 
by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as well as recent 
reports issued by the Government Accountability Office in April 
2010 and March 2011. These reports noted there were significant 
shortcomings in existing Department of Defense processes for 
meeting urgent operational needs for the warfighter in a 
timely, expeditious manner.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces fully 
engaged the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military 
services with formal requests for information regarding the 
processes used to address urgent operational needs through 
official correspondence, classified briefings, and open 
hearings. Further, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, the committee noted the Department of Defense lacks 
complete visibility to readily identify the total cost of its 
urgent operational needs and lacks the internal controls 
necessary to manage these efforts. For instance, the Department 
has no comprehensive database for which to track, monitor, and 
evaluate urgent operational requests and no set of universal 
metrics used to effectively evaluate their performance once the 
system is fielded. The committee highlighted that the Secretary 
of Defense has not issued Department-wide policy guidance that 
provides for a unified approach for managing quick reaction 
programs and urgent need efforts to include managing funding 
requirements. Given the escalating budgetary challenges, the 
committee believed that it was and continues to be critical for 
the Department to reevaluate the current processes of how it 
fulfills its urgent needs and whether there is potential to 
reduce duplication, fragmentation, and overlap to achieve 
increased efficiencies or cost savings, or both. The committee 
will continue to work with the Department and the military 
services to improve upon the rapid acquisition process used to 
address urgent operational need requests from the warfighter. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, authorized 
$50.0 million, for a joint urgent operational needs fund, a 
reduction of $150.0 million from the President's request 
because of the concerns noted by the committee in the current 
process.
    Additionally the conference report on H.R. 1540, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
authorized a joint urgent operational needs fund.
    The committee also continued to urge the Secretary of 
Defense to leverage previous efforts of the committee to take 
advantage of the rapid acquisition authority provided to the 
Department of Defense as part of Section 806(c) of the Bob 
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 
(Public Law 107-314), as amended by Section 811 of the Ronald 
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2005 (Public Law 108-375) and section 803 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) wherever necessary, in order to guarantee that 
military personnel receive required equipment in a timely 
manner. This authority provided the Secretary of Defense with 
$200.0 million in authority, each fiscal year, to waive any 
necessary statutes for quick response to immediate warfighter 
capability requirements in response to combat fatalities.

                       Tactical Wheeled Vehicles

    From 2003 to 2011, Congress provided $43.0 billion for the 
procurement and recapitalization of tactical wheeled vehicles 
(TWVs), averaging approximately $6.0 billion per year. The 
Army's TWV fleet alone currently consists of 260,000 light, 
medium and heavy vehicles and represents an investment of over 
$70.0 billion. The magnitude of the TWV fleet will present many 
challenges and warrants intensive oversight by the committee. 
The committee continued to monitor and examine the Department's 
attempt to develop a comprehensive, joint tactical wheeled 
vehicle strategy that would limit the potential risk of 
unplanned overlap in capabilities throughout the military 
services, takes into consideration the development of realistic 
and affordable joint requirements, and incorporates sustainment 
costs. The committee continued to focus on the Joint Light 
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program, the integration of the family 
of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles into the current 
fleet, and other TWV modernization efforts, most notably the 
Up-Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH) 
recapitalization program.
    The committee devoted particular attention towards the JLTV 
program and the UAH Recapitalization program in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011. The committee noted that the Army and 
the Marine Corps both plan to competitively recapitalize their 
respective UAH fleets with improvements to automotive 
performance and survivability in order to improve overall 
capability and extend life cycles. The committee supported this 
competitive approach to improving the Army and the Marine Corps 
UAH fleets and noted this strategy should be based on a best 
value, full and open competition among public, private, and/or 
public-private partnerships. The committee encouraged the Army 
and the Marine Corps to accelerate this program as a means to 
stabilize the industrial base and provide a bridge to the JLTV 
program.
    The JLTV program is the largest new procurement of tactical 
wheeled vehicles planned for DOD. No firm quantities have been 
determined for the JLTV, but the current estimate is that the 
Army alone would like to have one-third of the light tactical 
vehicle fleet be JLTVs, approximately 50,000 vehicles. The 
committee expressed concerns over the JLTV program's projected 
costs of at least $9.7 billion for fiscal years 2011-2015. The 
committee noted that initial test results indicate that the 
JLTV program faces many operational and technical challenges. 
Because of the ambitious schedule which has resulted in several 
delays, projected cost estimates, and lack of stable 
requirements, the committee recommended a reduction of $50.0 
million for the JLTV program in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011. Also, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011, authorized the President's request of 
$2.4 billion for tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 authorized $2.4 billion 
for tactical wheeled vehicle procurement, to include $155.0 
million for the JLTV program.

  Department Projection Aviation (Bombers, Mobility, UAV and Tanker) 
                                Programs

    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized 
the Air Force planned to retire 6 B-1 bomber aircraft and 
reduce the current combat-coded force structure from 36 B-1 
bomber aircraft down to 30 in fiscal year 2012. The committee 
supported the Air Force's plan to retire six B-1 bomber 
aircraft but did not support the plan to reduce the combat-
coded force structure of B-1 bomber aircraft. In the report 
``2007 Long-Range Strike White Paper'' required by the 
committee report (S. Rept. 109-254) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the Air Force 
stated that 96 combat-coded bomber aircraft total (36 B-1s, 16 
B-2s, and 44 B-52s) were required to meet combatant commander 
requirements until a next-generation long-range strike aircraft 
is fielded. Furthermore, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review 
validated the requirement to maintain up to 96 combat-coded 
bomber aircraft. The committee will continue to emphasize that 
retirement of any bomber aircraft that reduces the combat-coded 
force structure below 96 total bombers is premature prior to a 
replacement long-range strike bomber aircraft reaching initial 
operational capability status.
    The committee supports the decision to restart the 
development of a new bomber aircraft and acknowledges that the 
current fleet of bomber aircraft are still effective and 
relevant in meeting the combatant commanders'' warfighting 
requirements in the near and mid-terms, but believes that the 
long-range strike requirements have been sufficiently analyzed 
on numerous occasions over the last 18 years against forecasted 
threats and that a recapitalization program must begin. The 
committee maintained oversight through staff-level briefings 
and is encouraged by the development effort completed thus far 
and looks forward to engaging with the Air Force in future 
briefings once firm key performance parameters are documented. 
The committee will continue to work with Air Force program 
officials in understanding intentions regarding nuclear 
capability and nuclear certification plans of the new bomber.
    The committee remains concerned with the workload being 
levied on the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and 
will monitor the acquisition governance structure to ensure 
that AFRCO is staffed with acquisition officials that represent 
an appropriate and sufficient cross-section of recent 
operational experience, major defense acquisition program 
management, requirements development, technology integration, 
and cost estimation to effectively execute the bomber program. 
The committee remains concerned that the Secretary of the Air 
Force has not performed a comprehensive life-cycle cost 
analysis comparing the development of one bomber platform, 
integrating all long-range strike capabilities, to a ``family 
of long-range strike systems'' to determine the affordability 
of the Department of Defense's long-range strike portfolio 
strategy. The committee continues to work with the Department 
as the life-cycle cost analysis is being formulated and will 
continue to receive regular updates through staff-level 
briefings.
    Through its oversight activities, the subcommittee 
recognized that the Secretary of the Air Force requested to 
repeal section 8062(g) of title 10, United States Code, which 
provides that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain a minimum 
inventory of 316 strategic inter-theater airlift aircraft. The 
committee did not support repeal and believes that a minimum 
inventory of 316 airlift aircraft provides a prudent balance of 
operational risk, affordability and sufficient organic 
capabilities in meeting the ever-increasing mobility 
requirements in support of the National Military Strategy and 
combat operations. The committee's actions stemmed from 
concerns regarding the questionable viability of the Civil 
Reserve Airlift Fleet, the reliance of transporting oversize 
and outsize cargo using foreign aircraft leasing arrangements, 
the unforeseen over-utilization rates of the current fleet of 
inter-theater airlift aircraft, the consistent under-estimation 
of deploying units Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data 
regarding the amount of equipment to support combat operations, 
and the Mobility Capability and Requirements Study of 2016 did 
not address or characterize the operational risk in meeting 
combatant commander warfighting requirements or timelines. The 
committee also understands that the force planning constructs 
used to justify the most recent mobility study were not the 
same force planning constructs used to develop the most recent 
Quadrennial Defense Review which sets the military strategy for 
the Department.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized 
that the Department of Defense continues to struggle with 
sufficiently, and comprehensively, analyzing and defining 
intra-theater airlift mobility requirements for active and 
reserve components, as well as National Guard units supporting 
both title 10 and title 32, United States Code, airlift 
mobility operations. The committee recognized that a reduction 
in the C-130H/J inventory from 395 to 335 aircraft, a reduction 
in the inventory of C-27J aircraft from 78 to 38, and a 
wholesale inventory reduction by the Army of 42 C-23 aircraft 
was unjustified, premature and based on insufficient analytics, 
and moreover, likely executed for budgetary reasons. 
Furthermore, the subcommittee recognized that neither the 
``2006 Mobility Capability Study'' or the ``2010 Mobility 
Capability and Requirements Study'' did not comprehensively 
analyze all aspects of intra-theater airlift requirements in 
the mission areas of time sensitive-direct support, homeland 
security, Air Force and Army National Guard domestic airlift 
operations in support of contingencies resulting from natural 
disasters, humanitarian crises, emergencies, and combatant 
commander warfighting requirements. The committee will continue 
to emphasize that without a comprehensive analysis of the 
aforementioned mission areas, it is impossible to justify such 
a decrease in intra-theater airlift capabilities. The committee 
is also concerned that the Army has begun divestment of the C-
23 aircraft despite congressional concerns and disagrees with 
that current action.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee supported 
the Chief of Naval Operations' stated desire to investigate the 
feasibility of sea-basing unmanned, low-observable aircraft on 
aircraft carriers to potentially provide intelligence, 
surveillance, reconnaissance and limited strike capabilities. 
However, the committee remains concerned with the Navy's 
execution strategy for developing systems in this mission area 
and will continue to engage with officials from the Navy.
    The committee's concerns include: the Navy plans not to 
accomplish a thorough future unmanned carrier-based strike 
system analysis of alternatives; the desired aircraft fielding 
date of fiscal year 2018 was randomly selected and was not 
derived through a threat-based analysis for the system; the 
current engineering and technology development strategy is 
considered high-risk by Navy officials to meet the fiscal year 
2018 date; the Navy has been unable to articulate to the 
committee the required capabilities and performance 
characteristics of the system; and the lessons learned from the 
technology demonstrator known as the unmanned combat air 
system, which is a precursor to the future unmanned carrier-
based strike system, is not sufficiently integrated into the 
acquisition strategy.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee supported 
the attributes and benefits regarding the KC-46A competition 
and acknowledged that the source-selection process was 
conducted fairly amongst all competitors. The committee 
discovered, according to Department of Defense acquisition 
officials, that the competition resulted in at least a 20 
percent savings for the unit cost of the aircraft and a savings 
of $3.0 to $4.0 billion as compared to the source-selection 
competition held for the tanker in 2008.
    The committee plans to closely monitor the KC-46A 
engineering, manufacturing and development program to ensure 
that the taxpayer dollars are wisely invested and that the 
platform will result in a capability that enhances the 
warfighter's global reach capabilities. The committee requested 
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics provide the committee quarterly reviews of the 
Air Force's KC-46A program to maintain sufficient and effective 
oversight and the committee also requested that the Comptroller 
General of the United States provide the committee with an 
annual review of the development program. Through an oversight 
hearing regarding KC-46, the committee gained a further 
understanding of the KC-46 program and was provided a thorough 
update of the KC-46 Integrated Baseline Review completed in 
August, 2011. The committee will continue oversight of the KC-
46 program through staff level briefings and future hearing 
events.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-77)

