U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

79–006 2009

Union Calendar No. 615 

110th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 110–942 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 5

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

MARK E. UDALL, Colorado 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 9

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 1

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 2

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 6

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Ranking 

Member 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

KEN CALVERT, California 4

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 7

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 10

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 3

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 8

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 11

ERIN C. CONATON, Staff Director 

JOSEPH HICKEN, Director of Legislative Operations 

1Mr. Cummings was appointed to the Committee on Jan. 12, 2007. 

2Mr. Meek was appointed to the Committee on Jan. 18, 2007. 

3Mr. Shuster was appointed to the Committee on May 10, 2007. 

4Mr. Calvert resigned from the Committee on May 16, 2007. 

5Mr. Meehan resigned from Congress on July 1, 2007. 

6Mr. Langevin was appointed to the Committee on Sept. 20, 2007. He took a leave of 

absence from the Committee on Oct. 31, 2007. 

7Mrs. Davis (VA) died on Oct. 6, 2007. 

8Mr. Lamborn was appointed to the Committee on Oct. 10, 2007. 

9Ms. Tsongas was appointed to the Committee on Nov. 1, 2007. 

10Mrs. Miller (MI) resigned from the Committee on Mar. 11, 2008. 11Mr. Wittman was appointed to the Committee on Mar 11, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, January 3, 2009. 

Hon. LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. MILLER: Pursuant to House Rule XI 1(d), there is 

transmitted herewith the report of activities of the Committee on 

Armed Services for the 110th Congress. 

Sincerely, 

IKE SKELTON, Chairman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Powers and Duties, Committee on Armed Services—110th Congress ................ 1 

Background ....................................................................................................... 1 

Constitutional Powers and Duties .................................................................. 2 

House Rules on Jurisdiction ............................................................................ 3 

Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight ........................................ 4 

Committee Rules ...................................................................................................... 4 

Rules Governing Procedure ............................................................................. 4 

Composition of the Committee on Armed Services—110th Congress ................. 15 

Subcommittees and Panel of the Committee on Armed Services—110th Congress ...................................................................................................................... 17 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces ........................................................... 17 

Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................ 18 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ..... 18 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel .............................................................. 18 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces .................................................................. 19 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces ................................. 19 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................................ 21 

Special Panel on Roles & Missions ................................................................. 21 

Committee Staff ....................................................................................................... 23 

Committee Meetings ................................................................................................ 25 

Legislative Actions ................................................................................................... 25 

Legislation Enacted Into Law ......................................................................... 25 

Public Law 110–115 (H.R. 2779) .............................................................. 25 

Public Law 110–181 (H.R. 4986) .............................................................. 25 

Public Law 110–203 (H.J. Res. 70) .......................................................... 29 

Public Law 110–417 (S. 3001) .................................................................. 29 

Legislation Vetoed by the President ............................................................... 32 

H.R. 1585 ................................................................................................... 32 

Legislation Reported but Not Enacted ........................................................... 33 

H.R. 1362 ................................................................................................... 33 

H.R. 1538 ................................................................................................... 34 

H.R. 3087 ................................................................................................... 34 

H.R. 3159 ................................................................................................... 35 

Legislation Not Reported but Managed by the House Committee on 

Armed Services on the Floor of the House of Representatives ................. 36 

H. Con. Res. 63 .......................................................................................... 36 

H. Con. Res. 47 .......................................................................................... 36 

H. Con. Res. 42 .......................................................................................... 36 

H. Res. 305 ................................................................................................. 37 

H. Res. 171 ................................................................................................. 37 

H.R. 2956 ................................................................................................... 37 

H. Res. 541 ................................................................................................. 38 

H. Con. Res. 49 .......................................................................................... 38 

H. Res. 568 ................................................................................................. 38 

S. Con. Res. 27 ........................................................................................... 39 

H. Con. Res. 181 ........................................................................................ 39 

H. Con. Res. 207 ........................................................................................ 39 

H. Res. 326 ................................................................................................. 40 

H. Res. 443 ................................................................................................. 40 

H. Res. 604 ................................................................................................. 40 

H. Con. Res. 185 ........................................................................................ 41 

H. Res. 640 ................................................................................................. 41 

H. Res. 691 ................................................................................................. 41 

H. Con. Res. 162 ........................................................................................ 42 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
Page

VI 

Legislative Actions —Continued 

Legislation Not Reported but Managed by the House Committee on 

Armed Services on the Floor of the House of Representatives—Continued 

H. Con. Res. 261 ........................................................................................ 42 

H. Con. Res. 246 ........................................................................................ 42 

H. Res. 542 ................................................................................................. 43 

H.R. 3793 ................................................................................................... 43 

H. Res. 944 ................................................................................................. 43 

H. Res. 953 ................................................................................................. 44 

H. Res. 991 ................................................................................................. 44 

H. Res. 265 ................................................................................................. 44 

H. Res. 1020 ............................................................................................... 44 

H. Con. Res. 32 .......................................................................................... 45 

H. Res. 961 ................................................................................................. 45 

H. Res. 1054 ............................................................................................... 45 

H. Res. 986 ................................................................................................. 46 

H. Con. Res. 297 ........................................................................................ 46 

H. Res. 1067 ............................................................................................... 46 

H. Res. 1080 ............................................................................................... 47 

H. Con. Res. 295 ........................................................................................ 47 

H. Res. 1139 ............................................................................................... 47 

H. Res. 415 ................................................................................................. 47 

H. Con. Res. 358 ........................................................................................ 48 

H. Res. 1248 ............................................................................................... 48 

H. Res. 1316 ............................................................................................... 49 

H. Con. Res. 390 ........................................................................................ 49 

H. Res. 1200 ............................................................................................... 49 

H. Res. 1255 ............................................................................................... 50 

H. Res. 1421 ............................................................................................... 50 

Legislation Considered but Not Reported .............................................................. 50 

H. Res. 834 ................................................................................................. 50 

Oversight Activities ................................................................................................. 51 

Summary of Oversight Plan ............................................................................ 51 

Actions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 52 

Additional Oversight Activities ....................................................................... 53 

Other Activities of the Full Committee ................................................................. 109 

Budget Activity ................................................................................................. 109 

Full Committee Hearings ................................................................................ 111 

Other Activities of the Subcommittees and Panel ................................................ 123 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces ........................................................... 123 

Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................ 124 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ..... 126 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel .............................................................. 128 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces .................................................................. 129 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces ................................. 130 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................................ 131 

Special Panel on Roles and Missions .............................................................. 134 

Publications .............................................................................................................. 137 

Published Proceedings ...................................................................................... 137 

House Reports ................................................................................................... 149 

Public Laws ....................................................................................................... 150 

Press Releases .......................................................................................................... 151 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
Union Calendar No. 615 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–942 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

ARMED SERVICES FOR THE 110TH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2009.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SKELTON, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

ON

POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES—110TH CONGRESS 

BACKGROUND

The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee 

of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of the 

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by merging 

the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs. The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were established in 

1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and naval appropriations 

was taken from the Committee on Appropriations and given to the 

Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs, respectively. 

This practice continued until July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over 

all appropriations was again placed in the Committee on Appropriations. 

In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select 

Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the 

Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3, 

1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas of 

the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially unchanged. 

However, oversight functions were amended to require each standing committee to review and study on a continuing basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the Committee on 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
2 

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 diminished. 

That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and intelligencerelated activities and programs of the U.S. Government. Specifically, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has exclusive legislative jurisdiction regarding the Central Intelligence 

Agency and the director of Central Intelligence, including authorizations. Also, legislative jurisdiction over all intelligence and intelligence-related activities and programs was vested in the permanent select committee except that other committees with a jurisdictional interest may request consideration of any such matters. Accordingly, as a matter of practice, the Committee on Armed Services shared jurisdiction over the authorization process involving intelligence-related activities. 

The committee continues to have shared jurisdiction over military intelligence activities as set forth in Rule X of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives. 

With the adoption of House rules (H. Res. 5) on January 4, 1995, 

the Committee on National Security was established as the successor committee to the Committee on Armed Services, and was 

granted additional legislative and oversight authority over merchant marine academies, national security aspects of merchant marine policy and programs, and interoceanic canals. Rules for the 

104th Congress also codified the existing jurisdiction of the committee over tactical intelligence matters and the intelligence related activities of the Department of Defense. 

On January 6, 1999, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for the 

106th Congress, in which the Committee on National Security was 

redesignated as the Committee on Armed Services. 

CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS AND DUTIES

The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national defense 

matters stem from Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, which 

provides, among other things, that the Congress shall have power 

to: 

Raise and support armies; 

Provide and maintain a navy; 

Make rules for the government and regulation of the land 

and naval forces; 

Provide for calling forth the militia; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, 

and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the 

service of the United States; 

Exercise exclusive legislation . . . over all places purchased 

. . . for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, 

and other needful buildings; and 

Make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. 

HOUSE RULES ON JURISDICTION

Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives established 

the jurisdiction and related functions for each standing committee. 

Under that rule, all bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to 

subjects within the jurisdiction of any standing 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; Army, Navy, and Air 

Force reservations and establishments. 

(2) Common defense generally. 

(3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum 

and oil shale reserves. 

(4) The Department of Defense generally, including the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force generally. 

(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of interoceanic canals. 

(6) Merchant Marine Academy, and State Maritime Academies. 

(7) Military applications of nuclear energy. 

(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 

the Department of the Defense. 

(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including 

financial assistance for the construction and operation of vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference and merchant marine 

officers and seamen as these matters relate to the national security. 

(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and 

privileges of members of the armed forces. 

(11) Scientific research and development in support of the 

armed services. 

(12) Selective service. 

(13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 

and Air Force. 

(14) Soldiers’ and sailors’ homes. 

(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common defense. 

In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general oversight 

function, the Committee on Armed Services has special oversight 

functions with respect to international arms control and disarmament and military dependents’ education. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

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. 202, approved by the House on March 8, 2007, provided 

funds for, among other things, committee oversight responsibilities 

to be conducted in the 110th 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 10, 

2007, and adopted the following rules governing procedure and 

rules for oversight hearings conducted by the full committee and its 

subcommittees. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–1; Committee Print 1) 

RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE

RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES

The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of the 

Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in these 

rules as the ‘‘Committee’’) and its subcommittees so far as applicable. 

RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

(a) The Committee shall meet every Wednesday at 10:00 a.m., 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

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) 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, acquisition and industrial base policy, technology transfer 

and export controls, joint interoperability, the Cooperative Threat 

Reduction program, Department of Energy nonproliferation programs, and detainee affairs and policy. 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 Air and Land Forces: All Army and Air Force 

acquisition programs (except strategic missiles, special operations 

and information technology programs). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for deep strike bombers and related 

systems, National Guard and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs. 

Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all military construction, installations and family housing issues, including the base closure process. 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities: Department of Defense counter-proliferation and counterterrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee 

will be responsible for Special Operations Forces; science and technology policy, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency and information technology programs; force protection policy and oversight; homeland defense and consequence management 

programs within the committee’s jurisdiction; and related intelligence support. 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel policy, 

Reserve Component integration and employment issues, military 

health care, military education and POW/MIA issues. In addition, 

the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and 

Recreation issues and programs. 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except deep 

strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense, intelligence policy and national programs and Department of Energy 

national security programs (except non-proliferation programs). 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces: Navy and 

Marine Corps programs (except strategic weapons, space, special 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

operations and information technology programs) and Naval Reserve equipment. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible 

for Maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee as 

delineated in rule X, clauses 5, 6, and 9 of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives. 

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 caucus 

and the Minority party’s conference, 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 caucus and the Minority 

party’s conference, 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. 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
7 

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 those present and voting. 

(c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a quorum 

of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter referred 

thereto and have such measure or matter considered by the Committee. 

(d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not be 

considered by the Committee until after the intervention of three 

calendar days from the time the report is approved by the subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee, except 

that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a quorum of the 

Committee. 

RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee, or of any subcommittee, panel, or task force shall make public announcement of 

the date, place, and subject matter of any hearing before that body 

at least one week before the commencement of the hearing. 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 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 posted to the internet 

web page maintained by the Committee. 

RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

shall apply to the Committee. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
8 

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, only one member of that member’s personal staff, 

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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
9 

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) 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

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) 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 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 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
11 

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. 

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 and mark-ups conducted by the 

Committee, subcommittee, or panel will be published officially in 

verbatim form, with the material requested for the record inserted 

at that place requested, or at the end of the record, as appropriate. 

Any requests to correct any errors, other than those in transcription, or disputed errors in transcription, will be appended to 

the record, and the appropriate place where the change is requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published under this rule 

shall include the results of record votes conducted in the session 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
12 

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 mark-up 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. All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part 

of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure 

or matter. 

(b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report any 

measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the measure 

or matter, the total number of votes cast for and against, the 

names of those voting for and against, and a brief description of the 

question, shall be included in the committee report on the measure 

or matter. 

RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

The result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee 

shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by the 

public at reasonable times in the offices of the Committee. Information so available for public inspection shall include a description of 

the amendment, motion, order, or other proposition and the name 

of each member voting for and each member voting against such 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
13 

amendment, motion, order, or proposition and the names of those 

members present but not voting. 

RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

(a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives, all national security information 

bearing a classification of secret or higher which has been received 

by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be deemed to have been 

received in executive session and shall be given appropriate safekeeping. 

(b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval of 

a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in his 

judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure 

of any national security information received classified as secret or 

higher. Such procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by any member of the Committee or any other Member, 

Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives, 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. 

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 24. HEARING PROCEDURES

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(15) 

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES— 

110th CONGRESS 

Pursuant to H. Res. 7, election of the Chairman (adopted January 4, 2007), H. Res. 8, election of the ranking member, (adopted 

January 4, 2007), H. Res. 45, election of minority members, (adopted January 10, 2007), H. Res. 46, election of majority members 

(adopted January 10, 2007), H. Res. 60, election of a minority member (adopted January 12, 2007), H. Res. 75, election of a minority 

member (adopted January 18, 2007), H. Res. 393, election of a minority member (adopted May 10, 2007), H. Res. 722, election of a 

minority member (adopted October 10, 2007), H. Res. 788, election 

of a majority member (adopted November 1, 2007), and H. Res. 

1034, election of a minority member (adopted March 11, 2008), the 

following members served on the Committee on Armed Services in 

the 110th Congress: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
16 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 5

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

MARK E. UDALL, Colorado 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

NANCY BOYDA, Kansas 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 9

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 1

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 2

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 6

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Ranking 

Member 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

KEN CALVERT, California 4

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 7

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 10

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 3

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 8

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 11

1Mr. Cummings was appointed to the Committee on January 12, 2007. 

2Mr. Meek was appointed to the Committee on January 18, 2007. 

3Mr. Shuster was appointed to the Committee on May 10, 2007. 

4Mr. Calvert resigned from the Committee on May 16, 2007. 

5Mr. Meehan resigned from Congress on July 1, 2007. 

6Mr. Langevin was appointed to the Committee on September 20, 2007. He took a leave 

of absence from the Committee on October 31, 2007. 7Mrs. Davis (VA) died on October 6, 2007. 

8Mr. Lamborn was appointed to the Committee on October 10, 2007. 

9Ms. Tsongas was appointed to the Committee on November 1, 2007. 

10Mrs. Miller (MI) resigned from the Committee on March 11, 2008 11Mr. Wittman was appointed to the Committee on March 11, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
17 

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 110TH CONGRESS 

The following subcommittees were established at the committee’s 

organizational meeting on January 10, 2007. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND LAND FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over all Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic missiles, special operations and information technology programs). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for deep 

strike bombers and related systems, National Guard and Army and 

Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Chairman 

Mr. SPRATT 

Mr. ORTIZ 

Mr. REYES 

Mr. SMITH 

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. BRADY 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Mr. BOREN 

Mr. JOHNSON 

Mr. SESTAK 

Ms. GIFFORDS 

Mr. MEEK 

Ms. CASTOR 

Mr. SAXTON, Ranking Member 

Mr. MCKEON 

Mr. MILLER (FL) 

Mr. WILSON 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. COLE 

Mr. BISHOP 

Mr. TURNER 

Mrs. MILLER (MI) 1

Dr. GINGREY 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS 

Mr. DAVIS (KY) 

Mr. AKIN 

Mr. LAMBORN 2

1Mrs. Miller (MI) resigned from the Committee on March 11, 2008. 

2Mr. Lamborn was assigned to the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces on March 11, 

2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
18 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over military readiness, training, logistics and maintenance 

issues and programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all military construction, installations and family housing 

issues, including the base closure process. 

Mr. ORTIZ, Chairman 

Mr. TAYLOR 

Mr. REYES 

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Mr. BRADY 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Ms. BORDALLO 

Mr. UDALL 

Mr. BOREN 

Mrs. BOYDA 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER 

Mr. COURTNEY 

Mr. LOEBSACK 

Ms. GIFFORDS 

Mr. CUMMINGS 

Mrs. DAVIS (VA), Ranking Member 1

Mr. JONES 

Mr. FORBES 2

Mr. ROGERS 

Mr. MCHUGH 

Mr. MCKEON 

Mr. HAYES 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. COLE 

Mr. BISHOP 

Mrs. MILLER (MI) 3

Mr. FRANKS 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS 

Mr. LAMBORN 4

Mr. WITTMAN 5

1Mrs. Davis (VA) died on October 6, 2007. 

2Mr. Forbes became Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Readiness on December 

5, 2007. 3Mrs. Miller (MI) resigned from the Committee on March 11, 2008. 

4Mr. Wittman was appointed to the Subcommittee on Readiness on March 11, 2008. 

5Mr. Lamborn was appointed to the Subcommittee on Readiness on November 1, 2007. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND

CAPABILITIES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over Department of Defense counter-proliferation and counterterrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee 

will be responsible for Special Operations Forces; science and technology policy, including the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency and information technology programs; force protection policy and oversight; homeland defense and consequence management 

programs within the committee’s jurisdiction; and related intelligence support. 

Mr. SMITH, Chairman 

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Mr. ANDREWS 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Mr. UDALL 

Mr. ELLSWORTH 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND 

Ms. CASTOR 

Mr. THORNBERRY, Ranking Member 

Mr. HAYES 

Mr. CALVERT1

Mr. KLINE 

Mrs. DRAKE 

Mr. CONAWAY 

Mr. SAXTON 

Mr. SHUSTER 2

1Mr. Calvert resigned from the Committee on May 16, 2007. 

2Mr. Shuster was assigned to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats 

and Capabilities on June 13, 2007. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over military personnel policy, Reserve Component integration 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
19 

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. 

Dr. SNYDER, Chairman 2

Mr. MEEHAN 1

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Mrs. DAVIS (CA) 3

Mrs. BOYDA 

Mr. MURPHY 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER 

Mr. LANGEVIN 4

Ms. TSONGAS 5

Mr. MCHUGH, Ranking Member 

Mr. KLINE 

Mrs. DRAKE 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. WILSON 

1Mr. Meehan resigned from the Committee on July 1, 2007. 

2Dr. Snyder became Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on 

July 2, 2007. 3Mrs. Davis (CA) became Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on July 

2, 2007. 4Mr. Langevin was appointed to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on September 

20, 2007. He took a leave of absence from the Committee on October 31, 2007. 5Ms. Tsongas was appointed to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on November 1, 

2007. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over Strategic Forces (except deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense, intelligence policy and national 

programs and Department of Energy national security programs 

(except non-proliferation programs). 

Ms. TAUSCHER, Chairman 

Mr. SPRATT 

Mr. REYES 

Mr. LARSEN 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. JOHNSON 1

Mr. LOEBSACK 

Mr. LANGEVIN 2

Ms. TSONGAS 3

Mr. EVERETT, Ranking Member 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mr. THORNBERRY 

Mr. TURNER 

Mr. ROGERS 

1Mr. Johnson resigned from the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on July 2, 2007. 

2Mr. Langevin was assigned to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on September 20, 

2007. He took a leave of absence from the Committee on October 31, 2007. 3Ms. Tsongas was appointed to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on November 1, 

2007. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Navy and Marine 

Corps programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations and information technology programs) and Naval Reserve 

equipment. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 

Maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee as delineated in rule X, clauses 5, 6, and 9 of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
20 

Mr. TAYLOR, Chairman 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE 

Mr. LARSEN 

Ms. BORDALLO 

Mr. ELLSWORTH 

Mr. COURTNEY 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND 

Mr. SESTAK 

Mr. BARTLETT, Ranking Member 

Mr. CALVERT1

Mr. EVERETT 

Mrs. DAVIS (VA) 3

Mr. FORBES 

Mr. WILSON 

Mr. SHUSTER 2

Mr. LAMBORN 4

Mr. WITTMAN 5

1Mr. Calvert resigned from the Committee on May 16, 2007. 

2Mr. Shuster was appointed to the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces 

on June 13, 2007. 3Mrs. Davis (VA) died on October 6, 2007. 

4Mr. Lamborn was appointed to the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces 

on November 1, 2007. 5Mr. Wittman was appointed to the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces 

on March 11, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
21 

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. MEEHAN,1 Chairman 

Mr. SPRATT 

Dr. SNYDER 2

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. ANDREWS 

Mrs. DAVIS (CA) 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. JOHNSON 3

Mr. SESTAK 

Mr. AKIN, Ranking Member 

Mr. BARTLETT 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. MILLER (FL) 

Dr. GINGREY 

Mr. CONAWAY 

Mr. DAVIS (KY) 

1Mr. Meehan resigned from the Committee on July 1, 2007. 

2Dr. Snyder became Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on 

July 2, 2007. 3Mr. Johnson was assigned to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on July 

2, 2007. 

SPECIAL OVERSIGHT PANEL ON ROLES AND MISSIONS

Purpose—To examine the Roles and Missions of the Military 

Service, appointed for six months on July 25, 2007. 

Mr. COOPER, Chairman 

Mr. LARSEN 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND 

Mr. SESTAK 

Dr. GINGREY, Ranking Member 

Mr. DAVIS 

Mr. CONAWAY 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(23) 

COMMITTEE STAFF 

By committee resolution adopted at the organizational meeting 

on January 10, 2007, or by authority of the Chairman, the following persons were appointed to the staff of the committee during 

the 110th Congress: 

Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director 

Bob DeGrasse, Deputy Staff Director 

Paul Oostburg Sanz, General Counsel (appointed Jan. 3, 2007) 

Hugh N. Johnston, Jr., Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel (resigned Feb. 4, 2007) 

Brenda J. Wright, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 31, 2007) 

Frank A. Barnes, Staff Assistant (resigned Jan. 2, 2007) 

Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant 

Michael R. Higgins, Professional Staff Member 

John D. Chapla, Professional Staff Member 

B. Ryan Vaart, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 1, 2007) 

John F. Sullivan, Professional Staff Member 

Nancy M. Warner, Professional Staff Member 

Thomas E. Hawley, Professional Staff Member 

William H. Natter, III, Professional Staff Member 

Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr., Professional Staff Member 

Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff Member 

Douglas C. Roach, Professional Staff Member 

Alexis R. Lasselle, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2007) 

Linda Burnette, Printing Clerk 

Robert L. Simmons, II, Professional Staff Member 

W. Holly Graning, Director, Legislative Operations (resigned April 17, 2007) 

William C. Ostendorff, Counsel (resigned Apr. 9, 2007) 

James William Godwin, Jr., Professional Staff Member (resigned Mar. 4, 2007) 

Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff Member and Senior Policy Advisor to the Chairman 

Loren Dealy, Press Secretary 

Heather L. Messera, Staff Assistant (resigned Feb. 23, 2007) 

Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff Member 

Jeffrey A. Green, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2007) 

Jeanette James, Professional Staff Member 

Miriam E. Wolff, Communications Advisor (resigned Apr. 5, 2007) 

Richard A. Pawloski, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2007) 

Rebecca A. Ross, Professional Staff Member 

Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff Member 

Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff Member 

Lynn M. Williams, Professional Staff Member 

Paul Lewis, Counsel (resigned Jan. 1, 2007) 

Stephanie Sanok, Professional Staff Member (resigned Nov. 27, 2008) 

Joshua C. Holly, Professional Staff Member 

John Wason, Professional Staff Member 

Harry Cartland, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 31, 2007) 

Regina Burgess, Research Assistant (resigned Feb. 2, 2007) 

Ben Kohr, Staff Assistant (resigned May 25, 2007) 

Catherine K. Steadman, Director, Legislative Operations (resigned Dec. 31, 2007) 

Roger Zakheim, Counsel (resigned Aug. 31, 2008) 

Kristine Ellison, Executive Assistant (resigned July 31, 2007) 

Jenness Simler, Professional Staff Member 

Julie Unmacht, Counsel 

Kevin P. Coughlin, Counsel (resigned Mar. 29, 2008) 

Lorry M. Fenner, Professional Staff Member 

Christine Roushdy, Staff Assistant (resigned July 3, 2007) 

Derek Scott, Staff Assistant 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
24 

Eryn Robinson, Professional Staff Member 

Alexander Kugajevsky, Professional Staff Member 

Kari Bingen, Professional Staff Member 

Margee Meckstroth, Staff Assistant (resigned Dec. 4, 2007) 

John Kruse, Professional Staff Member 

Henry Nuzum, National Security Analyst (resigned Jan. 2, 2007) 

Andrew H. Tabler, Staff Assistant 

Aileen Alexander, Professional Staff Member 

Jason Hagadorn, Staff Assistant (resigned Dec. 21, 2007) 

Cyndi Howard, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 3, 2007) 

Douglas Bush, Professional Staff Member (appointed Jan. 4, 2007) 

Rudy Barnes, Professional Staff Member (appointed Jan. 8, 2007) 

Lara Battles, Press Secretary (appointed Jan. 4, 2007) 

Frank Rose, Professional Staff Member (appointed Jan. 15, 2007) 

Christine Lamb, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 25, 2007) 

William Ebbs, Professional Staff Member (appointed Feb. 1, 2007) 

Cathy Garman, Professional Staff Member (appointed Feb. 1, 2007) 

Vickie Plunkett, Professional Staff Member (appointed Feb. 1, 2007) 

Roy Phillips, Professional Staff Member (appointed Feb. 5, 2007) 

Adrienne Ramsay, Professional Staff Member (appointed Feb. 5, 2007, resigned Feb. 29, 2008) 

Suzanne McKenna, Counsel (appointed Feb.12, 2007) 

Sasha Rogers, Research Assistant (appointed Feb. 12, 2007) 

Timothy McClees, Professional Staff Member (appointed Feb. 20, 2007) 

Joe Hicken, Director, Legislative Operations (appointed Mar. 1, 2007) 

Kevin Gates, Professional Staff Member (appointed Mar. 12, 2007) 

Dave Kildee, Professional Staff Member (appointed Mar. 19, 2007) 

Mike Casey, Professional Staff Member (appointed Mar. 26, 2007) 

Sarah Schaffer, Staff Assistant (appointed Apr. 2, 2007, resigned Mar. 11, 2008) 

Patrick Wicklund, Staff Assistant (appointed Apr. 16, 2007, resigned Nov. 30, 2007) 

Alicia Haley, Staff Assistant (appointed Apr. 25, 2007) 

Anand Dalta, Professional Staff Member (appointed May 1, 2007, resigned July 31, 2007) 

Benjamin Glerum, Staff Assistant (appointed May 7, 2007) 

David Sienicki, Professional Staff Member (appointed July 9, 2007) 

Adam Greenspan, Intern (appointed June 4, 2007, resigned Aug. 3, 2007) 

Trey Howard, Intern (appointed June 4, 2007, resigned Aug. 3, 2007) 

Dan Tavana, Intern (appointed June 4, 2007, resigned Aug. 3, 2007) 

Caterina Dutto, Staff Assistant (appointed July 11, 2007) 

Kathleen Kelly, Executive Assistant (appointed July 23, 2007) 

Kyle Wilkens, Special Assistant to the Chairman (appointed Oct. 1, 2007) 

Michael McErlean, Professional Staff Member (appointed Oct. 3, 2007) 

Trey Howard, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 2, 2008) 

Rosellen C. Kim, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 2, 2008) 

Megan Putman, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 2, 2008) 

Karna L. Sandler, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 2, 2008, resigned Mar. 14, 2008) 

Mark Parker, Intern (appointed Jan. 3, 2008, resigned May 2, 2008) 

Zach Steacy, Staff Assistant (appointed Feb. 25, 2008) 

Liz Drummond, Staff Assistant (appointed Mar. 17, 2008) 

Caren Howard, Intern (appointed Mar. 24, 2008, resigned May 15, 2008) 

Everett Coleman, Professional Staff Member (appointed May 1, 2008) 

Kristine Ellison, Intern (appointed May 23, 2008, resigned Aug. 1, 2008) 

David Parker, Intern (appointed June 9, 2008, resigned July 31, 2008) 

Elizabeth Kurtz, Intern (appointed June 11, 2008, resigned Oct. 10, 2008) 

Maxwell Hoffman, Intern (appointed July 10, 2008, resigned Aug. 29, 2008) 

Neal Kumar, Intern (appointed Sept. 2, 2008, resigned Dec. 12, 2008) 

Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member (appointed Dec. 1, 2008) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(25) 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS 

A total of 345 meetings and mark-ups were held by the Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the 110th 

Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows: 

Full Committee ...................................................................................................... 120 

Subcommittees: 

Air and Land Forces Subcommittee .............................................................. 28 

Readiness Subcommittee ................................................................................ 27 

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee ........ 39 

Military Personnel Subcommittee ................................................................. 25 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee ..................................................................... 26 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee .................................... 23 

Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ................................................ 49 

Special Oversight Panel on Roles and Missions .......................................... 8 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS 

LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW

PUBLIC LAW 110–115 (H.R. 2779)

To recognize the Navy UDT–SEAL Museum in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the official 

national museum of Navy SEALs and their predecessors. 

Public Law 110–115 recognizes, as the official national museum 

of Navy SEALs and their predecessors, the Navy UDT–SEAL Museum located at 3300 North A1A, North Hutchinson Island, in Fort 

Pierce, Florida. On June 19, 2007, H.R. 2779 was introduced and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The measure was 

considered under suspension of the Rules and passed the House on 

October 1, 2007 by voice vote. The Senate passed the measure 

without amendment by unanimous consent on October 31, 2007. 

On November 13, 2007, H.R. 2779 was signed by the President and 

became law. 

PUBLIC LAW 110–181 (H.R. 4986)

To provide for the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008, as previously enrolled, with certain modifications to address the foreign sovereign immunities provisions of title 28, United States Code, with respect 

to the attachment of property in certain judgments against Iraq, the lapse of statutory authorities for the payment of bonuses, special pays, and similar benefits 

for members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes. 

Public Law 110–181, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008, authorizes funds totaling $688.2 billion for national defense functions for fiscal year 2008, which implies a budget authority level of $696.4 billion. Of those amounts, $189.4 billion 

is for costs associated with Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
26 

Division A 

Division A of Public Law 110–181 authorizes funds for fiscal year 

2008 for the Department of Defense. Subtitle A of title I authorizes $99,269,022,000 for procurement 

of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed forces, defense agencies, and Reserve Components of the armed forces. 

Subtitles B through D of title I establish additional program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of, or funds for specified programs for the armed forces, including: multi-year procurement authorities for various Army programs and the Virginia-class 

submarine program, limitation on amounts obligated for the fifth 

and sixth Littoral Combat Ships; and limitations or modification of 

limitations on retirement of C–130E/H, KC–135E, and B–52 aircraft. 

Subtitle A of title II authorizes $73,727,545,000 for research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research and development-related matters. 

Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program requirements, 

restrictions, and limitations on six separate research and development-related matters, including: Future Combat Systems, limitations on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle program, requirements for 

a competitive propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter, limitation on the manufacturing science and technology program, funding for the Advanced Sensor Applications Program, and comparative live-fire testing of active protection systems. 

Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile defense programs and miscellaneous matters, including a limitation on availability of funds for procurement, construction, and deployment of 

missile defense in Europe until certain conditions have been met. Subtitle A of title III authorizes $142,795,303,000 for operation 

and maintenance. 

Subtitles B through F of title III address environmental provisions, workplace and depot issues, extensions of program authorities, outsourcing, studies and reports relating to military readiness, 

and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2008 and authorizes appropriations of $117,091,420,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 

2008. The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 

2008 are as follows: 

Army, 525,400 

Navy, 329,098 

Marine Corps, 189,000 

Air Force, 329,563 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2008 are as 

follows: 

Army National Guard, 351,300 

Army Reserve, 205,000 

Naval Reserve, 67,800 

Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600 

Air National Guard, 106,700 

Air Force Reserve, 67,500 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
27 

Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000 

The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the 

Reserve Components for fiscal year 2008 are as follows: 

Army National Guard, 29,204 

Army Reserve, 15,870 

Naval Reserve, 11,579 

Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261 

Air National Guard, 13,936 

Air Force Reserve, 2,721 

Title V sets military personnel policy, including provisions that 

address officer personnel policy; Reserve Component management; 

education and training; military justice and legal assistance matters; issues related to military leave; decorations and awards; Impact Aid and Defense Dependents Education system; military families; and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and incentive 

pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired pay and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund instrumentality benefits; and other matters. 

Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as improvements to military health benefits including a prohibition on 

increases in certain health care costs; required reports; and other 

matters, including the prohibition on conversion of military medical 

and dental positions to civilian positions. 

Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including provisions relating to major defense 

acquisition programs; amendments to general contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations; accountability matters; acquisition workforce provisions; contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan; the 

Defense Materiel Readiness Board; and other matters. 

Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and management provisions, including space activities; chemical demilitarization; intelligence-related matters; roles and missions analysis; 

and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; miscellaneous 

authorities and limitations; reports; and other matters. 

Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel matters, including the civilian personnel benefits, compensation, and 

leave; modifications to the National Security Personnel System; 

and other federal government civilian personnel matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, including: 

assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq and Afghanistan; 

the Iraq refugee crisis; other authorities and limitations; and reports. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with states of 

the Former Soviet Union. 

Title XIV authorizes miscellaneous authorizations totaling 

$28,520,589,000 for the defense health program; drug interdiction 

and counter-drug activities; the Office of the Inspector General, 

chemical agents and munitions destruction, revolving and management funds; and the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
28 

Title XV includes authorization of $187,157,953,000 for increased 

cost due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Title XVI addresses wounded warrior matters including improvements to care, management and transition of recovering service 

members; centers of excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic brain injury, posttraumatic stress disorder, and eye injuries; health care matters; 

disability matters; studies and reports; and other matters. 

Title XVII concerns veterans matters and the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Title XVIII addresses National Guard Bureau matters and related matters including Reserve Component enhancement 

Division B 

Division B of Public Law 110–181 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $23,689,215,000 for military construction and military family housing in support of the active forces, the Reserve 

Components, and the NATO security investment program for fiscal 

year 2008. In addition, Division B contains military construction 

and family housing program changes; property and facilities administration; provisions concerning land conveyances; energy security; and other matters. 

Division C 

Division C of Public Law 110–181 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $16,079,379,000 for Department of Energy national 

security programs for fiscal year 2008. Division C also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board; War-Related National Nuclear Security Administration Authorities; National Defense Stockpile; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration. 

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 1585, as 

amended, to the House on May 11 2007. The measure passed the 

House, as amended, on May 17, 2007. The Senate passed H.R. 

1585, as amended, on October 1, 2007. The conference report was 

agreed to in the House on December 12, 2007, and in the Senate 

on December 14, 2007. The President vetoed H.R. 1585 on December 28, 2007. The text of H.R. 1585 was reintroduced with a modification to H.R. 1585 regarding section 1083, allowing the President 

to waive the totality of section 1083 as to claims against Iraq for 

terrorism acts that occurred before or on the date of enactment, 

and a modification to expired compensation authorities. The reintroduced text, H.R. 4986, passed the House under suspension of 

the Rules on January 16, 2008, and passed the Senate on January 

21, 2008. H.R. 4986 was signed by the President and became law 

on January 28, 2008. 

(H. Rept. 110–146 parts I & II; S. Rept. 110–77; H. Rept. 110– 

477; H.A.S.C. 110–6; H.A.S.C. 110–10; H.A.S.C. 110–13; H.A.S.C. 

110–16; H.A.S.C. 110–18; H.A.S.C. 110–20; H.A.S.C. 110–21; 

H.A.S.C. 110–22; H.A.S.C. 110–23; H.A.S.C. 110–24; H.A.S.C. 110– 

27; H.A.S.C. 110–28; H.A.S.C. 110–31; H.A.S.C. 110–33; H.A.S.C. 

