U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–006 2006

Union Calendar No. 435 

109th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 109–731 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

DECEMBER 15, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

KEN CALVERT, California 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

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 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS, Staff Director 

HOLLY GRANING, Director of Legislative Operations 

1Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective June 29, 2006. 

2Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(III)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, December 15, 2006. 

Hon. KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MS. HAAS: Pursuant to House Rule XI 1(d), there is transmitted herewith the report of activities of the Committee on Armed 

Services for the 109th Congress. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Powers and Duties, Committee on Armed Services—109th Congress ................ 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Composition of the Committee on Armed Services—109th Congress ................. 13 

Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services—109th Congress ............. 14 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ............................................ 14 

Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................ 15 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ..... 15 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel .............................................................. 16 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces .................................................................. 16 

Subcommittee on Projection Forces ................................................................ 16 

Committee Staff ....................................................................................................... 17 

Committee Meetings ................................................................................................ 19 

Legislative Actions ................................................................................................... 19 

Legislation Enacted Into Law ......................................................................... 19 

Public Law 109–100 (S. 37) ...................................................................... 19 

Public Law 109–104 (H.R. 4326) .............................................................. 19 

Public Law 109–142 (H.J. Res. 38) .......................................................... 20 

Public Law 109–159 (S. 1988) .................................................................. 20 

Public Law 109–163 (H.R. 1815) .............................................................. 20 

Public Law 109–164 (H.R. 972) ................................................................ 23 

Public Law 109–272 (H.R. 5683) .............................................................. 23 

Public Law 109–364 (H.R. 5122) .............................................................. 24 

Public Law 109–366 (S. 3930) .................................................................. 26 

Legislation Reported but Not Enacted ........................................................... 27 

H. Res. 417 ................................................................................................. 27 

H. J. Res. 65 ............................................................................................... 27 

H. Res. 645 ................................................................................................. 28 

H. Res. 685 ................................................................................................. 28 

H.R. 6054 ................................................................................................... 29 

Oversight Activities ................................................................................................. 31 

Summary of Oversight Plan ............................................................................ 31 

Actions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 31 

Additional Oversight Activities ....................................................................... 56 

Other Activities of the Full Committee ................................................................. 77 

Budget Activity ................................................................................................. 77 

Full Committee Hearings ................................................................................ 82 

Other Activities of the Subcommittees .................................................................. 93 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ............................................ 93 

Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................ 94 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ..... 95 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel .............................................................. 97 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces .................................................................. 97 

Subcommittee on Projection Forces ................................................................ 98 

Publications .............................................................................................................. 101 

Published Proceedings ...................................................................................... 101 

House Reports ................................................................................................... 110 

Public Laws ....................................................................................................... 111 

Press Releases .......................................................................................................... 113 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

Union Calendar No. 435 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–731 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

ARMED SERVICES FOR THE 109TH CONGRESS 

DECEMBER 15, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

ON 

POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES—

109TH CONGRESS 

BACKGROUND

The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee 

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

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

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

1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and naval appropriations 

was taken from the Committee on Appropriations and given to the 

Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs, respectively. 

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

all appropriations was again placed in the Committee on Appropriations. 

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

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

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

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

the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially unchanged. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

2 

However, oversight functions were amended to require each standing committee to review and study on a continuing basis all laws, 

programs, and government activities dealing with or involving 

international arms control and disarmament and the education of 

military dependents in school. 

The rules changes adopted by the House (H. Res. 5) on January 

4, 1977, placed new responsibilities in the field of atomic energy in 

the Committee on Armed Services. Those responsibilities involved 

the national security aspects of atomic energy previously within the 

jurisdiction of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Public Law 

95–110, effective September 20, 1977, abolished the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. 

With the adoption of H. Res. 658 on July 14, 1977, which established the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the 

jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Service over intelligence 

matters was diminished. 

That resolution gave the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence oversight responsibilities for intelligence and 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; 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 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 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. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 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. 224, approved by the House on April 27, 2005, provided 

funds for, among other things, committee oversight responsibilities 

to be conducted in the 109th Congress, pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to 

general oversight responsibilities), clause 3(h) of rule X (relating to 

special oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to 

investigations and studies). 

COMMITTEE RULES 

The Committee held its organizational meeting on January 25, 

2005, and adopted the following rules governing procedure and 

rules for investigative hearings conducted by subcommittees. 

(H.A.S.C. No. 109–1) 

RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE

RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES

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

Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in these 

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

RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

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

and at such other times as may be fixed by the chairman of the 

Committee (hereinafter referred to in these rules as the ‘‘Chairman’’), or by written request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

(b) A Wednesday meeting of the Committee may be dispensed 

with by the Chairman, but such action may be reversed by a written request of a majority of the members of the Committee. 

RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES

Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive 

evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters referred to 

it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee chairman shall set 

meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman, the other subcommittee chairmen, and the ranking minority member of the submmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

5 

committee with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of 

committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever possible. 

RULE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES

Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 3(b), relating to 

Separate Orders, of H. Res. 5 as adopted by the House of Representatives on January 4, 2005, the Committee shall be organized 

to consist of six standing subcommittees with the following jurisdictions: 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All Army and Air 

Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and lift programs, special operations and information technology accounts). In 

addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all Navy and 

Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army and 

Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs. 

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

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities: Department of Defense counter proliferation and counter 

terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee 

will be responsible for Special Operations Forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, information technology and programs, force protection policy and oversight, and related intelligence support. 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel policy, 

reserve component integration and employment issues, military 

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

the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and 

Recreation issues and programs. 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except deep 

strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense and Department of Energy national security programs (except non-proliferation programs). 

Subcommittee on Projection Forces: Navy and Marine Corps programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations and information technology programs), deep strike bombers and related 

systems, and strategic lift programs. 

RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS

(a) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee consisting of members of the Committee to inquire into and take testimony on a matter or matters that fall within the jurisdiction of 

more than one subcommittee and to report to the Committee. 

(b) No panel so appointed shall continue in existence for more 

than six months. A panel so appointed may, upon the expiration of 

six months, be reappointed by the Chairman. 

(c) No panel so appointed shall have legislative jurisdiction. 

RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

(a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters to the 

appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

6 

(b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup only 

when called by the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, 

as appropriate, or by a majority of those present and voting. 

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

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

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

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

considered by the Committee until after the intervention of three 

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

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

Committee. 

RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

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

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

place, and subject matter of any committee or subcommittee hearing at least one week before the commencement of the hearing. 

However, if the Chairman of the Committee or of any subcommittee or panel, with the concurrence of the respective ranking 

minority member of the Committee, subcommittee or panel, determines that there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner, or if 

the Committee, subcommittee or panel so determines by majority 

vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of business, such 

chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible 

date. Any announcement made under this rule shall be promptly 

published in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee 

scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and 

promptly posted to the internet web page maintained by the Committee. 

RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

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

shall apply to the Committee. 

RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

(a) Each hearing and meeting for the transaction of business, including the markup of legislation, conducted by the Committee or 

a subcommittee shall be open to the public except when the Committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority being 

present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder 

of that hearing or meeting on that day shall be in executive session 

because disclosure of testimony, evidence, or other matters to be 

considered would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate 

any law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding 

the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those 

present, there being in attendance no fewer than two members of 

the Committee or subcommittee, may vote to close a hearing or 

meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or 

evidence to be received would endanger the national security, 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

7 

would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would 

violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. If the decision is to proceed in executive session, the vote must be by record 

vote and in open session, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being present. 

(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that 

the evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that 

the evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing 

may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of (a) and the provisions of clause 2(g)(2) 

of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, such evidence or testimony shall be presented in executive session, if by a 

majority vote of those present, there being in attendance no fewer 

than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the Committee or subcommittee determines that such evidence may tend to 

defame, degrade or incriminate any person. A majority of those 

present, there being in attendance no fewer than two members of 

the Committee or subcommittee, may also vote to close the hearing 

or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether evidence or 

testimony to be received would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. The Committee or subcommittee shall proceed to 

receive such testimony in open session only if the Committee or 

subcommittee, a majority being present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend to defame, degrade or incriminate 

any person. 

(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, and with the approval of the 

Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by letter 

to the Chairman, a member of that member’s personal staff with 

Top Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee, 

or that member’s subcommittee(s) (excluding briefings or meetings 

held under the provisions of committee rule 9(a)), which have been 

closed under the provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security 

purposes for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such a staff 

member at such hearings is subject to the approval of the Committee or subcommittee as dictated by national security requirements at that time. The attainment of any required security clearances is the responsibility of individual members of the Committee. 

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

of Representatives, no Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may be excluded from nonparticipatory attendance at any 

hearing of the Committee or a subcommittee, unless the House of 

Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the Committee or 

subcommittee, for purposes of a particular series of hearings on a 

particular article of legislation or on a particular subject of investigation, to close its hearings to Members, Delegates, and the Resident Commissioner by the same procedures designated in this rule 

for closing hearings to the public. 

(e) The Committee or the subcommittee may vote, by the same 

procedure, to meet in executive session for up to five additional 

consecutive days of hearings. 

RULE 10. QUORUM

(a) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence, two 

members shall constitute a quorum. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

8 

(b) One-third of the members of the Committee or subcommittee 

shall constitute a quorum for taking any action, with the following 

exceptions, in which case a majority of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum: 

(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation; 

(2) Closing committee or subcommittee meetings and hearings to the public; 

(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas; 

(4) Authorizing the use of executive session material; and 

(5) Voting to proceed in open session after voting to close to 

discuss whether evidence or testimony to be received would 

tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. 

(c) No measure or recommendation shall be reported to the 

House of Representatives unless a majority of the Committee is actually present. 

RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE

(a) The time any one member may address the Committee or 

subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration shall 

not exceed five minutes and then only when the member has been 

recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be exceeded by unanimous 

consent. Any member, upon request, shall be recognized for not to 

exceed five minutes to address the Committee or subcommittee on 

behalf of an amendment which the member has offered to any 

pending bill or resolution. The five-minute limitation shall not 

apply to the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee or subcommittee. 

(b) Members present at a hearing of the Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, 

in order of seniority. Those members arriving subsequently shall be 

recognized in order of their arrival. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

the Chairman and the ranking minority member will take precedence upon their arrival. In recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairman shall take into consideration 

the ratio of the majority to minority members present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning in such a manner 

as not to disadvantage the members of either party. 

(c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, or panel hearings and meetings. 

RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

(a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties 

under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 

the Committee and any subcommittee are authorized (subject to 

subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph): 

(1) to sit and act at such times and places within the United 

States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has 

adjourned, and to hold hearings, and 

(2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the attendance and 

testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 

records, correspondence, memorandums, papers and docummaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

9 

ments, including, but not limited to, those in electronic form, 

as it considers necessary. 

(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full Committee Chairman, under subparagraph (a)(2) in the conduct of any 

investigation, or series of investigations or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority of the 

Committee or subcommittee being present. Authorized subpoenas 

shall be signed only by the Chairman, or by any member designated by the Chairman. 

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

of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued by the 

Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph (a)(2) may be 

enforced only as authorized or directed by the House of Representatives. 

RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS

(a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to the 

Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the Committee 

or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of presentation and 

shall be distributed to all members of the Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of 

any such prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national 

security information bearing a classification of secret or higher, the 

statement shall be made available in the Committee rooms to all 

members of the Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in 

advance of presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule 

may be waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a quorum being present. 

(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each 

witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the proposed 

testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such appearance to 

a brief summary of his or her argument. 

RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES

(a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman, 

may administer oaths to any witness. 

(b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following oath: 

‘‘Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony you 

will give before this Committee (or subcommittee) in the matters now under consideration will be the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?’’

RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES

(a) When a witness is before the Committee or a subcommittee, 

members of the Committee or subcommittee may put questions to 

the witness only when recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose. 

(b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire 

shall have not to exceed five minutes to interrogate each witness 

or panel of witnesses until such time as each member has had an 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

10 

opportunity to interrogate each witness or panel of witnesses; 

thereafter, additional rounds for questioning witnesses by members 

are discretionary with the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as 

appropriate. 

(c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that may be 

before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration. 

RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS

The transcripts of those hearings and mark-ups conducted by the 

Committee or a subcommittee that are decided by the Chairman to 

be officially published will be published in verbatim form, with the 

material requested for the record inserted at that place requested, 

or at the end of the record, as appropriate. Any requests to correct 

any errors, other than those in transcription, or disputed errors in 

transcription, will be appended to the record, and the appropriate 

place where the change is requested will be footnoted. 

RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS

(a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote, division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent. 

(b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-fifth 

of those members present. 

(c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a subcommittee 

with respect to any measure or matter shall be cast by proxy. 

(d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of that 

member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon timely notification to the Chairman by that member. 

RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS

(a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by the 

Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice of intention to file supplemental, minority, additional or dissenting 

views, that member shall be entitled to not less than two calendar 

days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except 

when the House is in session on such days) in which to file such 

views, in writing and signed by that member, with the staff director of the Committee. All such views so filed by one or more members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be a part 

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

or matter. 

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

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

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

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

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

or matter. 

RULE 19. POINTS OF ORDER

No point of order shall lie with respect to any measure reported 

by the Committee or any subcommittee on the ground that hearings on such measure were not conducted in accordance with the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

11 

provisions of the rules of the Committee; except that a point of 

order on that ground may be made by any member of the Committee or subcommittee which reported the measure if, in the Committee or subcommittee, such point of order was (a) timely made 

and (b) improperly overruled or not properly considered. 

RULE 20. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

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

shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by the 

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

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

of each member voting for and each member voting against such 

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

members present but not voting. 

RULE 21. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

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

the House of Representatives, all national security information 

bearing a classification of secret or higher which has been received 

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

received in executive session and shall be given appropriate safekeeping. 

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

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

judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure 

of any national security information received classified as secret or 

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

Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives who has requested the opportunity to review such material. 

RULE 22. COMMITTEE STAFFING

The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, and 

any panel designated by the Chairman shall be subject to the rules 

of the House of Representatives. 

RULE 23. COMMITTEE RECORDS

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and 

Records Administration shall be made available for public use in 

accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the ranking minority member of 

any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3) or clause 4(b) of rule VII, 

to withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall be 

presented to the Committee for a determination on the written request of any member of the Committee. 

RULE 24. HEARING PROCEDURES

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

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(13) 

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES—

109TH CONGRESS 

Pursuant to H. Res. 32, election of the Chairman (adopted January 6, 2005), H. Res. 48, election of majority members, (adopted 

January 26, 2005), H. Res. 33, election of the Ranking Member 

(adopted January 6, 2005), and H. Res. 49, election of minority 

members (adopted January 26, 2005), the following members 

served on the Committee on Armed Services in the 109th Congress: 

DUNCAN HUNTER California, Chairman 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania, Vice 

Chairman 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRT EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California1

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

KEN CALVERT, California 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES,Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

THELMA DRAKE, Virginia 

JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California2

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Ranking Member 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

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 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JiIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

MARK E. UDALL, Colorado 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY, Georgia 

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 

1Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective June 29, 2006. 

2Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

14 

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 109TH CONGRESS 

The following subcommittees were established at the committee’s 

organizational meeting on January 25, 2005. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over all Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and lift programs, special operations and information technology accounts). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and 

ammunition programs. 

Mr. WELDON, Chairman 

Mr. MCKEON 1 Vice Chairman 

Mr. GIBBONS 

Mr. CALVERT 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. BRADLEY 

Mr. TURNER 

Mr. CONAWAY 

Mr. EVERETT 

Mr. BARTLETT 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. RYUN (KS) 

Mr. AKIN 

Mr. FORBES 

Mr. WILSON 

Mr. SHUSTER 

Mr. BILBRAY 2

Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member 

Mr. SKELTON 

Mr. SPRATT 

Mr. ORTIZ 

Mr. EVANS 

Mr. SMITH 

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Mr. BRADY 

Mr. ISRAEL 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. MEEK 

Mr. RYAN (OH) 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD 

Mr. BOREN 

1Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective June 29, 2006. 

2Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

15 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

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

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

issues, including the base closure process. 

Mr. HEFLEY, Chairman 

Mr. HOSTETTLER, Vice Chairman 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. RYUN (KS) 

Mr. FORBES 

Mr. MILLER 

Mr. ROGERS 

Dr. SCHWARZ 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS 

Mr. MCHUGH 

Mr. MCKEON 1

Mr. HAYES 

Mr. SIMMONS 

Mr. BRADLEY 

Mrs. MILLER 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mr. BILBRAY 2

Mr. ORTIZ, Ranking Member 

Mr. EVANS 

Mr. TAYLOR 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE 

Mr. REYES 

Dr. SNYDER 

Mr. BRADY 

Ms. DAVIS (CA) 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Mr. MEEK 

Ms. BORDALLO 

Mr. RYAN (OH) 

Mr. UDALL 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD 

1Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective June 29, 2006. 

2Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND

CAPABILITIES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over Department of Defense counter proliferation and counter 

terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee 

will be responsible for Special Operations Forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, information technology and programs, force protection policy and oversight and related intelligence 

support. 

Mr. SAXTON, Chairman 

Mr. HAYES, Vice Chairman 

Mr. AKIN 

Mr. WILSON 

Mr. KLINE 

Mr. SHUSTER 

Mr. DAVIS 

Mr. HEFLEY 

Mr. THORNBERRY 

Mr. GIBBONS 

Mr. MILLER 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member 

Mr. SMITH 

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. ANDREWS 

Mr. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LARSEN 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Ms. MCKINNEY 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

16 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over military personnel policy, reserve component integration 

and employment issues, military health care, military education 

and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and Recreation issues and programs. 

Mr. MCHUGH, Chairman 

Mrs. DAVIS (VA) 

Mr. KLINE 

Mrs. DRAKE, Vice Chairman 

Mr. CONAWAY 

Mr. SAXTON 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. RYUN (KS) 

Mr. HAYES 

Dr. SNYDER, Ranking Member 

Mr. MEEHAN 

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Mr. ANDREWS 

Ms. DAVIS (CA) 

Mr. UDALL 

Ms. MCKINNEY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

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

security programs (except nonproliferation). 

Mr. EVERETT, Chairman 

Mr. THORNBERRY, Vice Chairman 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mr. TURNER 

Mr. ROGERS 

Dr. SCHWARZ 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS 

Mr. DAVIS 

Mr. REYES, Ranking Member 

Mr. SPRATT 

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. LARSEN 

Mr. COOPER 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROJECTION FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Legislative jurisdiction over Navy and Marine Corps programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations and information technology programs), deep strike bombers and related systems, and strategic lift 

programs. 

Mr. BARTLETT, Chairman 

Mr. SIMMONS, Vice Chairman 

Mrs. DAVIS (VA) 

Mrs. MILLER 

Mrs. DRAKE 

Mr. WELDON 

Mr. SAXTON 

Mr. HOSTETTLER 

Mr. CALVERT 

Mr. TAYLOR, Ranking Member 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. LANGEVIN 

Mr. ISRAEL 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Ms. BORDALLO 

Mr. BOREN 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(17) 

COMMITTEE STAFF 

By committee resolution adopted at the organizational meeting 

on January 25, 2005, or by authority of the Chairman, the following persons were appointed to the staff of the committee during 

the 109th Congress: 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS, Staff Director 

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director (resigned May 31, 2005) 

HUGH N. JOHNSTON, Jr., Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel 

RITA D. THOMPSON, Professional Staff Member (resigned January 4, 2005) 

BRENDA J. WRIGHT, Professional Staff Member 

FRANK A. BARNES, Staff Assistant 

BETTY B. GRAY, Staff Assistant 

ERNEST B. WARRINGTON, Jr., Staff Assistant (resigned April 1, 2005) 

DIANE W. BOWMAN, Staff Assistant (resigned February 16, 2005) 

MICHAEL R. HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

JEAN D. REED, Professional Staff Member (resigned September 1, 2005) 

JOHN D. CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

B. RYAN VAART, Professional Staff Member 

ROBERT W. LAUTRUP, Professional Staff Member (resigned September 1, 2005) 

JOHN F. SULLIVAN, Professional Staff Member 

NANCY M. WARNER, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS E. HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

WILLIAM H. NATTER, Professional Staff Member 

JESSE D. TOLLESON, Jr., Professional Staff Member 

MARY ELLEN FRASER, Counsel (resigned January 12, 2006) 

DEBRA S. WADA, Professional Staff Member 

HENRY J. SCHWEITER, Counsel (resigned August 31, 2005) 

ERIN C. CONATON, Professional Staff Member 

DOUGLAS C. ROACH, Professional Staff Member 

ALEXIS R. LASSELLE, Professional Staff Member 

DANLEIGH S. HALFAST, Staff Assistant (resigned January 14, 2005) 

JUSTIN P. BERNIER, Research Assistant (resigned January 7, 2005) 

CURTIS FLOOD, Staff Assistant (resigned December 4, 2005) 

LINDA BURNETTE, Printing Clerk 

HUGH BRADY, Professional Staff Member (resigned June 15, 2005) 

HARALD STAVENAS, Director of Legislative Affairs and Communications (resigned June 6, 

2006) 

JOSEPH FENGLER, Professional Staff Member (resigned September 30, 2006) 

WILLIAM R. MARCK, Jr., Professional Staff Member (resigned March 1, 2005) 

UYEN T. DINH, Counsel (resigned August 1, 2005) 

ERIC STERNER, Professional Staff Member (resigned March 17, 2006) 

W. HOLLY GRANING, Director, Legislative Operations 

WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, Counsel 

CLAIRE E. DUNNE, Program Analyst (resigned November 24, 2006) 

JAMES WILLIAM GODWIN, Jr., Professional Staff Member 

LINDSAY YOUNG, Staff Assistant (resigned September 2, 2005) 

JENNIFER E. GIGLIO, Executive Assistant (resigned July 14, 2006) 

MARK R. LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

KATHERINE A. CROFT, Staff Assistant (resigned September 8, 2006) 

E. HAYES ARENDALL, Staff Assistant (resigned June 22, 2005) 

LOREN DEALY, Communications Assistant 

JOSHUA T. HARTMAN, Professional Staff Member (resigned March 6, 2006) 

HEATHER L. MESSERA, Staff Assistant 

PAUL ARCANGELI, Professional Staff Member 

CARRIE M. SLOAN, Press Secretary (resigned April 30, 2005) 

JEFFERY A. GREEN, Counsel 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

18 

JEANETTE S. JAMES, Professional Staff Member 

CHANDLER T. LOCKHART, Staff Assistant (resigned May 5, 2006) 

MIRIAM E. WOLFF, Communications Advisor (appointed January 1, 2005) 

BRIAN R. ANDERSON, Staff Assistant (appointed January 3, 2005) 

RICHARD A. PAWLOSKI, Professional Staff Member (appointed January 10, 2005) 

JORDAN REDMOND, Intern (appointed January 11, 2005; resigned June 10, 2005) 

TAYLOR L. CLUKEY, Staff Assistant (appointed January 18, 2005; resigned January 11, 2006) 

REBECCA A. ROSS, Professional Staff Member (appointed February 1, 2005) 

SARAH GELINAS, Staff Assistant (appointed February 14, 2005; resigned November 10, 2006) 

ANDREW HUNTER, Professional Staff Member (appointed March 1, 2005) 

HEATH R. BOPE, Professional Staff Member (appointed March 14, 2005) 

LYNN M. WILLIAMS, Professional Staff Member (appointed March 14, 2005) 

DIANA SCHIMMEL, Intern (appointed March 10, 2005; resigned May 6, 2005) 

MARK EPLEY, Counsel (appointed March 28, 2005; resigned March 3, 2006) 

PAUL LEWIS, Counsel (appointed March 28, 2005) 

STEPHANIE SANOK, Professional Staff Member (appointed April 4, 2005) 

JENNIFER C. GUY, Staff Assistant (appointed April 13, 2005; resigned August 4, 2006) 

JOSHUA C. HOLLY, Director of Communications (appointed May 2, 2005) 

BRADY DEREMER, Intern (appointed May 9, 2005; resigned August 5, 2005) 

LYDIA CHAO, Intern (appointed May 16, 2005; resigned August 5, 2005) 

JOHN WASON, Professional Staff Member (appointed June 6, 2005) 

HARRY CARTLAND, Professional Staff Member (appointed June 10, 2005) 

REGINA BURGESS, Research Assistant (appointed June 14, 2005) 

KATHLEEN KELLY, Intern (appointed June 14, 2005; resigned July 29, 2005) 

BEN KOHR, Staff Assistant (appointed July 25, 2005) 

CATHERINE K. STEADMAN, Staff Assistant (appointed August 9, 2005) 

ROBERT W. DEGRASSE, Jr., Professional Staff Member (appointed August 22, 2005) 

ROGER ZAKHEIM, Counsel (appointed August 29, 2005) 

DIANA SCHIMMEL, Intern (appointed August 31, 2005; resigned November 7, 2005) 

KRISTINE ELLISON, Staff Assistant (appointed September 7, 2005) 

JENESS SIMLER, Professional Staff Member (appointed October 3, 2005) 

DOUG LANE, Professional Staff Member (appointed October 14, 2005) 

JULIE UNMACHT, Counsel (appointed October 31, 2005) 

KEVIN P. COUGHLIN, Counsel (appointed January 4, 2006) 

ANNE SKELLY, Professional Staff Member (appointed January 30, 2006; resigned December 

4, 2006) 

LORRY M. FENNER, Professional Staff Member (appointed February 15, 2006) 

NORMAN R. MORSE, Professional Staff Member (appointed February 17, 2006; resigned June 

30, 2006) 

CHRISTINE ROUSHDY, Staff Assistant (appointed March 1, 2006) 

DEREK SCOTT, Staff Assistant (appointed March 1, 2006) 

ERYN ROBINSON, Professional Staff Member (appointed March 6, 2006) 

ALEXANDER KUGAJEVSKY, Professional Staff Member (appointed March 10, 2006) 

KARI BINGEN, Professional Staff Member (appointed April 24, 2006) 

MARGEE MECKSTROTH, Staff Assistant (appointed May 1, 2006) 

JOHN KRUSE, Professional Staff Member (appointed May 8, 2006) 

HENRY NUZUM, National Security Analyst (appointed May 15, 2006) 

RYAN BURKE, Intern (appointed June 12, 2006; resigned August 4, 2006) 

CAROLINE TRIPP, Intern (appointed June 12, 2006; resigned August 11, 2006) 

KATHLEEN KELLY, Intern (appointed July 11, 2006; resigned August 11, 2006) 

ANDREW H. TABLER, Staff Assistant (appointed August 9, 2006) 

AILEEN K. ALEXANDER, Professional Staff Member (appointed August 28, 2006) 

JASON HAGADORN, Staff Assistant (appointed September 11, 2006) 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(19) 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS 

A total of 301 meetings and mark-ups were held by the Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the 109th 

Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows: 

Full Committee ...................................................................................................... 152 

Subcommittees: 

Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces .......................................... 27 

Subcommittee on Readiness .......................................................................... 14 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ... 38 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ............................................................ 23 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces ................................................................ 23 

Subcommittee on Projection Forces ............................................................... 24 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS 

LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW

PUBLIC LAW 109–100 (S. 37)

To extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for two years. 

Public Law 109–100 extends by two years the breast cancer research special postage stamp. After passing the Senate by unanimous consent on September 27, 2005, S. 37 was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services on September 28, 2005. The bill was 

considered by unanimous consent on October 27, 2005, and passed 

by the House. On November 11, 2005, the President signed S. 37 

into law. 

PUBLIC LAW 109–104 (H.R. 4326)

To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for the nuclear 

refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN–70). 

Public Law 109–104 authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to 

enter into a contract for the nuclear refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN–70). The bill makes fiscal 

year 2006 funds available for commencement of work on the contract authorized during fiscal year 2006 but only for obligations in 

an amount not to exceed $89,000,000. The bill allows that additional amounts may be obligated for such work for fiscal year 2006 

only to the extent to which authority is expressly provided by law, 

and funds are appropriated by law, for such obligations after the 

date of enactment of this Act. 

On November 15, 2005, H.R. 4326 was introduced and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services. The measure was considered 

under suspension of the rules and passed the House on November 

16, 2005 by voice vote. The Senate passed the measure without 

amendment by Unanimous Consent on November 18, 2005. On November 19, 2005, H.R. 4326 was signed by the President and became law. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

20 

PUBLIC LAW 109–142 (H.J. RES. 38)

Recognizing Commodore John Barry as the first flag officer of the United States 

Navy. 

Public Law 109–142 recognizes and honors Commodore John 

Barry as the first flag officer of the United States Navy. The measure commends Commodore Barry and honors his efforts and accomplishments in raising the United States Navy. H.J. Res. 38 was introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed Services on 

March 17, 2005. On December 14, 2005, the joint resolution passed 

the House under suspension of the rules. The measure was passed 

in the Senate without amendment and with a preamble on December 16, 2005. The measure was signed by the President and became 

law on December 22, 2005. 