                         Shipbuilding Programs

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department's 
shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments are made 
to ensure the Navy achieves the force structure, with 
appropriate capabilities, needed to meet requirements. 
Protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of 
credible combat power, global presence, and humanitarian 
assistance are all core missions of the Navy that the committee 
remains focused on.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee was pleased 
that the Navy has apparently reversed the downward spiral in 
battle force ship quantities, and believes the plan to achieve 
the floor of 313 ships is achievable. To obtain the required 
capability and to provide the required stability to the fragile 
shipbuilding industrial base, the committee focused on the 
major shipbuilding programs.
    CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford-class of aircraft 
carriers. The subcommittee was critical when the Navy changed 
construction starts of these carriers from 4 year to 5 year 
centers. The committee has encouraged the Navy to keep these 
aircraft carriers on 5 year centers at the most, with fiscal 
year 2013 being the first year of detail design and 
construction funding for CVN-79. The committee has also 
expressed that it is essential to minimize changes from ship to 
ship in the class.
    The committee was impressed with the progress of the 
Virginia-class submarine program, which has proven to be a 
model shipbuilding program. Cost reduction efforts and ever-
decreasing span time for construction and delivery have allowed 
the Navy to fund two ships a year starting in fiscal year 2011, 
a year earlier than previously contemplated
    The committee is most concerned about how the Navy will 
fund and maintain the current shipbuilding plan once the Navy 
begins to acquire replacements for the Ohio-class ballistic 
missile submarine fleet.
    The committee, in reviewing the budget request, and knowing 
that the Navy has re-started the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class of 
destroyers, included authorization of a multi-year procurement 
program. These ships are vital for their traditional roles, as 
well as modifications that make them a key component for 
ballistic missile defense.
    The committee received testimony that the Marine Corps' 
requirement for amphibious ships is 38 ships, but that the 
number of ships that are absolutely necessary with acceptable 
risk is 33. The committee encouraged the Navy to continue 
pursuing a minimum of 33 amphibious ships.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee examined 
the schedule for the Littoral Combat Ship, both the sea frame 
and the mission modules. The committee included two provisions 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would 
increase the transparency and allow for adequate oversight of 
this program.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee delved into 
the Department's rationale for cancelling the Expeditionary 
Fighting Vehicle program. The committee included a provision in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would not 
allow expenditure of funds on a replacement for this vital 
capability until adequate analyses are completed
    Additional oversight activities included briefings to 
committee staff on the Maritime Administration's program for 
scrapping and recycling ships; the Navy's electromagnetic rail-
gun program; the Navy's electromagnetic aircraft launching 
system (EMALS), and; the new construct known as the Air-Sea 
Battle. These briefings involved travel to Dahlgren, Virginia, 
and Lakehurst, New Jersey.
    Committee staff also traveled to San Diego, California, and 
Norfolk, Virginia, to visit private shipyards and operational 
Navy ships.

                        Directed Energy Programs

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Defense's directed energy programs, to specifically include 
directed energy technologies with missile defense applications. 
During the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces' March 31, 2011, 
hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization 
Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs, subcommittee 
members inquired about the status of directed energy research 
and development efforts, testing, and resources. Concerns about 
the sufficiency of funds to maintain the Airborne Laser Test-
bed platform and conduct further testing, continue technology 
development, and retain a uniquely skilled workforce led the 
committee to recommend additional resources for the directed 
energy research programs of the Missile Defense Agency in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, as passed by the House. Division A of the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2012 (H.R. 2055) ultimately cut the MDA 
directed energy program to $50 million; MDA has had to take 
steps to severely curtail the program as a result.

                           Nuclear Deterrence

    The committee continued its oversight of the atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) and 
nuclear policies and programs of the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and 
credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. On April 5, 2011, 
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on the 
fiscal year 2012 Budget Request for Department of Energy Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities and Department of Defense Nuclear 
Forces Programs. For the first time in recent years, this 
annual nuclear posture and budget hearing included witnesses 
from the Department of Defense, who testified on the 
Department's nuclear programs and budgets, and linkages with 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). At the 
hearing, members inquired about DOE and DOD nuclear weapons and 
infrastructure modernization plans, implementation of the New 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), defense 
environmental cleanup, defense nuclear nonproliferation, safety 
at defense nuclear facilities, and resources.
    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on July 
27, 2011, on sustaining nuclear deterrence after New START in 
order to examine the United States' post-New START nuclear 
policy and posture. A follow-up hearing with officials from the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the 
Department of State was held on November 2, 2011, to assess the 
current status and future direction for U.S. nuclear weapons 
policy and posture. The subcommittee also held a hearing on 
October 14, 2011, on understanding the impacts of nuclear 
weapons modernization in Russia and China on the United States.
    In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held a classified briefing on March 10, 2011, 
on the status of the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile with the 
NNSA Administrator and the directors of the Nation's three 
nuclear weapons laboratories. The subcommittee also held a 
classified briefing on June 15, 2011, on the nuclear fuel cycle 
and countries of proliferation concern, a classified briefing 
on July 13, 2011, on foreign nuclear weapons programs, and a 
joint classified briefing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces on September 21, 2011, on the SSBN(X) program 
and the future of sea-based strategic deterrence.
    The committee included several legislative provisions and 
reporting requirements related to the nuclear enterprise in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, as passed by the House. These include reporting 
requirements on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, nuclear 
modernization plans, New START implementation plans, NNSA 
construction project management, nuclear employment strategy, 
limitations on nuclear force reductions, security at nuclear 
facilities, and efficiencies at nuclear complex sites.
    The conference report on H.R.1540 included several modified 
versions of the House provisions.

                            Missile Defense

    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held several missile 
defense sessions in support of its oversight of the Department 
of Defense's efforts to develop, test and field layered missile 
defense capabilities to protect the United States, its deployed 
forces, and its friends and allies against the full range of 
ballistic missile threats. On March 31, 2011, the Subcommittee 
on Strategic Forces conducted a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile 
Defense Programs. Members' oversight questions addressed a 
range of missile defense programs and issues, including Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 
(BMD), Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), and directed 
energy research, as well as U.S. homeland missile defense 
capabilities, implementation of the European Phased Adaptive 
Approach (EPAA), testing, force structure and inventory 
requirements, cooperative international missile defense 
activities, and workforce issues.
    On February 5, 2011, and March 30, 2011, the subcommittee 
held classified briefings on the Status of the GMD Program 
after recent flight test failures and the Missile Defense 
Agency's plans for fixing the program. On April 6, 2011, the 
subcommittee received a classified briefing from the 
intelligence community on ballistic missile threats. Lastly, on 
April 14, 2011, the subcommittee received a classified briefing 
from the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization 
on the results of the Joint Capabilities Mix-3 study, which 
examined the role and capabilities of U.S. missile defenses in 
various military engagement scenarios to identify inventory 
requirements and needed capabilities.
    Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also 
participated in a congressional delegation visit to Europe, May 
16-23, 2011, to see firsthand how the EPAA is being 
implemented. Members received missile defense briefings from 
experts at U.S. European Command; toured the Aegis BMD cruiser 
USS Monterey, which deployed to the European theater in March 
2011 in support of the EPAA; and discussed missile defense with 
senior government leaders in the Republic of Poland and 
Romania.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, contains several 
missile defense-related legislative provisions and funding 
recommendations, to include: reporting requirements on 
acquisition accountability, the Department's homeland defense 
hedging strategy, a plan for addressing GMD flight-test 
failures, and study on space-based interceptor technology. It 
also included a limitation on funds for the MEADS program and a 
limitation on providing the Russian Federation with access to 
sensitive U.S. missile defense technology. The conference 
report to H.R. 1540 included a modified version of this 
provision that would require that no classified United States 
ballistic missile defense information may be provided to Russia 
unless, 60 days prior to any instance in which the U.S. 
Government plans to provide such information to the Russian 
Federation, the President provides notification (which must 
include specific terms spelled out in the provision) to the 
appropriate congressional committees.