110–34; H.A.S.C. 110–35; H.A.S.C. 110–37; H.A.S.C. 110–38; 

H.A.S.C. 110–39; H.A.S.C. 110–40; H.A.S.C. 110–41; H.A.S.C. 110– 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
29 

42; H.A.S.C. 110–44; H.A.S.C. 110–46; H.A.S.C. 110–47; H.A.S.C. 

110–48; H.A.S.C. 110–50; H.A.S.C. 110–53; H.A.S.C. 110–54) 

PUBLIC LAW 110–203 (H.J. RES. 70)

Congratulating the Army Reserve on its centennial, which will be formally celebrated on April 23, 2008, and commemorating the historic contributions of its veterans and continuing contributions of its soldiers to the vital national security interests and homeland defense missions of the United States. 

Public Law 110–203 congratulates the Army Reserve on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the enactment of its original authorizing law, recognizes and commends the Army Reserve for the 

selfless and dedicated service of its past and present citizen-soldiers, and extends its gratitude to the veterans, soldiers, families, 

and employers whose support has enabled the Army Reserve to accomplish its vital missions. On December 13, 2007, H.J. Res. 70 

was introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

The measure was considered, as amended, under suspension of the 

Rules and passed the House on April 8, 2008 by a vote of 393–0. 

The Senate passed the measure without amendment by unanimous 

consent on April 14, 2008. On April 22, 2008, H.J. Res. 70 was 

signed by the President and became law. 

PUBLIC LAW 110–417 (S. 3001)

Public Law 110–417, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, authorizes funds totaling 

$600.0 billion for national defense functions for fiscal year 2009, 

which implies a budget authority level of $611.1 billion. Of those 

amounts, $68.6 billion is a bridge fund for costs associated with 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom for the 

first several months of fiscal year 2009. 

Division A 

Division A of Public Law 110–417 authorizes funds for fiscal year 

2009 for the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle A of title I authorizes $103,969,883,000 for procurement 

of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed forces, defense agencies, and Reserve Components of the armed forces. 

Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of, or funds for specified programs for the armed forces, including: requirements for 

separate displays of procurement line items for Future Combat 

Systems; restriction on obligation of funds for the Army tactical 

radio and Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter; permissions for refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt; and 

funding to continue or wind down F–22A fighter aircraft production 

to be determined by the next President. Subtitle A of title II authorizes $77,710,452,000 for research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research and development-related matters. 

Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program requirements, 

restrictions, and limitations on 11 separate research and development-related matters, including: Future Combat Systems (FCS) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
30 

milestone review; FCS communications network; FCS manned 

ground vehicle reports; Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial Systems 

project; Warfighter Information Network-Tactical program; Joint 

Cargo Aircraft; nonimaging infrared systems; advanced energy 

storage technology; defense laboratories; airborne intelligence collection systems; and enhanced AN/TPQ–36 radar systems. 

Subtitles C through E of title II address ballistic missile defense 

programs, reports and miscellaneous matters. Subtitle A of title III authorizes $154,248,344,000 for operation 

and maintenance. 

Subtitles B through F of title III address environmental provisions, workplace and depot issues, energy security, studies and reports relating to military readiness, and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2009 and authorizes appropriations of $124,791,336,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 

2009. The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 

2009 are as follows: 

Army, 532,400 

Navy, 326,323 

Marine Corps, 194,000 

Air Force, 317,050 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2009 are as 

follows: 

Army National Guard, 352,600 

Army Reserve, 205,000 

Naval Reserve, 66,700 

Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600 

Air National Guard, 106,756 

Air Force Reserve, 67,400 

Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000 

The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the 

Reserve Components for fiscal year 2009 are as follows: 

Army National Guard, 32,060 

Army Reserve, 16,170 

Naval Reserve, 11,099 

Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261 

Air National Guard, 14,360 

Air Force Reserve, 2,733 

Title V sets military personnel policy, including provisions that 

address officer personnel policy; Reserve Component management; 

joint qualified officers and requirements; general service authorities; education and training; Defense Dependents Education system; military justice; decorations, awards, and honorary promotions; military families; and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and incentive 

pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired pay and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund instrumentality benefits and operations; and other matters. 

Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as improvements to military health benefits; preventative care; wounded 

warrior matters; and other miscellaneous matters. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
31 

Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including provisions relating to major defense 

acquisition programs; amendments to general contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations; provisions relating to acquisition 

workforce and inherently governmental functions; Department of 

Defense contractor matters; matters relating to Iraq and Afghanistan; government-wide acquisition improvements; and other matters. 

Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and management provisions, including space activities; chemical demilitarization; intelligence-related matters; and other miscellaneous 

matters. 

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; miscellaneous 

authorities and limitations; studies and reports; and other matters. 

Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel matters, including the civilian personnel benefits, compensation, and 

leave; modifications to the National Security Personnel System; 

and other federal government civilian personnel matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, including: 

assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq and Afghanistan; 

and reports. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with states of 

the Former Soviet Union. 

Title XIV authorizes miscellaneous authorizations totaling $29,647,675,000 for the defense health program; drug interdiction 

and counter-drug activities; the Office of the Inspector General, 

chemical agents and munitions destruction, revolving and management funds; and the Armed Forces Retirement Home. 

Title XV includes authorization of $68,080,000,000 for increased 

cost due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Title XVI addresses reconstruction and stabilization civilian 

management. 

Division B 

Division B of Public Law 110–417 authorizes appropriations in 

the amount of $25,438,471,000 for military construction and military family housing in support of the active forces, the Reserve 

Components, and the NATO security investment program for fiscal 

year 2009. In addition, Division B contains military construction 

and family housing program changes; property and facilities administration; provisions related to Guam realignment; provisions 

concerning land conveyances; energy security; and other matters. 

Division C 

Division C of Public Law 110–417 authorizes appropriations in 

the amount of $16,131,708,000 for Department of Energy national 

security programs for fiscal year 2009. Division C also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration. 

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 5658, as 

amended, to the House on May 16 2008. The measure passed the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
32 

1 House Document 110–88 ′′National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008-Veto 

Message from the President of the United States,′′ Memorandum of Disapproval, President 

George W. Bush, the White House, December 28, 2007. 

House, as amended, on May 22, 2008. The Senate passed S. 3001, 

as amended, on September 17, 2008. The informal conference 

agreement was passed as an amendment to S. 3001 in the House 

on September 24, 2008. The Senate agreed with the House amendment, and passed S. 3001 on September 27, 2008. S. 3001 was 

signed by the President and became law on October 14, 2008. 

(H. Rept. 110–652; parts I & II; S. Rept. 110–335; Committee 

Print 10; H.A.S.C. 110–110; H.A.S.C. 110–111; H.A.S.C. 110–117; 

H.A.S.C. 110–119; H.A.S.C. 110–120; H.A.S.C. 110–121; H.A.S.C. 

110–122; H.A.S.C. 110–123; H.A.S.C. 110–124; H.A.S.C. 110–125; 

H.A.S.C. 110–127; H.A.S.C. 110–128; H.A.S.C. 110–131; H.A.S.C. 

110–132; H.A.S.C. 110–133; H.A.S.C. 110–135; H.A.S.C. 110–136; 

H.A.S.C. 110–137; H.A.S.C. 110–138; H.A.S.C. 110–139; H.A.S.C. 

110–140; H.A.S.C. 110–142; H.A.S.C. 110–145; H.A.S.C. 110–149; 

H.A.S.C. 110–151; H.A.S.C. 110–165) 

LEGISLATION VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT

H.R. 1585

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 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 December 28, 2007, the President vetoed H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, therefore 

preventing it from becoming law. The primary reason cited by the 

President for vetoing the legislation was that it would subject Iraqi 

assets to be frozen by plaintiffs seeking remuneration for damages 

and that ‘‘it would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a 

crucial juncture in that nation’s reconstruction efforts and because 

it would undermine the foreign policy and commercial interests of 

the United States.’’ 1 The offending provision, section 1083, would 

have expanded the ability of Americans, members of the U.S. 

Armed Services, and employees of the United States Government 

to sue state sponsors of terrorism, including the Republic of Iraq, 

for damages in U.S. courts. H.R. 1585, as passed by both the House 

and Senate, is the same text as Public Law 110–181 with two 

minor differences: it does not include authority for the President to 

waive the totality of section 1083 as to claims against Iraq for terrorism acts that occurred before or on the date of enactment, and 

it did not include technical adjustments to expired compensation 

authorities which would expire on December 31, 2007. 

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 1585, as 

amended, to the House on May 11 2007. The measure passed the 

House, as amended, on May 17, 2007. The Senate passed H.R. 

1585, as amended, on October 1, 2007. The conference report was 

agreed to in the House on December 12, 2007, and in the Senate 

on December 14, 2007. The President vetoed H.R. 1585 on December 28, 2007. 

The text of H.R. 1585 was reintroduced with two modifications 

noted above as H.R. 4986. It passed the House under suspension 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
33 

of the Rules on January 16, 2008, and passed the Senate on January 21, 2008. H.R. 4986 was signed by the President and became 

law on January 28, 2008. 

(H. Rept. 110–146 parts I & II; S. Rept. 110–77; H.A.S.C. 110– 

6; H.A.S.C. 110–10; H.A.S.C. 110–13; H.A.S.C. 110–16; H.A.S.C. 

110–18; H.A.S.C. 110–20; H.A.S.C. 110–21; H.A.S.C. 110–22; 

H.A.S.C. 110–23; H.A.S.C. 110–24; H.A.S.C. 110–27; H.A.S.C. 110– 

28; H.A.S.C. 110–31; H.A.S.C. 110–33; H.A.S.C. 110–34; H.A.S.C. 

110–35; H.A.S.C. 110–37; H.A.S.C. 110–38; H.A.S.C. 110–39; 

H.A.S.C. 110–40; H.A.S.C. 110–41; H.A.S.C. 110–42; H.A.S.C. 110– 

44; H.A.S.C. 110–46; H.A.S.C. 110–47; H.A.S.C. 110–48; H.A.S.C. 

110–50; H.A.S.C. 110–53; H.A.S.C. 110–54) 

LEGISLATION REPORTED BUT NOT ENACTED

H.R. 1362

To reform acquisition practices of the Federal Government. 

The purpose of H.R. 1362, the ‘‘Accountability in Contracting 

Act,’’ was to amend titles 10 and 41, United States Code, and to 

establish other new statutory requirements, to improve the quality 

of government contracts, increase contract oversight, and promote 

integrity in contracting. H.R. 1362 would have helped to address 

contracting challenges by empowering the secretaries of the military departments and the heads of the defense agencies to ensure 

the proper use of a variety of contract types, both competitive and 

non-competitive, and further empower Congress in its oversight of 

such contracts. 

H.R. 1362 would have improved the ability of the heads of all 

federal agencies, and in the case of the Department of Defense, the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, to promote competition in contracting and to maximize the use 

of efficient contracting methods such as fixed price contracting in 

procurement programs. It would also have provided Congress and 

the general public greater oversight of contracts by making the contract documents used to justify limiting competition publicly available within 14 or 30 days, depending on the type of contract. H.R. 

1362 would have codified the right and ability of Congress to obtain 

copies of completed audits relating to findings on contractor costs 

in excess of $10.0 million and of material performance deficiencies. 

It also would have required a government-wide study of the acquisition workforce. H.R. 1362 would have amended title 41, United 

States Code, to make permanent the acquisition workforce training 

fund. It would have further amended title 41 to strengthen requirements relating to the pre- and post-government employment of procurement officials. 

On March 13, 2007, the Committee on Armed Services held a 

mark-up session to consider H.R. 1362, as introduced. By unanimous consent, the committee agreed to consider Chairman Skelton’s amendment in the nature of a substitute as the base text. The 

committee ordered H.R. 1362, as amended, reported to the House 

with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 53–0, a 

quorum being present. The measure passed the House, as amended, on March 15, 2007. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 110–47, part II) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
34 

H.R. 1538

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the management of medical care, 

personnel actions, and quality of life issues for members of the Armed Forces who 

are receiving medical care in an outpatient status, and for other purposes. 

The purpose of H.R. 1538, the ‘‘Wounded Warrior Assistance Act 

of 2007,’’ was to amend title 10, United States Code, and to establish other new statutory requirements to provide the people, training, and oversight mechanisms needed to ensure that the nation’s 

wounded warriors receive quality medical care and efficient administrative processing in an environment that reflects the highest 

quality of life standards. It would have set the stage for much 

needed reform of administrative processes that would restore service member confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the disability evaluation system and would begin the process of achieving 

a truly seamless transition of service members to the Department 

of Veterans Affairs’ programs. H.R. 1538 was introduced on March 

15, 2007, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and 

in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 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. 

On March 20, 2007, the Committee on Armed Services held a 

mark-up session to consider H.R. 1538. The committee ordered 

H.R. 1538, as amended, reported to the House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 59–0, a quorum being present. 

The measure passed the House, as amended, on March 28, 2007 

and the Senate passed its version of H.R. 1538 on July 25, 2007. 

Portions of each version of H.R. 1538 were included in H.R. 1585 

and became part of title 16 and title 17, the ‘‘Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007,’’ in the conference compromise of Public Law 

110–181. No further action was taken on H.R. 1538. 

(H. Rept. 110–68, part I) 

H.R. 3087

To require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress reports on the status of 

planning for the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and to require the 

Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and appropriate 

senior officials of the Department of Defense to meet with Congress to brief Congress on the matters contained in the reports. 

The purpose of H.R. 3087, a bill to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress reports on the status of planning for 

the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq and to require the 

Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

and appropriate senior officials of the Department of Defense to 

meet with Congress to brief Congress on the matters contained in 

the reports, was to provide guidance to the Department on 

Congress’s expectations for contingency planning for redeployment 

of U.S. armed forces from the Republic of Iraq and to establish the 

mechanisms necessary to allow appropriate congressional oversight 

of such planning to occur. 

On July 12, 2007, the President delivered to Congress the Initial 

Benchmark Assessment Report on Iraq required by section 1314 of 

the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Care, Katrina Recovery, and 

Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 (Public Law 110– 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
35 

28). That report stated that the President was pursuing a multipronged strategy ‘‘designed to set the conditions for U.S. troops to 

begin coming home, without risking a humanitarian catastrophe in 

Iraq, sanctuaries for international terrorist networks, or a broader 

regional conflict that would threaten U.S. national security interests for generations.’’ On that same day, the House of Representatives passed legislation, H.R. 2956, Responsible Redeployment from 

Iraq Act, by a 223–201 vote, calling for a reduction in the number 

of U.S. armed forces in Iraq and a transition to a limited presence 

there in a safe and orderly manner. H.R. 3087 would have assisted 

in the accomplishment of these goals by facilitating a dialogue between the executive and legislative branches of government 

through the required provision of reports and briefings to Congress 

on the status of planning for redeployment. It would have maximized the amount of significant information of an unclassified nature provided to Congress, while keeping sensitive classified information fully protected. H.R. 3087 would have continued to require 

reports and briefings until such time as the U.S. armed forces in 

Iraq are no longer primarily engaged in a combat mission, as certified by the Secretary of Defense. 

H.R. 3087 was introduced on July 18, 2007, and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services. On July 27, 2007, the Committee on 

Armed Services held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 3087, as 

introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 3087, as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 55–2. The measure passed the 

House, as amended under suspension of the Rules, on October 2, 

2007. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 110–283) 

H.R. 3159

To mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation for units and members of 

the regular and Reserve Components of the Armed Forces between deployments 

for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. 

The purpose of H.R. 3159, ‘‘Ensuring Military Readiness Through 

Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007,’’ was to 

establish a statutory requirement that ensures regular (active) 

component units and members assigned to those units are provided 

a minimum period of rest and recuperation that is equal to or 

longer than the period of the most recent deployment, and a minimum period of rest and recuperation that is at least three times 

longer than the period of deployment for reserve (National Guard 

and Reserves) component units and members assigned to those 

units. 

H.R. 3159 also included a sense of Congress that the ratio between the length of deployments and dwell time, the interval between deployments, for regular components should have been one 

year deployed to two years at home station (a ratio of 1:2), and the 

goal for the Reserve Components should have been one year deployed to five years at home station (a ratio of 1:5). 

H.R. 3159 was introduced on July 24, 2007, and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services. On July 27, 2007, the Committee on 

Armed Services held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 3159, as 

introduced. The committee agreed by unanimous consent to conVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
36 

sider Chairman Skelton’s amendment in the nature of a substitute 

as the base text. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered 

reported H.R. 3159, as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 32–25, with 2 voting present. The 

measure passed the House, as amended, on August 2, 2007. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 110–282) 

LEGISLATION NOT REPORTED BUT MANAGED BY THE COMMITTEE ON

ARMED SERVICES ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

H. CON. RES. 63

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to 

deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq 

The purpose of H. Con. Res. 63, ‘‘Disapproving of the decision of 

the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 

20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq,’’ was to express Congress’s continuing support for members of the Armed 

Forces who are serving or who have served in the Republic of Iraq 

and to make clear that Congress disapproves the President’s decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional combat troops to Iraq. 

H. Con. Res. 63 was introduced on February 12, 2007 and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. H. Res. 157 provided for consideration of H. Con. Res. 63 with three days of general debate, equally divided, without intervening motions except a 

motion to recommit. On February 16, 2007, H. Con. Res. 63 passed 

the House by a vote of 246–182. No further action was taken. 

H. CON. RES. 47

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Medal of Honor Day to celebrate and 

honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor 

H. Con. Res. 47, ‘‘Supporting the goals and ideals of a National 

Medal of Honor Day to celebrate and honor the recipients of the 

Medal of Honor,’’ was introduced on January 30, 2007, and referred 

to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

Chairman Snyder and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 47 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Chairman Ike Skelton moved to consider H. Con. Res. 47, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was 

agreed to by a vote of 411–0 on February 27, 2007. On March 1, 

2007, the Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 47 by unanimous consent. 

H. CON. RES. 42

Honoring the heroic service and sacrifice of the glider pilots of the United States 

Army Air Forces during World War II 

H. Con. Res. 42, ‘‘Honoring the heroic service and sacrifice of the 

glider pilots of the United States Army Air Forces during World 

War II,’’ was introduced on January 23, 2007, and referred to the 

House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairman Snyder and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
37 

on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. 

Con. Res. 42 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Nancy E. Boyda moved to consider H. Con. Res. 42, as 

amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was 

agreed to by a vote of 421–0 on March 20, 2007. No further action 

was taken. 

H. RES. 305

Honoring the 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians that comprise 

the Nation’s special operations forces community 

H. Res. 305, ‘‘Honoring the 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and civilians that comprise the Nation’s special operations 

forces community,’’ was introduced on April 17, 2007, and referred 

to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities. Chairman Smith and Ranking 

Member Thornberry of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities waived subcommittee consideration 

of H. Res. 305 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman 

Adam Smith moved to consider H. Res. 305, as introduced, under 

suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice 

vote on April 18, 2007. 

H. RES. 171

Honoring the Marquis de Lafayette on the occasion of the 250th anniversary of his 

birth 

H. Res. 171, ‘‘Honoring the Marquis de Lafayette on the occasion 

of the 250th anniversary of his birth,’’ was introduced on February 

15, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel. Chairman Snyder and Ranking Member 

McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 171 and Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of 

the measure. Chairman Ike Skelton moved to consider H. Res. 171, 

as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it 

was agreed to by voice vote on May 22, 2007. 

H.R. 2956

To require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of 

United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and 

for other purposes 

The purpose of H.R. 2956, the ‘‘Responsible Redeployment from 

Iraq Act,’’ was to begin reduction in troop numbers in the Republic 

of Iraq within 120 days after enactment, to transition to a limited 

presence by April 1, 2008, and emphasized that this reduction 

should be carried out in a way that maximized force protection. It 

also required that a strategy that would guide the transition, be 

submitted to Congress by January 1, 2008. The strategy would 

have included diplomatic, political, economic, and military measures for dealing with Iraq, encouraging regional engagement and 

political reconciliation, as would have considered our security interests in the broader Middle East. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
38 

H.R. 2956, was introduced on July 10, 2007 and referred to the 

House Committee on Armed Services. H. Res. 533 provided for consideration of H.R. 2956 with four hours of general debate without 

intervening motions except a motion to recommit with or without 

instructions. The rule closed the bill to amendments and waived all 

points of order against the bill and against its consideration except 

those arising under clause 9 or 10 or rule XXI. On July 12, 2007, 

H.R. 2956 passed the House by a vote of 223–201. No further action was taken. 

H. RES. 541

Recognizing the Marines of Company M (or ‘Mike Company’) of the 3rd Battalion, 

7th Regiment, 1st Marine Division on the occasion of their 25th Annual Reunion 

H. Res. 541 ‘‘Recognizing the Marines of Company M (or ‘Mike 

Company’) of the 3rd Battalion, 7th Regiment, 1st Marine Division 

on the occasion of their 25th Annual Reunion,’’ was introduced on 

July 12, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 541 and Chairman 

Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. On July 19, 2007, Congresswoman Ellen 

O. Tauscher asked unanimous consent to discharge from House 

Committee on Armed Services and consider H. Res. 541. It was 

considered and agreed to without objection. 

H. CON. RES. 49

Concurrent resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the Military Order of the 

Purple Heart and commending recipients of the Purple Heart for their courage 

and sacrifice on behalf of the United States 

H. Con. Res. 49, ‘‘Concurrent resolution recognizing the 75th anniversary of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and commending recipients of the Purple Heart for their courage and sacrifice on behalf of the United States,’’ was introduced on January 

31, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 

McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 49 and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo moved to 

consider H. Con. Res. 49, as amended, under suspension of the 

Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice vote on July 30, 

2007. No further action was taken. 

H. RES. 568

Honoring and expressing gratitude to the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry 

(‘Ironman Battalion’) of the Iowa National Guard 

H. Res. 568, ‘‘Honoring and expressing gratitude to the 1st Battalion of the 133rd Infantry (‘Ironman Battalion’) of the Iowa National Guard,’’ was introduced on July 25, 2007, and referred to the 

House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
39 

Res. 568 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 568, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was 

agreed to by voice vote on July 30, 2007. 

S. CON. RES. 27

A concurrent resolution supporting the goals and ideals of ‘National Purple Heart 

Recognition Day’ 

S. Con. Res. 27, ‘‘A concurrent resolution supporting the goals 

and ideals of ‘National Purple Heart Recognition Day’,’’ was introduced on April 12, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of S. Con. Res. 27 and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo moved to consider S. Con. Res. 27, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice 

vote on July 30, 2007. 

H. CON. RES. 181

Recognizing and commending all volunteers and other persons who provide support 

to the families and children of members of the Armed Forces, including National 

Guard and Reserve personnel, who are deployed in service to the United States 

H. Con. Res. 181, ‘‘Recognizing and commending all volunteers 

and other persons who provide support to the families and children 

of members of the Armed Forces, including National Guard and Reserve personnel, who are deployed in service to the United States,’’ 

was introduced on June 28, 2007, and referred to the House Armed 

Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis 

and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 181 

and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full 

committee consideration of the measure. Congressman Solomon P. 

Ortiz moved to consider H. Con. Res. 181, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice 

vote on September 5, 2007. No further action was taken. 

H. CON. RES. 207

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the United States Air Force as an independent 

military service 

H. Con. Res. 207, ‘‘Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the 

United States Air Force as an independent military service,’’ was 

introduced on September 7, 2007, and referred to the House Armed 

Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis 

and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 207 

and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full 

committee consideration of the measure. Congressman John M. 

Spratt moved to consider H. Con. Res. 207, as introduced, under 

suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice 

vote on September 18, 2007. No further action was taken. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
40 

H. RES. 326

Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial 

H. Res. 326, ‘‘Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial,’’ was introduced on April 20, 2007, and 

referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. 

Chairman Ortiz and Ranking Member Forbes of the Subcommittee 

on Readiness waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 326 

and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full 

committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Carol 

Shea-Porter moved to consider H. Res. 326, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice 

vote on September 18, 2007. 

H. RES. 443

Recognizing the service of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers during the Korean War, 

honoring the people of Puerto Rico who continue to serve and volunteer for service 

in the Armed Forces and make sacrifices for the country, and commending all efforts to promote and preserve the history of the 65th Infantry Borinqueneers 

H. Res. 443, ‘‘Recognizing the service of the 65th Infantry 

Borinqueneers during the Korean War, honoring the people of 

Puerto Rico who continue to serve and volunteer for service in the 

Armed Forces and make sacrifices for the country, and commending all efforts to promote and preserve the history of the 65th 

Infantry Borinqueneers,’’ was introduced on May 24, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 443 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter moved to consider H. Res. 443, as 

amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was 

agreed to by voice vote on September 18, 2007. 

H. RES. 604

Expressing the nation’s sincerest appreciation and thanks for the service of the 

members of the 303rd Bombardment Group (Heavy) upon the occasion of the final 

reunion of the 303rd Bomb Group (H) Association 

H. Res. 604, ‘‘Expressing the nation’s sincerest appreciation and 

thanks for the service of the members of the 303rd Bombardment 

Group (Heavy) upon the occasion of the final reunion of the 303rd 

Bomb Group (H) Association,’’ was introduced on August 1, 2007, 

and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh 

of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 

consideration of H. Res. 604 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter moved to consider H. Res. 

604, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and 

it was agreed to by voice vote on September 18, 2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
41 

H. CON. RES. 185

Concurrent resolution commending the 1st Brigade Combat Team/34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard upon its completion of the longest continuous deployment of any United States ground combat military unit in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom 

H. Con. Res. 185, ‘‘Concurrent resolution commending the 1st 

Brigade Combat Team/34th Infantry Division of the Minnesota National Guard upon its completion of the longest continuous deployment of any United States ground combat military unit in Operation Iraqi Freedom,’’ was introduced on July 13, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 185 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Cathy Castor moved to consider H. Con. Res. 

185, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and 

it was agreed to by a vote of 378–0 on October 1, 2007. No further 

action was taken. 

H. RES. 640

Honoring the sacrifices and commitments of the men, women, and families of the 

United States Transportation Command, and for other purposes 

H. Res. 640, ‘‘Honoring the sacrifices and commitments of the 

men, women, and families of the United States Transportation 

Command, and for other purposes,’’ was introduced on September 

7, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 

McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 640 and Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of 

the measure. Congresswoman Cathy Castor moved to consider H. 

Res. 640, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, 

and it was agreed to by voice vote on October 1, 2007. 

H. RES. 691

Commending the Wings Over Houston Airshow for its great contribution to the appreciation, understanding, and future of the United States Armed Forces, the City 

of Houston, Texas, and Ellington Field 

H. Res. 691, ‘‘Commending the Wings Over Houston Airshow for 

its great contribution to the appreciation, understanding, and future of the United States Armed Forces, the City of Houston, 

Texas, and Ellington Field,’’ was introduced on September 27, 

2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 

McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 691 and Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of 

the measure. Congresswoman Cathy Castor moved to consider H. 

Res. 691, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the 

House, and it was agreed to by voice vote on October 1, 2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
42 

H. CON. RES. 162

Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress and the President should increase 

basic pay for members of the Armed Forces 

H. Con. Res. 162, ‘‘Expressing the sense of Congress that Congress and the President should increase basic pay for members of 

the Armed Forces,’’ was introduced on May 24, 2007, and referred 

to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 162 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman Patrick J. Murphy moved to consider H. Con. 

Res. 162, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, 

and it was agreed to by a vote of 409–0 on November 6, 2007. No 

further action was taken. 

H. CON. RES. 261

Commemorating the centennial anniversary of the sailing of the Navy’s ‘‘Great 

White Fleet,’’ launched by President Theodore Roosevelt on December 16, 1907, 

from Hampton Roads, Virginia, and returning there on February 22, 1909 

H. Con. Res. 261, ‘‘Commemorating the centennial anniversary of 

the sailing of the Navy’s ‘‘Great White Fleet,’’ launched by President Theodore Roosevelt on December 16, 1907, from Hampton 

Roads, Virginia, and returning there on February 22, 1909,’’ was 

introduced on November 15, 2007, and referred to the House 

Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 

Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 

261 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman 

Nancy E. Boyda moved to consider H. Con. Res. 261, as introduced, 

under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to 

by voice vote on December 11, 2007. No further action was taken. 

H. CON. RES. 246

Honoring the United States Marine Corps for serving and defending the United 

States on the anniversary of its founding on November 10, 1775 

H. Con. Res. 246, ‘‘Honoring the United States Marine Corps for 

serving and defending the United States on the anniversary of its 

founding on November 10, 1775,’’ was introduced on November 6, 

2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 

McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 246 and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter moved to consider H. Con. Res. 246, as introduced, under suspension of the 

Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice vote on December 

17, 2007. No further action was taken. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
43 

H. RES. 542

Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for the 

members of the National Guard 

H. Res. 542, ‘‘Expressing the unconditional support of the House 

of Representatives for the members of the National Guard,’’ was introduced on July 12, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 542 and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Carol SheaPorter moved to consider H. Res. 542, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote of 

408–0 on December 17, 2007. 

H.R. 3793

To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the continued payment to a member of the uniformed services who dies or is retired or separated under chapter 

61 of title 10, United States Code, bonuses and similar benefits that the member 

was entitled to before the death, retirement, or separation of the member and 

would be paid if the member had not died, retired, or separated, to prohibit requiring the member to repay any portion of the bonuses or similar benefits previously paid, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 3793, the ‘‘Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007’’ was introduced on July 10, 2007 and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H.R. 3793 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee 

consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter 

moved to consider H.R. 3793, as amended, under suspension of the 

Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote of 405–0 on December 18, 2007. 

H. RES. 944

Honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, 

United States Army, for his 37 years of service on behalf of the United States 

H. Res. 944, ‘‘Honoring the service and accomplishments of Lieutenant General Russel L. Honore, United States Army, for his 37 

years of service on behalf of the United States,’’ was introduced on 

January 28, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 944 and Chairman 

Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman Joe Courtney moved to 

consider H. Res. 944, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote of 380–0 on February 

25, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
44 

H. RES. 953

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad 

H. Res. 953, ‘‘Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all Americans should participate in a moment of silence 

to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United 

States Armed Forces both at home and abroad,’’ was introduced on 

January 29, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 953 and Chairman 

Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman Mike McIntyre moved to 

consider H. Res. 953, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and it was agreed to by voice vote on March 12, 2008. 

H. RES. 991

Recognizing the exceptional sacrifice of the 69th Infantry Regiment, known as the 

Fighting 69th, in support of the Global War on Terror 

H. Res. 991, ‘‘Recognizing the exceptional sacrifice of the 69th Infantry Regiment, known as the Fighting 69th, in support of the 

Global War on Terror,’’ was introduced on February 14, 2008, and 

referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of 

the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 991 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman Mike McIntyre moved to consider H. Res. 991, 

as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it 

was agreed to by a vote of 406–0 on March 13, 2008. 

H. RES. 265

Honoring military children during ‘‘National Month of the Military Child’’ 

H. Res. 265, ‘‘Honoring military children during ‘‘National Month 

of the Military Child’’,’’ was introduced on March 23, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 265 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 265, 

as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it 

was agreed to by voice vote on April 8, 2008. 

H. RES. 1020

Recognizing the tremendous service that members of the Armed Forces have given 

to the Nation, especially those who have been wounded in combat 

H. Res. 1020, ‘‘Recognizing the tremendous service that members 

of the Armed Forces have given to the Nation, especially those who 

have been wounded in combat,’’ was introduced on March 4, 2008, 

and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on MiliVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
45 

tary Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh 

of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 

consideration of H. Res. 1020 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo moved to consider H. 

Res. 1020, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 

House, and it was agreed to by voice vote on April 8, 2008. 

H. CON. RES. 32

Honoring the members of the United States Air Force who were killed in the June 

25, 1996, terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers United States military housing 

compound near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia 

H. Con. Res. 32, ‘‘Honoring the members of the United States Air 

Force who were killed in the June 25, 1996, terrorist bombing of 

the Khobar Towers United States military housing compound near 

Dhahran, Saudi Arabia,’’ was introduced on January 12, 2007, and 

referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of 

the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 32 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Susan A. Davis moved to consider H. Con. 

Res. 32, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, 

and it was agreed to by voice vote on May 20, 2008. On June 25, 

2008, the Senate agreed to H. Con. Res. 32 by unanimous consent. 

H. RES. 961

Commending the Alaska Army National Guard for its service to the State of Alaska 

and the citizens of the United States 

H. Res. 961, ‘‘Commending the Alaska Army National Guard for 

its service to the State of Alaska and the citizens of the United 

States,’’ was introduced on February 6, 2008, and referred to the 

House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. 

Res. 961 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Chairwoman 

Susan A. Davis moved to consider H. Res. 961, as introduced, 

under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to 

by voice vote on May 20, 2008. 

H. RES. 1054

Honoring the service and achievements of women in the Armed Forces and female 

veterans 

H. Res. 1054, ‘‘Honoring the service and achievements of women 

in the Armed Forces and female veterans,’’ was introduced on 

March 14, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1054 and Chairman 

Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Chairwoman Susan A. Davis moved to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
46 

consider H. Res. 1054, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and it was agreed to by voice vote on May 20, 2008. 

H. RES. 986

Recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed 

Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling 

for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict 

H. Res. 986, ‘‘Recognizing the courage and sacrifice of those 

members of the United States Armed Forces who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the Armed Forces who remain 

unaccounted for from the Vietnam conflict,’’ was introduced on February 14, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 986 and Chairman 

Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Chairwoman Susan A. Davis moved to 

consider H. Res. 986, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote of 394–0 on May 22, 

2008. 

H. CON. RES. 297

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the integration of the Armed 

Forces 

H. Con. Res. 297, ‘‘Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the integration of the Armed Forces,’’ was introduced on 

February 14, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 297 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee 

consideration of the measure. Congressman Joe Courtney moved to 

consider H. Con. Res. 297, as amended, under suspension of the 

Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote of 378–0 on July 

14, 2008. No further action was taken. 

H. RES. 1067

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the North Pole by the USS Nautilus (SSN 571) and its significance in the history of both our Nation and the 

world 

H. Res. 1067, ‘‘Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the crossing 

of the North Pole by the U.S.S. Nautilus (SSN 571) and its significance in the history of both our Nation and the world,’’ was introduced on April 1, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman 

Taylor and Ranking Member Bartlett of the Subcommittee on 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1067 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman Joe Courtney moved to consider H. Res. 1067, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was 

agreed to by a vote of 375–0 on July 14, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
47 

H. RES. 1080

Honoring the extraordinary service and exceptional sacrifice of the 101st Airborne 

Division (Air Assault), known as the Screaming Eagles 

H. Res. 1080, ‘‘Honoring the extraordinary service and exceptional sacrifice of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), known 

as the Screaming Eagles,’’ was introduced on April 3, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1080 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Congressman Joe Courtney moved to consider H. Res. 1080, as 

amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was 

agreed to by a vote of 378–0 on July 14, 2008. 

H. CON. RES. 295

Expressing the deepest appreciation of Congress to the families of members of the 

United States Armed Forces 

H. Con. Res. 295, ‘‘Expressing the deepest appreciation of Congress to the families of members of the United States Armed 

Forces,’’ was introduced on February 13, 2008, and referred to the 

House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. 

Con. Res. 295 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman 

Joe Courtney moved to consider H. Con. Res. 295, as introduced, 

under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to 

by a vote of 415–0 on July 16, 2008. No further action was taken. 

H. RES. 1139

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and congratulating the men and women who provide exceptional service to our military 

and keep our Pacific Fleet ‘‘fit to fight’’ 

H. Res. 1139, ‘‘Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Pearl 

Harbor Naval Shipyard and congratulating the men and women 

who provide exceptional service to our military and keep our Pacific Fleet ‘‘fit to fight’’,’’ was introduced on April 23, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1139 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Chairman Neil Abercrombie moved to consider H. Res. 1139, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was 

agreed to by voice vote on July 22, 2008. 

H. RES. 415

Honoring Edward Day Cohota, Joseph L. Pierce, and other veterans of Asian and 

Pacific Islander descent who fought in the United States Civil War 

H. Res. 415, ‘‘Honoring Edward Day Cohota, Joseph L. Pierce, 

and other veterans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent who 

fought in the United States Civil War,’’ was introduced on May 17, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
48 

2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 

McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 415 and Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of 

the measure. Congressman Brad Ellsworth moved to consider H. 

Res. 415, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, 

and it was agreed to by voice vote on July 30, 2008. 

H. CON. RES. 358

Concurrent resolution commending the members of the Nevada Army and Air National Guard and the Nevada Reserve members of the Armed Forces for their 

dedicated, unselfish, and professional service, commitment, and sacrifices to the 

State of Nevada and the United States during more than five years of deployments to and in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom 

H. Con. Res. 358, ‘‘Concurrent resolution commending the members of the Nevada Army and Air National Guard and the Nevada 

Reserve members of the Armed Forces for their dedicated, unselfish, and professional service, commitment, and sacrifices to the 

State of Nevada and the United States during more than five years 

of deployments to and in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

Operation Enduring Freedom,’’ was introduced on May 20, 2008, 

and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh 

of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 

consideration of H. Con. Res. 358 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the 

measure. Congressman Brad Ellsworth moved to consider H. Con. 