PUBLIC LAW 109–159 (S. 1988)

To authorize the transfer of items in the War Reserves Stockpile for Allies, Korea. 

Public Law 109–159 authorizes the President to transfer to the 

Republic of Korea, any munitions, equipment, and/or materiel in 

the War Reserves Stockpile for Allies, Korea. After passing the 

Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on November 9, 

2005, S. 1988 was referred to the Committee on International Relations and Armed Services on November 14, 2005. The bill was considered under suspension of the rules and passed the House on December 18, 2005. On December 30, 2005, the President signed 

S. 1988. 

PUBLIC LAW 109–163 (H.R. 1815)

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 

Armed Forces, and for other purposes. 

Public Law 109–163, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006, authorizes funds totaling $435,970,473,000 for 

national defense functions for fiscal year 2006 and provides a budget authority level of $441,536,600,000. 

Division A 

Division A of Public Law 109–163 authorizes funds for fiscal year 

2006 for the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle A of title I authorizes $76,914,011,000 for procurement 

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

Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of, or funds for specified programs for the armed forces, including: multiyear procurement authority for the C–17 aircraft and utility helicopters, the 

shipbuilding modernization initiative, the prohibition on the retirement of KC–135 and the F–117 aircraft; and restructuring the advanced SEAL delivery system. 

Subtitle A of title II authorizes $70,199,859,000 for research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces and the demmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

21 

fense agencies, including amounts for basic research and development-related matters. 

Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program requirements, 

restrictions, and limitations on six separate research and development-related matters, including: Future Combat Systems, requirements for the heavy lift rotorcraft, limitations on the VXX presidential helicopter and requirements for the development of the 

Joint Tactical Radio System. 

Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile defense programs and miscellaneous matters, including high-performance defense manufacturing technology research and development. 

Subtitle A of title III authorizes $125,715,202,000 for operation 

and maintenance, $22,429,849,000 for other programs, and 

$3,129,057,000 for working capital funds for the armed forces and 

defense agencies. 

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

the Utah Test and Training Range, and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2004 and authorizes appropriations of $108,942,746,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 

2006. The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 

2006 are as follows: 

Army, 512,400 

Navy, 352,700 

Marine Corps, 179,000 

Air Force, 357,400 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2006 are as 

follows: 

Army National Guard, 350,000 

Army Reserve, 205,000 

Naval Reserve, 73,100 

Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600 

Air National Guard, 106,800 

Air Force Reserve, 74,000 

Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000 

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

reserve components for fiscal year 2006 are as follows: 

Army National Guard, 27,396 

Army Reserve, 15,270 

Naval Reserve, 13,392 

Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261 

Air National Guard, 13,123 

Air Force Reserve, 2,290 

Title V sets military personnel policy, including provisions that 

address officer personnel policy; the reserve component management; education and training, including, DOD schools, ROTC, and 

the Naval postgraduate school; general service requirements; military justice and legal assistance matters; issues relating to casualties; defense dependents education; consumer protection; and other 

matters. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

22 

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

pays; travel and transportation allowances; retiree and survivor 

benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund instrumentality 

benefits; and other matters. 

Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as enhanced benefits for reservists; TRICARE program improvements; 

programs concerning mental health issues; reports; and other matters. 

Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including amendments to general contracting 

authorities, and matters relating to the United States defense industrial base. 

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

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; homeland security; reports; military mail; and other matters. 

Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel matters, including the Veteran’s preferences, and other federal government civilian personnel matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, including: 

assistance and training; nonproliferation and countries of concern; 

related reports; and other issues. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with states of 

the Former Soviet Union. 

Title XIV addresses matters relating to detainees. 

Title XV includes authorization for increased cost due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Division B 

Division B of Public Law 109–163 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $12,166,611,000 for military construction and military family housing in support of the active forces, the reserve components, and the NATO security investment program for fiscal year 

2006. In addition, Division B contains military construction and 

family housing program changes; property and facilities administration; provisions concerning base closure and realignment land 

conveyances, and other matters. 

Division C 

Division C of Public Law 109–163 authorizes appropriations in 

the amount of $16,554,857,000 for Department of Energy national 

security programs for fiscal year 2006. Division C also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board; National Defense Stockpile; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration. 

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 1815, as 

amended, to the House on May 20, 2005. The measure passed the 

House, as amended, on May 25, 2005. The Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 1815, as amended, on November 15, 2005, subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in 

lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure, S. 1042. The conmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

23 

ference report was agreed to in the House on December 18, 2005, 

and in the Senate on December 21, 2005. H.R. 1815 was signed by 

the President and became law on January 6, 2006. 

(H. Rept. 109–89; S. Rept. 109–69; H. Rept. 109–360; H.A.S.C. 

109–2; H.A.S.C. 109–3; H.A.S.C. 109–4; H.A.S.C. 109–5; H.A.S.C. 

109–6; H.A.S.C. 109–7; H.A.S.C. 109–8; H.A.S.C. 109–9; H.A.S.C. 

109–10; H.A.S.C. 109–11; H.A.S.C. 109–13; H.A.S.C. 109–14; 

H.A.S.C. 109–15; H.A.S.C. 109–16; H.A.S.C. 109–17; H.A.S.C. 109–

18; H.A.S.C. 109–19; H.A.S.C. 109–20; H.A.S.C. 109–21; H.A.S.C. 

109–22; H.A.S.C. 109–23; H.A.S.C. 109–24; H.A.S.C. 109–25; 

H.A.S.C. 109–26; H.A.S.C. 109–27) 

PUBLIC LAW 109–164 (H.R. 972)

To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes. 

Public Law 109–164, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005, which authorized appropriations for fiscal 

years 2006 and 2007 to combat international trafficking in persons 

and domestic trafficking in persons. The measure is meant to assist 

in the prevention of trafficking in conjunction with post-conflict and 

humanitarian emergency assistance, protection of victims of trafficking in person, and enhancing prosecutions of trafficking in persons offenses especially when they are employed by or accompanying the Federal Government outside the United States. 

H.R. 972 was introduced and referred to the Committee on International Relations, as well as the Committees on Armed Services, 

the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce on February 17, 2005. 

On December 14, 2005, the bill, as amended, passed the House 

under suspension of the rules. The Senate passed the measure on 

December 22, 2005 by unanimous consent without amendment. It 

was signed by the President and became law on January 10, 2006. 

PUBLIC LAW 109–272 (H.R. 5683)

To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by 

providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States. 

Public Law 109–272, to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, for the immediate acquisition of 

the memorial by the United States. The measure vests title and 

possession of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, a national memorial honoring American veterans of all wars, including the War 

on Terrorism, in the United States. 

On June 26, 2006, H.R. 5683 was introduced and referred to the 

Committee on Resources, as well as the Committee on Armed Services. On July 19, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5683 under suspension of the rules. The Senate passed the measure on August 1, 

2006 by unanimous consent without amendment. On August 14, 

2006, H.R. 5683 was signed by the President and became law. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

24 

PUBLIC LAW 109–364 (H.R. 5122)

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, 

and for other purposes. 

Public Law 109–364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, authorizes funds totaling 

$455,383,431,000 for national defense functions for fiscal year 2006 

and provides a budget authority level of $462,760,229,000. 

Division A 

Division A of Public Law 109–364 authorizes funds for fiscal year 

2007 for the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle A of title I authorizes $84,153,588,000 for procurement 

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

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

for tactical wheeled vehicles; multiyear procurement authority for 

the MH–60R helicopter, the V–22 aircraft, and the F–22A fighter 

aircraft; sense of Congress on the size of the attack submarine 

force; modernization of the intercontinental ballistic missile; description of the bomber force structure and strategic airlift force 

structure. 

Subtitle A of title II authorizes $73,607,976,000 for research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research and development-related matters. 

Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program requirements, 

restrictions, and limitations on six separate research and development-related matters, including: Future Combat Systems, acquisition and cost estimate for the joint strike fighter propulsion system. 

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

space-based interceptor. 

Subtitle A of title III authorizes $129,018,149,000 for operation 

and maintenance, $23,847,112,000 for other programs, and 

$2,436,430,000 for working capital funds for the armed forces and 

defense agencies. 

Subtitles B through F of title III address environmental provisions; program requirements, restrictions, and limitations; workplace and depot issues; studies and reports relating to military 

readiness; and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2004 and authorizes appropriations of $110,098,628,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 

2007. The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 

2007 are as follows: 

Army, 512,400 

Navy, 340,700 

Marine Corps, 180,000 

Air Force, 334,200 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

25 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2007 are as 

follows: 

Army National Guard, 350,000 

Army Reserve, 205,000 

Naval Reserve, 73,100 

Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600 

Air National Guard, 106,800 

Air Force Reserve, 74,000 

Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000 

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

reserve components for fiscal year 2006 are as follows: 

Army National Guard, 27,396 

Army Reserve, 15,270 

Naval Reserve, 13,392 

Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261 

Air National Guard, 13,123 

Air Force Reserve, 2,290 

Title V sets military personnel policy, including provisions that 

address officer personnel policy, including officer promotion policy 

and joint officer management requirements; the reserve component 

management; education and training, including service academies, 

JROTC, and scholarships and financial assistance programs; general service authorities; military justice matters; decorations and 

awards; issues relating to casualties; impact aid and defense dependents education; the armed forces retirement home; reports; 

and other matters. 

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

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

Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as 

TRICARE program improvements; selected studies and reports; 

planning, programming and management of military health care; 

and other matters. 

Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including: issues relating to Major Defense Acquisition Programs; amendments to general contracting authorities, 

procedures, and limitations; and matters relating to the United 

States defense industrial base. 

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

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

policy relating to vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; 

force structure and defense policy matters; reports; general authorities and limitations of the availability and use of funds; matters involving detainees; and additional issues. 

Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, including: 

assistance and training; nonproliferation and countries of concern. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with states of 

the Former Soviet Union. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

26 

Title XIV addresses matters relating to defense against terrorism 

and other related security matters. 

Title XV includes authorization for increased cost due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Division B 

Division B of Public Law 109–364 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $17,098,423,000 for military construction and military family housing in support of the active forces, the reserve components, and the NATO security investment program for fiscal year 

2007. 

In addition, Division B contains military construction and family 

housing program changes; property and facilities administration; 

provisions concerning base closure and realignment; land conveyances; energy security; and other matters. 

Division C 

Division C of Public Law 109–364 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $15,840,330,000 for Department of Energy national 

security programs for fiscal year 2007. Division C also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

Safety Board; National Defense Stockpile; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration. 

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 5122, as 

amended, to the House on May 5, 2006. The measure passed the 

House, as amended, on May 11, 2006. The Senate passed by unanimous consent H.R. 5122, as amended, on June 22, 2006, subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu 

thereof the provisions of a similar measure, S. 2766. The conference 

report was agreed to in the House on September 29, 2006, and in 

the Senate on September 30, 2006. H.R. 5122 was signed by the 

President and became law on October 17, 2006. 

(H. Rept. 109–452; S. Rept. 109–254; H. Rept. 109–702; H.A.S.C. 

109–48; H.A.S.C. 109–53; H.A.S.C. 109–54; H.A.S.C. 109–57; 

H.A.S.C. 109–60; H.A.S.C. 109–62; H.A.S.C. 109–68; H.A.S.C. 109– 69; H.A.S.C. 109–72; H.A.S.C. 109–73; H.A.S.C. 109–74; H.A.S.C. 

109–76; H.A.S.C. 109–95; H.A.S.C. 109–99; H.A.S.C. 109–101; 

H.A.S.C. 109–102) 

PUBLIC LAW 109–366 (S. 3930)

To authorize trial by military commission for violations of the law of war, and for 

other purpose. 

Public Law 109–366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was 

enacted by Congress in response to the Supreme Court’s decision 

in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. l, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (June 29, 

2006). The measure provides for congressional authorization of 

military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for 

war crimes committed before, on or after September 11, 2001. In 

addition, the measure eliminates Federal court jurisdiction over 

pending and future habeas and civil suits by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay and in other U.S. facilities and limits 

judicial review by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to find judgments of military commissions on matters of law. After being introduced in the Senate on September 22, 2006, and laid before the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

27 

Senate by unanimous consent on September 27, 2006, S. 3930 

passed the Senate with an amendment on September 28, 2006. A 

House bill pertaining to the same subject matter, H.R. 6054 was 

introduced on September 12, 2006; it was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, as well as the Committees on the Judiciary and International Relations. On September 13, 2006, the Committee on Armed Services met to consider H.R. 6054 and ordered 

the bill to be reported, as amended. On September 25, 2006, another bill pertaining to the same subject matter, H.R. 6166 was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Armed 

Services, as well as the Committees on the Judiciary and International Relations. H.R. 6166 passed the House on September 27, 

2006. On September 29, 2006, the House passed S. 3930, a similar 

measure to H.R. 6166, without amendment. On October 17, 2006, 

the President signed S. 3930 into law. 

(H. Rept. 109–664, Part I) 

LEGISLATION REPORTED BUT NOT ENACTED

H. RES. 417

Directing Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives not later 

than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the 

possession of the Secretary of Defense relating to the disclosure of the identity 

and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame. 

H. Res. 417 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request specific factual information from the President of the United States or 

the head of one of the executive departments. The Rules of the 

House of Representatives provide for a committee to report on a 

qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. H. Res. 417 

would have directed the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the 

House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of 

the adoption of the resolution all documents, including telephone 

and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, personnel records, 

and records of internal discussions in the possession of the Secretary of Defense relating to the disclosure of the identity of Ms. 

Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency 

during the period beginning on May 6, 2003, and ending on July 

31, 2003. 

H. Res. 417 was introduced and referred to Committee on Armed 

Services on July 29, 2005. On September 20, 2005, the Committee 

on Armed Services held a mark-up session and ordered the resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No further action was 

taken. 

(H. Rept. 109–234) 

H.J. RES. 65

Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Commission. 

H.J. Res. 65 is a joint resolution which states that Congress disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Commission as submitted by the President on September 15, 2005. H.J. Res. 65 was introduced on September 20, 

2005 and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On Sepmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

28 

tember 29, 2005, the Committee on Armed Services held a markup session and ordered the joint resolution to be reported adversely. The measure failed in the House on October 27, 2005. No 

further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 109–243) 

H. RES. 645

Requesting the President and directing Secretary of Defense to transmit to the 

House of Representatives all information in the possession of the President or the 

Secretary of Defense relating to the collection of intelligence information pertaining to persons inside the United States without obtaining court-ordered warrants authorizing the collection of such information and relating to the policy of 

the United States with respect to the gathering of counterterrorism within the 

United States. 

H. Res. 645 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request specific factual information from the President of the United States or 

the head of one of the executive departments. The Rules of the 

House of Representatives provide for a committee to report on a 

qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. H. Res. 645 

would have requested the President and directed the Secretary of 

Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives, not later than 

14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution, all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, calendars, minutes, and memos, in the possession of the President relating to the scope of the activities undertaken by the Department 

of Defense, the Counterintelligence Field Activity, or any related 

agency with regard to Threat and Local Observation Notice reports; 

and the legal authority upon which surveillance by the National 

Security Agency or the Department of Defense of persons inside the 

United States and the gathering of counterterrorism intelligence 

within the United States without obtaining court-ordered warrants 

is based. 

H. Res. 645 was introduced on December 22, 2005 and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services. On March 1, 2006 the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and ordered the 

resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No further action 

was taken. 

H. RES. 685

Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense provide to the House of Representatives certain documents in their possession relating to any entity with which the United States has contracted for public 

relations purposes concerning Iraq. 

H. Res. 685 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request specific factual information from the President of the United States or 

the head of one of the executive departments. The Rules of the 

House of Representatives provide for a committee to report on a 

qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. H. Res. 685 

would have requested the President and directed the Secretary of 

State and Secretary of Defense to provide to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of 

this resolution, all documents in the possession of the President, 

the Secretary of State, or the Secretary of Defense, respectively, remmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

29 

lating to any entity (including the Rendon Group and the Lincoln 

Group) with which the United States has entered into a contract 

for public relations purposes concerning Iraq insofar as such documents relate to such contract. 

H. Res. 685 was introduced and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services on February 15, 2006. The Committee on Armed 

Services held a mark-up session to consider the measure and ordered the resolution to be reported adversely on March 16, 2006. 

No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 109–397) 

H.R. 6054

To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military commission 

for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes. 

H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was a bill to 

provide for congressional authorization of military commissions to 

try alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes, and other offenses committed before, on or after September 11, 2001. H.R. 6054 

was introduced on September 12, 2006, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, as well as, the Committees on the Judiciary and International Relations. On September 13, 2006, the 

Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and ordered 

the bill reported, as amended. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 109–664, Part I) 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(31) 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES 

The oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Armed Services were conducted primarily within the context of the committee’s 

consideration of the annual defense authorization bills, which cover 

the breadth of the operations of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

and a significant portion of the operating budget of the Department 

of Energy. The annual national defense budget of approximately 

$462.8 billion involves millions of military and civilian personnel, 

thousands of facilities, and hundreds of agencies, departments, and 

military commands located throughout the world. 

SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT PLAN 

In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the 

United States and the ongoing U.S. military operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan, the committee conducted extensive oversight activities 

during the 109th Congress, paying particular attention to the conduct of the global war on terrorism and force protection of military 

personnel, installations, and equipment. The committee regularly 

received briefings on national security threats and conducted a series of hearings and briefings on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq 

and Afghanistan, including the significant threat posed by Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). In addition, prior to consideration 

of the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 defense budgets, the committee 

conducted oversight hearings with the Secretary of Defense, the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the individual service secretaries and chiefs of staff, combatant commanders, other officials of 

the Department of Defense and the military departments, officials 

of the Central Intelligence Agency, and other defense-related intelligence agencies, and the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the 

National Nuclear Security Administration, and other officials of the 

Department of Energy. The committee also received testimony from 

outside experts in academia, industry, associations, and those in 

private life on these matters. 

While the majority of the committee’s oversight was planned to 

support the annual defense authorization bill, the committee also 

conducted oversight activities as demanded by critical current 

events. 

ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following specific areas and subjects were designated for special attention during the 109th Congress: 

NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY AND OTHER DEFENSE POLICY ISSUES

During the 109th Congress, the committee took particular interest in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and other strategic documents of the Department of Defense. The committee’s inmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

32 

terest included a focus on DOD transformation efforts to improve 

U.S. military capabilities to address 21st Century security challenges. Throughout both sessions of Congress, the committee received numerous presentations and briefings from representatives 

of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the joint staff, the services, and the combatant commands. 

On June 15, 2006, the committee received a top secret briefing 

from the Department on its national defense strategy, national 

military strategy, and its process for conducting the 2005 QDR. On 

September 14, 2005, the committee conducted an open hearing and 

received testimony from former DOD officials and outside experts 

on the goals and principles of the QDR. The witnesses included the 

Honorable Dov S. Zakheim; Ms. Michele Flournoy, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Dr. Daniel Goure, Lexington Institute; and Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., Center for Strategic and 

Budgetary Assessments. Following the release of the QDR on February 6, 2006, the committee turned its attention to the DOD plan 

to implement the QDR’s strategic direction. On March 14, 2006, the 

committee conducted a hearing and received testimony on the 

QDR’s key findings and implementation roadmaps. Members heard 

from a panel comprised of the Honorable Gordon England, Deputy 

Secretary of Defense and Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., 

United States Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Following that panel, the committee heard testimony from outside experts, including Mr. Thomas Donnelly, Resident Fellow, American 

Enterprise Institute; Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., Executive Director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Mr. 

Lawrence J. Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress. 

These two panels offered different perspectives on the overall QDR 

process, key findings, and the DOD implementation plan. 

Following these oversight efforts, the committee concluded that 

the 2006 QDR was ‘‘resource constrained,’’ which affected DOD assessment of threats and the capabilities required to meet them; 

contradictory in its conclusions about force structure; and at odds 

regarding some programmatic decisions. As a result, in the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364), the committee amended section 118 of title 

10, United States Code. This amendment required that the analysis and recommendations in the DOD QDR are not to be constrained by the budget request; the identification of specific capabilities to achieve strategic and warfighting objectives; an independent assessment of the QDR; and a more comprehensive risk 

assessment from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 

committee also included a provision in the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–

364) requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports 

on the implementation of recommendations described in the 2006 

QDR. 

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

conducted continuous military operations against those who might 

threaten the security of the United States or its allies. While the 

United States and allied forces have successfully weakened almmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

33 

Qaeda’s senior leadership by capturing or killing many al-Qaeda 

leaders, like the U.S. military operation which killed Abu Musab 

al-Zarqawi, the terrorist organization has morphed into an affiliated network of terrorist cells that is diffuse and decentralized. The 

al-Qaeda-affiliated network operates in cells of varying size and organization in Iraq, Afghanistan, Europe, Africa, Asia, and South 

America. In the Middle East, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 

in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) place new demands on the armed forces and require new strategies that alter 

standard operating procedures, training, doctrine, and traditional 

concepts of operations. Moreover, as the enemy adapts their tactics 

and techniques to exploit those areas where U.S. capabilities might 

not be as strong, the United States requires increased cooperation 

between and among federal departments and agencies to fill those 

gaps. 

Committee delegations visited the U.S. Central Command area of 

operations to assess progress in OIF and OEF, as well as other regions where U.S. forces are engaged in the global war on terrorism 

(GWOT). In addition to oversight activities reviewing ongoing military operations in OEF and OIF, the committee conducted numerous hearings and classified briefings on our military strategy for 

the global war on terrorism. In November 2005, the Subcommittee 

on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a classified briefing with representatives from the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense and the joint staff on DOD roles, missions, and capabilities in counterterrorism. On February 8, 2006, following the release 

of the National Military Strategic Plan for the global war on terrorism, administration officials, representatives from the joint staff, 

and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) briefed the 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities on the new strategic plan. The briefing clarified how the 

military had refined its plan to meet its top priorities for defeating 

al-Qaeda and affiliated movements; how the GWOT operational 

planning process works; and identified those tasked with the execution of command and control of counterterrorism operations. 

The committee’s review of newly published plans for the GWOT 

reinforced the conclusion that winning the global war on terrorism 

requires improved interagency coordination, greater synchronization within the Department, and increased capability to carry out 

irregular warfare missions, such as training and equipping security 

forces in countries where terrorist organizations operate or in countries that have large ungoverned spaces. The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and the full committee held hearings in March and April 2006, on improving interagency coordination. In both hearings, administration officials, general officers, and outside experts all testified that interagency coordination needs to be improved and that the U.S. Government is 

insufficiently applying all elements of national power in the 

GWOT. A number of witnesses advised the committee to monitor 

and oversee the work of the National Counterterrorism Center 

(NCTC) and the implementation of the NCTC’s National Implementation Plan for the global war on terrorism, which provides 

operational direction to all government agencies, including the Demmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

34 

partment, on the execution of a synchronized, national effort in the 

GWOT. 

With respect to improving intra-agency execution of the GWOT 

strategy, on June 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities held a hearing that looked 

at how USSOCOM is executing its role as the lead combatant command for planning, synchronizing, and executing global operations 

against terrorist networks. This hearing, and subsequent classified 

briefings, reviewed the DOD Global Campaign Plan for the global 

war on terrorism, which was completed in 2005. In light of the 

military strategic plan’s emphasis on unconventional warfare operations in the global war on terrorism, as well as the 2006 QDR’s 

irregular warfare roadmap, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities held a hearing on September 27, 2006, on steps the Department is taking to increase and 

improve the military’s irregular warfare capability. 

As a result of these oversight activities, the committee recommended the statutory adoption of several provisions designed to 

oversee and enhance implementation of U.S. strategy in the global 

war on terrorism. These provisions, contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) 

and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) required the Secretary of Defense 

to issue quarterly reports on the war strategy in Iraq, to report on 

the findings of the assessment process relating to the global war 

on terrorism, and authorized enhancements to the regional combating terrorism fellowship program. In the conference report (H. 

Rept. 109–702) accompanying the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the 

committee directed the Secretary to submit a report that clarifies 

the roles and responsibility of the commander of USSOCOM in his 

capacity as the supported combatant commander in the GWOT. 

Committee hearings and briefings on the need for improved 

interagency coordination in the global war on terrorism contributed 

to a provision in the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), which required a 

presidential report on building interagency capacity and enhancing 

integration of civilian capabilities of the executive branch with capabilities of the armed forces. Similarly, in the conference report 

(H. Rept. 109–702) accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), 

the committee directed the Secretary to provide a report on how 

the Department is improving and strengthening internal Department of Defense mechanisms for global war on terrorism interagency coordination at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Finally, the committee’s emphasis on increasing our capability 

to operationalize the global war on terrorism strategy, particularly 

increasing the military’s irregular warfare capability, contributed 

to a provision in the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), which required the 

Secretary to report on the implementation of the 2006 QDR recommendations. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

35 

IRAQ

The committee closely observed the Iraqi political events in 2005 

and 2006, which established an inclusive constitutional process for 

Iraq. In January 2005, Iraq held elections as scheduled to select a 

275-seat Transitional National Assembly, with a 58 percent voter 

turnout. In April 2005, interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi 

stepped down after the Assembly selected Ibrahim al-Jaafari as the 

permanent prime minister. By August 2005, the Iraqi Constitutional Committee completed its final draft of the constitution to replace the Transitional Administrative Law. In October, more than 

63 percent of eligible Iraqis voted in the referendum with the constitution passing by a 79 percent majority. Parliamentary elections 

were held in December 2005, with the final results certified in January 2006. There was close to 80 percent voter turnout and minimal violence surrounding the election. Iraqi leaders formed a 

broad, unity government in April 2006, with significant Sunni representation and Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister. 

While the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) continued to grow in numbers and capability in 2006, violence escalated, notably in Baghdad, 

after the February 2006, bombing of the Askariya mosque. The 

death of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006, was a major 

success for coalition forces and the government of Iraq. Also in 

June, the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, released unclassified key points from a National Ground Intelligence 

Center report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. In November 2006, an Iraqi court, independent of the political process, 

convicted Saddam Hussein for murdering his own people and sentenced him to death. 

To exercise proper oversight, the committee conducted briefings 

and hearings with representatives from the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and policy community. In January 2005, the committee received a top secret briefing on operations and intelligence in support of Iraq, tsunami relief, and activities in Afghanistan; and a secret briefing on the efforts to train Iraqi security forces and on the 

then-upcoming Iraqi elections. The committee met on February 2, 

2005, to receive a secret briefing on the Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom force protection initiatives and 

on March 8, 2005, to receive a secret briefing from General George 

W. Casey, Jr., United States Army, Commander, Multi-National 

Forces, Iraq. The committee met again on March 17, 2005, to receive testimony on current operations and the political transition in 

Iraq from witnesses, including Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Executive Director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Dr. 

Steven Metz, Chairman, Regional Strategy, and Planning, Research Professor of National Security Affairs, United States Army 

War College Strategic Studies Institute; and the Honorable Walter 

B. Slocombe, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and 

former Senior Advisor for Defense and Security Sector Affairs to 

the Coalition Provisional Authority for Iraq. 

On April 6, 2005, the committee received testimony on Iraq’s 

past, present, and future from General Wesley Clark, United 

States Army (Ret.), Former Combatant Commander, European 

Command and the Honorable Richard Perle, Former Assistant Secmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

36 

retary of Defense for International Security Policy. In June 2005, 

committee members attended a session to review the most recent 

reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross related 

to the Iraq theater of operations detention facilities and received a 

top secret brief from joint staff officials on metrics, trends, and the 

Iraqi security forces; a briefing from General Barry McCaffrey, 

United States Army (Ret.) on his experiences and observation in 

Iraq; and a closed briefing with DOD officials on Iraqi Security 

Forces. The committee also received testimony on June 23, 2005, 

on the Progress of the Iraqi Security Forces from witnesses, including the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; General Richard B. Myers, United States Air Force, Chairman, Joint 

Chiefs of Staff; General John Abizaid, United States Army, Commander, Central Command; and General George W. Casey, Jr., 

United States Army, Commander, Multi-National Forces—Iraq. On 

July 21, 2005, the committee received a secret brief on the DOD 

work in developing and tracking metrics for OIF. 

On September 29, 2005, the committee held an open hearing and 

closed briefing on operations in Iraq. The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, refuted the notion that commanders on 

the ground had been reluctant to request an increase in troop 

strength, stating that the needs of the commanders on the ground 

for force levels would be met. Al-Qaeda and its associated extremists, according to General John Abizaid, United States Army, Commander, U.S. Central Command, were the main threat to peace 

and stability in the region. General George W. Casey, Jr., United 

States Army, Commander, Multi-National Forces, Iraq, warned 

that the United States should expect a protracted conflict in Iraq. 