                        National Security Space

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department's 
national security space programs. On March 15, 2011, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on the Fiscal 
Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for 
National Security Space Activities. Members' oversight 
questions addressed a range of topics, including: space policy; 
a new space acquisition approach, Evolutionary Acquisition for 
Space Efficiency; space launch; space industrial base; 
Operationally Responsive Space, space situational awareness; 
space intelligence analysis; and concerns about potential 
interference with the Global Positioning System (GPS). 
Additionally, on April 6, 2011, the subcommittee received a 
classified briefing from the intelligence community on Threats 
to U.S. Space Capabilities.
    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces conducted oversight of 
the potential effects of the LightSquared commercial wireless 
broadband network on Department of Defense GPS receivers. On 
September 8, 2011, the committee received a classified briefing 
on LightSquared's Interference with GPS, and subsequently held 
a hearing on September 21, 2011, to receive testimony on 
Sustaining GPS for National Security.
    Additionally, the subcommittee received a classified 
briefing on October 25, 2011, on the U.S. Air Force and 
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) New Entrant Strategy on 
Space Launch; a classified briefing on November 16, 2011, on 
Counter Space and Ballistic Missile Threats; and a classified 
briefing on November 18, 2011, on United States Space Systems, 
including an overview of NRO systems and capabilities, the 
recent launch campaign, and a program status update.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, contains several 
national security space-related legislative provisions, funding 
recommendations and reporting requirements, to include: 
authorization for the Air Force to use incremental funding to 
procure Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites, a 
limitation on funds for the Joint Space Operations Center 
Management System until an acquisition strategy is submitted to 
the committee, a requirement that the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) resolve concerns of widespread harmful 
interference to GPS devices used by the Department of Defense 
prior to permitting certain commercial terrestrial 
communications operations, and reports on a rocket propulsion 
strategy and hosted payloads.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision 
concerning the GPS-LightSquared issue that would maintain the 
requirement that the FCC resolve concerns of widespread harmful 
interference to GPS and it would add the reporting requirements 
contained in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1540. The Senate 
provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to review and 
assess the ability of national security GPS receivers to 
receive the signals of the GPS satellites without interruption 
or interference and determine if commercial communications 
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful 
interference with national security GPS receivers. In the event 
that the review determines that commercial communications 
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful 
interference with national security GPS receivers, the 
Secretary would be required to promptly notify the 
congressional defense committees.

                   EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
provided oversight of Department of Defense science and 
technology, cyber, and counter-terrorism programs and other 
activities under the subcommittee's jurisdictional 
responsibility. The subcommittee considered and reported 
legislation on May 4, 2011, that was included in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011.

        Investment in Future Capabilities Science and Technology

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Defense's science and technology policies and programs to 
ensure balanced investments are made in developing capabilities 
to meet emerging challenges to national security. Related 
hearings included: March 1, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of Defense 
Science and Technology Programs; and July 26, 2011, Department 
of Defense Investment in Technology and Capability to Meet 
Emerging Security Threats. In addition to formal hearings, the 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a 
briefing on April 5, 2011, on Defense Advanced Research Project 
Agency's Directed Energy, Cyber and Stealth Programs, and a 
briefing on July 14, 2011, on Department of Defense 
Laboratories.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized 
critical shortcomings in capabilities for special operations 
forces and accordingly authorized in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, an 
additional $60.0 million for special operations combatant craft 
systems and an additional $87.8 million for special operations 
communications capabilities. Further, due to concerns regarding 
the management and performance of several procurement and 
research programs, the subcommittee included legislative 
provisions to limit the availability of funds for commercial 
satellite procurement and for Special Operations Command's 
aviation foreign internal defense program, which also received 
a reduction in authorized funding level by $50 million.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included several 
provisions related to science and technology efforts, 
including: a provision extending hiring authorities for defense 
laboratories through September 30, 2016; a provision expanding 
developmental test and evaluation management for major defense 
acquisition programs; a provision expanding an acquisition 
pilot program to integrate technology protection features 
during research and development to include contractor cost-
sharing; a provision directing an assessment of mechanisms to 
employ non-U.S. citizens with critical scientific and technical 
skills; and provides $200 million to the Rapid Innovation 
Program.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-9)

                  Cybersecurity Information Technology

    The committee devoted substantial attention to cyber 
operations and information technology to ensure the Department 
appropriately defends its networks and has needed capability to 
conduct its mission across the operational spectrum. Related 
hearings included: February 11, 2011, What Should the 
Department of Defense's Role in Cyber Be?; and March 16, 2011, 
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
for U.S. Cyber Command.
    In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a total of five 
briefings and roundtable discussions which included: February 
9, 2011, Classified Cyber Threat Briefing; April 15, 2011, 
Classified Briefing on Security of Classified Networks; June 2, 
2011, Sandia National Lab Overview and Capabilities Briefing; 
June 3, 2011, Briefing on Recent Cyber Attacks on Lockheed 
Martin; and September 8, 2011, Classified Roundtable Discussion 
on the Defense Industrial Base Program.
    The committee included several legislative provisions 
related to cybersecurity information technology in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to 
include: a provision to establish a cybersecurity fellowship 
program within the Department of Defense that would extend the 
partnership and educational opportunities between the 
Department of Defense and foreign militaries. Further, the 
committee directed an independent review and assessment of the 
cryptographic modernization program and an assessment of the 
defense industrial base pilot program.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision 
requiring the Department of Defense develop a strategy to 
acquire capabilities to detect previously unknown cyber-
attacks; a provision to assess the defense industrial pilot 
program; a provision to implement a program for insider threat 
protection; and a provision directing increased collaboration 
between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland 
Security on cybersecurity.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-5; H.A.S.C. 112-26)

           Strategic Communication and Information Operations

    The committee continued its review of the Department of 
Defense's strategic communications and information operations 
programs. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
held a hearing on July 12, 2011, Ten Years On: The Evolution of 
Strategic Communications and Information Operations Since 9/11. 
Additionally, the subcommittee directed several reviews in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, to include: an assessment of counter adversarial 
narrative efforts; an assessment of countering network-based 
threats, and a report on Military Information Support 
Operations.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included several 
provisions related to strategic communication and information 
operations, including: a provision re-designating psychological 
operations as military information support operations in title 
10, including a required report on strategy and implementation; 
and a provision limiting the availability of funds for the 
Trans Regional Web Initiative.

         ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

                        Full Committee Hearings

    The committee held numerous hearings in preparation for 
completing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012. These hearings are a central element in the 
discharge of the committee's oversight responsibilities.
    In upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud, 
abuse, or mismanagement in federal government programs, and 
pursuant to clauses 2(n) and (o) rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, the committee met several times to conduct 
oversight over Department of Defense activities, as noted in 
this report. On June 23, 2011, the committee convened a hearing 
on Recent Developments in Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown 
of U.S. Forces with the Honorable Michele Flournoy, 
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and Admiral Michael 
Mullen, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Pursuant to clause 2(p) of rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, the committee also held a hearing on Human 
Capital Management: A High Risk Area for the Department of 
Defense, as identified by the Comptroller General in his High 
Risk Series. Witnesses included Ms. Brenda Farrell, Director, 
Defense Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Mr. John Hutton, Director, Acquisition 
and Sourcing Management Team, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office; Mr. Pasquale (Pat) M. Tamburrino, Jr., Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, Civilian Personnel Policy; and Mr. Keith 
Charles, Director, Human Capital Initiatives, Office of the 
Under Secretary of Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
    As discussed elsewhere in this report, the committee held a 
hearing on July 26, 2011 to receive testimony on Ten Years 
After the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Current 
Status of Legal Authorities. Witnesses included the Honorable 
Michael B. Mukasey, Former Attorney General of the United 
States and Former Chief Judge of the United States District 
Court for the Southern District of New York; Daniel Dell Orto, 
Former Principal Deputy General Counsel and Acting General 
Counsel, U.S. Department of Defense; Steven Engel, Former 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice 
Office of Legal Counsel; and Robert Chesney, Charles I. Francis 
Professor in Law, University of Texas Law School and Former 
Advisor to the Detainee Policy Task Force created by Executive 
Order 13493.
    The committee met again on July 27, 2011, to receive 
testimony on The Way Ahead in Afghanistan. Witnesses included 
General (ret.) Jack Keane, Chairman of the Board, Institute for 
the Study of War, Former Vice Chief of Staff of the United 
States Army; Lieutenant General (ret.) David Barno, Center for 
a New American Security, Former Commander, Combined Forces 
Command-Afghanistan (2003-2005); and the Honorable Bing J. 
West, Author, ``The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy, and the Way Out 
of Afghanistan'', Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
International Security Affairs.
    The committee held a series of hearings to examine the 
Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years 
after 9/11. The seven-part series focused on the Department of 
Defense's role in the past decade of conflict and sought to 
examine the consequences of these lessons learned to the future 
of our force. Likewise, the committee sought to examine the 
consequences of cuts to the future budget of the Department of 
Defense, as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011.
    On September 8, 2011, the committee held the first hearing 
in this series regarding the Future of National Defense and the 
U.S. Military Ten Years after 9/11 with former Chairmen and a 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. These witnesses 
included General (ret.) Richard Myers, USAF; General (ret.) 
Peter Pace, USMC; and Admiral (ret.) Edmund Giambastiani, USN.
    The committee's second hearing in the series was held on 
September 13, 2011 to solicit outside experts views on the 
Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years 
after 9/11. The witnesses included Mr. Jim Thomas, Vice 
President and Director of Studies, Center for Strategic and 
Budgetary Assessments; Dr. Michael E. O'Hanlon, Director of 
Research and Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution; Mr. Thomas 
Donnelly, Resident Fellow and Director, Center for Defense 
Studies, American Enterprise Institute; and Mr. Max Boot, Jeane 
J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies, 
Council on Foreign Relations.
    On September 22, 2011, the committee paused from its 
hearing series to conduct further oversight on contingency 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with a 
hearing on the Afghan National Security Forces. Witnesses 
included the Honorable Michele Flournoy, Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense; and Lieutenant 
General Robert B. Neller, Director for Operations, J-3, Joint 
Staff.
    On October 4, 2011, the committee resumed its Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years after 9/11 
series with testimony from former Service Chiefs and Vice 
Chiefs. The witnesses were General (ret.) John Jumper, Former 
Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; General (ret.) Richard Cody, 
Former Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; and Lieutenant General 
(ret.) H. Steven Blum, Former Chief, National Guard Bureau, 
USA.
    The committee's fourth hearing in this series was held on 
October 12, 2011. The committee received perspectives from 
former Chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services 
Committee including Senator John Warner, Congressman Duncan 
Hunter, and Congressman Ike Skelton.
    On October 13, 2011, the committee held the fifth hearing 
in the series of examining the future of National Defense and 
the U.S. Military Ten Years after 9/11 with the Secretary of 
Defense, the Honorable Leon E. Panetta; and General Martin 
Dempsey, USA, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. This hearing was 
the first conducted in this series with current administration 
officials and military leaders to examine these issues.
    The sixth hearing in the series was conducted on October 
26, 2011. This hearing examined the economic consequences of 
defense sequestration. The witnesses included Mr. Martin 
Feldstein, President Emeritus, National Bureau of Economic 
Research; Dr. Stephen Fuller, Director, Center for Regional 
Analysis at the School of Public Policy, George Mason 
University; and Dr. Peter Morici, Professor of International 
Relations, University of Maryland.
    On November 2, 2011, the committee held its last hearing in 
the series with the current military service chiefs to receive 
testimony on the Future of the Military Services and 
Consequences of Defense Sequestration. The witnesses were 
General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army; Admiral 
Jonathan W. Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations; General Norton 
A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force; and General James 
F. Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-48; H.A.S.C. 112-51; H.A.S.C. 112-53; 
H.A.S.C. 112-56; H.A.S.C. 112-61; H.A.S.C. 112-63; H.A.S.C. 
112-70; H.A.S.C. 112-72; H.A.S.C. 112-74; H.A.S.C. 112-76; 
H.A.S.C. 112-81; H.A.S.C. 112-86)

  ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THE PANELS

           SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
continued its oversight of the Department's counter-terrorism, 
counter-insurgency, and counter-weapons of mass destruction 
proliferation activities to ensure the Department is prepared 
to address terrorism and other emerging threats. Related 
hearings included: March 11, 2011, Counterproliferation 
Strategy; the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization 
Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the 
Chemical Biological Defense Program; September 22, 2011, The 
Future of U.S. Special Operations Forces: Ten Years After 9/11 
and Twenty-Five Years After Goldwater-Nichols; and November 3, 
2011, Institutionalizing Irregular Warfare Capabilities.
    The subcommittee continued to examine the Department's 
investment and management of information technology systems. 
Related hearings included: April 6, 2011, Improving Management 
and Acquisition of Information Technology Systems in the 
Department of Defense.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
4, 2011, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011. The legislative provisions covered a 
range of issues, to include: cybersecurity, counter terrorism, 
and funding for procurement and research and development 
programs. The subcommittee included several legislative 
provisions related to terrorism authorities and special 
operations in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to include: a provision to extend the 
authority for the Secretary of Defense to make combating 
terrorism rewards; a provision to enhance section 1208 
authority by increasing the amount authorized from $45.0 
million to $50.0 million and extending the authority through 
fiscal year 2014; a provision directing quarterly briefings on 
counterterrorism operations; and a provision extending the 
authorization for the Department of Defense to develop Non-
Conventional Assisted Recovery capabilities through fiscal year 
2016. The subcommittee also included several legislative 
provisions related to information technology in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to 
include: a provision revising the structure and process of the 
defense business systems investment review boards; and a 
provision to amend reporting of critical changes to Major 
Automated Information Systems.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 extended the authority 
provided under section 1208 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) 
through fiscal year 2015 and increased the authorized amount 
from $45 million to $50 million; included a provision 
establishing increased oversight mechanisms on U.S. Special 
Operations Command undersea mobility and non-standard aviation 
programs; directed U.S. Special Operations Command to develop 
memoranda of agreement with the military services regarding 
enabling capabilities to support special operations forces; 
directed quarterly briefings on counterterrorism operations; 
and extended the authorization for the Department of Defense to 
develop Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery capabilities through 
fiscal year 2013.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee hosted an 
introduction to U.S. Special Operations Forces display and 
presentation on February 11, 2011, held a classified briefing 
on April 1, 2011, covering U.S. Special Operations Command 
Fiscal Year 2012 Request and Future Challenges for U.S. Special 
Operations Forces, and a briefing on June 15, 2011, on counter-
proliferation research and development programs for the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, and U.S. Special Operations Command, and a classified 
briefing on April 22, 2011, covering the future of U.S. Special 
Operations Forces.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-18; H.A.S.C. 112-39)

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL


Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military

    During the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel continued the process of examining the law and policy 
surrounding the repeal of the law limiting the military service 
of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals known as ``Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell.'' The subcommittee held a hearing to determine if the 
Department of Defense (DOD) is prepared to implement repeal of 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell without jeopardizing morale, unit 
cohesion, good order, discipline, and combat readiness. 
Committee members had particular concerns about the 
effectiveness of training programs, the impact of repeal on 
recruiting and retention programs, and the adequacy of service 
policies for dealing with billeting issues, public displays of 
affection, and the religious freedom rights of service members 
with strong beliefs opposed to gay and lesbian lifestyles, to 
include military chaplains. During consideration of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, amendments were 
adopted to: include the views of the service chiefs concerning 
readiness of the force in the formal repeal certification 
process; preclude the use of DOD facilities and resources and 
the participation of DOD personnel in same sex marriage 
ceremonies; and reaffirm that the provisions of the Defense of 
Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) regarding the definition of marriage 
as being between a man and woman shall apply to the process for 
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress or any ruling, 
regulation, or interpretation within the Department of Defense 
applicable to military personnel or DOD civilian employees.
    On July 22, 2011, President Obama transmitted to Congress 
his certification along with the certifications of Secretary of 
Defense Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Mullen that they had:
    (1) Considered the Report of the Comprehensive Review 
Working Group and the Report's proposed plan of action.
    (2) Prepared the necessary policies and regulations to 
implement repeal.
    (3) Agreed that implementation of the necessary policies 
and regulations pursuant to repeal are consistent with the 
standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit 
cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
    On July 28, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services received 
a briefing regarding the decision to certify preparedness to 
implement repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Member questioning 
focused on the need to provide clear policy guidelines 
regarding the protection of religious freedom of speech and 
action for those service members with strong moral and 
religious beliefs opposing gay and lesbian lifestyles. 
Additional oversight will be required to review the policy 
regulations and other documents needed to implement repeal.
    The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was effective on 
September 20, 2011, 60 days after the certification by the 
President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, as required by current law. The committee 
continued to provide oversight to the Department of Defense 
actions to review and modify policies, programs, and benefits 
to accommodate the open service of gays and lesbians and the 
presence of their family members.
    On November 30, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel held a briefing for Members of the committee to 
examine the legal and policy rationale leading to the 
Department of Defense approval of same-sex ceremonies conducted 
by DOD personnel on military installations. The briefing 
highlighted the need for the subcommittee to provide additional 
oversight of these issues in the future.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 does not contravene or 
amend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), nor is the Department 
of Defense relieved from the prohibition on federal recognition 
of same sex marriage therein. The conference report does 
include a conscience clause provision to protect chaplains' 
rights to not perform same sex marriages on the basis of their 
conscience or moral principles. The conference report on H.R. 
1540 does retain the current UCMJ Article 125 prohibition on 
sodomy.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-34)

Armed forces retirement home

    The chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
visited the Armed Forces Retirement Home, District of Columbia, 
on May 2, 2011. During the visit the chairman received an 
update on the facilities operations, construction and personnel 
issues. This oversight effort related directly to the 
legislation adopted by the subcommittee and included in 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011.

Casualties inflicted on U.S. personnel by Afghan nationals working as 
        contractors, police, or security forces

    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel investigated several 
reports of Afghan nationals serving as contract personnel, 
national police, and military personnel who, without warning, 
attacked and killed U.S. military personnel. As a result of the 
investigation, the committee requested that the Secretary of 
Defense, General Petraeus, the Commander of International 
Security Assistance Force & Commander of U.S. Forces 
Afghanistan, and the Secretary of the Army review current 
screening and evaluations of Afghans hired to work closely with 
U.S. forces and to take disciplinary action, if merited, 
against the Afghan security guard contractor whose employee 
attacked U.S. personnel.

Hiring of a highly qualified expert for the defense health program

    The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
hired former Maine governor John Baldacci as a highly qualified 
expert to review military health care and propose reforms to 
it. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, out 
of concern that such a hiring was duplicative of capabilities 
and personnel already available to the undersecretary and 
wasteful of funding and resources, sought a fuller explanation 
of the rationale for the hiring. In addition, the chairman 
sought an explanation of how the hiring and individual hired 
met the Department of Defense criteria for highly qualified 
experts. The inquiry will be continued.

Military retirement

    On October 25, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
Subcommittee conducted a hearing entitled ``Military Retirement 
Reform'' to examine the current status of initiatives to reform 
military retirement. The subcommittee received testimony from 
Department of Defense and military association officials that 
allowed Members to examine reform proposals and understand the 
advantages and disadvantages associated with each. The 
subcommittee will continue to consider military retirement 
reform options in the future.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-80)

Treatment of service member remain at the Dover Port Mortuary

    On November 17, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel held a briefing in which all committee members were 
invited to attend to hear from the Air Force and the Office of 
Special Counsel about the investigation into allegations of 
improper handling, processing and transport of human remains of 
military personnel and family members by the Air Force Mortuary 
Affairs Operations, Port Mortuary Division, Dover Air Force 
Base, Delaware, and the Office of Special Counsel analysis of 
the Air Force Investigation.
    The briefing highlighted concerns by the Special Counsel 
about the findings and conclusions in the Air Force 
investigation report. The Air Force focused on the way ahead 
and the plan to address the findings by the Air Force Inspector 
General. The committee examined how the Air Force will support 
the Secretary of Defense directed independent review of the 
corrective actions taken at Dover Mortuary and the 
appropriateness of the disciplinary action taken by the Air 
Force. The briefing highlighted the need for the Subcommittee 
to provide additional oversight of these issues in the future.

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    The Subcommittee on Readiness continued oversight of 
military readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues; 
military construction, installations, and family housing 
issues; energy policy and programs of the Department of 
Defense; and civilian personnel and service contracting issues. 
The subcommittee conducted six oversight hearings and a markup 
of the National Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011.
    On March 3, 2011, the subcommittee met for its first 
oversight hearing to receive testimony on the Required 
Readiness Posture of U.S. Forces from an independent panel. The 
panel explored the frameworks of resourcing decisions, 
including the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, the 
2010 Global Defense Posture (GDP) Report, the QDR Independent 
Panel Review, and the recent National Military Strategy.
    The subcommittee met in a follow-on session on March 10, 
2011, to receive testimony on the President's Fiscal Year 2012 
Budget Request and Global Challenges to Readiness. In this 
hearing, the services provided testimony on the required 
readiness of the U.S. forces to respond to a range of near- and 
far-term global threats.
    On March 15, 2011, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on Long-Term Readiness Challenges in the Pacific; 
which addressed the readiness of U.S. forces to respond to 
conflicts in the Pacific region.
    The subcommittee provided oversight of the ongoing 
challenge to jointness in a hearing on March 31, 2011 titled 
``the Status of and Future Plans for Military Jointness and the 
Impact on our Nation's Readiness.'' The witnesses provided 
testimony on the progress the military has made towards 
jointness and interoperability across the military department, 
and its impact on the readiness of our forces. The subcommittee 
also addressed the challenges of sustaining the force in a 
hearing on April 7, 2011.
    The subcommittee met in open session on April 13, 2011, to 
receive testimony on the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for Military Construction, Base 
Closure, Environment, Facilities Operation and Maintenance. The 
subcommittee met in open session on July 12, 2011 to receive 
testimony on ``How Does the Navy Get Ready and Where Are We 
Today.'' The subcommittee met in open session on July 26, 2011 
to receive testimony on ``Total Force Readiness.'' The 
subcommittee also met in open session on September 21, 2011 to 
receive testimony on the Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and 
Air National Guard training and operations. The subcommittee 
met in open session on October 27, 2011 to receive testimony on 
``Readiness in the Age of Austerity.'' The subcommittee met in 
open session jointly with the Seapower Subcommittee on November 
3, 2011, to receive testimony about a day without seapower and 
projection forces.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-13; H.A.S.C. 112-17; H.A.S.C. 112-21; 
H.A.S.C. 112-33; H.A.S.C. 112-40; H.A.S.C. 112-43; H.A.S.C. 
112-50; H.A.S.C. 112-55; H.A.S.C. 112-67, H.A.S.C. 112-84)

             SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND PROJECTION FORCES

    The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces 
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in 
the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget request for 
fiscal year 2012 during the 112th Congress, including; March 9, 
2011, Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs and Budget 
Requirements of the Navy's Shipbuilding and Construction Plan.
    In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities 
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted 
oversight hearings on the following topics: March 16, 2011, 
Amphibious Operations; October 13, 2011, Update on KC-46A and 
Legacy Aerial Refueling Aircraft Programs.
    The Seapower and Projection Forces also held a joint 
hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on November 3, 2011, A 
Day without Seapower and Projection Forces.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted 
numerous briefings on the following topics: February 11, 2011, 
Necessary Considerations in Challenging Times for Effective 
Projection of Navy and Air Force Forces; March 2, 2011, OHIO-
class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program 
(SSBN(X)); March 30, 2011, Air Force Long-Range Strike Efforts; 
April 7, 2011, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle; July 28, 2011, 
KC-46A and Legacy Tankers.
    The subcommittee also held a joint briefing with the 
Strategic Forces subcommittee on the SSBN(X) Program and the 
Future of Sea-Based Strategic Deterrence on September 21, 2011.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
5, 2011, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011. The legislation covered a range of 
issues, including authorization of appropriations for 
procurement programs and research, development, test and 
evaluation programs for the Department of the Navy.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-16; H.A.S.C. 112-25; H.A.S.C. 112-77; 
H.A.S.C. 112-90)

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed strategic 
forces programs (except deep strike systems), space programs, 
ballistic missile defense programs, intelligence policy and 
national programs, as well as Department of Energy national 
security programs (except nuclear non-proliferation programs), 
by conducting hearings during its consideration of the fiscal 
year 2012 budget request, including: March 15, 2011, national 
security space activities; March 31, 2011, missile defense 
programs; and April 5, 2011, Department of Energy Atomic Energy 
Defense Activities and Department of Defense Nuclear Programs.
    In addition to its oversight responsibilities regarding the 
budget requests, the subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing on March 2, 2011, on the Status of United States 
Strategic Forces.
    The subcommittee also held several briefings on the 
following oversight topics: February 10, 2011 and March 30, 
2011, Status of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense Program; 
March 10, 2011, Status of the United States Nuclear Weapons 
Stockpile; April 14, 2011, Joint Capability Mix-III Study; and 
June 15, 2011, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Countries of 
Proliferation Concern.
    The committee held informal educational briefings on the 
following topics: February 9, 2011, missile defense policy and 
posture; February 15, 2011, history and evolution of nuclear 
policy and posture; March 1, 2011, Administration's nuclear 
policy and posture; March 9, 2011, space fundamentals and space 
policy and strategy; March 30, 2011, missile defense programs; 
April 6, 2011, space and ballistic missile threats; and April 
13, 2011, Department of Energy environmental management 
programs.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
4, 2011, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-12; H.A.S.C. 112-22; H.A.S.C. 112-32; 
H.A.S.C. 112-36; H.A.S.C. 112-58; H.A.S.C. 112-65, H.A.S.C. 
112-78; H.A.S.C. 112-88)

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces provided 
oversight of all Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 
Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense Acquisition 
programs providing tactical aircraft and missile; armor and 
ground vehicle; munitions; and associated support equipment, 
including Reserve and National Guard equipment programs. The 
subcommittee conducted five oversight hearings prior to the 
markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, during 
its consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense 
budget request. Hearings included: March 1, 2011: Equipping the 
Warfighter in Afghanistan; March 9, 2011: Army Modernization 
Programs; March 15, 2011: Air Force Tactical Aviation Programs; 
March 17, 2011: Soldier and Marine Equipment for Dismounted 
Operations; April 1, 2011: and Army and Air Force National 
Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Posture. The subcommittee 
conducted an additional four oversight hearings subsequent to 
the passage of H.R. 1540 by the House: October 12, 2011: Army 
and Air Force National Guard and Reserve Component Acquisition 
Programs; October 26, 2011: Army Acquisition and Modernization; 
November 2, 2011: Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs 
Update; and, November 16, 2011: United States Marine Corps 
Acquisition and Modernization.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee received a 
briefing from representatives of the Department of Defense on 
the following: a classified briefing on provision of force 
protection for forces in Afghanistan and a classified briefing 
on special access programs included in the budget request for 
fiscal year 2012.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-10; H.A.S.C. 112-15; H.A.S.C. 112-20; 
H.A.S.C. 112-27; H.A.S.C. 112-35; H.A.S.C. 112-75; H.A.S.C. 
112-82; H.A.S.C. 112-87; and H.A.S.C. 112-91)

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was 
reestablished by the 112th Congress to conduct investigations 
as directed by the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee 
on Armed Services after coordination with the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations. The subcommittee spent nearly one year 
investigating the drawdown of the detainee population at the 
U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GTMO) and the 
escalating rate at which detainees have reengaged in the fight 
against the United States and its allies. Currently, the 
publically reported confirmed or suspected reengagement rate is 
twenty-seven percent.
    In addition to the long-term investigation, the 
subcommittee worked closely with the Subcommittees on Military 
Personnel, Tactical Air and Land Forces, and Seapower and 
Projection Forces to conduct oversight on a number of issues, 
including accountability at Arlington National Cemetery and the 
Dover Air Force Base Port Mortuary, and DOD's 30-Year Aviation 
and Shipbuilding plans.