Res. 358, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, 

and it was agreed to by voice vote on July 30, 2008. No further action was taken. 

H. RES. 1248

Resolution recognizing the service of the USS Farenholt and her crew who served 

the United States with valor and bravery in the South Pacific during World War 

II 

H. Res. 1248, ‘‘Resolution recognizing the service of the USS 

Farenholt and her crew who served the United States with valor 

and bravery in the South Pacific during World War II,’’ was introduced on June 5, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1248 and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congressman Brad Ellsworth 

moved to consider H. Res. 1248, as amended, under suspension of 

the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by voice vote on July 

30, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
49 

H. RES. 1316

Honoring the service of the Navy and Coast Guard veterans who served on the 

Landing Ship Tank (LST) amphibious landing craft during World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam war, Operation Desert Storm, and global operations 

through 2002 and recognizing the essential role played by LST amphibious craft 

during these conflicts 

H. Res. 1316, ‘‘Honoring the service of the Navy and Coast Guard 

veterans who served on the Landing Ship Tank (LST) amphibious 

landing craft during World War II, the Korean war, the Vietnam 

war, Operation Desert Storm, and global operations through 2002 

and recognizing the essential role played by LST amphibious craft 

during these conflicts,’’ was introduced on June 26, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1316 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 

1316, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, 

and it was agreed to by a vote of 415–0 on August 1, 2008. 

H. CON. RES. 390

Honoring the 28th Infantry Division for serving and protecting the United States 

H. Con. Res. 390, ‘‘Honoring the 28th Infantry Division for serving and protecting the United States,’’ was introduced on July 17, 

2008, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 

McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 390 and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo moved to 

consider H. Con. Res. 390, as amended, under suspension of the 

Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote of 374–0 on September 15, 2008. No further action was taken. 

H. RES. 1200

Honoring the dedication and outstanding work of military support groups across the 

country for their steadfast support of the members of our Armed Forces and their 

families 

H. Res. 1200, ‘‘Honoring the dedication and outstanding work of 

military support groups across the country for their steadfast support of the members of our Armed Forces and their families,’’ was 

introduced on May 14, 2008, and referred to the House Armed 

Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis 

and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1200 and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. 

Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 1200, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote 

of 374–0 on September 15, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
50 

H. RES. 1255

Honoring Toby Keith’s commitment to members of the Armed Forces 

H. Res. 1255, ‘‘Honoring Toby Keith’s commitment to members of 

the Armed Forces,’’ was introduced on June 10, 2008, and referred 

to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1255 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 1255, 

as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it 

was agreed to by voice vote on September 15, 2008. 

H. RES. 1421

Solemnly commemorating the 25th anniversary of the tragic October 1983 terrorist 

bombing of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon and remembering those who lost their lives and those who were injured 

H. Res. 1421, ‘‘Solemnly commemorating the 25th anniversary of 

the tragic October 1983 terrorist bombing of the United States Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon and remembering those 

who lost their lives and those who were injured,’’ was introduced 

on September 9, 2008, and referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member McHugh of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1421 and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member Hunter waived full committee consideration of the measure. Congresswoman Nancy E. 

Boyda moved to consider H. Res. 1421, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed to by a vote of 

414–0 on September 24, 2008. 

LEGISLATION CONSIDERED BUT NOT REPORTED

H. RES. 834

Regarding the readiness decline of the Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and 

Reserves, and the implications for national security 

H. Res. 834, ‘‘Regarding the readiness decline of the Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and Reserves, and the implications for 

national security,’’ was introduced on November 15, 2007, and referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. 

On April 16, 2008, the Subcommittee on Readiness and the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces held a joint hearing on H. Res. 

834. No futher action was taken. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(51) 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES 

The oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Armed Services were conducted primarily within the context of the committee’s 

consideration of the annual defense authorization bills, which cover 

the breadth of the operations of the Department of Defense (DOD), 

the national security functions of the Department of Energy, and 

other related areas. The annual national defense budget of approximately $700.0 billion (including the cost of Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom) involves millions of military and civilian personnel, thousands of facilities, and hundreds of 

agencies, departments, and commands located throughout the 

world. A significant portion of the committee’s oversight was focused on the strategic, operational, and budgetary issues associated 

with DOD involvement in two large ongoing contingency operations 

in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT PLAN

In the context of ongoing U.S. military operations in the Republic 

of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee conducted extensive oversight activities during the 110th Congress, 

paying particular attention to national military strategy, as well as 

counter-terrorism activities, the readiness of our military forces, 

force structure and the recruitment and retention of high quality 

military personnel, interagency cooperation to achieve national security objectives, protection of military personnel, facilities and 

equipment, and the treatment of wounded warriors. The committee 

regularly received briefings on national security threats and conducted a series of hearings and briefings on the status of U.S. 

forces and military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, 

prior to consideration of the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 defense 

budgets, the committee conducted oversight hearings with the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the individual service secretaries and chiefs of staff, combatant commanders, other officials of the Department of Defense and the military departments, officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency and other defense-related intelligence agencies, the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, and other 

officials of the Department of Energy. The committee also received 

testimony from outside experts in academia, industry, associations, 

and those in private life on these matters. 

While the majority of the committee’s oversight was planned to 

support the annual national defense authorization bill, the committee also conducted oversight activities as demanded by critical 

current events. 

Pursuant to clause 1(d) of Rule XI of the House of Representatives, described below are specific areas and subjects that were desVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
52 

ignated in the committee’s oversight plan for special attention during the 110th Congress as well as additional oversight activities 

not explicitly enumerated by the oversight plan, focusing on the actions and recommendations of the committee. 

NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY, NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY AND

RELATED DEFENSE POLICY ISSUES

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued its traditional interest in the overarching national security challenges facing the United States and how the nation might best posture itself 

to face them, in both the near- and long-term. The committee 

placed an emphasis on conducting oversight on issues surrounding 

Department of Defense efforts to improve United States military 

capabilities to address 21st century security challenges. Throughout both sessions of Congress, the committee received numerous 

presentations and briefings from representatives of the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, the joint staff, the services, the combatant commands, consulted noted academics, and other experts. 

Much of the committee’s oversight on overarching defense policy 

was a byproduct of the posture and budget hearings. In addition, 

the committee held hearings on global security in July 2007 and 

February 2008, and related regional hearings and briefings, such 

as those focusing on the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic 

Republic of Iran, and the People’s Republic of China that provided 

context regarding potential future threats. Other strategy related 

hearings, noted elsewhere in this report, included the Department 

of the Army’s strategic initiatives hearing, the Department of the 

Air Force strategic initiatives hearing, and the Department of the 

Navy’s cooperative strategy for 21st century seapower hearing. The 

committee also held a two-part series of hearings on American 

grand strategy considerations for the next administration. 

THE WAR IN IRAQ

In the 110th Congress, the committee continued its pattern of 

vigorous oversight of issues related to the war in the Republic of 

Iraq. The committee held numerous hearings on Iraq policy, including several with the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff; two with the commander of Multi-National 

Force—Iraq (MNF–I) and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq; three with the 

Comptroller General; two with the commander of Multi-National 

Security Transition-Iraq; a hearing with the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq; and several hearings involving 

outside witnesses. The committee also met to receive a wide variety 

of briefings from Administration officials, both classified and unclassified, on aspects of the war in Iraq. 

Over the course of the 110th Congress, the committee enacted 

numerous pieces of legislation concerning the war in Iraq. In the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181), the committee included a provision to extend the 

life of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction to ensure continued oversight of the expenditure of U.S. funds in Iraq. 

The committee included a provision to continue the prohibition on 

the expenditure of funds to construct permanent bases in Iraq or 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
53 

to control Iraq’s oil resources. The committee also required a detailed report on the implementation of the Joint Campaign Plan, 

developed by Multi-National Forces—Iraq and the U.S. Embassy in 

Iraq, including conditions in Iraq that could prompt changes to levels of U.S. armed forces in the country or changes in the missions 

of those forces. The committee also required reporting on Iranian 

support for attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and required the establishment of a monitoring system for weapons provided to the Iraqi Security Forces. Finally, the committee enacted 

a set of provisions designed to raise the profile of those who had 

to seek refuge outside of Iraq because of their association with the 

United States Government, ease the processing of such persons, expand the number of special immigrant visas available for certain 

categories of Iraqis, amend the process for requesting asylum for 

certain Iraqis, and require a number of reports on the refugee 

issue. 

In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee continued 

these efforts. The committee extended for an additional year the 

ban on permanent U.S. bases in Iraq or the exercise of control over 

Iraq’s oil resources. A separate provision contained an extensive reporting requirement on the negotiation of a Status of Forces Agreement between the U.S. and Iraq. The committee required the establishment of a strategy for Provincial Reconstruction Teams in 

Iraq and mandated a report on this strategy and its implementation. The committee extensively modified the approval process for 

projects utilizing funds provided through the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program and added additional items that should 

be included in reports on that program in the future. The committee limited the uses to which funds provided under the Iraq Security Forces Fund can be put, specifically prohibiting the use of 

funds for the construction of infrastructure. Finally, the committee 

acted to ensure that funds authorized by the Act could not be used 

for the construction or modification of facilities for the Government 

of Iraq, required the United States Government to negotiate an 

agreement between the U.S. and Iraq to share the costs of combined operations, and required that the United States Government 

ensure that Iraqi funds are used for the costs of the Iraqi Security 

Forces. 

During the 110th Congress, members and staff of the House 

Committee on Armed Services traveled to Iraq on many occasions 

to: conduct oversight on the ground; meet with commanders, U.S. 

troops, diplomats, Iraqi officials, and many others; and to observe 

U.S. operations in the field to improve the members’ understanding 

of U.S. objectives and operations in Iraq. During 2007, 41 members 

of the committee and 26 committee staff members led or participated in 19 congressional or staff delegations to Iraq. During 2008, 

31 committee members and 39 committee staff members led or participated in 13 congressional or staff delegations to Iraq. 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

In the first session of the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations investigated the Department of Defense’s efforts and progress toward developing independent Iraqi 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
54 

Security Forces (ISF). The investigation sought to: understand the 

Administration’s Iraq strategy and how the ISF development plan 

supports this strategy; investigate and assess the capability and 

professionalism of the ISF; assess the return on U.S. investment in 

the ISF; assess the plan to transition sustainment funding for security to the Government of Iraq; contribute to the full committee deliberations on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181); and present the information for 

public debate and attempt to influence or improve the Department’s approach to organizing, training, and equipping the ISF. 

The subcommittee released a unanimous bipartisan report in 

July 2007, finding that the plan to develop the ISF had not been 

well articulated and that the nation had yet to realize a return on 

its at least $19.0 billion (as of the date of issue of the report) investment. The subcommittee reported that the initial assumption 

that the ISF could be quickly reconstituted was seriously flawed 

and that the Department was not adequately reporting on the ISF’s 

quality, capability, and sustainability to Congress. The subcommittee also found that Iraqi police organizations had not been 

given enough emphasis and that there was insufficient attention 

being given to their performance and resources. In addition, logistics, contracting, intelligence, and ministerial capacity had lagged 

far behind the generation of the security forces and were critically 

deficient. Finally, the subcommittee found that the advisory mission in the Republic of Iraq had developed slowly and in an ad hoc 

fashion and recommended that the Department decide how it 

would prioritize this mission and then follow through on that basis. 

As a result of this investigation, additional reporting requirements on the ISF were included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

AFGHANISTAN

The committee conducted vigorous oversight of issues relating to 

the mission in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, including U.S. 

contributions to both Operation Enduring Freedom and the North 

Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) International Security 

Force (ISAF). The committee held numerous hearings, including 

two hearings with Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on 

the status of U.S. strategy and operations in Afghanistan and the 

way ahead. The committee also held a wide range of briefings on 

Afghanistan, including a briefing with General Dan McNeill, U.S. 

Army (Ret.), former NATO ISAF Commander, and a briefing with 

General James L. Jones, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), and Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering, Co-Chairman of the 2008 Afghanistan 

Study Group Report. 

The committee enacted a number of legislative provisions to address shortcomings in the U.S. mission in Afghanistan and to increase progress on security and stability in that country. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), the committee required a comprehensive semi-annual report on progress toward stability and security in Afghanistan, 

which outlines the strategic direction of U.S. activities in Afghanistan and includes concrete performance indicators and measures of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
55 

progress. It required a detailed plan from the Secretary of Defense 

for sustaining the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), which 

ensures that a strong and fully-capable ANSF will be able to independently and effectively conduct operations and maintain longterm security and stability in Afghanistan. The Act required that 

the plan include a long-term strategy and budget, a mechanism for 

tracking funding, and actions to ensure effective Afghan institutions to support the ANSF. Further, the Act required the Secretary 

of Defense to produce a comprehensive report on the strategic direction of Department of Defense counternarcotics activities in Afghanistan. In addition, it required the appointment of a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) in order to 

conduct additional oversight of Provincial Reconstruction Teams 

and other reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. 

In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee required the 

Department of Defense to clearly display any funding requested for 

any U.S. operations or other activities concerning Afghanistan, separate from any funding requested for the Republic of Iraq, in future 

budget requests as recommended by the Afghanistan Study Group. 

It required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the command and control structure in Afghanistan that assesses options 

for improvement. The committee also required more robust monthly reporting on the ANSF and a separate Department of Defense 

report on any actions to address the shortfall of ANSF trainers and 

mentors, and to increase contributions from NATO countries and 

other international partners for building and sustaining the ANSF. 

During the 110th Congress, members and staff of the House 

Committee on Armed Services traveled to Afghanistan on numerous occasions to conduct oversight on the ground; meet with commanders, U.S. troops, diplomats, and Afghan officials to improve 

the members’ understanding of U.S. objectives and operations. During 2007, 18 members of the committee and several committee staff 

members led or participated in 8 congressional or staff delegations 

to Afghanistan. During 2008, 30 committee members and several 

committee staff members led or participated in 20 congressional or 

staff delegations to Afghanistan. 

INTERAGENCY PROCESS AND REFORM

In the 110th Congress, the committee significantly increased its 

focus on problems in the interagency process. Over the course of 

the wars in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee observed that, at times, the United 

States Government response to problems has been slow or simply 

inadequate due to insufficient interagency coordination or lack of 

civilian agency capacity. The committee, therefore, held a number 

of hearings and briefings to attempt to conduct oversight on how 

the Department of Defense works with other departments, specifically a hearing on April 15, 2008, at which the Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza 

Rice, testified on building partnership capacity and enhancing the 

interagency process. 

In addition to the regular oversight process, the committee undertook significant legislative activities to further address problems 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
56 

regarding the interagency process. In the first session of the 110th 

Congress, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

that authorized funds for a study of the interagency system by an 

independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The legislative 

provision included a reporting deadline of September 1, 2008. 

The committee took further action in the second session of the 

110th Congress. The committee worked with the House Committee 

on Foreign Affairs to include a provision in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417), that authorized the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary 

of State, and the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development to jointly establish a panel to advise on ways 

to improve coordination among the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and U.S. Agency for International Development 

on matters related to national security, including reviewing their 

respective roles and responsibilities. The committee intends for the 

Secretaries and Administrator of U.S. Agency for International Development to use this advisory panel as a tool to help them to identify and address problems that arise when their agencies work together. 

The committee continued its oversight of ‘‘building partnership 

capacity,’’ a phrase used to describe a series of Department of Defense initiatives designed to strengthen (i.e. ‘‘train and equip’’) the 

security forces of partner nations critical to the national security of 

the United States. These initiatives require the Department of Defense to engage in significant consultation and coordination with 

the Department of State, which sets policy for foreign military assistance. The Department characterized this group of legislative 

proposals as its top legislative priority in both sessions of the 110th 

Congress. Accordingly, the committee conducted multiple train and 

equip related briefings with the Department of Defense, in conjunction the Department of State and other governmental agencies, 

both as part of the routine congressional notification process and 

as part of an ongoing effort to evaluate the building partnership capacity-related programs. The committee also sent several delegations overseas to observe the execution of these programs. 

As a result of this activity, the committee created a temporary 

authority in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) to build the capacity of the Pakistan 

Frontier Corps and modified the temporary authority of the Secretary of Defense to provide support to the Secretary of State for 

purposes of security and stability assistance. Furthermore, in the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee modified and extended 

the temporary authority of the Department of Defense to train and 

equip foreign military forces. It also extended and modified the 

Pakistan Frontier Corps authority, as well as extended the authority and increased the funding for security and stability assistance. 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations investigated 

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) in Iraq and Afghanistan as 

a case study of interagency operations in the field and because 

PRTs are considered to be critical to our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As has been seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, the national 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
57 

effort involves more than military actions and requires integrated 

efforts and the resources of multiple government departments and 

agencies. The subcommittee’s investigation resulted in the publication of a unanimous, bi-partisan report, which concluded that: 

while PRT capabilities have developed over time, PRT planning 

and operations started in an ad hoc manner and they remain decentralized; the relevant departments have not articulated clear objectives for PRTs, and cannot effectively evaluate their performance; and Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees both 

theaters of operation, has not taken an active role in providing 

guidance. Major issues that became evident during the investigation included problems associated with mission objectives, leadership, funding, staffing, measuring effectiveness, and leveraging 

partnerships. 

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included provisions to address 

the many concerns that were brought to the attention of the committee. The President was directed to establish and implement a 

strategy for the U.S.-led PRTs in Iraq, including embedded PRTs 

and Provincial Support Teams, and report on their effectiveness. 

Additionally the President was directed, acting through the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State, to develop and implement 

a system to monitor the performance of U.S.-led PRTs in Afghanistan and report to Congress on its effectiveness. 

MILITARY READINESS

READINESS OF MILITARY FORCES

The committee expanded its oversight of the readiness of the 

armed services through hearings, briefings, and site visits to observe readiness and training. This oversight continued to show that 

the services are having difficulty meeting readiness requirements 

for both the ongoing conflicts and for possible future contingency 

operations. Readiness shortfalls extend through equipment stocks, 

personnel manning, and individual and unit training proficiency. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to attempt to 

stem the decline in readiness, but hearing testimony by senior 

DOD leaders indicates that readiness is being consumed as fast as 

it is created. 

The committee acted to address overall readiness shortfalls by: 

increasing funding for reset; restoring funding for flight hours, 

steaming days, and tank miles; and by providing new authorization 

for the Secretary of Defense to address readiness shortfalls. The 

committee included legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) establishing a 

Defense Materiel Readiness Board to review shortages of equipment across the armed forces and to designate critical materiel 

readiness shortfalls. The designation of such shortfalls provides access to enhanced funding for the purchase of equipment. 

Even with these measures, the readiness of the services continued to decline to levels warranting significant concern. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
58 

FORCE AUGMENTATION

Ongoing operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have created continuing high demand for certain combat support and combat service support skills, including 

civil affairs (for post-reconstruction teams), intelligence and 

counter-intelligence, medical, communications, logistics, construction, engineering, and security forces. Facing shortages of available 

personnel in some skills, the Department of Defense used strategies such as reassigning and retraining Army and other service 

personnel to meet the combatant commanders’ requirements in the 

Central Command and other areas of responsibility. 

During the 110th Congress, the committee examined the impact 

on service readiness of using these forces in lieu of, as individual 

augmentees to, or as ad hoc replacements for soldiers and Marines. 

On July 31, 2007, the Subcommittee on Readiness met for a hearing to explore the employment of airmen and sailors in combat and 

combat support roles outside their services’ traditional core missions and the adequacy of sailors’ and airmen’s training/equipping 

for those predominantly Army missions. 

In addition to the impact on service readiness, the subcommittee 

examined the combatant commanders’ request for forces, including 

how those requests are validated, and how the services respond to 

those requests; the adequacy of training and equipment for sailors 

and airmen serving both outside their service and outside their 

core competency; and the impact on promotion and retention for 

service members serving in augmentee, in lieu of, or ad hoc positions. 

EQUIPMENT RESET

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of the services’ reset strategies to repair, recapitalize, and replace equipment used in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). On January 31, 2007, the Subcommittee on Readiness and the Subcommittee on Air and Land 

Forces met in a joint hearing to receive testimony on Army reset 

strategies for ground equipment and rotorcraft utilized in OEF and 

OIF. On February 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Readiness and the 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces were briefed 

by the Navy and the Marine Corps on equipment reset in preparation for a February 13, 2007, joint hearing on reset requirements. 

The two hearings examined the services’ strategy for performing 

equipment reset and the costs associated with these equipment 

reset programs. 

The committee concluded that equipment readiness, specifically 

for the ground forces, has been severely impacted by current operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and that the decline in equipment readiness has not been 

mitigated despite Congress appropriating more than $35.0 billion 

since 2001 for resetting the Army’s equipment. In fiscal year 2009 

alone, the committee recommended an increase of $257.7 million 

for Army depot maintenance to facilitate equipment reset. Because 

the Army anticipates that the equipment reset process and its 

funding requirements will persist for at least two to three years 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
59 

after forces completely withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, the 

committee will continue its oversight of equipment reset into the 

future. 

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE COMPONENT EQUIPMENT FUNDING

The events of September 11, 2001, Operation Iraqi Freedom 

(OIF), and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) have caused dramatic changes in how National Guard and Reserve Components are 

used to support overseas operational missions and domestic security and preparedness tasks. The National Guard is no longer a 

strategic Reserve Component but is now considered an operational 

force. The extended commitment of the National Guard and Reserve Components to meet wartime requirements of OIF and OEF 

has exposed longstanding pre-September 11, 2001, wartime-related 

equipping, manning, resourcing and policy issues that must be considered a top priority of the Department of Defense. 

The committee considered National Guard and Reserve Component equipment readiness an urgent and top priority and provided 

additional procurement dollars specifically for the National Guard 

and Reserve Components in a separate procurement account entitled the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account 

(NGREA). These funds would be used exclusively for the National 

Guard and Reserve Components. The committee authorized an additional $1.9 billion in this account for the 110th Congress. 

LANGUAGE AND CULTURAL AWARENESS TRAINING

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations examined the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) ‘‘transformation’’ efforts to improve 

foreign language skills, regional expertise, and cultural awareness 

capabilities among the general purpose forces. The inquiry was initiated because of the recognition that foreign language skills and 

cultural expertise are critical capabilities needed by today’s military. This serious national security challenge led the subcommittee 

to examine DOD activities to address the need for these capabilities. 

The subcommittee found that the military’s lack of language 

skills and cultural expertise is a symptom of a larger problem facing the greater nation. The inquiry revealed that the U.S. educational system does not place a priority on, and lacks the infrastructure to support, widespread foreign languages instruction, not 

to mention the less commonly taught languages needed by today’s 

military forces. Very few states require any language study. This 

significantly limits the pool from which the Department of Defense 

can recruit multi-lingual personnel. Consequently, the Department 

finds itself in the position of advancing a national educational 

agenda that encourages states to recognize the importance of language skills and cultural awareness, not only to meet national security needs, but for the United States to remain competitive in the 

global marketplace, and for states to provide basic services to their 

citizens. 

The subcommittee found that the Department and the services 

have undertaken numerous initiatives related to this problem. 

However, it appears that while the Department has focused on a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
60 

linguistically capable force, the services have emphasized cultural 

awareness over linguistic capabilities. The subcommittee made various other recommendations to the Department and its findings 

contributed to committee deliberations concerning language and 

culture policies and authorizations. 

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND THREAT REDUCTION

The committee conducted oversight of the Department of Defense 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (CTR) and Department of 

Energy nuclear nonproliferation programs. The committee held 

briefings on specific programs and issues, including briefings on the 

nuclear programs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and 

the Islamic Republic of Iran, and on nuclear smuggling. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the 

committee authorized program funding increases, including for the 

Global Threat Reduction Initiative to secure and eliminate vulnerable nuclear and radiological material around the world. The committee also authorized funding for new CTR initiatives to strengthen and expand the CTR. In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) removed certain restrictions on the use of funds for CTR programs globally in 

order to provide CTR with necessary flexibility and streamline efforts. 

The committee also made significant contributions to the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 

(Public Law 110–53). Among numerous other provisions, it authorized funding to accelerate, strengthen, and expand nonproliferation 

and threat reduction programs. It included measures to enable the 

Proliferation Security Initiative to better interdict illicit transfers 

of weapons of mass destruction, and established both a presidential 

coordinator and a commission on the prevention of weapons of 

mass destruction proliferation and terrorism. 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

In keeping with the tradition established in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 

99–433), the committee continued its active involvement in issues 

relating to the organization and management of the Department of 

Defense during the 110th Congress. 

ROLES AND MISSIONS

Through the course of the committee’s posture and budget hearings to review the budget request for fiscal year 2008, and during 

a dedicated hearing on June 20, 2007, the committee became aware 

of significant confusion surrounding the roles and missions of the 

military services, particularly with respect to the development and 

employment of capabilities such as unmanned aerial systems, tactical airlift, and cyberwarfare. 

On July 25, 2007, the committee created a seven member bipartisan Roles and Missions panel with a six-month charter to consider implications regarding the organization of the national deVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
61 

fense structure across the Department of the Defense and other 

governmental entities. The panel held multiple meetings and briefings with a wide variety of defense and security officials and nongovernmental experts. In January 2008, the Panel released its final 

report to the public, which discussed several areas of national security related activities that the panel desired to highlight for further 

consideration. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), the committee established a requirement for a quadrennial review of the roles and missions of the 

armed forces. As part of the review, the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense are required to provide 

a framework of core mission areas for the activities of the Department, and identify the organizations within the Department that 

are responsible for providing the capability to perform these missions. Future budget requests are required to display the proposed 

allocation of funding by core mission area. The results of the first 

review will be delivered with the budget request for fiscal year 

2010. 

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES

On March 1st, 2007, the Commission on the National Guard and 

Reserves delivered its second report, in which it considered and 

provided recommendations regarding proposed National Guard-related legislation and other matters pertaining the role and responsibilities of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, National 

Guard officers’ authority to command, and National Guard equipment and funding requirements. The committee conducted an open 

hearing on these matters on March 23, 2007. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), 

the committee included the National Guard Empowerment Act of 

2007. That legislation, among other things, authorized a fourth 

star for the Chief of the National Guard Bureau and enhanced the 

duties of that position; made the National Guard Bureau a joint activity of the Department of Defense; expanded the National Guard 

Bureau charter to include official coordination with federal agencies, states, U.S. Joint Forces Command, and U.S. Northern Command on homeland and civil support activities; and required that 

at least one deputy of Northern Command be a National Guard Officer. In the second session, the committee examined the implementation of this legislation and of the Commission’s non-legislative 

recommendations through several member and staff briefings, including upon the submission of the Department’s final report on 

the Commission’s recommendations. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417), the committee required a report on the resource requirements of the National Guard. 

CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICER

The committee continued the work of the prior Congress in considering the creation of a Chief Management Officer for the Department of Defense during a hearing on June 26, 2007. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181), the committee amended title 10, United States Code, to 

designate the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the Chief ManageVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
62 

ment Officer and created the position of Deputy Chief Management 

Officer to assist the Deputy Secretary in the performance of these 

duties. In the same Act, the committee required an assessment by 

the Comptroller General of the Departments’ reorganization of the 

office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417), the committee created the position of General Counsel for the Inspector General of the Department of Defense and clarified that the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense 

for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs is a position equivalent in rank to an Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

UNIFIED COMMAND PLAN

The committee also continued its interest in the Unified Command Plan which specifies the organization and responsibilities of 

the combatant commanders. On November 14, 2007, the committee 

held a hearing on the establishment of U.S. Africa Command and 

also held briefings on this topic. In the Joint Explanatory Statement (Committee Print 10) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee required the Department to provide a comprehensive report 

on the organization and mission of U.S. Africa Command, and also 

required a report on the initiative to transform U.S. Southern Command into a joint interagency regional security command. 

DETAINEE POLICY AND MILITARY COMMISSIONS

The committee dedicated much attention to the legal framework 

and other oversight related to detainee matters. The committee 

held four full committee hearings. On July 30, 2008, the committee 

received testimony from administration witnesses on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush, 128 

S. Ct. 2229 (June 12, 2008), for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba. The following day the committee received testimony from 

non-governmental witnesses on the same topic. On July 26, 2007, 

the committee received testimony on upholding the principle of habeas corpus for detainees. On March 29, 2007, the committee received testimony on the Military Commissions Act and the continued use of Guantanamo Bay as a detention facility. 

In addition to the four public hearings which were devoted to 

policies pertaining to detainees and two posture hearings which addressed these same matters as part of a broader discussion, the 

committee conducted numerous member briefings (including four 

opportunities for members to review the confidential reports of the 

International Committee of the Red Cross) and numerous staff 

briefings related to detainee affairs. Many of the particulars involving the custody, interrogation, treatment, and prosecution of detainees are sensitive law enforcement matters and are classified. 

Consequently, much of the committee’s oversight of detainee issues 

was conducted in classified forums and cannot be delineated in this 

report. Additionally, the committee made several trips to the U.S. 

Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Republic of Iraq, and 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan to review detainee operations 

at these locations. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
63 

The committee’s oversight of detainee affairs resulted in a number of legislative provisions which were enacted into law. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417) included a section requiring submission 

to Congress of revision to the regulation on enemy prisoners of war, 

retained personnel, civilian internees, and other detainees; a sense 

of Congress discouraging the use of contractor personnel in the interrogation of detainees; and a sense of Congress encouraging the 

video-taping or otherwise electronic recording of interrogations of 

persons in the custody of or under the physical control of the Department of Defense. The National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) included a sense of Congress regarding detainees at the Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba; and a section requiring the Secretary of Defense to report on 

a plan for transferring individuals who are detained at the Naval 

Station in Guantanamo Bay. 

GLOBAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

In keeping with its past practice, the committee remained mindful that potential areas of conflict beyond those where current operations are underway require significant attention and also that understanding the regional context of ongoing operations is critical to 

developing strategies for success, particularly with respect to stability operations. During each session of the 110th Congress, first 

on July 11, 2007 and then on February 13, 2008, the committee 

heard testimony in open session from the intelligence community 

on its assessment of global security issues. 

The committee held a number of hearings and classified intelligence briefings regarding emerging threats and matters of strategic intelligence. On February 15, 2007, the Subcommittee on 

Strategic Forces was briefed by the Defense Intelligence Agency analysts on ballistic missile threats posed by various nations. On July 

11, 2007, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was briefed by the 

Defense Intelligence Agency analysts on Russian and Chinese ballistic missile capabilities. On July 25, 2007, the committee held a 

joint, open hearing with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the threats posed by al Qa’ida, which was followed by 

a classified briefing. 

On April 16, 2008, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was 

briefed by the Defense Intelligence Agency analysts on ballistic 

missile threats posed by various nations. On June 11, 2008, the 

committee was briefed on the status of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons programs. On July 17, 2008, the committee 

received a classified briefing on the rescue of Colombian hostages. 

The committee continued to coordinate with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the Undersecretary 

of Defense for Intelligence in the implementation of the new Military Intelligence Program. In particular, the committees worked to 

adopt a common perspective on major system acquisitions including 

satellite systems and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

The committee focused particular attention to emerging security 

issues in four areas of significant importance to national security, 

the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the 

People’s Republic of China, as well as al Qa’ida. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
64 

PAKISTAN

The committee held a hearing on security developments in the 

Islamic Republic of Pakistan, focusing both on the internal security 

and stability of that nation, and on the unique security challenges 

arising in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. The committee 

also held numerous member and staff briefings on issues relating 

to Pakistan including intelligence briefings and briefings on the use 

of coalition support funds authorized by the committee and provided to Pakistan. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181), the committee required the Department of 

Defense to report to Congress on measures taken by the Government of Pakistan to enhance security in the Afghanistan/Pakistan 

border region and to also provide more detailed congressional notifications on reimbursements made to Pakistan using coalition support funds. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee 

made the report on measures taken by the Government of Pakistan 

in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region an annual requirement 

and required additional information in the report. The committee 

also required that notifications of coalition support fund reimbursements made to Pakistan include information on claims disallowed 

or deferred. 

Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) provided authority for the Department of Defense to provide assistance to the Pakistan Frontier 

Corps to build its capacity to conduct counterterrorism operations 

along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417) extended this authority for an additional year and increased the funding authorized for this effort. 

IRAN

During the first session of the 110th Congress, in January and 

February of 2007, the committee received two classified briefings 

regarding efforts to stop Iranian support for insurgents and militias in the Republic of Iraq. The committee’s attention to the Iranian nuclear program during the first session culminated in a December 6, 2007, classified briefing by subject matter experts from 

the intelligence community. The committee’s concern about Iran’s 

nuclear program was reflected in section 1258 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

that called for additional sanctions on Iranian entities targeted 

under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee 

received a classified briefing on January 16, 2008, concerning the 

January 6, 2008, Iranian naval incident in the Straits of Hormuz 

between Iranian patrol craft and three U.S. Navy warships. The 

committee received a classified briefing on June 11, 2008 from the 

intelligence community on its assessment of the Iranian nuclear 

program to include the status of its acquisition and processing of 

nuclear fuel, weaponization capabilities, and development of delivVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
65 

ery systems. On June 26, 2008, the committee received a classified 

briefing from the Defense Intelligence Agency on Iranian defenses. 

The committee included a provision in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417) that would require the Director of National Intelligence 

to submit a detailed report addressing the current and future nuclear weapons capabilities of Iran. The provision also requires the 

President to provide a notification to Congress within 15 days of 

determining that: Iran has resumed a nuclear weapons program; 

Iran has met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear 

weapons program; or Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate, 

or cease the development of any significant element within its nuclear weapons program. 

CHINA

The committee continued to monitor a range of significant security developments in the People’s Republic of China. On January 

19, 2007, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was briefed by the 

Defense Intelligence Agency on Chinese threats to U.S. space systems. On June 13, 2007, the committee held an open hearing and 

on June 28, 2007, the committee received a classified briefing on 

security developments involving China. On July 11, 2007, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was briefed by the Defense Intelligence Agency analysts on Chinese ballistic missile capabilities. 

On February 7, 2008, the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces was briefed on Chinese naval capabilities. On April 

3, 2008, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was briefed on Chinese threats to United States satellites. On June 25, 2008, the committee held a hearing and received a classified briefing on security 

developments involving China. The hearings and briefings in June 

of 2007 and 2008 provided the committee an opportunity to review 

the findings of the Department’s Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, a report required by 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). Committee members also took part in three official congressional delegation trips to China to discuss security matters with senior Chinese military and government officials. 

AL QA’IDA

During the 110th Congress, the committee focused on al Qa’ida 

(AQ) through the prism of a wider militant Islamic movement. 

Using extensive and diverse media resources, AQ continually motivates and beckons new recruits to join their cause. The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities 

held several hearings and briefings at which experts from government, industry, and academia articulated how al Qa’ida and other 

religiously oriented groups employ global media such as the internet to inspire like-minded individuals to join their ideology. Additionally, on July 25, 2007, the full committee held a joint, open 

hearing with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on 

the threats posed by al Qa’ida, which was followed by a classified 

briefing. The committee assessed that al Qa’ida appears to have 

stepped up efforts to provide motivation to disaffected people of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
66 

ever-increasing demographics. The potential threat from this loose 

network of ideology and operational support cannot be overstated. 

The committee undertook several legislative initiatives to help 

thwart this growing threat and included in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and 

Director of National Intelligence to submit a report detailing the efforts to bring the network of terrorists to justice. The provision also 

included an authorization for an increase in the reward for information leading to the death or capture of Osama bin Laden. 

The committee acted to address concerns that AQ and its senior 

leadership continue to benefit from safe havens around the world— 

particularly in the tribal areas of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; consequently, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) requiring the Department of Defense to submit a report detailing Pakistan’s efforts 

to eliminate al Qa’ida’s safe havens on their national territory. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE’S COUNTER-NARCOTICS ACTIVITIES

The committee continued its oversight of the Department of Defense’s counter-narcotics efforts around the globe and within the respective areas of responsibility for U.S. Southern Command and 

U.S. Central Command, and was generally supportive of the activities. For example, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) fully funded the 

President’s request for the central transfer account and devoted an 

entire sub-title to counter-narcotics provisions, including requested 

re-authorizations of important programs and a new requirement for 

two one-time reports from the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the Secretary of State, on comprehensive counter-narcotics 

strategies for South/Central Asia and West Africa. 