On June 29, 2006, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, United States Army, 

testified in an open session on the revelations concerning weapons 

of mass destruction found in Iraq. He stated that the munitions in 

question—containing mustard and Sarin nerve agent—qualified as 

chemical weapons and would be capable of causing mass casualties 

under certain circumstances. Mr. Frank J. Gaffney, President and 

Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Security Policy, started off 

a second panel of civilian witnesses by stressing that these chemical weapons were precisely the weapons of mass destruction that 

Saddam Hussein had been required by the United Nations Security 

Council to destroy. In his written testimony for the panel, Mr. Terence Taylor, Director of the International Council for Life Sciences 

and former commissioner to the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq, underscored the dangers posed by insurgents obtaining and using these weapons. David Kay, weapons inspector and the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency’s 

Iraq Survey Group, expressed disagreement about the lethality of 

the munitions. Immediately following that open hearing, the committee attended a highly classified briefing from intelligence officials on the contents of the report. 

On November 15, 2006, the committee held an open hearing to 

assess the ongoing military operations in Iraq. General John 

Abizaid, United States Army, Commander, U.S. Central Command, 

addressed the level of sectarian violence, noting its concentration 

in the vicinity of Baghdad, and the need for meaningful national 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

37 

reconciliation to quell it. He stated that Iraq could still be stabilized and supported managing force levels without specific timetables for withdrawal. Ambassador David Satterfield, Senior Advisor on Iraq to the Secretary of State, stressed that Iraqis do not 

want to see their country torn apart. He advised that the dissolution of Iraq into separate political entities would come at a price 

in human suffering that the United States would not be willing to 

bear. 

Attaching importance to the acceleration of transitioning responsibility for security and stability to the Iraqi Security Forces, the 

committee responded with an emergency authorization of $1.7 billion in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). This additional authorization for the Iraq Security Forces Fund Program will enhance the 

ability of the commander, Multi-National Security Transition Command—Iraq, to provide equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction for 

the Iraqi Security Forces. 

The committee recognized the good will of the Iraqi people that 

accrued from the humanitarian support for Iraqi children in urgent 

need of medical care. Therefore, it recommended a provision adopted in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) that authorized $1.0 million 

and expressed a sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense 

continue to provide space-available transportation on military aircraft from Baghdad to Amman, Jordan for Iraqi children. 

Finally, in expressing appreciation for the actions that resulted 

in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Committee on Armed 

Services joined with the Senate Committee on Armed Services in 

the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to commend the U.S. armed 

forces, the intelligence community, other Federal agencies and coalition partners. The provision also contained a sense of Congress 

that exhorted Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to end ethnic and sectarian violence. 

DETAINEE POLICY AND MILITARY COMMISSIONS

On May 11, 2005, the U.S. Southern Command announced that 

General John Craddock, commander, U.S. Southern Command, had 

directed an inquiry into allegations of mishandling of the Koran at 

the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The inquiry 

was prompted by allegations in the media in May 2005 that U.S. 

personnel at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down a toilet. Additional media allegations of torture, harsh interrogations techniques, and improper medical treatment involving detainees continued to focus public attention on detainee affairs and the committee 

continued its intensive oversight into detainee policy begun in the 

108th Congress. Because the detainee treatment issue involved 

sensitive matters associated with criminal investigations and prosecutions and into classified matters associated with intelligence collection techniques, much of the committee’s oversight of detainee 

matters was conducted in classified forums. Thus, in addition to 

the four public hearings specifically on detainee treatment and one 

posture hearing devoted in part to detainee matters, the committee 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

38 

conducted eight member briefings (including several opportunities 

for members to review reports by the International Committee of 

the Red Cross) and fourteen staff briefings related to detainee affairs. Additionally, many committee members and several staff 

made separate trips to review detainee operations at Guantanamo 

Bay, Cuba. The committee also received documents detailing the 

results of three investigations by the Department of Defense regarding alleged detainee mistreatment. Finally, the committee received 108,000 pages of documents from the Department of Defense 

related to Freedom of Information Act requests regarding detainee 

matters. The conferees for the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), consisting of 26 members of the committee and 23 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, added a Title to that measure regarding detainee 

treatment and the committee reported out one bill concerning detainee matters. 

The first statutory provision, the ‘‘Detainee Treatment Act of 

2005’’ (Title XIV of Public Law 109–163) originated in the Senate 

amendment to H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006. The Senate amendment contained three provisions (secs. 1074, 1075, and 1092) relating to detainees. The first 

provision (sec. 1074) provided for uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under the detention of the Department of Defense. The second provision (sec. 1075) prohibited cruel, inhuman, 

or degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control of the U.S. Government. The third provision (section 

1092) provided procedures for the legal review of detainees held by 

the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The House 

bill contained no similar provisions. The House receded with an 

amendment that would establish a new title of the bill, Title XIV, 

addressing matters relating to detainees. Section 1401 designated 

the title as the ‘‘Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.’’ Section 1402 

contained the text of Senate section 1074 without change. Section 

1403 contained the text of Senate section 1075 without change. 

Section 1404 was a new provision providing for an affirmative defense in any civil action or criminal prosecution against an officer, 

employee, member of the armed forces, or other agent of the U.S. 

Government, arising out of that person’s engaging in specific operation practices involving detention or interrogation of aliens who 

the President or his designees determined to be engaged in or associated with international terrorist activity. Section 1405 amended 

Sec. 1092 of the Senate amendment and addressed the procedures 

for legal review of detainees held by the Department of Defense. 

Section 1406 was a new provision requiring the Department of Defense to train Iraqi military forces regarding the international obligations and laws applicable to the humane detention of detainee, 

including protections afforded under the Geneva Conventions and 

the Convention Against Torture and providing for Arabic translation and distribution of the Army Field Manual on Intelligence 

Interrogation to Iraqi security forces. The conference report for 

H.R. 1815 was agreed to without amendment by the House of Representatives on December 19, 2005 by a reported vote of 374–41. 

The Senate agreed to the Conference report by Voice Vote on December 21, 2005. The President signed H.R. 1815 on January 6, 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

39 

1Public Law 109–148, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

contained an earlier draft of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 than adopted by Congress in 

Public Law 109–163. Public Law 109–148 contained a minor punctuation difference between 

Section 1005(b) and Section 1405(b) of Public Law 109–168. Sections 1006(a)(1) (required policies in general); Section 1006(b)(91) (provide portions of Field Manual) and Section 1006(b)(2) 

(distrubution of Field Manual) of Public Law 109–148 did not include modifications later written 

into Sections 1406(a)(1), 1406(b)(1) and 1406(b)(2) of Public Law 109–163. 

2006 and it became Public Law 190–163. Similar legislation was 

passed as Title X of Public Law 109–148, signed by the President 

on December 30, 2005.1

The second statutory provision, the ‘‘Military Commissions Act of 

2006’’ (‘‘MCA’) was enacted by Congress in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. l, 126 

S. Ct. 2749 (June 29, 2006). In a 5–3 decision, the court held that 

military commissions set up by the Bush Administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay were illegal under both the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice and common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Court also found that Section 1005 of the Detainee 

Treatment Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–148, December 30, 2005) 

did not deprive the Court of jurisdiction to hear the case. The 

Court ruled absent clear congressional intent, there would be a presumption against retroactive application of the statute and also 

found that because the provision excluding the Court of jurisdiction 

lacked explicit language regarding pending cases contained in two 

other jurisdictional provisions, a negative inference could be drawn 

because of the exclusion of the language. After the Hamdan decision the committee held three oversight hearings into military commissions and related matters and on September 12, 2006 Mr. 

Hunter introduced H.R. 6054, which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services and to the Committees on the Judiciary and 

International Relations. On September 13, 2006, the Committee on 

Armed Services held a mark-up session and ordered the bill to be 

reported, as amended. On September 25, 2006, Mr. Hunter introduced a similar measure, H.R. 6166, which was the result of a compromise between the Administration, the Senate and House Republican. On September 27, 2006, H.R. 6166 was considered and 

passed by the House, 253–168, without amendment. On September 

28, 2006, the Senate considered and passed S. 3930, an identical 

measure to H.R. 6166, by a recorded vote of 65–34. On September 

29, 2006, the House considered S. 3930 and passed it without 

amendment by a vote of 250–170. On October 17, 2006, the President signed S. 3930 into law. As adopted, sections 2 and 3 of the 

MCA provide congressional authorization for military commissions 

to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes and other 

offenses committed before, on or after September 11, 2001. Section 

3 also establishes procedures for the use of classified evidence, 

hearsay and statements allegedly obtained by coercive methods. 

Section 5 of the MCA clarifies that the Geneva Conventions are not 

an enforceable source of rights in any habeas corpus or other civil 

action or proceeding by an individual in U.S. courts. Section 6 of 

the MCA amends the War Crimes Act (18 USC–2441) to criminalize grave breaches of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and provides that the amended War Crimes Act fully satisfies 

U.S. treaty obligations under common Article 3. Section 6 of the 

MCA also provides that the President may promulgate standards 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

40 

for violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches of 

the Geneva Conventions. Sections 7 and 10 of the MCA eliminates 

Federal court jurisdiction over pending and future habeas and civil 

suits by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay and in 

other U.S. facilities and limits judicial review by the D.C. Circuit 

Court of Appeals to find judgments of military commissions on 

matters of law. These cases will be under the exclusive jurisdiction 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Finally, 

Sections 8–10 of the MCA amend the Detainee Treatment Act of 

2005 to conform with military commissions established under the 

Military Commissions Act. 

INTELLIGENCE

The committee worked closely with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence in monitoring the transition by the Department of Defense from the prior Joint Military Intelligence Program/ 

Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities Program to the new 

Military Intelligence Program. The committee held a number of 

classified intelligence briefings dealing with both the global war on 

terrorism (GWOT) and matters of strategic intelligence. On February 8, 2006, the committee received briefings by the Department 

of Defense on the gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within 

the United States (the Threat and Local Observation Notice program) and by the Department of Justice on the legal basis for the 

National Security Agency’s electronic surveillance program. On 

March 1, 2006, the committee held a mark-up of a resolution of inquiry (H. Res. 645) on these two issues. 

On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces held a joint hearing on a Special Operations Command 

project conducted in the 1999–2000 timeframe. This project, known 

as ‘‘Able Danger,’’ involved the use of data-mining tools to perform ‘‘linkage analysis’’ to map out certain features of the al-Qaeda network. There had been certain allegations made that prior to the 

September 11th terrorist attacks certain elements of the Department of Defense knew the identity of one or more of the September 

11th hijackers. Testimony at the hearing was focused on the value 

of the ‘‘Able Danger’’ data-mining intelligence program and what 

information was known prior to September 11, 2001. The joint subcommittee hearing concluded that the intelligence community did 

not know the identity or intended actions of the hijackers prior to 

the attacks and that nothing known in the ‘‘Able Danger’’ project 

could have prevented the tragedy. 

SPACE PROGRAMS

The committee remained focused on the policies and programs 

associated with the protection of national security space assets and 

the development of space-based effects in military operations. Committee members regularly received briefings on threats to our space 

assets and space security issues. A hearing on space and U.S. national power provided a greater understanding of the importance of 

space to national security and the economy, bringing together perspectives from the combatant commands, civil agencies, industry, 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

41 

and academia. The committee’s recognition of the expanding role of 

space in military operations and increasing threats led to a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) for the Department of Defense (DOD) 

to develop a space situational awareness strategy and conduct a 

space control mission review and assessment for ensuring freedom 

to operate domestic space assets. 

In addition, particular attention was given to efforts that increase the responsiveness of space capabilities to meet the evolving 

needs of the warfighter. The committee has been at the forefront 

of encouraging the Department to develop low-cost, rapid reaction, 

operationally responsive space (ORS) satellite and launch capabilities that can provide prompt, focused space support to warfighters 

in their theaters of operations and more rapidly fill the void that 

exists between space science, technology efforts, and operational 

space requirements development. In an effort to focus ORS activities to better support military users, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) 

established an operationally responsive space program office. 

With a number of military space programs behind schedule and 

over cost, the committee continued its strong oversight of Department space acquisitions. The committee continued tracking the performance of several high profile space programs including Space 

Radar, Transformational Satellite Communications System, 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. A 

hearing was conducted on national security space acquisitions with 

government and industry officials to discuss acquisition problems 

and provide a forum for potential solutions. Committee delegations 

visited the United States Strategic Command and several military 

installations to gain insight into warfighter needs and the integration of space in military operations, as well as service laboratories 

and industry sites to assess technology development in tactical satellites, responsive launch vehicles, and progress on major space acquisition programs. 

MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

In addition to the annual Missile Defense Agency budget hearings, the committee held several briefings on the status of the development, operational testing, and fielding of specific elements of 

the ballistic missile defense system to include Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, Airborne Laser, and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. The committee received several briefings on the Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) corrective actions in the aftermath of two unsuccessful tests of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. 

The committee explored various options for accelerating the development of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, specifically 

how to increase the production rate of SM–3 Block IA interceptors. 

The committee also met with the services and the MDA to review 

plans to transition individual ballistic missile defense elements 

from the MDA to the services. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

42 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

The committee examined a wide range of issues related to DOD 

management and guidance during the 109th Congress. As a result 

of the legislation enacted, the Department will be able to respond 

more effectively and flexibly to the needs of the country. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163), the committee standardized policies regarding gifts to regional centers for security studies. The committee continued to refine policies related to regional centers for security studies in the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364). New language to streamline center 

management allowed for personnel to conduct research and facilitated the exchange of ideas among United States and foreign military personnel, civilian government personnel, and non-governmental personnel. In addition, during the second session the committee authorized the creation of a tenth Assistant Secretary of Defense (ASD) billet, in order to develop a balanced set of portfolios 

among ASDs that would allow for more effective interaction with 

both commanders of the unified combatant commands and other 

Federal departments and agencies. 

MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

In addition to the annual budget hearings for the Atomic Energy 

Defense Activities programs, the committee received several briefings on topics relating to the nuclear weapons complex, including 

the Reliable Replacement Warhead, nuclear weapons complex 

transformation, the nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship program, consolidation of nuclear materials, the Department of Energy’s Design Basis Threat, nuclear weapons complex physical security, and cyber-security practices. Additionally, committee delegations visited the national security laboratories and several industrial sites to gain further insight into the nuclear weapons complex 

activities, management, operations, and challenges. Recognizing 

the need for transformation, the committee established objectives 

and directed the Department of Energy to develop a plan for the 

transformation of the nuclear weapons complex in the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364). 

The committee established key objectives for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–363). In the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364), the committee further directed the National 

Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the methodology used 

by the national security laboratories for the certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile. This study was directed in order to reduce 

the likelihood that the Reliable Replacement Warhead will require 

a resumption of underground nuclear weapons testing. 

The committee conducted oversight of the management of defense nuclear waste. The committee received briefings to address 

problems associated with the Waste Treatment Plant construction 

project at Hanford, Washington, and radioactive tank waste processing and disposition at the Savannah River Site in South Carommaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

43 

lina. The committee conducted oversight of the implementation of 

Waste Incidental to Reprocessing legislation and recommendations 

made by the National Academy of Sciences study on nuclear waste, 

which was required by the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). 

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND THREAT REDUCTION

The committee examined execution of Department of Energy nuclear non-proliferation programs, paying close attention to unobligated account balances in those non-proliferation programs involving the Russian Federation. The committee convened a hearing on 

July 26, 2006, to examine the United States and Russian plutonium disposition strategy, as well as the future of the United 

States Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Facility construction project. 

The committee conducted oversight of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. In the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), the committee authorized a permanent waiver on restrictions for use of CTR funds in the 

states of the former Soviet Union. Additionally, the committee 

modified authorities to allow for the use of CTR funds outside of 

the former Soviet Union. The committee authorized a study on the 

proliferation of biological weapons by the National Academy of 

Sciences in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). 

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS AND EXPORT CONTROLS

During the first session of the 109th Congress, the committee 

took particular interest in the potential transfer of European advanced technologies to China in an effort to enhance its military 

modernization program. On April 14, 2005, the committee conducted a joint hearing with the Committee on International Relations and received testimony on arms exports to the People’s Republic of China by member states of the European Union. The committee heard testimony from the Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, 

Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Department of State; the 

Honorable Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, Department of Defense; and the Honorable Peter 

Lichtenbaum, Acting Undersecretary for Industry and Security, Department of Commerce. 

In both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) and the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the 

committee was careful to ensure consistently that all training and 

equipment provided to allies and coalition partners remains subject 

to existing export control laws. For example, section 1207 of (Public 

Law 109–364) requires that any transfer of learning content and 

information technology is subject to the Arms Control Act and any 

other export control regime under law relating to the transfer of 

military technology for foreign nations. 

HOMELAND DEFENSE AND SUPPORT TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES

During the 109th Congress, the committee conducted substantial 

oversight over the DOD homeland defense and support to civil aummaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

44 

thorities missions. These activities included a committee delegation 

visit to U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), and a March 15, 

2005, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and 

Capabilities hearing on how the Department, particularly 

NORTHCOM, is setting and implementing homeland defense policy, and how it is improving its coordination with Department of 

Homeland Security. As a result of this oversight, the committee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) that required the Secretary 

of Defense to report on the use of DOD aerial reconnaissance assets 

to support border security missions. During the second session, the 

committee focused its attention on the military’s role in securing 

our borders. The committee held a hearing on the border security 

mission of the National Guard and held two field hearings on the 

security of our northern and southern borders. 

In response to Hurricane Katrina and to assess the lessons 

learned from the federal response, a committee delegation visited 

Mississippi and Louisiana to view the disaster zone, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities 

held a hearing that evaluated DOD roles and responsibilities during catastrophic disasters, and committee staff supported the Select 

Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. As a result of the committee’s findings, in its review of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the 

committee included a number of provisions in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364). 

The committee included a provision in the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–

364) that authorized the National Guard’s weapons of mass destruction civil support teams to respond within the United States 

to intentional or unintentional releases of nuclear, biological, radiological, toxic, or poisonous chemical materials, or to natural or 

manmade disasters that could result in the catastrophic loss of life 

or property. In addition, the committee included a provision directing the Secretary of Defense to maintain a database of emergency 

response capabilities, which would include the types of emergency 

response capabilities that each State’s National Guard may provide 

in response to a domestic disaster and the types of capabilities the 

Department may provide in support of the National Response 

Plan’s emergency support functions. The committee authorized the 

Secretary of Defense to consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security and state governments in the development of Department of 

Defense concept plans for providing support to civil authorities. 

In the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the committee included a 

Katrina-inspired provision that amended chapter 15 of the title 10, 

United States Code, the so called ‘‘Insurrection Act’’, to authorize 

the President to use the armed forces to restore public order and 

enforce the laws of the United States, until state authorities are capable of maintaining order, in the event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, epidemic, or other serious public health 

emergency to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

45 

state are incapable of maintaining public order and the violence 

impedes the execution of the laws of the United States. 

ACQUISITION ISSUES

ACQUISITION POLICY

The oversight of ever increasing costs of providing goods and 

services to the warfighter was of particular importance to the Committee on Armed Services during the 109th Congress. In that vein, 

the committee held numerous briefings and hearings related to acquisition policy and acquisition reform. In the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), the 

committee took aggressive steps to reform the defense acquisition 

process. Notably, the committee passed legislation requiring certification of numerous precautionary steps before major defense acquisition programs may proceed to the system development and demonstration phase. In addition, the committee required a determination by the Secretary of Defense and notification to Congress before 

procurement of major weapons systems, as commercial items, is allowed. Furthermore, the committee enacted a major change in the 

procurement system by modifying the parameters of the longstanding ‘‘Nunn-McCurdy’’ reporting requirements for programs 

that exceed certain cost thresholds. By enacting stricter reporting 

mechanisms, the committee ensured greater transparency and accountability related to the purchase of major defense acquisition 

programs. The committee’s legislative efforts also resulted in a 

wide-arching mandate that the Department of Defense (DOD) create a management structure for the procurement of contract services, as well as a total reorganization of the Board of Contract Appeals. Finally, in fiscal year 2006, the committee mandated that 

the Department’s review and report on DOD efforts to identify contract fraud, waste and abuse. 

On November 2, 2005, the full committee held a hearing on the 

future of acquisition reform. Witnesses included: the Honorable 

Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics; the Honorable Claude M. Bolton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology); the Honorable John J. Young, Jr., Assistant Secretary of 

the Navy, Research, Development and Acquisition; and Lieutenant 

General Donald J. Hoffman, United States Air Force, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. On November 9, 2005, the full committee met in a follow-on 

hearing to discuss issues related to the Defense Logistics Agency’s 

Prime Vendor Program. Witnesses included: the Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, and Vice Admiral Keith W. Lippert, United 

States Navy, Director, Defense Logistics Agency. 

In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee continued its aggressive push to reform DOD’s acquisition system. By 

requiring, through legislation, a requirements management certification-training program, the committee hopes to drive down acquisition costs by forcing the Department to ensure better control over 

‘‘requirements creep’’ in its major weapons procurements. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

46 

The committee also acted on several recommendations of various 

acquisition reform study groups by passing legislation allowing for 

a pilot program on time-certain development in acquisition of major 

weapon systems, the establishment of a panel on contracting integrity, and a formally required determination of contract type for development programs. In addition, the committee noted several 

areas of concern and required the Department to address issues related to the use of lead system integrators and a report and regulations on excessive pass-through charges. In reaction to the committee’s observation of contracting in support of the global war on terrorism, a requirement now exists for the Department to capture 

the ‘‘lessons learned’’ of these operations through formal joint policies on requirements definition, contingency program management, 

and contingency contracting. Finally, the committee signaled its 

concern regarding the outsourcing of critical acquisition functions 

to private industry, which raises serious concerns over potential organizational conflicts of interest. In response, the committee passed 

legislation in the annual defense bill requiring government performance of critical acquisition functions, such as program management, cost estimation, and systems engineering, within five years. 

To address the issues surrounding the need for significant acquisition reform, the committee held two full committee hearings devoted to the issue. The first hearing, on March 29, 2006, addressed 

numerous acquisition reform studies conducted by the Department, 

academia, and the private sector. Witnesses included: Mr. Pierre 

Chao, Senior Fellow and Director of Defense Industrial Initiatives, 

International Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies; the Honorable Robert J. Hermann, Task Force 

Co-Chair, Defense Science Board Summer Study on Transformation; Lieutenant General Ronald T. Kadish, United States Air 

Force (Ret.), Chairman, Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel; and Mr. Terry R. Little, Acquisition Advisor to the Director, Missile Defense Agency. The second hearing, on April 5, 

2006, addressed the approach by the Department in addressing the 

recommendations of the various acquisition reform studies. Witnesses included: the Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, Government Accountability Office; the 

Honorable Kenneth Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, 

United States Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Mr. 

David Patterson, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, 

Comptroller. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF WEAPONS PROGRAMS

Major weapons system development and acquisition programs 

continued to experience cost growth and schedule delays over the 

past several years. The committee assessed the need for legislative 

action by examining causes of these problems including: proceeding 

with development with immature technology, requirements growth, 

late determination of requirements, poor cost estimating, improper 

funding profiles, labor, and material cost increases, poor program 

execution, and program instability. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163) included the following legislation to address 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

47 

acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance issues with programs: Virginia-Class submarine program (section 121); LHA replacement amphibious assault ship program (section 122); cost limitation for next generation destroyer program (section 123); Littoral 

Combat Ship program (section 124); limitation on initiation of new 

unmanned aerial vehicle systems (section 142); annual Comptroller 

General report on the Future Combat Systems program (section 

211 single set of requirements for Army and Marine Corps heavy 

lift rotorcraft program (section 217); limitation on systems development and demonstration of Personnel Recovery Vehicle (section 

219); limitation on VXX helicopter program (section 220); report on 

capabilities and costs of operational boost/ascent phase missile defense systems (section 231); requirement for certification before 

major defense acquisition program may proceed to milestone B 

(section 801); and report on lead systems integrators in the acquisition of major systems (section 805). 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–163) included the following legislation to address 

acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance issues with programs: funding profile for the Modular Force Initiative of the Army 

(section 113); Bridge to Future Networks Program (section 114); 

Comptroller General report on the contract for the Future Combat 

Systems program (section 115); CVN–21 class aircraft carrier procurement (section 121); adherence to cost estimates for CVN–21 

class of aircraft carriers (section 122); modification of limitation on 

total cost procurement of CVN–77 aircraft carrier (section 123); 

construction of the first two vessels of the DDG–1000 Next Generation Destroyer program (section 124); adherence to Navy cost estimates for LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship program 

(section 125); cost limitation for the San Antonio (LPD–17) class 

amphibious ship program (section 126); procurement of Joint Primary Aircraft Training System aircraft after fiscal year 2006 (section 138); acquisition of, and independent cost analyses for, the 

Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system (section 211); independent 

estimate of the costs of the Future Combat Systems program (section 216); limitation on use of funds for the space-based interceptor 

(section 222); study and report on revisions to the Selected Acquisition Report requirements (section 803); additional certification requirements for major defense acquisition programs before proceeding to Milestone B (section 805); original baseline estimate for 

major defense acquisition programs (section 806); and linking of 

award and incentive fees to acquisition outcomes (section 814). 

MILITARY MODERNIZATION

Throughout the 109th Congress, particular attention was given 

to the following: a continuing examination of military equipment 

modernization with respect to military capability; Army 

modularity; tactical aviation; shipbuilding requirements; unmanned 

aerial vehicles; missile defense; and development of joint-service 

transformation programs. 

The National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2006 included the following legislation to address issues related to military 

modernization: Virginia-Class submarine program (section 121); 

LHA replacement amphibious assault ship program (section 122); 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

48 

Cost limitation for next generation destroyer program (section 123); 

Littoral Combat Ship Program (section 124); Authorization of Two 

Additional Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers (section 125); Limitation on initiation of new unmanned aerial vehicle systems (section 

142); Annual Comptroller General report on Future Combat Systems program (section 211); Single set of requirements for Army 

and Marine Corps heavy lift rotorcraft program (section 217); Limitation on systems development and demonstration of Personnel Recovery Vehicle (section 219); Limitation on VXX helicopter program 

(section 220); Report on capabilities and costs of operational boost/ 

ascent phase missile defense systems (section 231); Requirement 

for certification before major defense acquisition program may proceed to milestone B (section 801); and Report on lead systems integrators in the acquisition of major systems (section 805). 

The National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007 included the following legislation to address issues related to military 

modernization: Funding profile for the Modular Force Initiative of 

the Army (section 113); Bridge to Future Networks Program (section 114); Comptroller General report on the contract for the Future Combat Systems program (section 115); CVN–21 class aircraft 

carrier procurement (section 121); Adherence to cost estimates for 

CVN–21 class of aircraft carriers (section 122); Modification of limitation on total cost procurement of CVN–77 aircraft carrier (section 

123); Construction of first two vessels under the DDG–1000 Next 

Generation Destroyer program (section 124); Adherence to navy 

cost estimates for LHA Replacement amphibious assault ship program (section 125); Cost limitation for San Antonio (LPD–17) class 

amphibious ship program (section 126); Procurement of Joint Primary Aircraft Training System aircraft after fiscal year 2006 (section 138); Acquisition of, and independent cost analyses for, the 

Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system (section 211); Independent 

estimate of costs of the Future Combat Systems Program (section 

216); Limitation on use of funds for space-based interceptor (section 

222); and Additional certification requirements for major defense 

acquisition programs before proceeding to Milestone B (section 

805). 

MILITARY READINESS

BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT (BRAC)

On May 13, 2005, the President submitted base closure and realignment recommendations to the BRAC Commission. Over the 

next 4 months, the committee reviewed the process used by the Department of Defense to reach recommendation decisions, evaluated 

the recommendations for consistency with the BRAC legal requirements, and ensured that the Department complied with procedural 

requirements associated with the BRAC statute. 

On September 8, 2005, the commission submitted amended base 

realignment and closure recommendations to the President. On 

September 15, 2005, the President approved the commission’s list 

of closures and realignments, triggering a 45 ‘‘legislative day’’ clock 

upon expiration of which the recommendations would become final, 

unless a resolution of disapproval was enacted. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

49 

On September 29, 2005, the committee considered and reported 

adversely, H.J. Res. 65, a joint resolution disapproving the recommendations of the BRAC commission. On October 27, 2005, the 

House of Representatives did not agree to the resolution by an 85– 324 vote, with one member voting present. In the absence of an enacted joint resolution of disapproval, the BRAC recommendations 

became final on November 9, 2005. 

Throughout the 109th Congress, the committee reviewed the 

costs and savings associated with base realignment and closure actions, as well as anticipated budgets for BRAC implementation. 

Through hearings and briefings, the committee uncovered significant shortfalls in planned BRAC funding levels and resolved to authorize funding to fully support executable expenses for BRAC during fiscal years 2006 and 2007. 