Transfer and release of Guantanamo Bay detainees and reengagement

    In connection with a March 16, 2011 request from the 
Chairman and Ranking Member, the subcommittee conducted an in-
depth investigation focused on transfers and releases of GTMO 
detainees and related reengagement issues and trends. 
Specifically, the subcommittee was tasked to review and analyze 
``the circumstances and mechanisms for post-transfer security 
measures and assurances for humane treatment for those 
transferred from Guantanamo Bay.'' The subcommittee's draft 
report, accompanied by a classified annex, provides a 
comprehensive policy review detailing assessments of past 
practices accompanied by recommendations for future policy 
determinations. The draft classified annex details reengagement 
numbers and rates and provides analysis by country and 
timeframe of transfer or release.
    The subcommittee conducted a classified briefing followed 
by a public hearing on April 13, 2011 entitled ``Guantanamo 
Detainee Transfer Policy and Recidivism.'' Witnesses included 
Ambassador Daniel Fried, the Special Envoy for the Closure of 
the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility from the Department of 
State, the Honorable William K. Lietzau, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy, and representatives 
from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and 
Department of Justice.
    On June 2, 2011, the subcommittee conducted a briefing 
entitled ``The Terrorist Threat: A Profile on Reengagement--The 
Abdullah Rassoul Zakir Story.'' Witnesses for the briefing 
included Dr. Seth Jones, a senior political scientist at the 
RAND Corporation and Mr. Thomas Joscelyn, Executive Director of 
the Center for Law and Counterterrorism, Foundation for Defense 
of Democracies. Finally, on June 15, 2011, the subcommittee 
conducted a briefing entitled ``Al-Qaeda in Yemen: Profiles in 
Terror--The Othman Ahmed al Ghamdi and Abu Sufyanal-Azdi al-
Shihri stories.'' Witnesses included Mr. Jeremy Sharp, a 
Specialist in Middle East Affairs with the Congressional 
Research Service, Ms. Katherine Zimmerman, the Gulf of Aden 
Team Lead for the American Enterprise Institute's Critical 
Threats Project; and Mr. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in 
Governance Studies at Brookings.
    Subcommittee members conducted two oversight delegations to 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in March and November 2011. 
Additionally, members traveled to the Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan and the U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 
Staff conducted oversight delegations to the United Kingdom, 
U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Kingdom of 
Morocco, the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, the 
French Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of 
Tajikistan, Turkey, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the State 
of Kuwait, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In each country, 
with the exception of Russia where officials refused repeated 
meeting requests, staff met with United States embassy 
officials and foreign government officials from relevant 
ministries of justice, defense, and foreign affairs. Staff also 
met with foreign non-governmental agencies including the 
International Federation for Human Rights, International 
Committee of the Red Cross, Sidi Moumen Cultural Center for 
Children, and Pakistan Human Rights Commission.
    Committee staff conducted over 100 formal and informal 
meetings and interviews with officials and senior policymakers 
from the Department of State and Department of Defense, 
including United States Southern Command and the Defense 
Intelligence Agency. Staff also reviewed approximately 2,000 
pages of documentary evidence.
    The following organizations provided information and data 
for subcommittee consideration: the Center for Law and 
Counterterrorism, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 
American Civil Liberties Union, Carnegie Endowment for 
International Peace, Center for Constitutional Rights, Columbia 
Law School's Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human 
Rights Watch, Human Rights First, the Brookings Institution, 
and the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University.

Arlington National Cemetery/Dover Air Force Base Port Mortuary

    The subcommittee conducted two hearings on accountability 
at Arlington National Cemetery. On April 14, 2011, the 
subcommittee held a hearing entitled ``Accountability at 
Arlington National Cemetery'' with Ms. Kathyrn Condon, 
Executive Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program, and 
Mr. Patrick Hallinan, Superintendent of Arlington National 
Cemetery appearing as witnesses. A second hearing entitled 
``Update on Arlington Cemetery Reforms'' was held on September 
23, 2011 aimed at addressing the progress of implementation of 
reform measures. Witnesses for the second hearing included 
Major General William McCoy, Deputy Inspector General, United 
States Army, Ms. Kathyrn Condon, and Mr. Patrick Hallinan. In 
connection with the latter hearing, the subcommittee received a 
statement for the record from the American Legion and a report 
entitled ``Implementation of Army Directive on Army National 
Cemeteries Program'' dated September 18, 2011. Subcommittee 
members also conducted an on-site inspection of the cemetery 
and received monthly updates from senior officials on 
management practices, accountability issues, and reform 
implementation efforts.
    The subcommittee conducted a joint briefing with members of 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel focused on 
accountability and management issues at the Dover Port Mortuary 
on November 17, 2011. Air Force and Office of Special Counsel 
officials briefed members on allegations of improper handling, 
processing and transport of human remains of military personnel 
and family members. Witnesses from the Department of Defense 
included the Honorable Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air 
Force, Lieutenant General Marc Rogers, Inspector General, 
United States Air Force, and Mr. Charles Blanchard, General 
Counsel, United States Air Force. Witnesses from the Office of 
Special Counsel included: Ms. Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel, 
Office of the Special Counsel and Ms. Jennifer Pennington, 
Attorney, Disclosure Unit, Office of the Special Counsel.

Department of Defense 30-year aviation and shipbuilding plans

    Working with the Subcommittees on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces and Seapower and Projection Forces, the subcommittee 
conducted a briefing entitled, ``Efficacy of DOD's 30-Year 
Shipbuilding and Aviation Plans.'' Witnesses from the 
Department included Vice Admiral John Blake, Lt. General George 
Flynn, and Vice Admiral P. Stephen Stanley. A separate panel of 
civilian experts included Dr. Eric Labs of the Congressional 
Budget Office, Mackenzie Eaglen, of the Heritage Foundation, 
and Mr. Ronald O'Rourke of the Congressional Research Service.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-42; H.A.S.C. 112-45; H.A.S.C. 112-46)

     PANEL ON DEFENSE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND AUDITABILITY REFORM

    On July 13, 2011, the committee organized a panel on 
defense financial management and auditability reform pursuant 
to Committee Rule 5(a) to carry out a comprehensive review of 
the Department's financial management system. The review was 
initiated to oversee the Department's financial management 
system's capacity for providing timely, reliable, and useful 
information for decision making and reporting. The panel was 
established for an initial period of 6 months, but has been 
extended to January 31, 2012.
    The Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability 
Reform held seven hearings and two briefings in support of its 
mandate to examine the Department of Defense's financial 
management system. The panel focused its examination on: the 
Department of Defense's Financial Improvement and Audit 
Readiness (FIAR) strategy and methodology; the challenges 
facing the Department in achieving financial management reform 
and auditability; financial management workforce competency; 
and the Department's enterprise resource planning (ERP) system 
implementation efforts.
    To provide context on the scope of the Department's 
financial management activities, the panel, on July 21, 2011, 
received an overview briefing from the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller), the Honorable Robert Hale, on the 
mission, organizational structure, and functions performed 
within the Department's financial management.
    On July 28, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on the 
Department's strategy and methodology for improving its 
financial management system and achieving audit readiness and a 
high level description of the challenges the Department faces 
in achieving its financial improvement goals.
    On September 8, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on 
the Department's components' approach to implementing the FIAR 
strategy and methodology and the challenges faced and lessons 
learned from this effort. As part of the hearing, the panel 
received testimony on the challenges faced and lessons learned 
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers financial statement audit 
and the U.S. Marine Corps Statement of Budgetary Resources 
audit.
    On September 15, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony 
to offer more detail on the challenges faced by a select cross-
section of Department organizations that play a key role in the 
FIAR effort. These organizations represented military commands, 
the logistics community, and the Defense Finance and Accounting 
Service.
    On September 22, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony 
on the Department's efforts to improve payment and funds 
control. The hearing examined efforts to address improper 
payments, anti-deficiency act violations, and problematic 
disbursements.
    The Department's financial management workforce needs to be 
well-grounded in specific skills to perform duties that 
include: financial and budgetary accounting, information 
systems, internal control, audit readiness, and related 
functions. Ensuring that the financial management workforce is 
adequately staffed, proficiently skilled, and well-trained is 
instrumental to the Department's improvement efforts. On 
October 6, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on whether 
the Department's financial management workforce (including 
those individuals involved in the audit readiness effort) has 
the appropriate skills, performance incentives, and staffing 
levels for the successful accomplishment of financial 
management.
    The Department of Defense maintains that successful 
implementation of ERP systems is critical to transforming its 
business and logistical operations, and it is key to improving 
financial management and achieving audit readiness. On October 
27, 2011, the panel met to receive testimony on how the 
implementation of the ERPs is intended to improve the 
Department of Defense's financial management, the scope of the 
ERP efforts, the resources required for the ERP efforts, and 
the impact of ERP delays and cost overruns on financial 
management reform and audit readiness milestones.
    On November 3, 2011, the panel received a briefing from on 
the November 2011 FIAR Plan Status Report from Mr. Mark E. 
Easton, Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Department of Defense; 
and Mr. Joseph O. Quinn, Director, Financial Improvement and 
Audit Readiness, Department of Defense. On November 17, 2011, 
the panel convened a hearing to receive testimony from 
independent public accounting firm representatives to obtain 
their perspective on the impediments to the Department of 
Defense achieving audit readiness and the actions the 
Department needs to take to become audit ready.
    The panel is in process of drafting its report and plans to 
hold a final hearing in January 2012 to obtain the Department's 
views on the panel's findings and recommendations.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-59; H.A.S.C. 112-60; H.A.S.C. 112-64; 
H.A.S.C. 112-68; H.A.S.C. 112-73; H.A.S.C. 112-83; H.A.S.C. 
112-92)

        PANEL ON BUSINESS CHALLENGES WITHIN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY

    On September 20, 2011, the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the committee formally announced the Panel on Business 
Challenges within the Defense Industry. This seven-member panel 
was initiated to examine the challenges of the private sector 
in doing business with the Department of Defense. The panel is 
tasked to examine the current defense business environment and 
to seek to understand how the Department of Defense could 
better spur innovation, competition, and cost savings by 
encouraging new entrants into the industrial base and fostering 
the transition of technology. Although it does not have 
legislative jurisdiction, the panel will report its findings, 
including any recommendations for possible legislation, to the 
full committee. The panel was established for 6 months, 
pursuant to rule 5(a) of the Rules of the Committee on Armed 
Services.
    The panel looked at a variety of issues and topics covering 
the broad scope of contracting, industrial base security, small 
business programs, and efforts to increase innovation and 
transition technology for the warfighter. The panel held four 
hearings, several briefings and three industry roundtable 
sessions.
    The panel's first hearing was on September 20, 2011 on 
Challenges to Doing Business with the Department of Defense. 
The focus of the hearing was to gain a better understanding of 
the opportunities and challenges facing businesses looking to 
participate in the development and procurement of critical 
technologies or the provision of services for national 
security. The second hearing was held on October 24, 2011 and 
focused on The Defense Industrial Base: A National Security 
Imperative. This hearing concentrated on gaining a better 
understanding of the Defense Industrial Base [DIB] and the role 
of the DIB in the future of national defense.
    On November 1, 2011, the panel held a hearing addressing 
The Defense Industrial Base: The Role of the Department of 
Defense. This hearing was complementary to the panel's second 
hearing focusing on understanding DOD's conception of the DIB, 
the Department's role in shaping the industrial base's future 
and to receive testimony on how Congress might strengthen the 
DIB and improve the defense business environment, with 
particular attention paid to the Department's Small Business 
Office. The fourth hearing of the panel was held on November 
18th, 2011. This hearing took at a look at understanding how 
our current defense industrial base practices compare with the 
strategies of other nations, what characteristics a 21st 
century defense industrial base strategy should have, and 
changes that might be necessary to areas such as workforce and 
acquisition policies in order to transform to achieve that 21st 
century vision.
    In addition to the hearings, the panel conducted three 
industry roundtables at field sites. The purpose of these 
events is to visit various U.S. communities that have a strong 
defense industry presence. Events included roundtable 
discussions with 15 to 20 industry participants and offered an 
opportunity for panel members and industry to connect and 
discuss in an open dialogue about strengths and weaknesses of 
the defense acquisition system. In addition, the panel also 
used the events to meet with representatives from local 
colleges and universities who conduct research and provide 
analysis for the Department of Defense on a myriad of issues.
    The panel's first roundtable event was held at Blackhawk 
Community College in Moline, Illinois on October 7, 2011. 
Moline borders with Rock Island Arsenal in Illinois. At this 
field roundtable, there were several points of discussion. 
These included concerns about the backlogs at the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), concerns about the Department not 
meeting its small business goals and contracting officials not 
doing enough to hold prime contractors accountable for meeting 
the Small Business Contracting Plans. In addition, the 
roundtable discussed flexibility in contract cost and pricing. 
There was discussion about the Small Business Innovation 
Research (SBIR) Program and difficulties in utilizing the 
Program. There was general consensus from roundtable 
participants that partnering with defense organic industrial 
facilities, such as arsenals and depots, was complicated but 
good for small businesses.
    The panel's second roundtable event was held at the 
University of Akron in Akron, Ohio on October 28, 2011. The 
University is most widely known for its research programs in 
polymers and advanced materials, both of which have significant 
implications for the defense industry. The industry roundtable 
included 12 industry participants. Points of discussion 
included export controls delays, International Trafficking of 
Arms Regulations (ITAR) issues, dealing complacency on the part 
of those responsible for making decisions and lack of capital 
to sustain businesses' programs/technology to make it through 
the ITAR process. In addition, DCAA was again listed as an 
issue of concern regarding their processes and conduct of 
audits. Participants indicated the need for better direct 
access to the customers in order for industry to find out what 
the true requirements are for services/products. Department 
programs such as SBIR and the Mentor-Protege program were 
discussed with positive feedback.
    The panel's third roundtable event was held in Mt. Laurel, 
New Jersey at Burlington County College on December 9, 2011. In 
addition to the panel members, there were approximately 20 
roundtable participants from industry, trade associations and 
universities. Among the issues discussed were growing pains 
resulting from base realignment effecting Joint Base Maguire-
Dix-Lakehurst, as well as concerns about multiple award 
contracts being costly and ineffective. In addition, industry 
participants expressed frustration at a perceived bias against 
small business in the Department of Defense and in general, 
among contracting officers. The relationships with contracting 
officers were a point of concern for many participants in 
receiving information and competing for contracts.
    In addition to these industry roundtables, the panel had 
two briefings. The first briefing was with the Director, 
Counterintelligence Directorate of the Defense Security Service 
to discuss security threats to the industrial base.
    The second briefing was held with the Director of DCAA, Mr. 
Patrick Fitzgerald and the Director of the Defense Contract 
Management Agency, Mr. Charlie Williams, to discuss the 
functions of these government oversight agencies and the 
challenges they face in auditing and managing defense 
contracts.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-66; H.A.S.C. 112-79; H.A.S.C. 112-85; 
H.A.S.C. 112-93)

                              PUBLICATIONS

                            COMMITTEE PRINTS

    Committee Print No. 1--Committee Rules of the Committee on 
Armed Services, House of Representatives, adopted January 20, 
2011.
    Committee Print No. 2a--Title 10, United States Code Armed 
Forces, Volume I, amended December 31, 2010.
    Committee Print No. 2b--Title 10, United States Code Armed 
Forces, Volume II, amended December 31, 2010.
    Committee Print No. 2c--Title 10, United States Code Armed 
Forces, Volume III, amended December 31, 2010.
    Committee Print No. 3--The Future of the U.S. Military Ten 
Years after 9/11 and the Consequences of Defense Sequestration. 
November, 2011.

                         PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS

    H.A.S.C. 112-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee 
Organization. January 20, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-2--Full Committee hearing on Proposed 
Department of Defense Budget Reductions and Efficiencies 
Initiatives. January 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-3--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Morale, Welfare, 
and Recreation Programs Overview. February 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Resale 
Programs Overview. February 10, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-5--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on What Should the Department of Defense's 
Role in Cyber Be? February 11, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-6--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. February 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-7--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. February 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-8--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. March 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-9--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Budget Request for Department of Defense Science and 
Technology Programs. March 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-10--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Equipping the Warfighter in Afghanistan. 
March 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-11--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. March 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-12--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Status of United States Strategic Forces. March 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-13--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Are 
We Ready? An Independent Look at the Required Readiness Posture 
of U.S. Forces. March 3, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-14--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S. 
Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command. March 3, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-15--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Army Modernization. March 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-16--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs and 
Budget Requirements of the Navy's Shipbuilding and Construction 
Plan. March 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-17--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Global Challenges to Readiness and the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 
Request. March 10, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-18--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Counterproliferation Strategy and 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs for the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense 
Program. March 11, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-19--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Health 
System Overview and Defense Health Program Cost Efficiencies. 
March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-20--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Tactical 
Aviation Programs. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-21--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Long-
Term Readiness Challenges in the Pacific. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-22--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
National Security Space Activities. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-23--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Health 
System Overview and Defense Health Program Cost Efficiencies: A 
Beneficiary Perspective. March 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-24--Full Committee hearing on Developments in 
Afghanistan. March 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-25--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Amphibious Operations. March 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-26--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command. March 16, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-27--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Soldier and Marine Equipment for Dismounted 
Operations. March 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-28--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Military Personnel 
Overview. March 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-29--Full Committee hearing on Law of War 
Detention and the President's Executive Order Establishing 
Periodic Review Boards for Guantanamo Detainees. March 17, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-30--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for U.S. 
European Command, U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Northern Command, 
and U.S. March 30, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-31--Full Committee hearing on Operation 
Odyssey Dawn and U.S. Military Operations in Libya. March 31, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-32--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Missile Defense. March 31, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-33--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Improving the Readiness of U.S. Forces Through Military 
Jointness. March 31, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-34--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Review of the 
Implementation Plans for the Repeal of Law and Policies 
Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members. 
April 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-35--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve 
Component Equipment Posture. April 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-36--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities and 
Department of Defense Nuclear Forces Programs. April 5, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-37--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for the U.S. 
Transportation Command and U.S. Africa Command. April 5, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-38--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for the U.S. 
Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. April 6, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-39--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Improving Management and Acquisition of 
Information Technology Systems in the Department of Defense. 
April 6, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-40--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Sustaining the Force: Challenges to Readiness. April 7, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-41--Full Committee hearing on Repeal of Law 
and Policies Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian 
Service Members. April 7, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-42--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Guantanamo Detainee Transfer Policy 
and Recidivism. April 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-43--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Military Construction, Base Closure, Environment, Facilities 
Operation and Maintenance. April 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-44--Full Committee hearing on Testimony from 
Members on Their National Defense Priorities for the Fiscal 
Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Bill. April 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-45--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Accountability at Arlington National 
Cemetery. April 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-46--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Efficacy of the Department of 
Defense's Thirty Year Aviation and Shipbuilding Plans. June 1, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-47--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Ten Years On: Evolution of the 
Terrorist Threat. June 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-48--Full Committee hearing on Recent 
Developments in Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S. 
Forces. June 23, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-49--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Ten Years On: The Evolution of 
Strategic Communication and Information Operations Since 9/11. 
July 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-50--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on How 
Does the Navy Get Ready, and Where Are We Today? July 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-51--Full Committee hearing on Human Capital 
Management: A High Risk Area for the Department of Defense. 
July 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-52--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Voting. July 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-53--Full Committee hearing on Ten Years After 
the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Current 
Status of Legal Authorities, Detention, and Prosecution in the 
War on Terror. July 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-54--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Department of Defense Investment in 
Technology and Capability to Meet Emerging Security Threats. 
July 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-55--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Total 
Force Readiness. July 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-56--Full Committee hearing on The Way Forward 
in Afghanistan. July 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-57--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on the Reserve Components as an Operational Force: Potential 
Legislative and Policy Changes. July 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-58--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Sustaining Nuclear Deterrence After New START. July 27, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-59--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Plans for Financial 
Management Improvement and Achieving Audit Readiness. July 28, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-60--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on Department of Defense Component 
Audit Efforts. September 8, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-61--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives from Former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
September 8, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-62--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on The Current Status of Suicide Prevention Programs in the 
Military. September 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-63--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives from Outside Experts. September 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-64--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on Organizational Challenges in 
Achieving Sound Financial Management and Audit Readiness. 
September 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-65--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Sustaining GPS for National Security. September 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-66--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on Challenges to Doing Business with 
the Department of Defense. September 20, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-67--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Army 
Reserve, Army National Guard and Air National Guard Readiness, 
Training and Operations. September 21, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-68--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Efforts to Improve Payment 
and Funds Control. September 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-69--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on The Future of U.S. Special Operations 
Forces: Ten Years After 9/11 and Twenty-Five Years After 
Goldwater-Nichols. September 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-70--Full Committee hearing on Afghan National 
Security Forces. September 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-71--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on An Update on Arlington Cemetery Reforms (joint with the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations). September 23, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-72--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives from Former Service Chiefs and Vice Chiefs. 
October 4, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-73--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on Is the Financial Management 
Workforce Positioned to Achieve DOD's Financial Improvement 
Goals? October 6, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-74--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives of Former Chairmen of the Committee on Armed 
Services. October 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-75--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Guard and Reserve Component 
Acquisition and Modernization. October 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-76--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. October 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-77--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on An Update on KC-46A and Legacy Aerial 
Refueling Aircraft Programs. October 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-78--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Nuclear Weapons Modernization in Russia and China: 
Understanding Impacts to the United States. October 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-79--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on The Defense Industrial Base: A 
National Security Imperative. October 24, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-80--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Retirement Reform. October 25, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-81--Full Committee hearing on Economic 
Consequences of Defense Sequestration. October 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-82--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Army Acquisition and Modernization Programs. 
October 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-83--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Enterprise Resource 
Planning (ERP) System Implementation Efforts. October 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-84--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Readiness in the Age of Austerity. October 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-85--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on H.A.S.C. 112-79--Panel on Business 
Challenges within the Defense Industry. November 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-86--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
the Military Services and Consequences of Defense 
Sequestration. November 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-87--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs 
Update. November 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-88--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Current Status and Future Direction for U.S. Nuclear 
Weapons Policy and Posture. November 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-89--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Institutionalizing Irregular Warfare 
Capabilities. November 3, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-90--Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection 
Forces and Readiness hearing on A Day Without Seapower and 
Projection Forces. November 3, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-91--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on United States Marine Corps Acquisition and 
Modernization. November 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-92--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Audibility Reform hearing on Industry Perspectives on Achieving 
Audit Readiness. November 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-93--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on Creating a 21st Century Defense 
Industry. November 18, 2011.

                                                  HOUSE REPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Report number                   Date filed              Bill number                  Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112-77.............................  May 12, 2011..........  H. Res. 208...........  Resolution directing the
                                                                                      Secretary of Defense to
                                                                                      transmit to the House of
                                                                                      Representatives copies of
                                                                                      any official document,
                                                                                      record, memo,
                                                                                      correspondence, or other
                                                                                      communications of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense in
                                                                                      the possession of the
                                                                                      Secretary of Defense that
                                                                                      relates to any
                                                                                      consultation with Congress
                                                                                      regarding Operation
                                                                                      Odyssey Dawn or NATO
                                                                                      Operation Unified
                                                                                      Protector.
112-78 Part 1......................  May 17, 2011..........  H.R. 1540.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2012 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, for
                                                                                      military construction, and
                                                                                      for defense activities of
                                                                                      the Department of Energy,
                                                                                      to prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      such fiscal year, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
112-78 Part 2......................  May 23, 2011..........  H.R. 1540.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2012 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, for
                                                                                      military construction, and
                                                                                      for defense activities of
                                                                                      the Department of Energy,
                                                                                      to prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      such fiscal year, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
112-123............................  June 24, 2011.........  N/A...................  First Semiannual Report on
                                                                                      the Activities of the
                                                                                      Committee on Armed
                                                                                      Services for the 112th
                                                                                      Congress.
112-329............................  December 12, 2011.....  Conference Report to    To authorize appropriations
                                                              accompany H.R. 1540.    for fiscal year 2012 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, for
                                                                                      military construction, and
                                                                                      for defense activities of
                                                                                      the Department of Energy,
                                                                                      to prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      such fiscal year, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             PRESS RELEASES

                             FIRST SESSION

    January 6, 2011--McKeon: New $78 Billion in Defense Cuts Is 
a Dramatic Shift for a Nation at War
    January 6, 2011--McKeon Supportive of New Troop Deployment 
to Afghanistan
    January 7, 2011 --McKeon: Presidential Signing Statement 
Out of Touch with Public Will to Keep Terrorists off American 
Soil
    January 8, 2011--McKeon Statement on Rep. Gabrielle 
Giffords
    January 20, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leaders Announce 
Subcommittee Membership for the 112th Congress
    January 25, 2011--McKeon Statement on President's State of 
the Union Address
    February 18, 2011--New Report on Maintenance Depots Wins 
Bipartisan Praise
    February 24, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leaders Comment 
on Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Award
    March 1, 2011--McKeon Testifies before the Administration 
Committee on Armed Services Committee Budget for the 112th 
Congress
    March 7, 2011--McKeon Criticizes White House Executive Fiat 
on Detainees
    March 8, 2011--McKeon, Armed Services Members Introduce 
Legislation regarding America's Terrorist Prosecution and 
Detention Policies
    March 20, 2011--McKeon Statement on Operation Odyssey Dawn
    March 22, 2011--McKeon Welcomes John Noonan to the House 
Armed Services Committee Staff
    March 24, 2011--McKeon Criticizes Pentagon Decision to 
Issue Stop Work Order on Joint Strike Fighter Competitive 
Engine Program
    March 29, 2011--McKeon Statement on President's Speech on 
Libya Operations
    April 4, 2011--McKeon Statement on Administration Decision 
to Try 9/11 Co-Conspirators through Military Commissions 
Process
    April 4, 2011--McKeon Statement Applauds West YouCut 
Proposal
    April 5, 2011--McKeon Statement Applauds Ryan Budget
    April 13, 2011--McKeon Responds to White House Plan to Cut 
$400 Billion from National Security Spending
    April 15, 2011--McKeon Applauds Passage of Ryan Budget
    April 28, 2011--McKeon on National Security Leadership 
Changes within the Administration; Praises Gates for His 
Service
    May 2, 2011--McKeon Statement on Death of Osama bin Laden
    May 3, 2011--Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman 
Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 
Leadership Release Details of National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman 
Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Bartlett Releases Details of National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee 
Chairman Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Releases 
Details of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012
    May 5, 2011--McKeon Praises GE, Rolls Royce for Funding 
Joint Strike Fighter Engine Without Taxpayer Support
    May 9, 2011--McKeon Releases Details about National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Overwhelmingly 
Approves Defense Authorization Bill
    May 20, 2011--Former US Attorney General Lauds Affirmation 
of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force
    May 26, 2011--House Approves Defense Authorization Bill 
with Bipartisan Support
    May 30, 2011--McKeon Welcomes New Senior Military Leaders; 
Praises Admiral Mullen for His Service
    June 11, 2011--McKeon Presses Defense Department for 
Details on Libya Operations
    June 16, 2011--McKeon Statement on White House Libya Report
    June 21, 2011--McKeon: Don't Reverse Progress in 
Afghanistan
    June 21, 2011--McKeon Congratulates Director Panetta on 
Confirmation
    June 23, 2011--Armed Services Chairman Expresses Concern 
over Afghanistan Drawdown
    June 23, 2011--McKeon Statement on Recent Developments in 
Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S. Forces
    June 24, 2011--McKeon Releases Committee Activities Report 
and Highlights Transparency Efforts
    July 7, 2011--McKeon on 9th Circuit Don't Ask Don't Tell 
Ruling
    July 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leadership 
Announces Bipartisan Fiscal Management Panel
    July 19, 2011--Republican National Security Leadership 
Calls On Obama To Define Detainee Policy
    July 30, 2011--McKeon Statement on Reid Plan and Defense 
Cuts
    August 1, 2011--McKeon Statement on the Debt Ceiling 
Compromise
    August 24, 2011--China's Increasing Assertiveness and 
Military Capabilities a Growing Concern
    September 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leadership 
Announces Bipartisan Defense Business Panel
    September 13, 2011--McKeon Statement for hearing on ``The 
Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years 
After 
9/11: Perspectives from Outside Experts''
    September 30, 2011--McKeon Statement on Death of Anwar al-
Awlaki Death
    October 21, 2011--McKeon Statement on Withdrawal of U.S. 
Combat Forces from Iraq
    October 19, 2011--McKeon Hails Reid Pledge To Pass Defense 
Bill
    October 21, 2011--McKeon Statement on Withdrawal of U.S. 
Combat Forces from Iraq
    November 10, 2011--McKeon Thanks America's Veterans
    November 21, 2011--Chairman McKeon on the Joint Select 
Committee and Sequestration
    December 2, 2011--McKeon Statement on the Discontinuation 
of Self-funded Development of F-35 Engine
    December 12, 2011--Chairman McKeon Files NDAA's Conference 
Report
    December 14, 2011--McKeon hails passage of 50th National 
Defense Authorization Act
    December 15, 2011--McKeon Statement on the End of American 
Military Presence in Iraq

                                  