It is within this context that the committee, since the beginning 

of this Congress, has worked with the Department of Defense on 

optimizing the Department’s participation in the inter-agency, 

counter-narcotics effort in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 

where poppy cultivation and opium cultivation have reached record 

levels. The committee’s professional staff undertook two oversight 

trips to the region as part of this collaborative endeavor and made 

subsequent policy recommendations to the Department. 

TOTAL FORCE READINESS AND ADEQUACY

END STRENGTH

The committee continued its initiatives from the previous Congress to increase the size of both the active Army and active Marine Corps. Unlike previous years, the committee was joined in its 

efforts by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates who also supported 

an increase in the authorized end strength for the active Army to 

547,000 and to 202,000 for the active Marine Corps by fiscal year 

2012. However, during the first session of the 110th Congress, the 

committee continued to advocate a greater annual end strength increase above those proposed by the Administration. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
67 

For the fifth year in a row, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) adopted the committee recommendation to increase the active Army end strength 

to 525,400 and 189,000 for the active Marine Corps end strength. 

This has resulted in a total end strength growth of 45,400 for the 

active Army and 14,000 for the active Marine Corps since fiscal 

year 2004, when the committee first began to increase the end 

strength of the ground forces. The committee continued to provide 

the Department of Defense the flexibility to increase its end 

strength above the authorized levels in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 

to accelerate the growth in end strength for the active ground components. The legislation also increased the end strength for the 

Navy and the Air Force, 698 and 1,051 respectively, to restore the 

military-to-civilian conversions within the military medical community. The committee heard directly from families and providers that 

the conversions in the military medical community were having an 

adverse impact on access and quality of care for service members 

and their families. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee 

again included, as part of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included the permanent increase in authorized end strength for the 

active Army to 547,000 and to 202,000 for the active Marine Corps 

by fiscal year 2012 and provided the associated funding within the 

base budget. The legislation also included the committee’s recommendation to increase the full-time manning for the Army National Guard to 32,060 in fiscal year 2009 (an increase of 2,110). 

The defense authorization act also restored the military-to-civilian 

conversions with the military medical community, which had been 

prohibited in Public Law 110–417. The committee recommended an 

increase in end strength for the Navy and the Air Force, 1,023 and 

450, respectively, to restore the military-to-civilian conversions 

within the military medical community. 

MOBILIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS

The transformation of the Reserve Components from a strategic 

to an operational reserve has brought with it challenges that needed to be addressed. As mobilization requirements continue, the Reserve Components are faced with new and difficult issues. One 

such issue is the retention of military technicians who lose their 

dual status due to a combat-related disability. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

provides the authority for a dual-status military technician to continue employment as a military technician, if that individual loses 

his or her status due to a combat-related disability. In addition, in 

order to ensure an orderly transition between federal and state status, the legislation also extended the period that members of the 

National Guard may be granted temporary federal recognition from 

six months to one year. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417) recognized the importance of providing Reserve Component general and flag officers the opportunities for 

joint duty assignments. The legislation increased the number of poVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
68 

sitions available to Reserve general and flag officers to serve on the 

Joint Staff from one to three, and exempts the positions from the 

general and flag officer limits. 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

The committee continued to monitor recruiting and retention 

trends closely throughout the 110th Congress to ensure that programs remained effective in response to the relatively large number of youth that are ineligible for enlistment, the increasing college attendance rate, and the growing awareness of the hardships 

and risks of war among potential recruits and their influencers. 

The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted two hearings 

during the 110th Congress to review the challenges confronting the 

recruiting and retention programs and understand the Department 

of Defense’s position on these programs. The committee responded 

to DOD legislative requests to bolster existing programs and 

launch new programs, and worked to anticipate active duty and reserve recruiting and retention program requirements for both officer and enlisted members. To that end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417) included legislation that: 

(1) Increased the limits on enlisted and officer grades for 

members serving on active duty in support of the Reserve 

Components. 

(2) Increased special pay and retention bonuses for medical 

officers and dentists. 

(3) Increased the maximum monthly hardship duty pay 

amount to $1,500 and provided greater flexibility in payment 

methods. 

(4) Increased the maximum reenlistment bonus amount to 

$15,000 for members of the Selected Reserve and provided 

greater flexibility in payment methods. 

(5) Expanded the definition of sea duty to include more members. 

(6) Expanded the eligibility criteria for award of nuclear officer continuation pay. 

(7) Established separate authorities for a referral bonus to be 

paid to service members and civilian employees who refer new 

recruits for enlistment in the Army and health professionals in 

any of the services 

(8) Increased the maximum period of reenlistment to eight 

years. 

(9) Established a pilot program to allow members a career 

intermission of up to three years to allow pursuit of personal 

objectives outside the military before returning to a military 

career. 

(10) Established an authority for a 10-day paternity leave. 

(11) Increased the maximum daily rate of temporary lodging 

expenses to $290 during permanent change of station moves. 

(12) Increased maximum accession bonus amounts and 

monthly stipend amounts for nurse candidates and accession 

bonuses and retention bonuses for psychologists. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
69 

(13) Established a new authority to pay skill incentive and 

proficiency pay to students in commissioning programs who 

pursue coursework in critical languages and cultural studies. 

(14) Established new authorities to ship 500 pounds of 

spouse related household goods during permanent changes of 

station moves and family pets during evacuations from overseas locations. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION

The committee continued to closely monitor compensation programs during the 110th 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 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417) that authorized a 3.5 percent raise in 

basic pay during fiscal year 2008 and a 3.9 percent raise in basic 

pay during fiscal year 2009. These two military pay raises in the 

110th Congress were one-half of one percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and extended to 10 the number of consecutive years where Congress authorized pay raises above the ECI 

level. As a result of the pay raises in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, 

the gap between military and private sector pay during the 110th 

Congress was reduced from 3.9 percent to 2.9 percent, well below 

the peak pay gap of 13.5 percent in fiscal year 1999. With the addition of the fiscal year 2007 pay raise, average pay levels have increased 52 percent over the last 10 years. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) also included a provision that reformed and 

consolidated over 60 special pays and incentive pays into 8 major 

categories. The consolidation of these pays was a major compensation reform initiative that was intended to make the pay system 

easier to understand and manage. As a result, the reform is expected to provide greater incentives among service members that 

are better informed about the sources of their income. Additionally, 

personnel managers have been provided a more flexible management tool that allows the pay system to be adjusted or restructured 

to meet the immediate demands of ongoing operations without the 

delay of seeking legislative relief. 

MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR)

PROGRAMS

The committee acted throughout the 110th Congress 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 three hearings during the 110th Congress that fully explored policy issues and fiscal status of the commissary and military exchange stores and the service MWR programs. The Department of Defense consulted the committee on a wide range of management proposals regarding new construction or facility renovaVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
70 

tion, store expansions or closures, public-private ventures, and new 

business opportunities and models. In each case, the committee 

provided guidance and decisions, as requested. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) also included legislative initiatives to address the many 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. 

RETIRED PAY AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued to review 

retirement and survivor issues to make improvement where possible and protect the welfare of retirees and their survivors. To that 

end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included legislation that: 

(1) Expanded eligibility for combat related special compensation to include disabled retirees. 

(2) Required immediate payment of full concurrent receipt of 

military retired pay and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for retirees rated as totally disabled and unemployable. 

(3) Established new procedures to protect surviving family 

members from unfair recoupment of inadvertent Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) overpayments. 

(4) Established a new special survivor indemnity allowance 

to compensate for reduced benefits resulting from the offset of 

SBP payments by the amount of Dependency and Indemnity 

Compensation. 

(5) Authorized Reserve Component retirees to receive retired 

pay at an earlier age in 90 day increments based on significant 

periods of active duty service in support of contingency operations. 

(6) Protected surviving family members from administrative 

reductions in annuities due to the termination of the Supplemental Survivor Benefit Program. 

GAY MEN, LESBIANS, AND BISEXUALS IN THE MILITARY

The Subcommittee on Military Personnel began the process of examining the law and policy surrounding the issue of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals serving in the military by conducting a hearing that examined the various perspectives on the issue. The witnesses offered a broad review of the issues to include the views 

held by advocates for maintaining the current law and policy commonly known as ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ and those views held by 

opponents of the law and policy. This baseline of information is expected to be the starting point for future examination of the law 

and policy during the 111th Congress. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
71 

GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER MANAGEMENT

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included a number of legislative initiatives to address the management of general and flag officers within the armed services. These 

provisions included giving guidance on the roles that officers in 

specific grades would perform, the limits of the number of such officers both in terms of total numbers and by grade, the qualifications 

required before competing for promotion to general and flag officer 

ranks, and personnel policy matters to include limits on age and 

years of service and joint service requirements. The committee has, 

for many years, sought to closely manage general and flag officers 

because of the importance of their leadership to the mission readiness and operational success. 

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included a major reform that 

authorized the Secretary of Defense to designate up to 324 general 

and flag officer positions as joint duty assignments that would be 

excluded from the limitation on the number of general and flag officers in each service and would specify the minimum number of officers required to serve in these positions from each service. The provision established a process for changing service requirements over 

time based on the level of participation of each service in joint missions. The provision would increase the total authorized number of 

general and flag officers within the Department of Defense and realign the number of general and flag officers authorized to serve 

in positions outside their own service. The provision also provides 

for an increased role for Reserve Component general and flag officers in active duty missions to include joint missions. The implementation of the reform has been delayed for one year to allow further refinement of the language to ensure that all implications of 

the provision are understood before being fully implemented. 

FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The high operational tempo has taken a toll not only on service 

members, but their families as well. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

established a Department of Defense Military Family Readiness 

Council to review and make recommendations on requirements to 

support military family readiness, evaluate and assess the effectiveness of military family readiness programs, policies and activities, and monitor requirements for military family readiness. The 

legislation also included an expansion of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program which provides National Guard and Reserve 

members and their families’ reintegration programs to receive information, services, referrals, and proactive outreach opportunities 

during the entire deployment cycle—pre-deployment, deployment, 

demobilization, post-deployment, and reconstitution. It also created 

an Office for Reintegration Programs that is required to administer 

all reintegration programs in coordination with the state National 

Guard organizations, and a Center for Excellence in Reintegration 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
72 

that will collect and analyze ‘‘lessons learned’’ and develop training 

and materials to assist state organizations in reintegration efforts. 

PRISONER OF WAR AND MISSING IN ACTION AFFAIRS

The Subcommittee on Military Personnel increased its oversight 

of Prisoner of War and Missing in Action programs and policies 

which fall under the jurisdiction of the committee. The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181), increased funding for the Joint Prisoner of War Missing in 

Action Accounting Command (JPAC) by $7.5 million, and the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) by 

$200,000 above that requested in the President’s budget. In addition, during the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee held a hearing to receive an update on the activities and 

programs under the purview of the DPMO, and understand the requirements and challenges of the programs and activities of the 

JPAC. The hearing was the beginning of future oversight activities 

expected during the 111th Congress. 

EDUCATION BENEFITS

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued to adopt incremental improvements in military education programs to ensure 

that service members and, in particular, Reserve Component members, enjoyed fair and equitable access to education programs that 

provided appropriate levels of benefits. Accordingly, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included legislation 

that: 

(1) Authorized the payment of tuition assistance to members 

of the Selected Reserve. 

(2) Removed the limits on the number of Reserve Component 

Reserve Officers Training Corps scholarships. 

(3) Authorized military professional military education institutions and other Department of Defense educational institutions to award advanced degrees. 

(4) Lengthened the period during which Reserve Component 

members remained eligible to receive education benefits and 

authorized a process to allow members to resume receiving 

benefits. 

(5) Authorized phased increases to student populations at 

the military service academies. 

(6) Equalized Reserve Component standards for the health 

professional education loan repayment program with the active 

duty standards. 

(7) Established a program to enhance education partnerships 

to improve education program access and flexibility for service 

members. 

(8) Authorized a new benefit program to encourage persons 

in officer training programs to enroll in critical language and 

cultural awareness courses. 

While not under the direct jurisdictional control of the House 

Committee on Armed Services, Congress also adopted the Post-9/ 

11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 during the 110th 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
73 

Congress. The Act, which was included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110–186), was a major enhancement to veterans’ education benefits with long-term implications 

for military recruiting and retention that was closely monitored by 

the committee. This new G.I. Bill is expected to raise the education 

expectations of a new generation of America’s veterans in the same 

way as the post-World War II G.I. Bill helped shape the future of 

veterans of that war. The Act would provide members who served 

on active duty after September 10, 2001 with potential benefits 

that would match the most expensive in-state tuition and fees at 

a public institution of higher education, provide a monthly allowance for housing, and pay up to $1,000 each year for books and 

supplies. The maximum level of benefits would be achieved after 36 

months of service with lesser amounts proportionately authorized 

based on fewer months of service. Members would remain eligible 

for benefits while serving on active duty or for 15 years from the 

last period of active duty of at least 90 days. 

MILITARY AND MILITARY RETIREE HEALTH CARE

Throughout the 110th 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 and to military beneficiaries and to the 

long-term viability of the military health system. For several years, 

the committee has been aware of the rising cost of providing health 

care to military beneficiaries and the potential negative impact of 

health care costs on other critical readiness programs. The committee closely examined the Department’s proposal to sustain the 

military health care benefit and contain costs by shifting costs to 

military beneficiaries, particularly military retirees. As a result, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included 

several legislative initiatives to control the cost of the military 

health system while ensuring the future of the military health benefit. For example, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included provisions that specifically focused on preventive health, with the goal 

of getting and keeping beneficiaries healthy to improve military 

readiness and quality of life. The committee intends for this preventive approach to be more cost-effective rather than waiting until 

beneficiaries are sick to seek treatment. 

In addition, as part of the committee’s efforts to ensure fair treatment of military beneficiaries of the military health care system, 

the committee was successful in protecting military families and 

retirees from significant premium cost growth that were proposed 

by the Administration. Both the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417) prohibited TRICARE fee increases during the 

110th Congress. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
74 

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

During the 110th Congress, the committee spent considerable 

time assessing the adequacy of mental heath services available to 

service members and their families. In particular, the committee focused on the continuum of mental health services provided 

throughout the deployment cycle. The committee staff continued to 

visit military installations to gather information from returning 

service members and their families regarding the availability and 

adequacy of mental health programs. These visits led to a Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing on mental health in July 

2007. The committee also reviewed the findings of the Defense 

Task Force on Mental Health established by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 

(Public Law 109–364). As a result, as part of the Wounded Warrior 

Act included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), Congress required the Department of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review and create a 

comprehensive policy regarding the mental health needs of returning service members, as well as establish a Center of Excellence in 

the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation 

of post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions. Congress also mandated a review of gender- and ethnicgroup specific mental health services to ensure that all aspects of 

mental health were being reviewed. 

The committee also continued to examine the increased incidence 

of traumatic brain injury in service members returning from the 

Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and mandated the creation of a Center of Excellence in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and rehabilitation of traumatic brain 

injury in the Wounded Warrior Act included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

WOUNDED, DISABLED AND DECEASED SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR

FAMILIES

The committee devoted substantial attention during the 110th 

Congress to the emerging needs of active duty and reserve wounded and disabled service members and their families. The committee 

investigated a wide range of problems involving transitional compensation, medical treatment, evaluation and rating of disabilities, 

retention of members with disabilities on active duty, and post-separation programs to assist members and families as they transition 

to civilian life. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110– 

417) included legislative initiatives to address the many concerns 

that had been brought to the attention of the committee and to improve the policies and processes used to manage wounded warriors 

and protect their welfare and the welfare of their families. The legislation established new statutory requirements to provide the people, training, and oversight mechanisms needed to ensure that the 

nation’s wounded warriors receive quality medical care and efficient administrative processing in an environment that reflects the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
75 

highest quality of life standards. The legislation set new standards 

of excellence for the diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation of 

combat wounds. It also set the stage for much needed reform of the 

administrative processes that will restore member confidence in the 

integrity and efficiency of the disability evaluation system and 

begin the process of achieving a truly seamless transition of service 

members to programs operated by Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The legislation included a provision prohibiting the Department of 

Defense from initiating any new public-private competitions for the 

performance of functions at military medical facilities until the Secretary of Defense certified that such competitions would not adversely affect the quality of medical care. The Department of the 

Army already had suspended all such competitions at its medical 

facilities. The first required report, submitted in July 2008, noted 

that no new competitions at any military medical facility had been 

initiated since January 28, 2008. 

HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL READINESS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS

A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office investigation 

found that the premium charged to reservists for their enhanced 

TRICARE benefits was greater than the cost of care provided to reservists and their families. The Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) required a recalculation of the premiums charged to reservists and 

their families. In addition, the legislation also allows service members who leave active duty and agree to serve in the Selected Reserve to receive a transition health care benefit under TRICARE. 

It also expands eligibility for coverage of medical and dental care 

to meet medical readiness requirements for all the Reserve Components. 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

INCENTIVES FOR DEPLOYED CIVILIANS

The committee continued its efforts to improve incentives for federal civilian personnel to work overseas in combat zones. Both the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) contained 

several initiatives to expand such incentives, including: an extension of authority to waive limitations on premium pay; temporary 

authority to pay allowances, benefits, and gratuities similar to 

those given to members of the foreign service; payment of death 

gratuities to families of civilian personnel killed in a combat zone; 

payment of moving expenses to return to a home station for families of certain civilian personnel killed in a combat zone; and an option for additional life insurance for deployed civilians. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 110–146) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the committee also directed the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress 

on whether additional benefits are needed to encourage federal civilian personnel to volunteer for a deployed position. In addition, 

in the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
76 

2009, the committee required the Secretary of Defense to take certain actions related to medical care of deployed civilians. These include development of policies and processes for approving medical 

care at military medical facilities in theater for Department of Defense and non-Department civilian personnel as well as the establishment of a working group to examine access to medical care for 

all federal civilian personnel in theater and the adequacy of the 

coverage under the Federal Employees Compensation Act for injured civilians. 

INHERENTLY GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTIONS

The committee examined a range of issues involving the proper 

role of contractors supporting the mission of the Department of Defense (DOD), including the extent to which contractors may be performing inherently governmental functions. The Subcommittee on 

Readiness held a hearing on March 11, 2008, to consider the proper 

role of government, and whether the Department is adequately 

staffed with government employees, both civilian and military, to 

perform not only functions identified as those which must be performed by government employees (including oversight of the work 

being performed by contractors) but those commercial-type functions that should be performed by government employees in order 

to retain certain core or critical capabilities as a matter of national 

policy. The witnesses included: Mr. P. Jackson Bell, Deputy Under 

Secretary of Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness; Mr. 

Shay Assad, Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy; and the Honorable David Walker, Comptroller General for the 

Government Accountability Office. 

The committee enacted several initiatives in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

addressing these issues, including requiring defense agencies, to 

the maximum extent practicable, to bring in-house work currently 

performed by contractors that is inherently governmental or is 

closely associated with inherently governmental functions. Three 

related provisions dealt with contracting for services: a requirement for the establishment of a data collection system to provide 

information on DOD purchases of contract services; codification of 

a requirement for the Department to maintain an inventory of its 

contracts for services; and a requirement for an independent review 

process for services contracts. 

Additional provisions addressing the performance of government 

functions by government employees versus contractors were enacted in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). These provisions include: a requirement for a comprehensive analysis and development of a single government-wide definition of inherently governmental functions and criteria for critical functions; development of 

guidance related to personal services contracts; a sense of Congress 

on the performance by private security contractors of certain governmental functions in an area of combat; and a requirement for 

developing government-wide policy and standard clauses regarding 

personal conflicts of interest by contractor employees performing 

acquisition roles closely associated with inherently governmental 

functions. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
77 

NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM

During the 110th Congress, the committee conducted a comprehensive review of the National Security Personnel System 

(NSPS), the new personnel management system for the Department of Defense. NSPS was enacted in 2003 as part of title XI of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). The Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing 

on March 6, 2007, to review the on-going implementation of NSPS, 

and to address issues raised by Department of Defense employees 

and their representatives. Testifying at the hearing were: the Honorable Michael Luis Dominguez, Principal Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Mr. John Gage, National 

President of the American Federation of Government Employees; 

Mr. Max Stier, President and CEO of the Partnership for Public 

Service; and Dr. Marick Masters, Professor of Business of the Katz 

Graduate School of Business of the University of Pittsburgh. 

As a result of this oversight, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) included a provision 

that restored employee collective bargaining rights and access to 

the civil service system’s regular adverse action appeal process, exempted wage grade employees from NSPS, guaranteed veterans’ 

preferences in hiring as well as during a reduction-in-force, and extended the exemption from NSPS to defense laboratories until 

2011. The provision also modified the pay for performance process, 

prohibited the Secretary of Defense from adding more than 100,000 

civilian employees to the system in any calendar year, and required 

periodic reviews by the Government Accountability Office. A provision clarifying the Department’s direct hire authority under NSPS 

was also included in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). The committee is carefully reviewing the final regulations, published in 

September 2008, to implement the changes enacted in 2007 and expects to conduct additional oversight of this issue in the 111th Congress. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL SECURITY CLEARANCE PROCESS

The committee continued its oversight of the Department of Defense (DOD) security clearance process during the 110th Congress. 

Currently, the Department is responsible for about 2 million active 

personnel security clearances, with approximately 34 percent being 

held by industry personnel working on Department contracts. The 

committee first became actively involved in addressing the financial and technology problems in the process following the sudden 

stoppage by the Department of the handling of industry security 

clearances in 2006, which resulted in a reprogramming request of 

about $90.0 million. Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the 

Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence 

(ODNI) to implement a demonstration project on new and innovative approaches to improve the process. 

In February 2008, the Subcommittee on Readiness received testimony from: Mr. Greg Torres, Director of Security in the Office of 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
78 

Security; Ms. Kathy Dillaman, Associate Director, Federal Investigative Services Division of the Office of Personnel Management; 

Mr. Jack Edwards, Director of the Defense Capabilities and Management Team for the Government Accountability Office; and Mr. 

Ben Romero of Lockheed Martin Corporation and Chairman of the 

Intelligence Subcommittee of the Information Technology Association of America on behalf of the Security Clearance Reform Coalition. The hearing focused on the joint DOD-ODNI plan as well as 

the President’s proposed reform plan, which was subsequently formally initiated through an executive order on June 30, 2008. The 

intent of both plans is to field a new security clearance system by 

the end of 2008. 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITIONS

The committee took aggressive action during the 110th Congress 

to reform the manner in which public-private competitions are conducted under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A– 

76, noting that agencies and services often do not perform the proper analysis to determine if such studies are necessary and beneficial to the mission of the agency or service. Despite significant revisions to Circular A–76 in 2003, the committee continued to hear 

from both the public and private sectors, which are forced to compete for the work, about the fairness of the process. 

The Subcommittee on Readiness held a briefing on March 14, 

2007, to provide representatives of the Department of Defense and 

the military services the opportunity to discuss their current and 

proposed A–76 studies. Participating in the briefing were: the Honorable Philip Grone, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; the Honorable Keith Eastin, Assistant 

Secretary of the Army For Installations & Environment; the Honorable B.J. Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations 

and Environment; and the Honorable William C. Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and 

Logistics. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) included several legislative revisions to the 

conduct of public-private competitions at the Department of Defense: 

(1) Prohibition on any advantage going to contractors that do 

not provide health or retirement benefits; 

(2) Cancellation of the requirement, outlined in OMB Circular A–76, for mandatory recompetitions of work won by employees in a Most Efficient Organization after a period of five 

years; 

(3) Development of guidance on insourcing new and contracted out functions; 

(4) Prohibition on the Department of Defense undertaking or 

completing public-private competitions in fulfillment of any requirements initiated by the Office of Management and Budget; 

(5) Establishment of equitable appeal rights for employees in 

a Most Efficient Organization; 

(6) Extension government-wide of certain Department of Defense requirements regarding public-private competitions, and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
79 

(7) Prohibition on the Department of Defense initiating any 

new public-private competitions for the performance of functions at military medical facilities until the Secretary certified 

that such competitions would not adversely affect the quality 

of medical care. 

In addition, in the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on all competitions initiated since May 30, 

2007, as well as all requests for cancellations, deferrals or requests 

for reductions in scope by military commands, and actions taken 

regarding such requests. 

ACQUISITION ISSUES

CONTINGENCY CONTRACTING

The acquisition policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

serves as an important enabler for both the modernization and operation of the armed forces. At the same time, acquisition policy 

must protect the taxpayers’ interest and ensure the optimal use of 

the Department’s resources. The committee continued its tradition 

of seeking to strike the proper balance between these sometimes 

competing priorities. During the 110th Congress, the committee 

held several hearings and briefings on continuing revelations about 

fraud, waste, and abuse occurring in contingency contracting. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181), the committee required the Department of 

Defense, the Department of State, and the United States Agency 

for International Development to enter into a memorandum of understanding concerning the responsibilities of each in respect to the 

oversight and management of contracts in the Republic of Iraq and 

the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. It established a Commission 

on Wartime Contracting and required a comprehensive audit plan 

for all contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Act also required the 

Department of Defense to establish regulations, in coordination 

with the Department of State, setting baseline personnel, training, 

and operational standards for all private security contractors performing work under a federal contract in a combat theater of operations. Finally, it required the Department to provide training to 

personnel outside the acquisition workforce who are likely to be 

tasked to take on acquisition functions as a result of the nature of 

contingency contracting. 

In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee required the 

establishment of a government-wide contingency contracting corps. 

It also required the Department of Defense to develop an acquisition strategy to minimize costs in the purchase of insurance by defense contractors operating overseas pursuant to the Defense Base 

Act. 

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

In exploring the root causes of the problems in contingency contracting, the committee identified significant shortcomings in the 

defense acquisition workforce as a major contributing factor. The 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
80 

committee also took note of the recommendations of several independent reviews of the defense acquisition process and the defense 

acquisition workforce, and as a result, several initiatives were enacted in the 110th Congress aimed at improving the hiring, training and retention of acquisition personnel, both civilian and military, at the Department of Defense. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) permanently extended the acquisition workforce training fund, established a new defense acquisition workforce fund to hire, retain and improve the workforce, and required 

the Department to include acquisition workforce planning in its annual human capital strategy updates. It prohibited the Department 

of Defense, starting in fiscal year 2011, from using a contractor as 

a lead system integrator and instead required the Department to 

develop the acquisition workforce necessary to perform these functions. It also established an Associate Administrator for Acquisition 

Workforce Programs within the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. 

In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee authorized 

the Department to use direct hire authority for acquisition positions designated as shortage positions; required the Department to 

establish policies for career paths for military personnel in the acquisition field; and established exceptions to Department personnel 

caps to ensure performance of certain functions by government employees, both civilian and military. 

CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES

The committee took note of the ongoing shift occurring in federal 

contracting characterized by a significant increase in contracting 

for services both in absolute terms and in relation to contracts for 

supplies. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181), three related provisions dealt with contracting for services: a requirement for the establishment of a data 

collection system to provide information on DOD purchases of contract services; codification of a requirement for the Department to 

maintain an inventory of its contracts for services; and a requirement for an independent review process for services contracts. 

MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

The committee continued its traditional work on major defense 

acquisition programs and the acquisition of major weapon systems. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181), the committee required additional certifications by the Secretary of Defense prior to requesting authority 

for multi-year procurement of a major weapon system and it required a report by the Comptroller General on the management 

structure for major defense acquisition programs. In the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417) the committee required the Department to 

convene a configuration steering board for each major defense acquisition program at least annually, and additionally whenever 

such program experiences significant cost growth or schedule 

delays. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
81 

GOVERNMENTWIDE ACQUISITION POLICY

The committee also continued its tradition of working closely 

with other committees, and especially with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to enact legislation making improvements to governmentwide acquisition policy and contracting 

authorities. In the 110th Congress, the committee enacted the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007 and the 

Clean Contracting Act of 2008 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417), respectively. The Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007, among other provisions, enhanced competition requirements for task and delivery order contracts for all federal agencies; required public disclosure of the justification for the decision to enter into a sole source contract except 

where such decision relates to classified matters, required additional disclosures to Congress on significant audit findings, and enhanced the ability of contracting officers of the Department of Defense to obtain additional information on pricing for services which 

are commercial in type but are not identical to those offered in the 

commercial marketplace. The Clean Contracting Act of 2008, 

among other provisions, extended the authority to obtain additional 

pricing information on commercial services contracts to all federal 

agencies, placed limits on the length of sole source contracts entered into on the basis of urgent and compelling need, extended a 

limitation on the issuance of sole source task and delivery order 

contracts that previously applied to the Department of Defense to 

all federal agencies, required a review of the application of the cost 

accounting standards to overseas contracts, and established a database for federal contracting officers containing information on the 

legal history and the performance of contractors relevant to evaluating past performance prior to issuing new contracts. 

DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE AND TECHNOLOGY CONTROLS

The committee continued to pursue its deep interest in and support for the defense industrial base, particularly for ensuring the 

supply of critical strategic materials. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), the 

committee made significant modifications to the domestic source restrictions relating to items containing specialty metals to rationalize the application of these restrictions to items originating from 

commercial products where specialty metal content is not normally 

tracked. It required the Department of Defense to provide public 

notice prior to making a determination of domestic non-availability 

relating to specialty metals. It also required the Department’s Strategic Materials Protection Board to evaluate the extent to which 

suppliers of strategic materials are reinvesting in production capacity for such materials. 

The committee received testimony on how globalization and foreign ownership are affecting the defense industrial base and industrial security. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee 

codified the authority of the Secretary of Defense to operate the inVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
82 

dustrial security program of the Department of Defense and to regulate the facility clearances of defense contractors. The committee 

also required enhanced reporting to Congress on the operation of 

the defense industrial security program and the implications of 

globalization and foreign ownership for the program. 

Also in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee required 

the Department of Defense to review the impact of potential subsidies received by foreign and domestic suppliers on the competition for the acquisition of aerial refueling aircraft. It also required 

the Department to update and clarify guidance on the use of existing statutory authority regarding the impact of major defense acquisition programs on the defense industrial base and on the use 

of procedures to protect domestic industrial base capabilities in the 

acquisition strategy for such programs when necessary. 

As part of its oversight of technology controls, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) requiring the Department 

of Defense to report on possible measures that could be taken to 

prevent export control violations by defense contractors. 

RAPID ACQUISITION AUTHORITY AND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL

NEEDS PROCESS

The committee has long been concerned by the length of time required by the Department of Defense to acquire technologies and 

equipment to meet warfighter’s needs, even comparatively simple 

technologies and equipment. The conflicts in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and particularly the evolution of the Improvised Explosive Device 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 on the joint 

urgent operational needs (JUONS) process, leveraging the efforts of 

the committee to take advantage of the rapid acquisition authority 

provided to the Department of Defense as part of section 811 of the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), wherever necessary, in order to 

guarantee that military personnel in harm’s way received the required equipment they had repeatedly requested in a timely manner. 

The JUONS process is intended to rapidly acquire a capability 

desired by the warfighter in order to meet an urgent requirement 

while balancing legal and federally mandated requirements such 

as: safety and reliability standards, acquisition review steps and 

classified material access limitations. A Subcommittee on Seapower 

and Expeditionary Forces hearing addressed certain alleged Department of Defense failures to rapidly respond to, validate, and 

execute on JUONSs from theater, specifically the mine resistant 

ambush protected vehicle program. The committee expressed concerns regarding the possible misuse of the JUONS process for nonurgent requests and as a means to reinforce operational support for 

existing programs of record. Because of these potential issues, the 

committee required the Secretary of Defense to commission an 

independent study and report on the effectiveness of the processes 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
83 

used by the Department of Defense to identify, prioritize, and meet 

urgent operational needs. 

In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee authorized 

$150.0 million for the rapid acquisition fund; a fund intended to 

support immediate warfighter needs. The committee encouraged 

that part of these funds be made available as part of a U.S. Central 

Command Rapid Acquisition Fund that would be used by the Commander, U.S. Central Command, to rapidly address unforeseen, 

joint urgent operational needs. 

FORCE PROTECTION

The committee selected force protection for special oversight, focusing on areas having direct impact on the safety of our 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 that would prevent or reduce combat 

casualties. The committee was also concerned by inflated claims 

with respect to the capabilities of certain products, some of those 

claims targeted at the families of military personnel serving overseas. The committee also viewed exposure of inferior capabilities as 

equally important. 

The Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces both held hearings and briefings throughout the 110th Congress on specific force 

protection issues. Focus areas included mine resistant ambush protected vehicle production and fielding; body and vehicle armor capabilities and quantities; counter-improvised explosive device (IED) 

technologies, especially electronic countermeasures to radio control 

initiated devices; tactical persistent surveillance in support of 

ground operations, particularly prevention of IED emplacement; 

and technologies to counter indirect fires. 

Consistent with the areas of inquiry in furtherance of force protection of past Congresses, the committee continued its in-depth 

oversight activities, including: visits to contractor and government 

production sites and assembly lines, assessing manufacturing processes and schedules; active oversight of various aspects of testing, 

including developmental testing, field testing and source selection 

testing; and identification and referral to the Department of Defense of sources and vendors with capability and capacity to meet 

critical deployment timelines. 

MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED VEHICLE ACQUISITION

The committee has long been concerned whether the immediate 

force protection needs of the warfighter were being met by the Department of Defense (DOD) in a timely and urgent manner, to include vehicle armor and protection. Improvised explosive devices 

(IED), at the height of their use, were responsible for about 70 percent of United States casualties in the Republic of Iraq. 

At the onset of the 110th Congress, in January 2007, the Subcommittees on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and Air and 

Land Forces, each held force protection hearings that focused on 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
84 

the importance and urgency of rapidly producing and fielding mine 

resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles to replace and complement up-armored High Mobility, Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs) in the combat theaters. Members of the committee 

expressed concern about the lack of urgency on the part of senior 

officials in the DOD to mobilize the United States industrial base 

to produce and field MRAPs to the warfighter. 

The committee report (H. Rept. 110–146) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 indicated 

that the fiscal year 2008 budget request for ongoing military operations failed to adequately resource the MRAP vehicle funding requirement despite the urgent need for the program and, as such, 

authorized $4.6 billion for the MRAP vehicle program, an increase 

of $4.1 billion; this fully funded the known MRAP vehicle requirement. The committee also required a monthly report be provided 

to Congress on the status of the MRAP vehicle program to include 

acquisition strategy, requirements, funding, and implications for 

the industrial base. 

To evaluate if maximum effort and productivity were achieved in 

producing and fielding MRAP vehicles, subcommittee oversight 

teams engaged in activities that included, but were not limited to: 

oversight delegations to all five qualified MRAP prime contractors 

where teams observed and analyzed production capability and met 

with senior company officials; a delegation visit to the primary 

steel mill being used to produce the majority of MRAP armor to assess its capacity to meet demand; an oversight delegation to the 

suppliers for low density/high demand items such as radio-controlled electronic counter measures; travel to Aberdeen Proving 

Grounds to observe test and evaluation procedures, analyze lessons 

learned regarding the performance of current armor solutions in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well 

as development, testing, and fielding of add-on armor kits for 

MRAP vehicles to protect against explosively formed penetrators 

(EFP); multiple oversight delegations to the primary facility being 

used for all government furnished equipment integration and installation on MRAP vehicles in order to observe this facility’s capability to meet demand and determine whether possible chokepoints 

existed for MRAP production; meeting with officials from United 

States Transportation Command to assess airlift and sealift capacity for transporting MRAP vehicles to theater in the most expeditious manner; and meeting with officials from the DOD Office of 

Industrial Policy and the Defense Contract Management Agency to 

review ongoing Industrial Capabilities Assessments for the MRAP 

vehicle program. 

These committee activities helped raise awareness of the importance of the MRAP vehicle program. In June 2007, the Secretary 

of Defense established an MRAP vehicle task force and made 

MRAP vehicle production and fielding the top priority of the Department of Defense. The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces held two 

joint hearings to receive updates from the MRAP Task Force and 

representatives from industry. The subcommittees continued to 

urge the Task Force to mobilize the industrial base and referenced 

the possibility of implementing provisions of the Defense ProducVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
85 

tion Act to provide higher production priority. The subcommittees 

also raised the issue of having adequate vehicles for home station 

training requirements and encouraged the use of simulators for 

next-to-deploy units. Concurrently, the MRAP vehicle requirement 

continued to increase and stands at 15,807. 

In order to assist in detailed oversight of this program, the committee also authorized the Government Accountability Office to 

monitor and observe the MRAP vehicle program and is receiving 

quarterly updates on the Government Accountability Office’s preliminary observations and findings. 

Because of direct congressional involvement and the willingness 

of the Secretary of Defense to make this program a top priority, 

over 15,000 MRAP vehicles will have been produced by December 

2008. Department of Defense officials have stated that the casualty 

rate for MRAP vehicles is six percent, making it ‘‘the most survivable vehicle we have in our arsenal by a multitude.’’ Largely as a 

result of committee activity, Congress has authorized and appropriated full funding for the MRAP vehicle program, totaling approximately $25.0 billion through fiscal year 2009. 