In addition, the committee reviewed the impact of BRAC on affected local communities, military readiness, and the management 

of the BRAC process by the military services. These efforts resulted 

in a number of modifications to statutes governing BRAC, including increased requirements for information on the status of closure, 

realignment, and reuse activities in annual reports; improved authority for the Department to assist communities adversely affected 

by mission realignments; termination of authority for construction 

of projects at bases approved for closure; and additional requirements to encourage interaction between the Department and local 

communities affected by increases in military populations resulting 

from BRAC. 

FORCE READINESS AND ADEQUACY

END STRENGTH

The committee sustained its initiatives from the previous Congress to increase the size of both the active Army and active Marine Corps, despite proposals in the budget requests to maintain 

the authorized end strengths for those services at fiscal year 2004 

levels. As a result, the 109th Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, adopted committee 

recommendations for increases in active Army end strength from 

502,400 to 512,400 (or more than 6 percent above the 2004 levels), 

and for increases in active Marine Corps end strength from 178,000 

to 180,000 (or 2.9 percent above the 2004 levels). Also enacted were 

the committee’s recommendations for continued growth in the 

Army’s end strength to 532,400 and the Marine Corps end strength 

to 184,000 by fiscal year 2009. 

During the second session of the 109th Congress, committee concerns arose over Army plans for fiscal year 2007 to reduce Army 

National Guard end strength to 332,900, which was more than 

17,000 below the 2006 authorization. Although a revised budget request eventually restored the Army National Guard end strength 

authorization to 350,000—the same as authorized in fiscal year 

2006—the committee acted to provide the additional funding to 

sustain the increased end strength in the revised budget request. 

As a result, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) provided an additional 

$500.0 million to Army National Guard military personnel, opermmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

50 

ations and maintenance, and defense health accounts and $318.0 

million for procurement. 

MOBILIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS

Increased reliance on the reserve components to perform a broader range of missions required the committee to consider revisions 

to the statutory authorities governing the scope of activities that 

could be performed by full-time support personnel, such as military 

technicians (dual status) and active guard and reserve (AGR) personnel. In general, such personnel had been limited to missions involved in organizing, administering, recruiting, training or instructing only the reserve components. As a result, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 

109–364) expanded that authority to permit AGRs and military 

technicians to support operational missions assigned to the reserve 

components and to instruct or train active-duty members of the 

armed forces, foreign military forces and Department of Defense civilian employees and contractors, as long as that training was conducted in the United States. 

During the second session of the 109th Congress, committee 

members testified before the Commission on the National Guard 

and Reserves, which had been established by the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375), providing recommendations and perspectives 

with regard to the future roles and missions, pay, benefits, support 

and sustainment of the reserve components. To ensure that the 

commission had sufficient time to complete its important work, the 

committee supported an extension of the commission’s reporting 

deadline to January 31, 2008. This extension was enacted in the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364). That Public Law also expanded the 

scope of the commission’s work by requiring an assessment be provided to the Congress not later than March 1, 2007, of matters directly related to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the 

role of the Bureau. 

HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL READINESS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS

Continuing the commitment to the medical readiness for members of the reserve components, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) 

enhanced the TRICARE benefits for reservists and their family 

members. In the first session, the 109th Congress extended eligibility for TRICARE Standard benefits to family members under the 

TRICARE Reserve Select program for six months following the 

death of a covered service member. In addition, all members of the 

Selected Reserve who committed to continued service in the Selected Reserves and their families became eligible for TRICARE 

Standard when not on active duty, with cost shares ranging from 

28 percent to 85 percent. The second session of the 109th Congress 

standardized the cost share at 28 percent for all members of the 

Selected Reserve and their families who enrolled in TRICARE 

Standard. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

51 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

The committee continued to monitor recruiting and retention 

trends closely throughout the 109th Congress to ensure that programs remained effective in response to the low private sector unemployment rate, the increasing college attendance rate by America’s youth, and the growing awareness of the hardships and risks 

of war. The committee worked to anticipate aspects of the wide 

array of active duty and reserve recruiting and retention programs 

that require improvement and to develop legislative solutions. To 

that end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) and the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) included legislation that: 

(1) Increased the maximum active duty enlistment bonus 

from $60,000 to $90,000 and reenlistment bonus from $20,000 

to $40,000. 

(2) Authorized a new bonus to encourage members to transfer between services and set the maximum amount at $10,000. 

(3) Increased the reserve enlistment bonus from $10,000 to 

$20,000. 

(4) Made reservists eligible for a critical skill retention bonus of up to $100,000 over a career. 

(5) Increased medical education loan repayment authority from $22,000 to $60,000. 

(6) Increased the stipend under the Health Professions 

Scholarship Program from $579 a month to a maximum of 

$30,000 a year. 

(7) Increased the maximum grant under the Health Professions Scholarship Program from $15,000 to $45,000. 

(8) Increased the reserve critical health skill special pay from 

$10,000 to $25,000. 

(9) Increased the accession bonus for dentists from $30,000 

to $200,000. 

(10) Established a $400,000 accession bonus for critical physician and dentist skills. 

(11) Authorized a $50,000 bonus to encourage retired members and separated members to return to active duty to fill 

shortage manpower requirements in units with high-demand, 

low-density missions. 

(12) Increased the maximum amount of the nuclear career 

accession bonus from $20,000 to $30,000. 

(13) Increased the Army bonus for referral of recruits from 

$1,000 to $2,000 and expands the eligible population to retirees 

and civilian employees. 

(14) Established an $8,000 bonus for enlistments to enter a 

commissioning program. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION

The committee continued to closely monitor compensation programs during the 109th Congress to ensure an adequate quality of 

life for service members and their families and to ensure that pay 

and benefits met the needs of the wartime military and kept pace 

with private sector standards. The committee’s active oversight of 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

52 

these issues resulted in legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 

109–364) that authorized a 3.1 percent raise in basic pay during 

fiscal year 2006 and a 2.2 percent raise in basic pay during fiscal 

year 2007. Public Law 109–364 also included additional targeted 

pay raises for warrant officers and mid-grade and senior enlisted 

personnel. The combination of the basic pay raise and the targeted 

pay raise resulted in an average pay increase during fiscal year 

2007 of 2.7 percent. The two military pay raises in the 109th Congress were both one-half of one percent above the Employment Cost 

Index (ECI) and extended to eight the number of consecutive years 

where Congress authorized pay raises above the ECI level. As a result of the pay raises in fiscal year 2006 and 2007, the gap between 

military and private sector pay during the 109th Congress was reduced from 5.0 percent to 4.0 percent, well below the peak pay gap 

of 13.5 percent in fiscal year 1999. With the addition of the fiscal 

year 2007 pay raise, average pay levels have increased 41 percent 

over the last 8 years. 

In addition, the committee saw the need to increase benefits for 

deployed service members, to include mobilized reserve component 

members serving at locations inside the United States and overseas. As a result, legislation enacted during the 109th Congress: increased the maximum hardship duty pay from $300 to $750 per 

month; authorized income replacement of up to $3,000 per month 

for reservists who experienced reduced income while serving extended or frequent tours on active duty; set the reserve component 

rates for basic allowance for housing (BAH) at active duty levels 

when reservists are mobilized for over 30 days, thereby eliminating 

the discriminatory Type II BAH for reserve members; and authorized an allowance to pay the premiums for the full cost of 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance premiums for service members serving in the Iraq or Afghanistan combat zone. 

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

During the 109th Congress the committee spent considerable 

time assessing the adequacy of mental heath services available to 

service members and their families. In particular, the committee focused on the continuum of mental health services provided 

throughout the deployment cycle. The committee staff continued to 

visit military installations to gather information from returning 

service members and their families regarding the availability and 

adequacy of mental health programs. These visits led to a Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing on mental health in July 

2005, and several legislative initiatives in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364). As a result, Congress required the Secretary of Defense to establish a task force to examine mental health issues in 

the armed forces and to develop a long-term plan for improving 

mental health services provided to service members and their families. In addition, legislative provisions authorized pilot projects that 

focused on early diagnosis and treatment of post traumatic stress 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

53 

disorder (PTSD) and required the use of internet-based tools to assist family members to identify early signs of PTSD. 

In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee recognized the increased incidence of traumatic brain injury in service 

members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Of particular concern are injuries suffered as a result of blasts that may not be accompanied by obvious head trauma and thus may never be diagnosed. The committee took action in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) to ensure 

deployment medical screening included screening for traumatic 

brain injury and directed a longitudinal study on the long term 

physical and mental effects of traumatic brain injury incurred by 

service members. The purpose of the study was to identify the 

health care needs, the availability of long-term health care and the 

effects of a traumatic brain injured service member on family members. 

MILITARY AND MILITARY RETIREE HEALTH CARE

Throughout the 109th Congress, the committee exercised vigorous oversight on the military health system. The committee focused substantial attention on the cost of military health care to 

the Department of Defense (DOD) and to military beneficiaries and 

to the long term viability of the military health system. For several 

years the committee was aware of the rising cost of providing 

health care to military beneficiaries and the potential negative impact of health care costs on other critical readiness programs. The 

committee closely examined DOD’s proposal to sustain the military 

health care benefit and contain costs by shifting costs to military 

beneficiaries, particularly military retirees. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 

109–163) and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 

for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) included several legislative initiatives to control the cost of the military health system while ensuring the future of the military health benefit. For example, Congress 

established a task force to conduct a comprehensive assessment on 

the future of military health care and provide the Department with 

recommendations for improving and sustaining the military health 

system; required the Comptroller General to study the pharmacy 

benefits program and to audit DOD’s health care costs and cost 

saving measures; and imposed temporary prohibitions on cost increases in the retail pharmacy program and TRICARE fees. In addition, committee action led to the enactment of a demonstration 

project on coverage of over-the-counter drugs under the pharmacy 

benefits program and a feasibility study of using Medicare Advantage managed care methods for TRICARE-Medicare dual eligible 

beneficiaries. 

The committee continued to focus attention on the availability of 

health care providers under TRICARE and access to care for military beneficiaries. Responding to concerns raised by health care 

providers over the administrative requirements of the TRICARE 

program, Congress adopted legislation to standardize claims processing under the TRICARE and Medicare programs. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

54 

SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY

In the 109th Congress, the committee took an active role in reviewing how the military justice system treated sexual assaults 

and in preventing sexual assaults in the armed forces. Specifically 

with regard to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the 

committee devoted much effort to examining the recommendations 

from the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice for amending 

the Code to improve the ability of the military justice system to address sexual assault offenses and conform more closely to other 

Federal laws. As a result of this review, Congress adopted legislation amending the UCMJ, including: establishing stalking as a separate offense; providing a series of graded offenses relating to rape, 

sexual assault and other sexual misconduct based on aggravating 

factors; and extending the statute of limitations for murder and 

child abuse. The Congress further clarified that under the UCMJ 

the offense of rape has an unlimited statute of limitations. 

The committee remained vigilant in ensuring that the efforts to 

prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military continued as a Department of Defense priority. The committee became 

aware that the majority of the cadets and midshipmen at the military service academies considered the annual requirement for gathering information on sexual assault and sexual harassment to be 

burdensome, an attitude that threatened the quality and reliability 

of the survey data. To address these concerns the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) 

changed the frequency of the service academy sexual assault survey from an annual requirement to one in which surveys would be 

conducted in odd numbered years. In any year that a survey is not 

required, the secretary of the military service will provide focus 

groups to gather information regarding sexual assault and sexual 

harassment issues at the academy. 

MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR)

PROGRAMS

The committee acted throughout the 109th Congress to improve 

the effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and commissaries and MWR programs and to protect these critical programs for future generations of service members. As a result, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 

Law 109–163) and John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) included a number of legislative 

initiatives to address the many concerns that had been brought to 

the attention of the committee. The legislation that the 109th Congress adopted included initiatives that: 

(1) Protected commissaries from contracting out competitions 

under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 until 

December 31, 2008. 

(2) Mandated the use of appropriated dollars to support second destination transportation costs for shipping exchange 

products to overseas stores. 

(3) Allocated $7.0 million to Armed Forces Recreation Centers to reimburse for costs of facilities used to support the Rest 

and Recuperation Leave Program. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

55 

(4) Clarified that the revenue for products that are sold in 

commissaries as special exceptions to the standard surcharge 

of five percent shall be applied to the surcharge fund as if the 

products were uniform surcharge products. 

(5) Protected the right for exchanges, commissaries, and 

MWR activities to provide support services in enhanced use 

leases of government property. 

(6) Required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to 

determine the cost effectiveness of non-appropriated fund activities purchasing commercial insurance to protect financial 

interests in facilities. 

SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL BASE

Perhaps one of the most overlooked and underappreciated components of our national defense is the criticality of ensuring a strong 

industrial and technological base. Beyond simply providing American workers jobs and economic opportunity, the role of the industrial and technological base is a vital component of our national security. In its efforts to strengthen the industrial base, the committee enacted significant reforms related to section 2533a of title 

10, United States Code, commonly known as the Berry Amendment. In the first session of the 109th Congress, the committee included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), requirements for training 

of the defense acquisition workforce on the requirements of the 

Berry Amendment. In addition, a change was made to the Berry 

amendment to clarify domestic source requirements relating to 

clothing materials and components. 

On July 13, 2005, the full committee addressed the issue of the 

national security implications of the possible merger of the China 

National Offshore Oil Corporation with Unocal Corporation. Witnesses included: R. James Woolsey, former Director of the Central 

Intelligence Agency, Honorable C. Richard D’Amato, Chairman, 

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Frank J. 

Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO, Center for Security Policy, and 

Jerry Taylor, Director of Natural Resources Studies, CATO Institute. 

In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee took 

even stronger action to strengthen the industrial base by enacting 

major reform of the Berry amendment through the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364). By dividing the Berry amendment into two separate 

sections of the United States Code, sections 2533a and 2533b, the 

committee created a distinction between the requirements for protection of domestic sources of different types of materials. In section 2533b of title 10, United States Code, the committee created 

a separate section to signify the strategic and national security significance of ensuring a reliable supply of specialty metals. By requiring the Department of Defense to create a robust and workable 

waiver process, to include transparency and compliance plans, the 

committee sought to capitalize on market forces to strengthen our 

industrial base. The committee hopes that the market will recogmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

56 

nize the opportunities presented by awareness of Berry waivers to 

stimulate new producers to meet the growing, and transparent, 

needs of the Department. 

To ensure that the Department continues to recognize the strategic significance of domestic protection for certain materials, the 

committee created a Strategic Materials Protection Board, within 

the Department of Defense, which will meet on a bi-annual basis. 

The purpose of the board is to leverage the assets of the Executive 

Branch to conduct a periodic analysis of those items whose domestic availability is critical to national security. The committee is 

hopeful that those analyses will result in thoughtful recommendations for the inclusion or exclusion of certain materials from future 

domestic preference legislation. 

ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES 

The Committee on Armed Services addressed the following areas 

and subjects in addition to those designated for special attention 

during the 109th Congress: 

GLOBAL FORCE POSTURE

During the 109th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to realign its forces 

around the world. Over the last two years, the committee conducted several hearings and received briefings on those efforts. In 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), the committee included a provision requiring the 

Secretary of Defense to develop criteria, as part of the Global Force 

Posture Review, for assessing the costs and benefits of deploying to 

particular overseas locations and for establishing new overseas facilities. The committee also included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to notify the committee within 30 days after the 

United States entered into an agreement with a foreign country to 

support the deployment of elements of the U.S. armed forces in 

that country. 

During the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee 

received an update on DOD force realignment plans and used the 

hearing to assess whether the Department is prepared to address 

the many resulting requirements of those realignment plans. On 

June 20, 2006, the committee heard testimony from the Honorable 

Ryan Henry, Principal Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; the 

Honorable Philip W. Grone, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Installations and Environment; and Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, Vice Director for Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff. 

INTERAGENCY REFORM

During the 109th Congress, the committee noted that the United 

States faces a more diverse set of national security challenges than 

those faced during the Cold War and that the major national security institutions designed for the Cold War lack adequate capacity 

to address the security challenges of the 21st Century. The committee recognized that the executive branch and Congress must 

continue to strengthen Federal institutions to ensure that intermmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

57 

agency structure, policies, and processes support integrated planning and unified action in response to current and future national 

security challenges. On April 4, 2006, the committee conducted a 

hearing and received testimony on both existing deficiencies in 

interagency collaboration and the executive branch’s efforts to improve interagency coordination for current conflicts and beyond. 

The witnesses included the Honorable Thomas W. O’Connell, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, Department of Defense; Admiral Edmund P. 

Giambastiani, United States Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff; Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, Coordinator for 

Counterterrorism, Department of State; and Vice Admiral John 

Scott Redd, United States Navy (Retired), Director, National 

Counterterrorism Center. 

In an effort to improve the effective employment of all instruments of U.S. national power, the committee included legislation on 

interagency reform in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). This provision requires the President to submit a report to Congress on building interagency capacity and enhancing the integration of civilian 

and military capabilities to achieve U.S. national security goals and 

objectives. This report should also include recommendations for 

specific legislative proposals to improve interagency coordination to 

be considered in the future. In addition, the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 364) included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the committee on interagency counter-drug implementation plans for Afghanistan and 10 other countries in South 

and Central Asia. 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

During the 109th Congress, the committee spent considerable 

time examining the practices of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in terms of how it reviews the 

national security implications of foreign acquisitions of, or mergers 

with, U.S. companies. On July 13, 2005, the committee conducted 

a hearing on the national security implications of the possible 

merger of the China Offshore National Oil Corporation with Unocal 

Corporation, where witness testimony advocated a more rigorous 

and transparent national security-minded CFIUS process. Similarly in response to CFIUS’ approval of Dubai Ports World’s acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, the 

committee held a hearing on March 2, 2006, on the national security implications of the deal and the CFIUS process, and on November 14, 2006, the committee held a closed briefing on the 

Lucent Technologies-Alcatel merger. Both activities included witness testimony which advocated legislative reform of CFIUS. 

In addition to these committee activities, committee staff investigated the national security implications of other pending CFIUS 

cases, such as the Toshiba Westinghouse acquisition and Dubai 

International Capital’s acquisition of Doncasters Group Limited. 

The committee also participated in the drafting of the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency 

Act of 2006, which the House of Representatives approved by a 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

58 

vote of 424–0 on July 26, 2006. The Senate has not taken action 

on the National Security Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act, but if codified, the legislation would improve how CFIUS monitors and enforces mitigation agreements in 

CFIUS-approved deals, and would increase Congressional oversight 

of the CFIUS process. Finally, in the conference report (H. Rept. 

109–702) accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364), the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to report on how the Department of Defense evaluates national security implications of 

mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers subject to CFIUS review. 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE

During the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee 

received testimony on building the capacity of foreign military 

forces to address the broader authority that allows the Department 

of Defense to work with the Department of State to enable foreign 

militaries to carry out such missions as combating terrorism and 

stability operations. On April 7, 2006, the committee heard testimony from Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense; Dr. John Hillen, Assistant 

Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, Department of State; and 

General James L. Jones, United States Marine Corps, Commander, 

U.S. European Command. 

The committee came to several conclusions from its observations 

of allies and coalition partners, who are participating in the global 

war on terrorism and in security, stabilization, transition, and reconstruction operations around the world. In particular, the committee determined that commanders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan need access to funds to use in local rehabilitation 

projects. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) authorized the use of 

$500.0 million annually in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 

funds for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program and a 

similar program to assist the people of Afghanistan. 

Additionally, the committee improved authorities regarding the 

transfer of defense articles and to provide defense services to the 

military and security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan. The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–

163) authorized the President to transfer $500.0 million in defense 

articles and related services during fiscal year 2006 to the military 

and security forces of Iraq and Afghanistan to support efforts to restore and maintain peace and security in those countries. 

The committee also took action to support coalition forces in Iraq 

and Afghanistan through the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). This 

legislation provided temporary authority for the Secretary of Defense to use Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements to lend 

certain significant military equipment to the military forces of foreign nations that are participating in combined operations with 

U.S. armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Limited to fiscal years 

2007 and 2008 and to specific categories of ‘‘significant military 

equipment’’ on the U.S. munitions list, this authority allows the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

59 

United States to help its allies and coalition partners to better protect their forces against weapons, such as IEDs, in theater. 

Committee members also showed support for the goal of enabling 

foreign militaries to carry out counterterrorism and stability missions so that U.S. troops can focus their energies in other arenas. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

(Public Law 109–163), the committee established a pilot program 

within the Department of Defense to allow the Administration to 

establish a successful track record for the Department, in coordination with the Department of State, to take on this type of limited, 

focused mission and to allow the Administration to address the 

larger issue of how the Department of State administers the nation’s traditional foreign assistance programs. This authority, 

known as ‘‘section 1206 authority,’’ allowed the President to direct 

the Secretary of Defense to conduct or support such a program, 

using up to $200.0 million annually. This provision required the 

Secretary of Defense to work with the Secretary of State to formulate and implement such programs and provide a notification to 

specified congressional committees before initiating any activities 

under this authority. It further required a report from the President on the strengths and weaknesses of current laws governing 

and relating to the provision of this type of foreign assistance; recommended changes, if any, to those laws; any organizational and 

procedural changes that should be made in the Department of Defense and the Department of State to improve their ability to conduct such programs; and the resources and funding mechanisms required to assure adequate funding for such programs. Originally, 

this authority would have expired on September 30, 2007, but the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364) extended ‘‘section 1206 authority’’ until 

September 30, 2008. This legislation also modified the authority by 

providing it directly to the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, and allowing the Secretary of Defense to use up to $300.0 million annually. 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) also expanded the Combatant 

Commander Initiative Fund, allowing geographic combatant commanders to provide urgent and unanticipated humanitarian relief 

and reconstruction assistance, particularly to countries in which 

the United States is engaged in contingency operations. Moreover, 

this legislation authorized the Secretary of Defense to use up to 

$100.0 million to provide logistic support, supplies, and services to 

allied forces that are participating in operations alongside U.S. 

forces and an additional $5.0 million to improve interoperability of 

logistical support systems of allied forces. 

Finally, the committee recognized the importance of Department 

of Defense support for the Department of State’s effort to provide 

reconstruction, security, and stabilization assistance to foreign 

countries. To help the two Departments to work together in addressing the stability and reconstruction needs of foreign nations, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) authorized the Secretary of Defense to provide 

services to, and transfer defense articles and funds to, the Secretary of State toward that end. The authority, which expires on 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

60 

September 30, 2007, limits the aggregate value of such services, articles, and funds to $100.0 million annually. 

COMMITTEE DEFENSE REVIEW

During the 109th Congress, the committee conducted a defense 

review to complement the 2006 QDR. During the summer of 2005, 

a bipartisan group of members developed a three-phase format to 

address the future national security environment. First, members 

established a threat panel to identify and categorize the many 

threats found around the world. Second, members created six gap 

panels to address the categories of threats, evaluating whether the 

current and future U.S. military would have the capabilities and 

capacity to protect U.S. national security. Finally, senior members 

of the committee formed an integration panel to examine the gap 

panels’ evaluation and create an integrated product reflective of future threats and U.S. military capabilities. Each panel functioned 

on a strictly bipartisan basis, equally halving membership and alternating control of the chairmanship from meeting to meeting. 

Fifty-five of the 62 members of the committee participated in the 

CDR process. The threat panel held numerous hearings and briefings, as well as an on-site briefing at the Central Intelligence Agency. The gap panels (Regional Powers, Regional Conflicts, Asymmetric and Unconventional Threats, Current and Emerging Nuclear Powers, Terrorism and Radical Islam, and Non-Traditional 

Missions and Catastrophic Disasters) met for a total of 10 hearings 

and 24 briefings. The integration panel met three times and edited 

multiple CDR drafts. The final CDR was released in December 

2006. 

While the final CDR is a bipartisan creation, it is not a unanimous document. Rather, it is a product endorsed by those committee members who reviewed the final product and chose to participate as signatories. 

WOUNDED, DISABLED AND DECEASED SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR

FAMILIES

The committee devoted substantial attention during the 109th 

Congress to the emerging needs of active duty and reserve wounded and disabled service members and their families. The committee 

investigated a wide range of problems involving transitional compensation, medical treatment, evaluation and rating of disabilities, 

retention of members with disabilities on active duty, and post separation programs to assist members and families as they transition 

to civilian life. As the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) included a number of legislative 

initiatives to address the many concerns that had been brought to 

the attention of the committee. For example, a new payment of 

$430 per month was authorized to ensure that hospitalized combat 

wounded service members did not suffer a reduction in income 

after departing the combat zone. Legislation revamped the military 

services’ physical evaluation boards to ensure that members receive 

consistent, fair, and timely judgments delivered by efficient, welltrained personnel who are prepared to reach out to service members with information and insight into the disability process. The 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

61 

Congress also clarified that assistive technology provided to severely injured members would be provided on a permanent basis 

and that the service member would be authorized to retain such 

equipment after separation. In addition, the Congress required the 

Department of Defense to ensure that the military departments 

used uniform procedures and standards for assisting severely 

wounded and injured members of the armed forces. To augment the 

programs operated by each of the military services in support severely injured and wounded service members and their families, 

legislation authorized a Military Severely Injured Center and required that a central data base be established to track support provided by the center to severely wounded and injured service members. Furthermore, Congress authorized service members on active 

duty with disabilities to participate in the Paralympic Games. 

BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING FAMILY MEMBERS

During the examination of benefits for wounded and disabled 

service members, the committee recognized that a greater level of 

benefit was required to fully meet the needs of surviving family 

members of those service members who die while on active duty. 

Accordingly, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) authorized an increase in the 

death gratuity payment from just over $12,000 to $100,000 for the 

survivors of all active duty deaths. The legislative remedy also authorized survivors of all military deaths after October 7, 2001 to receive a retroactive payment of both the increased $100,000 death 

gratuity and a $150,000 payment to recognize the increase in 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage from 

$250,000 to $400,000. As a result of the increase in death gratuity 

and SGLI, the up-front cash payments to survivors of service members who die on active duty were increased to over $500,000. Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) increased from 180 to 365 days the period that surviving families may remain in housing or receive military housing allowances. 

RESPECTFUL TRANSPORTATION AND PRESERVATION OF REMAINS

In the 109th Congress the committee took a number of steps to 

ensure that the remains of military personnel who die during combat operations or who die of non-combat related injuries in the theater of combat are handled with dignity and respect. The John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 

109–364) required the remains of military personnel be moved by 

dedicated military or military contracted aircraft from Dover Air 

Force Base, Delaware, to the military airfield nearest to the service 

member’s place of interment or to a location designated by the next 

of kin. It also required that proper military honors be rendered by 

military personnel at the destination airfield. 

The Act also required each military department to provide predeployment training of health care professionals in the preservation of remains. In addition, the Act required a comprehensive review of the mortuary affairs process focused on the capabilities and 

standards employed in combat theaters that could preserve the remmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

62 

mains of deceased personnel and expedite the return of remains to 

the United States in a non-decomposed state. 

PROTECTIONS FOR SERVICE MEMBERS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDERS

The committee expressed strong concerns about predatory lending practices and the hidden costs that many service members and 

their dependents face. Accordingly, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) provided 

the additional safeguards for service members and their dependents who are extended credit. These safeguards include: 

(1) Unambiguous coverage to any service member on active 

duty regardless of deployment status; 

(2) Extension of ‘‘predatory lender’’ coverage to the service 

member’s dependents; 

(3) Giving the Secretary of Defense direct control and oversight over the program; 

(4) Prohibiting creditors from charging service members an 

annual interest percentage rate for loans that is higher than 

that charged the legal residents of the state, and capping the 

annual percentage rate at 36 percent, including fees; 

(5) Expanding the definition of interest to include all costs 

associated with the credit, including credit insurance, premiums, or any ancillary product sold with any extension of 

credit; 

(6) Prohibiting creditors from extending credit if the borrower’s legal rights are waived, the creditor demands unreasonable notice from the borrower, arbitration is required in 

case of dispute, a creditor uses a check or other means of access to borrower’s financial account as security for the obligation, the creditor requires an allotment as a condition of the 

extension of credit, or if the borrower is prohibited from prepaying loan or charged a fee for repaying; 

(7) Prohibiting rollovers, and 

(8) Requiring that the Secretary with other regulatory agencies, establish the implementing regulations of this provision. 

MILITARY CHAPLAINS

The committee became concerned about Air Force and Navy policies governing the conduct of military chaplains, especially polices 

that regulated the manner and form in which chaplains might 

pray. As a result the John Warner National Defense Authorization 

Act for 2007 (Public Law 109–364) directed that the Secretary of 

the Air Force rescind the policy and revised interim guidelines concerning the exercise of religion in the Air Force issued on February 

9, 2006, and reinstate the policy that was set forth in Air Force 

Policy Directive 52–1, dated 1 July, 1999. The Act also directed 

that the Secretary of the Navy rescind Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.7C, dated February 21, 2006, titled ‘‘Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy’’ and directed that the 

Secretary of the Navy reinstate the policy that was set forth in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 1730.7B, dated October 12, 2000. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

63 

FORCE PROTECTION

The committee selected force protection for special oversight, focusing on areas having a direct impact on the safety of our military 

personnel engaged in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The objective of committee activity was to expedite the promulgation of 

policies and the fielding of technology and equipment that would 

prevent or reduce combat casualties. The committee was also concerned by inflated claims with respect to the capabilities of certain 

products, some of which were targeted at the families of military 

personnel serving overseas, and the committee viewed exposure of 

inferior capabilities as equally important. 