BODY ARMOR AND HELMET SUSPENSION SYSTEMS

The committee continued its intensive oversight of individual 

body armor programs throughout the 110th Congress through hearings and other activities. The committee maintains strong interest 

in new developments that could lead to significant improvements 

in body armor, in particular, advancements in lighter-weight solutions. A full committee hearing on Department of Defense body 

armor programs was followed by the Army agreeing to rewrite the 

current body armor solicitation to verify that all possible body 

armor designs such as flexible systems would be part of the ongoing competition. 

To ensure fairness and transparency, the committee required the 

Director, Operational Test and Evaluation as well as the Government Accountability Office to provide procedural and technical 

oversight of the test and evaluation to occur as part of this competition. The committee intends the outcome of the test and evaluation to result in an authoritative procurement decision upon which 

the Secretary of the Army can act immediately, ensuring that the 

best possible individual body armor capability is qualified, produced, procured, and issued to the warfighter. 

Regarding head protection against traumatic brain injury, the 

committee continued its in-depth oversight of the effectiveness of 

the internal helmet suspension systems currently fielded to military personnel. Section 1048 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), initiated by the 

committee, required the Secretary of Defense to carry out a limited 

field user evaluation on all qualified helmet pad suspension systems to obtain feedback from the warfighter on the different pad 

systems’ relative advantages and disadvantages beyond their technical performance specifications and capability. This feedback is 

being applied to ongoing tests and evaluation of current helmet pad 

suspension systems and should allow for the military services to 

make a best value procurement decision and help in the protection 

against traumatic brain injury. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
86 

Largely as a result of committee leadership, Congress authorized 

and appropriated over $1.5 billion for individual body armor and 

associated components in the 110th Congress. 

EXPLOSIVELY FORMED PROJECTILE ADD-ON ARMOR KIT PRODUCTION

AND ARMOR TECHNOLOGY

During the 110th Congress, a new threat emerged in the Republic of Iraq, the explosively formed penetrator (EFP), requiring the 

development and production of new add-on armor kits for protection against this threat. Committee oversight teams traveled to Aberdeen Proving Grounds to observe and evaluate possible solutions 

for EFP add-on armor kits and worked with industry and the Army 

to assess industrial base capacity for EFP add-on armor kit production. 

In the conference report (H. Rept. 110–477) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the conferees directed that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) ensure that the Army and 

the Joint Improvised Explosive Defeat Organization conduct a robust technology analysis as rapidly as possible to determine whether reactive armor would provide superior protection against EFPs 

and to determine the potential for weight reduction with a longerterm effort to optimize the reactive armor system. The conferees 

also directed the USD (AT&L) to report on a plan for improving capabilities to mitigate the effects of EFPs. 

JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE DEFEAT ORGANIZATION

The committee continued its oversight of the Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the Department 

of Defense’s focal point for the battle against improvised explosive 

devices (IED), during the 110th Congress. The Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations conducted an inquiry into the program, seeking answers to two questions: is JIEDDO winning the 

counter-IED fight in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic 

of Afghanistan; and what is the Department’s long-term plan for 

JIEDDO and for addressing other asymmetric threats? 

The subcommittee found that although the nearly 3,100-person 

strong JIEDDO spends over $4.0 billion annually, and it reports 

significant progress in the counter-IED (C–IED) fight, it is not 

clear how well the organization is accomplishing its mission. The 

subcommittee found that JIEDDO: does not actively lead all DOD 

C–IED efforts, as its charter calls for; needs improvement in identifying appropriate metrics and measurements; and would benefit 

from additional oversight of its large budget and flexible appropriations. Moreover, although the Deputy Secretary of Defense decided 

to institutionalize the organization, questions concerning JIEDDO’s 

future remain. The services and the combatant commands acknowledge that the capabilities that JIEDDO brings to the C–IED fight 

are valuable, but it is not clear whether or how JIEDDO as an organization will evolve as future disruptive threats emerge. 

The subcommittee made various recommendations to the Department and its findings of the report contributed to the committee’s 

oversight of JIEDDO, and force protection, more generally. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
87 

MILITARY MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES

Throughout the 110th Congress, particular attention was given 

to continuing examination of military equipment modernization 

with respect to military capability. In many cases, major weapons 

system development and acquisition programs have experienced 

cost growth and schedule delays. The committee assessed the need 

for legislative action by examining causes of these problems including: proceeding with development with immature technology; requirements growth; late determination of requirements; poor cost 

estimating; improper funding profiles; labor and material cost increases; poor program execution; and program instability. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) included the following legislative provisions 

to address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance 

issues with programs: limitation on use of funds for Increment 1 

of the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical program pending 

certification to Congress; prohibition on closure of Army Tactical 

Missile System production line pending a report; report on shipbuilding investment strategy; assessments required prior to start of 

construction on first ship of a shipbuilding program; limitation on 

Joint Cargo Aircraft; budget and acquisition requirements for Missile Defense Agency activities; requirements applicable to multiyear contracts for the procurement of major systems of the Department of Defense; changes to Milestone B certifications; review of 

systemic deficiencies on major defense acquisition programs; investment strategy for major defense acquisition programs; and a 

report on implementation of recommendations on total ownership 

cost for major weapon systems. 

The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) included the following legislative provisions to address acquisition-related issues: separate procurement line items for Future Combat Systems program; restriction on obligation of funds for Army tactical radio pending a report; 

report on F/A–18 procurement costs, comparing multi-year to annual funding; annual long-term plan for the procurement of aircraft 

for the Navy and the Air Force; additional determinations to be 

made as part of Future Combat Systems milestone review; Future 

Combat Systems manned ground vehicle selected acquisition reports; separate procurement and research, development, test, and 

evaluation line items and program elements for Sky Warrior Unmanned Aerial Systems project; restriction on obligation of funds 

for the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical program; independent study of boost-phase missile defense; review of the ballistic 

missile defense policy and strategy of the United States; and inclusion of major subprograms to major defense acquisition programs 

under acquisition reporting requirements. 

ARMY AND MARINE CORPS ARMORED VEHICLE MODERNIZATION

The committee focused on oversight of the Army and Marine 

Corps’ ambitious and evolving plans to recapitalize their entire 

fleets of armored vehicles over the next two decades, including new 

versions of the M1 Abrams tank, updated M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, new Stryker Vehicles, research on the Expeditionary FightVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
88 

ing Vehicle, upgrades for Light Armored Vehicles, and upgrades to 

Paladin artillery systems. In particular, the committee focused on 

ensuring that the existing fleet of armored vehicles was properly 

upgraded and reset after very heavy use in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The upgrade programs 

pursued and supported by the committee improved crew and vehicle protection, mobility, and the fleet’s ability to use new digital 

communications systems. The committee also pursued legislative 

provisions to ensure proper testing of the Stryker Mobile Gun System, additional analysis of active protection systems, and multiyear procurement authority for a variety of armored vehicle programs in order to reduce costs and provide program stability. 

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS

Based on long-standing committee concerns about Future Combat Systems (FCS) program cost increases, schedule delays, and diminishing content, the committee continued its efforts to oversee 

and shape the FCS program. These efforts focused first on ensuring 

that the program was appropriately structured and sufficiently 

transparent to allow future Congresses to make informed decisions. 

In particular, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) contained six legislative provisions intended to provide additional program information to Congress while requiring the Department of Defense to 

thoroughly review and test the program’s elements prior to committing to production. The committee also advocated for modest program funding reductions in order to eliminate waste and unnecessary overhead. Finally, the committee continued to work with the 

Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office 

to conduct continuous oversight and evaluation of the Army’s most 

costly modernization program in its history. 

ARMY COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAMS

Due to a dramatic increase in Army spending on tactical communications systems in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the committee pursued a combination of program budget reductions and restrictive 

legislative provisions in an effort to encourage the Army to clarify 

its plans for its future battlefield network and the research programs now in place to achieve it. In particular, the committee focused its oversight efforts on the Warfighter Information NetworkTactical (WIN-T), Joint Network Node (JNN), and Army tactical 

radio programs. In each case, the committee’s oversight efforts 

identified a lack of clear requirements, unrealistic cost estimates, 

and the lack of an overall plan to integrate these program elements 

in the future. The committee’s efforts led the Army to consolidate 

and streamline the WIN-T and JNN programs into one integrated 

program, and to reevaluate more than $2.0 billion in funding for 

Army tactical radios, pending more thorough Army analysis about 

tactical radio acquisition and its relation to the Army’s future battlefield network, allowing the Army to reallocate those funds to 

more pressing needs. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
89 

ARMY AVIATION PROGRAMS

As the Army sustained operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan during the 110th Congress, it 

maintained large numbers of legacy rotorcraft deployed to those 

theaters and operated those aircraft 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. 

Oversight hearings on Army programs raised significant concerns 

about three programs. First, the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter 

(ARH), projected to cost $6.3 billion as of December 2007, came to 

the attention of the committee because of delays in delivery of test 

aircraft and the accidental loss of one of the test aircraft. In the 

first session of the 110th Congress, the committee concluded that 

significant costs increases and schedule delays no longer justified 

continuing the program, as it could no longer be executed without 

significant increases in costs and schedule delays. The committee 

report (H. Rept. 110–146) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 provided no funding in fiscal 

year 2008 for the ARH and recommended program cancellation. 

While the program was ultimately authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), 

the program continued to experience cost increases and schedule 

delays, and was cancelled by the Department of Defense in 2008. 

The second program of concern to the committee was the Joint 

Heavy Lift/Joint Future Theater Lift program. In response to a reprogramming action in 2008, the committee approved the Department’s request, but noted that while the committee supports 

science and technology efforts to develop and test next generation 

rotorcraft capabilities, the DOD has funded this program primarily 

through reprogramming actions over a five year period. The committee observed that the services have yet to establish validated requirements for this program that might ultimately cost $50.0 billion to $75.0 billion. While the Department of Defense estimates 

the cost of pre-systems design and demonstration activities through 

fiscal year 2014 at $2.3 billion, it has not formally budgeted any 

funding to meet the requirement. The committee expects to continue its close oversight of this program into the 111th Congress. 

Finally, the committee has been concerned about delays in fielding the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures (ATIRCM)/ 

Common Missile Warning System program which was intended to 

provide warning and protection of rotorcraft from threat surface to 

air missiles and has been in development since the mid-1990s. In 

the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) accompanying the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, 

the committee noted that the Department had fielded other laserbased countermeasures and was considering developing additional 

technologies that could significantly reduce the size and weight of 

this capability when compared to current systems. Given the delays 

in the fielding of ATIRCM, the committee encouraged the Department to take immediate steps to accelerate the fielding of laserVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
90 

based countermeasures for the protection of Army rotary aircraft in 

theater. The committee directed the Secretary of Defense to submit 

a report to the congressional defense committees on laser-based 

surface-to-air missile countermeasures across the Department. 

SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS

During the 110th Congress, the committee investigated a series 

of significant challenges in Navy shipbuilding and ship modernization programs including modernization efforts in major shipyards 

and control of spiraling acquisition costs. The Subcommittee on 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces held a hearing on March 20, 

2007, to investigate the need for the government to invest in capital improvements at major shipyards which might lower total acquisition costs and life cycle costs of naval vessels. Witnesses included Vice Admiral Paul Sullivan, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, Ms. Allison Stiller, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

the Navy, Ship Programs, Mr. Mike Petters, President, Northrop 

Grumman Newport News Shipyard, and Mr. Mike Toner, Corporate Vice President, General Dynamics Ship Sector. The subcommittee also held a hearing on March 8, 2007, concerning submarine acquisition plans and policy to determine the earliest time 

that the Virginia-class submarine program could increase production to two submarines per year. Witnesses at that hearing included Vice Admiral Jay Donnelly, Commander, Naval Submarine 

Forces, and Rear Admiral William Hilarides, Program Executive 

Officer, Submarines. 

The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces conducted a series of hearings and briefings on the Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS) program during both sessions. Hearings were held on 

February 8, 2007, and July 24, 2007, with a follow-on briefing conducted April 23, 2008. Witnesses at these hearings and briefings 

included the Honorable Delores Etter, Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy, Research, Development, and Acquisition, Rear Admiral 

Charles Goddard, Program Executive Officer, Ships Programs, Vice 

Admiral Paul Sullivan, Commander, Naval Sea Systems Command, 

and Ms. Allison Stiller, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, 

Ship Programs. Additionally, the subcommittee held two separate 

hearings on surface combatant programs to investigate Navy acquisition strategies and war-fighting requirements for procurement of 

DDG 51 Burke-class destroyers or DDG 1000 Zumwalt-class destroyers. Hearings were held on March 14, 2008, and July 31, 2008. 

The committee enacted several initiatives in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

addressing many issues directly affecting efficient ship construction, including: authorization for multi-year procurement of Virginia-class submarines; a requirement for a detailed analysis of 

shipbuilding investment strategies; a requirement for the Secretary 

of the Navy to personally certify completion of development and design of new classes of ship prior to the start of production; and a 

modification of cost controls for the LCS program. 

Additional provisions relating to Navy shipbuilding were also enacted in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), including a provision 

restructuring cost controls for the LCS program and authorization 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
91 

for construction in advance of authorization for submarines included in the multi-year procurement contract authorized in the 

previous fiscal year. 

FIGHTER FORCE STRUCTURE ADEQUACY

During the 110th Congress, the committee investigated the adequacy of fighter force structure in both the Navy and the Air Force. 

The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and the 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces held a joint hearing on 

March 22, 2007. The Navy witness testified that the Navy predicts 

a shortfall of 60–90 strike fighters that could begin in 2010 and 

peak at 82–226 aircraft in 2013 to 2016. The Navy witness also testified that the Navy had hoped to mitigate this shortfall by extending the F/A–18 A through D fleets to 10,000 hours and increasing 

procurement of the Joint Strike Fighter. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) authorized both Navy and Air Force requests for the procurement of new 

fighter aircraft, including F/A–18E/Fs and EA–18Gs for the Navy, 

F–22s for the Air Force, and F–35s for both the Navy and the Air 

Force. 

On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces held 

a joint hearing on fiscal year 2009 Navy and Air Force aviation 

programs. At this hearing, Navy witnesses noted that inventory objective reductions, delays in procurement of the JSF, and F/A–18A 

through D service life limits combine to create a projected Navy 

strike fighter shortfall of 60–125 aircraft between the years 2016 

and 2022. The most optimistic projected peak is a 125-strike fighter 

aircraft shortfall in 2017. Also at this hearing, Air Force witnesses 

described a requirement for 2250 fighter aircraft to meet National 

Military Strategy requirements, and noted that current budget 

plans would result in shortfalls beginning in 2017 and growing to 

about 800 fighter aircraft by 2024. The Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110– 

417) authorized budget requests for all Navy and Air Force new 

fighter aircraft procurement, and existing fighter aircraft modifications, except a decrease of one F–35 in each of the Navy and Air 

Force F–35 budget requests. Additionally, Public Law 110–417 provided a $523.0 million increase for the advance procurement of 20 

Air Force F–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2010. Public Law 110–417 

also mandated an annual report to Congress on the Navy and Air 

Force 30-year plan for the procurement of aircraft. 

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued oversight of 

the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program, particularly the competitive propulsion system program. The JSF competitive propulsion 

system program is developing the F136 engine, which would eventually provide JSF customers a competitive choice between the existing F135 engine and the F136 engine. Congress has supported 

this initiative since 1995, but the Department of Defense had not 

included funding for the competitive propulsion system program in 

its budget requests since 2006. The Subcommittee on Seapower and 

Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
92 

Forces held a joint hearing on March 22, 2007. At that hearing, the 

Department of Defense’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group witness testified that it would cost about $300.0 million more for the 

Department to develop an alternate JSF engine than to continue 

with a sole source engine program. The Institute for Defense Analyses witness testified that competition would need to save about 18 

percent of total procurement and operations and support costs to 

make the alternate engine cost effective. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) witness testified that 10 to 12 percent savings 

would need to be achieved through competition, but that, based on 

savings of 21 percent in the competition for the F–16’s F100 and 

F110 engines, this savings is achievable in the JSF engine program. The committee enacted an initiative in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) that 

required the Department of Defense to obligate and expend funds 

for development of a JSF competitive propulsion system. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 also authorized an increase of $480.0 million for continued development of the 

JSF competitive propulsion system. 

On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittees on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and Air and Land Forces held a joint hearing on fiscal year 2009 Navy and Air Force aviation programs. The Department of Defense witness testified that the Department did not support a competitive propulsion system program for the JSF because 

the Department believes that those funds could be used for higher 

Department of Defense priorities. The GAO witness testified that 

an additional $3.5 billion to $4.5 billion would be required to develop, produce, and sustain a competitive JSF engine; however potential advantages from a competitive strategy could result in savings equal to or exceeding that amount across the life cycle of the 

engine. The GAO’s updated cost analysis suggests that a savings 

of 9 to 11 percent—about 2 percent less than what the GAO estimated last year—would recoup that investment. The Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417) authorized a $495.0 million increase for continued development of the JSF competitive propulsion system and 

an increase of $35.0 million for the long-lead procurement of F136 

engines. 

F–22

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued oversight of 

the Air Force F–22 procurement program. Fiscal year 2009 is the 

final year of a three-year, 60-aircraft multiyear procurement program that would result in a Department of Defense-approved force 

structure of 183 F–22 aircraft. The Subcommittee on Seapower and 

Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land 

Forces held a joint hearing on March 22, 2007. At that hearing, the 

Air Force witness testified that the Air Force requires 381 F–22 

aircraft to meet requirements of the National Military Strategy. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) authorized the Air Force request of $3.2 billion 

for 20 F–22s and $426.7 million for the advance procurement of 20 

F–22s in fiscal year 2009. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
93 

On March 11, 2008, the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces held 

a joint hearing on fiscal year 2009 Navy and Air Force aviation 

programs. At this hearing, the Department of Defense (DOD) witness indicated that 183 F–22A aircraft is the best trade-off between 

cost and capability. Additionally, he testified that further funds for 

the F–22A program would be best spent in modernizing the 183- 

aircraft inventory rather than procuring additional aircraft. The 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417) authorized the budget request of $2.9 

billion for 20 F–22 aircraft, and authorized an increase of $523.0 

million for the advance procurement of 20 additional F–22s in fiscal year 2010. Public Law 110–417 also included a provision that 

restricted the obligation of the $523.0 million to $140.0 million 

until the President certifies, by March 1, 2009, that either additional F–22s should be procured or the F–22 production line should 

be closed. 

On November 18, 2008, the Subcommittee on Air and Land 

Forces held an F–22 hearing to address committee concerns that 

the Department of Defense was not complying with the spirit and 

intent of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2009 by not obligating the entire $140.0 million and 

thereby resulting in higher F–22 costs should the next President 

decide to continue F–22 production. The Department of Defense 

witness indicated that the Department intended to obligate advance procurement for four F–22 aircraft in November 2008, with 

an option for 16 additional aircraft, providing an adequate bridge 

until at least January, 2009, without imposing significant additional costs on the taxpayer for any future course of action. 

B–52 BOMBER FORCE STRUCTURE

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) directed the Air 

Force to reduce the B–52 bomber force to 56 aircraft and use the 

savings to fully modernize the remaining B–52 bombers, B–1 bombers, and B–2 bombers to support global strike operations. The committee believed that the B–52 combat coded force structure of 44 

was insufficient to meet combatant commander requirements for 

conventional long-range strike, if the need should arise to conduct 

near simultaneous operations in two major regional conflicts. The 

committee noted that the 2006 QDR indicated that the Air Force 

planned to modernize and upgrade only 56 of the total 76 B–52 aircraft in the inventory. The committee strongly opposed an Air 

Force strategy to reduce capability for conventional long-range 

strike capability without a replacement long-range strike aircraft 

projected to achieve initial operational capability until well into the 

future. 

As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) prohibited the Secretary of the Air 

Force from placing any of the 76 B–52 bomber aircraft into a storage status. 

KC–135R AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT RECAPITALIZATION

The committee continued to support the Air Force’s number one 

acquisition program of tanker recapitalization, believing that the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
94 

ability for aerial refueling during military operations is a critical 

capability in meeting National Military Strategy objectives. The 

committee notes that recapitalization of the KC–135 fleet of 415 

aircraft, currently delayed 7 years because of failures internal to 

the Pentagon’s acquisition system, once initiated, will take over 30 

years to complete based on current budget constraints and other 

Department of Defense priorities that require significant funding. 

Given this timeline and the continuing difficulty with this procurement, the committee was disappointed that the Air Force was 

unable to successfully conduct a source-selection to award a contract during the span of the two-year congressional session due to 

yet another flawed procurement process. The Secretary of Defense 

indefinitely suspended the KC–(X) competition on September 10, 

2008. 

INTER/INTRA-THEATER AIRLIFT PROGRAMS

On September 27, 2007, the Secretary of the Air Force notified 

Congress that the C–5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining 

Program (RERP) experienced a critical Nunn-McCurdy cost growth. 

On February 14, 2008, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) certified the C–5 

RERP program to Congress during the Nunn-McCurdy process. 

The committee understood that USD (AT&L) concluded that a program to perform RERP on only 52 C–5B/C aircraft and perform 

only the Avionics Modernization Program on the remaining 59 C– 

5A aircraft was the most cost-effective solution to meet airlift requirements contained in the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study 

(MCS). 

In testimony to the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces on 

March 11, 2008, USD (AT&L) stated that the 2005 MCS concluded 

that a ‘‘fleet of 112 modernized C–5s, provided sufficient strategic 

airlift capacity’’ to meet the Department’s future airlift requirements. However, on April 1, 2008, written testimony from the Commander, Air Mobility Command to the Subcommittee on Air and 

Land Forces stated that ‘‘the current program for 190 C–17s, 52 

RERP modified C–5s, and 59 legacy C–5As will not quite provide 

the organic strategic airlift capacity of 33.95 million ton miles per 

day specified by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. 

The committee concluded that the MCS used by the Department 

to make critical decisions concerning the C–17 production line was 

inadequate because the MCS: did not take into account the end 

strength increases of 92,000 personnel for the Army and Marine 

Corps; did not consider any mobility requirements of the Army’s 

Future Combat Systems and Modularity concepts of employment; 

did not consider the fact that the Army Manned-Ground Vehicle is 

too large to be transported by a C–130 aircraft; did not consider the 

159 percent over-utilization rate of the current fleet of C–17 aircraft; did not consider the use of C–17s in multi-use roles for which 

the C–17 is being used extensively in current operations; and, did 

not have or use historical mobility forces operational data in its 

analysis to verify actual mobility requirements and operations. 

As a result, the committee included a provision in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181) that requires the Secretary of Defense to perform an inter/ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
95 

intra-theater airlift capabilities and requirements study. In addition, Congress authorized $4.4 billion for procurement of 14 additional C–17s in title XV of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and title XV of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417). 

Concerning intra-theater airlift programs, the committee questioned whether the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) is needed to fulfill 

Department of Defense intra-theater airlift requirements, and 

whether the Army or Air Force should operate the platform. As a 

result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) restricted the program from obligating or expending appropriated funds until submission of six Department of 

Defense initiated studies to the congressional defense committees. 

On April 1, 2008, the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces received testimony from the Commander, Air Mobility Command 

stating that the JCA is 60 to 70 percent less cost-effective than the 

C–130J in performing missions considered in the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study. 

After thorough oversight of the program during the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee concluded that funding 

for JCA should be redirected for procurement of additional C–130J 

aircraft to support future missions of the Air Force and Air National Guard, and included language in the Joint Explanatory 

Statement (Committee Print 10) accompanying the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 strongly 

encouraging the Secretary of the Air Force to take such action. 

INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR)

PROGRAMS

Throughout the 110th Congress, the committee continued to provide close oversight over myriad intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) programs included throughout the Department 

of Defense. Long-standing concerns of the committee included: lack 

of oversight and management by the Office of the Secretary of Defense of the military services’ programs; lack of an adequate longterm ISR architecture and acquisition strategy; failure of the Joint 

Capabilities Integration and Development System to fulfill its role 

in screening proposed programs from the services and commands; 

lack of supporting analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to 

balance collection programs data output with adequate resources to 

process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; and unnecessary proliferation of unmanned and manned vehicles, sensors, and 

ground stations. 

In the committee report (H. Report 110–146) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the committee directed that the Secretary of Defense review and determine 

whether the designation of one military department as executive 

agent for unmanned aerial systems (UAS) would serve as the best 

means for eliminating duplication of effort and enhancing interoperability. In lieu of establishing an executive agent for UAS, the 

Department created a UAS Task Force in October 2007, to coordinate critical UAS issues and to develop a way ahead to enhance operations, enable inter-dependencies, and streamline acquisition. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
96 

The committee continued to be concerned that joint requirements 

be integrated to provide required capabilities to warfighters as efficiently and effectively as possible. In the committee report (H. 

Rept. 110–652) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to report by March 15, 2009, on his 

determination of the appropriate mix of national overhead systems 

and manned and unmanned airborne platforms to achieve strategic 

goals that is based on an analysis of future ISR demand, and a 

comprehensive set of metrics to assess ISR effectiveness in meeting 

the Department’s strategic goals. Further, the Secretary was asked 

to ensure the report be consistent with and reflect the Secretary’s 

efforts to comply with section 942 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and include detailed recommendations on how funding authorizations and appropriations 

can be structured to support a fully integrated ISR architecture. Finally, the committee directed the Secretary to include information 

in all future funding requests that explains how each request fits 

into the Department’s ISR architecture without unnecessarily duplicating or overlapping with existing systems or capabilities. 

In its consideration of the Department’s reprogramming request 

(FY08–33 PA) in July 2008, for $1.26 billion in ISR-related programs and projects, the committee expressed its support for the increased emphasis the Department was placing on ISR capabilities 

by planning to field improved capabilities, but expressed concern 

that the reprogramming would negatively impact other required capabilities and replicated deficiencies evident in command and control of current ISR assets. The committee expressed its intent to 

closely follow the execution of the numerous ISR programs covered 

in the reprogramming. 

SPACE PROGRAMS

With the Chinese decision to test a direct ascent anti-satellite 

weapon in January 2007, the committee expanded its oversight of 

the policies and programs associated with the protection of national 

security space assets. Committee members regularly received highly classified briefings on threats to our space assets and space security issues, and the committee’s oversight was coordinated with the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The committee’s recognition of the expanding role of space in military operations and increasing threats led to a requirement in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181) for the Secretary of Defense, in conjunction with the Director 

of National Intelligence, to develop a space protection strategy that 

would identify the capabilities necessary to ensure freedom of action in space for the United States. This strategy was prepared 

jointly by the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, and delivered to the committee during the summer of 2008. 

The committee was encouraged by the cooperation between the 

‘‘black’’ and ‘‘white’’ space communities that was engendered to 

produce this strategy. 

In addition, particular attention was given to efforts that increase the responsiveness of space capabilities to meet the evolving 

needs of the warfighter. The committee has been at the forefront 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
97 

of encouraging the Department to develop low-cost, rapid reaction, 

operationally responsive space (ORS) satellite and launch capabilities that can provide prompt, focused space support to warfighters 

in their theaters of operations and more rapidly fill the void that 

exists between space science, technology efforts, and operational 

space requirements development. The committee has closely monitored the development of the ORS program and is encouraged by 

the interest combatant commands have shown in meeting military 

requirements through low-cost ORS solutions. 

With a number of military space programs behind schedule and 

over cost, the committee continued its oversight of national security 

space acquisitions. The committee continued tracking the performance of several high profile space programs including the Transformational Satellite Communications System, Space Radar, SpaceBased Infrared System High, and National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, and tasked the Government Accountability Office to examine several of these programs 

and the cost estimating processes employed by the Department. 

In an effort to more clearly establish the requirement for protected communications using satellites, the committee included a 

provision in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) requiring the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly review the bandwidth capacity requirements. 

Committee delegations visited the United States Strategic Command and several military installations to gain insight into 

warfighter needs and the integration of space in military operations, as well as service laboratories and industry sites to assess 

technology development in tactical satellites, responsive launch vehicles, and progress on major space acquisition programs. 

MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

In addition to the annual Missile Defense Agency oversight hearings, the committee focused significant attention on evaluating the 

Administration’s proposal to deploy a long-range missile defense interceptor site in the Republic of Poland and an X-band radar site 

in the Czech Republic to defend against a potential Iranian longrange missile threat. As a result of this evaluation, the committee 

imposed specific conditions in the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) that 

must be met before the proposed deployment could proceed. 

The committee also examined options to improve the role that 

the warfighter plays in the missile defense development and requirements processes. In the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), the committee directed 

an independent assessment of the Missile Defense Agency to study 

the future roles and missions of the agency. The assessment, conducted by the Institute for Defense Analysis, made a number of 

recommendations as to how the agency can be made more effective 

to support the needs of the warfighter, especially with regard to 

near-term missile defense requirements. 

The committee conducted consultations with combatant commands to discuss the roles that the commands play in the missile 

defense development process. It also received a briefing from the 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
98 

Joint Staff on the Joint Capabilities Mix Study II, which examined 

the near-term missile defense inventory requirements of regional 

combatant commanders. Finally, the committee continued its longstanding discussions with the military services and the Missile Defense Agency to review plans to transition individual ballistic missile defense elements from the Missile Defense Agency to the military services. 

CONVENTIONAL PROMPT GLOBAL STRIKE AND HARD AND DEEPLY

BURIED TARGET DEFEAT

The committee considered the Department of Defense’s efforts to 

develop a conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) capability. The 

Subcommittees on Strategic Forces, Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities, and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces 

held a classified briefing on the National Academy of Sciences interim report on CPGS on July 24, 2007. This briefing and continued committee oversight resulted in the inclusion of a provision in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) which required a research, development, and testing plan and a plan for obligation of funds for fiscal year 2008 including correlations between technology applications and the 

prompt global strike alternative or alternatives toward which the 

technology application applied. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), 

the committee included a provision which requires additional reporting to maintain transparency in the CPGS program and requires a review of all CPGS concepts being considered, including 

the policy, legal, and treaty-related issues associated with each. 

The committee also conducted oversight on the Department of 

Defense’s Hard and Deeply Buried Target Defeat (HDBTD) program. The Subcommittees on Strategic Forces and Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a joint classified briefing on HDBTD on October 3, 2007. The committee directed the Department of Defense to continue to coordinate and pursue HDBTD 

capabilities and modified the congressional reporting requirements 

on these efforts with section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). 

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued to provide 

oversight of the Department of Defense Chemical Biological Defense (CBD) program and maintained a special focus on the Department’s Transformational Medical Technology Initiative (TMTI). 

The committee monitored the Department’s implementation of 

the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) with regard to these 

programs and recommended a number of funding increases and decreases to various CBD efforts. With respect to the QDR recommendations, the committee reviewed the development of both 

traditional and broad-spectrum medical countermeasures for combating chemical and biological threats, including: collective protection and exposure avoidance; rapid detection and early warning; 

training and decontamination; and advanced research in vaccine 

and prophylaxis development. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
99 

In accordance with a concurrent review of the QDR, the committee recommended several funding increases for CBD science and 

technology efforts in the respective reports accompanying both the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). In addition, 

the Joint Explanatory Statement (Committee Print 10) accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act 

for 2009 recommended a significant reduction from the requested 

amount of funding for the TMTI initiative, and cited both development and delivery delays in the program. 

More generally, the committee maintained an interest in the effectiveness of the Department’s consequence management efforts 

and its integration with other chemical and biological consequence 

management activities throughout the federal government. As a result, at the recommendation of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities, the committee authorized the Comptroller General to assess the planning and integration of federal consequence management efforts involving chemical, 

biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives. 

MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

As the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal continues to age, the 

committee has closely examined policy options for continued stewardship of our nuclear deterrent forces. One of the committee’s primary objectives has been to foster and help frame a high-level discussion of nuclear weapons policy. This objective led to provisions 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) that established a congressionally appointed 

bipartisan commission to reevaluate the U.S. strategic posture and 

requires the next administration to submit a new Nuclear Posture 

Review with the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review. 

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces continued its intensive 

oversight of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), 

the organization within the Department of Energy (DOE) responsible for the safety, security, and reliability of United States nuclear weapons. Committee members and staff visited every laboratory and site within the NNSA nuclear weapons complex. The subcommittee was briefed regularly on the proposed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program as well as the broader Stockpile 

Stewardship Program, and took numerous classified briefings regarding specific areas of concern. 

Issues identified during these briefings and visits led the committee to impose limitations on the proposed RRW program that 

were included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). This Act also included requirements that the NNSA examine the feasibility of using existing pits 

in refurbished weapons within the RRW program; that the Department of Energy and the General Accountability Office examine alternatives for providing and managing protective forces for DOE 

sites with special nuclear materials; and that the NNSA prepare 

and maintain an investment plan for addressing physical and cyber 

security threats to the nuclear weapons complex. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
100 

The subcommittee also conducted oversight of the Department of 

Energy’s management of defense nuclear waste and defense environmental management activities, including critical cleanup activities at the Hanford Site in Washington State and the Savannah 

River Site in South Carolina, as well as the Miamisburg Mound 

Closure Project in Ohio. In addition, the subcommittee regularly reviewed the Department’s efforts to consolidate and dispose of special nuclear materials. Concerns about the plutonium disposition 

program led to a requirement in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) 

that the mixed-oxide fuel manufacturing facility at the Savannah 

River Site be managed and executed by the NNSA. 

NUCLEAR SURETY

On August 30, 2007, the Air Force performed an unauthorized 

transfer of nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force Base in North 

Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. This extremely 

troubling incident began a series of oversight activities focused on 

understanding and correcting the erosion of nuclear competence 

within the Air Force. 

In September 2007, committee staff traveled to Minot Air Force 

Base to investigate this incident. On November 1, 2007, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was briefed on the commander-directed investigation into the unauthorized transfer by Major General Douglas Raaberg, Director of Air and Space Operations for Air 

Force Air Combat Command. 

On August 1, 2006, Defense Distribution Depot Hill, Utah initiated a shipment to the Republic of China on Taiwan of what was 

believed to be four helicopter batteries in order to fill a foreign 

military sales order. The items shipped had been misidentified, 

however, and were actually four classified MK–12 forward section 

reentry vehicle assemblies, which are used on the Minuteman III 

intercontinental ballistic missile. 

On March 25, 2008, Admiral Kirkland Donald, Director of Naval 

Nuclear Propulsion was directed by the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct an investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the accountability for, and shipment of, sensitive missile 

components to Taiwan in August 2006. On April 3, 2008, the committee received an initial briefing on this incident. On June 18, 

2008, the committee received a briefing by Admiral Kirkland Donald on the results of his investigation into shipments of sensitive 

missile components to Taiwan. 

As a result of these oversight activities, the committee agreed to 

include a provision in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) that expressed the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should 

clarify the lines of responsibility and accountability for nuclear 

weapons matters within the Office of the Secretary of Defense to 

place greater emphasis on strategic and nuclear weapons policy 

and management. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
101 

SPECIAL OPERATIONS

During the 110th Congress, the committee continued oversight of 

issues related to the United States capacity and capability in 

counter-terrorism response. The committee devoted substantial attention to the planned expansion of the Special Operations Forces 

(SOF) as called for by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review in response to the challenges of prosecuting the ongoing Global War on 

Terror. On January 31, 2007, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a hearing to assess the 

manning, equipping, and readiness of the Special Operations 

Forces. In a related hearing held on February 14, 2007, the subcommittee received testimony on the global terrorist threat confronting the Department of Defense and Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The members of the subcommittee also received 

a classified briefing which further examined the nature of terrorist 

groups and networks and the Department’s engagement of those 

groups and networks. Additionally, the subcommittee held a series 

of briefings focused on special operations activities in several geographic regions including: the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Republic of the Phillipines, the Republic of 

Colombia, and the nations encompassing the Horn of Africa. These 

briefings, supported by the Theater Special Operations Commands, 

provided the committee with updated information of SOF activities 

and challenges they face around the globe. 

The committee made significant contributions to assist the special operations community with meeting their emerging requirements of global SOF operations. In section 1202 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

and section 1208 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), the committee extended and expanded the authority to provide assistance 

to foreign and irregular forces, groups, or individuals supporting or 

facilitating SOF operations to combat terrorism. The authority extended the operational lifetime for the assistance and expanded the 

amount of funds authorized for use. 

As a result of the fiscal year 2008 posture hearing and follow-on 

SOCOM budget and acquisition discussions, the committee included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–181) a provision to codify the position of the 

acquisition executive at Special Operations Command. This section 

clarifies that the same individual may act as both acquisition executive and senior procurement executive. 

CHEMICAL DEMILITARIZATION PROGRAM

The committee continued its oversight activities of the chemical 

demilitarization (Chem-Demil) program during the 110th Congress. 

Established by the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1986 

(Public Law 99–145) and directed by many subsequent laws, the 

Chem-Demil program is designed to eliminate chemical warfare 

materiel and former production facilities and consists of two components: the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program and 

the efforts of the Chemical Materials Agency. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
102 

The committee continued the efforts of the 109th Congress and 

monitored the Department of Defense’s compliance with the Convention on Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling 

and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction (i.e., the 

Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC). Despite ample evidence 

of long-term technical and funding issues, political and environmental controversies, and persistent legal challenges, the committee monitored successful Chem-Demil activities during the 

110th Congress that resulted in a 50 percent reduction in the total 

of the declared CWC U.S. chemical stockpile. 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND ENERGY ISSUES

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

During the 110th Congress, the committee focused on the commitment of the Department of Defense (DOD) to invest in science 

and technology (S&T) initiatives. Defined as the disciplines of both 

basic and applied research and advanced development, DOD S&T 

funding initiatives constitute the core of research and development 

relevant to distant yet emerging military requirements. 

Committee oversight activities during the 110th Congress highlighted the virtues of a successful S&T investment posture and 

noted that such a strategy often leads to advanced, leap-ahead 

technology products. During meetings, briefings and hearings, the 

committee reminded DOD representatives that previous S&T efforts eventually produced stealth, precision-guided weaponry, and 

information exchange capabilities decades after initial investment 

and subsequent and sustained efforts to fund both science and engineering exploration. The committee further reminded DOD officials that such investments ideally should remain both unfettered 

by the need to produce immediate results and free from any pressure to justify near-term programmatic relevance. The committee 

therefore urged DOD officials to support initiatives designed to improve the overall level of understanding within the respective fields 

of science and engineering as they pertain to military-related challenges. 

Pursuant to such goals, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held both meetings and hearings designed to ensure that the Department executed a properly 

balanced S&T program aimed at addressing the evolving needs of 

the military. For example, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on April 24, 

2008, to explore and assess the viability of cultural and behavioral 

awareness initiatives as a non-traditional or ‘‘irregular warfare’’ solution for improving operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

During the 110th Congress the committee also promoted legislative solutions designed to encourage prototyping, demonstrations, 

and other rapid fielding initiatives. Sections 1107 through 1109 of 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), for example, required and authorized the Secretary of Defense to pursue and implement novel personnel management approaches throughout the DOD S&T enterprise. Perhaps most important, section 219 of the National Defense 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
103 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) authorized a four-year pilot program authorizing the Secretary of Defense to permit directors of DOD labs to utilize up to three percent 

of available funding for innovative research and development, technology transition, and workforce development activities. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The committee focused significant attention on the management 

and acquisition of Department of Defense information technology 

programs. Particular attention was given, but not limited, to the 

following: implementation by the Department of the information security reforms authorized by the E-Government Act of 2003; the 

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 as a section of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 (Public Law 104–208); the role of 

the Department in the proposed government-wide cyber-security 

initiative and the radio frequency spectrum management effort; 

and the execution of numerous provisions in various national defense authorization acts. 

During the 110th Congress, the committee took action on several 

key issues. As a result of holding hearings and briefings on bandwidth and large data management, the committee included section 

1047 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), which established a joint 

review requirement for near- and far-term bandwidth capacity 

needs within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. The committee expects to review and assess the report 

with a particular focus on potential technology innovations designed to increase the use of the existing bandwidth architecture. 

ENVIRONMENT

During the 110th Congress, the committee conducted oversight of 

environmental issues resulting from Department of Defense activities on military installations and training ranges. On July 12, 

2007, the Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing to address 

emerging contaminants and environmental management on Department of Defense installations. Based on the committee’s findings, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) included a provision that requires notification of certain residents and civilian employees of exposure to 

drinking water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 

addition, the committee included a provision in the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) that provides the Department of Defense with the 

authority to participate in conservation banking programs and expands the Department’s authority to participate in off-installation 

environmental impact mitigation. Both aforementioned authorization bills included provisions addressing the Department’s management of the brown tree snake, an invasive species on Guam. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 110–146) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, the committee directed the Secretary of the Navy to report on actions 

taken under the authority of the two-year National Defense Exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Public Law 92– 

522), authorized on January 23, 2007. The committee also directed 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
104 

the Comptroller General of the United States to report on whether 

the Department’s exemptions to environmental laws resulted in a 

measured increase in military readiness. Building on the results of 

these reports and additional congressional oversight, the committee 

directed further action in the committee report (H. Rept. 110–652) 

accompanying the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2009, including a broad assessment of the ability of the Department to measure the impacts of encroachment on 

military readiness. 

ENERGY SECURITY

The committee conducted vigorous oversight related to energy security and closely examined the governing policies and strategies 

for energy management on military installations and for military 

operations. On March 13, 2008, the Subcommittee on Readiness received testimony on Department of Defense energy posture from 

the Department, the Defense Science Board Task Force on Energy 

Strategy, and the Government Accountability Office. This oversight 

resulted in several provisions in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). 

These provisions established a Director of Operational Energy 

Plans and Programs, required annual reporting on operational energy consumption, provided for consideration of fuel logistics support requirements in planning and acquisition processes, and 

strengthened annual reporting on installation energy management 

and oversight for installation energy projects. The legislation also 

directed studies on renewable and alternative energy, risk assessments on the vulnerability of Department installations and activities to disruptions in the commercial electricity supply, and a report on the use of Base Closure and Realignment sites for energy 

production facilities. 

HOMELAND DEFENSE AND SUPPORT TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES

The committee remained focused on Department of Defense 

(DOD) efforts and requirements related to military support of civil 

authorities during the 110th Congress and continued to assess relationships between the Department of Defense and the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS), the community of state governors, 

and other local officials. 

Several homeland defense-related legislative provisions were enacted during the 110th Congress. With respect to so-called weapons 

of mass destruction (WMD), section 1082 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) required the establishment of an advisory panel to assess and make 

recommendations on DOD civil support capabilities for events involving WMD or chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear materials or high-yield explosives. Furthermore, section 944 of the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417) established a requirement for the Secretary of Defense to provide a detailed description of the plans and 

progress at the Department and U.S. Northern Command for establishing the force structure necessary to manage WMD events. In 

addition, section 885 of Public Law 110–417 provided authority for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
105 

state and local governments to purchase specialized homeland security and emergency response equipment through the Department 

of Defense. 

With respect to inter-departmental coordination for civil support 

efforts, at least two provisions were enacted into law during the 

110th Congress (both in Public Law 110–417). First, section 1042 

established a requirement to review the use of the DOD Modular 

Airborne Fire Fighting Systems in support of wildfire response. 

Second, section 1036 included a sense of Congress encouraging the 

Secretary of Defense to seek an agreement with the Administrator 

of the Federal Aviation Administration to establish an executive 

committee for a conflict and dispute resolution of homeland defense-related issues of mutual concern. 

With respect to the relationship between presidential prerogative 

and the collective responsibilities resident within the community of 

state governors, the committee reviewed the question of unity of 

command during public emergencies or a domestic terrorist incident. Section 1068 of Public Law 110–181 repealed section 1076 of 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) and thus re-established the traditional federal deference to a state governor with respect to the responsibility of providing and maintaining public order. Still, the 

Joint Explanatory Statement (Committee Print 10) accompanying 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) referenced support for providing 

the President with maximum capability and flexibility when necessary; the statement further urged the Secretary of Defense negotiate with the community of state governors and attempt to forge 

a better understanding for domestic response incidents. 

The committee also focused on force protection measures at DOD 

facilities abroad and within the extended boundaries of the United 

States, and examined the inter-departmental efforts between the 

Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, 

especially those between the Department of the Navy and the U.S. 

Coast Guard with respect to the maritime border points of entry. 

As a result, the committee supported inclusion of section 1063 of 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). Section 1063 requires the Secretary of Defense to provide an assessment of security measures at 

the consolidated center of U.S. Northern Command and North 

American Aerospace Defense Command. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

The committee reviewed issues pertaining to military construction, family housing, and Base Closure and Realignment activities 

(BRAC) of the Department of Defense. The Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on March 20, 2007, on the fiscal year 2008 

budget request and a hearing on February 28, 2008, to review military construction, family housing, Base Closure and Realignment 

activities, and facility operations and maintenance. On December 

12, 2007, the subcommittee also received testimony on the cost escalation and decreased savings associated with BRAC. 

As a result of this oversight, a comprehensive review of the 

BRAC implementation process was conducted and several legislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
106 

tive provisions were included. Specifically, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) provided authority to the Department of Defense to expedite development of family housing required as a result of a BRAC action, provided expanded notification requirements associated with cost and 

scope variations for military construction and provided clarity to 

the Department of Defense on options available to select the best 

site that supports the realignment of forces to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) also included a provision 

that would provide increased oversight of the National Naval Medical Center and the Military Hospital at Fort Belvoir. Another provision that was not adopted in conference would have significantly 

altered the composition and functions of future BRAC commissions. 

The committee continued to closely scrutinize the Department of 

Defense’s global posture realignment efforts and after appropriate 

modifications, provided military construction in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

and the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to support these objectives. 

The committee also conducted a specific review of the Department 

of Defense’s intent to realign 8,000 Marines from Japan to Guam. 

Public Law 110–417 included several provisions that would support 

the realignment of Marine Corps assets to Guam including: defining federal assistance to support Guam; expanding community 

planning assistance to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; and establishing a unified account to manage the relocation and establishment of a Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program. 

Finally, the committee continued its efforts to provide the combatant commander limited authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to address emerging construction requirements. 

Both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 

(Public Law 110–181) and the Duncan Hunter National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) contained provisions that would authorize the use of $200 million in 

Operations and Maintenance funds for contingency construction. 

An additional $300 million for Afghanistan could be authorized in 

fiscal year 2009 if the Secretary of Defense certifies that additional 

authority is necessary to meet urgent military requirements in Afghanistan. 

NATIONAL SECURITY ASPECTS OF THE MERCHANT MARINE

The committee continued strong oversight of the U.S. Merchant 

Marine and government agencies tasked with operation of the U.S. 

Merchant Marine and programs related to ensuring a robust U.S. 

flagged commercial fleet capable of providing sealift for national defense and national emergencies. The Subcommittee on Seapower 

and Expeditionary Forces held a hearing on March 15, 2007, to determine if the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program, commonly referred to as ‘‘Title XI Loans,’’ was being managed by the Maritime 

Administration of the Department of Transportation in accordance 

with the intent of Congress to maintain a robust domestic commercial shipbuilding industry to supply vessels for national defense 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
107 

sealift and other purposes. Witnesses included the Honorable Sean 

Connaughton, Administrator, Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation, as well as a number of shipping line owners and operators. 

The committee enacted several initiatives in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) 

addressing issues involving national sealift and support for national sealift. Those included: commercial vessel chartering authority; Maritime Administration vessel chartering authority; chartering of vessels to local and state authorities; and a required review of administrative procedures with respect to the Maritime 

Guaranteed Loan Program. 

The committee also enacted provisions in the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417) designed to strengthen the nation’s sealift capability. 

Those included: an increase in authorized incentive payments to cadet’s of the various state maritime academies who agree to a term 

of service in the U.S. Merchant Marine; clearer regulations on security requirements for personnel embarked in vessels engaged in 

the carriage of cargo for the Department of Defense; reauthorization of the Maritime Security Program and the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program; temporary authority to resolve personnel 

issues at the United States Merchant Marine Academy; an extension of authorities contained in section 53912 of title 46, United 

States Code, for marine war risk insurance, a program to provide 

assistance to small shipyards and maritime communities; and establishment of a Port of Guam improvement program. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(109) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE 

BUDGET ACTIVITY

On March 1, 2007, the Committee on Armed Services forwarded 

its views and estimates regarding the budget for the National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal year 2008 to the Committee 

on the Budget. 

The Committee on Armed Services noted that the United States 

has vital interests around the globe and that the Department of 

Defense serves as one of the primary means by which by which this 

nation protects and promotes those interests. Our military faces 

the complex task of fighting current wars in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, putting a strain on personnel and equipment, while preparing to deter or fight the next 

war wherever it might emerge. Trends indicated an increasing risk 

in the ability of the Department of Defense to deal with future conflicts. The committee argued that Congress must act strongly in 

support of national defense to forestall any serious erosion in our 

ability to protect and promote our vital national interests around 

the world. 

The Committee further noted that the central national security 

issue Congress must address is that of strategic risk and that the 

President’s budget request for national defense was, at most, just 

sufficient to address the pressing needs of the Department of Defense and defense-related activities of the Department of Energy. 

The committee noted that serious and urgent funding needs were 

left unmet in the President’s budget, including: more than $2.0 billion in the Defense Health Program; significant additional funds for 

readiness (training and equipment readiness continue to decline 

across the services); $6.3 billion to satisfactorily fund the Army 

Modular Force Initiative combat vehicle and communications modernization requirements; $5.0 billion to fund Navy Shipbuilding requirements; $5.4 billion to fund the Army and Marine Corps mine 

resistant ambush protected vehicle requirement; and $5.0 billion 

needed to fund shortfalls in Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force aircraft requirements. 

The committee noted that the President’s budget request for National Defense Budget Function (050) was $647.2 billion for fiscal 

year 2008. This total included $483.2 billion for the base budget of 

the Department of Defense, $141.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, $17.4 billion for defense activities in the Department 

of Energy, and $5.2 billion for other defense-related activities. 

Given the shortfalls described above, and in more detail in the body 

of the views and estimates letter, the committee noted that an increase above the President’s request for defense was fully justified. 

However, cognizant of the tremendous budget pressures throughout 

the government, the committee requested that the Budget ResoluVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
110 

1 After the Committee on Armed Services sent its Views and Estimate letter to the Committee 

on the Budget, the Congressional Budget Office completed its re-estimate of the President’s request and found a $1.9 billion discrepancy. On March 16, 2007, the Committee on Armed Services provided Additional Views to the Committee on the Budget asking it to follow traditional 

practice and use CBO estimates to build a budget a baseline for the budget resolution. 

tion allocate discretionary spending at least equal to the President’s budget request for the national defense budget function.1

On February 27, 2008, the Committee on Armed Services forwarded its views and estimates regarding the budget for National 

Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal year 2009 to the Committee on the Budget. 

The Committee on Armed Services repeated its position expressed in the prior year’s views and estimates letter that Congress 

must act strongly in support of national defense to forestall any serious erosion in the nation’s ability to protect and promote our vital 

national interests around the world. The committee noted that the 

President’s request for the base budget of the Department of Defense is meant to sustain warfighting capabilities to conduct the 

full spectrum of combat operations and support servicemembers 

and their families. 

However, within the Department’s base budget funding request, 

the committee highlighted several concerns. First, with respect to 

readiness, the committee noted that after six and one-half years of 

war, the readiness of our military was not where it needed to be 

and that it was critical to the nation’s security that our readiness 

levels be improved. Second, with respect to acquisition programs, 

the committee noted that all of the military services asserted that 

the National Military Strategy creates requirements for some systems that the base budget request did not adequately fund and the 

budget deferred making decisions on important questions. For example, the Air Force continued to assert that it had a requirement 

for 381 F–22s while the budget request did not include funds to 

continue out-year production. Third, the committee noted concerns 

over matters that impacted military personnel and their families 

including proposed increases in enrollment and deductibles with 

the TRICARE health program and the military pharmaceutical 

program. Finally, the committee noted concerns that the cooperative threat reduction and nonproliferation programs should receive 

sufficient funding. 

The committee noted that the President’s discretionary budget request for National Defense Budget Function (050) was $536.8 billion for fiscal year 2009. This total included $515.4 billion for the 

base budget of the Department of Defense, a $70.0 billion bridge 

fund for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $16.1 billion for defense 

activities in the Department of Energy, and $5.2 billion for other 

defense-related activities. The President’s 050 budget request also 

included another $4.3 billion in mandatory budget authority. Given 

the concerns described above, and in more detail in the body of the 

views and estimates letter, the committee noted that the President’s base budget request was the minimum level that should be 

accommodated in the Budget Resolution. With respect to the fiscal year 2009 $70.0 billion bridge funding 

request, the committee noted that the Administration provided this 

as a placeholder in violation of the law which required a full reVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
111 

quest at the time of the base budget submission. In 2007, the Administration included with its February budget submission a full 

year fiscal year 2008 war request for the Department of Defense 

totaling $142.0 billion that was subsequently amended to $189.0 

billion. The committee authorized to the amended level. The committee was extremely dissatisfied that the Administration did not 

provide a complete budget request for the known costs of the wars 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

The committee anticipated that the amended fiscal year 2009 

supplemental request would be substantial and that for the foreseeable future total funding requirements for the Department of 

Defense would remain significant. The committee noted that over 

time, given enduring programs currently funded through supplemental appropriations, there would be greater need for increased 

funding in the base budget. The committee noted that it will continue to advocate for that increased funding. 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS

During the 110th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 

held numerous hearings in accordance with its legislative and oversight roles. These hearings focused on areas including the budget 

of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the posture of the armed 

services and combatant commands, strategy, the war in the Republic of Iraq, the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, al 

Qa’ida, interagency reform, readiness, Department of Defense management, detainee policy, wounded and injured service members, 

acquisition policy and industrial base policy, global security assessment, China, Pakistan, the Commission on the National Guard and 

Reserve, force protection, and electromagnetic pulse. A full account 

of these hearings is below. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–1; H.A.S.C. 110–2; H.A.S.C. 110–4; H.A.S.C. 110– 

5; H.A.S.C. 110–7; H.A.S.C. 110–8; H.A.S.C. 110–13; H.A.S.C. 110– 

15; H.A.S.C. 110–18; H.A.S.C. 110–21; H.A.S.C. 110–23; H.A.S.C. 

110–27; H.A.S.C. 110–29; H.A.S.C. 110–35; H.A.S.C. 110–40; 

H.A.S.C. 110–43; H.A.S.C. 110–51; H.A.S.C. 110–53; H.A.S.C. 110– 

58; H.A.S.C. 110–61; H.A.S.C. 110–62; H.A.S.C. 110–63; H.A.S.C. 

110–67; H.A.S.C. 110–72; H.A.S.C. 110–79; H.A.S.C. 110–80; 

H.A.S.C. 110–85; H.A.S.C. 110–87; H.A.S.C. 110–88; H.A.S.C. 110– 

89; H.A.S.C. 110–91; H.A.S.C. 110–92; H.A.S.C. 110–94; H.A.S.C. 

110–97; H.A.S.C. 110–100; H.A.S.C. 110–103; H.A.S.C. 110–105; 

H.A.S.C. 110–107; H.A.S.C. 110–108; H.A.S.C. 110–110; H.A.S.C. 

110–112; H.A.S.C. 110–114; H.A.S.C. 110–119; H.A.S.C. 110–122; 

H.A.S.C. 110–124; H.A.S.C. 110–127; H.A.S.C. 110–133; H.A.S.C. 

110–136; H.A.S.C. 110–143; H.A.S.C. 110–144; H.A.S.C. 110–146; 

H.A.S.C. 110–148; H.A.S.C. 110–153; H.A.S.C. 110–154; H.A.S.C. 

110–156; H.A.S.C. 110–162; H.A.S.C. 110–164; H.A.S.C. 110–166; 

H.A.S.C. 110–167; H.A.S.C. 110–170; H.A.S.C. 110–172; H.A.S.C. 

110–176) 

POSTURE AND BUDGET

During the 110th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 

held multiple hearings on the posture, financial requirements, and 

status of the U.S. armed forces as they continue to fight in several 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
112 

theaters of combat. These hearings, combined with the committee’s 

responsibility for assembling the annual defense authorization bill, 

are a central element in the discharge of the committee’s oversight 

responsibilities. 

During the first session of the 110th Congress, the committee 

held a series of budget and posture hearings. On February 7, 2007, 

the committee convened a hearing with Robert M. Gates, Secretary 

of Defense; General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff; and Tina Jonas, Comptroller of the Department of Defense, 

to review the budget request for funding and authorities during fiscal year 2008. 

In addition to this hearing, the committee held posture hearings 

in which it sought and received testimony from each of the military 

departments. On February 14, 2007, Francis J. Harvey, Secretary 

of the Army, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Peter J. 

Schoomaker, appeared before the committee to discuss their service’s portion of the fiscal year 2008 budget request. They were followed on February 28, 2007 by Michael W. Wynne, Secretary of the 

Air Force, and General T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff of the Air 

Force, who appeared before the committee to testify on the United 

States Air Force’s portion of the fiscal year 2008 budget request. 

The following month, on March 1, 2007, Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy; General James T. Conway, Commandant of the 

Marine Corps; and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, testified on the budget as it related to the U.S. Navy and 

Marine Corps. 

In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, commanders of the unified combatant commands appeared before the 

committee to discuss the security situation in their respective areas 

of responsibility. These hearings began with testimony from Admiral William J. Fallon, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and 

General Burwell B. Bell III, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, on 

March 7, 2007. This hearing was followed one week later by General Bantz J. Craddock, Commander of U.S. European Command 

and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Supreme Allied 

Commander, and General Lance Smith, Commander of U.S. Joint 

Forces Command, on March 15, 2007. On March 21, 2007, the committee received testimony from General James E. Cartwright, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command; Admiral Timothy J. Keating, 

Commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command; General Norton A. Schwartz, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command; and Admiral James G. 

Stavridis, Commander of U.S. Southern Command. The following 

month, on April 18, 2007, the committee heard testimony from Admiral William Fallon, Commander of U.S. Central Command. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress in 2008, the 

committee continued its tradition of conducting intensive hearings 

in preparation of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). On February 

6, 2008, the committee received testimony on the fiscal year 2009 

budget request from the Department of Defense. It heard testimony 

from Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, and Admiral Michael 

G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On February 27, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
113 

2008, Michael W. Wynne, Secretary of the Air Force, and General 

T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified on the 

Air Force’s portion of the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The following day, on February 28, 2008, Pete Geren, Secretary of the 

Army, and General George Casey, Jr., Chief of Staff of the Army, 

testified on the Army’s budget request. The committee concluded 

its service posture hearings on March 6, 2008, when Donald C. 

Winter, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Gary Roughead, Chief of 

Naval Operations; and General James T. Conway, Commandant of 

the Marine Corps testified on the budget request from the U.S. 

Navy and Marine Corps. 

The committee also received testimony from the unified combatant commanders on the posture of their commands in 2008. On 

March 5, 2008, Admiral William Fallon, Commander of U.S. Central Command, and Admiral Eric Olson, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, testified before the committee on the 

status of their commands. The committee received testimony on 

March 12, 2008 from Admiral Timothy J. Keating, Commander of 

U.S. Pacific Command; and General Burwell B. Bell, III, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea. On March 13, 2008, the committee 

held its final posture hearing, receiving testimony from General 

Bantz J. Craddock, Commander of U.S. European Command and 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization Supreme Allied Commander; 

Admiral James G. Stavridis, Commander of U.S. Southern Command; and General William E. ‘‘Kip’’ Ward, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, on their relevant areas of responsibility. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–13; H.A.S.C. 110–18; H.A.S.C. 110–21; H.A.S.C. 

110–23; H.A.S.C. 110–27; H.A.S.C. 110–35; H.A.S.C. 110–40; 

H.A.S.C. 110–53; H.A.S.C. 110–110; H.A.S.C. 110–119; H.A.S.C. 

110–122; H.A.S.C. 110–127; H.A.S.C. 110–124; H.A.S.C. 110–133; 

H.A.S.C. 110–136) 

STRATEGY

The committee places high emphasis on the primary role for 

strategy in guiding the decision-making of the Department of Defense. During the first session of the 110th Congress, on September 

26, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on the Department 

of the Army’s strategic initiatives. It received testimony from Pete 

Geren, Secretary of the Army, and General George W. Casey, Jr., 

Chief of Staff of the Army. 

On October 24, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on 

the Department of the Air Force’s strategic initiatives. It received 

testimony from the Michael W. Wynne, Secretary of the Air Force, 

and General T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 

On December 13, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on 

the Department of the Navy’s cooperative strategy for 21st Century 

Seapower. It received testimony from Admiral Gary Roughead, 

Chief of Naval Operations; General James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps; and Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee 

held a two-part series of hearings on American grand strategy considerations for the next administration. On September 16, 2008, 

the committee met to hear testimony on considerations for an 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
114 

American grand strategy from the Honorable Madeline Albright, 

former Secretary of State. On September 24, 2008, the committee 

met to hear testimony on grand strategy from General Jack Keane, 

U.S. Army (Ret.), former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held additional hearings on this topic. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–92; H.A.S.C. 110–97; H.A.S.C. 110–105; 110–172; 

110–176) 

WAR IN IRAQ

The committee devoted a substantial amount of its oversight resources to the war in the Republic of Iraq and the effect of that war 

on the Department of Defense and the broader national security interests of the United States. In the first three weeks of the 110th 

Congress, the committee held three hearings on the strategy for, 

and status of, the war in Iraq. On January 11, 2007, the committee 

met to hear testimony from the Honorable Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, and General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, on the way forward in Iraq. The following week, on 

January 17, 2007, the committee invited outside experts Dr. William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense and Director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University; Dr. Lawrence J. Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress; and Dr. Frederick W. Kagan, Resident Scholar at 

the American Enterprise Institute, to provide testimony on alternative perspectives on the President’s strategy for Iraq. The next 

day, on January 18, 2007, David M. Walker, Comptroller General 

of the United States; Thomas E. Gimble, Acting Inspector General 

of the Department of Defense; Howard J. Krongard, Inspector General of the Department of State; and Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special 

Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, testified on approaches 

to the audit of reconstruction and support activities in Iraq. 

Continuing with its vigorous oversight of the war in Iraq, the 

committee held a series of hearings on the Iraq war in the latter 

half of the first session of the 110th Congress. On July 18, 2007, 

the committee met to hear testimony on trends and recent security 

developments in Iraq, from Dr. William Perry, former Secretary of 

Defense and Director of the Center for International Security Cooperation, Stanford University; Dr. Jessica Tuchman Mathews, 

President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and 

Dr. Frederick W. Kagan, Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Later that month, on July 27, 2007, the committee 

met to hear testimony on H.R. 3087, a bill ‘‘to require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 

Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other senior military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a comprehensive strategy 

for the redeployment of United States armed forces in Iraq;’’ and 

H.R. 3159, the ‘‘Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and 

Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007.’’ It heard testimony 

from General John M. Keane, U.S. Army (Ret.), former Vice Chief 

of Staff of the Army, and Dr. Lawrence J. Korb, Senior Fellow at 

the Center for American Progress. On September 5, 2007, the committee held a hearing with the Comptroller General of the United 

States, David M. Walker, on his assessment of the Iraqi GovernVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
115 

ment’s record of performance. General James Jones, U.S. Marine 

Corps (Ret.), Chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq; Dr. John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of 

Defense and member of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq; General George Joulwan, U.S. Army (Ret.), 

Member of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of 

Iraq; and Chief Charles H. Ramsey (Ret.), member of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq testified on the 

report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of 

Iraq on September 6, 2007. That same day, the committee held the 

first of two joint hearings with the Committee on Foreign Relations 

entitled: ‘‘What’s Next for Iraq: Beyond the September Report.’’ Dr. 

William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense and Director of the 

Center for International Security Cooperation, Stanford University; 

Major General John Batiste, U.S. Army (Ret.), former commander 

of the First Infantry Division; and General John M. Keane, U.S. 

Army (Ret.), former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army testified. On 

September 10, 2007, the committee held the second joint hearing 

with the Committee on Foreign Relations on the status of the war 

and political developments in Iraq, receiving testimony from General David Petraeus, Commander of Multi National Force—Iraq, 

and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. 

The committee continued its active oversight of operations in 

Iraq in the second session of the 110th Congress. On January 17, 

2008, Lieutenant General James Dubik, Commander of Multi National Security Transition Command—Iraq and Mark Kimmitt, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs, 

testified before the committee on the status of efforts to develop 

Iraqi Security Forces. On April 9, 2008, the committee met for a 

second time during the 110th Congress to hear testimony from 

General David Petraeus, Commander, Multi-National Force—Iraq 

and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, on the 

status of the war and political developments in Iraq. The committee held a hearing on updates on efforts to develop and support 

the Iraqi Security Forces on July 9, 2008, receiving testimony from 

Lieutenant General James Dubik, Commander, Multi National Security Transition Command—Iraq, and Christopher Straub, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle Eastern Affairs. Gene 

Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General of the United States, and Joseph Christoff, Director for International Affairs, Government Accountability Office, testified before the committee on the comptroller general’s progress report on Iraq on July 23, 2008. The committee held a final hearing on operations in Iraq on September 10, 

2008 entitled ‘‘Security and Stability in Afghanistan and Iraq: Developments in U.S. Strategy and Operations and the Way Ahead.’’ 

It received testimony from Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense; 

Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; 

Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Vice Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., Director of Strategic 

Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Additional hearings 

were held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on 

topics relating to the war in Iraq. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–2; H.A.S.C. 110–4; H.A.S.C. 110–5; H.A.S.C. 110– 

72; H.A.S.C. 110–80; H.A.S.C. 110–85; H.A.S.C. 110–87; H.A.S.C. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
116 

110–88; H.A.S.C. 110–89; H.A.S.C. 110–107; H.A.S.C. 110–143; 

H.A.S.C. 110–154; H.A.S.C. 110–162; H.A.S.C. 110–170) 

WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

In the 110th Congress, the committee renewed its commitment 

to provide focused oversight to the war in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan. The committee met twice in its first two months to 

hear testimony on the war in Afghanistan. On January 30, 2007, 

outside experts Dr. Anthony H. Cordesman, Arleigh A. Burke 

Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies; Ambassador James Dobbins, Director of RAND’s International Security and Defense Policy Center; Ambassador Karl F. 

Inderfurth, John O. Rankin Professor of the Practice of International Affairs at George Washington University; and Ali A. 

Jalali, Professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic 

Studies of the National Defense University, provided the committee 

with testimony on security and stability in Afghanistan. On February 13, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony from Lieutenant General Karl W. Eikenberry, former Commanding General of 

Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan; John A. Gastright, Jr., 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian 

Affairs and Coordinator for Afghanistan at the Department of 

State; and Mary Beth Long, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Defense for International Security Affairs of the Department of 

Defense, on assessing security and stability in Afghanistan and developments in U.S. strategy and operations. 

The committee held another hearing on Afghanistan on December 11, 2007, when it received testimony from Robert M. Gates, 

Secretary of Defense; Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff; Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and Lieutenant General John F. 

Sattler, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, on the status of U.S. strategy and operations and the way 

ahead in Afghanistan. 

The committee received additional assessments on U.S. strategy 

and operations in Afghanistan and the way ahead from outside experts Lieutenant General David W. Barno, U.S. Army (Ret.), Director of the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies at the 

National Defense University; Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth, John 

O. Rankin Professor of the Practice of International Affairs, George 

Washington University; and Dr. Barnett R. Rubin, Director of 

Studies and Senior Fellow of the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, on January 23, 2008. The committee 

conducted a final hearing on ongoing operations in Afghanistan on 

September 10, 2008, entitled ‘‘Security and Stability in Afghanistan 

and Iraq: Developments in U.S. Strategy and Operations and the 

way ahead.’’ It received testimony from Robert M. Gates, Secretary 

of Defense; Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff; Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy; and Vice Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–8; H.A.S.C. 110–15; H.A.S.C. 110–103; H.A.S.C. 

110–108; H.A.S.C. 110–170) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
117 

AL QA’IDA

On July 25, 2007, the committee met jointly with the Permanent 

Select Committee on Intelligence to receive testimony on implications of the national intelligence estimate regarding al Qa’ida from 

James Clapper, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence; Edward 

Gistaro, National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats; 

Mary Beth Long, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 

Security Affairs; Pete Verga, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for Homeland Defense; and Michael Leiter, Deputy Director of the 

National Counterterrorism Center and Director of the Interagency 

Task Force on Homeland Threats. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–77) 

INTERAGENCY REFORM

The deep complexity of the wars in the Republic of Iraq and the 

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan have led the committee to increasingly focus on the need for reform of the interagency process to 

allow the United States to bring all instruments of national power 

to bear in support of achieving the nation’s strategic objectives. 

While significant elements of this problem lie outside of the committee’s jurisdiction, reform of the interagency process is critical to 

the Department of Defense. In the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee met on April 15, 2008, to hear testimony on 

building partnership capacity and developing the interagency process. It received testimony from Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, and Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State. Additional hearings on this topic were held by the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–46) 

READINESS

In light of the engagement of the U.S. armed forces in two major 

wars in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the committee met immediately in the first session of the 

110th Congress to examine concerns over the readiness of U.S. 

forces to address both existing as well as emerging threats. On 

January 23, 2007, the committee met to discuss implications of 

Iraq policy on total force readiness, hearing testimony from General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, and General 

James T. Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, and also 

from First Sergeant Ciaran T. Allison, A Co. 2–23 Infantry, Ft. 

Lewis, Washington, U.S. Army; Anel Zimmerman, Spouse of Gunnery Sergeant Chad Zimmerman from the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines, Twentynine Palms, California; and Cori Shuster, Spouse of 

Lieutenant Colonel Scott Shuster, Commanding Officer of 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines, Twentynine Palms, California. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, on February 

14, 2008, the committee met to hear testimony on military readiness and its implications for our strategic posture. It heard testimony from Miche`le Flournoy, President of the Center for a New 

American Security; Steve Kosiak, Vice President of Budget Studies 

at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Sharon Pickup, Director for Defense Capabilities and Management, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
118 

Government Accountability Office. The committee followed up with 

an additional readiness-related hearing on April 9, 2008 regarding 

the current status of U.S. ground forces. It heard testimony from 

General Richard A. Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, and General Robert Magnus, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

Additional hearings on this topic were held by the Subcommittee 

on Readiness. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–7; H.A.S.C. 110–114; H.A.S.C. 110–144) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MANAGEMENT

The committee actively engaged in reviewing the organization 

and structure of the Department of Defense. In the first session of 

the 110th Congress, on June 20, 2007, the committee met to hear 

testimony on organizing the roles, missions, and requirements of 

the Department of Defense. It heard testimony from Dr. John J. 

Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of Defense, President and CEO of 

the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and Dr. Andrew 

F. Krepinevich, President of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The following week, on June 26, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on structure, process, and tools for 

improving Department of Defense management. It heard testimony 

from Gordon R. England, Deputy Secretary of Defense. 

The committee continued its interest in the Unified Command 

Plan, which specifies the organization and responsibilities of the 

combatant commanders. On November 14, 2007, the committee met 

to hear testimony from Christopher Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Ambassador Stephen Mull, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs; and General William E. ‘‘Kip’’ Ward, Commander of U.S. Africa Command, on the establishment of U.S. Africa Command. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–62; H.A.S.C. 110–110–79; H.A.S.C. 110–100) 

DETAINEE POLICY

Over the course of the 110th Congress, the committee held a series of hearings on issues related to the treatment of detainees in 

U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On March 29, 2007, the 

committee convened for a hearing on the strengths and weaknesses 

of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the future of the detention and interrogation facilities at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It heard testimony from William H. Taft IV, of 

Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, L.L.P, former 

Legal Advisor at Department of State; Patrick F. Philbin, former 

Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of 

Justice; Neal Katyal, Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law School; and Elisa Massimino, Director of the Washington, 

D.C. Office of Human Rights First. 

On July 26, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on upholding the principle of habeas corpus as applied to the detainees 

at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It heard testimony from Stephen 

Oleskey, Partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, L.L.P; 

David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union; Patrick F. Philbin, former Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. 

Department of Justice; Stephen Abraham, Lieutenant Colonel in 

the Army Reserve (appearing as a civilian); Daniel Dell’Orto, PrinVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
119 

cipal Deputy General Counsel of the Department of Defense; and 

Greg Katsas, Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General, U.S. 

Department of Justice. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee 

held two consecutive hearings on issues related to detainees at 

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The first of these hearings, held on July 

30, 2008, focused on non-governmental perspectives on the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee heard testimony from Stephen 

Oleskey, Partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP; 

Neal Katyal, Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law 

School; Richard Klingler, former Senior Associate Counsel to the 

President and National Security Council General Counsel; and 

Colonel Morris Davis, U.S. Air Force, former Chief Prosecutor for 

the Office of Military Commissions of the Department of Defense 

(appearing in personal capacity while on terminal leave). The second hearing took place on July 31, 2008, in which the committee 

met to hear testimony on Administration perspectives on the implications of the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision for detainees 

at Guantanamo. It heard testimony from Daniel Dell’Orto, Acting 

General Counsel of the Department of Defense; Greg Katsas, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice; and Colonel Steve 

David, U.S. Army, Chief Defense Counsel of the Office of Military 

Commissions of the Department of Defense. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–51; H.A.S.C. 110–79; H.A.S.C. 110–166; H.A.S.C. 