This special oversight was conducted within the formal committee structure under the jurisdiction of the full committee, and 

supplemented by dedicated staffing with specialized expertise. In 

addition to the methods of past congresses, the committee engaged 

in more in-depth oversight activities, including: visits to contractor 

and government production sites and assembly lines, and assessment of manufacturing processes and schedules; active oversight of 

various aspects of testing, including developmental testing, field 

testing and source selection testing; and identification and referral 

to the Department of Defense (DOD) of sources and vendors with 

capability and capacity to meet critical deployment timelines. Focus 

areas included the following: body and vehicle armor capabilities 

and quantities; counter improvised explosive device (IED) technologies, especially electronic countermeasures to radio control initiated devices; tactical persistent surveillance in support of ground 

operations, particularly prevention of IED emplacement; and technologies to counter indirect fires. 

RAPID ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

The committee has long been concerned by the length of time required by the Department to acquire even comparatively simple 

technologies and equipment to meet warfighting needs. The recent 

conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and particularly the evolution of 

the IED as a weapon of strategic influence, have illustrated the 

ability of an adaptive enemy to work to advantage inside a normal 

defense acquisition cycle. To ensure the prompt fielding of critical 

warfighting capabilities, the committee recommended, and Congress approved, section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) 

granting to the Secretary of Defense a rapid acquisition authority. 

This authority specifically allows the Secretary to waive all federal 

acquisition regulations to eliminate capability deficiencies that 

have resulted in combat fatalities. 

ADD-ON ARMOR

Immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the committee recognized the dire need to armor tactical vehicles used in 

convoys and combat patrols. Insurgents were using small arms, 

rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive devices IEDs 

to attack U.S. forces in unarmored tactical wheeled vehicles. 

The committee visited Aberdeen Proving Ground to review testing of potential vehicle add-on armor solutions and assisted with 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

64 

the establishment of a direct mechanism for receiving armor coupons from the commercial sector for immediate testing. After reviewing the Army’s original production schedule, which called for 

completion of 7,000 high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle 

(HMMWV) add-on armor kits by December, 2004, the committee 

determined that a best production effort could reach that objective 

no later than April 30, 2004. The committee sent a formal memo 

to the Army noting that arsenals, depots, industry, and steel mills 

were not operating at maximum capacity. Committee and Army 

teams visited U.S. steel mills and reached an agreement with management and union officials to voluntarily set aside commercial 

work and dedicate 100% capacity to vehicle add-on armor plate production. Through on-site visits using a hands-on approach, the 

committee was active in the resolution of other problems affecting 

the delivery schedule. 

The original Army installation plan required the cycling of vehicles from Iraq into Kuwait for add-on armor kit installation. The 

committee determined that U.S. production would outpace installation capability in Kuwait, and issued a memo to the Army’s TankAutomotive and Armaments Command suggesting that 11 sites be 

opened in Iraq to install HMMWV and tactical truck add-on armor 

kits. The Army adopted the committee’s recommendation, greatly 

enhancing kit installation capacity. 

Ultimately, as a direct result of committee efforts, the Army completed 6,670 HMMWV add-on armor kits one week late to the committee’s best production effort schedule, but eight months ahead of 

the original Army schedule. 

In February 2005, the committee met with senior DOD staff and 

Marine Corps officials to discuss a potential interim solution for 

underbody add-on armor kits to mitigate an intensifying stacked 

mine threat to Marines engaged in combat operations in Iraq. In 

April the committee learned that the Marine Corps was proceeding 

down a path for underbody armor protection that would take considerable time to deploy. The committee located readily available 

excess 3⁄8th inch armor panels at an Army Materiel Command 

depot in Kuwait, recommending their use in an in-theater fabricated interim solution to the HMMWV underbody protection requirement. 

Largely as a result of committee leadership, Congress authorized 

and appropriated over $3.0 billion for vehicle add-on armor between fiscal years 2004 and 2007. 

GUN TRUCK

At the encouragement of the committee, the Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency teamed to produce a relatively low-cost, up-armor kit to 

convert 5-ton tactical trucks to ‘‘gun trucks’’ for use as convoy security vehicles and for other defensive missions. The larger cargo capacity of the 5-ton trucks allows for heavier armor and therefore 

better protection than is possible with lighter vehicles. There are 

currently 112 of these gun trucks in Iraq and Afghanistan serving 

multiple missions and protecting U.S. forces. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

65 

STRYKER STEEL

During a time when troops in Iraq were using mild steel and 

even plywood to armor their tactical trucks, the committee located 

a supply of military specification armor steel plate left over from 

Stryker production stored at a steel mill. At the committee’s insistence, the armor plate was procured, and half of the armor plates 

were shipped to the Marine Corps to be converted into an armor 

shield for gunner’s turrets and the other half were delivered to the 

Army to be converted into armored box kits for protecting soldiers 

transported by 5-ton trucks. 

GUNNER PROTECTION KITS

Early versions of gunner’s armor shields were made entirely from 

opaque armor and did not provide adequate protection from IED 

attack. The committee strongly encouraged both the Marine Corps 

and the Army to develop improved Gunner’s Protection Kits (GPK) 

which incorporated transparent armor. The transparent armor allows gunners to maintain situational awareness while protected 

from IED and small arms attack. The Marines are currently fielding a GPK called Marine Corps transparent armor gun shield and 

the Army is about to start producing an upgraded GPK. Both systems incorporate several panels of transparent armor. 

FRAG KIT PRODUCTION

Both the Army and the Marine Corps have recognized the need 

to further upgrade factory up-armored HMMWVs (UAH) to a 

threshold level of protection, and have developed add-on armor kits 

(‘‘frag kits’’) for this purpose. However, the schedule for producing 

and installing these upgrade kits was not acceptable and the committee strongly encouraged the two departments to accelerate production of objective kits, and to continue to produce interim armor 

kits to provide added protection until objective kits could be installed. 

As a result of committee efforts, 1,300 additional UAH interim 

door kits were produced. In addition, the schedule for fielding of 

the Marine Corps’s objective door kits was accelerated from February 2007, to December 2006. The schedule for fielding the Army’s 

M1151 objective door kits was accelerated from July 2007, to April 

2007. And the schedule for fielding the Army’s M1114 objective 

door kits was accelerated from June 2007, to March 2007. The committee continues to work with both departments to further accelerate production. 

REDEFINITION OF ARMOR PROTECTION LEVELS

The efforts to quickly armor tactical vehicles resulted in three 

basic methods of installing armor, including: armor integrated into 

the vehicle on the assembly line; armor added as a DOD-approved 

kit specifically designed for a particular vehicle; and armor added 

in the field. These three methods of armor installation were designated Levels I, II, and III, respectively. Although these levels 

only refer to the method of armor installation, they are generally 

viewed as defining level of crew protection with I being the greatest 

and III being the least. After careful review of all the tactical vehimmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

66 

cles and their true armor protection level, the committee found that 

the levels as currently defined do not necessarily indicate a level 

of protection. 

The committee has strongly advocated the development of new 

definitions for armor protection level and has provided suggestions 

on how this might be done. The Joint Staff is working on these new 

definitions and expects to complete them by early 2007. The committee continues to encourage the Joint Staff to move faster so that 

commanders and their troops understand the true level of protection offered by myriad armor configurations present in the force. 

VEHICLE USE POLICY

In conjunction with committee efforts on redefinition of armor 

protection levels, the committee has strongly encouraged the Secretary of Defense to promulgate policies restricting tactical vehicles 

to use on secure military operating bases unless those vehicles 

meet a threshold level of armor protection. The committee remains 

concerned that there are many thinly armored vehicles in theater, 

and that these should either be upgraded to the threshold level or 

not be used outside of secure bases. The Department is considering 

the implementation of such a policy in early 2007. 

BODY ARMOR

Under intense committee scrutiny, by April 2004, initial shortfalls in body armor were resolved and all DOD civilians and military personnel in Iraq had been issued interceptor body armor and 

small arms protective inserts (SAPI). The committee continued its 

intensive oversight of personal armor programs throughout the 

109th Congress, advocating in 2005 for replacement of SAPI with 

an enhanced version capable of defeating more challenging ballistic 

threats, and in 2006 for accelerated production of enhanced side 

SAPI plates to protect vulnerable torso areas. 

In the area of head protection, a Subcommittee on Tactical Air 

and Land Forces hearing was followed by the Marine Corps’ adoption of the padded combat helmet suspension system already in use 

by the Army, which provides ballistic protection equivalent to the 

legacy sling suspension system and better blunt trauma survivability. 

NEW BODY ARMOR TECHNOLOGIES

The committee maintains strong interest in new developments 

that could lead to significant improvements in body armor. The 

committee closely followed and encouraged Army testing of alternative flexible body armor systems. Although the Army determined 

that alternatives do not meet current body armor requirements, 

they appear to offer some advantages for specialty use. The committee also followed vendor development and encouraged Army 

testing of mosaic tile body armor. The initial test results have been 

favorable and this technology may offer the next advancement in 

personnel armor. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

67 

MANNED SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT

During a January 2004, congressional delegation to Iraq, the 

committee observed the need for persistent surveillance of roads 

and other locations where IED attacks against U.S. forces occur 

frequently. From that time to present the committee has promoted 

a ‘‘take back the roads’’ campaign which encourages the Department to provide tactical persistent surveillance platforms coupled 

with quick reaction forces to neutralize IED emplacers. In early 

2006, the Army responded to this call from the committee by establishing Task Force ODIN, which comprises a specialized Army 

aviation battalion equipped with airborne reconnaissance multisensor (ARMS) manned surveillance aircraft and Warrior Alpha 

unmanned aerial vehicles for tactical use in countering the IED 

threat. The Army is also sending medium altitude reconnaissance 

and surveillance system (MARSS) manned aircraft to theater in advance of the ARMS aircraft to provide an interim capability. 

Though well intended, the schedule for deploying both MARSS and 

ARMS has slipped significantly. To fill the gap left by these delays, 

the committee has since July, 2006, advocated the redeployment of 

two Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) aircraft from U.S. Southern Command, where they were seeing little use, to U.S. Central 

Command (CENTCOM), where they could be used to patrol the 

roads in Iraq. One of the ARL aircraft has been redeployed. 

The committee has further planned for the time when the primary responsibility for security in Iraq falls to the Iraqi Security 

Forces (ISF) and understands that the ISF will need some airborne 

surveillance capability for that mission. Many of the surveillance 

platforms that the committee has promoted for use in Iraq can be 

left behind for the ISF, and the committee has investigated contractor support for this activity, conveying the results to the Army. 

Although not included in the budget request, the committee provided $100.0 million in title XV of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) 

to support tactical persistent surveillance programs. 

JOINT SURVEILLANCE TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM

The committee ascertained during briefings and Congressional 

delegation oversight visits to Iraq that the joint surveillance target 

attack radar system (JSTARS) platform was not optimally employed when used as a communications relay platform, a role other 

aircraft are equipped to perform. The committee believed this adversely impacted the ability of the combined forces air component 

commander to wholly support Army and Marine Corps ground component commanders’ requests for ground moving target indicator 

capability using this platform. The committee was further troubled 

that no formal process existed to analyze or assess JSTARS postmission intelligence data. Lastly, the committee became aware that 

a JSTARS mission-crew shortfall existed, and that without fully 

manning 24 combat coded mission-crews, JSTARS was unable to 

perform at surge-rate operational tempos for extended periods of 

time. 

The committee strongly urged the CENTCOM combatant commander to reassess the prioritization of missions assigned to the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

68 

JSTARS platform, and directed the Secretary of the Air Force to 

implement formal procedures to analyze JSTARS post-mission intelligence data to more effectively support the warfighter at all levels. The committee authorized an increase of 85 active guard and 

reserve (AGR) positions for the Air National Guard, and encouraged the Secretary of the Air Force to program the required funding in the Air Force Future Years Defense Program to convert the 

remaining 107 part-time positions to AGR positions. 

AEROSTATS

Based on the success of the persistent threat detection system 

(PTDS) at the Baghdad International Airport, the committee has 

encouraged the deployment of additional aerostat systems with upgraded equipment to help reduce the ‘‘sensor-to-shooter’’ time after 

detection of a threat. At present, there are six new PTDS systems 

being produced for deployment to both Iraq and Afghanistan. 

GROUND SURVEILLANCE

In addition to air surveillance platforms, the committee promoted 

the use of ground-based overt and covert camera surveillance systems of the types used with great success in high-crime areas of 

large U.S. cities. As a direct result of committee encouragement, a 

system was deployed in Baghdad by the Army and has proven very 

useful in thwarting insurgent activities. The Marine Corps selected 

another portable remote surveillance system called the Tactical 

Concealed Video System and have procured at least five of these 

systems for deployment at the end of 2006. 

ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES

Radio-control initiated IEDs (RCIED) have emerged as the most 

lethal threat to coalition forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, 

currently accounting for more than half of all combat deaths. Although extensive effort had gone into protecting military personnel 

in vehicles by the spring of 2005, far less had been accomplished 

to protect dismounted troops. In early 2005, the committee identified a lightweight dismounted Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare 

(CREW) technology capable of suppressing threats commonly encountered in urban areas. Largely due to intensive committee oversight, this CREW system, designated Warlock Blue, was designed, 

tested and manufactured, with production deliveries to the Department commencing 33 days after initial contract award in June 

2005. The 8000th production unit was shipped in August 2005, 

only 70 days after contract award and 6 months ahead of the Department’s original delivery schedule. This uncharacteristic production and deployment timeline was enabled in part by the first use 

of the rapid acquisition authority granted to the Secretary under 

section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), and in part by 

direct participation of the committee in identifying vendors with 

prototyping and production capacity sufficient to meet an accelerated schedule. 

Recognizing that deficiencies still existed, in August 2005, the 

committee initiated efforts to ensure the fielding of more capable 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

69 

dismounted CREW technologies to combat the evolving threat. 

Again largely due to intensive committee oversight, in April 2006, 

the Navy initiated a Quick Reaction—Dismounted (QRD) acquisition effort under the rapid acquisition authority. In September 

2006, the Navy announced a CREW QRD source selection decision, 

awarding a base contract for an initial quantity of 1400 Guardian 

dismounted systems, with delivery to complete by early February 

2007. Guardian will provide a ‘‘backpackable’’ capability to suppress all known RCIEDs. 

Concurrent with the CREW QRD acquisition effort, the committee pressed for further evolution of vehicle mounted CREW systems to correct capability deficiencies in currently deployed systems. In June 2006, the Navy initiated the CREW 2.1 acquisition 

effort. Source selection testing completed in December 2006, and 

production contract award is scheduled for January 2007. 

Although not included in the budget request, the committee provided $109.7 million in title XV of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) 

for acquisition and deployment of dismounted and mounted CREW 

systems. Section 1403 of the Act further requires that the Secretary take such steps as are necessary to ensure that, by the end 

of fiscal year 2007, CREW systems protect all U.S. military 

wheeled vehicles operating outside of secure military bases. 

JIEDDO REPORTING

The committee has exercised extensive oversight of the Joint IED 

Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and its institutional predecessor, 

the Joint IED Defeat Task Force. The JIEDDO was formally established as a permanent organization by the Deputy Secretary of Defense in January 2006, to lead and coordinate all DOD efforts to 

defeat improvised explosive devices as weapons of strategic influence. The committee has strongly supported the IED defeat effort, 

but grew concerned about its ability to oversee the execution of 

funds entrusted to JIEDDO. The committee understood the need 

for flexibility, security, and expeditious action to counter the rapidly evolving IED threat. However, at almost $3.6 billion for fiscal 

year 2006, JIEDDO funding was completely ‘‘off-budget’’ with none 

of the justification materials normally available to Congress for a 

program of such size and importance. The committee was also 

aware of other Department efforts to defeat the IED threat. Consequently, the committee included section 1402 of the John Warner 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

Law 109–364), which established a quarterly reporting requirement 

on the status of the threat and efforts undertaken to defeat it. 

COUNTER-ROCKETS, ARTILLERY AND MORTARS

The committee’s strong commitment to the adaptation, further 

development, and testing of certain air defense artillery technologies to combat rocket and mortar fire led to deployment of an 

operational capability to defeat these threats for the first time in 

history. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

70 

SPECIAL STUDIES

The committee engaged in other special studies and oversight activities that crossed formal subcommittee jurisdiction. 

UNIT READINESS STUDY

From February 2005 through the end of the 109th Congress, the 

committee conducted an extensive study on unit readiness in relation to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Designed to provide insight into 

the readiness challenges facing Army and Marine Corps units and 

personnel, this ongoing study focuses on pre-deployment activities 

such as training, logistics planning, and family preparations. Over 

several months, committee staff periodically embedded with one 

Army battalion and one Marine Corps battalion as they prepared 

for deployment to Iraq. Close observation revealed the development 

of individual and collective skills throughout the training process, 

as well as improved preparedness in areas such as medical, family, 

and logistical readiness. During the units’ deployments, staff continued to monitor their status via correspondence, classified data, 

media accounts, and a staff delegation to Iraq. With the battalions’ recent redeployment to the United States, the staff continues to receive information on the units’ operational experiences and ‘‘lessons 

learned.’’

RETURNING UNITS STUDY

In March 2006, the committee commenced a systematic study of 

Army and Marine Corps units (active, reserve, and Guard) returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF). The intent of this study is to collect information 

regarding units’ deployment and operational experiences through 

multiple, standard interviews of enlisted personnel and officers 

from battalions that have recently returned from theater. This 

study is ongoing, and no conclusions or reports have been formulated. 

IN LIEU OF FORCES

The need for additional military personnel to support ground 

force troop rotations has led to the deployment in significant numbers of Air Force and Navy ‘‘in lieu of’’ forces. The committee spent 

considerable time examining the training and use of these airmen 

and sailors to provide temporary augmentation in nontraditional 

combat environments around the globe. This oversight is ongoing. 

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM

OVERSIGHT TEAM EFFORT

At the beginning of the 109th Congress, the chairman temporarily reorganized the committee staff into ‘‘oversight teams’’ and 

directed an extensive evaluation of key issue areas pertinent to 

combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The oversight teams 

identified issue areas having the potential for prompt benefit from 

committee review and involvement. The issue areas were: vehicle 

armor protection, IED jammers, tactical surveillance, ammunition, 

tactical weapons availability, counter-rocket/mortar, contractor operations on the battlefield, care for wounded and injured, post sepammaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

71 

ration support for wounded and injured service members and their 

family members and survivors, training of Iraqi security forces, active and reserve components’ ability to sustain rotation requirements, configurations of units deploying, resetting the force, and 

the Joint Rapid Action Cell. Oversight teams were encouraged to 

‘‘get out in the field’’ and ‘‘walk the lines’’. The activities of these 

teams, which included actions such as site visits of production facilities, interviews with service members, and reviews of DOD regulations and military doctrine, led to a number of actions during 

the 109th Congress. In many cases, the efforts of these oversight 

teams raised awareness in the Department and defense industry of 

many pressing war-related issues, instigated internal DOD review 

of the Department’s policies or programs, spawned new committee 

oversight activities on related matters, or influenced committee legislative action throughout fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Examples of 

some of the teams’ activities follow. 

The oversight team charged with investigating vehicle armor protection continued from the 108th Congress the committee’s aggressive oversight activities of the Department’s add-on armor program 

for tactical wheeled vehicles. To evaluate if maximum effort and 

productivity were achieved in providing add-on armor kit solutions 

to OIF and OEF, the team engaged in activities that included, but 

were not limited to: multiple oversight delegations to the prime 

contractor for the UAH; the primary arsenals and depots responsible for fabricating light tactical vehicle add-on armor solutions; 

the prime contractors producing add-on armor solutions for medium and heavy tactical wheeled vehicles; the Aberdeen Proving 

Grounds to observe test and evaluation procedures of add-on armor 

solutions as well as discuss and analyze lessons learned regarding 

the performance of existing add-on armor solutions in OIF and 

OEF; and the primary U.S. steel mill that produced the majority 

of armor plates. The team received weekly and monthly armor 

summaries from the Army and Marine Corps and maintained direct links to U.S. industry and the U.S. steel industry in helping 

to provide better visibility into current and future add-on armor requirements. Activities also resulted in several hearings that addressed vehicle add-on armor concerns for medium and heavy tactical vehicles as well as underbody armor protection for Marine 

Corps light tactical vehicles. The activities of this team also helped 

the committee to adequately address funding requirements for 

armor solutions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (109–364). During the 109th 

Congress, the committee provided an additional $1.47 billion for 

add-on armor solutions. Also, the committee noted the importance 

of a long term, sustained armoring strategy that would utilize an 

‘‘A Kit’’/‘‘B Kit’’ construct allowing for maximum protection and 

flexibility in combat and non-combat situations. 

The ammunition oversight team was created with the primary 

mission of better understanding conventional ammunition requirements, production rates and sustainability of production for current 

usage levels and determine best course of actions for meeting new 

requirements for small and medium caliber ammunition. The overall approach was review of inventory requirements, war reserves, 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

72 

consumption rates, production rates, and abilities to deliver critical 

war related materials in quantity, quality, and in the time frame 

required by the warfighter. The team traveled to the Lake City 

Army Ammunition Plant, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, 

and the Holston Army Ammunition Plant to meet with officials and 

observe and determine current capabilities of these plants and requirements for production base upgrades. Meetings and conference 

calls were also conducted by the team with other experts and suppliers within the ammunition community including such organizations as the Office of Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology 

and Logistics), the Joint Munitions Command, the Joint Staff, the 

Army, the Marine Corps, Munitions Industrial Base Task Force, 

and industry. The activities of the team followed up on previous 

committee actions taken during the 108th Congress such as a June 

2004 hearing that addressed whether or not a shortage in smallcaliber ammunition existed for OIF and OEF. The team provided 

information to the committee that determined no such shortage 

had prevented military personnel from being able to conduct their 

mission. The team continues to work with the Army to help create 

better methodology for tracking current conventional ammunition 

inventory. The services now provide to the committee annually an 

inventory matrix that denotes previous year expenditures and current year requirements. The committee during the 109th Congress 

authorized an additional $245.6 million over the President’s budget 

requests for ammunition industrial base upgrades and small-caliber ammunition production. 

The tactical weapon shortfall oversight team was created with 

the primary mission to better understand current usage and OIF 

and OEF theater requirements for crew served weapons as well as 

primary and secondary small arms. The team specifically analyzed 

the current inventoried stock of M2 .50 caliber crew served weapons. M2s were no longer in production but were being used extensively and to great effect in OIF and OEF. Operational needs statements (ONS) continued to to be generated in theater. As such, the 

team traveled to the Anniston Army Depot, the depot responsible 

for all small arms and crew served weapon refurbishment activity 

for the U.S. military, including the M2, in order to ascertain 

whether or not a shortage existed for small arms and crew served 

weapons. The team walked the production lines at Anniston Army 

depot and observed the M2 .50 caliber refurbishment program. The 

team found that Anniston Army Depot and the prime contractor 

had substantial capability to increase production and address any 

M2 requirements as well as determined that all in theater validated requirements were being fulfilled expediently. In addition to 

field travel the team met with officials representing the Program 

Executive Office—Soldier, the organization responsible for small 

arms acquisition and program management in the Army, officials 

from the Marine Corps, and industry in order to better understand 

current and future small arms acquisition strategy and capability. 

Activities led to even greater scrutiny of the Army’s Objective Individual Combat Weapon, Increment One program; the program 

originally planned to replace all primary small arms for the Army 

such as the M4 carbine and M16 rifle. The committee during the 

109th Congress provided $538.4 million for small arms and modimmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

73 

fications, in particular, providing $20.0 million for quick change 

barrel kits for the M2, a critical aspect to the .50 caliber refurbishment program. The team continues to monitor new efforts such as 

the M240 medium machine gun conversion program. 

The team assembled to evaluate DOD policy for contractors operating on the battlefield examined issues such as force protection for 

civilian contractors, contractors’ use of personal weapons, the role 

of private security companies, and the impact of these civilians on 

combatant commanders’ operations. Through more than 35 briefings with DOD agencies and subordinate activities, private companies, and trade groups responsible for aspects of contractor operations, the team gathered a multitude of information, enabling the 

committee to call for clarification and expansion of DOD guidance 

for contractors. The committee introduced legislation in fiscal year 

2006 that would have taken steps to clarify and regulate the growing sector of contractors that are present during military operations. 

A team assembled to understand the configuration of units deploying in OIF 04–06, how this configuration differs from OIF II 

and how these units compare to the new modular brigade configuration. Particular attention was paid to the Army’s ongoing transformation to modularity while executing ongoing combat operations. The team examined the tables of organization and equipment for both a theoretical and actual deploying modular brigade. 

The team received briefings on the subject from the Joint Staff and 

Army G–3. 

The Joint Rapid Action Cell team assembled to understand the 

implementation of ‘‘rapid acquisition authority,’’ as created in the 

Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2003 (Public Law 107–314) and modified in the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 

Law 108–375). The team was concerned that after 18 months of authority, the Department of Defense had only used the rapid acquisition authority twice. The JRAC is a new organization within the 

Department designed to increase the velocity of the acquisition system in meeting urgent requirements from the combatant commander. The team received briefings from various DOD officials including the Director of the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell and the Director, Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy. 

The committee pursued two closely aligned oversight projects involving the care and support provided to wounded and injured military personnel and their families (1) during their active duty service and (2) during their transition from active duty into their post 

separation lives. The later project also examined the programs designed to support the surviving family members of those who die 

in the theater of operations. 

The two teams began their examination of the issues with over 

40 formal meetings in the months just preceding and following the 

inauguration of the 109th Congress and remained actively engaged 

throughout the 109th Congress. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on the care of injured and wounded service 

members early in the 109th Congress. The oversight process involved extensive travel to Department of Defense and other governmental activities, in-office research, and informational briefings 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

74 

from the Department, other governmental agencies, and private 

sector organizations. The teams examined the following issues: 

(1) Adequacy of medical treatment and support with special 

attention paid to mental health services. 

(2) Effectiveness and efficiency of the medical holdover system. 

(3) Identification and resolution of problems encountered by 

wounded and injured members and their families with particular attention paid to reservists. 

(4) Effectiveness of new programs operated by the military 

services to assist severely disabled service members and their 

families. 

(5) Fairness and effectiveness of physical disability evaluation 

system. 

(6) Effectiveness and efficiency of Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department of Labor programs intended to provide a seamless transition for wounded 

and injured service members and families and survivors of deceased members. 

(7) Scope and nature of the services and resources available 

to wounded and injured service members and families and survivors of deceased members from the Department of Defense, 

other governmental agencies, and the private sector and the 

ability of the Department of Defense to integrate and coordinate access to those services and resources. 

The two oversight projects resulted in the following legislation 

being enacted during the 109th Congress: 

(1) The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 (Public Law 109–163) included the following provisions: 

a. Authority for members to participate in the Paralympic 

Games. 

b. Assessment and standardization of policy and procedures involved in providing assistance to survivors of casualties. 

c. Assessment and standardization of policy and procedures involved in providing assistance to severely wounded 

service members. 

d. Requirement for members to designate persons to direct the disposition of remains should they become a casualty. 

e. Prohibition against charging the cost of meals to hospitalized wounded and injured members. 

f. Increase in the length of time that surviving family 

members may remain in government housing or receive 

housing allowances. 

g. Transitional pay for hospitalized wounded and injured 

members. 

h. Increase in the length of time provided to surviving 

family members to make a final home of selection. 

i. Authority to provide travel and transportation allowances to families visiting hospitalized members. 

j. Increase in death gratuity provided to survivors of 

members who die on active duty. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

75 

(2) The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) included the following 

provisions: 

a. Authority for members to retain assistive technology 

and devices after separation from active duty. 

b. Enhanced guidelines for the proper transportation of 

remains to burial sites. 

c. Standards and guidelines for the establishment of a 

severely injured center by the Secretary of Defense. 

d. Comprehensive review of DOD mortuary affairs procedures. 

e. Requirement to deploy personnel trained in techniques to better preserve remains under combat conditions. 

f. Reform of Physical Evaluation Board policy and procedures to improve fairness and efficiency. 

g. Inclusion of military members in the policy to provide 

continued housing allowances at increased rates to spouses 

of members who die while serving on active duty. 

h. Inclusion of military members in the policy to provide 

travel and transportation allowances to family members 

visiting wounded and injured service members. 

i. Correction of effective date to retroactively provide certain Survivor Benefit Plan annuities to all surviving family members of members who died on active duty during 

the global war on terrorism. 

In addition to the above legislative initiatives, the committee devoted considerable effort to oversight of the support provided 

wounded and injured service members and their families at Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda. The effort focused not only on the overall functioning 

of the patient support systems, but also in resolving the specific 

problems related to housing, pay, benefits, and care arising for 

military personnel and their families. 

As of the end of the 109th Congress, committee staff has conducted seventy nine visits to Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

and more than sixty visits to the National Naval Medical Center 

at Bethesda interviewing an average of five severely injured or 

wounded service members each visit and many of their visiting 

family members. This effort prompted more than twenty case inquires concerning pay, accommodations, and patient support systems. Significant effort was also devoted to making direct contact 

with severely injured service members following their hospitalization to assist in their transition to civilian life including guidance 

and support toward career, education and financial recovery. 

Formal staff visits to three of the four Veterans Administration 

Poly-trauma Centers (Minneapolis, Minnesota; Tampa, Florida; and 

Richmond, Virginia), together with individual case inquiries from 

the remaining facility at Palo Alto, California, prompted committee 

interest in the establishment of Fisher House facilities near the 

California and Virginia centers. These facilities are currently in the 

development process. The extended care of military traumatic brain 

and spinal cord patients at the Poly-trauma Centers is facilitated 

by participation of family members in their therapy. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

76 

Committee staff coordinated closely with the Department of 

Labor to establish on-site employment specialists at the Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center 

at Bethesda. These specialists will be readily available for preliminary consultations with wounded service members and their 

spouses concerning employment plans and objectives. This effort included collecting and tracking skills and interest data, resume 

preparation, and research into career opportunities at or near their 

homes. 

On December 5, 2006, the House of Representatives adopted 

House Resolution 1070, a resolution expressing the sense of the 

House of Representatives that Members of the House should actively engage with employers and the American public at large to 

encourage the hiring of members and former members of the armed 

forces who were wounded in service and are facing a transition to 

civilian life. The resolution was sponsored by Chairman Duncan 

Hunter and included a provision to eliminate any perception of inappropriate conduct by Members of the House when they contact 

private sector and government employers to provide job search and 

hiring assistance to wounded service members. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(77) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE 

BUDGET ACTIVITY

On March 3, 2003, the committee forwarded its views and estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function 050) for 

fiscal year 2006 to the Committee on the Budget. The Committee 

noted that our security and defense environment is rapidly changing and in flux. The daily headlines out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran 

or North Korea reflect the unpredictable security climate we faced. 

At the same time, our armed forces were experiencing the most severe challenges and demands that have been placed on them in 

decades. Our military—a critical component of our national security structure—was undergoing sweeping and fundamental change 

while simultaneously carrying most of the free world’s burden in 

the global war on terrorism. Unfortunately, despite a concerted effort to improve modernization and investment funding, our forces 

today rely on heavily-used and rapidly aging equipment. Continued 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan require our critical warfighting 

systems to be used at significantly higher rates (for some by a factor of 5 to 10 times) than expected under peacetime conditions. 

Critical equipment is aging quickly. For example: our bomber fleet, 

which has been so successful in recent operations, is on average 29 

years old; our Marine helicopters and ground combat vehicles are 

on average 24.7 and 15.2 years old, respectively; and our Army helicopters and ground combat vehicles are on average 18.5 and 14.3 

years old. All of these weapons systems are either at or past their 

projected half-life. Clearly, our defense capability will erode if we 

continue to rely on aged equipment. Against this backdrop, the 

President submitted a defense budget request of $419.3 billion for 

Fiscal Year 2006, an increase of $19.2 billion over the budget authority appropriated for Fiscal Year 2005. However, the Committee 

noted that even with this proposed increase, defense spending 

would amount to a far lower percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) than it did 20 years ago—a projected 4.3 percent in 2005 compared to 6.0 percent in 1985. While the annual defense budget should not be solely determined by an arbitrary percentage of GDP, it does serve as a useful measure of the relative 

means available to the nation to properly fund the national defense 

function. Thus, for a nation at war, the committee believes that defense spending remains relatively low. Between Fiscal Years 2000 

and 2005, equipment modernization funding has increased by an 

average of 7.2 percent annually. However, the President’s budget 

request proposes to increase modernization accounts by less than 

one-half of one percent relative to Fiscal Year 2005. Further, the 

Fiscal Year 2006 Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) reduces modernization funding between Fiscal Year 2006 and 2009 by $12.9 billion. Therefore, the committee proposed that additional funding be 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

78 

provided over this period in order to sustain the needed pace of 

modernization of our military forces. It is also important to note 

the President’s budget request proposed to continue the practice of 

deferring funding for significant elements of the base defense program until future supplemental appropriations requests. As expected, and in keeping with historical practice, the budget request 

did not include the costs of conducting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Committee was also concerned, however, that the 

proposed budget provided no funding for additional Congressionally 

mandated military personnel end strength increases, Army transformation, force protection initiatives and other critical activities. 

Thus, the combination of this strategy of deferred program funding 

and the expected costs resulting from continued operations in the 

global war on terrorism required the Committee to insist that the 

Budget Resolution contain a contingency fund mechanism that 

would allow the defense authorization and appropriations process 

to pursue an appropriate level of ‘‘bridge’’ funding for the initial 

quarters of Fiscal Year 2006. Finally, the Administration included 

in the Fiscal Year 2005 supplemental request a proposal to increase the benefits afforded to the survivors of military members. 

The proposal had three components. First, it provided an increase 

in the death gratuity from $12,420 to $100,000 for deaths incurred 

in designated combat zones. Second, it provided an increase in the 

maximum amount of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) from $250,000 to $400,000 for service members. Third, it provided 

$238,000 in retroactive payments to surviving family members of 

combat deaths occurring on or after October 7, 2001. The Committee requested the necessary discretionary and mandatory spending increases in the military personnel accounts to provide increases in the death gratuity and SGLI payments for military 

deaths. 

On March 3, 2006, the Committee forwarded its views and estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function 050) for 

fiscal year 2007 to the Committee on the Budget. By way of background, during the fall of 2005, the committee initiated a comprehensive study of the Department of Defense’s ability to secure 

our national defense over the next 25 years. The ‘‘Committee Defense Review’’ (CDR) brought together members of the committee 

to receive testimony from experts in the government, academia and 

the private sector. This independent review, conducted in parallel 

with the Department of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review, addressed the threats facing the United States and gaps in our current capabilities. Given the environment our nation is in today, the 

Committee noted that it had serious concerns that the base budget 

for Fiscal Year 2007 was inadequate to support non-deployed programs not directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the 

global war on terrorism. In conjunction with the CDR initiative, 

and based on our hearings and briefings from the Department of 

Defense and Department of Energy, the budget request presented 

Congress with the following challenges: 

(1) $10.0 billion short for the minimum requirements for 

training and maintenance; 

(2) $5.0 billion needed to avoid delays in procuring necessary 

weapon systems; 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

79 

(3) $25.0 billion to fund the initial reset requirements of our 

deployed equipment; (4) $4.6 billion for military end strength and TRICARE requirements; (5) $45.0 million in mandatory authority for shortfalls in 

death gratuity benefits; (6) $600.0 million in mandatory authority for new overseas 

housing; and (7) $500.0 million in mandatory authority to extend the maximum lease term permitted for family housing in foreign nations. 

The Committee did not make these observations lightly. Against 

the current President’s budget request, three observations needed 

to be made about the proposed Fiscal Year 2007 budget request: (1) 

there is virtually no growth in the defense budget from Fiscal Year 

2006, (2) defense spending is low compared to the 1980s, and (3) 

Congressionally mandated savings and personnel spending over the 

past five years are eroding our training and investment account. 

The President submitted a budget request for national defense 

budget function (050) of $513.0 billion for Fiscal Year 2007. 

The discretionary budget request for the Department of Defense includes two distinct elements. First, $439.3 billion for military 

forces not deployed in the global war on terrorism. This funding 

baseline request represented an increase of $28.5 billion over the 

budget authority appropriated to the Department of Defense last 

year for non-global war on terrorism accounts. To the casual observer this 7 percent increase would seem to be a robust boost to 

our national defense capabilities. Unfortunately, this growth can be 

attributed to three things: (1) $11.4 billion covers annual inflation and pay raises; 

(2) $3.0 billion finances increased fuel costs; and 

(3) $4.1 billion funds Base Realignment and Closure initiatives. 

Of the remaining $10.0 billion increase for traditional military 

programs and procurement, close to one-half supported the implementation of the Army modularity program this fiscal year. Aside 

from Army modularity, the remaining critical investment, personnel, training and maintenance accounts only experienced a $5.0 

billion increase—which translates into 1.2 percent growth over Fiscal Year 2006. For the first time this year, the President requested 

$50.0 billion for estimated future emergency spending for the global war on terrorism. This is a significant step in fiscal responsibility. Until now, the global war on terrorism was funded outside 

the traditional budget. Therefore, it was not included in the formal 

calculation of the federal government’s annual liabilities. By including the $50.0 billion in the budget request, this represents an important step towards accurately budgeting for our nation’s defense. 

It is important to note that even with funding of $513.0 billion, defense spending amounts to a far lower percentage of the nation’s 

gross domestic product (GDP) than it did twenty years ago—projected 4.0 percent in 2007 compared to 6 percent in 1985. While the 

annual defense budget should not be solely determined by an arbitrary percentage of GDP, it does serve as a useful measure of the 

relative means available to the nation to properly fund the national 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

80 

defense function. Another comparison that perhaps is a better metric is the percentage of discretionary budget authority spent on Department of Defense (function 051) in relation to the total federal 

discretionary budget request. In 1985, the Department of Defense 

discretionary budget authority was 62.9 percent of the total federal 

discretionary budget. In 1986, that amount grew to 64.4 percent. 

In contrast, this year’s Department of Defense discretionary budget 

authority is only 53 percent of the total discretionary budget. Thus, 

for a nation at war, the funding for our national defense remains 

relatively low. To return spending on our nation’s defense to 6 percent of GDP, the amount required would translate to $734.0 billion 

for Fiscal Year 2007. Similarly, if we were to fund the Department 

of Defense at 62.9 percent of the $923 billion federal discretionary 

budget authority requested for Fiscal Year 2007, the total discretionary budget request for function 050 would be $580.6 billion. 

The Committee further noted that while the Department faced rising health care costs, fuel costs and inflation, as well as congressionally imposed budget caps, the most severe budget challenges 

were found in the operation and maintenance accounts. Currently, 

all the services are funded well below the levels required to conduct 

the minimal training necessary to maintain adequate military 

readiness. For example, the shortfalls in Fiscal Year 2007 budget 

request were as follows: 

(1) Navy funds only 36 steaming days a quarter versus required 51 steaming days per quarter; 

(2) Army funds 615 tank miles a year versus combined arms 

training strategy requirement of 899 miles; 

(3) Army funds 11.6 helicopter flying hours per month versus 

14.5 hours helicopter flying hours per month; 

(4) Marine Corps funds 88 percent of the combat ready 

days—equipment and training requirement; and 

(5) Air Force funds 98 percent of the flying hour training requirement while mission capable rates are scheduled to fall to 

75 percent for the first time since 1998. 

(6) In the Fiscal Year 2006 FYDP, the services anticipated 

receiving $154.7 billion for operation and maintenance programs in Fiscal Year 2007. Instead, this year’s request is 

$152.0 billion—a $2.7 billion reduction. Combined with the 

$4.0 billion in price growth due to inflation and the $3.0 billion 

in price growth due to rising fuel costs, the budget request 

would actually reduce critical training and maintenance programs by close to $10.0 billion. With respect to procurement 

and despite a concerted effort to improve modernization and 

investment funding, the budget request defered critical weapon 

systems by pushing procurement quantities over the next 5 

years—increasing cost and delaying acquisition. 

On the procurement side of the ledger, the services were scheduled in the 2006 FYDP, to receive $91.6 billion for procurement 

programs in Fiscal Year 2007. Instead, this year’s request was 

$84.2 billion for those accounts—a $7.4 billion reduction. While 

some of these funds were transferred to Research, Development, 

Test and Evaluation accounts, the procurement accounts experienced a $5.0 billion reduction from last year. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

81 

Finally, the Army and Marine Corps estimated that a large percentage of equipment currently operating in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom will be unserviceable at the 

conclusion of these campaigns. The Army and Marine Corps are 

confronted with the challenging task of ‘‘resetting’’ their forces, restoring heavily used operating equipment to combat readiness and 

replacing worn out equipment. The initial cost estimates for Army 

and Marine Corps equipment reset are close to $50.0 billion. Given 

the rising costs of current and future modernization programs and 

the ongoing global war on terrorism, the Committee believes that 

the Army and Marine Corps’ ability to properly resource equipment 

reset is in jeopardy. The sheer size of the unfunded reset bill is 

starting to impact future force development. Last year the Army 

testified that with the funding projected in the FYDP they could 

field between 77 to 82 Brigade Combat Teams. Yet, in less than 

one year, the Army plan has been modified develop only 70 Brigade 

Combat Teams in order to fit within the proposed budget this year. 

The Committee has a responsibility to consider funding the reset 

of our critical warfighting capability. Equipment reset is critical to 

maintaining warfighting capability. Accordingly, we believe the 

services have an immediate requirement of $25.0 billion for equipment reset. The budget request contained legislative proposals designed to contain the cost of military health care by substantially 

increasing the out-of-pocket costs for military retirees under age 65 

and their families. Those proposals would also increase the pharmacy co-payments for all beneficiaries—active duty members, retirees, Medicare-eligibles and their families. In anticipation of enactment of this legislation, the budget request reduces the Defense 

Health Program by $735.0 million—the amount of savings estimated by the Department that results from increased beneficiary 

cost shares. The committee believed that these proposals depend 

too exclusively on increasing cost shares and believes that no action 

should be taken in Fiscal Year 2007 until a full review of additional cost control options is completed. Circumventing Congressional oversight by quickly implementing fundamental changes to 

a highly viable medical benefit is not keeping the promise to the 

sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines that serve our country. The 

Committee was concerned that the proposed budget did not provide 

funding for the additional 34,000 military personnel end strength 

congressionally mandated for the active components of the Army 

and Marine Corps. The budget request also funded Army National 

Guard end strength at 332,900, which was 17,100 below what was 

authorized in Fiscal Year 2006. The Committee had estimated the 

cost to fully fund the end strength for Fiscal Year 2007 was $3.9 

billion. 

The President included a proposal to permit the sale of the remaining government-owned industrial commodities in the National 

Defense Stockpile that were not needed for national defense requirements. Furthermore, the proposal requested the receipts from 

these additional sales be deposited in the Treasury for deficit reduction. The savings identified in this proposal are $1.0 million in 

Fiscal Year 2007 and $299.0 million between Fiscal Year 2007 and 

Fiscal Year 2011. However, against the $299.0 million in savings, 

the committee has identified three mandatory proposals totaling 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

82 

more than $1.1 billion that need immediate attention in Fiscal 

Year 2007. 

First, the committee had identified the need for an amendment 

to the death gratuity provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) to ensure that 

300 surviving families of members who died while on active duty 

after October 7, 2001, receive a retroactive $150,000 payment. The 

payment was intended to compensate surviving families of both 

combat and non combat deaths for the increase in Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) that went into effect on September 1, 

2005. 

The death gratuity amendment would revise the effective date of 

section 664 to cover the benefit population from May 5, 2005 

through August 31, 2005. The amendment would incur a one-time 

$45.0 million mandatory spending cost. Accordingly, the committee 

requested $45.0 million in mandatory spending to include the legislative authority to address this unintended lack of coverage in the 

death gratuity benefits. Finally, the committee requested that an additional $600.0 million be allocated in mandatory spending be allocated from Fiscal 

Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2015 to accelerate rebasing plans 

and the acquisition of safe, secure housing for U.S. military personnel and their families stationed in the Republic of Korea. The 

Department is currently implementing a global integrated presence 

and basing strategy to ensure our military forces stationed overseas are adequately postured to meet emerging threats to our national security. In order to provide for the most efficient use of military resources, the committee wanted to provide the Department 

with legislative authorities which resulted in this mandatory increase to the obligation authority in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget. 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS

During the 109th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 

held numerous hearings in accordance with its legislative and oversight roles. These hearings focused on areas including the budget 

of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the posture of the armed 

services, the global war on terrorism, detainee policy, the creation 

of military commissions to try those accused of illegal acts in the 

war on terrorism, force protection initiatives, national security concerns, acquisition reform, U.S. border security, and Department of 

Defense management and strategy. A full account of these hearings 

is below. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–1; H.A.S.C. 109–2; H.A.S.C. 109–3; H.A.S.C. 109–

4; H.A.S.C. 109–5; H.A.S.C. 109–6; H.A.S.C. 109–7; H.A.S.C. 109– 31; H.A.S.C. 109–32; H.A.S.C. 109–33; H.A.S.C. 109–35; H.A.S.C. 

109–36; H.A.S.C. 109–37; H.A.S.C. 109–38; H.A.S.C. 109–39; 

H.A.S.C. 109–48; H.A.S.C. 109–53; H.A.S.C. 109–57; H.A.S.C. 109–

60; H.A.S.C. 109–63; H.A.S.C. 109–69; H.A.S.C. 109–79; H.A.S.C. 

109–80; H.A.S.C. 109–81; H.A.S.C. 109–82; H.A.S.C. 109–87; 

H.A.S.C. 109–88; H.A.S.C. 109–92; H.A.S.C. 109–93; H.A.S.C. 109–

95; H.A.S.C. 109–96; H.A.S.C. 109–97; H.A.S.C. 109–98; H.A.S.C. 

109–99; H.A.S.C. 109–100; H.A.S.C. 109–101; H.A.S.C. 109–102; 

H.A.S.C. 109–103; H.A.S.C. 109–104; H.A.S.C. 109–105; H.A.S.C. 

109–106; H.A.S.C. 109–107; H.A.S.C. 109–108; H.A.S.C. 109–109; 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

83 

H.A.S.C. 109–110; H.A.S.C. 109–111; H.A.S.C. 109–112; H.A.S.C. 

109–113; H.A.S.C. 109–114; H.A.S.C. 109–115; H.A.S.C. 109–116; 

H.A.S.C. 109–117; H.A.S.C. 109–118; H.A.S.C. 109–119; H.A.S.C. 

109–120) 

POSTURE AND BUDGET

During the 109th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 

held multiple hearings on the posture, financial requirements, and 

status of the U.S. armed forces as they continue to fight the global 

war on terrorism to protect and defend the United States, her people, her interests, and her friends and allies around the world. 

These hearings, combined with the committee’s responsibility for 

assembling the annual defense authorization bill, are the primary 

means by which it leads Congress in the latter’s discharge of its 

Constitutional duties. 

On February 9 and March 10, 2005, the committee convened a 

hearing with Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, 

and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard B. 

Myers, USAF, to review the budget request for funding and authorities during fiscal year 2006. In addition to this hearing, the 

committee sought and received testimony from each of the services 

and several unified combatant commanders. On February 9, 2005, 

Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army; and the Chief of Staff 

of the Army, Peter J. Schoomaker, appeared before the committee 

to discuss their service’s portion of the fiscal year 2006 budget request. They were followed on February 17th by Gordon England, 

Secretary of the Navy; Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vernon 

E. Clark; and Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Michael 

W. Hagee, who testified on the budget as it related to the U.S. 

Navy and Marine Corps. The following month, Pete Teets, Acting 

Secretary of the Air Force; and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General John P. Jumper, appeared before the committee to testify on 

the United States Air Force’s portion of the fiscal year 2006 budget 

request. 

In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, commanders of the unified combatant commands, who are in the chain 

of command, appeared before the committee to discuss the security 

situation in their respective areas of responsibility. These included 

General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command; and General Bryan D. Brown, USA, Commander of U.S. 

Special Operations Command on March 2, 2005. They were followed one week later by General James L. Jones, USMC, Commander of U.S. European Command; Admiral William J. Fallon, 

USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; and General Bantz J. 

Craddock, USA, Commander of U.S. Southern Command on March 

9, 2005. 

During the second session of the 109th Congress in 2006, the 

committee continued its tradition of conducting intensive hearings 

in preparation of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 

year 2007. On February 8, 2006, the committee received testimony 

from Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; General 

Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, to review the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

84 

budget request for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007. 

On February 15, 2006, Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army; 

and General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified on the Army’s portion of the fiscal year 2007 budget request. 

The committee continued its hearings on the budget request by inviting the senior leaders of the Department of the Air Force to appear before it on March 1, 2006, when Michael T. Wynne, Secretary 

of the Air Force, testified before the committee with General T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The committee concluded its uniformed service posture hearings that same day with 

a separate hearing when Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, 

testified before the committee with Admiral Michael G. Mullen, 

Chief of Naval Operations, and General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

After completing its hearings with the leadership of the uniformed services, the committee turned its attention to the combatant commands. On March 2, 2006, General Norton A. Schwartz, 

USAF, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, testified before the committee along with General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF, 

Commander of Air Mobility Command, Vice Admiral David L. 

Brewer III, USN, Commander of Military Sealift Command, and 

Major General Charles W. Fletcher, USA, Commander of Military 

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command. They were followed by geographic unified combatant commanders when on 

March 8, 2006, General James L. Jones, USMC, Commander of 

U.S. European Command testified before the committee. Admiral 

William J. Fallon, USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and 

General B.B. Bell, USA, Commander of United Nations Command, 

Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea, testified before the 

committee on March 9, 2006. General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command, testified before the committee 

on March 15, 2006. In the last posture hearing of the 109th Congress, on March 16, 2006, General Bantz J. Craddock, USA, Commander of U.S. Southern Command, testified before the committee. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–2; H.A.S.C. 109–3; H.A.S.C. 109–4; H.A.S.C. 109– 5; H.A.S.C. 109–6; H.A.S.C. 109–7; H.A.S.C. 109–48; H.A.S.C. 109– 53; H.A.S.C. 109–57; H.A.S.C. 109–60; H.A.S.C. 109–69; H.A.S.C. 

109–95; H.A.S.C. 109–99; H.A.S.C. 109–101; H.A.S.C. 109–102) 

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

The committee continued its work from the 108th Congress with 

intensive oversight of the global war on terrorism. While much of 

this oversight is necessarily classified, the committee is committed 

to publicly reviewing the developments associated with the activities and deployments of the U.S. armed forces. On June 22, 2005, 

the committee received testimony on operations and reconstruction 

efforts in Afghanistan from Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for International Security Affairs, Lieutenant General 

Walter Sharp, USA, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint 

Staff, and Nancy Powell, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Oversight of operations in Afghanistan continued in the second session on June 28, 

2006, when the committee received testimony on the status of security and stability from Karen Tandy, Administrator of the Drug 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

85 

Enforcement Agency, Mary Beth Long, Principal Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Lieutenant 

General Karl Eikenberry, USA, Commanding General of Combined 

Forces Command—Afghanistan, and James Kunder, Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near East for the U.S. Agency for 

International Development. Both of the hearings highlighted the 

committee’s concern over the growing poppy cultivation problem in 

Afghanistan. On June 29, 2005, the committee met to review detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Brigadier General 

Jay Hood, USA, Commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, 

Commander Cary Ostergaard, USN, Detainee Hospital Commander, and Command Sergeant Major Anthony Mendez, USA, 

Joint Detention Group testified. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–38; H.A.S.C. 109–114; H.A.S.C. 109–37) 

IRAQ

The committee continued to spend large amounts of time on the 

war in Iraq as members sought to ensure that U.S. military forces 

had every thing necessary to assist in Iraq’s eventual successful 

transition to a fully functioning stable and autonomous state. On 

March 17, 2005, Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and 

Budgetary Assessments, Dr. Steven Metz, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, and Walter B. Slocombe, former 

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Senior Adviser for Defense and Security Sector Affairs to the Coalition Provisional Authority met with the committee to discuss current operations and 

the political transition in Iraq. On April 4, 2005, General Wesley 

K. Clark, USA (Ret.), former Commander of U.S. European Command, and Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

International Security Policy, testified before the committee on 

Iraq’s past, present, and future. Soon after these outside experts 

testified, senior Department of Defense leaders including Donald 

H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, General Richard B. Myers, 

USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Abizaid, USA, 

Commander of U.S. Central Command, and General George W. 

Casey, Jr., USA, Commander of Multi-National Forces—Iraq, appeared before the committee on June 23, 2005, to examine the 

progress of the Iraqi Security Forces. On September 29, 2005, the 

committee met to receive an update on operations in Iraq from 

Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, General Richard B. 

Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General John Abizaid, 

USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command, and General George 

W. Casey, Jr., USA, Commander of Multi-National Forces—Iraq. 

The committee met on November 3, 2005, to recognize and discuss 

the contributions of servicemembers with testimony from a representative panel of a few of America’s finest: Brigadier John F. 

Kelly, USMC, Legislative Assistant to the Commandant, Colonel 

Robert Abrams, USA, Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry Division, and 

Command Sergeant Major Neil Citola, USA, Command Sergeant 

Major, III Corps. 

In the second session of the 109th Congress on June 29, 2006, 

the committee me to review reports of weapons of mass destruction 

findings in Iraq with Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, USA, 

Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. Frank Gaffney, 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

86 

President of the Center for Security Policy, Dr. David Kay, former 

Director of the Iraq Survey Group, and Dr. Terence Taylor, Former 

Commissioner, U.N. Special Commission on Iraq. On November 15, 

2006, the committee received testimony on the current situation 

and military operations in Iraq from Ambassador David M. 

Satterfield, Senior Adviser to the Secretary of State and Coordinator for Iraq, and General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. 

Central Command. For the last full committee hearing of the 109th 

Congress, on December 7, 2006, the committee received testimony 

from Lieutenant General James J. Lovelace, USA, Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Operations, Major General Carter F. Ham, USA, Commanding General of the 1st Infantry Division, and Major General 

George F. Flynn, USMC, Commanding General of Training and 

Education Command, on military transition teams in Iraq. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–31; H.A.S.C. 109–32; H.A.S.C. 109–33; H.A.S.C. 

109–87; H.A.S.C. 109–93; H.A.S.C. 109–115; H.A.S.C. 109–92; 

H.A.S.C. 109–97) 

FORCE PROTECTION

All members of the committee are dedicated to making certain 

that every servicemember who enters a theater of combat operations has the necessary force protection equipment to give them 

the best opportunity to come home safe. In light of this commitment, the members met on May 5, 2005, to discuss the status of 

tactical wheeled vehicle armoring initiatives and improvised explosive device jammer initiatives in Operation Iraqi Freedom with Dr. 

Steven J. deTeresa, Engineer, Laurence Livermore National Laboratory, Brigadier General Joseph L. Votel, USA, Director, Joint 

IED Defeat Task Force, Brigadier General Jeffrey A. Sorenson, 

USA, Deputy for Acquisition and Systems Management, Department of the Army, Brigadier General William D. Catto, USMC, 

Commanding General of the Marine Corps System Command, 

Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, USMC, Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, and 

Lieutenant Colonel Paul J. Kennedy, USMC, former battalion commander, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division. 

On June 21, 2005, the committee met to review Marine Corps force 

protection with General William L. Nyland, Assistant Commandant 

of the Marine Corps, and Brigadier General William D. Catto, 

Commanding General of the Marine Corps System Command. The 

committee invited Hon. Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army, 

and General Richard Cody, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, to testify on the Army’s M1114 up-armor high mobility multipurpose 

wheeled vehicle distribution strategy on October 20, 2005. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–79; H.A.S.C. 109–80; H.A.S.C. 109–88) 

MILITARY COMMISSIONS

To prosecute expeditiously those individuals who have wreaked 

terror on the United States, the committee devoted a large segment 

of its second session to enacting law governing military commissions. On July 12, 2006, the committee summoned Mr. Steven J. 

Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Daniel J. 

Dell’Orto, Principal Deputy General Counsel for the Department of 

Defense, Honorable Theodore Olson, former Solicitor General of the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

87 

United States, and Rear Admiral John Hutson, USN (Ret.), former 

Judge Advocate General to testify on the standards of military 

commissions and tribunals. Two weeks later the committee met 

again on July 26, 2006, to hear from Honorable Patricia M. Wald, 

former Chief Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia, Judge Gerald Gahima, former Judge for the War 

Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia Herzegovina and former 

Deputy Chief Justice and Attorney General for Rwanda, Mr. Michael P. Scharf, Professor of Law and Director of the Frederick K. 

Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University, 

and Ms. Jennifer Elsea, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service on the same topic. On September 7, 2006, the committee met again to discuss the standards 

of military commissions and tribunals with Mr. Steven Bradbury, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Major General Scott C. Black, 

The Judge Advocate General of the Army, Rear Admiral Bruce E. 

MacDonald, The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, Major General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., Deputy Judge Advocate General of the 

Air Force, Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, and Colonel 

Ronald Reed, USAF, Legal Counsel to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–116; H.A.S.C. 109–117; H.A.S.C. 109–120) 

NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS

CHINA

As part of its larger responsibility to oversee matters related to 

national security, the committee hosted a joint hearing with the 

House Committee on International Relations on April 14, 2005, to 

discuss arms exports to the People’s Republic of China by member 

states of the European Union. Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, Under 

Secretary for Political Affairs at the Department of State, Honorable Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs for the Department of Defense, and Mr. Peter 

Lichtenbaum, Acting Under Secretary for Industry and Security for 

the Department of Commerce testified on the importance maintaining the embargo for U.S. national security. 

On July 27, 2005, the committee met to receive testimony on 

Chinese military power from Honorable Franklin Kramer, former 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, 

Dr. Richard D. Fisher, Vice President of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, and Mr. John J. Tkacik, Jr., Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. In the second session, the committee met on June 22, 2006, to discuss the military power of the 

People’s Republic of China with Honorable Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs for the Department of Defense, Mr. Mark Cozad, China Forces Senior Intelligence 

Officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency, and COL Robert Carr, 

USA, Assistant Director of Intelligence for the Joint Staff. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–35; H.A.S.C. 109–36; H.A.S.C. 109–112) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

The process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 

United States (CFIUS) came under increasing scrutiny in the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

88 

109th Congress, as the committee sought to ensure important national security matters were given due consideration in the voluntary CFIUS process. On July 13, 2005, the committee met to investigate the national security implications of the possible merger 

of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation with Unocal Corporation. The four witnesses were Honorable R. James Woolsey, 

former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Honorable C. 

Richard D’Amato, Chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Mr. Frank J. Gaffney, President of the 

Center for Security Policy, and Mr. Jerry Taylor, Director of Natural Resource Studies for the Cato Institute. On March 2, 2006, the 

committee met to receive testimony on the national security implications of the Dubai Ports World deal to take over management of 

U.S. ports from Mr. Frank J. Gaffney, President of the Center for 

Security Policy, Dr. James Carafano, Senior Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security for the Heritage Foundation, Mr. 

Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, 

Mr. Edward H. Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer for Dubai Ports 

World, Mr. George Dalton, General Counsel for Dubai Ports World, 

Mr. Michael Moore, Senior Vice President for Commercial Dubai 

Ports World, Mr. Robert Scavone, Executive Vice President for Security for the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company, 

Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for the Department of Defense, Mr. Stewart Baker, Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, Planning, and International Affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Clay Lowery, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs for the Department of Treasury, 

Mr. Alan Misenheimer, Director of the Office of Arabian Peninsula 

and Iran Affairs for the Department of State, and Rear Admiral 

Thomas Gilmour, USCG, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental Protection. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–81; H.A.S.C. 109–100) 

IRAN

The committee continued to investigate the efforts of Iran to develop nuclear capabilities. On February 1, 2006, the committee received testimony on options in countering a nuclear Iran from Mr. 

Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Dr. George Perkovich of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Dr. Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council. On June 8, 2006, the committee met to assess the geopolitical dynamics and U.S. policy options in relation to Iran with 

testimony from Dr. Patrick Clawson, Deputy Director of Research 

for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Dr. Ray 

Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–98; H.A.S.C. 109–109) 

ACQUISITION REFORM

Recognizing the importance of a smoothly functioning, efficient 

acquisition process to the members of the armed services, the committee remained extremely interested in all aspects of acquisition 

reform. On November 2, 2005, the committee met to receive a general overview of all acquisition reform efforts from Honorable Kenmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

89 

neth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Honorable Claude M. Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Honorable John J. Young, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition, and Lieutenant General 

Donald J. Hoffman, USAF, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. One week later on November 9, 2005, the committee met to take a closer look at the Defense 

Logistics Agency’s Prime Vendor Program with testimony from 

Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and Vice Admiral Keith W. 

Lippert, USN, Director of the Defense Logistics Agency. In the second session the committee continued to review acquisition reform 

and related issues with a hearing on March 29, 2006, with testimony from Mr. Pierre Chao, Senior Fellow and Director of Defense 

Industrial Initiatives for the Center for Strategic and International 

Studies, Honorable Robert J. Hermann, Task Force co-chair, Defense Science Board Summer Study on Transformation, Lieutenant 

General Robert T. Kadish, USAF (Ret.), Chairman of the Defense 

Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel, and Mr. Terry R. Little, Acquisition Adviser to the Director of the Defense Missile 

Agency. On April 5, 2006, the committee met to discuss further reviews of major defense acquisition reforms with Honorable David 

M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, Honorable 

Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN, 

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr. David Patterson, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–63; H.A.S.C. 109–96; H.A.S.C. 109–104; H.A.S.C. 

109–106) 

BORDER SECURITY

The committee conducted several hearings over the course of the 

Congress on border security, including two conducted in the field. 

On May 24, 2006, the committee met to receive testimony on the 

mission of the National Guard in regards to border security from 

Honorable Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, Major General Richard J. Rowe, USA, Director of 

Operations for U.S. Northern Command, Lieutenant General H. 

Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and Mr. 

David Aguilar, Chief of Border Patrol for the U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection Agency. On August 1, 2006, the committee held 

a field hearing at Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Michigan, to 

investigate U.S. Northern border security with testimony from 

Brigadier General Michael Peplinski, USAF, Commander 127th 

Wing, Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Chief Patrol Agent John 

Bates, Sector Chief for U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, Captain Patrick Brennan, USCG, Commanding Officer for Sector Detroit, Mr. John Jamian, former Maritime Administrator for 

the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Sheriff Dan Lane, St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department, St. Clair 

County, Michigan, Colonel Paul Disney, USA, Director of Operations for Joint Task Force North, U.S. Northern Command, and 

Mr. Ghurdit Dillon, Director of Field Operations for the Detroit 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

90 

Field Office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of 

Homeland Security. On August 2, 2006, the committee moved 

south to receive testimony regarding U.S. Southern border security 

from Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, Colonel Ben Hancock, USMC, Commanding 

Officer for the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona, Deputy 

Chief Patrol Agent Jeffrey Calhoon, Sector Deputy Chief, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, Major General Antonio J. 

Pineda, National Commander of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, and Ms. 

Vivian Juan-Saunders, Chairwoman of the Tohono O’odham Nation. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–108; H.A.S.C. 109–118; H.A.S.C. 109–119) 

DEPARTMENT OF DFENSE MANAGEMENT AND STRATEGY

In preparation for the release of the February 2006 Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR) the committee conducted a hearing on September 14, 2005, on the goals and principles of the QDR with testimony from outside experts Honorable Dov S. Zakheim, former 

Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, Ms. Michele Flournoy, 

Center for Strategic and International Studies, Dr. Daniel Goure, 

Lexington Institute, and Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Center for 

Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. After the QDR was released 

the committee met again on March 14, 2006, to discuss the document with Honorable Gordon England, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN, Vice Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs, Mr. Thomas Donnelly, American Enterprise Institute, Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and Mr. Lawrence J. Korb, Center for American Progress. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–82; H.A.S.C. 109–103) 

OTHER

The committee held multiple hearings throughout the 109th Congress to investigate issues at the full committee level that functioned as stand alone hearings. 

On July 20, 2005, the committee met to review the Air Force’s 

Future Total Force Plan with Lieutenant General Stephan G. 

Wood, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the National Guard 

Bureau, Lieutenant General Daniel James III, USAF, Director of 

the Air National Guard, Lieutenant General John A. Bradley, 

USAF, Chief of the Air Force Reserve, Major General Roger P. 

Lempke, USAF, Adjutant General of Nebraska, and Major General 

Mason C. Whitney, USAF, Adjutant General of Colorado. 

On April 4, 2006, the committee received testimony on improving 

interagency coordination for the global war on terrorism and beyond from Honorable Thomas W. O’Connell, Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, Admiral 

Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN, Vice Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, Coordinator for 

Counterterrorism for the Department of State, and Vice Admiral 

John Scott Redd, USN (Ret.), Director of the National 

Counterterrorism Center. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

91 

On April 7, 2006, the committee met to investigate the appropriateness of avenues for building the capacity of foreign forces 

through the Department with the following witnesses: Ambassador 

Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Dr. John 

Hillen, Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs for the Department of State, and General James L. Jones, USMC, Commander of U.S. European Command. 

On June 13, 2006, the committee examined issues related to H.R. 

5200, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006, with Honorable Gordon England, Deputy 

Secretary of Defense, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN, Vice 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Cody, USA, 

Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, General John D.W. Corley, USAF, 

Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force, Brigadier General Stephen 

Koper, USAF (Ret.), President of the National Guard Association of 

the United States, and Major General Francis D. Vavala, USA 

(Ret.), Vice President of the Adjutants General Association of the 

United States. 

On June 20, 2006, the committee received testimony on significant force realignments of the Department, including beddown, 

support, and other costs and requirements related to those realignments from Honorable Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Secretary of 

Defense for Policy, Honorable Philip W. Grone, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Management, and Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, Vice Director for Strategic Plans and 

Policy for the Joint Staff. 

On June 27, 2006, the committee met to review Army and Marine Corps reset strategies for ground equipment and rotorcraft 

with General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, and 

General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–39; H.A.S.C. 109–105; H.A.S.C. 109–107; H.A.S.C. 

109–110; H.A.S.C. 109–111; H.A.S.C. 109–113) 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(93) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces addressed all 

Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic airlift 

and weapons programs, space programs, special operations and information technology programs); Navy and Marine Corps aviation 

programs; National Guard, Army, and Air Force reserve modernization programs; and ammunition programs by conducting 14 

oversight hearings during its consideration of the fiscal year 2006 

and fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense (DOD) budget requests, including: March 3, 2005, Navy and Air Force aviation acquisition programs; March 9, 2005, DOD unmanned aerial vehicle 

(UAV) and joint unmanned combat air system investment programs; March 16, 2005, Future Combat Systems (FCS), modularity, 

and force protection initiatives; April 14, 2005, DOD major rotorcraft programs; March 9, 2006, DOD major rotorcraft programs; 

March 16, 2006, Navy and Air Force aviation acquisition programs; 

April 4, 2006, FCS, modularity, and force protection initiatives; 

April 6, 2006, UAV and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. 

In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities regarding 

DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearing on the following: June 29, 2005, small business technologies; 

October 20, 2005, aerial common sensor program; February 1, 

2006, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring 

Freedom (OEF) ground forces vehicle and personnel protection and 

rotary wing safety of flight update; March 30, 2006, Army and Marine Corps reset strategies for ground equipment and rotorcraft; 

June 15, 2006, the use of combat helmets, vehicle armor, and body 

armor by ground forces in OIF and OEF; September 21, 2006, combat vehicle active protection systems. In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted briefings on the following: major 

rotorcraft programs, DOD intelligence programs, tactical aviation 

programs, force protection initiatives, and active protection systems. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 

12, 2005, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163), and considered and 

reported legislation on April 26, 2006, that was included in the 

John W. Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364). The legislation covered a range 

of issues, including multiyear procurement authority for F–22 aircraft, and an independent cost estimate for the Army’s Future 

Combat Systems program. Legislation initiated by the subcommittee also increased funding for a Joint Strike Fighter altermmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

94 

nate engine, as well as increased funding for M–1 tanks, Bradley 

fighting vehicle upgrades, and tactical wheeled vehicles. 

(H.A.S.C. No. 109–8; H.A.S.C. No. 109–9; H.A.S.C. No. 109–10; 

H.A.S.C. No. 109–11; H.A.S.C. No. 109–29; H.A.S.C. No. 109–46; 

H.A.S.C. No. 109–66; H.A.S.C. No. 109–68; H.A.S.C. No. 109–73; 

H.A.S.C. No. 109–74; H.A.S.C. No. 109–76; H.A.S.C. No. 109–121; 

H.A.S.C. No. 109–122; H.A.S.C. No. 109–126) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

The Subcommittee on Readiness reviewed the programs within 

the operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal years 2006 and 

2007 to ensure that appropriate funds were available to maintain 

a high level of military readiness. Oversight activities of the subcommittee included a hearing on March 3, 2005, as well as classified briefings on February 15, 2006, and June 28, 2006, to examine 

the current state of military readiness and the adequacy of the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 budget requests. As a result, the subcommittee authorized $125.7 billion in the operation and maintenance accounts in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and authorized $129.0 billion 

in operation and maintenance accounts the John Warner National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109– 364) to fund critical readiness needs. 

In order to assess the military forces’ preparedness for the global 

war on terrorism and the effects of this ongoing campaign on military readiness, the subcommittee performed a number of oversight 

activities. The subcommittee met in joint session with the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on February 2, 2006, 

to receive testimony on vehicle and personnel protection and rotary 

wing flight safety. During the 109th Congress, the subcommittee 

also evaluated programs for the repair, modernization, and replacement of equipment used in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom. The subcommittee met on April 6, 2005, to hear testimony on the military services’ requirements to reset and reconstitute their forces. The Subcommittees on Readiness and Tactical Air 

and Land Forces met in a joint session on March 30, 2006, to investigate Army and Marine Corps reset strategies for ground equipment and rotorcraft. In continuation of this effort, the full committee took up this topic in a hearing on June 27, 2006. In addition 

to formal subcommittee meetings to evaluate equipment reset, the 

subcommittee charged staff to conduct multiple meetings with service representatives and undergo several fact-finding staff delegations to military facilities in the United States and the theater of 

operations. As a result, the subcommittee recommended an increase of $23.8 billion in the fiscal year 2007 supplemental bridge 

fund to meet all outstanding requirements for Army and Marine 

Corps equipment reset. 

The subcommittee also reviewed the impacts of service contracting on military readiness. On April 5, 2006, the subcommittee 

held a hearing on the potential for the inappropriate use of operation and maintenance funds for military construction and procurement activities. As a result, the subcommittee recommended a provision in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364) that would limit the use of 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

95 

service contracts for the acquisition of certain major systems. The 

subcommittee also received testimony on Navy transformation efforts on April 6, 2006, resulting in legislation requiring additional 

information prior to the expenditures of funds for the Naval Expeditionary Combat Command. 

In addition, the subcommittee reviewed issues pertaining to military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure activities (BRAC) of the Department of Defense (DOD). The 

subcommittee held a hearing on March 15, 2005, on the fiscal year 

2006 budget request for military construction, family housing, base 

realignment and closure activities, and facilities operations and 

maintenance. The subcommittee also met to receive testimony on 

the DOD management of historic and historic-eligible facilities on 

March 8, 2006. 

In relation to the BRAC process, the subcommittee held a briefing on March 17, 2005, on reutilization of closed and realigned 

military bases. Subsequently, the full committee met on September 

15, 2005, to consider H.J. Res. 65, a resolution to disapprove the 

recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

Commission. On September 29, 2005, the committee reported the 

resolution adversely to the House. The resolution failed to pass the 

House on November 27, 2005. 

On September 21, 2006, the subcommittee joined the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities in closed session for a briefing on Northern Command’s 

(USNORTHCOM) decision to maintain the Cheyenne Mountain 

Operations Center in a ‘‘warm standby’’ status and to relocate some 

North American Aerospace Defense Command and USNORTHCOM 

military and civilian positions to Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 

Readiness subsequently requested that the Government Accountability Office investigate the relocation decision. 

Finally, the Subcommittees on Readiness and Terrorism, and 

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on September 26, 2006, to explore alternative energy and energy efficiency programs of the Department of Defense. This hearing resulted in legislation to establish an Energy Security chapter of title 

10, United States Code, to consolidate and improve energy policy 

authorities of the Department of Defense. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–12; H.A.S.C. 109–13; H.A.S.C. 109–14; H.A.S.C. 

109–46; H.A.S.C. 109–66; H.A.S.C. 109–123; H.A.S.C. 109–124; 

H.A.S.C. 109–125; H.A.S.C. 109–127) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND

CAPABILITIES

The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 

Capabilities conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in the Department of Defense budget requests for fiscal 

years 2006 and 2007 during the 109th Congress, including: March 

3, 2005, Tactical C–4 Systems: Why Does the Department of Defense Have So Many Systems Performing the Same Functionality?; 

March 10, 2005, Defense Science and Technology in Support of the 

War on Terrorism and Beyond; March 15, 2005, Department of Defense Responsibilities in Homeland Defense and Homeland Secummaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

96 

rity Missions; March 17, 2005, U.S. Special Operations Command 

Policy and Programs; April 6, 2005, Destruction of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile—Program Status and Issues; March 8, 

2006, Special Operations Command: Transforming for the Long 

War; March 29, 2006, Defense Science and Technology: Investments to Shape the Evolving Terrorist Threat; April 6, 2006 Information Technology Issues and Defense Transformation. 

In addition to its optional oversight responsibilities regarding the 

President’s budget requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight 

hearings on the following: July 21, 2005, Counter Terrorism Technology Sharing (a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology of the Committee on 

Homeland Security Committee); Financing the Iraq Insurgency (a 

joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation of the Financial Services Committee); September, 29, 2005, 

Understanding the Iran Threat; November 9, 2005, Military and 

National Guard Roles in Disaster Response; February 15, 2006, 

The Able Danger Program (a joint hearing with the Subcommittee 

on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services); February 

16, 2006, Combating al Qaeda and the Militant Jihadist Threat; 

March 15, 2006, Implementing the Global War on Terror Strategy: 

Overcoming Interagency Problems; April 5, 2006, Implementing the 

2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Recommendations to Combat 

Weapons of Mass Destruction; May 25, 2006, Applying Lessons 

Learned from Hurricane Katrina: How the Department of Defense 

is Preparing for the Upcoming Hurricane Season; June 29, 2006, 

Assessing U.S. Special Operations Command’s Missions and Roles; 

September 26, 2006, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs of the Department of Defense; September 27, 2006, Irregular 

Warfare Roadmap. 

Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee 

conducted briefings on the following topics: Middle Eastern Foreign 

Policy, U.S. Special Operations Command, the global war on terrorism, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, 

human intelligence issues, Alternative Energy Policy, and Information Ops (Winning Hearts and Minds). 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 

11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and met to consider 

and report legislation on April 27, 2006, that was included in the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364). The legislation covered a range of 

issues, including the following: Improved interagency coordination 

in prosecuting the global war on terrorism, Chemical Biological defense basic research, added funding for counterterrorism technology 

development, Special Operations Command unfunded requirements, Test and Evaluation policy for rapid acquisition and Information technology program concerns. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–15; H.A.S.C. 109–16; H.A.S.C. 109–17; H.A.S.C. 

109–18; H.A.S.C. 109–19; H.A.S.C. 109–40; H.A.S.C. 109–41; 

H.A.S.C. 109–42; H.A.S.C. 109–43; H.A.S.C. 109–52; H.A.S.C. 109–

55; H.A.S.C. 109–56; H.A.S.C. 109–59; H.A.S.C. 109–71; H.A.S.C. 

109–83; H.A.S.C. 109–84; H.A.S.C. 109–85; H.A.S.C. 109–127; 

H.A.S.C. 109–128; H.A.S.C. 109–129) 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

97 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a series of 

hearings to review and evaluate matters under its jurisdiction in 

the fiscal years 2006 and 2007 budget requests: March 16, 2005, 

Recruiting, Retention and Military Personnel Policy, and Benefits 

and Compensation Overview; April 7, 2005, Military Resale and 

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Overview; March 15, 2006, Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview; March 

29, 2006, The Defense Health Program—Department of Defense 

Initiatives to Control Costs; and April 6, 2006, Policy, Compensation, and Benefits Overview. 

In addition to its budget request hearings, the subcommittee conducted hearings related to the following topics: February 2, 2005, 

Adequacy of Army Forces; March 3, 2005, Care of Injured and 

Wounded Service Members; June 28, 2005, The Religious Climate 

at the U.S. Air Force Academy; July 19, 2005, Current Status of 

Military Recruiting and Retention; July 26, 2005, Mental Health; 

October 19, 2005, Defense Health Program Overview; June 21, 

2006, Trafficking in Persons; and September 27, 2006, The Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve. 

The subcommittee also conducted briefings on the following topics: March 18, 2005, Report on the Service Academy Sexual Assault 

and Leadership Survey; April 6, 2005, Department of Defense 

Briefing on Sexual Assault; April 11, 2005, the Inspector General 

Report on Sexual Assault; April 21, 2005, Proposed Changes to the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice on Rape and Sexual Assault; 

March 2, 2006, Combatant Commander Warfighting Requirements 

and the Quadrennial Defense Review Force (classified); June 14, 

2006, The Viability of the Selective Service; and June 20, 2006, 

Veterans? Affairs Data Loss. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 

11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act For Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and met to consider 

and report legislation on April 26, 2006, that was included in the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364). The legislation covered a range of 

issues, including the following: increased active component end 

strength for the Army and Marine Corps, support for the Defense 

Health Program, protection of service members from predatory 

lenders, and bonuses and incentive pay for service members. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–20; H.A.S.C. 109–21; H.A.S.C. 109–44; H.A.S.C. 

109–45; H.A.S.C. 109–64; H.A.S.C. 109–65; H.A.S.C. 109–70; 

H.A.S.C. 109–75; H.A.S.C. 109–78; H.A.S.C. 109–86; H.A.S.C. 109–

89; H.A.S.C. 109–90; H.A.S.C. 109–91) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed the Department of Energy’s atomic energy defense activities, as well as the 

missile defense and space programs of the Department of Defense 

(DOD), by conducting hearings during its consideration of the fiscal 

year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 budget requests, including: March 

2, 2005, Department of Energy’s budget request for atomic energy 

defense activities; March 9, 2005, the status of military space acmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

98 

tivities; March 15, 2005, budget request for missile defense programs; March 1, 2006, Department of Energy’s budget request for 

atomic energy defense activities; March 9, 2006, budget request for 

the Missile Defense Agency and ballistic missile defense programs; 

and on March 16, 2006, the status of military space activities. 

Separate from the traditional budget oversight reviews, the subcommittee held hearings on the following: July 12, 2005, on space 

acquisitions; February 15, 2006, the Able Danger Program (joint 

with the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 

Capabilities); April 5, 2006, future plans for the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons complex infrastructure; June 21, 2006, 

space and U.S. national power; July 26, 2006, on plutonium disposition and the U.S. mixed oxide fuel facility. 

Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee 

conducted briefings on the following topics: adversarial information 

operations and cyber attacks as part of a threat-based defense review to complement the DOD’s on-going, capabilities-based Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, 

Conventional Trident Modification program, Reliable Replacement 

Warhead program, National Security Space Threat and Space Control, and strategic implications of the QDR. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 

11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and considered and 

reported legislation on April 27, 2006, that was included in the 

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 (Public Law 109–364). The legislation covered a range of 

issues, including the following: the Reliable Replacement Warhead 

program, transformation of the nuclear weapons complex, consolidation of the counterintelligence programs of the Department of 

Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration, plans 

for the test and evaluation of the ballistic missile defense system, 

the policy of the United States on priorities in the development, 

testing and fielding of missile defense capabilities, Space Situational Awareness Strategy, and Operationally Responsive Space. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–22, H.A.S.C. 109–23, H.A.S.C. 109–24, H.A.S.C. 

109–34, H.A.S.C. 109–54, H.A.S.C. 109–58, H.A.S.C. 109–62, 

H.A.S.C. 109–71, H.A.S.C. 109–72, H.A.S.C. 109–77, H.A.S.C. 109–

130) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PROJECTION FORCES

The Subcommittee on Projection Forces conducted a series of 

hearings to review programs included in the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget requests for fiscal years 2006 and 

2007 during the 109th Congress, including: March 2, 2005, Navy 

Research and Development: Programs in Support of the War on 

Terrorism, Naval Transformation, and Future Naval Capabilities; 

March 10, 2005, The Navy’s Future Fleet: Assessing the Strength 

of Today’s Navy for Tomorrow; March 15, 2005, Navy Critical 

Enablers—The Department of the Navy’s Program and Antisubmarine Warfare, Mine Countermeasures, Ship Self-Defense and 

Naval Surface Fire Support; and March 30, 2006, The Department 

of the Navy’s Shipbuilding Acquisition Strategy. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

99 

In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities regarding 

DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings on the following: June 13, 2005, The Nuclear Submarine 

Force—Past, Present and Future; June 29, 2005, Small Business 

Technologies (joint with Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 

Forces); July 19, 2005, Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2006 

Plans and Programs for the DD(X) Next-Generation Multi-Mission 

Surface Combatant Ship (Part I) and July 20, 2005, Department of 

the Navy Fiscal Year 2006 Plans and Programs for the DD(X) 

Next-Generation Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship (Part II); 

February 28, 2006, U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Recapitalization 

Requirements; March 15, 2006, Evolving Missions of the U.S. Navy 

and the Role of Surface and Subsurface Combatants; March 28, 

2006, The U.S. Navy’s Future Submarine Force Structure; April 5, 

2006, The U.S. Shipbuilding Industrial Base; April 6, 2006, Integration of Energy Efficient Propulsion Systems for Future U.S. 

Navy Vessels. 

Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee 

conducted briefings on the following topics: antisubmarine warfare, 

mine countermeasures, alternate propulsion systems, threats to 

U.S. naval forces, mobility capability study, conventional trident 

modification, aircraft carrier force structure, and alternate aircraft 

carrier designs. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 

11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109–163) and considered and 

report legislation on April 27, 2006, that was included in the John 

Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

(Public Law 109–364). The legislation covered a range of issues, including the following: measures to enhance the force projection capabilities of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force; steps to assess the 

processes, technologies, and performance incentives required to improve the efficiencies and effectiveness of naval vessel construction; 

and efforts to ensure that current capabilities are not permanently 

or prematurely retired to fund future replacement capabilities that 

are either undefined or unaffordable. 

(H.A.S.C. 109–25; H.A.S.C. 109–26; H.A.S.C. 109–27; H.A.S.C. 

109–28; H.A.S.C. 109–29; H.A.S.C. 109–30; H.A.S.C. 109–47; 

H.A.S.C. 109–49; H.A.S.C. 109–50; H.A.S.C. 109–51; H.A.S.C. 109–

61; H.A.S.C. 109–67) 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(101) 

PUBLICATIONS 

PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS

H.A.S.C. 109–1—Full Committee hearing on Committee Organization. January 26, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–2—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Army. February 9, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–3—Full Committee hearings on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of Defense. February 16 and March 10, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–4—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Navy. February 17, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–5—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Combatant Commanders of the U.S. Central Command and U.S. Special 

Operations Command. March 2, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–6—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Combatant Commanders of the U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific 

Command and U.S. Southern Command. March 9, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–7—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force. March 16, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–8—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—The Department of the Navy and Department of the Air Force Aviation 

Acquisition Programs and Future Technology Initiatives. March 3, 

2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–9—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget 

Request on Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle and 

Joint Unmanned Combat Air System Investment Programs. March 

9, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–10—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

102 

Request on Future Combat Systems, Modularity and Force Protection Initiatives. March 16, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–11—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget 

Request on the Department of Defense’s Major Rotorcraft Programs. April 14, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–12—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on The Adequacy of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget to Meet Readiness Needs. 

March 3, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–13—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Military Construction, Family Housing, Base Closures, and Facilities 

Operations and Maintenance. March 15, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–14—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Military Services’ Requirement on Reconstitution of Equipment. April 

6, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–15—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Tactical C4 Systems: Why Does 

the DOD Have so Many Systems Performing the Same 

Functionality? March 3, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–16—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Defense Science and Technology Policy Programs. March 10, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–17—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Department of Defense Responsibilities in Homeland Defense and Homeland Security Missions. 

March 15, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–18—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—U.S. Special Operations Command Fiscal Year 

2006 Budget Request. March 17, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–19—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on Destruction of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile—Program Status and Issues. April 6, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–20—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Recruiting, Retention and Military Personnel Policy, and Benefits 

and Compensation Overview. March 16, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–21—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

103 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview. 

April 7, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–22—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the 

Department of Energy on Atomic Energy Defense Activities. March 

2, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–23—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for 

Space Activities. March 9, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–24—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs. March 15, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–25—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Navy Research and Development: Programs in Support of the War 

on Terrorism, Naval Transformation, and Future Naval Capabilities. March 2, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–26—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request— The Navy’s Future Fleet: Assessing the Strength of Today’s Navy 

for Tomorrow. March 10, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–27—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request on 

Navy Critical Enablers: The Department of the Navy’s Program 

and Budget Request for Antisubmarine Warfare, Mine Counter 

Measures, Ship Self-Defense, and Naval Surface Fire Support. 

March 15, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–28—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

The Nuclear Submarine Force—Past, Present and Future. June 13, 

2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–29—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

joint hearing with the Projection Forces Subcommittee on Small 

Business Technologies. June 29, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–30—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on 

the Department of the Navy Plans and Programs for the DD(X) 

Next-Generation Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship. July 19 

and 20, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–31—Full Committee hearing on Current Operations and the Political Transition in Iraq. March 17, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–32—Full Committee hearing on Iraq’s Past, 

Present and Future. April 6, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–33—Full Committee hearing on Progress of the 

Iraqi Security Forces. June 23, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–34—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

Space Acquisitions. July 12, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–35—Full Committee joint hearing with the Committee on International Relations—Arms Exports to the People’s 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

104 

Republic of China by Member States of the European Union. April 

14, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–36—Full Committee hearing on Chinese Military 

Power. July 27, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–37—Full Committee hearing on Detainee Operations at Guantanamo Bay. June 29, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–38—Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: Operations and Reconstruction. June 22, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–39—Full Committee hearing on The Air Force’s Future Total Force Plan. July 20, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–40—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 

Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology of the Homeland 

Security Committee on Counter Terrorism Technology Sharing. 

July 21, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–41—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Financial Services— Financing of the Iraq Insurgency. July 28, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–42—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Understanding the Iran Threat. 

September 29, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–43—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Combating al Qaeda and the Militant Jihadist Threat. February 16, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–44—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

The Current Status of Military Recruiting and Retention. July 19, 

2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–45—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

The Care of Injured and Wounded Service Members. March 3, 

2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–46—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

joint hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Ground Forces Vehicle 

and Personnel Protection and Rotary Wing Safety of Flight Update. 

February 1, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–47—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Recapitalization Requirements. 

February 28, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–48—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the United 

States Transportation Command and Component Commands. 

March 2, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–49—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

Evolving Missions of the U.S. Navy and the Role of Surface and 

Subsurface Combatants. March 15, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–50—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the Department of the Navy’s Shipbuilding Acquisition Strategy. 

March 30, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–51—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

U.S. Navy’s Future Submarine Force Structure. March 28, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–52—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Implementing the Global War on 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

105 

Terrorism Strategy: Overcoming Interagency Problems. March 15, 

2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–53—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force. March 1, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–54—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for the 

Missile Defense Agency and Ballistic Missile Defense Programs. 

March 9, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–55—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Special Operations Command: 

Transforming for the Long War. March 8, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–56—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Defense Science and Technology: 

Investments to Shape the Evolving Terrorist Threat. March 29, 

2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–57—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Navy. March 1, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–58—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on Future Plans for the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure. April 5, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–59—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Information Technology Issues 

and Defense Transformation. April 6, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–60—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. Central Command. March 15, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–61—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

The Integration of Energy Efficient Propulsion Systems for Future 

U.S. Navy Vessels. April 6, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–62—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for the 

Department of Energy’s Atomic Energy Defense Activities. March 

1, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–63—Full Committee hearing on Acquisition Reform. November 2, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–64—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Mental Health. July 26, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–65—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Defense Health Program Overview. October 19, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–66—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

joint hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on Army and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and Rotorcraft. 

March 30, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–67—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

The U.S. Shipbuilding Industrial Base. April 5, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–68—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

106 

2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget 

Request on the Department of the Navy and Department of the Air 

Force Aviation Acquisition Programs. March 16, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–69—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Army. February 15, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–70—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

The Religious Climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy. June 28, 

2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–71—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Strategic Forces Subcommittee on The Able Danger Program. February 15, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–72—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for 

Space Activities. March 16, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–73—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget 

Request on the Department of Defense Major Rotorcraft Programs. 

March 9, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–74—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget 

Request on Future Combat Systems, Modularity, and Force Protection Initiatives. April 4, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–75—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the Adequacy of Army Forces. February 2, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–76—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget 

Request on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Capabilities. April 6, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–77—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

Space and U.S. National Power. June 21, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–78—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Policy, Compensation and Benefits Overview. April 6, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–79—Full Committee hearing on The Status of the 

Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armoring Initiatives and Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Jammer Initiatives in Operation Iraqi Freedom. May 5, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–80—Full Committee hearing on Review of Marine 

Corps Force Protection. June 21, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–81—Full Committee hearing on National Security 

Implications of the Possible Merger of the China National Offshore 

Oil Corporation (Cnooc) with Unocal Corporation. July 13, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–82—Full Committee hearing on the Quadrennial 

Defense Review: Goals and Principles. September 14, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–83—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Military and National Guard 

Roles in Disaster Response. November 9, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–84—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Implementing the 2006 Quadrenmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

107 

nial Defense Review (QDR) Recommendations to Combat Weapons 

of Mass Destruction (WMD). April 5, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–85—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on The Irregular Warfare Roadmap. 

September 27, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–86—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview. 

March 15, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–87—Full Committee hearing on Operations in Iraq. 

September 29, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–88—Full Committee hearing on The Army’s M1114 

Up-Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH) Distribution Strategy. October 20, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–89—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

The Defense Health Program—Department of Defense initiatives to 

Control Costs. March 29, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–90—Military Personnel Subcommittee joint hearing 

with the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on International Relations on Trafficking in Persons. June 21, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–91—Military Personnel Subcommittee joint hearing 

with the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the Veterans’

Affairs Committee on The Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the 

Selected Reserve. September 27, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–92—Full Committee hearing on the Current Situation and Military Operations in Iraq. November 15, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–93—Full Committee hearing on Your Troops: Their 

Story. November 3, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–94—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

Examination of Criteria for Awards and Decorations. December 6, 

2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–95—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. 

Southern Command. March 16, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–96—Full Committee hearing on the Defense Logistics Agency’s Prime Vendor Program. November 9, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–97—Full Committee hearing on U.S. Military Transition Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. December 7, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–98—Full Committee hearing on Countering a Nuclear Iran. February 1, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–99—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of Defense. February 8, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–100—Full Committee hearing on National Security 

Implications of the Dubai Ports World Deal to Take over Management of U.S. Ports. March 2, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–101—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the European 

Command. March 8, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–102—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of Premmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

108 

viously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. March 9, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–103—Full Committee hearing on the Department 

of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review. March 14, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–104—Full Committee hearing on Issues Relating to 

Defense Acquisition Reform. March 29, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–105—Full Committee hearing on Improving Interagency Coordination for the Global War on Terrorism and Beyond. 

April 4, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–106—Full Committee hearing on Review of Major 

Defense Acquisition Reform Initiatives. April 5, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–107—Full Committee hearing on Building the Capability of Foreign Military Forces. April 7, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–108—Full Committee hearing on Border Security—

Mission of the National Guard. May 24, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–109—Full Committee hearing on Iran: Assessing 

Geopolitical Dynamics and U.S. Policy Options. June 8, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–110—Full Committee hearing on Issues Related to 

H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 

Empowerment Act of 2006. June 13, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–111—Full Committee hearing on Significant Force 

Realignments of the Department of Defense, Including Beddown, 

Support, and Other Costs and Requirements Related to those Realignments. June 20, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–112—Full Committee hearing on Military Power of 

the People’s Republic of China. June 22, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–113—Full Committee hearing on Army and Marine 

Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and Rotorcraft. June 

27, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–114—Full Committee hearing on The Status of Security and Stability in Afghanistan. June 28, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–115—Full Committee hearing on Reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction Findings in Iraq. June 29, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–116—Full Committee hearing on Standards of Military Commissions and Tribunals. July 12, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–117—Full Committee hearing on Standards of Military Commissions and Tribunals. July 26, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–118—Full Committee hearing on U.S. Northern 

Border Security—National Security Implications and Issues for the 

Armed Services. August 1, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–119—Full Committee hearing on U.S. Southern 

Border Security—National Security Implications and Issues for the 

Armed Services. August 2, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–120—Full Committee hearing on Standards of Military Commissions and Tribunals. September 7, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–121—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on 

Aerial Common Sensor Program. October 20, 2005. 

H.A.S.C. 109–122—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on an Update on the Use of Combat Helmets, Vehicle 

Armor and Body Armor by Ground Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. June 15, 2006. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

109 

H.A.S.C. 109–123—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the Department of Defense Management of Historic and Historic-Eligible 

Facilities. March 8, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–124—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Service 

Contracting’s Impact on Military Readiness. April 5, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–125—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Navy 

Transformation. April 6, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–126—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on Combat Vehicle Active Protection Systems. September 

21, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–127—Readiness Subcommittee joint hearing with 

the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee on Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs 

of the Department of Defense. September 26, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–128—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Applying Lessons Learned from 

Hurricane Katrina: How the Department of Defense is Preparing 

for the Upcoming Hurricane Season. May 25, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–129—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Assessing United States Special Operations Command’s Missions and Roles. June 29, 2006. 

H.A.S.C. 109–130—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

Plutonium Disposition and the U.S. Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility. 

July 26 2006. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

HOUSE REPORTS 

Report number Date filed Bill number Title 

109–89 .............................................................. May 20, 2005 ................................................... H.R. 1815 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, to prescripersonnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for poses. 

109–234 ............................................................ Sept. 22, 2005 ................................................. H. Res. 417 ...................................................... Directing Secretary of Defense to transmit to the Hou

resentatives not later than 14 days after the dadoption of this resolution documents in the possesSecretary of Defense relating to the disclosure of and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame. 

109–243 ............................................................ Sept. 29, 2005 ................................................. H.J. Res. 65 ..................................................... Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Ba

and Realignment Commission. 

109–360 ............................................................ Dec. 18, 2005 .................................................. H.R. 1815 Conf. Rept ...................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, to prescripersonnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for poses. 

109–384 ............................................................ Mar. 7, 2006 .................................................... H.Res. 645 ....................................................... Requesting the President and directing Secretary of 

transmit to the House of Representatives all infothe possession of the President or the Secretary relating to the collection of intelligence information to persons inside the United States without obtaiordered warrants authorizing the collection of suction and relating to the policy of the United Statspect to the gathering of counterterrorism within States. 

109–397 ............................................................ Mar. 16, 2006 .................................................. H.Res. 685 ....................................................... Requesting the President and directing the Secreta

and Secretary of Defense provide to the House of Rtives certain documents in their possession relatentity with which the United States has contracted relations purposes concerning Iraq. 

109–452 ............................................................ May 5, 2006 ..................................................... H.R. 5122 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, to prescripersonnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for poses. 

109–664, Part I ................................................. Sept. 15, 2006 ................................................. H.R. 6054 ......................................................... To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize tr

tary commission for violations of the law of war, anpurposes. 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
109–702 ............................................................ Sept. 29, 2006 ................................................. H.R. 5122 Conf. Rept ...................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, to prescripersonnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for poses. 

PUBLIC LAWS 

Public law number Date enacted Bill number Title 

109–59 .............................................................. Dec. 30, 2005 .................................................. S. 1988 ............................................................ To authorize the transfer of items in the War Reserve

for Allies, Korea. 

109–100 ............................................................ Nov. 11, 2005 .................................................. S. 37 ................................................................ A bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast 

search for 2 years. 

109–104 ............................................................ Nov. 19, 2005 .................................................. H.R. 4326 ......................................................... To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 

for the nuclear refueling of the U.S.S. ‘‘Carl Vins

70). 

109–142 ............................................................ Dec. 22, 2005 .................................................. H.J. Res. 38 ..................................................... Recognizing Commodore John Barry as the first flag 

the United States. 

109–163 ............................................................ Jan. 6, 2006 ..................................................... H.R. 1815 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, to prescripersonnel strengths for fiscal year 2006, and for poses. 

109–164 ............................................................ Jan. 6, 2006 ..................................................... H.R. 972 ........................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 an

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, anpurposes. 

109–272 ............................................................ Aug. 14, 2006 .................................................. H.R. 5683 ......................................................... To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in 

California, by providing for the immediate acquisimemorial by the United States. 

109–364 ............................................................ Oct. 17, 2006 ................................................... H.R. 5122 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for m

tivities of the Department of Defense, to prescripersonnel strengths for fiscal year 2007, and for poses. 

109–366 ............................................................ Oct. 17, 2006 ................................................... S. 3930 ............................................................ A bill to authorize trial by military commission for v

the law of war, and for other purposes. 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS
mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

(113) 

PRESS RELEASES 

FIRST SESSION

January 24, 2005—Hunter Statement on Intelligence Activities 

of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

January 26, 2005—Hunter, Hyde, Manzullo Urge Treasury to 

Extend Review of IBM’s Computer Sale to Chinese Firm 

January 28, 2005—Hunter Statement on Awarding of Presidential Helicopter Contract 

February 7, 2005—Hunter Statement on the DOD Budget Proposal 

February 9, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Army 

Budget Request 

February 16, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Department of Defense’s Budget Request 

February 17, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Department of the Navy’s Budget Request 

February 23, 2005—Hunter Statement on Secretary Rumsfeld’s 

Recent Appearance at the Committee on Armed Services and the 

Inaccurate Washington Post Coverage That Followed 

March 2, 2005—Hunter Statement on the Passing of Former 

Rep. Tillie Fowler (FL) 

March 15, 2005—Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act Includes Congressman Terry Everett’s Death Benefits Expansion Proposal 

March 15, 2005—Cole Amendment Keeps Military Benefits on 

Track 

March 16, 2005—Chairman Hunter Announces Committee on 

Armed Services Subcommittee Vice Chairmen for the 109th Congress 

March 31, 2005—Hunter Statement on Silberman-Robb Commission Report on WMD Intelligence 

April 6, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Progress in Iraq 

May 5, 2005—Hunter Opening Statement on the Status of Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armoring Initiatives and IED Jammer Initiatives in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) 

May 11, 2005—Committee on Armed Services Prohibits Women 

in Combat 

May 13, 2005—Hunter Statement on Base Realignment and Closure Commission 

May 19, 2005—Mark-up of H.R. 1815—the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 

May 19, 2005—Hunter Announces Changes in Committee Staff 

Leadership 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

114 

May 25, 2005—Hunter Statement on DOD Direct Ground Combat Policy 

May 25, 2005—House Approves Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization Bill; Focuses on Major Procurement Overhaul, Force 

Protection and Personnel Benefits 

June 13, 2005—Hunter Statements on Guantanamo Bay, including Menus for Detainees 

June 16, 2005—Hunter Condemns Durbin Statements on Guantanamo Bay 

June 21, 2005—Members of the Committee on Armed Services 

Issue Statements in Response to Calls to Form a Select Committee 

to Investigate Alleged Abuses against Terrorists Held at Guantanamo Bay 

June 21, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the Status of U.S. Marine Corps HMMWV 

Underbody Armor Kits in OIF 

June 22, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Afghanistan: Operations and Reconstruction 

June 23, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the Progress of the Iraqi Security Forces 

June 27, 2005—Congressional Delegation Inspects Guantanamo 

Detainee Facility 

June 29, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Detainee Operations at Guantanamo 

July 13, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the National Security Implications of the Possible 

Merger of the China National Offshore Oil Corporations (CNOOC) 

and the Unocal Corporation 

July 13, 2005—Hunter Statement on CNOOC’s Attempted Purchase of UNOCAL 

July 20, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the Air Force’s Future Total Force 

July 25, 2005—Gun Truck Armor Kits Provide Protection for 

U.S. Troops in Iraq 

July 25, 2005—Congressional Delegation Visits With British 

Prime Minister Tony Blair to Express America’s Condolences 

July 27, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on China’s Grand Strategy and Military Modernization 

July 29, 2005—Hunter Appoints Three Distinguished Individuals 

to the Commission on National Guard and the Reserves 

September 14, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Quadrennial Defense Review: Goals and 

Principles 

September 29, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing to Review the Current Operations in Iraq 

October 20, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Army’s M–1114 Up-Armor HMMWV Distribution Strategy 

October 27, 2005—Hunter Statement on Floor Consideration of 

Base Realignment and Closure Commission Recommendations 

November 2, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on Acquisition Reform 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

115 

November 3, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on Your Troops—Their Stories 

November 9, 2005—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Defense Logistics Agency’s Prime Vendor 

Program 

November 10, 2005—Everett Addresses Space and National Security Implications 

November 15, 2006—Hunter Calls on American Media to Print 

U.S. Laws Banning Torture 

November 17, 2005—Hunter Calls on Americans to ‘‘Hold 

Steady’’ in Iraq 

November 22, 2005—Rep. Hayes Named to the Conference Committee on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense Authorization Act 

December 15, 2005—Detainee Deal Now Resolved as Hunter 

Gains Protections for American Personnel; Hunter Gets Letter of 

Assurance from Director of National Intelligence 

December 18, 2005—House and Senate Conferees Reach Agreement on H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. 

SECOND SESSION

January 6, 2006—Congressional Delegation Visits Troops in Iraq 

and Afghanistan 

January 20, 2006—Hunter Statement on Pete Geren’s Nomination for Undersecretary of the Army 

February 1, 2006—Weldon Statement at Joint Hearing on Body 

and Vehicle Armor, Rotorcraft Safety 

February 1, 2006—Hefley Statement at Joint Hearing on Body 

and Vehicle Armor, Rotorcraft Safety 

February 1, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on Options Available to the United States to 

Counter a Nuclear Iran 

February 3, 2006—Hunter Statement on the DOD Quadrennial 

Defense Review 

February 6, 2006—Hunter Statement on President Bush’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2007 

February 8, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Posture Hearing on the DOD Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request 

February 15, 2006—Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Posture Hearing on the Army’s Fiscal Year 2007 Budget 

Request 

February 15, 2006—Hunter Statement on the Final Select Committee Report on Hurricane Katrina 

February 16, 2006—Saxton Opening Statement at the Joint 

Hearing on the Able Danger Program 

February 16, 2006—Weldon Opening Statement at the Joint 

Hearing on the Able Danger Program 

February 16, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on Combating al-Qaeda and the Militant Jihadists 

February 17, 2006—Hunter Statement on Rep. Joel Hefley’s (CO) 

Retirement 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

116 

February 17, 2006—Hunter Statement on the Release of Additional Photographs from Abu Ghraib 

February 28, 2006—Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on Projection Forces Hearing on the Aerial Refueling and Recapitalization 

Program 

March 1, 2006—Everett Statement at Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget Request on the Department of Energy’s Atomic Energy Defense Activities 

March 1, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Posture Hearing on the Department of the Air Force’s Fiscal 

Year 2007 Budget Request 

March 1, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Posture Hearing on the Department of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 

2007 Budget Request 

March 2, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the National Security Implications of Dubai Ports 

World’s Takeover of U.S. Ports 

March 2, 2006—Hunter Statement on Dubai and U.S. Ports 

March 2, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Posture Hearing on the United States Transportation Command’s Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request 

March 6, 2006—Hunter Statement on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Allowing Military Recruiters Access to College Campuses 

March 7, 2006—Hunter Statement on Dubai Ports World’s Announcement to Divest U.S. Holdings 

March 8, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on the 

Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 

for the Special Operations Command 

March 8, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization 

Budget Request from the U.S. European Command 

March 9, 2006—Everett Statement at Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the Missile Defense Agency and Ballistic Missile Defense Programs 

March 9, 2006—Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical 

Air and Land Forces Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request 

for DOD Major Rotorcraft Programs 

March 9, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea 

March 14, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review 

March 15, 2006—McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on Military Personnel Hearing on the Current Status of Military Commissaries, Morale, Welfare and Recreation Activities 

March 15, 2006—Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on Projection Forces Hearing on the Evolving Missions of the U.S. Navy and 

the Role of Surface and Subsurface Combatants 

March 15, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on Overmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

117 

coming Interagency Problems in Implementing the Global War on 

Terror Strategy 

March 15, 2006—Hunter Statement on Dubai Ports World’s Release of Additional Information on Its Divestment of U.S. Holdings 

March 15, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Central Command 

March 16, 2006—Everett Statement at Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request for 

Space Activities 

March 16, 2006—Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical 

Air and Land Forces Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request 

for Navy and Air Force Aviation Acquisition Programs 

March 16, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Southern Command 

March 17, 2006—Hunter Calls on American Citizens to Emulate 

‘‘Purpose and Mission’’ of Brave U.S. Troops on Third Anniversary 

of OIF 

March 29, 2006—Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on Projection Forces Hearing on the Future Submarine Force Structure 

March 29, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on Acquisition Reform: Bringing Change to the 

Process 

March 29, 2006—McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on Military Personnel Hearing on the Defense Health Program and Department of Defense Initiatives to Control Cost 

March 29, 2006—Subcommittee on Readiness Chairman Hefley’s 

Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Acquisition 

Reform: Bringing Change to the Process 

March 29, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on the 

Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 

for Defense Science and Technology—Investments to Shape the 

Evolving Terrorist Threat 

March 29, 2006—Hunter Statement Honoring Casper 

Weinburger’s Services to America 

March 30, 2006—Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on Projection Forces Hearing on the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2007 Shipbuilding 

Acquisition Strategy 

March 30, 2006—Hefley Statement at Joint Hearing on Army 

and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and 

Rotorcraft 

March 30, 2006—Weldon Statement at Joint Hearing on Army 

and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and 

Rotorcraft 

March 31, 2006—Prime Vender Investigation a Win for American 

Taxpayers; Committee on Armed Services Members Release Results from DOD Investigation into Exorbitant Pricing 

April 4, 2006—Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical 

Air and Land Forces Posture Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Future Combat 

Systems, Modularity and Force Protection Initiatives 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

118 

April 4, 2006—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities Chairman Saxton Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Improving Interagency Coordination in the Global War on Terrorism and Beyond 

April 4, 2006—Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 

Chairman Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed Services 

Hearing on Improving Interagency Coordination in the Global War 

on Terrorism and Beyond 

April 5, 2006—Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on Projection 

Forces Hearing on the United States Shipbuilding Industrial Base 

April 5, 2006—Everett Statement at Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces Hearing on Plans for Transforming the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Weapons Complex 

April 5, 2006—Hefley Statement at Subcommittee on Readiness 

Hearing on the Impact of Service Contracting on Military Readiness 

April 5, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on Improving the 

Department of Defense’s Capability to Combat Weapons of Mass 

Destruction 

April 5, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Major Defense Acquisition Reform Initiatives 

April 6, 2006—Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on Projection 

Forces Hearing on Efficient Propulsion Systems for Navy Vessels 

April 6, 2006—Hefley Statement at Subcommittee on Readiness 

Hearing on the Navy’s Transformation 

April 6, 2006—McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel Hearing on Recruitment and Retention and Military Personnel Policy, Compensation and Benefits 

April 6, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on Information 

Technology Issues and Defense Transformation 

April 7, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Building the Capacity of Foreign Military Forces 

April 7, 2006—New Congressionally-Mandated Reporting Requirement Highlights Dramatic Cost Increases in 36 Major Weapons Systems 

April 18, 2006—Hunter expresses Strong Support for Secretary 

of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 

April 22, 2006—U.S. Congressional Delegation Attends Historic 

Meeting of Iraqi Parliament 

April 28, 2006—Hunter Letter to President Bush Outlining His 

Grave Concerns with the Potential Merger Between French-owned 

Alcatel and American-Owned Lucent Technologies 

May 3, 2006—Mark-up of H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act 

May 19, 2006—Hunter: ‘‘Don’t Tar the Service of 922,000 Brave 

American Troops’’

May 24, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the National Guard’s Border Security Mission 

May 25, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on the Department of Defense’s Preparedness for the Upcoming Hurricane Season 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

119 

June 8, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Iran: Geopolitical Dynamics and U.S. Policy Options 

June 8, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Members Comment 

on the Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi 

June 13, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement and 

National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006 

June 15, 2006—Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical 

Air and Land Forces Hearing on Combat Helmets, Body and Vehicle Armor in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom 

June 16, 2006—Hunter Speech during House Debate on H. Res. 

861, Declaring that the United States Will Prevail in the Global 

War on Terror 

June 20, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on DOD Global Defense Posture Strategy Including 

Beddown, Support and Other Requirements 

June 20, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 

on DOD Global Defense Posture Strategy 

June 20, 2006—Hunter Statement: ‘‘Potential North Korea Missile Test Underscores Need for Ballistic Missile Defense System’’

June 21, 2006—Everett Statement at Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces Hearing on Space and U.S. National Power 

June 21, 2006—Subcommittee for Strategic Forces Hearing Focuses on Protecting Space and U.S. National Power 

June 21, 2006—McHugh Statement at Joint Hearing on Global 

Human Rights, Specifically Human Trafficking 

June 21, 2006—Subcommittee on Military Personnel and Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Africa Joint 

Hearing Focuses on Global Human Rights, specifically Human 

Trafficking 

June 22, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 

June 26, 2006—Everett Statement at Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces Hearing on Plutonium Deposition and the U.S. Mixed Oxide 

Facility 

June 27, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Army and Marine Corps Reset Programs for 

Ground Equipment Utilized in OIF and OEF 

June 27, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 

on Army and Marine Corps Reset Strategies 

June 28, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on the Status of Safety and Security in Afghanistan 

June 28, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Receives Update 

on the Status of Safety and Security in Afghanistan 

June 29, 2006—Hunter to Explore all Legislative Options Available to Try Terrorists 

June 29, 2006—Rep. Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on New Discovery of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq 

June 29, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 

on Reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction Findings in Iraq 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

120 

June 29, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on the 

Missions and Responsibilities of the U.S. Special Operations Command 

June 29, 2006—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities Focuses on the United States Special Operations Command’s Roles and Missions 

July 10, 2006—Hunter Statement Clarifying House Position on 

Legal Immigrants Serving in the U.S. Armed Services 

July 12, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Tribunals 

July 12, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 

on Possible Legislative Initiatives to Try Detainees for War Crimes 

July 20, 2006—Hunter Supports President Bush on Oman Free 

Trade Agreement 

July 25, 2006—Committee on Armed Services to Hold Field 

Hearing in Michigan to Address Border Security 

July 26, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Standards Utilized in 

Trying Detainees 

July 26, 2006—Hunter Statement Regarding the National Foreign Investment and Strengthened Transparency Act 

July 31, 2006—Committee on Armed Services to Hold Field 

Hearing in Arizona 

August 23, 2006—Hunter Announces Increase in Funding for 

Combat Readiness, Equipment Reset 

September 1, 2006—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces Chairman 

Everett Lauds Successful Missile Defense Test 

September 6, 2006—Hunter Statement Regarding President 

Bush’s Proposal for the Treatment and Prosecution of Terrorists 

September 7, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Standards Utilized 

in Trying Detainees 

September 7, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses on White House Legislative Initiative to Try Detainees 

September 11, 2006—Hunter Unveils Military Commissions Act 

of 2006 

September 12, 2006—Hunter Reacts to Democrat Leader’s 

Osama bin Laden Comments 

September 13, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Mark-up on H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 

2006 

September 13, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Votes to 

Create New Process to Prosecute Terrorists, Protect Troops on the 

Battlefield 

September 21, 2006—Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on 

Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing on Combat Vehicle Active 

Protection Systems 

September 21, 2006—Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 

Forces hearing focuses on Combat Vehicle Active Protection Systems 

September 26, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on Enmmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

121 

ergy Efficiency and Alternative Energy Programs of the Department of Defense 

September 26, 2006—Joint Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing Focuses on Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy 

Programs of the Department of Defense 

September 26, 2006—Hunter Responds to Democrat Allegations 

about the Iraq War 

September 26, 2006—Hunter, Sensenbrenner Introduce Military 

Commissions Agreement Reached Among House, Senate and Bush 

Administration 

September 27, 2006—Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on the 

Department of Defense’s Irregular Warfare Map 

September 27, 2006—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing Focuses on Irregular Warfare Map 

September 27, 2006—Hunter Floor Statement during Debate on 

H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act of 2006 

September 27, 2006—McHugh Opening Statement at Joint Hearing on the Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve 

September 27, 2006—Joint Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

and Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity Hearing Focuses on the Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve 

September 28, 2006—Hunter, Warner Reach Deal on Annual Defense Authorization Bill 

September 29, 2006—House and Senate Conferees Approve the 

Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2007 

October 24, 2006—Hunter: Send Iraqi Military Battalions to 

Baghdad 

October 31, 2006—Hunter Calls on Kerry to Apologize to U.S. 

Troops 

November 3, 2006—Hunter Corrects New York Times Regarding 

Special Inspector General for Iraq Provision in National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 

November 8, 2006—Hunter Comments on Secretary Rumsfeld’s 

Resignation 

November 14, 2006—Hunter Statement on Lucent Alcatel Merger 

November 15, 2006—Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 

Services Hearing on Current Situation and Military Operations in 

Iraq 

November 15, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses on Situation in Iraq 

November 15, 2006—Hunter Statement Regarding Rep. Simmons 

November 20, 2006—Hunter: Best Option is to ‘‘Go Iraqi’’

December 5, 2006—House Overwhelmingly Approves Resolution 

to Help Wounded Servicemembers Find Employment 

December 6, 2006—Hunter: ‘‘American Policy Should Flow From 

Our Shores With One Voice’’

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS

122 

December 6, 2006—Subcommittee on Military Personnel Chairman McHugh Holds Hearing to Assess Criteria, Consistency and 

Timeliness of Valor Awards and Decoration 

December 6, 2006—Chairman Hunter, Members of the House 

Armed Services Committee Release Comprehensive Defense Review 

December 7, 2006—Committee on Armed Services Holds Hearing 

to Assess Military Training Teams Embedded With Iraqi Units 

December 13, 2006—Hunter: ‘‘Goodyear Tire and Steelworkers 

Need to Step Up For America’’

Æ 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with REPORTS