110–167) 

WOUNDED AND INJURED SERVICE MEMBERS

Recognizing the incredible debt owed to military service members 

injured in the line of duty, the committee met on March 8, 2007, 

to receive testimony on the handling and treatment of the nation’s 

wounded warriors. It received testimony from Dr. David S. C. Chu, 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Dr. William Winkenwerder, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs; General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army; and 

Lieutenant General Kevin C. Kiley, Surgeon General of the Army. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–29) 

ACQUISITION POLICY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE POLICY

Recognizing the importance of a smoothly functioning, efficient 

acquisition process, the committee remained extremely interested 

in all aspects of reforming the acquisition process. During the first 

session of the 110th Congress, the committee met on September 20, 

2007, for a hearing entitled: ‘‘Accountability During Contingency 

Operations: Preventing and Fighting Corruption in Contracting 

and Establishing and Maintaining Appropriate Controls on Materiel.’’ It heard testimony from Thomas Gimble, Deputy Inspector 

General of the Department of Defense; Shay Assad, Director of Procurement and Acquisition Policy in the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense; Lieutenant General N. Ross Thompson, Military Deputy 

to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, 

and Technology; and Kathryn Condon, Executive Deputy to the 

Commanding General of Army Materiel Command. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
120 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, on April 10, 

2008, the committee met for a hearing entitled: ‘‘Contingency Contracting: A Call for Urgent Reform, Which Explored the Department of Defense’s Response to the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations.’’ It 

heard testimony from John J. Young, Under Secretary of Defense 

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; Jeffrey P. Parsons, Executive Director of Army Contracting Command; and Dr. Jacques S. 

Gansler, former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and Chairman of the Commission on Army 

Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations. 

As part of the committee’s responsibility for maintaining a strong 

industrial base, the committee met on April 16, 2008, for a hearing 

entitled: ‘‘The National Industrial Security Program: Addressing 

the Implications of Globalization and Foreign Ownership for the 

Defense Industrial Base.’’ It heard testimony from Troy Sullivan, 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and Security; Kathleen Watson, Director of the Defense Security Service; 

Dr. William Schneider, Chairman of Defense Science Board; and 

Ann Calvaresi-Barr, Director for Acquisition and Sourcing Management at the Government Accountability Office. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–91; H.A.S.C. 110–164; H.A.S.C. 110–148) 

GLOBAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT

During the first session of the 110th Congress, the committee 

heard testimony on July 11, 2007 from Dr. Thomas Fingar, Deputy 

Director of National Intelligence for Analysis; Robert Cardillo, Deputy Director for Analysis at the Defense Intelligence Agency; and 

John A. Kringen, Director for Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, on global security assessment. 

In the second session of the 110th Congress, on February 13, 

2008, the committee convened again to receive testimony on global 

security assessment. It heard testimony from Dr. Thomas Fingar, 

Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis; Robert 

Cardillo, Deputy Director for Analysis at the Defense Intelligence 

Agency; and John A. Kringen, Director for Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–67; H.A.S.C. 110–112) 

CHINA

The committee continued its effort to remain cognizant of longerterm security issues beyond those relating to current operations. In 

the first session of the 110th Congress, on June 13, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on recent security developments involving the People’s Republic of China. It received testimony from 

Richard P. Lawless, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for AsiaPacific Affairs, and Major General Philip M. Breedlove, Vice Director for Strategic Plans and Policy of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

During the second session of the 110th Congress, the committee 

convened on June 25, 2008, to receive testimony on recent security 

developments involving the People’s Republic of China. It heard 

testimony from James J. Shinn, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, and Major General Philip M. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
121 

Breedlove, Vice Director for Strategic Plans and Policy of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–61; H.A.S.C. 110–153) 

PAKISTAN

On October 10, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on security challenges involving Pakistan and policy implications for the 

Department of Defense. It received testimony from Ambassador 

Teresita C. Schaffer, Director of the South Asia Program at the 

Center for Strategic and International Studies; Dr. Martin G. 

Weinbaum, Scholar-in-Residence at the Middle East Institute; 

Husain Haqqani, Director of the Center for International Relations 

at Boston University; and Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow in 

the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–94) 

COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE

The committee remains interested in ensuring that the National 

Guard and Reserves are properly trained, resourced, and led. On 

March 23, 2007, the committee met to hear testimony on the second report to Congress by the Commission on the National Guard 

and Reserves. It heard testimony from Major General Arnold L. 

Punaro, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), Chairman of the Commission on 

the National Guard and Reserves. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–43) 

FORCE PROTECTION

All members of the committee are committed to ensuring that 

every service member deployed to the theater of combat operations 

has the necessary force protection equipment needed to keep them 

safe. During the first session of the 110th Congress, on June 6, 

2007, the committee met to hear testimony on Department of Defense body armor programs. It heard testimony from the Honorable 

Philip E. Coyle, III, Senior Advisor at the World Security Institute; 

Dr. Jonathon Morgan, Deputy Director of the National Institute of 

Justice; Murray Neal, CEO of Pinnacle Armor, Inc.; Colonel Kevin 

S. Noonan, Program Executive Officer of Special Operations Forces 

Warrior Programs; Colonel Edward J. Smith, Product Group Director of Combat Equipment and Support Systems for the Marine 

Corps; Roger M. Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Expeditionary Warfare); William ‘‘Bill’’ M. Solis, Director for Defense Capabilities and Management, Government Accountability 

Office; Douglas D. Thomas, Executive Director for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations; and Lieutenant General N. Ross 

Thompson, III, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the 

Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–58) 

ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE

On July 10, 2008, the committee met to hear testimony on the 

threat posed by electromagnetic pulse attack. It heard testimony 

from Dr. William Graham, Chairman of the Commission to Assess 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
122 

the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) 

Attack. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–156) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(123) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES 

AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE

The Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces provided oversight of 

all Departments of the Army and Air Force acquisition programs 

(except space programs, strategic missile and information technology programs), including Army and Air Force Reserve and National Guard equipment programs and selected Marine Corps aviation programs. 

The subcommittee conducted 11 oversight hearings during its 

consideration of the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 Department of Defense (DOD) budget requests, including: January 18, 

2007, Army force protection equipment for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; January 31, 2007, Army 

equipment reset; March 7, 2007, Air Force and Army airlift and 

aerial refueling fixed-wing aircraft programs; March 22, 2007, Department of Defense aircraft programs; March 27, 2007, Army 

ground force acquisition programs; April 19, 2007, unmanned aerial vehicles and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; March 11, 2008, Departments of the Navy and Air Force 

tactical aviation programs; April 1, 2008, United States Transportation Command and Air Force mobility aircraft programs; April 3, 

2008, Army National Guard and Army Reserve equipment; April 

10, 2008, Army acquisition programs; and April 16, 2008, House 

Resolution 834: Ground Force Readiness Shortfalls. 

In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities regarding 

DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings on the following: July 19, 2007, Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle program; November 8, 2007, Joint mine resistant 

ambush protected vehicle program; July 10, 2008, source selection 

and path forward regarding the Air Force KC–(X) program; and 

November 19, 2008, F–22 Program. In addition to formal hearings, 

the subcommittee conducted member briefings on the following: 

force protection, improvised explosive device (IED), aviation safety, 

unmanned aerial vehicles-intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, body armor, Air Force bomber, Joint IED Defeat Organization, KC–(X) (and the Government Accountability Office review of 

the Boeing Company protest of the Air Force contract award), and 

mine resistant ambush protected vehicle programs. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 2, 

2007, that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), and met to consider 

and report legislation on May 7, 2008, that was included in the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2009 (Public Law 110–417). The legislation covered a range of 

issues, including the M1A2 Tank; the Bradley Fighting Vehicle; the 

CH–47 Helicopter; the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter; Vertical 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
124 

Lift Aircraft and Rotorcraft; the Stryker Mobile Gun System; the 

Joint Cargo Aircraft; the C–130E/H Aircraft; the KC–(X) Aircraft; 

the KC–135E Aircraft; the B–52 Aircraft; the Future Combat Systems; the F–22A Aircraft; the Joint Strike Fighter; intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance sensor; body armor acquisition; 

small arms acquisition; and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle programs. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–6; H.A.S.C. 110–10; H.A.S.C. 110–28; H.A.S.C. 

110–42; H.A.S.C. 110–46; H.A.S.C. 110–54; H.A.S.C. 110–75; 

H.A.S.C. 99; H.A.S.C. 110–128; H.A.S.C. 110–140; H.A.S.C. 110– 

142; H.A.S.C. 110–145; H.A.S.C. 110–149; H.A.S.C. 110–157; and 

H.A.S.C. 110–176) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

The Subcommittee on Readiness reviewed the programs within 

the operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal years 2008 and 

2009 to ensure that appropriate funds were available to maintain 

a high level of military readiness. Oversight activities of the subcommittee included hearings on March 13, 2007, March 27, 2007, 

and April 1, 2008, to examine the current state of military readiness, including Army and Air Force Reserve and National Guard 

readiness, and the adequacy of the fiscal year 2008 and 2009 budget requests. As a result, the subcommittee authorized $142.8 billion 

in the operation and maintenance accounts in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and 

authorized $152.9 billion in operation and maintenance accounts in 

the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) to fund critical readiness needs. 

In order to assess the military forces’ preparedness for Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and the effects of 

these ongoing campaigns on military readiness, the subcommittee 

performed a number of oversight activities. Readiness-related oversight activities of the full committee also played an integral role. 

The full committee addressed readiness in a hearing held on January 23, 2007, and received testimony on the implications of the 

United States’ Iraq policy on total force readiness. The full committee also met on March 9, 2007, for a briefing on Army readiness 

and Army prepositioned stocks. The Subcommittee on Readiness 

then met on July 31, 2007, to receive testimony on the employment 

of airmen and sailors in combat outside their services’ traditional 

core missions and the impact on service readiness of using these 

forces in lieu of, as individual augmentees to, or as ad hoc replacements for soldiers and Marines. On October 16, 2007, the subcommittee received a classified briefing from the Army on the current state of readiness of both deployed and non-deployed units. 

The Subcommittee on Readiness continued to assess readiness 

issues in 2008. On January 23, 2008, the subcommittee received a 

classified briefing from the Army regarding the state of Army readiness. On February 14, 2008, the full committee held a hearing on 

military readiness and its implications for United States strategic 

posture. The full committee held another hearing on April 9, 2008, 

to receive testimony from the United States Army and United 

States Marine Corps on the current status of United States ground 

forces. The Subcommittee on Readiness followed up on April 16, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
125 

2008, with a hearing on H. Res. 834, a resolution regarding the significant readiness decline of the ground forces, and the implications 

for national security. No further action was taken on the resolution 

by the subcommittee. 

During the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on Readiness devoted attention to equipment readiness and assessing programs for 

the repair, modernization, and replacement of equipment used in 

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF). The subcommittee met in a joint session on January 31, 

2007, with the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces to receive 

testimony on Army reset strategies for ground equipment and 

rotorcraft utilized in OIF and OEF. The subcommittee then met in 

a joint session with the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on February 6, 2007, to receive a briefing from the 

United States Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps on 

equipment reset. The Subcommittee on Readiness and the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces met again in a 

joint hearing on February 13, 2007, to receive testimony on United 

States Navy and United States Marine Corps reset requirements. 

In addition to formal subcommittee meetings to evaluate equipment readiness, the subcommittee charged staff to conduct multiple 

meetings with service representatives and undergo several factfinding staff delegations to military facilities in the United States 

and the theater of operations. 

The subcommittee received two briefings on specific incidents affecting readiness. On December 13, 2007, the subcommittee received a briefing from the Air Force regarding the Chief of Staff of 

the Air Force’s decision to stand-down F–15A/D flight operations 

following a November 2, 2007, crash of a Missouri Air National 

Guard F–15C during a training mission. The subcommittee met on 

April 23, 2008, in a joint session with the Subcommittee on 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces to receive a briefing from the 

United States Navy on the condition of the Navy ships USS Stout 

and USS Chosin. 

The subcommittee also met on various occasions regarding civilian personnel, inherently governmental functions, and security 

clearances. On March 6, 2007, the subcommittee met to receive testimony on the background and implementation of the Department 

of Defense National Security Personnel System (NSPS). As a result, the subcommittee recommended a provision in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110– 

181) to restore employee collective bargaining rights, exempted 

wage grade employees from NSPS, and modified the pay for performance process as well as extended the exemption from NSPS to 

defense laboratories until 2011. 

On March 14, 2007, the subcommittee received a briefing from 

the Department of Defense, Army, Navy, and Air Force on the A– 

76 program. The briefing resulted in the subcommittee recommending an extensive revision to the Department’s competitive 

sourcing program in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). On February 13, 2008, a 

subcommittee hearing was held on the Department’s security clearance process, and its costs and delays. On March 11, 2008, the subcommittee received testimony from the Department and the GovVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
126 

ernment Accountability Office on issues related to inherently governmental functions, and the proper role of contractors versus federal civilian personnel in accomplishing Department of Defense 

missions. As a result, the subcommittee recommended several initiatives to address the performance of government functions by 

government employees versus contractors in the Duncan Hunter 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 

Law 110–417). 

In addition, the subcommittee reviewed issues pertaining to military construction, family housing, and Base Closure and Realignment activities (BRAC) of the Department. The subcommittee held 

a hearing on March 20, 2007, on the fiscal year 2008 budget request for military construction, family housing, BRAC, and facilities operations and maintenance. It held the same hearing on February 28, 2008, for the fiscal year 2009 budget request. The subcommittee also held a hearing on December 12, 2007, to receive 

testimony on the administration’s implementation of the BRAC 

2005 process. 

On September 18, 2008, the full committee met in closed session 

for a briefing on United States Northern Command and North 

American Aerospace Defense Command’s decision to relocate primary command and control functions from Cheyenne Mountain, 

Colorado, to Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. 

Finally, the Subcommittee on Readiness held hearings addressing energy and the environment. On July 12, 2007, the subcommittee met to receive testimony from the Department of Defense and the Government Accountability Office on the emerging 

contaminants and environmental management at Department installations in the United States and its territories. As a result, the 

subcommittee recommended a provision in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) to require notification of certain residents and civilian employees of exposure to drinking water contamination at Camp Lejeune, North 

Carolina. 

On March 13, 2008, the subcommittee met to receive testimony 

on the energy posture of the Department of Defense. This oversight 

resulted in provisions in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417) that establishes a Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs, requires annual reporting on operational energy consumption, and directs studies on renewable and alternative energy, among other 

provisions. (H.A.S.C. 110–7; H.A.S.C. 110–10; H.A.S.C. 110–14; 

H.A.S.C. 110–17; H.A.S.C. 110–26; H.A.S.C. 110–33; H.A.S.C. 110– 

38; H.A.S.C. 110–47; H.A.S.C. 110–104; H.A.S.C. 110–113; H.A.S.C. 

110–123; H.A.S.C. 110–130; H.A.S.C. 110–134; H.A.S.C. 110–139; 

H.A.S.C. 110–144; H.A.S.C. 110–149; H.A.S.C. 110–170; H.A.S.C. 

110–181) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND

CAPABILITIES

The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 

Capabilities conducted a series of hearings to review programs, 

policies, and Department of Defense budget requests relevant to 

the jurisdictional responsibility of the subcommittee. Hearings perVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
127 

taining to a review of the budget request for fiscal year 2008 included: January 31, 2007, Current manning, equipping, and readiness challenges facing Special Operations forces; February 14, 

2007, Challenges for the Special Operations Command posed by the 

global terrorist threat; March 14, 2007, Harnessing technological 

innovation: challenges and opportunities; March 21, 2007, Department of Defense counterproliferation and counterterrorism science 

and technology priorities; March 28, 2007, Information technology; 

July 10, 2007, Strategic communication and the battle of ideas— 

winning the hearts and minds in the global war against terrorists; 

and November 15, 2007, Strategic communications and counter-ideological support for terrorism. 

Hearings pertaining to the budget request for fiscal year 2009 included: February 26, 2008, Irregular warfare and stability operations—approaches to interagency integration (held jointly with the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations); March 5, 2008, 

U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Northern Command; 

March 13, 2008, Department of Defense science and technology priorities responding to the changes and challenges of the twenty-first 

century irregular warfare threat environment; April 24, 2008, Role 

of the social and behavioral sciences in national security (held 

jointly with the Subcommittee on Research and Science Education 

of the House Committee on Science and Technology); and September 18, 2008, Lessons for countering al Qa’ida and the way 

ahead. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 3, 

2007, that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 8, 2008, that was included 

in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). The legislative provisions covered a range of issues, to include: a provision to codify the position 

of the acquisition executive at Special Operations Command; provisions to provide an extension and expansion of authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism; a requirement to improve government-wide strategic communication initiatives; and 

greater acquisition authority to improve information technology capabilities. 

In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee held a total of 

22 briefings. These included: February 28, 2007, The perspectives 

of the theater Special Operations Commands; March 1, 2007, Special Operations Command activities in the Philippines; March 15, 

2007, Special Operations Command activities in Colombia; March 

22, 2007, Special Operations Command activities in the Horn of Africa; June 14, 2007, Defense modeling and simulation; June 19, 

2007, Information operations and cyberspace; July 17, 2007, Chemical and biological threats and U.S. Efforts to respond; September 

18, 2007, Discussion with Special Operations combatant commanders; September 27, 2007, Department of Defense response to 

chemical/biological attacks; October 3, 2007, Hard and deeply buried targets, held jointly with the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces; 

and October 17, 2007, Revolutionizing prosthetics with the Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency. Additional scheduled briefings 

included: January 17, 2008, Special Operations Command unconVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
128 

ventional warfare activities; January 29, 2008, Bandwidth challenges for the 21st century military; April 2, 2008, Cyber-security; 

April 10, 2008, Irregular warfare; April 15, 2008, Special Operations Command interagency coordination and integration efforts; 

April 23, 2008, Chemical de-militarization programs; and September 16, 2008, Irregular warfare efforts in the Department of the 

Navy. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–12; H.A.S.C. 110–19; H.A.S.C. 110–34; H.A.S.C. 

110–41; H.A.S.C. 110–50; H.A.S.C. 110–68; H.A.S.C. 110–101; 

H.A.S.C. 110–118; H.A.S.C. 110–125; H.A.S.C. 110–135; H.A.S.C. 

110–141; H.A.S.C. 110–165; H.A.S.C. 110–174) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a series of 

hearings to review and evaluate matters under its jurisdiction in 

the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 budget requests: February 13, 2007, 

Health care budget and the challenges facing the military health 

care system; February 15, 2007, Overview of recruiting and retention; February 28, 2007, Impact of changes to the Montgomery G.I. 

Bill for members of the Selected Reserve; March 1, 2007, View of 

military advocacy and beneficiary groups; March 15, 2007, Continuance of the March 1st hearing to receive testimony on views of 

military advocacy and beneficiary groups; February 7, 2008, Beneficiary advocacy overview; February 26, 2008, Recruiting, retention, 

and compensation overview; March 12, 2008, Future of military 

health care system; and March 14, 2008, Mental health overview. 

In addition to its budget request hearings, the subcommittee conducted hearings related to the following topics: January 30, 2007, 

Examination of the force requirements determination process; 

March 13, 2007, Overview of military resale programs; March 27, 

2007, State of the military health care system; March 29, 2007, 

Overview of morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs; June 

26, 2007, Findings of the Independent Review Group and an inprogress review of actions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center; 

June 27, 2007, Review of the policies and procedures regarding the 

notification of next of kin of wounded and deceased service members; July 12, 2007, Findings of the Department of Defense Task 

Force on Mental Health; August 1, 2007, Current status of Army 

recruiting and retention programs; August 2, 2007, Further inquiry 

into Marine Corps policies and procedures regarding next of kin notification; February 15, 2008, Army Medical Action Plan & Other 

support for wounded service members; April 17, 2008, Military resale, and morale, welfare, and recreation overview; July 10, 2008, 

Oversight and status of POW/MIA activities; July 22, 2008, Army 

Medical Action Plan: is it working?; and July 23, 2008, Don’t ask, 

don’t tell review. 

The subcommittee also conducted a briefing on the following 

topic: September 25, 2007, AHLTA: DOD’s Electronic Health 

Record. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 2, 

2007, that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act 

For Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and met to consider 

and report legislation on May 7, 2008, that was included in the 

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
129 

2009 (Public Law 110–417). The legislation covered a range of 

issues, including the following: increased active component end 

strength for the Army and Marine Corps, support for the Defense 

Health Program, improvements to the care of injured and wounded 

service members and their families, and bonuses and incentive pay 

for service members. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–9; H.A.S.C. 110–16; H.A.S.C. 110–20; H.A.S.C. 

110–22; H.A.S.C. 110–24; H.A.S.C. 110–32; H.A.S.C. 110–45; 

H.A.S.C. 110–52; H.A.S.C. 110–64; H.A.S.C. 110–66; H.A.S.C. 110– 

69; H.A.S.C. 110–83; H.A.S.C. 110–84; H.A.S.C. 110–111; H.A.S.C. 

110–116; H.A.S.C. 110–117; H.A.S.C. 110–131; H.A.S.C. 110–137; 

H.A.S.C. 110–150; H.A.S.C. 110–158; H.A.S.C. 110–161; H.A.S.C. 

110–163) 

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 2008 and fiscal 

year 2009 budget requests, including: March 8, 2007, the posture 

of the U.S. Strategic Command; March 20, 2007, the Department 

of Energy’s atomic energy defense activities; March 23, 2007, military space activities; March 27, 2007, missile defense programs; 

February 27, 2008, U.S. strategic posture and budget request for 

strategic programs; March 5, 2008, the status of military space activities; March 12, 2008, the Department of Energy’s atomic energy 

defense activities; and April 17, 2008, missile defense programs. 

In addition to its oversight responsibilities regarding the budget 

requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings on the 

following: January 31, 2007, the Department of Energy’s implementation of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act of 2000; 

July 18, 2007, U.S. nuclear weapons policy; and July 17, 2008, nuclear weapons complex modernization. 

In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics: January 19, 2007, military space activities; February 15, 2007, ballistic missile threats; June 27, 2007, 

the nuclear weapons stockpile; July 11, 2007, Russian and Chinese 

missile capabilities; July 24, 2007, joint briefing with the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities 

and the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on 

the National Academy of Sciences interim report on Conventional 

Prompt Global Strike; July 31, 2007, nuclear threats; October 3, 

2007, joint briefing with the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on hard and deeply buried targets defeat; October 10, 2007, joint briefing with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on the imagery way-ahead; 

November 1, 2007, Air Force commander-directed investigation into 

the unauthorized transfer of weapons; January 29, 2008, nuclear 

weapons accountability and inventory control; February 7, 2008, 

the status of the nuclear weapons stockpile; April 3, 2008, Chinese 

threats to satellite systems; April 9, 2008, space protection and conVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
130 

trol programs; April 16, 2008, ballistic missile threats; and July 30, 

2008, the Joint Capabilities Mix Study II. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 2, 

2007, that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). Among other initiatives, that legislation: established a congressionally appointed bipartisan commission to reevaluate U.S. strategic posture; required 

the next administration to submit a new Nuclear Posture Review 

with the 2009 Quadrennial Defense Review; reduced investment in 

future ballistic missile defense efforts and increased funding for 

systems to address current vulnerabilities; boosted funding for 

space capabilities that can deliver near-term benefits to the 

warfighter and improve space situational awareness and survivability; and required the Secretary of Defense to submit a research, 

development, and testing plan for Prompt Global Strike. The subcommittee also considered and reported legislation on May 7, 2008, 

that was included in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417). Legislation 

initiated by the subcommittee: expressed the Sense of Congress 

that the Secretary of Defense should clarify lines of responsibility 

and accountability within his office for nuclear weapons; funded the 

Stockpile Stewardship Program, but did not fund the Reliable Replacement Warhead program; fully authorized the construction of 

the Mixed Oxide Fuel facility; authorized funding for critical defense environmental cleanup activities; limited the availability of 

funds for procurement, construction, and deployment of missile defenses in Europe; required a review of the ballistic missile defense 

policy and strategy of the United States; and required the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly report national security bandwidth needs and strategy. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–11; H.A.S.C. 110–31; H.A.S.C. 110–37; H.A.S.C. 

110–44; H.A.S.C. 110–48; H.A.S.C. 110–73; H.A.S.C. 110–120; 

H.A.S.C. 110–126; H.A.S.C. 110–132; H.A.S.C. 110–151; H.A.S.C. 

110–160) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget requests for fiscal 

years 2008 and 2009 during the 110th Congress, including: January 16, 2007, Marine Corps force protection equipment for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; February 

13, 2007, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S Navy reset requirements 

(Joint hearing with Subcommittee on Readiness); March 15, 2007, 

Federal ship loan programs; June 26, 2007, Expeditionary Fighting 

Vehicle (EFV); July 19, 2007, Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle program (Joint with Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces); 

July 24, 2007, Surface combatant construction update; November 2, 

2007, Mine resistant ambush protected vehicle program (Joint with 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces); February 27, 2008, United 

States Marine Corps; and March 14, 2008, Navy shipbuilding. 

In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities regarding 

DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings on the following: February 8, 2007, The Navy’s Littoral ComVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
131 

bat Ship (LCS) Program; March 1, 2007, Integrated nuclear power 

systems for the Navy’s next generation surface combatants; March 

8, 2007, Submarine Force Structure and Acquisition Policy; March 

20, 2007, Shipyard Modernization; June 6, 2007, Navy force protection barriers; and July 31, 2008, Navy destroyer acquisition programs. 

Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee 

conducted numerous briefings on the following topics: the Navy’s 

Littoral Combat Ship program, nuclear power alternatives for Navy 

surface combatants, emerging weapons technology, submarine requirements and force structure, ballistic missile defense modifications for Navy surface combatants, United States Merchant Marine 

Academy financial irregularities, and efforts to rapidly deploy mine 

resistant ambush protected vehicles. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 3, 

2007 that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and considered and reported legislation on May 8, 2008 that was included in the Duncan 

Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

(Public Law 110–417). The legislation covered a range of issues, including requirements that future classes of battle force vessels of 

the United States Navy are constructed with integrated nuclear 

power systems, granting multi-year procurement authority for Virginia-class submarines and advance construction authority for vessels in the multi-year contract, requiring an assessment by the Secretary of the Navy for readiness to begin construction of new classes of Navy vessels, modifications to the limitations on cost associated with the Littoral Combat Ship program, and authority to 

begin refueling and complex overhaul of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. 

Theodore Roosevelt. The subcommittee also reported legislation in 

its oversight and authorization responsibilities for the Maritime 

Administration of the Department of Transportation. That legislation included: requirements on the disposal of obsolete vessels, a 

requirement for review of applications for the Maritime Loan Guarantee Program, a series of technical corrections in the ongoing recodification of title 46, United States Code, modifications to the 

Student Incentive Pay Program at the various State maritime 

academies, modifications to riding gang member requirements for 

vessels engaged in the carriage of cargo for the Department of Defense, temporary waivers for certain positions at the United States 

Merchant Marine Academy, actions required to address sexual harassment and violence at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a reaffirmation of cargo preference rules for the transportation of government personnel and certain cargoes, and the establishment of the Port of Guam enterprise improvement program. 

(H.A.S.C. 110–3, H.A.S.C. 110–14, H.A.S.C. 110–17, H.A.S.C. 

110–25, H.A.S.C. 110–30, H.A.S.C. 110–36, H.A.S.C. 110–39, 

H.A.S.C. 110–42, H.A.S.C. 110–59, H.A.S.C. 110–65, H.A.S.C. 110– 

75, H.A.S.C. 110–76, H.A.S.C. 110–99, H.A.S.C. 110–121, H.A.S.C. 

110–138, H.A.S.C. 110–169) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

The Committee on Armed Services re-established its Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in January 2007 after 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
132 

a twelve year absence. In 1995, the subcommittee was disbanded 

and oversight and investigative responsibilities were spread out 

among the full committee and the six other subcommittees. With 

the Nation engaged in war on two fronts, the committee believed 

it prudent to reestablish the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation to provide increased oversight of the Department of Defense. In June 2007, the subcommittee completed its first in-depth 

investigation with the publication of Stand-up and Be Counted: the 

Continuing Challenge of Building the Iraqi Security Forces (Committee Print 6). In April 2008, the subcommittee concluded a case 

study of interagency operations with the release of Agency Stovepipes vs Strategic Agility: Lessons We Need to Learn from Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan (Committee 

Print 8). Also in April 2008, the subcommittee completed a review 

across agencies and published Deploying Federal Civilians to the 

Battlefield: Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care (Committee 

Print 9). The subcommittee also reviewed progress on and challenges associated with the Defense Travel System and dental readiness for National Guard and Reserve Component. The subcommittee also held a hearing on the impact of presidential signing 

statements on the Department of Defense’s implementation of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 

Law 110–181). The Chairman and Ranking Member reported the 

subcommittee’s findings on the Defense Travel System, dental 

readiness, and the presidential signing statements to the full committee in memoranda in June and July of 2008. In November 2008, 

the subcommittee concluded two studies: the first concerned the 

Department’s foreign language and cultural training of U.S. general purpose forces and the second concerned the Joint Improvised 

Explosive Device Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). The subcommittee issued reports memorializing its efforts on foreign language and culture training and JIEDDO titled respectively: Building Language Skills and Cultural Competencies in the Military: 

DOD’s Challenge in Today’s Educational Environment (Committee 

Print 12) and The Joint IED Defeat Organization: DOD’s Fight 

Against IEDs Today and Tomorrow (Committee Print 11). Each of 

these reports was bipartisan and unanimous. All were done in coordination and cooperation with other Committee on Armed Services subcommittees and the full committee, and in addition to, 

where appropriate, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Committee on 

Appropriations subcommittee on Foreign Operations, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Committee on Education and Labor. These efforts resulted in recommendations to the 

Department of Defense as well as other departments and agencies. 

The Committee on Armed Services and several other subcommittees used these products to support legislative initiatives and inform their oversight activities. 

In addition to more in-depth projects, the subcommittee completed other substantive efforts. The subcommittee embarked on a 

series of six exploratory hearings and discussions with retired military officers, administration officials, defense policy experts, and 

academics in July 2007 and January 2008, to suggest alternatives 

for U.S. strategy in Iraq. The subcommittee also held a series of 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
133 

hearings and discussions with retired military officers, administration officials, defense policy experts, and academics to explore alternatives for a new U.S. grand strategy and in support of full committee hearings in September 2008, on the same subject. Finally, 

the subcommittee staff conducted an inquiry into matters related 

to mobilization training of Army National Guard (ARNG) units 

through a case study of a Washington, DC ARNG company that deployed to Iraq. 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducted 30 

oversight hearings to review programs under the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Armed Services including: March 28, 2007, Outside 

perspectives on transitioning security to the Iraqi security forces; 

April 25, 2007, Contracting for the Iraqi security forces; May 22, 

2007, Training of Iraqi security forces (ISF) and Employment of 

transition teams; May 24, 2007, Development of the Iraqi police 

service; June 12, 2007, Development of the Iraqi security forces; 

July 12, 2007, A Third Way: alternatives for Iraq’s future (Part 1 

of 4); July 18, 2007, A Third Way: alternatives for Iraq’s future 

(Part 2 of 4); July 25, 2007, A Third Way: alternatives for Iraq’s 

future (Part 3 of 4); July 31, 2007, A Third Way: alternatives for 

Iraq’s future (Part 4 of 4); September 5, 2007, The Role of the Department of Defense in Provincial Reconstruction Teams; September 18, 2007, The benefits and medical care for federal and U.S. 

contractor employees deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan; October 4, 

2007, The Role of the Department of Defense in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq; October 16, 2007, Incentives, benefits and medical care for federal civilian employees deployed to combat zones; October 18, 2007, Measuring and increasing the effectiveness of Provincial Reconstruction Teams; October 

30, 2007, Stabilization and reconstruction operations: learning from 

the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) experience; December 5, 

2007, Provincial Reconstruction Teams—historical and current perspectives on doctrine and strategy; January 16, 2008, A continuing 

dialogue: post-surge alternatives for Iraq (Part 1 of 2); January 23, 

2008, A continuing dialogue: post-surge alternatives for Iraq (Part 

2 of 2); January 29, 2008, Interagency reform: can the Provincial 

Reconstruction Team (PRT) case study illuminate the future of reconstruction and stabilization operations?; February 14, 2008, Provincial Reconstruction Teams: a case for national security reform?; 

February 26, 2008, Irregular warfare and stability operations: approaches to interagency integration (joint with Subcommittee on 

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities); March 11, 

2008, The impact of the presidential signing statement on the Department of Defense implementation of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act; April 15, 2008, Oversight of the 

defense travel system; April 23, 2008, Challenges associated with 

achieving full dental readiness in the Reserve Component; July 9, 

2008, Defense language and cultural awareness transformation: to 

what end? At what cost?; July 15, 2008, A new U.S. grand strategy 

(Part 1); July 31, 2008, A new U.S. grand strategy (Part 2); September 10, 2008, Transforming the U.S. military’s foreign language, cultural awareness, and regional expertise; September 16, 

2008, Defeating the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and other 

asymmetric threats: today’s efforts and tomorrow’s requirements; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
134 

September 23, 2008, The Department of Defense’s work with 

states, universities and students to transform the nation’s foreign 

language capacity; and March 28, 2007, Outside perspectives on 

transitioning security to the Iraqi security forces. 

The subcommittee also held briefings and panel discussions on 

the following topics: February 6, 2007: Congressional Research 

Service and Government Accountability Office briefing on investigations; February 28, 2007: Project on Government Oversight 

briefing on investigative process and methods; March 9, 2007, Iraqi 

security forces logistics and equipment; Integrating 21st century 

development and security assistance; March 13, 2007, Iraqi security forces, personnel and training issues; March 22, 2007, Iraqi security forces, cost and financial transition; April 19, 2007, Iraqi security forces—personal experiences of U.S. military advisors on 

transition teams; September 7, 2007, Panel discussion with former 

members of Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan; September 27, 2007, Panel discussion with former members 

of Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq; October 2, 2007, Panel 

discussion with wounded federal civilian employees and representatives from their advocacy organizations; December 19, 2007, Nongovernmental organizations and Provincial Reconstruction Teams; 

January 17, 2008, National security interagency reform working 

group; January 23, 2008, Panel discussion with authors of the recent CSIS report: Integrating 21st century development and security assistance; April 15, 2008, Panel discussion with users of the 

Defense Travel System; June 5, 2008, Provincial Reconstruction 

Team report discussions with Ambassador Ryan Crocker; June 8, 

2008, ‘‘Grand Strategy’’ academic panel discussion; June 18, 2008, 

Defense language transformation roadmap briefing with Dr. David 

S. Chu, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 

July 14, 2008, Congressional Delegation Cooper to JIEDDO’s 

counter-IED operations integration center; and September 9, 2008, 

Closed member briefing on JIEDDO’s counter-IED operations integration center. 

(Committee Print 6, Committee Print 8, Committee Print 9, 

Committee Print 11, Committee Print 12) H.A.S.C. 110–49; 

H.A.S.C. 110–55; H.A.S.C. 110–56; H.A.S.C. 110–57; H.A.S.C. 110– 

60; H.A.S.C. 110–71; H.A.S.C. 110–74; H.A.S.C. 110–78; H.A.S.C. 

110–82; H.A.S.C. 110–86; H.A.S.C. 110–90; H.A.S.C. 110–93; 

H.A.S.C. 110–95; H.A.S.C. 110–96; H.A.S.C. 110–98; H.A.S.C. 110– 

102; H.A.S.C. 110–106; H.A.S.C. 110–109; H.A.S.C. 110–115; 

H.A.S.C. 110–118; H.A.S.C. 110–129; H.A.S.C. 110–147; H.A.S.C. 

110–152; H.A.S.C. 110–155; H.A.S.C. 110–159; H.A.S.C. 110–168; 

H.A.S.C. 110–171; H.A.S.C. 110–173; H.A.S.C. 110–175) 

SPECIAL OVERSIGHT PANEL ON ROLES AND MISSIONS

On July 25, 2007, the committee created a seven member bipartisan Roles and Missions panel with a six month charter to consider implications regarding the organization of the national defense structure across the Department of the Defense and other 

governmental entities. The panel held multiple meetings and briefings with a wide variety of defense and security officials and nongovernmental experts. In January 2008, the Panel released its final 

report to the public, which discussed several areas of national secuVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
135 

rity related activities that the panel desired to highlight for further 

consideration. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181), the committee established a requirement for a quadrennial review of the roles and missions of the 

armed forces. The results of the first review will be delivered with 

the budget request for fiscal year 2010. 

(Committee Print 7) 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(137) 

1 Note: Due to an administrative error, the committee print numbering system skipped numbers two, three, four, and five, and thus there are no publications numbered as such. 

PUBLICATIONS 

COMMITTEE PRINTS

Committee Print 1—Committee Rules of the Committee on 

Armed Services in the 110th Congress. Adopted January 10, 2007.1

Committee Print 6—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

report—Stand Up and Be Counted: The Continuing Challenge of 

Building the Iraqi Security Forces. June 2007. 

Committee Print 7—Roles and Missions Panel report—Initial 

Perspectives. January 2008. 

Committee Print 8—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

report—Agency Stovepipes vs Strategic Agility: Lessons We Need 

to Learn from Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. April 2008. 

Committee Print 9—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

report—Deploying Federal Civilians to the Battlefield: Incentives, 

Benefits and Medical Care. April 2008. 

Committee Print 10—Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany 

S. 3001 (H.R. 5658)—The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009. September 2008. 

Committee Print 11—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

report—The Joint IED Defeat Organization: DOD’s Fight Against 

IEDs Today and Tomorrow. 

Committee Print 12—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

report—Building Language Skills and Cultural Competencies in 

the Military: DOD’s Challenge in Today’s Educational Environment. 

PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS

H.A.S.C. 110–1—Full Committee hearing on Committee Organization. January 10, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–2—Full Committee hearing on The Way Forward 

in Iraq. January 11, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–3—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Marine Corps Force Protection Equipment 

for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

January 16, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–4—Full Committee hearing on Alternative Perspectives on the President’s Strategy for Iraq. January 17, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–5—Full Committee hearing on Approaches to Audit 

of Reconstruction and Support Activities in Iraq. January 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–6—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
138 

Army Force Protection Equipment for Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

Operation Enduring Freedom. January 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–7—Full Committee hearing on Implications of Iraq 

Policy on Total Force Readiness. January 23, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–8—Full Committee hearing on Security and Stability in Afghanistan: Challenges and Opportunities. January 30, 

2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–9—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Examination of the Force Requirements Determination Process. 

January 30, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–10—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Army Equipment Reset. (Joint with Subcommittee on Readiness). 

January 31, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–11—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

Department of Energy’s Implementation of the National Nuclear 

Security Administration Act of 2000. January 31, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–12—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Current Manning, Equipping and 

Readiness Challenges Facing Special Operations Forces. January 

31, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–13—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of Defense. February 7, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–14—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Acquisition Oversight of the U.S. Navy’s Littoral Combat System. February 8, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–15—Full Committee hearing on Assessment of Security and Stability in Afghanistan and Developments in U.S. 

Strategy and Operations. February 13, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–16—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Military Health 

Care and the Challenges Facing the Military Health Care System. 

February 13, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–17—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Navy Reset Requirements. (joint with Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.) February 13, 

2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–18—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Army. February 14, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–19—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Challenges for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Posed by the Global Terrorist Threat. 

February 14, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–20—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Overview of Recruiting and Retention. February 15, 2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
139 

H.A.S.C. 110–21—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force. February 28, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–22—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 

on Impact of Changes to the Reserve Montgomery G.I. Bill. February 28, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–23—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Navy. March 1, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–24—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearings on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Views of Military 

Advocacy and Beneficiary Groups. March 1 and 15, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–25—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Integrated Nuclear Power Systems for Future Naval Surface Combatants. March 1, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–26—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on The National Security Personnel System—Is it Really Working? March 6, 

2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–27—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. March 7, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–28—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Air Force and Army Airlift and Aerial Refueling Fixed-Wing Aircraft Programs. March 7, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–29—Full Committee hearing on Challenges and 

Obstacles Wounded and Injured Service Members Face During Recovery. March 8, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–30—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Submarine Force Structure and Acquisition 

Policy. March 8, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–31—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on The 

Posture of the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). March 8, 

2007. 

H.A.S.C. 1109–32—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Overview of Military Resale Programs. March, 13, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–33—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Adequacy to Meet Readiness Needs. March 31, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–34—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Harnessing Technological Innovation: Challenges and Opportunities. March 14, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–35—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of PreVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:10 Jan 15, 2009 Jkt 079006 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR942.XXX HR942

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
140 

viously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. European Command and Joint Forces Command. March 15, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–36—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on The Federal Ship Construction Loan Guarantee Program. March 15, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–37—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for the 

Department of Energy’s Atomic Energy Defense Activities. March 

20, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–38—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Budget 

Requests for Military Construction, Family Housing, Base Closures 

and Facilities’ Operations and Maintenance. March 20, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–39—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on U.S. Shipyard Modernization Initiatives and 

Ship Cost Reduction. March 20, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–40—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. Strategic Command, Northern Command, Transportation Command, 

and Southern Command. March 21, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–41—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on the Department of Defense 

Counterproliferation, Counterterrorism, and Science and Technology Priorities. March 21, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–42—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Department of Defense Airlift Programs. (Joint with Subcommittee 

on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces). March 22, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–43—Full Committee hearing on The Second Report 

to Congress by the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. March 23, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–44—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request and the 

Status of Space Activities. March 23, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–45—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

The State of the Military Health Care System. March 27. 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–46—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Army Ground Force Acquisition Programs. March 27, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–47—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Readiness of the Army and Air National Guard. March 27, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–48—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs. March 27, 2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
141 

H.A.S.C. 110–49—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Outside Perspectives on Transitioning Security to the 

Iraqi Security Forces. March 28, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 109–50—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Information Technology. March 

28, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–51—Full Committee hearing on The Military Commission Act and the Continued Use of Guantanamo Bay as a Detention Facility. March 29, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–52—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Overview of Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Programs. 

March 29, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–53—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. Central Command. April 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–54—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Intelligence, Surveillance 

and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capabilities. April 19, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–55—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Contracting for the Iraqi Security Forces. April 25, 

2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–56—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Training of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and Employment 

of Transition Teams. May 22, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–57—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Development of the Iraqi Police Service. May 24, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–58—Full Committee hearing on Department of Defense Body Armor Programs. June 6, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–59—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Procurement of Navy Boat Barriers. June 6, 

2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–60—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on the Development of the Iraqi Security Forces. June 12, 

2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–61—Full Committee hearing on China: Recent Security Developments. June 13, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–62—Full Committee hearing on Organizing the 

Roles, Missions, and Requirements of the Department of Defense. 

June 20, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–63—Full Committee hearing on Structure, Process, 

and Tools for Improving Department of Defense Management. June 

26, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–64—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Findings of the Independent Review Group and an In-Progress Review of Actions at Walter Reed. June 26, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–65—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle Program Update. June 26, 2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
142 

H.A.S.C. 110–66—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Review of the Policies and Procedures Regarding the Notification 

of Next-of-Kin of Wounded and Deceased Service Members. June 

27, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–67—Full Committee hearing on Global Security Assessment. July 11, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–68—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on Strategic Communications and The Battle of Ideas: 

Winning the Hearts and Minds in the Global War Against Terrorists. July 11, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–69—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Mental Health. July 12, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–70—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Emerging 

Contaminants and Environmental Management at the Department 

of Defense Installations. July 12, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–71—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on A Third Way: Alternatives for Iraq’s Future (Part 1 of 

4). July 12, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–72—Full Committee hearing on Iraq: Trends and 

Recent Security Developments. July 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–73—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy. July 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–74—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on A Third Way: Alternatives for Iraq’s Future (Part 2 of 

4). July 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–75—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program. (Joint 

with Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.) July 

19, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–76—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Surface Combatant Construction Update. 

July 24, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–77—Full Committee hearing on Implications of the 

National Intelligence Estimate Regarding al-Qaeda (joint with Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence). July 25, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–78—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on A Third Way: Alternatives for Iraq’s Future (Part 3 of 

4). July 25, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–79—Full Committee hearing on Upholding the 

Principle of Habeas Corpus for Detainees. July 26, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–80—Full Committee hearing on H. R. 3087, To require the President, in coordination with the Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other senior 

military leaders, to develop and transmit to Congress a Comprehensive Strategy for the Redeployment of United States Armed 

Forces in Iraq, and H. R. 3159, the ‘‘Enduring Military Readiness 

Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 

2007.’’ July 27, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–81—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the Use of 

In-Lieu-Of, Ad Hoc and Augmentee Forces in Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. July 31, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–82—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on A Third Way: Alternatives for Iraq’s Future (Part 4 of 

4). July 31, 2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
143 

H.A.S.C. 110–83—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve Recruiting 

and Retention. August 1, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–84—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Further Inquiry into Marine Corps Policies and Procedures Regarding Next-of-Kin Notification. August 2, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–85—Full Committee hearing on The Comptroller 

General’s Assessment of the Iraqi Government’s Record of Performance. September 5, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–86—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on The Role of the Department of Defense in Provincial Reconstruction Teams. September 5, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–87—Full Committee hearing on Beyond the September Report: What’s Next for Iraq? (Joint with the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs). September 6, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–88—Full Committee hearing on the Report of the 

Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq. September 

6, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–89—Full Committee hearing on The War and Political Developments in Iraq. (Joint with Committee on Foreign Affairs). September 10, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–90—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on the Benefits and Medical Care for Federal and U.S. 

Contractor Employees Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. September 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–91—Full Committee hearing on Accountability 

During Contingency Operations: Preventing and Fighting Corruption in Contracting and Establishing and Maintaining Appropriate 

Control on Materiel. September 20, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–92—Full Committee hearing on Army Strategic 

Initiatives. September 26, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–93—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on The Role of the Department of Defense in Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan and Iraq. October 4, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–94—Full Committee hearing on Security Challenges Involving Pakistan Implications for the Department of Defense. October 10, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–95—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Incentives, Benefits, and Medical Care for Federal Civilian Employees Deployed to Combat Zones. October 16, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–96—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Measuring and Increasing the Effectiveness of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. October 18, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–97—Full Committee hearing on Air Force Strategic 

Initiatives, October 24, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–98—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations: Learning 

from the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) Experience. October 30, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–99—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee on the Current Status of the Joint Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) Vehicle Program. (Joint with Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces). November 8, 2007. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
144 

H.A.S.C. 110–100—Full Committee hearing on Africa Command. 

November 14, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–101—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Strategic Communications and 

Countering Ideological Support for Terrorism. November 15, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–102—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Provincial Reconstruction Teams—Historical and Current Perspectives on Doctrine and Strategy. December 5, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–103—Full Committee hearing on Security and Stability in Afghanistan: Status of U.S. Strategy and Operations and 

the Way Ahead. December 11, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–104—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure 2005 Decisions. 

December 12, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–105—Full Committee hearing on A Cooperative 

Strategy for the 21st Century Seapower. December 13, 2007. 

H.A.S.C. 110–106—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on A Continuing Dialogue: Post-Surge Alternatives for Iraq 

(Parts 1 and 2). January 16 and 23, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–107—Full Committee hearing on the Status of Efforts to Develop Iraqi Security Forces. January 17, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–108—Full Committee hearing on Assessment of 

U.S. Strategy and Operations in Afghanistan and the Way Ahead. 

January 23, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–109—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Interagency Reform: Can the Provincial Reconstruction 

Team (PRT) Case Study Illuminate the Future of Reconstruction 

and Stabilization Operations? January 29, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–110—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of Defense. February 6, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–111—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

the Views of Military Advocacy and Beneficiary Groups. February 

7, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–112—Full Committee hearing on Global Security 

Assessment. February 13, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–113—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Readiness at Risk: Department of Defense Security Clearance Processes. 

February 13, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–114—Full Committee hearing on Military Readiness Implications for Our Strategic Posture. February 14, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–115—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Provincial Reconstruction Teams: A Case for Interagency National Security Reform. February 4, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–116—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

The Status of the Implications of the Army’s Medical Action Plan 

and Other Services’ Support for Wounded Service Members. February 15, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–117—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
145 

Overview of Recruiting, Retention, and Compensation. February 

26, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–118 Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Irregular Warfare and Stability 

Operations: Approaches to Interagency Integration (Joint with Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations). February 26, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–119—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force. February 27, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–120—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Posture and Budget Request for Strategic Programs. February 27, 

2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–121—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Overview for the United States Marine 

Corps. February 27, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–122—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Army. February 28, 2008. . 

H.A.S.C. 110–123—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Military Construction. February 28, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–124—Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2009 

National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the U.S. Central Command and the U.S. Special Operation Command. March 5, 

2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–125—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Northern Command. March 5, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–126—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request and 

Status for Space Activities. March 5, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–127—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Navy. March 6, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–128—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

on Departments of the Navy and Air Force Tactical Aviation Programs. (Joint with Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 

Forces). March 11, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–129—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on The Impact of the Presidential Signing Statement on 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
146 

the Department of Defense’s Implementation of the Fiscal Year 

2008 National Defense Authorization Act. March 11, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–130—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Inherently Governmental—What is the Proper Role of Government? 

March 11, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–131—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

the Future of the Military Health System. March 12, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–132—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for 

the Department of Energy National Security Programs. Mar. 12, 

2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–133—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. March 12, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–134—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Department of Defense Energy Posture. March 13, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–135—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request—Department of Defense 

Science and Technology: Responding to the 21st Century Irregular 

Warfare Threat Environment. March 5, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–136—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. European Command, Southern Command and Africa Command. March 

13, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–137—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 

on Mental Health Overview. March 14, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–138—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Navy Shipbuilding. March 14, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–139—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on the 

Readiness of the Army and Air Force Reserves and National Guard 

Forces. April 1, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–140—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

from the United States Transportation Command and Air Force 

Mobility Aircraft Programs. April 1, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–141—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Holistic Approaches to Cybersecurity Enabling Network Centric Operations. April 1, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–142—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
147 

on Army National Guard and Army Reserve Equipment. April 3, 

2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–143—Full Committee hearing on The Status of the 

War and Political Developments in Iraq. April 9, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–144—Full Committee hearing on The Current Status of U.S. Ground Forces. April 9, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–145—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

on Army Acquisition Programs. April 10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–146—Full Committee hearing on Building Partnership Capacity and Development of the Interagency Process. April 

10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–147—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Oversight of the Defense Travel System. April 15, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–148—Full Committee hearing on National Industrial Security Program: Addressing the Implication of Globalization 

and Foreign Ownership for the Defense Industrial Base. April 16, 

2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–149—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

on House Resolution 834: Ground Force Readiness Shortfalls. 

(Joint with Subcommittee on Readiness). April 16, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–150—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Military Resale and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Overview. April 17, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–151—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 

for Missile Defense Programs. April 17, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–152—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Challenges Associated with Achieving Full Dental 

Readiness in the Reserve Component. April 23, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–153—Full Committee hearing on China: Recent Security Developments. June 25, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–154—Full Committee hearing on An Update on Efforts to Develop and Support the Iraq Security Forces. July 9, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–155—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Defense Language and Cultural Awareness Transformation: To What End? At What Cost? July 9, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–156—Full Committee hearing on Threat Posed by 

Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, July 10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–157—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing 

on Source Selection and Path Forward Regarding the Air Force 

KC–(X) Program. July 10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–158—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Oversight and Status of POW/MIA Activities. July 10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–159—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on A New U.S. Grand Strategy (Part 1). July 15, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–160—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

Nuclear Weapons Complex Modernization. July 17, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–161—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Army Medical Action Plan: Is it Working? July 22, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
148 

H.A.S.C. 110–162—Full Committee hearing on The Comptroller 

General’s Progress Report on Iraq. July 23, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–163—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Review. July 23, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–164—Full Committee hearing on Contingency Contracting: Implementing a Call for Urgent Reform. April 10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–165—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Role of Social and Behavioral Sciences in National Security (Joint with the Subcommittee 

on Research and Science Education of the Science and Technology 

Committee). April 24, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–166—Full Committee hearing on Implications of 

the Supreme Court’s Boumediene Decision for Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Non Governmental Perspectives. July 30, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–167—Full Committee hearing on Implications of 

the Supreme Court’s Boumediene Decision for Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba: Administration Perspectives. July 31, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–168—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on A New U.S. Grand Strategy (Part 2). July 31, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–169—Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee hearing on Navy Destroyer Acquisition Programs. July 

31, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–170—Full Committee hearing on Security and Stability in Afghanistan and Iraq: Developments in U.S. Strategy and 

Operations and the Way Ahead. September 10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–171—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Transforming the U.S. Military’s Foreign Language, 

Cultural Awareness, and Regional Expertise Capabilities. September 10, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–172—Full Committee hearing on Considerations 

for an American Grand Strategy. Part 1. September 16, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–173—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on Defeating the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) and 

Other Asymmetric Threats: Today’s Efforts and Tomorrow’s Requirements. September 16, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–174—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Lessons for Countering al 

Qa’ida and the Way Ahead. September 18, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–175—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

hearing on The Department of Defense’s Work with States, Universities, and Students to Transform the Nation’s Foreign Language 

Capacity. September 23, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–176—Full Committee hearing on Considerations 

for an American Grand Strategy. Part 2. September 24, 2008. 

H.A.S.C. 110–177—Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing 

on the F–22 program. November 19, 2008. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
HOUSE REPORTS 

Report number Date filed Bill number Title 

110–47, Part II .................................................. Mar. 14, 2007 .................................................. H.R. 1362 ......................................................... To reform acquisition practices of the Federal Governm110–68, Part I ................................................... Mar. 23, 2007 .................................................. H.R. 1538 ......................................................... To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve th

ment of medical care, personnel actions, and quaissues for members of the Armed Forces who armedical care in an outpatient status, and for other 

110–146, Part I and II ...................................... May 11, 2007 ................................................... H.R. 1585 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, for military tion, and for defense activities of the Department to prescribe military personnel strengths for such and for other purposes. 

110–282 ............................................................ Jul. 31, 2007 .................................................... H.R. 3159 ......................................................... To mandate minimum periods of rest and recuperation 

and members of the regular and Reserve ComponArmed Forces between deployments for Operation dom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

110–283 ............................................................ Jul. 31, 2007 .................................................... H.R. 3087 ......................................................... To require the President, in coordination with the S

State, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of other senior military leaders, to develop and transmgress a comprehensive strategy for the redeploymUnited States Armed Forces in Iraq. 

110–477 ............................................................ Dec. 6, 2007 .................................................... H.R. 1585 Conf. Rept. ..................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, for military tion, and for defense activities of the Department to prescribe military personnel strengths for such and for other purposes. 

110–652, Parts I and II .................................... May 16, 2008 ................................................... H.R. 5658 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, to prescripersonnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for poses. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
PUBLIC LAWS 

Public Law number Date enacted Bill number Title 

110–115 ............................................................ Nov. 14, 2007 .................................................. H.R. 2779 ......................................................... To recognize the Navy UDT/SEAL Museum in Fort Pier

as the official national museum of the Navy SEALpredecessors. 

110–181 ............................................................ Jan. 28, 2008 ................................................... H.R. 4986 (H.R. 1585) ..................................... To provide for the enactment of the National Defense 

tion Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as previously enrolledtain modifications to address the foreign sovereigties provisions of title 28, United States Code, with the attachment of property in certain judgments agthe lapse of statutory authorities for the payment special pay, and similar benefits for members oformed services, and other purposes. 

110–203 ............................................................ Apr. 22, 2008 ................................................... H.J. Res. 70 ..................................................... Congratulating the Army Reserve on its centennial, wh

formally celebrated on April 23, 2008, and commthe historic contributions of its veterans and conttributions of its soldiers to the vital national securiand homeland defense missions of the United State

110–417 ............................................................ Oct. 14, 2008 ................................................... S. 3001 ............................................................ Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for 

2009. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(151) 

PRESS RELEASES 

FIRST SESSION

January 5, 2007—Skelton Statement on Military Leadership 

Changes 

January 10, 2007—Skelton Announces January Hearing Topics 

January 10, 2007—Skelton Opposes Troop Escalation 

January 10, 2007—House Armed Services Committee Holds 

110th Congress Organizational Meeting 

January 18, 2007—Skelton Hopes New Military Manual Will Result In Solid Convictions Of Terrorists 

January 23, 2007—Skelton Says Costs Of Troop Escalation Unacceptable: Troop Increase In Iraq Threatens Military Readiness, 

Poses Significant Strategic Risk, And Harms Troop And Family 

Morale 

January 30, 2007—Afghanistan Demands Increased Attention, 

Says Skelton 

January 30, 2007—Snyder Concerned with Discrepancy between 

End Strength Request and 2006 QDR 

January 31, 2007—Subcommittees Begin Damage Assessment of 

Army Forces 

February 1, 2007—Skelton/Meehan: CBO Estimates Additional 

Personnel and Costs for President’s Troop Escalation 

February 5, 2007—Skelton On The President’s Defense Budget 

Proposal 

February 7, 2007—Skelton Questions Planning For Troop Escalation 

February 9, 2007—Skelton: DOD Office’s Activities Absolutely 

Indefensible 

February 10, 2007—Skelton Statement on News Reports Regarding Iranian Activities 

February 11, 2007—Hoyer-Skelton-Reyes Letter To Gates And 

Negroponte 

February 13, 2007—Skelton Statement On House Iraq Resolution 

February 13, 2007—Skelton: NATO Partners Must Do More In 

Afghanistan 

February 14, 2007—Skelton: A Larger Army Will Help, But 

Readiness Issues Must Be Addressed 

February 16, 2007—Skelton On House Passage Of Iraq Resolution 

February 21, 2007—Skelton Statement On Conditions At Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center 

February 28, 2007—Skelton Concerned About Air Force’s Readiness And Personnel Levels 

March 1, 2007—House Armed Services Committee To Hold Hearing On Report Of The National Guard And Reserves Commission 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
152 

March 1, 2007—Skelton Concerned About Navy Ships And Marine Corps Readiness 

March 2, 2007—Skelton Statement on Resignation of Army Secretary Francis Harvey 

March 2, 2007—Tauscher/Everett on Announcement of National 

Nuclear Security Administration Reliable Replacement Warhead 

Design 

March 6, 2007—Meehan/Akin Announce Oversight Subcommittee 

Will Examine Development of Iraqi Security Forces 

March 8, 2007—Skelton Says Committee Will Consider Legislation To Meet The Needs Of Wounded Service Members 

March 12, 2007—Skelton On The Retirement Of Lt. Gen. Kevin 

C. Kiley 

March 13, 2007—House Armed Services Committee Reports H.R. 

1362, The Accountability In Contracting Act 

March 13, 2007—Skelton Congratulates Congressman Marty 

Meehan 

March 13, 2007—Readiness Subcommittee Hears From Administration On Defense Budget 

March 14, 2007—Skelton And Snyder Ask GAO To Review Allegations About Wounded Soldiers Ordered To Combat Theater 

March 14, 2007—Skelton Pledges To Work With Pentagon On 

Defense Acquisition Transformation 

March 14, 2007—Skelton and Ortiz Request Military Readiness 

Studies 

March 15, 2007—Skelton-Hunter-Snyder-McHugh-Filner Introduce the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act Of 2007 

March 19, 2007—Skelton Statement On Four Years Since The 

Beginning Of The Iraq War 

March 20, 2007—House Armed Services Committee Reports H.R. 

1538, The Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007 

March 22, 2007—Skelton Says Budget Resolution Supports Defense 

March 23, 2007—Skelton Statement on the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health, and Iraq Accountability Act 

March 23, 2007—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton 

(D–MO) Hearing on the Second Report of the Commission on the 

National Guard and Reserves 

March 28, 2007—Skelton Praises House Approval of H.R. 1538, 

the Wounded Warriors Assistance Act of 2007 

March 28, 2007—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Hears Challenges and Recommendations on Iraqi Security Forces 

from Outside Experts 

March 29, 2007—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton 

(D–MO) Hearing on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the 

Future of the Detention and Interrogation Facilities at the U.S. 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 

April 3, 2007—Skelton Delivers Address at Historic Westminster 

College 

April 4, 2007—Skelton Responds to GOP Statements Concerning 

the Global War on Terror 

April 10, 2007—Skelton Questions Pentagon About the Readiness of Units to be Deployed to Iraq 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
153 

April 11, 2007—Skelton Statement on Pentagon Decision to Extend Army Deployments 

April 18, 2007—House Armed Services Committee Members on 

the Passage of H. Res. 305, Commending the Special Operations 

Community 

April 18, 2007—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton (D– 

MO) Hearing on U.S. Central Command 

April 23, 2007—Skelton: Walls Will Not Bring Peace to Baghdad 

Political Settlement Needed to Bring Security And Stability to Iraq 

April 25, 2007—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Examines Role of Private Contractors in Training the Iraqi Security 

Forces 

April 30, 2007—Skelton: Iraqi Parliament Must Put Political 

Progress Ahead of Summer Break 

May 9, 2007—House Armed Services Committee Approves Fiscal 

Year 2008 Defense Authorization Bill Restoring Military Readiness 

and Taking Care of the Troops are Top Priorities 

May 16, 2007—Skelton Remarks On H.R. 1585, The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008 

May 17, 2007—Skelton Applauds House Passage of H.R. 1585, 

The FY 2008 National Defense Authorization Bill 

May 22, 2007—Meehan Comments on Limited DoD Cooperation 

May 23, 2007—Skelton/Meehan Comment on Revised Joint Campaign Plan May 24, 2007—Taylor Pledges Hearing on Navy Boat 

Barriers 

May 24, 2007—Meehan Looks for Balance Between Junior and 

Senior DoD Witnesses 

June 6, 2007—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton (D– 

MO) Hearing on Department of Defense Body Armor Programs 

June 8, 2007—Skelton Statement on the Nomination of Admiral 

Michael Mullen as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

June 12, 2007—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee on 

the Development of Iraqi Security Forces 

June 13, 2007—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton (D– 

MO) Hearing on Recent Security Developments Involving China 

June 14, 2007—HASC Democrats Elect New Subcommittee 

Chairs 

June 22, 2007—Skelton/Conyers Introduce Habeas Reform Legislation 

July 3, 2007—Skelton: At Last, Administration May Seek Responsible Redeployment From Iraq 

July 12, 2007—Skelton Statement on Iraq Interim Report 

July 12, 2007—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Explores Third Way in Iraq 

July 12, 2007—Taylor and Bartlett Applaud Appointment of 

Navy Acquisition Deputy 

July 12, 2007—Skelton Statement on H.R. 2956, The Responsible 

Redeployment From Iraq Act 

July 12, 2007—Skelton Praises House Passage of H.R. 2956, The 

Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act 

July 17, 2007—Skelton Says NIE Confirms Need To Focus On 

War Against Terrorists In Afghanistan 

July 18, 2007—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton (D– 

MO) Hearing on Iraq: Trends and Recent Security Developments 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
154 

July 18, 2007—Skelton: I am happy to see the DoD finally acknowledge the true magnitude of this need. 

July 19, 2007—Taylor/Abercrombie Demand Improvement in Obtaining MRAP Vehicles 

July 25, 2007—Snyder/Akin: Knowing Root Causes of Violence 

Will Help Construct Alternatives in Iraq 

July 25, 2007—Skelton and Hunter Announce Roles and Missions Panel 

July 26, 2007—Skelton/Tauscher Letter re: Administration Nuclear Weapons Policy Statement 

July 27, 2007—HASC Approves Bipartisan Bill on Planning and 

Oversight of Iraq Redeployment 

July 27, 2007—Bill to Require Time Between Iraq Deployments 

Approved by House Armed Services Committee 

July 27, 2007—Skelton Praises Agreement on 9/11 Bill 

July 31, 2007—Snyder/Akin: Final Hearing in Series Gives Committee Broad Spectrum of Alternatives 

August 2, 2007—Skelton Praises House Action to Ensure Adequate Time For Troops Between Deployments 

August 16, 2007—Skelton Warns of Increased Violence Prior to 

Release of Iraq Progress Report 

August 31, 2007—Skelton Leads Delegation to Visit Military 

Sites In China 

August 31, 2007—Skelton Honors WWII American-Chinese Heroism on Delegation to China 

September 5, 2007—Skelton: Mishandling of Nuclear Weapons 

Deeply Disturbing 

September 5, 2007—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton 

(D–MO) Hearing on the Comptroller General’s Assessment of the 

Iraqi Government’s Record of Performance 

September 7, 2007—Skelton: Political Progress in Iraq is the 

Missing Element 

September 13, 2007—Skelton Statement on the President’s Address to the Nation 

September 18, 2007—Snyder/Akin: Care for Deployed Civilians 

Must be Improved 

September 19, 2007—Members of Congress Discuss Missile Defense in Europe 

October 2, 2007—Skelton Statement On H.R. 3087, Bipartisan 

Bill on Planning and Oversight of Iraq Redeployment 

October 3, 2007—Skelton Statement on the Veterans’ Disability 

Benefits Commission Report 

October 4, 2007—Skelton Supports H.R. 2740, Holding Private 

Contractors in War Zones Accountable 

October 9, 2007—Skelton/Hunter/Neal Letter re: Iraqi Purchase 

of Chinese Weapons 

October 18, 2007—Snyder/Akin: Effective Tools Needed to Evaluate PRTs 

October 24, 2007—Missouri National Guard to Help Farmers in 

Afghanistan—Skelton Praises Innovative Agribusiness Development Program 

November 1, 2007—Skelton Statement on the Gansler Commission Report 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
155 

November 19, 2007—Skelton, Hunter Welcome Tsongas, 

Lamborn to Committee 

December 3, 2007—Skelton Statement on the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities 

December 11, 2007—Skelton: War in Iraq Holds Back Effort in 

Afghanistan 

December 11, 2007—Skelton and Buyer Urge U.S. Navy to Name 

Ship in Honor of the Marquis De Lafayette 

December 12, 2007—Bipartisan House Majority Approves FY 

2008 Defense Authorization Conference Report 

December 17, 2007—Skelton Urges Administration to Focus on 

Afghanistan 

December 27, 2007—Skelton Spends Christmas With U.S. Troops 

In Iraq 

December 28, 2007—Skelton Disappointed By President’s Defense Bill Veto 

SECOND SESSION

January 14, 2008—Skelton Leads Bipartisan Congressional Delegation to the United Kingdom 

January 15, 2008—Skelton Meets with Iraqi Minister of Defense 

January 16, 2008—House Approves H.R. 4986, The National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008 

January 23, 2008—Snyder/Akin: Expert Testimony Raises Important Issues for Future of U.S. Policy in Iraq 

January 28, 2008—Skelton Hails Enactment of the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act 

January 29, 2008—Snyder/Akin: Interagency Change Necessary 

for National Security 

January 29, 2008—Skelton on the State of the Union 

January 30, 2008—Skelton: New Submarine to be Named USS 

Missouri 

January 31, 2008—Skelton Statement on the Final Report of the 

Commission on the National Guard and Reserves 

January 31, 2008—Skelton/Ortiz Ask Gates to Address Readiness Shortfalls at Committee Hearing 

February 4, 2008—Skelton Statement on the Fiscal Year 2009 

Defense Budget Request 

February 11, 2008—Skelton Asks Army Secretary to Release 

RAND Study 

February 11, 2008—Skelton Disappointed by Call to Pause Redeployment from Iraq 

February 11, 2008—Skelton Statement on Congressman Tom 

Lantos 

February 14, 2008—Skelton, Hunter, Tauscher, Everett Statements on DoD’s Decision to Engage Non-Responsive U.S. Satellite 

February 14, 2008—Skelton Calls For Three-Star U.S. Headquarters in Kabul 

February 21, 2008—Skelton Statement on Destruction of Failed 

Satellite 

March 3, 2008—Skelton Statement on Annual Report to Congress on China’s Military Power 

March 7, 2008—Skelton, Hunter Release HASC Roles and Missions Report 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
156 

March 12, 2008—Skelton Says Budget Resolution Supports Defense 

March 19, 2008—Skelton, Hunter, Tauscher, Everett Announce 

Congressional Commission on U.S. Strategic Posture 

March 24, 2008—Skelton Statement on U.S. Casualties in Iraq 

April 10, 2008—Skelton Responds to President’s Announcement 

On Troop Levels in Iraq 

April 17, 2008—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Releases New Report re: Lessons Learned from PRTs in Iraq and Afghanistan 

April 24, 2008—Skelton: Trust and Credibility at Stake in Pentagon’s Media Relations 

April 30, 2008—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Releases New Report re: Deploying Federal Civilians to the Battlefield 

May 1, 2008—Hanging By A Thread: The State of U.S. Military 

Readiness and the Prospects for Success in Afghanistan 

May 15, 2008—House Armed Services Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization Bill 

May 21, 2008—Skelton Remarks on H.R. 5658, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 

May 22, 2008—House Approves FY09 Defense Authorization Bill 

May 22, 2008—House Approves Skelton-Berman-Lowey Amendment to Create Interagency Advisory Panel 

May 29, 2008—Skelton Asks Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff to 

Brief 111th Congress on Military Threats 

June 5, 2008—Skelton on Resignations of the Secretary of the 

Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff 

June 12, 2008—Skelton: Supreme Court Decision Will Better 

Protect American Security and Values 

June 18, 2008—Skelton Says Status of Forces Agreement Must 

Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq 

June 19, 2008—Skelton Supports Bipartisan Compromise on 

FISA 

June 19, 2008—Skelton: Afghanistan Must be an Urgent Priority 

June 26, 2008—Skelton and Abercrombie on Army FCS Announcement 

June 30, 2008—Skelton Renews Call to Make Afghanistan an 

Urgent Priority—Reports to Congress Highlight Disturbing Trends 

in Afghanistan 

July 2, 2008—Skelton Salutes Rescue of 3 American Hostages in 

Colombia 

July 2, 2008—Skelton and Hunter Express Concerns Over 

NORAD Move 

July 9, 2008—Skelton: U.S. Needs Comprehensive Strategy to 

Advance National Interests 

July 9, 2008—Skelton Statement on Secretary Gate’s Tanker Announcement 

July 10, 2008—Skelton on America’s Strategic Context 

July 16, 2008—Skelton on the United States’ Role in the World 

July 23, 2008—Skelton and Taylor Applaud Navy Decision to 

Modify Shipbuilding Plan 

July 24, 2008—Skelton on our Role as the Indispensable Nation 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
157 

July 31, 2008—Skelton Speech on National Strategy at the 

Brookings Institution 

August 1, 2008—Skelton on the Principles for a National Strategy 

August 7, 2008—Skelton Letter Encourages TRADOC to Incorporate Wounded Warriors 

August 12, 2008—Skelton Statement on the Situation in Georgia 

August 19, 2008—Skelton Calls on Next Administration to Address National Security Challenges 

August 22, 2008—Skelton Encouraged by Agreement to Redeploy 

U.S. Troops from Iraq by 2011 

September 9, 2008—Members of Congress Discuss CODEL to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Vienna 

September 9, 2008—Skelton Statement on Planned Troop Reductions in Iraq 

September 10, 2008—Skelton Statement on 9/11 

September 10, 2008—Skelton Statement on Cancellation of the 

KC–X Tanker Solicitation 

September 18, 2008—Skelton and Udall on GAO Findings Regarding Relocation of Operations from Cheyenne Mountain to Peterson AFB 

September 24, 2008—House Approves FY09 Defense Authorization Bill 

September 24, 2008—House-Senate Committee Agreement 

Reached On Fiscal Year 2009 Defense Authorization Bill 

September 25, 2008—Skelton Statement on Disciplinary Action 

Related to Nuclear Misshipment to Taiwan 

September 27, 2008—Skelton Delivers Keynote Address at USS 

Missouri Keel Laying Ceremony 

October 2, 2008—Skelton Delegation Visits Missouri National 

Guard in Kosovo 

October 10, 2008—Skelton: We Cannot Drag Our Feet in Afghanistan 

November 17, 2008—Skelton Cautious on U.S.-Iraq Status of 

Forces Agreement 

November 19, 2008—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Releases New Report re: The Joint Improvised Explosive Device 

Defeat Organization 

November 20, 2008—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Releases New Report re: Building Foreign Language and Cultural 

Skills in the Military 

November 20, 2008—Skelton Re-elected As House Armed Services Committee Chairman 

November 28, 2008—Skelton Delegation Shares Thanksgiving 

With U.S. Troops In Afghanistan 

December 1, 2008—Skelton Praises President-elect’s National Security Team 

December 2, 2008—Skelton Statement on WMD Commission Report 

December 10, 2008—Skelton Congratulates Congressman John 

McHugh, New HASC Ranking Member 

December 15, 2008—Skelton, Hunter, Tauscher, Everett Comment on the Interim Report of the Congressional Commission on 

the Strategic Posture of the United States 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
158 

December 18, 2008—Tauscher and Lamborn Release Statement 

after Visit to Czech Republic 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS