U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

99–006 2011

Union Calendar No. 433 

111th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 111–710 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 3

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 4

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 6

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 7

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Masschusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL, JR. Maryland 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 10

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 11

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 12

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 13

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 14

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 15

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 16, 17

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 18

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York, Ranking 

Member 1

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

Ranking Member 2

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 5

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 8

CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii 9


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
III

PAUL ARCANGELI, Staff Director 

ZACH STEACY, Director, Legislative Operations 

1Mr. McHugh resigned from the Committee on June 3, 2009. 

2Mr. McKeon became Ranking Member on June 16, 2009. 

3Mr. Abercrombie resigned from the House of Representatives on Feb. 28, 2010. 

4Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. 

5Mr. Shuster resigned from the Committee on May 27, 2010. 

6Mr. Murphy (PA) resigned from the Committee on May 6, 2010. 

7Ms. Gillibrand resigned from the House of Representatives on Jan. 26, 2009. 

8Mr. Platts was appointed to the Committee on June 16, 2009. 

9Mr. Djou was appointed to the Committee on May 27, 2010. 

10Mr. Massa resigned from the House of Representatives on Mar. 8, 2010. 11Mr. Murphy (NY) was appointed to the Committee on Apr. 30, 2009. 12Mr. Owens was appointed to the Committee on Nov. 19, 2009. 13Mr. Garamendi was appointed to the Committee on May 6, 2010. 14Mr. Critz was appointed to the Committee on May 25, 2010. 15Mr. Boswell was appointed to the Committee on May 6, 2010. 16Mr. Boren took a leave of absence from the Committee on Feb. 5, 2009. 17Mr. Boren was appointed to the Committee on Apr. 30, 2009. 18Mr. Johnson was ranked immediately after Mr. Boren on May 6, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(V)

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, January 3, 2011. 

Hon. LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

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

transmitted herewith the report of activities of the Committee on 

Armed Services for the 111th Congress. 

Sincerely, 

IKE SKELTON, Chairman. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(VII) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Powers and Duties, Committee on Armed Services—111th Congress ................ 1 

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

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

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

Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight ........................................ 3 

Committee Rules ...................................................................................................... 5 

Composition of the Committee on Armed Services—111th Congress ................. 16 

Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services—111th Congress ............. 18 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces ........................................................... 18 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel .............................................................. 19 

Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................ 20 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces ................................. 21 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces .................................................................. 22 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ..... 23 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................................ 24 

Full Committee Panel ............................................................................................. 25 

Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform ............................................................. 25 

Committee Staff ....................................................................................................... 26 

Committee Meetings ................................................................................................ 28 

Legislative Actions ................................................................................................... 29 

Legislation Enacted Into Law ......................................................................... 29 

Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress and Presented to the 

President ........................................................................................................ 33 

Legislation Reported but Not Enacted ........................................................... 36 

Legislation Not Reported but Managed by the House Committee on 

Armed Services on the Floor of the House of Representatives ................. 41 

Oversight Activities ................................................................................................. 58 

Other Activities of the Full Committee ................................................................. 123 

Budget Activity ................................................................................................. 123 

Full Committee Hearings ................................................................................ 125 

Other Activities of the Subcommittees and the Panel .......................................... 132 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces ........................................................... 132 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel .............................................................. 133 

Subcommittee on Readiness ............................................................................ 134 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces ................................. 137 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces .................................................................. 141 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ..... 142 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ............................................ 144 

Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform ............................................................. 147 

Publications .............................................................................................................. 149 

Committee Prints .......................................................................................... 149 

Published Proceedings .................................................................................. 149 

House Reports ............................................................................................... 161 

Public Laws ................................................................................................... 162 

Press Releases .......................................................................................................... 163 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
Union Calendar No. 433 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 111–710 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

ARMED SERVICES FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SKELTON, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

ON

POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES—111TH CONGRESS 

BACKGROUND

The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee 

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

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

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

1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and naval appropriations 

was taken from the Committee on Appropriations and given to the 

Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs, respectively. 

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

all appropriations was again placed in the Committee on Appropriations. 

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

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

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

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

the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially unchanged. 

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

Armed Services was to review and study on a continuing basis all 

laws, programs, and government activities dealing with or involvVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
2 

ing 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 Services 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; 

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; 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
3 

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 the rule, all bills, resolutions, and other matters relating to 

subjects within the jurisdiction of any standing committee shall be 

referred to such committee. The jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule X is as 

follows: 

(1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and Air 

Force reservations and establishments. 

(2) Common defense generally. 

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

oil shale reserves. 

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

(5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures relating to 

the maintenance, operation, and administration of interoceanic canals. 

(6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies. 

(7) Military applications of nuclear energy. 

(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 

Department of Defense. 

(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including financial assistance for the construction and operation of vessels, 

maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair industrial 

base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant marine officers and 

seamen as these matters relate to the national security. 

(10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and privileges of members of the Armed Forces. 

(11) Scientific research and development in support of the armed 

services. 

(12) Selective service. 

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

Air Force. 

(14) Soldiers’ and sailors’ homes. 

(15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the common 

defense. 

In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general oversight 

function, the Committee on Armed Services has special oversight 

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

INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY AND LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT

H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, to provide general authority for each 

committee to investigate matters within its jurisdiction. That 

amendment established a permanent investigative authority and 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
4 

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. 279 was approved by the House on March 31, 2009, and 

provided funds for, among other things, committee oversight responsibilities to be conducted in the 111th Congress. The committee derives its authority to conduct oversight from, among other 

things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight responsibilities), clause 

3(b) of rule X (relating to special oversight functions), and clause 

1(b) of rule XI (relating to investigations and studies). 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(5) 

COMMITTEE RULES 

The committee held its organizational meeting on January 14, 

2009, and adopted the following rules governing rules and procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full committee and its 

subcommittees. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–1; Committee Print 1) 

RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES

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

Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in these 

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

RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

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

when the House of Representatives is in session, and at such other 

times as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee (hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Chairman’’), or by written request of members of the Committee pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XI of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives. 

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

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

RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES

Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive 

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

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

meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman, other subcommittee Chairmen, and the Ranking Minority Member of the 

subcommittee with a view toward avoiding, whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings 

or hearings. 

RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND

SUBCOMMITTEES

(a) Jurisdiction 

(1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all subjects listed in 

clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives and retains exclusive jurisdiction for: defense policy generally, ongoing military operations, the organization and reform of the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, 

counter-drug programs, security and humanitarian assistance (except special operations-related activities) of the Department of Defense, acquisition and industrial base policy, technology transfer 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
6 

and export controls, joint interoperability, the Cooperative Threat 

Reduction program, Department of Energy nonproliferation programs, detainee affairs and policy, and inter-agency reform as it 

pertains to the Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons 

programs of the Department of Energy. While subcommittees are 

provided jurisdictional responsibilities in subparagraph (2), the 

Committee retains the right to exercise oversight and legislative jurisdiction over all subjects within its purview under rule X of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives. 

(2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of seven standing 

subcommittees with the following jurisdictions: 

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

acquisition programs (except strategic missiles, special operations 

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

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

Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel policy, 

reserve component integration and employment issues, military 

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

the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and 

Recreation issues and programs. 

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

and energy policy and programs of the Department of Defense. 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces: Navy and 

Marine Corps acquisition programs (except strategic weapons, 

space, special operations, and information technology programs) 

and Naval Reserve equipment. In addition, the subcommittee will 

be responsible for maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the 

Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 1(c) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic weapons (except 

deep strike bombers and related systems), space programs, ballistic 

missile defense, intelligence policy and national programs, and Department of Energy national security programs (except non-proliferation programs). 

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

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

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

within the Committee’s jurisdiction; and related intelligence support. 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee, subject to the concurrence of 

the Chairman of the Committee and, as appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee shall have no legislative 

jurisdiction. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
7 

(b) Membership of the Subcommittees 

(1) Subcommittee memberships, with the exception of membership on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, shall be 

filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority party’s caucus 

and the Minority party’s conference, respectively. 

(2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority party’s caucus and the Minority 

party’s conference, respectively. Consistent with the party ratios established by the Majority party, all other Majority members of the 

subcommittee shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee, and all other Minority members shall be appointed by the 

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. 

(3) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking Minority Member thereof may sit as ex officio members of all subcommittees. Ex 

officio members shall not vote in subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining 

the ratio of the subcommittees or establishing a quorum at subcommittee hearings or meetings. 

(4) A member of the Committee who is not a member of a particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee and participate during any of its hearings but shall not have authority to vote, 

cannot be counted for the purpose of achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point of order at the hearing. 

RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES

(a) Committee Panels 

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

more than one subcommittee and to report to the Committee. 

(2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue in existence for more than six months after the appointment. A panel so 

appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be reappointed 

by the Chairman for a period of time which is not to exceed six 

months. 

(3) Consistent with the party ratios established by the Majority 

party, all Majority members of the panels shall be appointed by the 

Chairman of the Committee, and all Minority members shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee. The 

Chairman of the Committee shall choose one of the Majority members so appointed who does not currently chair another subcommittee of the Committee to serve as Chairman of the panel. 

The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee shall similarly 

choose the Ranking Minority Member of the panel. 

(4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction. 

(b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces 

(1) The Chairman of the Committee, or a Chairman of a subcommittee with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee, 

may designate a task force to inquire into and take testimony on 

a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee or subcommittee, respectively. The Chairman and Ranking Minority 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
8 

Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall each appoint an 

equal number of members to the task force. The Chairman of the 

Committee or subcommittee shall choose one of the members so appointed, who does not currently chair another subcommittee of the 

Committee, to serve as Chairman of the task force. The Ranking 

Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall similarly 

appoint the Ranking Minority Member of the task force. 

(2) No task force appointed by the Chairman of the Committee 

or subcommittee shall continue in existence for more than three 

months. A task force may only be reappointed for an additional 

three months with the written concurrence of the Chairman and 

Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee 

whose Chairman appointed the task force. 

(3) No task force shall have legislative jurisdiction. 

RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

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

appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee. 

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

when called by the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, 

as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee or subcommittee, 

as appropriate. 

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

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

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

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

considered by the Committee until after the intervention of three 

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

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

Committee. 

(e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority 

Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation and 

other matters to be considered by the House of Representatives, 

pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not conflict with the Rules of the 

House of Representatives and other applicable rules. 

RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS

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

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

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

at least one week before the commencement of the hearing. However, if the Chairman of the Committee, or of any subcommittee, 

panel, or task force, with the concurrence of the respective Ranking 

Minority Member, determines that there is good cause to begin the 

hearing sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task 

force so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present for 

the transaction of business, such chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible date. Any announcement made 

under this rule shall be promptly published in the Daily Digest, 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
9 

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 

any subcommittee, panel, or task force, to the extent that the respective body is authorized to conduct markups, shall be open to 

the public except when the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or 

task force in open session and with a majority being present, determines by record vote that all or part of the remainder of that hearing or meeting on that day shall be in executive session because 

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

would endanger the national security, would compromise sensitive 

law enforcement information, or would violate any law or rule of 

the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding the requirements of 

the preceding sentence, a majority of those present, there being in 

attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force may vote to close a hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or evidence to be received would endanger the national security, would 

compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate any law or rule of the House of Representatives. If the decision 

is to proceed in executive session, the vote must be by record vote 

and in open session, a majority of the Committee, subcommittee, 

panel, or task force being present. 

(b) Whenever it is asserted by a member of the Committee or 

subcommittee that the evidence or testimony at a hearing may 

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

would give at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate the witness, notwithstanding the requirements of (a) and the 

provisions of clause 2(g)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, such evidence or testimony shall be presented in 

executive session, if by a majority vote of those present, there being 

in attendance no fewer than two members of the Committee or subcommittee, the Committee or subcommittee determines that such 

evidence may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. 

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

than two members of the Committee or subcommittee may also 

vote to close the hearing or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether evidence or testimony to be received would tend 

to defame, degrade or incriminate any person. The Committee or 

subcommittee shall proceed to receive such testimony in open session only if the Committee or subcommittee, a majority being 

present, determines that such evidence or testimony will not tend 

to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. 

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

Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by letter 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
10 

to the Chairman, only one member of that member’s personal staff, 

which may include fellows, with Top Secret security clearance to 

attend hearings of the Committee, or that member’s subcommittee(s), panel(s), or task force(s) (excluding briefings or meetings held under the provisions of committee rule 9(a)), which have 

been closed under the provisions of rule 9(a) above for national security purposes for the taking of testimony. The attendance of such 

a staff member or fellow at such hearings is subject to the approval 

of the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force as dictated by 

national security requirements at that time. The attainment of any 

required security clearances is the responsibility of individual 

members of the Committee. 

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

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

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

Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the Committee or 

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

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

for closing hearings to the public. 

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

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

consecutive days of hearings. 

RULE 10. QUORUM

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

members shall constitute a quorum. 

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

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

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

(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation; 

(2) Closing Committee or subcommittee meetings and hearings 

to the public; 

(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas; 

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

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

discuss whether evidence or testimony to be received would 

tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. 

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

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

RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE

(a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address the 

Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when the 

member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee 

chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall be 

recognized for not more than five minutes to address the Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
11 

member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The fiveminute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee. 

(b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the Committee 

or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened shall be 

recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving subsequently 

shall be recognized in order of their arrival. Notwithstanding the 

foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member will 

take precedence upon their arrival. In recognizing members to 

question witnesses in this fashion, the Chairman shall take into 

consideration the ratio of the Majority to Minority members 

present and shall establish the order of recognition for questioning 

in such a manner as not to disadvantage the members of either 

party. 

(2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a member of the 

Committee who is not a member of a subcommittee may be recognized by a subcommittee chairman in order of their arrival and 

after all present subcommittee members have been recognized. 

(3) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, with the 

concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may depart with the regular order for questioning which is specified in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule provided that such a decision is 

announced prior to the hearing or prior to the opening statements 

of the witnesses and that any such departure applies equally to the 

Majority and the Minority. 

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

force hearings and meetings. 

RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

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

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

the Committee and any subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph): 

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

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

adjourned, and to hold hearings, and 

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

testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 

records, correspondence, memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not limited to, those in electronic form, 

as it considers necessary. 

(b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full Committee Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking Minority 

Member of the Committee, under subparagraph (a)(2) in the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations or activities, 

only when authorized by a majority of the members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee being present. Authorized 

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


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
12 

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

of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued by the 

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

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

RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS

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

Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the Committee 

or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of presentation and 

shall be distributed to all members of the Committee or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less than 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such prepared statement shall 

also be submitted to the Committee in electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national security information bearing a 

classification of Secret or higher, the statement shall be made 

available in the Committee rooms to all members of the Committee 

or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less than 24 hours 

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

may be waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a quorum being present. In cases where a witness does 

not submit a statement by the time required under this rule, the 

Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, with 

the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may 

elect to exclude the witness from the hearing. 

(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each 

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

testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such appearance to 

a brief summary of the submitted written statement. 

RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES

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

may administer oaths to any witness. 

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

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

before this Committee (or subcommittee) in the matters now under 

consideration will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you God?’’ 

RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES

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

members of the Committee or subcommittee may put questions to 

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

rule 11 of the Committee. 

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

shall have not more than five minutes to question each witness or 

panel of witnesses, the responses of the witness or witnesses being 

included in the five-minute period, until such time as each member 

has had an opportunity to question each witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter, additional rounds for questioning witnesses by 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
13 

members are within the discretion of the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate. 

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

before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration. 

RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS

The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the Committee, 

subcommittee, or panel will be published officially in verbatim 

form, with the material requested for the record inserted at that 

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

transcripts of markups conducted by the Committee or any subcommittee may be published officially in verbatim form. Any requests to correct any errors, other than those in transcription, will 

be appended to the record, and the appropriate place where the 

change is requested will be footnoted. Any transcript published 

under this rule shall include the results of record votes conducted 

in the session covered by the transcript and shall also include materials that have been submitted for the record and are covered 

under rule 19. The handling and safekeeping of these materials 

shall fully satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No transcript of an 

executive session conducted under rule 9 shall be published under 

this rule. 

RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS

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

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

of those members present. 

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

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

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

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

(e) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, as appropriate, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority Member or 

the most senior Minority member who is present at the time, may 

elect to postpone requested record votes until such time or point at 

a markup as is mutually decided. When proceedings resume on a 

postponed question, notwithstanding any intervening order for the 

previous question, the underlying proposition shall remain subject 

to further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the 

question was postponed. 

RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS

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

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

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

days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except 

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


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
14 

views, in writing and signed by that member, with the Staff Director of the Committee, or the Staff Director’s designee. All such 

views so filed by one or more members of the Committee shall be 

included within, and shall be a part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to that measure or matter. 

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

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

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

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

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

or matter. 

RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

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

shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by the 

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

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

of each member voting for and each member voting against such 

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

members present but not voting. 

RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER

INFORMATION

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

the House of Representatives, all national security information 

bearing a classification of Secret or higher which has been received 

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

received in executive session and shall be given appropriate safekeeping. 

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

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

judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure 

of any national security information that is received which is classified as Secret or higher. Such procedures shall, however, ensure 

access to this information by any member of the Committee or any 

other Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of 

Representatives, staff of the Committee, or staff designated under 

rule 9(c) who have the appropriate security clearances and the 

need to know, who has requested the opportunity to review such 

material. 

(c) The Chairman of the Committee shall, in consultation with 

the Ranking Minority Member, establish such procedures as in his 

judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure 

of any proprietary information that is received by the Committee, 

subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such procedures shall be consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives and applicable law. 

RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING

The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, and 

any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or chairmen 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
15 

of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of the House of 

Representatives. 

RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and 

Records Administration shall be made available for public use in 

accordance with rule VII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The Chairman shall notify the Ranking Minority Member of 

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

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

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

RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES

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


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(16) 

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES— 

111TH CONGRESS 

Pursuant to H. Res. 8, election of the chairman (adopted January 

6, 2009), H. Res. 12, election of the ranking member (adopted January 6, 2009), H. Res. 24, election of majority members (adopted 

January 7, 2009), H. Res. 38, election of minority members (adopted January 9, 2009), H. Res. 137, technical corrections to H. Res. 

24, election of majority members (adopted February 9, 2009), H. 

Res. 381, election of majority members (adopted April 30, 2009), H. 

Res. 548, election of the ranking member (adopted June 16, 2009), 

H. Res. 921, election of a majority member (adopted November 19, 

2009), H. Res. 1334, election of majority members (adopted May 6, 

2010), H. Res. 1397, election of a majority member (adopted May 

26, 2010), H. Res. 1415, election of a minority member (adopted 

May 28, 2010), the following members served on the Committee on 

Armed Services in the 111th Congress: 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
17 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON ORTIZ, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 3

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 4

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana 

PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania 6

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York 7

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

FRANK M. KRATOVIL JR., Maryland 

ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York 10

BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama 

SCOTT MURPHY, New York 11

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 12

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 13

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 14

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 15

DAN BOREN, Oklahoma 16, 17

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 18

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York, Ranking 

Member 1

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, 

Ranking Member 2

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 5

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 8

CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii 9

1 Mr. McHugh resigned from the committee on June 3, 2009. 

2 Mr. McKeon became Ranking Member and resigned from the Subcommittees on Air and 

Land Forces and Strategic Forces on June 16, 2009. 3 Mr. Abercrombie resigned from the House of Representatives on Feb. 28, 2010. 

4 Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. 

5 Mr. Shuster resigned from the committee on May 27, 2010. 

6 Mr. Murphy (PA) resigned from the committee on May 6, 2010. 

7 Ms. Gillibrand resigned from the House of Representatives on Jan. 26, 2009. 

8 Mr. Platts was appointed to the committee and assigned to the Subcommittees on Air 

and Land Forces and Oversight and Investigations on June 16, 2009. 9 Mr. Djou was appointed to the committee and to the Subcommittees on Readiness and 

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on May 27, 2010. 10 Mr. Massa resigned from the House of Representatives on Mar. 8, 2010. 11 Mr. Murphy (NY) was appointed to the committee on Apr. 30, 2009. 12 Mr. Owens was appointed to the committee and the Subcommittees on Air and Land 

Forces and Strategic Forces on Nov. 19, 2009. 13 Mr. Garamendi was appointed to the committee on May 6, 2010. 14 Mr. Critz was appointed to the committee and the Subcommittees on Military Personnel 

and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on May 25, 2010. 15 Mr. Boswell was appointed to the committee on May 6, 2010. 16 Mr. Boren took a leave of absence from the committee on Feb. 5, 2009. 17 Mr. Boren was appointed to the committee on Apr. 30, 2009. 18 Mr. Johnson was ranked immediately after Mr. Boren on May 6, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(18) 

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES—111TH CONGRESS 

The following subcommittees were established at the committee’s 

organizational meeting on January 14, 2009. 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND LAND FORCES

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

strike bombers and related systems, National Guard and Army and 

Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Chairman 19, 20

Mr. SMITH Chairman 21

Mr. SPRATT 

Mr. REYES 

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Ms. TAUSCHER 22

Mr. BRADY 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Mr. BOREN 24

Mr. SESTAK 

Ms. GIFFORDS 

Ms. TSONGAS 

Mr. KISSELL 

Mr. KRATOVIL 

Mr. MASSA 25

Mr. BRIGHT 

Mr. OWENS 27

Mr. GARAMENDI 28

Mr. BOSWELL29

Mr. BOREN 30

Mr. BARTLETT, Ranking Member 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS (WA) 

Ms. FALLIN 

Mr. HUNTER 

Dr. FLEMING 

Mr. COFFMAN 

Mr. MCKEON 23

Mr. AKIN 

Mr. MILLER 

Mr. WILSON 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. BISHOP 

Mr. TURNER 

Mr. PLATTS 26

19Mr. Abercrombie resigned as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 

on Jan. 20, 2010. 20Mr. Abercrombie resigned from the House of Representatives on Feb. 28, 2010. 21Mr. Smith was elected as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces on 

Jan. 21, 2010. 22Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. 23Mr. McKeon became Ranking Member and resigned from the Subcommittee on Air and 

Land Forces on June 16, 2009. 24Mr. Boren took a leave of absence from the committee on Feb. 5, 2009. 25Mr. Massa resigned from the House of Representatives on Mar. 8, 2010. 26Mr. Platts was appointed to the Committee and assigned to the Subcommittee on Air 

and Land Forces on June 16, 2009. 27Mr. Owens was appointed to the committee and the Subcommittee on Air and Land 

Forces on Nov. 19, 2009. 28Mr. Garamendi was assigned to the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces on May 7, 

2010. 29Mr. Boswell was assigned to the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces on May 7, 2010. 30Mr. Boren was appointed to the committee on Apr. 30, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(19) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Military personnel 

policy, reserve component integration and employment issues, military health care, military education, and POW/MIA issues. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, Welfare and 

Recreation issues and programs. 

Mrs. DAVIS, Chairwoman 

Dr. SNYDER 

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Ms. BORDALLO 

Mr. MURPHY (PA) 1

Ms. SHEA-PORTER 

Mr. LOEBSACK 

Ms. TSONGAS 

Mr. CRITZ 4

Mr. JOHNSON 5

Mr. WILSON, Ranking Member 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. KLINE 

Mr. ROONEY 

Mr. WITTMAN 2

Ms. FALLIN 

Dr. FLEMING 3

1Mr. Murphy (PA) resigned from the committee on May 6, 2010. 

2Mr. Wittman resigned from the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on Feb. 3, 2009. 

3Dr. Fleming was assigned to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on Feb. 3, 2009. 

4Mr. Critz was appointed to the committee and assigned to the Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel on May 25, 2010. 5Mr. Johnson was ranked immediately after Mr. Boren on May 6, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
20 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

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

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

issues, including the base closure process. 

Mr. ORTIZ, Chairman 

Mr. TAYLOR 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE 1

Mr. REYES 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Ms. BORDALLO 

Mr. BOREN 3

Ms. SHEA-PORTER 

Mr. COURTNEY 

Ms. GIFFORDS 

Mr. NYE 

Mr. KISSELL 

Mr. HEINRICH 

Mr. BRIGHT 

Mr. GARAMENDI 6

Mr. BOREN 8

Mr. JOHNSON 9

Mr. FORBES, Ranking Member 

Mr. BISHOP 

Mr. ROGERS (AL) 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mr. SHUSTER 2

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS (WA) 4

Mr. CONAWAY 

Mr. LAMBORN 

Mr. WITTMAN 

Ms. FALLIN 

Dr. FLEMING 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. TURNER 5

Mr. DJOU 7

1Mr. Abercrombie resigned from the House of Representatives on Feb. 28, 2010. 

2Mr. Shuster resigned from the Committee on May 27, 2010. 

3Mr. Boren took a leave of absence from the Committee on Feb. 5, 2009. 

4Mrs. McMorris Rodgers resigned from the Subcommittee on Readiness on Feb. 12, 2009. 

5Mr. Turner was assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness on Feb. 12, 2009. 

6Mr. Garamendi was assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness on May 7, 2010. 

7Mr. Djou was appointed to the Committee and assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness 

on May 27, 2010. 8Mr. Boren was appointed to the Committee and assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness 

on Apr. 30, 2009. 9Mr. Johnson was ranked immediately after Mr. Boren on May 6, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
21 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Navy and Marine 

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

Reserve equipment. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the committee 

as delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 1(c) of rule X of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. TAYLOR, Chairman 

Mr. ORTIZ 

Mr. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LARSEN 

Mr. ELLSWORTH 

Mr. COURTNEY 

Mr. SESTAK 

Mr. NYE 

Ms. PINGREE 

Mr. MASSA 1

Mr. CRITZ 2

Mr. AKIN, Ranking Member 

Mr. WITTMAN 

Mr. BARTLETT 

Mr. FORBES 

Mr. HUNTER 

Mr. COFFMAN 

Mr. ROONEY 

1Mr. Massa resigned from the House of Representatives on Mar. 8, 2010. 

2Mr. Critz was appointed to the committee and assigned to the Subcommittee on Seapower 

and Expeditionary Forces on May 25, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
22 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Strategic weapons 

(except deep strike bombers and related systems), space programs, 

ballistic missile defense, intelligence policy and national programs, 

and Department of Energy national security programs (except nonproliferation programs). 

Ms. TAUSCHER, Chairman 1

Mr. LANGEVIN, Chairman 2

Mr. SPRATT 

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Mr. ANDREWS 

Mr. LARSEN 

Ms. GILLIBRAND 4

Mr. HEINRICH 

Mr. MURPHY (NY) 6

Mr. OWENS 7

Mr. TURNER, Ranking Member 

Mr. MCKEON 3

Mr. THORNBERRY 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mr. LAMBORN 

Mr. HUNTER 5

1Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. 

2Mr. Langevin was elected Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on July 

9, 2009. 3Mr. McKeon became Ranking Member and resigned from the Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces on June 16, 2009. 4Ms. Gillibrand resigned from the House of Representatives on Jan. 26, 2009. 

5Mr. Hunter was assigned to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on June 16, 2009. 

6Mr. Murphy (NY) was assigned to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on May 6, 2009. 

7Mr. Owens was appointed to the committee and assigned to the Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces on Nov. 19, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
23 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND

CAPABILITIES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Department of Defense counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations Forces; science and technology policy, including the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and information technology programs; force protection policy; homeland defense and 

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

Mr. SMITH, Chairman 1

Ms. SANCHEZ, Chairwoman 2

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Mr. ANDREWS 

Mr. LANGEVIN 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Mr. ELLSWORTH 

Mr. MURPHY (PA) 4

Ms. GILLIBRAND 5

Mr. BRIGHT 

Mr. MURPHY (NY) 7

Mr. MILLER, Ranking Member 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. KLINE 

Mr. SHUSTER 3

Mr. CONAWAY 

Mr. ROONEY 

Mr. THORNBERRY 

Mr. DJOU 6

1Mr. Smith resigned as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities on Jan. 21, 2010. 2Ms. Sanchez was elected as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities on Jan. 21, 2010. 3Mr. Shuster resigned from the committee on May 27, 2010. 

4Mr. Murphy (PA) resigned from the committee on May 6, 2010. 

5Ms. Gillibrand resigned from the House of Representatives on Jan. 26, 2009. 

6Mr. Djou was appointed to the committee and assigned to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on May 27, 2010. 7Mr. Murphy (NY) was assigned to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats 

and Capabilities on May 6, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
24 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Any matter within 

the jurisdiction of the committee, subject to the concurrence of the 

chairman of the committee and, as appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee shall have no legislative 

jurisdiction. 

Dr. SNYDER, Chairman 

Mr. SPRATT 

Ms. SANCHEZ 1

Ms. TAUSCHER 2

Mrs. DAVIS 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. SESTAK 

Mr. NYE 

Ms. PINGREE 

Ms. TSONGAS 5

Mr. WITTMAN, Ranking Member 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. ROGERS (AL) 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS (WA) 

Mr. LAMBORN 

Mr. HUNTER 3

Mr. PLATTS 4

1Ms. Sanchez resigned from the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Jan. 

21, 2010. 2Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009. 

3Mr. Hunter resigned from the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on June 

16, 2009. 4Mr. Platts was appointed to the committee and assigned to the Subcommittee and Oversight 

and Investigations on June 16, 2009. 5Ms. Tsongas was assigned to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on Mar. 

3, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(25) 

FULL COMMITTEE PANEL 

The following full committee panel was appointed during the 

111th Congress (appointed March 19, 2009, reappointed September 

18, 2009): 

PANEL ON DEFENSE ACQUISITION REFORM

Purpose—To examine the defense acquisition system and possible 

ways to improve the system. 

Mr. ANDREWS, Chairman 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. ELLSWORTH 

Mr. SESTAK 

Mr. CONAWAY, Ranking Member 

Mr. HUNTER 

Mr. COFFMAN 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(26) 

COMMITTEE STAFF 

By committee resolution adopted at the organizational meeting 

on January 14, 2009, or by authority of the chairman, the following 

persons were appointed to the staff of the committee during the 

111th Congress: 

Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director (resigned Mar. 12, 2010) 

Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director 

Debra S. Wada, Deputy Staff Director 

Paul Oostburg Sanz, General Counsel (resigned Mar. 11, 2010) 

Paul L. Lewis, General Counsel (appointed Mar. 15, 2010) 

Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant 

Michael R. Higgins, Professional Staff Member 

John D. Chapla, Professional Staff Member 

John F. Sullivan, Professional Staff Member 

Nancy M. Warner, Professional Staff Member 

Thomas E. Hawley, Professional Staff Member 

William H. Natter, Professional Staff Member (resigned May 22, 2009) 

Jesse D. Tolleson, III, Professional Staff Member 

Douglas C. Roach, Professional Staff Member 

Linda Burnette, Printing Clerk (resigned Oct. 31, 2009) 

Robert L. Simmons, Professional Staff Member 

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

Loren Dealy, Press Secretary (resigned July 5, 2009) 

Jeanette S. James, Professional Staff Member 

Rebecca A. Ross, Professional Staff Member 

Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff Member 

Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff Member 

Lynn M. Williams, Professional Staff Member 

Joshua C. Holly, Professional Staff Member 

John Wason, Professional Staff Member 

Bob DeGrasse, Professional Staff Member 

Roger Zakheim, Counsel (appointed Jan. 23, 2009) 

Jenness Simler, Professional Staff Member 

Julie Unmacht, Counsel (resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Lorry M. Fenner, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Derek Scott, Staff Assistant (resigned Aug. 31, 2009) 

Eryn Robinson, Professional Staff Member (resigned June 24, 2010) 

Alexander Kugajevsky, Professional Staff Member 

Kari Bingen, Professional Staff Member 

John Kruse, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Andrew H. Tabler, Research Assistant (resigned June 11, 2010) 

Aileen K. Alexander, Professional Staff Member (resigned July 31, 2010) 

Cyndi Howard, Staff Assistant 

Douglas Bush, Professional Staff Member 

Rudy Barnes, Professional Staff Member (resigned Mar. 5, 2010) 

Lara Battles, Press Secretary 

Frank Rose, Professional Staff Member (resigned June 19, 2009) 

Christine Lamb, Staff Assistant (resigned July 1, 2009) 

William Ebbs, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Cathy Garman, Professional Staff Member 

Vickie Plunkett, Professional Staff Member 

Roy Phillips, Professional Staff Member (resigned Mar. 13, 2009) 

Suzanne McKenna, Professional Staff Member (resigned Feb. 28, 2010) 

Sasha Rogers, Research Assistant (resigned July 1, 2009) 

Timothy McClees, Professional Staff Member 

Joe Hicken, Program Analyst (resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Kevin Gates, Professional Staff Member 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
27 

Dave Kildee, Professional Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Mike Casey, Professional Staff Member 

Alicia Haley, Staff Assistant (resigned Oct. 23, 2009) 

Benjamin Glerum, Staff Assistant (resigned July 6, 2009) 

David Sienicki, Professional Staff Member 

Caterina Dutto Fox, Staff Assistant (resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Kathleen Kelly, Executive Assistant (resigned July 23, 2010) 

Kyle Wilkens, Special Assistant to the Chairman (resigned Feb. 28, 2009) 

Michael McErlean, Professional Staff Member (resigned Apr. 1, 2009) 

Trey Howard, Staff Assistant (resigned Aug. 18, 2010) 

Rosellen C. Kim, Staff Assistant (resigned Dec. 31, 2009) 

Megan Putnam, Staff Assistant (resigned Apr. 30, 2010) 

Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations 

Elizabeth Drummond, Staff Assistant (resigned Aug. 31, 2010) 

Everett Coleman, Professional Staff Member 

Craig Greene, Professional Staff Member 

Anne LeMay, Professional Staff Member (appointed Jan. 3, 2009, resigned June 30, 2009) 

Mary Kate Cunningham, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 12, 2009) 

Abraham Kanter, Intern (appointed Feb. 2, 2009, resigned May 21, 2009) 

Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member (appointed Mar. 1, 2009) 

Jack Schuler, Professional Staff Member (appointed Apr. 13, 2009) 

Megan Howard, Intern (appointed May 6, 2009, resigned July 31, 2009) 

Krissy Ellison, Intern (appointed May 19, 2009, resigned July 31, 2009) 

Nate Allen, Intern (appointed June 2, 2009, resigned Sept. 26, 2009) 

Katy Bloomberg, Staff Assistant (appointed June 3, 2009) 

Scott Bousum, Staff Assistant (appointed June 15, 2009) 

Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff Member (appointed July 1, 2009) 

John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant (appointed July 1, 2009) 

William S. Johnson, Counsel (appointed July 9, 2009) 

Jennifer Kohl, Press Secretary (appointed Sept. 4, 2009) 

Will Chapman, Intern (appointed Sept. 12, 2009, resigned Oct. 30, 2009) 

Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff Member (appointed Oct. 19, 2009) 

Peter Kavanewsky, Intern (appointed Nov. 2, 2009, resigned Feb. 25, 2010) 

Alejandra Villarreal, Staff Assistant (appointed Nov. 9, 2009) 

Megan Howard, Staff Assistant (appointed Jan. 4, 2010) 

Peter Villano, Professional Staff Member (appointed Jan. 19, 2010) 

James Weiss, Staff Assistant (appointed Feb. 1, 2010) 

Jeff Cullen, Staff Assistant (appointed Mar. 15, 2010) 

Zach Warma, Intern (appointed Mar. 29, 2010, resigned Aug. 6, 2010) 

Leonor Tomero, Counsel (appointed Apr. 12, 2010) 

Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff Member (appointed May 17, 2010) 

Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant (appointed May 27, 2010) 

John Harris, Intern (appointed July 6, 2010, resigned Aug. 12, 2010) 

Michele Pearce, Counsel (appointed July 9, 2010) 

Famid Sinha, Staff Assistant (appointed July 12, 2010) 

Amy D’Arella, Intern (appointed July 13, 2010, resigned Aug. 19, 2010) 

Catherine Sendak, Executive Assistant (appointed July 15, 2010) 

Jay Grimes, Staff Assistant (appointed Sept. 1, 2010, resigned Jan. 2, 2011) 

Benjamin Runkle, Professional Staff Member (appointed Sept. 8, 2010) 

John Bailey, Intern (appointed Sept. 8, 2010, resigned Dec. 10, 2010) 

Melissa Tuttle, Staff Assistant (appointed Sept. 20, 2010) 

Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed Sept. 27, 2010) 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(28) 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS 

A total of 340 meetings and markups were held by the Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees and panel during 

the 111th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows: 

Full Committee ...................................................................................................... 99 

Subcommittees: 

Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces ......................................................... 23 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ............................................................ 29 

Subcommittee on Readiness .......................................................................... 31 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces ............................... 32 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces ................................................................ 35 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities ... 43 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ........................................... 29 

Full Committee Panel: 

Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform ........................................................... 19 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(29) 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS 

LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW

PUBLIC LAW 111–61 (H. J. RES. 44)

Recognizing the service, sacrifice, honor, and professionalism of the 

Noncommissioned Officers of the United States Army 

H. J. Res. 44, ‘‘Recognizing the service, sacrifice, honor, and professionalism of the Noncommissioned Officers of the United States 

Army,’’ was introduced on April 29, 2009, by Mr. Skelton and was 

referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. J. Res. 44, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Mr. Marshall moved to consider H. J. Res. 44, as introduced, under 

suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed 

to by voice vote on July 27, 2009. On August 4, 2009, H. J. Res. 

44 passed the Senate without amendment and with a preamble by 

Unanimous Consent. On August 19, 2009, H. J. Res. 44 was signed 

by the President and became Public Law 111–61. 

PUBLIC LAW 111–84 (H.R. 2647)

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 

and for other purposes 

Public Law 111–84, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010, authorizes funds totaling $680.2 billion in budget 

authority for national defense programs, of which $550.2 billion is 

directed to the base budget and $130.0 billion is directed to ‘‘overseas contingency Operations.’’ 

Division A 

Division A of Public Law 111–84 authorizes funds for fiscal year 

2010 for the Department of Defense. Subtitle A of title I authorizes $105,029,379,000 for procurement 

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

Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund. 

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: procuring additional F–35 aircraft for use by the Air National Guard; conditional 

authority for the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear 

procurement contract for F/A–18E/F and EA–18G aircraft procurement; and terminates production of the F–22A aircraft. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
30 

Subtitle A of title II authorizes $79,251,608,000 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 12 separate research and development-related matters, including: the Joint Multi-Mission Submersible program; individual body armor and associated components; 

Army tactical ground network program; program elements for the 

F–35B and F–35C Joint Strike Fighter aircraft; and ground combat 

vehicle and self-propelled howitzer capabilities. 

Subtitles C through E of title II address ballistic missile defense 

programs, reports and miscellaneous matters. Subtitle A of title III authorizes $156,179,872,000 for operation 

and maintenance. 

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

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2010 and authorizes appropriations of $136,016,281,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 

2010. The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 

2010 are as follows: 

(1) The Army, 562,400. 

(2) The Navy, 328,800. 

(3) The Marine Corps, 202,100. 

(4) The Air Force, 331,700. 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2010 are as 

follows: 

(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 358,200. 

(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000. 

(3) The Navy Reserve, 65,500. 

(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600. 

(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,700. 

(6) The Air Force Reserve, 69,500. 

(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000. 

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

Reserve Components for fiscal year 2010 are as follows: 

(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060. 

(2) The Army Reserve, 16,261. 

(3) The Navy Reserve, 10,818. 

(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261. 

(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 14,555. 

(6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,896. 

Title V sets military personnel policy, including provisions that 

address officer personnel policy; Reserve Component management; 

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

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

pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired pay and surVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
31 

vivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund instrumentality benefits and operations; and other matters. 

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

warrior matters; and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including provisions relating to major defense 

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

workforce and inherently governmental functions; Department of 

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

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

matters; and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; miscellaneous 

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

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

repeal of the National Security Personnel System; and other federal government civilian personnel matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, including; 

assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq and Afghanistan; 

and reports. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with states of 

the Former Soviet Union. 

Title XIV authorizes miscellaneous authorizations totaling $34,033,949,000 for the defense health program; drug interdiction 

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

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

Title XV includes authorization of $128,594,760,000 for overseas 

contingency operations. 

Title XVII addresses Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs medical facility demonstration project. 

Title XVIII addresses military commissions. 

Title XIX contains provisions regarding federal employee benefits. 

Division B 

Division B of Public Law 111–84 authorizes appropriations in the 

amount of $24,573,949,000 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 

2010. In addition, Division B contains military construction and 

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

Division C 

Division C of Public Law 111–84 authorizes appropriations in the 

amount of $16,512,450,000 for Department of Energy national seVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
32 

curity programs for fiscal year 2010. Division C also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

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

Division D 

Division D of Public Law 111–84 contains funding tables that 

provide for the allocation of funds among programs, projects, and 

activities. 

Division E 

Division E of Public Law 111–84 includes the Matthew Shepard 

and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that would: (1) 

prohibit hate crimes based on the actual or perceive race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, 

or disability of any person; (2) provide support for the criminal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes by State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials; and (3) prohibit attacks on United 

States service members based on their military service. 

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 2647, as 

amended, to the House on June 18, 2009. The measure passed the 

House, as amended, on June 25, 2009. The Senate passed H.R. 

2647 by unanimous consent with an amendment, on July 23, 2009, 

subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and inserting 

in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure, S. 1390. The 

conference report was agreed to in the House on October 8, 2009, 

and in the Senate on October 22, 2009. H.R. 2647 was signed by 

the President and became law October 28, 2009. 

(H. Rept. 111–166; parts I & II; S. Rept. 111–35; Conf. Rept. 

111–288; H.A.S.C. 111–45; H.A.S.C. 111–56 through H.A.S.C. 111– 

62; H.A.S.C. 111–64; H.A.S.C. 111–65; H.A.S.C. 111–66; H.A.S.C. 

111–68; H.A.S.C. 111–69; H.A.S.C. 111–70; H.A.S.C. 111–71; 

H.A.S.C. 111–73; H.A.S.C. 111–75) 

PUBLIC LAW 111–238 (H.R. 6102)

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to extend 

the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for 

F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and EA–18G aircraft 

H.R. 6102, ‘‘To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 to extend the authority of the Secretary of the 

Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and 

EA–18G aircraft,’’ was introduced on August 10, 2010, by Mr. Taylor and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee 

on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman Taylor and 

Ranking Member Akin of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee consideration of H.R. 

6102, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Taylor moved to 

consider H.R. 6102, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on September 14, 2010. On September 16, 2010, H.R. 6102 passed the 

Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. On September 

27, 2010, H.R. 6102 was signed by the President and became Public 

Law 111–238. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
33 

LEGISLATION PASSED BY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND

PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT

H.R. 6523

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 

and for other purposes 

H.R. 6543, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011, and the material found in the committee print 

are the product of an agreement between the Chairman the House 

Armed Services Committee and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committees on the reconciliation 

of H.R. 5136, as passed by the House of Representatives on May 

28, 2010, and S. 3454, as reported out of committee on June 4, 

2010. The negotiated agreement was introduced as an original bill 

by Chairman Skelton on December 15, 2010, and was passed by 

the House, as amended, two days later. The Senate passed the bill 

with an amendment offered by Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain by Unanimous Consent on December 22. The House 

concurred in the Senate amendment and passed H.R. 6523 the 

same day. H.R. 6523 was presented to the President on December 

29, 2010, and was awaiting further action at the time of transmittal of this report. 

H.R. 6523 authorizes $724.6 billion national defense discretionary programs and includes $548.2 billion for the base budget of 

the Department of Defense, $158.7 billion for overseas contingency 

operations, and $17.7 billion for national security programs in the 

Department of Energy. In addition, H.R. 6523 authorizes an increase to title XV of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) of $33.1 billion for increased 

overseas contingency operations. 

Division A 

Division A of H.R. 6523 authorizes funds for fiscal year 2011 for 

the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle A of title I authorizes $110,432,638,000 for procurement, 

including for aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, and shipbuilding and conversion; and the Joint 

Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund. 

Subtitles B and C of title I establish additional program requirements, restrictions, and limitations for specified programs for the 

Armed Forces, Creates a counter-IED database and enhances the 

effort to develop new, lightweight body armor; and Ensures that 

the Navy and Marine Corps have the planes needed to meet mission requirements. 

Subtitle A of title II authorizes $76,586,915,000 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 separate research and developmentrelated matters, including enhancing our defense against cyber atVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
34 

tacks as well as for advanced ground vehicles, ground vehicle systems, and components. 

Subtitles C through E of title II address ballistic missile defense 

programs, reports and miscellaneous matters. Subtitle A of title III authorizes $168,150,992,000 for operation 

and maintenance. 

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

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2011 and authorizes appropriations of $138,540,700,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 

2011. The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 

2011 are as follows: 

(1) The Army, 569,400. 

(2) The Navy, 328,700. 

(3) The Marine Corps, 202,100. 

(4) The Air Force, 332,200. 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2011 are as 

follows: 

(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 358,200. 

(2) The Army Reserve, 205,000. 

(3) The Navy Reserve, 65,500. 

(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600. 

(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,700. 

(6) The Air Force Reserve, 71,200. 

(7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000. 

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

Reserve Components for fiscal year 2011 are as follows: 

(1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060. 

(2) The Army Reserve, 16,261. 

(3) The Navy Reserve, 10,688. 

(4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261. 

(5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 14,584. 

(6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,992. 

Title V establishes military personnel policy, including provisions 

addressing officer personnel policy; Reserve Component management; joint qualified officers and requirements; general service authorities; education and training; Defense Dependents Education 

system; military justice; decorations, awards, and honorary promotions; military families; and other miscellaneous matters. 

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

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

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

warrior matters; and other miscellaneous matters. 

Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including provisions relating to major defense 

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


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
35 

workforce and inherently governmental functions; Department of 

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

Title VIII also includes agreed upon provisions from H.R. 5013— 

The IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010, concerning: (1) civilian 

management of the defense acquisition system; (2) acquisition related functions of chiefs of the Armed Forces; and (3) performance 

assessments of the defense acquisition system. 

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

matters; cyber warfare and cyber security related matters, and 

other miscellaneous matters. 

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; miscellaneous 

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

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

leave; and other federal government civilian personnel matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, including; 

assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq and Afghanistan; 

and reports. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction. 

Title XIV authorizes miscellaneous authorizations totaling $36,274,325,000 for the defense health program; drug interdiction 

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

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

Title XV includes authorization of $157,527,108,000 for overseas 

contingency operations. 

Title XVI contains provisions addressing improved sexual assault 

prevention and response in the Armed Forces. 

Division B 

Division B authorizes appropriations in the amount of 

$19,413,399,000 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 2011. In addition, Division B contains military construction and family housing program changes; property and facilities administration; provisions related to Guam realignment; provisions concerning land conveyances; energy security; and other matters. 

Division C 

Division C authorizes appropriations in the amount of 

$17,715,831,000 for Department of Energy national security programs for fiscal year 2011. Division C also includes authorization 

for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; 

Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration. 

(Committee Print 5; H. Rept. 111–491 parts I & II; S. Rept. 111– 

201; H. Rept. 111–465; H.A.S.C. 111–120; H.A.S.C. 111–123; 

H.A.S.C. 111–124; H.A.S.C. 111–126; H.A.S.C. 111–129; H.A.S.C. 

111–132; H.A.S.C. 111–137; H.A.S.C. 111–138; H.A.S.C. 111–141; 

H.A.S.C. 111–142; H.A.S.C. 111–145; H.A.S.C. 111–147; H.A.S.C. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
36 

111–148; H.A.S.C. 111–151; H.A.S.C. 111–153; H.A.S.C. 111–157; 

H.A.S.C. 111–159; H.A.S.C. 111–170) 

LEGISLATION REPORTED BUT NOT ENACTED

H.R. 2101

Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and 

Oversight Act of 2009 

The purpose of H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act 

of 2009, was to amend title 10, United States Code, and to establish other new statutory requirements, to improve efficiency and 

the quality of outcomes in the acquisition of major weapons systems of the Department of Defense. 

This bill seeks to improve the efficiency and quality of outcomes 

in major weapons system acquisition using four primary mechanisms. It focuses additional oversight on the early stages of major 

defense acquisition programs, during which time more than 70 percent of total program costs are determined. It also focuses oversight 

on programs that demonstrate lack of performance: either by failing to satisfy the statutory criteria for entering into development 

for production or by experiencing a Nunn-McCurdy breach. It promotes greater use of competition. And it promotes and enables the 

consideration of trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance. The bill requires the Secretary of Defense to designate an official or officials to perform three critical oversight functions: cost 

estimation, systems engineering, and performance assessment. 

These officials will assist the Secretary in implementing the mechanisms the bill establishes. The bill makes other organizational improvements in the Department by increasing the role of the combatant commanders in setting requirements for major defense acquisition programs, requiring the Department to address potential 

organizational conflicts of interest of contractors, and rewards excellence in acquisition. The committee believes that in addition to 

improving the operation of the Department, the bill will result in 

the development and submission of more accurate and objective information to support the committee’s review of major defense acquisition programs. 

H.R. 2101 was introduced on April 27, 2009, and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services. On May 7, 2009, the Committee on 

Armed Services held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 2101, as 

introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 2101, as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 59–0, and was placed on the 

Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47. Pursuant to the provisions of H. 

Res. 432, H.R. 2101 was considered passed House as amended on 

May 13, 2009. For further action, please see S. 454. 

(H. Rept. 111–101) 

H.R. 5013

Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value 

in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 

The purpose of H.R. 5013, the Implementing Management for 

Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every AcquiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
37 

sition Act of 2010, is to amend title 10, United States Code, and 

to establish other new statutory requirements, to improve performance and the quality of outcomes in the defense acquisition system. 

On March 17, 2009, Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike 

Skelton and then-Ranking Member John McHugh appointed a 

Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform from among Members of the 

committee to carry out a comprehensive review of the defense acquisition system. A central finding of this review was that while 

the nature of defense acquisition has substantially changed in the 

last two decades, the defense acquisition system has not kept pace. 

The system remains structured primarily for the acquisition of 

weapon systems at a time when services represent a much larger 

share of the Department’s acquisitions. As a result, the Department’s acquisition policy has limited application to the majority of 

the Department’s acquisitions. Furthermore, the acquisition system 

is poorly designed for the acquisition of information technology. 

This legislation seeks to establish a statutory framework to achieve 

comprehensive improvements in defense acquisition. H.R. 5013 

would require the Department of Defense to use performance management techniques to improve the defense acquisition system and 

the acquisition workforce. The bill would also require new standards and techniques for training and rewarding that workforce. 

H.R. 5013 was introduced on April 14, 2010, and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the Committee 

on Oversight and Government Reform. On April 21, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 

5013, as introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 5013, as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 56–0. The measure passed 

the House, as amended, on April 28, 2010 by a recorded vote of 

417–3 (Roll no. 230). On April 29, 2010, the bill was received in the 

Senate, read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Please see H.R. 5136 and H.R. 6523 for further action. 

(H. Rept. 111–465; House Committee Print 5; H.A.S.C. 111–36; 

H.A.S.C. 111–44; H.A.S.C. 111–63; H.A.S.C. 111–72; H.A.S.C. 111– 

77; H.A.S.C. 111–82; H.A.S.C. 111–84; H.A.S.C. 111–94; H.A.S.C. 

111–95; H.A.S.C. 111–98; H.A.S.C. 111–100; H.A.S.C. 111–104; 

H.A.S.C. 111–127; H.A.S.C. 111–134) 

H.R. 5136

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 

and for other purposes 

On April 26, H.R. 5136 to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 

2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for 

other purposes was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 

for procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for 

operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; 

(3) Authorize for fiscal year 2011: (a) the personnel strength for 

each active duty component of the military departments; (b) the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
38 

personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed Forces; (c) the military training student loads 

for each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) modify various elements of compensation for military personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on 

personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military construction and family 

housing; (6) authorize appropriations for overseas contingency operations; (7) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for the Department of Energy national security programs; (8) modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) authorize 

appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for the Maritime Administration. 

H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011, is a key mechanism through which Congress fulfills one 

of its primary responsibilities as mandated in Article I, Section 8 

of the Constitution of the United States which grants Congress the 

power to raise and support an Army; to provide and maintain a 

Navy; and to make rules for the government and regulation of the 

land and naval forces. Rule X of the House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the Department of Defense generally, and 

over the military application of nuclear energy, to the Committee 

on Armed Services. The committee includes the large majority of 

the findings and recommendations resulting from its oversight activities in the current year, as informed by the experience gained 

over the previous decades of the committee’s existence. 

On May 19, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services held a 

mark-up session to consider H.R. 5136. The committee, a quorum 

being present, ordered reported H.R. 5136, as amended, to the 

House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 59–0. 

The measure passed the House, as amended, on May 28, 2010 by 

a recorded vote of 229—186 (Roll no. 336). On June 28, 2010, the 

bill was received in the Senate, read twice and placed on Senate 

Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 447. No 

further action was taken on H.R. 5136. For further action on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, please 

see H.R. 6523. 

(H. Rept. 111–491 parts I & II; S. Rept. 111–201; H. Rept. 111– 

465; House Committee Print 5; H.A.S.C. 111–120; H.A.S.C. 111– 

123; H.A.S.C. 111–124; H.A.S.C. 111–126; H.A.S.C. 111–129; 

H.A.S.C. 111–132; H.A.S.C. 111–137; H.A.S.C. 111–138; H.A.S.C. 

111–141; H.A.S.C. 111–142; H.A.S.C. 111–145; H.A.S.C. 111–147; 

H.A.S.C. 111–148; H.A.S.C. 111–151; H.A.S.C. 111–153; H.A.S.C. 

111–157; H.A.S.C. 111–159; H.A.S.C. 111–170) 

H. RES. 477

Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives the 

fiscal year 2010 30-year shipbuilding plan relating to the long-term shipbuilding 

strategy of the Department of Defense, as required by section 231 of title 10, 

United States Code 

H. Res. 477, ‘‘Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to 

the House of Representatives the fiscal year 2010 30-year shipbuilding plan relating to the long-term shipbuilding strategy of the 

Department of Defense, as required by section 231 of title 10, 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
39 

United States Code,’’ was introduced on May 21, 2009, and referred 

to the Committee on Armed Services. 

Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Defense to submit along with the budget request required 

by section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for each fiscal 

year, a long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels. The 

long-range plan must describe the naval force required to meet the 

current national security strategy or the current Quadrennial Defense Review; and must certify that the construction plan and 

budget request for the current year, and for programmed future 

years is sufficient to maintain such a naval force. 

The budget request submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 

31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2010 did not contain the 

long-range plan for the construction of naval vessels. On May 21, 

2009, the Honorable Randy Forbes of Virginia introduced H. Res. 

477, a resolution of inquiry that would direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit, within 14 days of the adoption of the resolution, 

to the House of Representatives, the long-range construction plan 

for naval vessels along with all documents, including telephone and 

electronic mail records, logs and calendars, and records of internal 

discussions in the possession of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget relating to the long-range plan for the construction of 

naval vessels. 

On June 16, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a 

mark-up session to consider H. Res. 477, as introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. Res. 477, 

as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by 

voice vote. H. Res. 477, as amended, was placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 77. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 111–167) 

H. RES. 478

Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives the 

fiscal year 2010 30-year aviation plan relating to the long-term aviation plans of 

the Department of Defense, as required by section 231a of title 10, United States 

Code 

H. Res. 478, ‘‘Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to 

the House of Representatives the fiscal year 2010 30-year aviation 

plan relating to the long-term aviation plans of the Department of 

Defense, as required by section 231a of title 10, United States 

Code,’’ was introduced on May 21, 2009, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

Section 231(a) of title 10, United States Code, requires the Secretary of Defense to submit along with the budget request required 

by section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, for each fiscal 

year, a long-range aviation plan. The long-range plan must describe the aircraft force structure required to meet current national 

security strategy or quadrennial defense review and must certify 

that the procurement plan and budget request for the current year 

and programmed for future years are sufficient to maintain such 

a naval force. 

The budget request submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of title 

10, United States Code, for fiscal year 2010 did not contain the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
40 

long-range aviation plan. On May 21, 2009, the Honorable Randy 

Forbes of Virginia submitted H. Res. 478, a resolution of inquiry, 

which would direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit, within 14 

days of the adoption of the resolution, to the House of Representatives, the long-range aviation plan for aircraft along with all documents, including telephone and electronic mail records, logs and 

calendars, and records of internal discussions in the possession of 

the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to the longrange procurement plan for aircraft. The resolution was referred to 

the Committee on Armed Services. 

On June 16, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a 

mark-up session to consider H. Res. 478, as introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. Res. 478, 

as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by 

voice vote. H. Res. 478, as amended, was placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 78. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 111–168) 

H. RES. 602

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

to the House of Representatives all information in their possession relating to specific communications regarding detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism 

H. Res. 602, ‘‘Requesting that the President and directing that 

the Secretary of Defense transmit to the House of Representatives 

all information in their possession relating to specific communications regarding detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism,’’ was introduced on June 26, 2009, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The resolution requests the President, 

and directs the Secretary of Defense, to transmit to the House of 

Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption 

of the resolution, copies of any portions of all documents, records, 

and communications in their possession referring or relating to the 

notification of rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 

(1966), by the Department of Justice, including all component 

agencies, to foreign persons, captured in Afghanistan, who are suspected of terrorism and detainees in the custody of the Armed 

Forces of the United States in Afghanistan. 

On July 21, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a 

mark-up session to consider H. Res. 602, as introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. Res. 602, 

as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by 

voice vote. H. Res. 602 was amended to require the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a plan, by December 31, 2009, or three months 

after the adoption of the resolution, whichever comes later, on the 

impact of giving Miranda warnings to detainees overseas. H. Res. 

602, as amended, was placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 

95. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 111–221) 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
41 

H. RES. 924

A resolution directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives certain documents in the possession of the Department of Defense relating to detainees held at the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba, who are to be prosecuted in the United States 

On November 19, 2009, Ranking Member McKeon introduced H. 

Res. 924 that was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 

The resolution, as introduced, would direct 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, copies of any 

document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication 

of the Department of Defense, or any portion of such communication, that refers or relates to the trial or detention of Khalid Sheikh 

Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ’Attash, Ramzi 

Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al 

Hawsawii. 

On December 15, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held 

a mark-up session to consider H. Res. 924, as introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. Res. 924, 

as amended, to the House with a favorable recommendation by a 

voice vote. H. Res. 924 was amended to direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives certain documents and records not later than 30 days prior to the transfer of 

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 

’Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed 

Adam al Hawsawii from the United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States, to include, as also required 

by section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), the location(s) at which the detainee will be held, attendant costs, a summary of the consultation 

required by section 1041, and certification that the detainee poses 

little or no risk in compliance with section 1041. Additionally, the 

title of H. Res. 924 was amended. H. Res. 924, as amended, was 

placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 147. No further action 

was taken. 

(H. Rept. 111–383) 

LEGISLATION NOT REPORTED BUT MANAGED BY THE COMMITTEE

ON ARMED SERVICES ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OF REP- RESENTATIVES

H.R. 24

To redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and 

Marine Corps 

H.R. 24, ‘‘To redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps,’’ was introduced on January 6, 2009, by Mr. Jones and was referred to the House Armed 

Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 

Heinrich moved to consider H.R. 24, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by 

voice vote on May 4, 2010. On May 5, 2010, H.R. 24 was received 

in the Senate and read twice, and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services. No further action was taken. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
42 

H.R. 2990

Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009 

H.R. 2990, ‘‘Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009,’’ was introduced on April 29, 2009, by Mr. Skelton and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H.R. 

2990 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton moved to 

consider H.R. 2990, introduced, under Suspension of the Rules of 

the House, and it was agreed to by yeas and nays, 404–0 (Roll no. 

433) on June 24, 2009. Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 572, 

H.R. 2990 was laid on the table. Please reference H.R. 2647 for further action. 

H.R. 6494

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to improve 

the Littoral Combat Ship program of the Navy 

H.R. 6494, ‘‘To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 to improve the Littoral Combat Ship program of 

the Navy,’’ was introduced on December 2, 2010, by Mr. Taylor and 

was referred to the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman 

Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Taylor moved to consider H.R. 6494, 

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

measure was agreed to by voice vote on December 15, 2010. On December 16, 2010, H.R. 6494 was received in the Senate. On December 22, 2010, the bill was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services. No further action was taken. 

H.R. 6540

Defense Level Playing Field Act 

H.R. 6540, ‘‘Defense Level Playing Field Act,’’ was introduced on 

December 17, 2010, by Mr. Inslee and was referred to the House 

Armed Services Committee. Chairman Skelton waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Inslee moved to consider 

H.R. 6540, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the 

House. Mr. Inslee and Mr. Moran (KS), both of whom are not members of House Armed Services committee, managed the time on the 

Floor during consideration of the measure. H.R. 6540 was agreed 

to by the yeas and nays, 325–23 (Roll no. 658), on December 21, 

2010. On December 21, 2010, H.R. 6540 was received in the Senate, and the following day, it was read twice and referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services. No further action was taken. 

H. CON. RES. 64

Urging the President to designate 2009 as the ‘‘Year of the Military Family’’ 

H. Con. Res. 64, ‘‘Urging the President to designate 2009 as the 

‘Year of the Military Family’’’ was introduced on February 26, 

2009, by Chairman Skelton and was referred to the House Armed 

Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McHugh waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
43 

Skelton moved to consider H. Con. Res. 64, as introduced, under 

suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed 

to by the yeas and nays, 422–0 (Roll no. 119), on March 11, 2009. 

On March 12, 2009, the resolution was received in the Senate and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No further action was 

taken. 

H. CON. RES. 129

Congratulating the Sailors of the United States Submarine Force upon the 

completion of 1,000 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) deterrent patrols 

H. Con. Res. 129, ‘‘Congratulating the Sailors of the United 

States Submarine Force upon the completion of 1,000 Ohio-class 

ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) deterrent patrols,’’ was introduced on May 20, 2009, by Mr. Dicks and was referred to the 

House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Akin of the 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 129, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon subsequently waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Kissell moved to consider 

H. Con. Res. 129, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of 

the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 

412–0 (Roll no. 915), on December 2, 2009. On December 3, 2009, 

the resolution was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. No further action was taken. 

H. CON. RES. 139

Congratulating the first graduating class of the United States Air Force Academy 

on their 50th graduation anniversary and recognizing their contributions to the 

Nation 

H. Con. Res. 139, ‘‘Congratulating the first graduating class of 

the United States Air Force Academy on their 50th graduation anniversary and recognizing their contributions to the Nation,’’ was 

introduced on June 3, 2009, by Mr. Lamborn and was referred to 

the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 139, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member McKeon subsequently waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mrs. Davis (CA) moved to consider H. Con. Res. 

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

the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 411–0 (Roll no. 

860), on November 5, 2009. On November 6, 2009, the resolution 

was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services. No further action was taken. 

H. CON. RES. 199

Recognizing the 10th Anniversary of the redesignation of Company E, 100th Battalion, 442d Infantry Regiment of the United States Army and the sacrifice of the 

soldiers of Company E and their families in support of the United States 

H. Con. Res. 199, ‘‘Recognizing the 10th Anniversary of the redesignation of Company E, 100th Battalion, 442d Infantry Regiment of the United States Army and the sacrifice of the soldiers 

of Company E and their families in support of the United States,’’ 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
44 

was introduced on October 13, 2009, by Mr. Gregorio Kilili 

Camacho Sablan and was referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 199, and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon subsequently 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo 

moved to consider H. Con. Res. 199, as amended, under suspension 

of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the 

yeas and nays, 400–0 (Roll no. 932), on December 8, 2009. On December 9, 2009, the resolution was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. No further action was 

taken. 

H. CON. RES. 206

Commending the soldiers and civilian personnel stationed at Fort Gordon and their 

families for their service and dedication to the United States and recognizing the 

contributions of Fort Gordon to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom and its role as a pivotal communications training installation 

H. Con. Res. 206, ‘‘Commending the soldiers and civilian personnel stationed at Fort Gordon and their families for their service 

and dedication to the United States and recognizing the contributions of Fort Gordon to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and its role as a pivotal communications training 

installation,’’ was introduced on October 28, 2009, by Mr. Broun 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Readiness. Chairman Ortiz and Ranking Member Forbes of the 

Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee consideration of 

H. Con. Res. 206, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McKeon also waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. Con. Res. 206, as amended, 

under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 

agreed to by the yeas and nays, 404–0 (Roll no. 933), on December 

8, 2009. On December 22, 2009, the resolution was agreed to in the 

Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous 

Consent. 

H. CON. RES. 286

Recognizing the 235th birthday of the United States Army 

H. Con. Res. 286, ‘‘Recognizing the 235th birthday of the United 

States Army,’’ was introduced on June 16, 2010, by Mr. Edwards 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 286, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Ortiz moved to consider H. Con. Res. 

286, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, 

and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on June 17, 2010. On 

June 18, 2010, the resolution was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, which was subsequently 

discharged. H. Con. Res. 286 passed the Senate with amendments 

on June 28, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
45 

H. CON. RES. 319

Recognizing the anniversary of the tragic shootings that occurred at Fort Hood, 

Texas, on November 5, 2009 

H. Con. Res. 319, ‘‘Recognizing the anniversary of the tragic 

shootings that occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 

2009,’’ was introduced on September 22, 2010, by Mr. Carter (TX) 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 319, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to consider H. Con. 

Res. 319, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the 

House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on September 

28, 2010. On September 29, 2010, the resolution was received in 

the Senate, considered, and agreed to by Unanimous Consent without amendment and with a preamble. 

H. RES. 259

Expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the House of Representatives for the 

acts of heroism and military achievement by the members of the United States 

Armed Forces who participated in the June 6, 1944, amphibious landing at Normandy, France, and commending them for leadership and valor in an operation 

that helped bring an end to World War II 

H. Res. 259, ‘‘Expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the 

House of Representatives for the acts of heroism and military 

achievement by the members of the United States Armed Forces 

who participated in the June 6, 1944, amphibious landing at Normandy, France, and commending them for leadership and valor in 

an operation that helped bring an end to World War II,’’ was introduced on March 18, 2009, by Mr. Boozman and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 

259, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh also 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Kratovil 

moved to consider H. Res. 259, as amended, under suspension of 

the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice 

vote on June 2, 2009. 

H. RES. 329

Recognizing the anniversary of the tragic accident of the steamboat ship SS Sultana 

H. Res. 329, ‘‘Recognizing the anniversary of the tragic accident 

of the steamboat ship SS Sultana,’’ was introduced on April 2, 

2009, by Dr. Snyder and was referred to the House Armed Services 

Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Dr. Snyder 

moved to consider H. Res. 329, as amended, under suspension of 

the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas 

and nays, 393–0 (Roll no. 207), on April 27, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
46 

H. RES. 339

Expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives regarding the 

hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, the kidnapping of Captain Richard Phillips by 

Somali pirates, the rescue of Captain Phillips by United States Navy SEALs and 

the crews of the USS Bainbridge, USS Boxer, USS Halyburton AND PATROL

SQUADRON (VP) 8, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

H. Res. 339, ‘‘Expressing the sense of the United States House 

of Representatives regarding the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, 

the kidnapping of Captain Richard Phillips by Somali pirates, the 

rescue of Captain Phillips by United States Navy SEALs and the 

crews of the USS Bainbridge, USS Boxer, USS Halyburton and Patrol Squadron (VP) 8, and for other purposes,’’ was introduced on 

April 21, 2009, by Mr. Welch and was referred to the House Armed 

Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McHugh waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 

Langevin moved to consider H. Res. 339, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to 

by voice vote, on April 22, 2009. 

H. RES. 377

Recognizing Armed Forces Day and the exemplary service of the members of the 

United States Armed Forces 

H. Res. 377, ‘‘Recognizing Armed Forces Day and the exemplary 

service of the members of the United States Armed Forces,’’ was 

introduced on April 29, 2009, by Mr. Calvert and was referred to 

the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 377, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McHugh waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 

Massa moved to consider H. Res. 377, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by 

the yeas and nays, 420–0 (Roll no. 263), on May 14, 2009. 

H. RES. 408

Recognizing the vital role family readiness volunteers play in supporting service 

members and their families 

H. Res. 408, ‘‘Recognizing the vital role family readiness volunteers play in supporting service members and their families,’’ was 

introduced on May 6, 2009, by Mrs. Davis and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 

408, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mrs. Davis moved to 

consider H. Res. 408, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on October 14, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
47 

H. RES. 445

Recognizing 100 years of military aviation and expressing continued support for 

military aviators of the United States Armed Forces 

H. Res. 445, ‘‘Recognizing 100 years of military aviation and expressing continued support for military aviators of the United 

States Armed Forces,’’ was introduced on May 14, 2009, by Mr. 

Olson and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee 

on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 

Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 445, and Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Smith (WA) moved to consider H. Res. 445, as 

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

measure was agreed to by voice vote on October 14, 2009. 

H. RES. 471

Expressing sympathy to the victims, families, and friends of the tragic act of 

violence at the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty, Iraq, on May 11, 2009 

H. Res. 471, ‘‘Expressing sympathy to the victims, families, and 

friends of the tragic act of violence at the combat stress clinic at 

Camp Liberty, Iraq, on May 11, 2009,’’ was introduced on May 21, 

2009, by Mr. Kratovil and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 471, and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Kratovil moved to consider H. Res. 471, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of 

the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 

416–0 (Roll no. 299), on June 3, 2009. 

H. RES. 494

Recognizing the exemplary service of the soldiers of the 30th Infantry Division (Old 

Hickory) of the United States Army during World War II 

H. Res. 494, ‘‘Recognizing the exemplary service of the soldiers 

of the 30th Infantry Division (Old Hickory) of the United States 

Army during World War II,’’ was introduced on June 2, 2009, by 

Mr. Kissell and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived 

subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 494, and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Kissell moved to consider H. Res. 494, as 

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

measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 415–0 (Roll no. 914), 

on December 2, 2009. 

H. RES. 627

Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard of the State of Washington, including the 81st Brigade Combat Team (Heavy) of the Washington Army National 

Guard 

H. Res. 627, ‘‘Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard 

of the State of Washington, including the 81st Brigade Combat 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
48 

Team (Heavy) of the Washington Army National Guard,’’ was introduced on July 10, 2009, by Mr. Smith (WA) and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 

627, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Smith (WA) 

moved to consider H. Res. 627, as amended, under suspension of 

the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice 

vote on October 14, 2009. 

H. RES. 699

Expressing the appreciation of Congress for the service and sacrifice of the members 

of the 139th Airlift Wing, Air National Guard 

H. Res. 699, ‘‘Expressing the appreciation of Congress for the 

service and sacrifice of the members of the 139th Airlift Wing, Air 

National Guard,’’ was introduced on July 30, 2009, by Mr. Graves 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 699, and Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Marshall moved to consider H. Res. 699, as 

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

measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 421–0 (Roll no. 84), 

on March 4, 2010. 

H. RES. 747

Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West Point on being named 

by Forbes magazine as America’s Best College for 2009 

H. Res. 747, ‘‘Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West Point on being named by Forbes magazine as America’s Best College for 2009,’’ was introduced on September 15, 2010, 

by Mr. Hall (NY) and was referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 747, and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Marshall moved to consider H. Res. 747, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of 

the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 

416–0 (Roll no. 79), on March 3, 2010. 

H. RES. 754

Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard of the State of Pennsylvania, 

including the 56th Brigade Combat Team (Stryker) of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard on its return to the United States from deployment in Iraq 

H. Res. 754, ‘‘Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard 

of the State of Pennsylvania, including the 56th Brigade Combat 

Team (Stryker) of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard on its 

return to the United States from deployment in Iraq,’’ was introduced on September 17, 2009, by Mr. Holden and was referred to 

the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
49 

Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 754, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 

Smith (WA) moved to consider H. Res. 754, as introduced, under 

suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed 

to by voice vote on October 14, 2009. 

H. RES. 812

Recognizing the significant contributions of the Military Working Dog Program to 

the United States Armed Forces 

H. Res. 812, ‘‘Recognizing the significant contributions of the 

Military Working Dog Program to the United States Armed 

Forces,’’ was introduced on October 7, 2009, by Mr. Leonard and 

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

the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 812, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member McKeon also waived full committee consideration of the 

measure. Mr. Marshall moved to consider H. Res. 812, as amended, 

under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 

agreed to by voice vote on March 2, 2010. 

H. RES. 845

Recognizing the United States Air Force and Dyess Air Force Base for their success 

in achieving energy savings and developing energy-saving innovations during Energy Awareness Month 

H. Res. 845, ‘‘Recognizing the United States Air Force and Dyess 

Air Force Base for their success in achieving energy savings and 

developing energy-saving innovations during Energy Awareness 

Month,’’ was introduced on October 20, 2009, by Mr. Neugebauer 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Readiness. Chairman Ortiz and Ranking Member Forbes of the 

Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee consideration of 

H. Res. 845, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo 

moved to consider H. Res. 845, as amended, under suspension of 

the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas 

and nays, 409–0 (Roll no. 935), on December 8, 2009. 

H. RES. 856

Recognizing the Commissioning of the USS New York LPD 21 

H. Res. 856, ‘‘Recognizing the Commissioning of the USS New 

York LPD 21,’’ was introduced on October 22, 2009, by Mr. Nadler 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Akin of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 856, 

and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 

committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Taylor moved to consider H. Res. 856, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of 

the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 

420–0 (Roll no. 855), on November 4, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
50 

H. RES. 861

Supporting the goals and ideals of Military Family Month 

H. Res. 861, ‘‘Supporting the goals and ideals of Military Family 

Month,’’ was introduced on October 22, 2009, by Mr. Rooney and 

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

the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 861, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 

Member McKeon also waived full committee consideration of the 

measure. Mr. Kissell moved to consider H. Res. 861, as amended, 

under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 

agreed to by the yeas and nays, 417–0 (Roll no. 916), on December 

2, 2009. 

H. RES. 868

Honoring and recognizing the service and achievements of current and former 

female members of the Armed Forces 

H. Res. 868, ‘‘Honoring and recognizing the service and achievements of current and former female members of the Armed Forces,’’ 

was introduced on October 23, 2009, by Mrs. Davis (CA) and was 

referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 868, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Mrs. Davis (CA) moved to consider H. Res. 868, as introduced, 

under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 

agreed to by the yeas and nays, 366–0 (Roll no. 858), on November 

5, 2009. 

H. RES. 895

Honoring the lives of the brave soldiers and civilians of the United States Army who 

died or were wounded in the tragic attack of November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas 

H. Res. 895, ‘‘Honoring the lives of the brave soldiers and civilians of the United States Army who died or were wounded in the 

tragic attack of November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas,’’ was introduced on November 6, 2009, by Mr. Carter (TX) and was referred 

to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 

Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 895, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 

Skelton moved to consider H. Res. 895, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to 

by the yeas and nays, 428–0 (Roll no. 888), on November 7, 2009. 

H. RES. 900

Honoring the sacrifices and contributions made by members of the Armed Forces 

during the Cold War and encouraging the people of the United States to participate in local and national activities honoring the sacrifices and contributions of 

those individuals 

H. Res. 900, ‘‘Honoring the sacrifices and contributions made by 

members of the Armed Forces during the Cold War and encourVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
51 

aging the people of the United States to participate in local and national activities honoring the sacrifices and contributions of those 

individuals,’’ was introduced on November 6, 2009, by Mr. Israel 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 900, and Chairman Skelton and 

Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of 

the measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 900, as 

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

measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 429–0 (Roll no. 161), 

on March 21, 2010. 

H. RES. 925

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the meritorious 

service performed by aviators in the United States Armed Forces who, as a result 

of hostile action, mechanical failures, or other problems, were forced to evade or 

escape enemy capture, were captured but subsequently escaped, or were compelled to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and even death as a result of 

their efforts to evade capture or escape. 

H. Res. 925, ‘‘Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the meritorious service performed by aviators in the 

United States Armed Forces who, as a result of hostile action, mechanical failures, or other problems, were forced to evade or escape 

enemy capture, were captured but subsequently escaped, or were 

compelled to endure arduous confinement, retaliation, and even 

death as a result of their efforts to evade capture or escape,’’ was 

introduced on November 19, 2009, by Mr. DeFazio and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 925, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 925, as amended, under 

suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed 

to by the yeas and nays, 426–0 (Roll no. 164), on March 21, 2010. 

H. RES. 940

Recognizing and honoring the National Guard on the occasion of its 373rd 

anniversary 

H. Res. 940, ‘‘Recognizing and honoring the National Guard on 

the occasion of its 373rd anniversary,’’ was introduced on December 

1, 2009, by Mr. Latta and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 940, and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 940, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of 

the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 

401–0 (Roll no. 934), on December 8, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
52 

H. RES. 1052

Honoring the members of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard of the 

State of Oklahoma for their service and sacrifice on behalf of the United States 

since September 11, 2001 

H. Res. 1052, ‘‘Honoring the members of the Army National 

Guard and Air National Guard of the State of Oklahoma for their 

service and sacrifice on behalf of the United States since September 11, 2001,’’ was introduced on February 2, 2010, by Mr. 

Boren and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived 

subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1052, and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Boren moved to consider H. Res. 1052, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 

measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 378–0 (Roll no. 519), 

on September 14, 2010. 

H. RES. 1066

Recognizing the bravery and efforts of the United States Armed Forces, local first 

responders, and other members of Operation Unified Response for their swift and 

coordinated action in light of the devastation wrought upon the nation of Haiti 

after a horrific 70 magnitude earthquake struck Port-Au-Prince and surrounding 

cities on January 12, 2010 

H. Res. 1066, ‘‘Recognizing the bravery and efforts of the United 

States Armed Forces, local first responders, and other members of 

Operation Unified Response for their swift and coordinated action 

in light of the devastation wrought upon the nation of Haiti after 

a horrific 70 magnitude earthquake struck Port-Au-Prince and surrounding cities on January 12, 2010,’’ was introduced on February 

3, 2010, by Mr. Meek and was referred to the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 

waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton 

moved to consider H. Res. 1066, as introduced, under suspension 

of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the 

yeas and nays, 406–0 (Roll no. 52), on February 23, 2010. 

H. RES. 1075

Commending the members of the Agri-business Development Teams of the National 

Guard and the National Guard Bureau for their efforts, together with personnel 

of the Department of Agriculture and the United States Agency for International 

Development, to modernize agriculture practices and increase food production in 

war-torn countries 

H. Res. 1075, ‘‘Commending the members of the Agri-business 

Development Teams of the National Guard and the National Guard 

Bureau for their efforts, together with personnel of the Department 

of Agriculture and the United States Agency for International Development, to modernize agriculture practices and increase food 

production in war-torn countries,’’ was introduced on February 4, 

2010, by Mr. Luetkemeyer and was referred to the House Armed 

Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 

Skelton moved to consider H. Res. 1075, as amended, under susVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
53 

pension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to 

by the yeas and nays, 418–3 (Roll no. 158), on March 21, 2010. 

H. RES. 1099

Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima 

H. Res. 1099, ‘‘Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the Battle of 

Iwo Jima,’’ was introduced on February 23, 2010, by Mr. Braley 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 

Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1099, and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Owens moved to consider H. Res. 1099, as 

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

measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 421–0 (Roll no. 168), 

on March 21, 2010. 

H. RES. 1119

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all people in the United 

States should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and 

sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad 

H. Res. 1119, ‘‘Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all people in the United States should participate in a 

moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad,’’ 

was introduced on February 25, 2010, by Mr. Peters and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1119, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. 

Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 1119, as amended, under 

suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed 

to by the yeas and nays, 400–0 (Roll no. 169), on March 21, 2010. 

H. RES. 1132

Honoring the USS New Mexico as the sixth Virginia-class submarine commissioned 

by the U.S Navy to protect and defend the United States 

H. Res. 1132, ‘‘Honoring the USS New Mexico as the sixth Virginia-class submarine commissioned by the U.S, Navy to protect 

and defend the United States,’’ was introduced on March 2, 2010, 

by Mr. Heinrich and was referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman 

Taylor and Ranking Member Akin of the Subcommittee on 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1132, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 

McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 

Heinrich moved to consider H. Res. 1132, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to 

by the yeas and nays, 378–1 (Roll no. 245), on May 4, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
54 

H. RES. 1153

Recognizing the heroic efforts of the West Virginia National Guard and local responders for their work rescuing 17 individuals from a downed military helicopter 

on a rugged, snow-covered mountain on the Pocahontas-Randolph county line 

H. Res. 1153, ‘‘Recognizing the heroic efforts of the West Virginia 

National Guard and local responders for their work rescuing 17 individuals from a downed military helicopter on a rugged, snow-covered mountain on the Pocahontas-Randolph county line,’’ was introduced on March 9, 2010, by Mr. Rahall and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 

1153, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to 

consider H. Res. 1153, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on June 

29, 2010. 

H. RES. 1217

Honoring Fort Drum’s soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division for their past and 

continuing contributions to the security of the United States 

H. Res. 1217, ‘‘Honoring Fort Drum’s soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division for their past and continuing contributions to the security of the United States,’’ was introduced on March 24, 2010, by 

Mr. Owens and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived 

subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1217, and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Owens moved to consider H. Res. 1217, as 

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

measure was agreed to by recorded vote, 415–0 (Roll no. 594), on 

December 1, 2010. 

H. RES. 1251

Recognizing and honoring the American troops who gave their lives on D-Day at the 

Battle of Normandy 

H. Res. 1251, ‘‘Recognizing and honoring the American troops 

who gave their lives on D-Day at the Battle of Normandy,’’ was introduced on April 14, 2010, by Mr. Poe and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 

1251, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Taylor moved to 

consider H. Res. 1251, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on September 14, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
55 

H. RES. 1385

Recognizing and honoring the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Armed 

Forces and veterans, and for other purposes 

H. Res. 1385, ‘‘Recognizing and honoring the courage and sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and for 

other purposes,’’ was introduced on May 20, 2010, by Mr. Skelton 

and was referred to the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee 

consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton moved to consider H. 

Res. 1385, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the 

House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 414– 

0 (Roll no. 303), on May 26, 2010. 

H. RES. 1411

Honoring the service and commitment of the 111th Fighter Wing, Pennsylvania Air 

National Guard 

H. Res. 1411, ‘‘Honoring the service and commitment of the 

111th Fighter Wing, Pennsylvania Air National Guard,’’ was introduced on May 27, 2010, by Ms. Schwartz and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 

1411, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to 

consider H. Res. 1411, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by recorded vote, 

417–0 (Roll No. 460), on July 21, 2010. 

H. RES. 1483

Recognizing the exemplary service and sacrifice of the soldiers of the 14th Armored 

Division of the United States Army, known as the Liberators, during World War II 

H. Res. 1483, ‘‘Recognizing the exemplary service and sacrifice of 

the soldiers of the 14th Armored Division of the United States 

Army, known as the Liberators, during World War II,’’ was introduced on June 28, 2010, by Mr. Gingrey and was referred to the 

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

Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 

1483, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 

full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to 

consider H. Res. 1483, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on July 

20, 2010. 

H. RES. 1516

Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II, honoring the service 

members who fought in World War II and their families, and honoring the service 

members who are currently serving in combat operations 

H. Res. 1516, ‘‘Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the end of 

World War II, honoring the service members who fought in World 

War II and their families, and honoring the service members who 

are currently serving in combat operations,’’ was introduced on 

July 14, 2010, by Mr. Skelton and was referred to the House 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
56 

Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 

Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1516, 

and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 

committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton moved to consider H. Res. 1516, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 

408–0 (Roll no. 453), on July 20, 2010. 

H. RES. 1585

Honoring and recognizing the exemplary service and sacrifice of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th Air Mobility Wing, the 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task 

Force, and the 615th Contingency Response Wing civilians and families serving 

at Travis Air Force Base, California 

H. Res. 1585, ‘‘Honoring and recognizing the exemplary service 

and sacrifice of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th Air Mobility 

Wing, the 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, and the 615th 

Contingency Response Wing civilians and families serving at Travis Air Force Base, California,’’ was introduced on July 30, 2010, by 

Mr. Garamendi and was referred to the House Armed Services 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 

Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1585, and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Garamendi moved to consider H. Res. 1585, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of 

the House, and the measure was agreed to by recorded vote, 408– 

0 (Roll no. 585), on November 30, 2010. 

H. RES. 1605

Recognizing the service of the medical and air crews in helping our wounded warriors make the expeditious and safe trip home to the United States and commending the personnel of the Air Force for their commitment to the well-being 

of all our service men and women 

H. Res. 1605, ‘‘Recognizing the service of the medical and air 

crews in helping our wounded warriors make the expeditious and 

safe trip home to the United States and commending the personnel 

of the Air Force for their commitment to the well-being of all our 

service men and women,’’ was introduced on July 30, 2010, by Mr. 

Thompson and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 

Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived 

subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1605, and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to consider H. Res. 1605, as 

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

measure was agreed to by voice vote, on September 28, 2010. 

H. RES. 1630

Expressing support for National POW/MIA Recognition Day 

H. Res. 1630, ‘‘Expressing support for National POW/MIA Recognition Day,’’ was introduced on September 16, 2010, by Mr. Lipinski and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
57 

Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived 

subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1630, and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to consider H. Res. 1630, as 

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

measure was agreed to by voice vote on September 28, 2010. 

H. RES. 1724

Commending the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas, for its outstanding support in creating a unique and lasting partnership with Little Rock Air Force Base, members 

of the Armed Forces stationed there, and their families 

H. Res. 1724, ‘‘Commending the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas, 

for its outstanding support in creating a unique and lasting partnership with Little Rock Air Force Base, members of the Armed 

Forces stationed there, and their families,’’ was introduced on November 17, 2010, by Dr. Snyder and was referred to the House 

Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman Ortiz and 

Ranking Member Forbes of the Subcommittee on Readiness waived 

subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1724, and Chairman Skelton 

and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 

of the measure. Dr. Snyder moved to consider H. Res. 1724, as 

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

measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 411–0 (Roll no. 595), 

on December 1, 2010. 

H. RES. 1740

Recognizing and honoring the National Guard on the occasion of its 374th 

anniversary 

H. Res. 1740, ‘‘Recognizing and honoring the National Guard on 

the occasion of its 374th anniversary,’’ was introduced on November 29, 2010, by Mr. Latta and was referred to the House Armed 

Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis 

and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1740, and 

Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Garamendi moved to consider H. Res. 1740, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules 

of the House, and the measure was agreed to by recorded vote, 

404–0 (Roll no. 586), on November 30, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(58) 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES 

NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY, NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY AND

RELATED DEFENSE POLICY ISSUES

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its traditional interest in the overarching national security challenges facing the United States and how the nation might best posture itself 

to face them, in both the near- and long-term. The committee 

placed an emphasis on conducting oversight on issues surrounding 

Department of Defense efforts to improve United States military 

capabilities to address 21st century security challenges, including 

the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 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 military services, the combatant commands, noted academics, and other experts. 

The committee also explored certain strategic issues that have 

not been a prominent part of recent discussions of defense strategy, 

including long-term budget trends, the global financial crisis, and 

the threat of international piracy. On the issue of piracy, the committee focused on piracy in the waters off the Horn of Africa and 

the coast of Somalia. The committee had a full committee hearing 

on the topic and included several provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

such as increased security requirements for ships transiting highrisk waters while carrying Department of Defense materiel. 

Much of the committee’s oversight on overarching defense policy 

was a byproduct of posture and budget hearings. In addition, the 

committee held hearings on the Quadrennial Defense Review, discussed further below, and Secretary Gates’ vision of the Department of Defense’s priorities. 

QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

The committee has remained concerned about both the process of 

the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the report required at 

the conclusion of the review and, anticipating the delivery of the 

2010 QDR, reiterated and clarified those concerns in the first session of the 111th Congress. In the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), Congress required 

additional reporting requirements and added 12 congressionally appointed members to the Secretary of Defense’s independent review 

panel. The committee met regularly with Department of Defense 

personnel to influence the review as it was being conducted, and 

then held two hearings and a major classified briefing on the QDR 

once the report was released. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
59 

THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

The committee continued its pattern of conducting vigorous oversight of issues related to the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee held numerous hearings, detailed elsewhere, 

on the status of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and the way ahead 

in that conflict, including two with General David Petraeus, the 

former Commander of United States Central Command and current Commander of the International Security Assistance Force 

(ISAF) in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also conducted a series of three hearings to receive testimony from independent experts on options for U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq. 

The committee acted on a number of legislative proposals to enhance U.S. progress in Afghanistan and oversight of the United 

States effort in that country. In the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), the committee provided authority to transfer certain defense articles from United 

States stocks in Iraq and the State of Kuwait to the Afghan National Security Forces. The committee further required the Department of Defense to develop a program for the registration and enduse monitoring of defense articles and defense services transferred 

to Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Public Law 

111–84 also updated a number of reporting requirements, including 

modifying the report on progress towards stability and security in 

Afghanistan and the report on the command and control structure 

for military forces in Afghanistan. In addition, the Act required a 

new report on community-based security programs in Afghanistan 

and required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to begin 

regular reporting on the campaign plan for Afghanistan. 

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), further adjusted reporting requirements to 

take into consideration the President’s new strategy in Afghanistan 

by requiring a discussion the conditions that would need to exist 

to transition security responsibilities in key areas to the Afghan 

National Security Forces. The Act also established a new, standalone authority to fund projects and activities related to reintegrating former Taliban fighters into Afghan society, and established that each combat brigade deployed to Afghanistan should be 

provided the requisite number of combat enablers. In addition, the 

Act would require that the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, in consultation with the Inspectors General of 

the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the 

Agency for International Development, to issue recommendations 

for additional oversight of contractors in Afghanistan. The Act also 

limits the amount of funds that could be provided for elections in 

Afghanistan until the President of the United States made certifications about the ability of certain Afghan governmental institutions to oversee such elections. Finally, the Act requires a study of 

the long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

During the 111th Congress, members and staff of the House 

Committee on Armed Services traveled to Afghanistan on numerous occasions to conduct oversight on the ground and meet with 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
60 

commanders, U.S. troops, diplomats, and Afghan officials to improve the members understanding of U.S. objectives and operations. At least 30 members of the committee and 27 members of 

the committee staff led or participated in more than 22 trips to Afghanistan. 

THE WAR IN IRAQ

In the 111th Congress, the committee continued its pattern of 

vigorous oversight of the war in Iraq. The committee held several 

hearings regarding the war, including with the commander of 

Multi-National Forces—Iraq (now United States Forces—Iraq), the 

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, the GAO, senior 

officials from the Department of Defense, and experts from outside 

the government. In addition, the committee held a number of classified briefings, particularly on the subject of the redeployment of 

U.S. forces from Iraq, which included briefers from the Joint Staff, 

the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the commander of 

Multi-National Forces—Iraq. 

The committee also continued to enact provisions and report requirements concerning Iraq and the redeployment of U.S. forces 

from that country. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), the committee formalized a 

requirement for the GAO to examine and report on shortcomings 

in the Joint Campaign Plan jointly authored by commander of 

Multi-National Forces—Iraq (now United States Forces—Iraq) and 

the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad. The committee also provided authority for the Department of Defense to transfer certain military 

equipment present in Iraq or Kuwait to the Government of Iraq to 

assist in further building the Iraqi Security Forces. 

The committee took further action in the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), modifying some reporting requirements to better reflect the ongoing redeployment of United States Forces from Iraq. In addition, the 

committee required a report on the long-term costs associated with 

the war in Iraq. Finally, following on the heels of legislation passed 

in the 110th Congress, the committee required a report on the status of Iraqi citizens who worked on behalf of the United States or 

associated organizations. 

Members of the committee and committee staff continued to travel to Iraq during the 111th Congress to provide on-the-ground oversight and to meet with U.S. commanders, officials from the Department of State, and officials of the government of Iraq. At least 22 

members of the committee and 19 committee staff led or participated in more than 12 trips to Iraq, and a number of members and 

staff traveled to Iraq on more than one occasion. 

INTERAGENCY PROCESS AND REFORM

In the 111th Congress, the committee continued its longstanding 

interest in efforts to improve and reform the interagency national 

security process. The committee held a number of hearings and 

briefings to conduct oversight on how the Department of Defense 

works with, coordinates with, and supports other departments. The 

committee also held hearings throughout the 111th Congress conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
61 

ducting oversight of U.S. Southern Command and U.S. Africa Command; two combatant commands at the forefront of reorganizing to 

better integrate interagency partners and address transnational 

threats through whole-of-government approaches. 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also conducted two hearings examining recommendations to strengthen 

and reform interagency cooperation. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–81), the committee required the Secretary of Defense to commission a study of 

the interagency national security system by an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. The resulting study, conducted by 

the Project on National Security Reform (PNSR), recommended 

sweeping reforms of the Government’s national security system. 

The subcommittee held a hearing to receive testimony, commentary, and alternative views from independent witnesses on the 

findings and recommendations of the PNSR report. In a follow-up 

hearing, the subcommittee explored next-steps that could be taken 

by the committee and Congress to enhance interagency national security collaboration. 

As a result of this oversight, the committee undertook significant 

legislative activities to further address problems regarding the 

interagency national security system. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) required 

the President to commission a study on creation of a system for the 

development and management of interagency national security professionals across the United States Government. The Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 

6523) requires the Secretary of Defense to commission a study to 

assess the current state of interagency national security knowledge 

and skills possessed by Department of Defense civilians and uniformed personnel. The committee expects this study to provide the 

Department and Congress a baseline understanding of the interagency knowledge and skills of Department personnel and provide 

actionable recommendations for how to improve such knowledge 

and skills. Another provision in the Act would require the Comptroller General to assess the need for and implications of a common 

alignment of world regions in the internal organization of departments and agencies with international responsibilities. 

BUILDING PARTNERSHIP CAPACITY

The committee continued its oversight of ‘‘building partnership 

capacity,’’ a phrase used to describe a series of Department of Defense initiatives designed to strengthen (i.e. ‘‘train and equip’’) the 

security forces of partner nations critical to the national security of 

the United States. These initiatives require the Department of Defense to engage in significant consultation and coordination with 

the Department of State, which sets policy for foreign military assistance. Accordingly, the committee conducted multiple train and 

equip related briefings with the Department of Defense, in conjunction the Department of State and other governmental agencies, 

both as part of the routine congressional notification process and 

as part of an ongoing effort to evaluate the building partnership capacity-related programs. The committee also sent several delegations overseas to observe the execution of these programs. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
62 

As part of this effort, the committee worked with the Department 

of Defense to clarify congressional intent on how the global train 

and equip authority could be used, and in the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), extended that authority through fiscal year 2012. 

The committee is also aware of an ongoing effort within the U.S. 

Government to take a holistic look at the security assistance and 

security cooperation authorities that current law provides both the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State in an effort to determine the proper mix and design of these authorities in the future. Therefore, the committee extended the authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide support to the Secretary of State for 

the purposes of security and stability assistance for one year in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84), and then allowed it to expire, while strongly encouraging the Administration to move that funding into the Department of State’s budget for fiscal year 2011. The Administration 

complied with this direction. 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

In keeping with the tradition established in the Goldwater Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 

99–433), the committee continued to exercise oversight of the organization and management of the Department of Defense during the 

111th Congress. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) established specific legislative requirements to standardize certain senior positions to streamline 

the Department’s organization. The Department was required to 

submit a plan as to how it would comply with that statute. Upon 

receipt of the plan, the committee allowed the Department to enact 

those changes within the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The committee also examined the critical issues of management and organization described immediately below. 

In upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud, abuse, 

or mismanagement in federal government programs, and pursuant 

to House Rule XI, clauses 2(n), (o), and (p), the committee met several times to conduct oversight over Department of Defense activities, as detailed below in this report. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–7; H.A.S.C. 111–14; H.A.S.C. 111–15; H.A.S.C. 

111–57; H.A.S.C. 111–61) 

ROLES AND MISSIONS

The committee received the report of the quadrennial roles and 

missions review along with the President’s budget request for fiscal 

year 2010 as required by section 181b of title 10, United States 

Code. In addition to outlining the Department’s overall approach to 

organizing its roles and missions and identifying the Department’s 

core mission areas and core competencies, the review contained 

specific recommendations on the division of responsibilities within 

the Department in the areas of irregular warfare, cyberspace, unmanned aerial vehicles, and intra-theater lift. During the 111th 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
63 

Congress, the committee performed significant oversight on these 

focus areas as detailed below in this report. 

CHIEF MANAGEMENT OFFICERS

The committee continued to perform oversight on the Department’s implementation of the requirements to establish a Chief 

Management Officer for the Department of Defense, a Deputy 

Chief Management Officer, and Chief Management Officers of the 

Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force. In addition to receiving testimony from 

these officials as previously discussed, the committee reviewed the 

resources and staffing associated with these officials’ organizations 

as part of its review of the President’s budget requests for fiscal 

years 2010 and 2011 to determine their sufficiency in enabling better management capabilities. 

EFFICIENCY INITIATIVE

The Department of Defense began a major process in May 2010 

of identifying efficiencies in the way it operates. The efficiency initiative was undertaken in response to the long-term budget challenges confronting the Department which will constrain its ability 

to sustain the budget and program growth of the previous decade. 

The committee explored the Department’s long-term budget challenges in-depth in a hearing with defense budget experts in November 2009. After the efficiency initiative was announced, the 

committee provided oversight to the initiative in two hearings with 

senior Department witnesses as well as with numerous additional 

staff and member-level exchanges. The committee’s focus has been 

on ensuring that the Department has a solid analytical basis for 

decisions made in the efficiency initiative to ensure that these decisions both support national security and reduce cost. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–108) 

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND THREAT REDUCTION

The committee conducted oversight of the Department of Defense 

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program and Department of 

Energy nuclear nonproliferation programs. The committee held 

hearings and briefings on specific programs and issues, including 

a hearing on the report of the Commission on the Prevention of 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, and 

briefings on the nuclear programs of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and on nuclear 

smuggling. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84), the committee authorized program funding 

increases, including for the Department of Energy Global Threat 

Reduction Initiative to secure and eliminate vulnerable nuclear and 

radiological material around the world. The committee also authorized funding for new CTR initiatives to strengthen and expand the 

CTR Program. In addition, the committee provided authority for 

urgent nonproliferation and threat reduction activities; provided 

authority to accept international contributions for certain program 

activities; and required the Secretary of Defense to develop metrics 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
64 

for the CTR Program. In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the committee authorized the full amount of the budget request for the CTR Program 

and Department of Energy nuclear nonproliferation programs. 

DETAINEE AFFAIRS

The committee dedicated significant attention to the evolving 

legal and policy-based framework related to detention operations 

and trials by military commission. The committee held two full 

committee hearings dedicated to these issues. On July 16, 2009, 

the committee received testimony from senior military lawyers on 

the implications of proposed reforms to the Military Commissions 

Act of 2006 on the prosecutions of certain detainees for violations 

of the law of war and other crimes. The following week, on July 24, 

2009, the committee received testimony from Administration witnesses on the same subject matter. In addition to these two public 

hearings, which centered specifically on laws and policies affecting 

detainees, and four posture hearings, which addressed these same 

matters as part of a broader discussion, the committee conducted 

numerous member and staff-level briefings related to detainee affairs. Many of the particulars involving the custody, interrogation, 

treatment, and prosecution of detainees are sensitive law enforcement matters and are classified. Consequently, much of the committee’s oversight of detainee issues was conducted in classified 

form and cannot be delineated in this report. Additionally, members and staff of the committee made several trips to U.S. Naval 

Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic 

Republic of Afghanistan, and Thomson, Illinois to review actual 

and proposed detainee operations at these locations. 

The committee’s activities with respect to detainee affairs resulted in numerous legislative provisions being enacted into law. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) incorporated the Military Commissions Act of 

2009, which superseded the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and 

introduced various substantive and procedural reforms to the statutory basis for using military commissions to try certain detainees 

accused of violations of the law of war or other criminal offenses. 

Public Law 111–84 also included provisions that: prohibit contractor personnel from interrogating detainees; prohibit members of 

the Armed Forces from issuing Miranda warnings to individuals 

captured or detained as an enemy belligerent outside of the United 

States; provided notification and access for the International Committee of the Red Cross to detainees held at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan; and limited the use of funds for the transfer or release 

of individuals detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 

Cuba. The Act also required the President to submit to the congressional defense committees a comprehensive plan for the disposition 

of those individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) imposes a prohibition on the use of funds 

to effect the transfer or release of individuals detained at U.S. 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into the United States, and 

it specifies certain limitations and procedures related to transfer of 

those detainees to foreign destinations. It prohibits the use of funds 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
65 

to modify or construct facilities in the United States, its territories, 

or possessions to house detainees transferred from U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for the purposes of detention or imprisonment. The Act also requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the merits, 

costs, and risks of using any facility within the United States, its 

territories, or possessions for those same purposes. 

GLOBAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT AND INTELLIGENCE MATTERS

In keeping with its past practice, the committee remained mindful that potential areas of conflict beyond those where current operations are underway require significant attention and also that understanding the regional context of ongoing operations is critical to 

developing strategies for success, particularly with respect to stability operations. During each session of the 111th Congress, first 

on February 26, 2009, and then on April 28, 2010, the committee 

was briefed by the intelligence community on its classified assessment of global security issues. The committee held a number of 

hearings and classified intelligence briefings regarding emerging 

threats and matters of strategic intelligence. On February 24, 2009, 

the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was briefed by the intelligence community on the Iranian space launch and possible missile test by the North Korean government. On March 17, 2009, the 

Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces held a briefing on threats to the future naval force. On June 3, 2009, the committee was briefed on North Korea’s recent nuclear test and missile 

launches; and then, on June, 24, 2009, on North Korea’s long-range 

missile capabilities. On October 28, 2009, the committee received 

a classified briefing on the status of the Iranian nuclear program. 

On January 13, 2010, the committee received a briefing on terrorist threats emanating from Yemen. On March 11, 2010, the committee was briefed on Iranian threats to U.S. forces in the Middle 

East. On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

was briefed on ballistic missile proliferation issues in Iran and 

North Korea. On May 5, 2010, the Subcommittee on Strategic 

Forces was briefed by the Defense Intelligence Agency analysts on 

nuclear weapons capabilities of Russia and China. On September 

15, 2010, the committee was briefed on Hezbollah, Hamas and Lebanon. On November 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a hearing that examined the continued crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo and 

the implications for U.S. national security. 

The committee continued to coordinate with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the Undersecretary 

of Defense for Intelligence in the implementation of the new Military Intelligence Program. In particular, the committees worked to 

adopt a common perspective on major system acquisitions including 

satellite systems and unmanned aerial vehicles. Several issues, detailed immediately below, received particular focus in the committee’s oversight. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
66 

PAKISTAN

The committee held hearings on security and stability in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, focusing both on the internal security 

and stability of that nation, and on the unique security challenges 

arising in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region. The committee 

also held numerous briefings on issues relating to Pakistan including intelligence briefings and briefings on the use of Department of 

Defense coalition support funds for Pakistan and the Department 

of Defense Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund. The committee reviewed several specific issues related to Pakistan whose classification level precludes any discussion in this report, but which were 

nonetheless important to the committee’s oversight. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84), the committee extended the requirement for 

detailed notifications on coalition support funds for Pakistan; provided authority for the funds to be used for specialized training, 

supplies and equipment; and required quarterly reports on the use 

of the funds. Additionally, the committee authorized the Pakistan 

Counterinsurgency Fund to improve the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan security forces and to provide limited humanitarian assistance to Pakistan as part of civil-military training exercises. The committee also required a program for the registration 

and end-use monitoring of defense articles and services transferred 

to Afghanistan and Pakistan; a Department of Defense assessment 

of possible alternatives to coalition support funds for Pakistan; and 

a semi-annual presidential report on progress toward security and 

stability in Pakistan, which would include goals, objectives and 

timelines for achieving progress in specified areas and metrics to 

measure progress. 

In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the committee provided authority for coalition support funds to be used by Pakistan to confront the threat 

posed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan; and also extended 

the requirement for detailed notifications on coalition support 

funds for Pakistan. Additionally, the committee authorized a oneyear extension of the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund. 

IRAN

During the 111th Congress, the committee held two classified 

briefings to consider aspects of the situation concerning the Islamic 

Republic of Iran. These briefings addressed the Iranian nuclear 

program and Iran’s relationship to various terrorist organizations 

in the Middle East, particularly Hezbollah and Hamas. These briefings were conducted by members of the intelligence community and 

representatives from the Department of Defense. 

The committee enacted a number of pieces of significant legislation concerning Iran as part of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). The committee required a report on United States engagement with Iran as well as 

a new annual report on the military power of Iran. The Act also 

included a sense of Congress concerning sanctions on Iran, and included the Victims of Iranian Censorship (the ‘‘VOICE Act’’). This 

Act authorized funds to expand Farsi language broadcasting into 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
67 

Iran, enhance technology to counter efforts to block or censor the 

Internet in Iran, and other purposes. 

The committee continued to pay close attention to Iran and to 

enact legislation on this subject in the second session of the 111th 

Congress. As part of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the committee included 

a requirement for the Department of Defense to produce a National 

Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran. In addition, the committee 

included a prohibition on defense contracts with any entity or successor entity that engages in commercial activity in the energy sector of Iran. 

CHINA

The committee continued to monitor a range of significant security developments in the People’s Republic of China. The committee 

held hearings and briefings on a range of specific issues, including 

China’s defense budget and military modernization; U.S.-China 

military-to-military contacts and security cooperation; the security 

situation in the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas; 

and the findings of the Department of Defense Annual Report to 

Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, required by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2000 (Public Law 106–65). Additionally, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities addressed the impact of China activities in cyberspace through a number of briefings and hearings related to U.S. computer network operations 

Additionally, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), the committee expanded the 

scope of the Annual Department of Defense Report to include information on U.S. engagement and cooperation with China on security 

matters, including through military-to-military contacts, and the 

U.S. strategy for such engagement and cooperation in the future. 

KOREAN PENINSULA

The committee continued to monitor the security situation on the 

Korean peninsula. The committee held briefings on North Korea’s 

nuclear and missile activities, as well as the sinking of a South Korean navy ship, the Cheonan, on March 26, 2010, and the firing on 

Yeonpyeong Island on November 23, 2010. 

The committee also continued to monitor progress of the relocation of U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea and the plan to transfer 

wartime operational control of Republic of Korea forces to the Republic of Korea. 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

The committee continued its oversight of Department of Defense 

involvement in worldwide drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, and was generally supportive of those efforts. The Department’s drug interdiction and counter-drug activities budget was 

structured in fiscal year 2010 to address four broad priorities: (1) 

international support; (2) domestic support; (3) intelligence and 

technology support; and (4) demand reduction. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
68 

authorized $1.4 billion to fund execution of these priorities, including $356.6 million for international support within the U.S. Central 

Command’s area of operations. The Act also devoted an entire subtitle to counter-drug activities provisions, which included re-authorizations of important counter-drug programs, such as the ongoing 

unified counter-drug and counter-terrorism campaign in the Republic of Colombia, and expanded reporting requirements regarding 

foreign assistance and joint task force support to law enforcement 

agencies conducting counterterrorism activities. 

The President’s fiscal year 2011 budget request for Department 

of Defense drug interdiction and counter-drug activities was 

prioritized in the same manner as the fiscal year 2010 budget. The 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523) authorizes $1.6 billion toward these priorities, 

and it supports various programmatic extensions and reporting requirements. It extends and modifies the authority for joint task 

force support to law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism activities, and it expands a notice requirement for military 

construction projects for facilities supporting counter-drug activities. 

During the 111th Congress, the committee monitored numerous 

regional developments in the production, trafficking, and usage of 

illicit drugs. The committee voiced particular concern over growth 

trends in the drug trade and related criminal activities in Central 

and Southern Asia, the United Mexican States, Central America, 

and the African continent, and, with respect to certain regions, the 

committee subsequently recommended legislative and policy-based 

responses. 

The committee worked closely with the Department of Defense to 

optimize the Department’s participation in inter-agency, counterdrug efforts in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, wherein poppy 

cultivation and opium production continue to flourish. However, 

the committee expressed concern that the Department has not adequately focused its counter-drug resources with respect to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The committee noted that the Department primarily allocates counter-drug funding to efforts along the 

Makran coast and to counter-insurgency/counterterrorism efforts 

within the Northwest Frontier Province, rather than to address 

pronounced trafficking through Baluchistan, Pakistan. To reduce 

duplicative efforts with respect to counter-insurgency and counterterrorism efforts, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 prohibited the use of Department of Defense drug interdiction and counter-drug funds for the construction, expansion, repair, or operation and maintenance of any border coordination center in Afghanistan or Pakistan, absent a waiver from the Secretary 

of Defense predicated on vital national security interests. The committee has consistently encouraged the Department to focus more 

of its interdiction and counter-drug efforts on the difficult situation 

in Baluchistan and to keep the committee informed of its progress. 

The committee was also particularly attentive to significant increases in drug cartel crime and violence in the United Mexican 

States, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border. Conditions conducive to illicit activities along Mexico’s borders with Belize and the 

Republic of Guatemala prompted the committee to support coordiVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
69 

nated Departmental and inter-agency efforts to build governmental 

capacities to remedy those conditions in each of the three neighboring states. The committee also registered its concerned interest 

over the recent influx of illicit drug trafficking operations that effect intercontinental transshipments via one or more African 

states. Because of these regionally contextualized concerns and others, the committee supported Department of Defense drug interdiction and counter-drug activities for fiscal year 2011. 

ACQUISITION ISSUES 

The acquisition policy of the Department of Defense serves as an 

important enabler for both the modernization and operation of the 

Armed Forces. At the same time, acquisition policy must protect 

the taxpayers’ interest and ensure the optimal use of the Department’s resources. The committee continued its tradition of seeking 

to strike the proper balance between these sometimes competing 

priorities. 

PANEL ON DEFENSE ACQUISITION REFORM

On March 17, 2009, the committee organized a panel on defense 

acquisition reform pursuant to Committee Rule 5(a). The committee was responding to widespread concerns among its members 

that the defense acquisition system was not responsive enough to 

the Department’s current mission needs; not rigorous enough in 

protecting taxpayers; and not disciplined enough in the acquisition 

of weapons systems for tomorrow’s wars. The breadth of the problems that had come to light in the committee’s oversight efforts led 

the committee to conclude that a systemic examination was appropriate. The panel’s oversight covered three phases, including: an 

examination of how the Department of Defense measures performance in defense acquisition; a look at a range of specific issues in 

defense acquisition ranging from acquisition of weapon systems to 

contracted services to information technology to identify common 

problems and solutions; and an effort to get feedback on the committee’s initial findings from outside experts and the Department 

of Defense. The panel took a year to perform its review, holding 14 

hearings and several other briefings and meetings. It delivered its 

final findings and recommendations to the full committee on March 

23, 2010. These findings served as the basis for committee, and 

subsequent House of Representatives, approval of H.R. 5013, Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to 

Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010). The IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 was included as subtitle F of title VIII of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

CONTINGENCY CONTRACTING

Since September 11, 2001, contingency contracting has been a 

major area of focus of the committee’s oversight. During the 111th 

Congress, much of this work was carried out by the Subcommittee 

on Readiness, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 

and the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform. The Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing examining the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
70 

progress made by the Department of Defense and the Army in implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary Operations 

(known as the ‘‘Gansler Commission’’). The Gansler Commission 

found substantial workforce, organizational, and doctrinal problems 

with the Army’s contingency contracting capabilities. The commission made a series of recommendations to ensure that contracting 

in future contingency operations has greater effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. In section 849 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2008 (Public Law 110–18), the committee required the Secretary of 

Defense to submit a report evaluating the commission’s recommendations and detailing any plans for implementing them. The 

report supported several provisions related to contingency contracting in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84), the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), and the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 (H.R. 5013). 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also held two 

hearings examining interagency coordination of contracts in contingency environments. These hearings assessed progress made by the 

Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the United 

States Agency for International Development (USAID) regarding 

coordination of their contracting in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. As a result of these hearings, several actions were taken both by the committee and by the Administration. Section 813 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) clarified that the requirements of section 861 of Public Law 110–18 applies to ‘‘grants’’ and 

‘‘cooperative agreements’’ as well as contracts to improve coordination of all such activities and amended thresholds applicable to covered contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. The committee 

also addressed concerns expressed by several major nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Iraq and Afghanistan 

under U.S. grants and cooperative agreements about the collection 

of detailed personal information on their employees. In title VIII of 

the committee report (H. Rept. 111–491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the committee included an item of special of interest, ‘‘Matters Relating to 

the Common Database for Tracking Contracts and Contractor Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan,’’ which clarified that the statute 

does not require the collection of detailed personal information on 

such employees unless they are performing private security functions, require access to U.S. facilities or support, or desire consideration for refugee or special immigrant status under the Refugee 

Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 (subtitle C of title XII of Public Law 110– 

181). 

Other provisions of law were adopted as a direct result of the 

committee’s extensive oversight of contingency contracting. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 

111–84) extended the term of the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to enable the commission sufficient time to complete its review of policy issues associated with 

contingency contracting. The committee also examined the issue of 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
71 

unsafe conditions at facilities used in contingency operations that 

were maintained by contractors. Public Law 111–84 authorized the 

Secretary of Defense to deny or reclaim award fees paid to contractors when a determination is made that a contractor’s performance 

resulted in serious bodily injury or death for Department of Defense personnel. As detailed elsewhere in this report, the committee also acted on several matters relating to the use of private 

security contractors in both contingency and non-contingency operations. 

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

Recognizing that improving quality and performance of the Department’s acquisition workforce are as important as improvements 

to acquisition processes and structures, the committee continued its 

efforts to ensure that the Department’s acquisition workforce is 

adequately staffed, skilled and trained. As the committee noted in 

the report of the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform, the Department is probably the largest buying enterprise in the world. From 

fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2008, the Department’s annual purchase of goods and services more than doubled to $388 billion. The 

number of contract actions also increased significantly and grew in 

dollar value and complexity. Yet, the size of the acquisition workforce within the Department remained relatively steady over that 

timeframe, between 126,000 and 129,000 civilian personnel. For fiscal year 2010, the Department announced that it would increase 

in-house civilian and military personnel by 4,765 authorizations for 

positions, with the intent to grow the acquisition workforce to 

147,000 total personnel by 2015. The Department also undertook a 

comprehensive review of its acquisition workforce capabilities. 

To support these efforts, the committee recommended provisions 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) to enhance the expedited hiring authority for 

defense acquisition workforce positions and make further improvements to the defense acquisition workforce development fund. Furthermore, the committee’s Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform focused significant attention on defense acquisition workforce issues, 

and held a hearing on July 21, 2009, entitled ‘‘shaping a workforce 

for today’s acquisition environment that can meet DOD’s needs.’’ In 

its final report, the Panel made several recommendations related 

to the acquisition workforce. These recommendations included: establishing a career path for civilian and military personnel in the 

acquisition field, implementing the performance management and 

hiring reforms authorized in Public Law 111–84, extending the Acquisition Workforce Demonstration Program, expanding workforce 

incentive and internship programs, and enhancing the education, 

training and recertification requirements of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (Public Law 101–510). These recommendations were incorporated into the IMPROVE Acquisition 

Act of 2010 (H.R. 5013), which passed the House on April 28, 2010. 

This measure subsequently was included as subtitle F of title VIII 

of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
72 

CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES

The committee continued its oversight of the Department of Defense’s contracts for services. As the committee previously has 

noted, while weapon systems remain the prime focus for defense 

acquisition, the money is actually shifting to services, with the acquisition of services now representing a majority of the DOD budget. Building on efforts to improve accountability of service contracting, the committee recommended provisions in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84) that required an independent assessment of improvements and 

oversight in service contracting, and clarified requirements related 

to the annual service contracting inventory and the fiscal year 

budget displays for the acquisition of services. 

Furthermore, the committee’s Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform focused significant attention on service contracting and supply 

chain management issues. As noted in its final report, the panel 

believes that service contracts require at least the same level of 

discipline as weapon systems acquisition. Such discipline is critical 

for planning, requirements definition, market research, price reasonableness determinations, and project management and oversight. The panel held two hearings related to service contracting. 

In its final report, the panel recommended that each military service develop specific processes for identifying, assessing and approving requirements for the acquisition of services, and recommended 

regulatory changes to better address service contracting acquisition 

and accountability. These recommendations were incorporated into 

the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 (H.R. 5013), which passed 

the House on April 28, 2010. This measure subsequently was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS

The committee continued its traditional work on acquisition policy relating to major defense acquisition programs and the acquisition of major weapon systems. In the 111th Congress, its most notable acquisition oversight activities were in support of its consideration of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (H.R. 

2101), which dealt exclusively with major defense acquisition programs, and the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 (H.R. 5013), 

which dealt with issues relating to major defense acquisition programs as well as the acquisition of services and information technology. The section of this report regarding the committee’s legislative actions more fully describes the details of this legislation. 

The committee held two major hearings on acquisition reform 

prior to considering the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 

2009. The Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform held 14 hearings 

and several meetings and briefings in support of committee consideration of the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. The Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 

6523) set a deadline for the Department of Defense to incorporate 

consideration of manufacturing risk into its evaluation of major defense acquisition programs and clarified the manner in which cost 

estimates are to be used for contract negotiations. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
73 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE ACQUISITION POLICY

The committee also continued its tradition of working closely 

with other committees, and especially with the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to enact legislation making improvements to government-wide acquisition policy and contracting 

authorities. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) clarified the application of the government-wide suspension and debarment process to ensure that the 

suspension and debarment of contractors extends to the award of 

subcontracts with only limited exceptions. It also extended the authority for the use of simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items under the federal acquisition regulation and required 

public written justification and approval documentation for the 

award of sole-source contracts over $20.0 million to certain native 

corporations. In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the committee required a review of the usage of the national security exception to competition 

under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 (10 U.S.C. 2304 

and 41 U.S.C. 253). 

DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE AND TECHNOLOGY CONTROLS

As part of the committee’s longstanding interest in the defense 

industrial base, particularly the need to ensure the supply of strategic materials critical for defense, the committee conducted active 

oversight of these issues during the 111th Congress. Title IV of the 

IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 (subtitle F of title VIII of the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011) requires the Department of Defense to expand and strengthen the defense industrial base, including through the establishment 

of a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and 

Industrial Base Policy and an Industrial Base Fund. 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84), the committee directed the Comptroller General of the United States to study the domestic and worldwide 

availability of rare earth elements for use in defense systems and 

conduct an analysis of actions or events that could restrict Department of Defense access to such elements. The provision also required the Comptroller General to assess which defense systems 

are dependent upon rare earth elements and identify any actions 

the Department has taken or is planning to take to address rare 

earth element supply chain risks. On April 1, 2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) submitted the report resulting 

from this study to Congress. The GAO report highlighted a number 

of issues and concerns, particularly the People’s Republic of China’s 

near-monopoly in many steps of the rare earth element supply 

chain, the long lead-time associated with rebuilding a domestic 

supply chain, the widespread usage of rare earth elements in diverse defense applications, the current lack of substitutes for rare 

earth elements in many applications, and the Department of Defense’s lack of hard data on its demand for and usage of rare earth 

elements. 

As a result of the GAO report, in April 2010 the committee directed the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to conVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
74 

duct an investigation of rare earth elements, their prevalence in 

the defense supply chain, and any potential national security 

vulnerabilities resulting from their usage in defense applications. 

The subcommittee met with a variety of experts from across the 

government and military, independent think-tanks and universities, and the rare earth element industry. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) 

also addressed rare earth elements. It would require the Secretary 

of Defense to conduct an assessment of the supply chain for rare 

earth elements and determine which, if any, rare earth elements 

are strategic or critical to national security. In the event the Secretary determines that a rare earth element is strategic or critical 

to national security, the provision would require the Secretary to 

develop a plan to ensure the long-term availability of the materials. 

The committee also acted to ensure the continued supply of beryllium for certain defense uses by raising the threshold applicable 

to an industrial support project for beryllium being carried out by 

the Department of Defense under the Defense Production Act. 

After committee oversight determined that the Department was 

utilizing several important definitions relating to strategic and critical materials that were inconsistent with title 10, United States 

Code, the committee included two provisions in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) 

that would clarify these definitions to ensure that more strategic 

and critical materials are subject to review by the Department. 

The committee also acted to increase the Department’s focus on 

industrial security by requiring the Secretary of Defense to review 

whether to extend the current requirement for government security 

committees on corporate boards to all contractors required to maintain a facility clearance, not just those subject to foreign ownership, 

control, and influence. 

In the area of technology controls, the committee engaged in regular oversight of the Administration’s activities relating to the reform of export controls, working with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The committee’s oversight informed certain aspects of 

the executive branch’s deliberations over export control reforms, 

and the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 included a requirement for the Department of Defense 

to report on its implementation of these reforms in 2011. 

MILITARY READINESS 

READINESS OF MILITARY FORCES

The committee expanded its oversight of the readiness of the 

armed services in the 111th Congress through hearings, briefings, 

and site visits focused on personnel and equipment readiness and 

training. These activities showed that after nine years of continuous combat, overall readiness remained tenuous. Repeated deployments with limited dwell time reduced the ability of U.S. military 

forces to train across the full spectrum of conflict, increasing risk 

to national security if the military had to respond quickly to emergent contingencies because of the gap in the Department of Defense’s ability to source sufficient ground forces. Because units 

were focused on deployment to the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
75 

Republic of Afghanistan ahead of all other missions, skills not required for the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan atrophied and will 

need time to restore once sufficient dwell time at home station is 

available. Briefings conducted by the military services for the committee and work done on the committee’s behalf by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that the readiness levels of most non-deployed units remained low, due to a combination 

of equipment shortfalls, personnel shortfalls, and a lack of time to 

train. 

To address these shortfalls, the committee increased training 

funding for all the active-duty forces. To reduce budgetary risk to 

readiness in areas where the services identified unfunded requirements, the committee provided funding above the levels contained 

in the budget request. These areas included Navy ship and aviation 

depot maintenance to eliminate deferred maintenance requirements for active and reserve forces, which were identified by the 

Chief of Naval Operations as the Navy’s top unfunded priorities. 

Additionally, the committee increased funding for Army reserve 

depot maintenance and Air Force weapon system sustainment and 

support equipment. For military installations, the committee increased funding for sustainment of facilities, including Department 

of Defense schools, and added funding to improve the quality of 

trainee barracks in the Army and to support Reserve Component 

military construction. 

The committee continued to work with GAO in reviewing the Department of Defense’s approach to managing the deployment of 

forces to meet operational needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well 

as the implications of these commitments for overall force readiness. This review evaluated the Department’s efforts to establish 

processes and responsibilities for analyzing and responding to requests for force capabilities from operational commanders; the Department’s ability to provide ground forces, combat support, and 

other specialized capabilities, such as transition teams to train 

Iraqi and Afghan security forces; and factors affecting the Department’s ability to meet demands for both operations as well as to 

maintain sufficient forces and capabilities to meet other commitments; and any challenges the Department faces in adjusting training capacity and scope to support larger deployments to Afghanistan. 

In addition, the committee tasked GAO to conduct a number of 

reviews: to review the Army’s plans for augmenting its brigade 

combat teams to perform the advisory and assistance mission, and 

the use of the teams to support ongoing operations; to review the 

Air Force’s ability to train on core mission capabilities; to evaluate 

the availability of full-time trainers in the Army; to review the 

Army’s and Marine Corps’ ability to complete home-station training 

requirements; and to review Army and Marine Corps readiness reporting so that the committee can better understand the extent to 

which changes in the unit readiness reporting system will help the 

services to capture data more accurately on the readiness of their 

forces. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
76 

ARMY READINESS

Throughout the 111th Congress, the Army faced historic levels of 

stress on the force. As a hedge against the uncertainties facing the 

Army in these challenging circumstances, the committee focused its 

oversight efforts on Army readiness funding accounts and understanding the Army’s new rotational readiness model. To set the 

stage for future oversight work, the committee closely examined 

the reasons for the persistent readiness shortfalls facing the Army 

and plans to improve readiness. To conduct this oversight, the committee closely reviewed annual budget requests and conducted a series of hearings, meetings with Army leaders, classified readiness 

briefings, and staff oversight visits. 

The committee’s oversight of Army readiness revealed that the 

Army was able to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) requirements, but that to generate these forces almost all other Army ground combat capability 

suffered significant readiness shortfalls, particularly in equipment 

and training. In essence, the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 

continued to consume as many ready forces as the Army was able 

to generate, leaving very little reserve capacity for another contingency. While the drawdown in Iraq took some pressure off Army 

readiness, the simultaneous 2010 buildup in Afghanistan resulted 

in very slow progress toward rebuilding the readiness of non-deployed forces. 

Although the Army was able to respond to some emergent requirements, including the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the 

committee determined that this shortfall left the nation without an 

adequate ground force strategic reserve. Had another large-scale 

land conflict arisen, the Army likely would not have been able to 

meet expected deployment timelines, resulting in possible mission 

failure. Army leaders at all levels expressed significant concerns 

about this lack of reserve capacity in hearings and briefings 

throughout the 111th Congress. These same Army leaders expressed confidence that completion of the drawdown in Iraq to approximately 50,000 troops, in combination with the Army’s new rotational readiness model, would provide some units with additional 

time to restore readiness through training and receipt of needed 

equipment. 

In addition to the quantitative shortfall in fully ready Army 

forces, the committee also sought to understand a major qualitative 

change in the forces the Army was providing to meet ongoing and 

emergent requirements. Specifically, the committee found that 

Army forces deploying to OIF or OEF often deployed to conduct a 

different mission than their core combat mission. As a result, units 

were often extensively reconfigured in terms of equipment and personnel during their training and deployment periods. While these 

non-core missions were deemed appropriate for OIF and OEF, the 

committee found that over time many Army units lost core combat 

skills simply due to a lack of time to train on them. For example, 

many artillery units were found to have almost no recent artillery 

training because they were being deployed to do a myriad of other 

tasks, such as motorized infantry, detainee operations, and convoy 

security. In addition to unit readiness challenges, the committee 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
77 

found that repeated deployments to conduct non-core combat tasks 

also may have a long-term negative impact on the core skill levels 

of Army leaders at all levels, some of whom have not trained on 

core combat tasks for years. 

Overall, the committee found that while Army leaders still claim 

the Army is capable of full-spectrum operations, it is in fact today 

a force that is almost entirely tailored to conduct counterinsurgency missions. Given the ongoing mission in Iraq and the increased force levels in Afghanistan planned for 2010–2011, the 

amount of time and resources required to reconstitute the Army’s 

capability for high-intensity, full-spectrum combat operations remained unclear. 

In trying to understand the reasons for these readiness shortfalls, the committee spent significant time examining the Army’s 

new readiness model, the ‘‘Army Force Generation,’’ or 

ARFORGEN, system. This new rotational readiness system allows, 

by design, one-third of Army forces to be at the lowest levels of 

combat readiness, with another one-third in a state of partial readiness. The remaining third, roughly equal to 20 brigade combat 

teams and associated support assets, is intended to be fully ready 

for any possible contingency. In addition, the committee closely examined and tracked the Army’s complementary new readiness 

tracking system, the ‘‘Defense Readiness Reporting System,’’ which 

allows units to report two separate measures of readiness: one for 

traditional combat missions and one for ‘‘assigned’’ missions, where 

there is a significant difference. For example, an Army artillery 

battalion may now simultaneously report it is at a C–4 readiness 

level for its core artillery mission, but C–1 for its assigned mission 

of convoy security. Taken together, this new rotational readiness 

system and readiness reporting system marked a dramatic change 

in how the Army postures and resources itself for contingency operations and could have significant impact on the Army’s resource 

needs in the future. 

A final element of Army readiness examined by the committee 

was that of the reserve component. The committee found that the 

Army National Guard and Army Reserve have achieved unprecedented levels of readiness due to the constant demand for their 

forces to support OIF, OEF, and other operations. The committee 

also discovered, however, that the Army has no clear plan to provide the resources necessary to maintain these improved reserve 

component readiness levels. Given this uncertainty, the committee 

sought to preserve these high readiness levels by increasing funding for Army Reserve and Army National Guard readiness accounts 

during the 111th Congress. 

NAVAL READINESS

Through hearings, briefings and site visits, the committee 

learned that the Navy’s next-to-deploy forces, like the Army’s, reported high levels of readiness but this also came at the expense 

of the non-deployed forces who experienced fewer training opportunities as resources were prioritized toward meeting Global Force 

Management demands. Navy requirements to support non-standard mission and requests for individual augmentees continued to 

grow, reducing opportunities for Navy sailors and officers to train 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
78 

for core missions with a full complement of personnel. Marine 

Corps leadership reported to the committee that the Marine Corps 

experienced equipment usage rates as much as seven times greater 

than peacetime rates, reducing the expected lifespan of gear. The 

pace and nature of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan adversely affected Marine Corps readiness, as evidenced in the Marine Corps’ overall readiness assessment, the reported readiness of 

next-to-deploy and non-deployed Marine units, and in the service’s 

assessed ability to perform key warfighting functions. Non-deployed 

units were used to satisfy equipment needs for deployed and nextto-deploy units. 

The committee focused attention on the readiness of the Navy’s 

non-nuclear surface fleet following reports that some ships remained in degraded material condition and that crews were experiencing shortages of parts and tools, addressing this issue in the 

committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and in the committee report (H. Rept. 111–491). In preparation for hearings, committee staff conducted a site visit to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center and toured public and private ship repair facilities of 

the Pacific and Atlantic fleets and in the Central Command area 

of operation. 

On March 25, 2009, the Subcommittee on Readiness received testimony on readiness and sustainment of the Navy’s surface fleet. 

The Navy reported at that hearing that it had begun taking steps 

to address gaps in ship maintenance funding and to assess ship 

material conditions through a pilot program of technical inspections. Both are aimed at ensuring the Navy’s surface combatant 

ships achieve their intended service life, which is a key underpinning of the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan. 

In a related session, the Readiness Subcommittee on March 23, 

2010, met with the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee to receive a briefing from Department of Navy officials 

regarding the Navy’s proposed decommissioning of Oliver Hazard 

Perry Class frigates. The briefing highlighted the operation and 

maintenance challenges of extending the ships’ service life beyond 

their intended timeline. 

A second hearing on July 28, 2010, by the Readiness and 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittees examined readiness of the Navy’s non-nuclear surface fleet. The hearing came on 

the heels of a Fleet Review Panel report that surface force readiness had degraded to a point that it was well below acceptable levels to support reliable, sustained operations at sea. This report and 

other incidents brought to the committee’s attention once again 

raised the issue of whether the Navy can achieve, let alone extend, 

the design service life of its surface force ships and questioned the 

ability of the surface fleet to accomplish assigned missions. The 

hearing focused on contributing factors such as manpower and 

manning, training, equipment, command and control, and material 

readiness. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–174) 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
79 

AIR FORCE READINESS

The committee continued to monitor the significant readiness 

challenges facing the Air Force through the annual budget posture 

hearings and site visits to all the Air Force logistics centers and 

several individual Air Force bases in the Continental United 

States, as well as in the Pacific, European and Central Command 

areas of operation. Maintenance challenges have reduced overall 

mission capability to rates below levels seen in prior years and are 

particularly alarming given that procurement programs for new 

aircraft will not fill capability gaps until the years beyond the Future Years Defense Plan. Furthermore, weapons systems 

sustainment not only was funded at only 71 percent in the Air 

Force base budget request for fiscal year 2010 but topped the unfunded requirements list for fiscal year 2011. 

In addition, like the Navy, the Air Force requirements to support 

non-standard mission and requests for individual joint expeditionary taskings (JET) continued to grow, reducing opportunities 

for airmen to train for core missions with a full complement of personnel. In addition, the committee found that airmen often deployed to a different JET mission than originally tasked and for 

which they had been trained to perform. This left them ill-prepared 

to undertake the new tasking, with training being conducted on the 

ground in theater. 

The committee expressed concern about the potential capability 

gap that could result from the Air Force’s May 2009 announcement 

of its combat air forces restructuring plan. In the committee report 

(H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee addressed several 

troubling factors regarding the Air Force’s restructuring plan. 

These included the fact that the Air Force already had projected 

shortfalls in its required 2,200-aircraft fighter inventory beginning 

in fiscal year 2017 with the expectation that this shortage would 

reach approximately 800 aircraft by fiscal year 2024; replacement 

aircraft were still being tested and were not yet available for fielding; and the Air Force had not identified, for all of the affected 

bases, the follow-on missions that would serve to fill force structure 

and capability gaps. As a result of the committee’s concern, a provision was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that prohibited the retirement of additional combat aircraft, with the exception of the five 

already slated for retirement, until 30 days after the Air Force submitted a report to the congressional defense committees; a classified version of the report was provided on March 4, 2010. The report stated that, though the risk to achieving its national defense 

strategy objectives in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe is slightly increased, the Air Force through the restructuring plan sought to 

build a smaller, but more capable, force while at the same time 

maintaining a bridge to an increasingly fifth-generation fighter 

force structure. 

PREPOSITIONED STOCKS

Prepositioned stocks are critical warfighting stocks located in 

strategic land- and ship-based worldwide locations. Prepositioned 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
80 

stocks are important in reducing strategic lift requirements and 

improving force closure times. Because both the Army and Marine 

Corps have depleted their prepositioned stocks over the past nine 

years to support overseas operations and Grow-the-Force efforts, 

the reconstitution of these stocks are an important piece of equipment reset. As such, the committee examined these issues during 

the July 9, 2009, and December 10, 2009, hearings on reset held 

jointly by the Readiness, Air and Land Forces, and Seapower and 

Expeditionary Forces Subcommittees. The committee expressed 

particular concern that the Army’s plan to reconstitute its 

prepositioned stocks was extended from a completion date of 2013 

to 2015. 

Additionally, committee staff during the 111th Congress conducted site visits to the Pacific, European and Central Command 

areas of operation to view first-hand Army Prepositioned Stocks 

consisting of pre-positioned unit sets of combat equipment, operational projects, sustainment stocks, and war reserve secondary 

items such as rations, tents, chemical defense equipment, packaged 

petroleum products, barbed wire and other barrier materiel, medical supplies, and repair parts. Staff also visited the Marine Corps 

Prepositioning Program—Norway which was used to source equipment in support of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide humanitarian assistance in the nation of Georgia. 

EQUIPMENT RESET

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of the services’ reset strategies to repair, recapitalize, and replace equipment damaged or worn out through nine years of continuous combat operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 

in OEF and in OIF. This oversight expanded in 2010 to include the 

retrograde of equipment from the Republic of Iraq back to the 

United States as combat operations there declined and for redeployment to Afghanistan to support the surge in combat operations 

in that country. 

The Readiness, Air and Land Forces, and Seapower and Expeditionary Subcommittees convened a joint hearing on July 9, 2009, 

and again on December 10, 2009, to receive testimony on Army and 

Marine Corps reset requirements. The hearing informed members 

about reset funding history, current-year funding and execution, 

the eventual movement of reset dollars into the Army’s and Marine 

Corps’ base budgets; how well Army and Marine Corps depots and 

the industrial base were meeting the demand for reset equipment 

in terms of workload, production of major end items, long-lead 

items, and spare parts; and the reset equipment requirement for 

drawdown in Iraq and buildup in Afghanistan. Additionally, committee staff received periodic briefings on Army and Marine Corps 

reset efforts, monitored monthly reset reports provided by the Department of the Army, and participated in Workload Production 

Updates hosted by Army Materiel Command throughout 2009 and 

2010. 

The committee continued to monitor the balance of funding for 

ground forces’ depot maintenance in support of reset and voiced 

concern that the amount of the Army’s depot maintenance request 

funded in the base budget remained alarmingly low (at 11.4 perVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
81 

cent). The committee had the same concern for Marine Corps depot 

maintenance, where 86 percent of the fiscal year 2011 budget was 

in the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts 

DEPOT AND ARSENAL CAPABILITY

With the nation’s military depots functioning at peak capacity in 

support of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee in the 111th Congress continued its oversight of policies affecting the Nation’s government-owned arsenals, depots, air logistics centers, and shipyards, as well as the private-sector support 

provided through the annual operation and maintenance budget. 

The committee took action in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to clarify depot-maintenance policy in regard to the installation of major modifications 

and upgrades. The sense of Congress included in that Act states 

that such installation is considered a part of the definition of depotlevel maintenance under section 2466 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Also in Public Law 111–84, the committee required the Secretary 

of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for improving its inventory management systems. The action followed a series of examinations by GAO performed on the committee’s behalf on the services’ 

and the Defense Logistics Agency’s inventory management systems 

that showed the Department of Defense needs to improve its demand forecasting procedures and provide better information to 

item managers. 

The committee, through Public Law 111–84 and again through 

the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523) extended authorization of the Arsenal Support 

Program Initiative (ASPI). 

In December 2010, the committee received the report of an independent, 22-month assessment of post-reset depot capability required to provide life-cycle sustainment of military systems and 

equipment. The report was mandated by the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 

110–417), and will be used by the committee in the 112th Congress 

to examine the statutory framework that underpins depot and arsenal capability. The report will inform the committee on future 

depot policy and operations in the context of reduced depot-maintenance funding following the cessation of combat operations in Iraq. 

Also in the 111th Congress, the committee took action toward 

better management and more expanded use of the working capital 

funds. A provision in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) would require an independent review of each Department of Defense working capital 

fund to determine the appropriate cash corpus required to maintain good financial management of the fund. The committee reported that it believes the current cash minimum balances are arbitrary and outdated. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) also allows supply parts 

developed through continuous technology refreshment to be purchased with working capital funds, enabling the military departments to make vital progress in resolving critical supply problems 

affecting military readiness. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
82 

LIFE-CYCLE SUSTAINMENT

With operation and support (O&S) costs constituting up to 70 

percent of the lifecycle cost to the government for a weapon system, 

the committee in the 111th Congress continued its oversight of how 

effectively the Department of Defense is developing and procuring 

weapons systems and equipment with consideration of life-cycle 

sustainment and support costs in mind. Particularly, the committee 

voiced concern that the military services may not be planning sufficiently for the O&S costs that will be incurred when non-standard 

items fielded under rapid fielding initiatives in response to Joint 

Urgent Operational Needs migrate to programs of record. First 

among these are the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (M–RAP) 

vehicle and its Afghanistan variant, the Military All Terrain Vehicle, or MATV, whose O&S costs are expected to average at least 

$2.0 billion per year. 

Furthermore, the committee examined the extent to which the 

acquisition community and the logistics community collaborate during system design and development. As noted, decisions made during this critical phase can unnecessarily create sustainment problems that drive millions of dollars in depot-level maintenance once 

the system is fielded. As a result of this oversight, the committee 

included provisions addressing life-cycle sustainment in the Weapon Systems Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–23) and the Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (H.R. 5013). In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) included a provision that required the development of product support strategies for major weapon systems 

and mandated that each system be supported by a properly qualified military or civilian product support manager; these requirements could apply to other acquisition programs as well. 

The committee also addressed the cost to avoid, control, and mitigate corrosion in the context of life-cycle O&S. Despite the validated 50-to-1 return on investment from the 169 projects implemented through the Department of Defense’s corrosion office, the 

committee expressed disappointment that the Department’s budget 

request for corrosion control and mitigation continues to fall far 

short of the known total requirement. In the committee report (H. 

Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee mandated the Director of 

Corrosion Policy and Oversight to evaluate the F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter programs’ corrosion efforts, which draw extensively from 

the lessons learned from the F–22 program. The evaluation concluded that the corrosion problems observed on the F–22 were inevitable and could have been anticipated, and that neither program 

has a life-cycle cost requirement to motivate attention to long-term 

sustainment considerations, such as corrosion. 

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL AND WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT

The committee continued to explore initiatives that would provide the Department with the necessary tools to hire, retain, and 

train a qualified federal civilian workforce with the right skills to 

effectively contribute to the success of the Department’s mission. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
83 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) included provisions to clarify hiring authorities for 

participants in the national security education program as well as 

the science, mathematics and research, and information technology 

scholarship programs; and enhance special personnel authorities 

within the DOD science and technology reinvention laboratories. In 

addition, Public Law 111–84 codified a congressionally mandated 

requirement for the Department to develop an annual human capital plan to shape its workforce to achieve the proper balance between military, civilian and contractor personnel. Furthermore, 

Public Law 111–84 addressed comprehensive changes to the re-employment of annuitants and to retirement benefits for all Federal 

civilian employees. 

BENEFITS FOR DEPLOYED CIVILIANS

The committee continued its efforts to provide special incentives 

and benefits for federal civilian employees serving in active combat 

zones, especially in light of the Department of Defense’s civilian expeditionary workforce initiative. Both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) and the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(H.R. 6523) contained initiatives to expand such incentives. These 

included an extension of authority to waive limitations on premium 

pay, and extending benefits to federal civilian employees on official 

duty in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, as noted in the 

committee report (H. Rept. 111–491) accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the committee had 

been anticipating that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

in coordination with the Departments of Defense, State and Labor, 

would be proposing a broader package of pay, leave, workman’s 

compensation, health benefits, and other incentives for all Federal 

agencies that send personnel to hazardous duty areas. While the 

committee was disappointed that this proposal was not provided by 

OPM in time for the committee to take action on it in fiscal year 

2011, the committee expects to address these issues in the 112th 

Congress. 

NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM

During the 111th Congress, the committee conducted extensive 

oversight of the Department’s civilian personnel system. This effort 

began with the committee’s request to Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging the Department to discontinue converting DOD employees to the National Security Personnel System 

(NSPS) until the executive branch and Congress could properly address the future of the Department’s personnel system. Consistent 

with this request, President Barack Obama directed the Department to undertake a comprehensive review of NSPS, which was 

conducted by the Defense Business Board (DBB) and completed in 

August 2009. On April 1, 2009, the Subcommittee on Readiness 

met to receive testimony on NSPS and the ongoing DBB review. As 

a result of the hearing and the recommendations in the DBB report, the committee included a provision in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to reVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
84 

peal the authority for NSPS and require the transition of NSPS 

employees to previously existing civilian personnel systems by January 1, 2012. The provision also provided the Secretary of Defense 

with new personnel flexibilities which would apply across the civilian workforce of the Department of Defense. In particular, the provision authorized the Secretary, in coordination with the Director 

of OPM, to develop new methods for hiring and assigning personnel, and for appraising employee performance. In addition, the 

provision directed the Secretary to develop special training programs for managers to implement the personnel authorities granted, and to establish an incentive fund to reward individual or team 

performance. 

In the committee report (H. Rept. 111–491), the committee applauded the Department’s actions to move forward with the conversions before the January 1, 2012, deadline. However, the committee 

expressed concern that certain issues have arisen as a result of the 

rapid conversion, such as personnel being placed in a retained pay 

status, and requested a briefing on the Department’s plans for the 

January 2011 nationwide adjustment along with any other salary 

increases, including for individuals in a pay-retention status. Furthermore, the committee staff monitored progress on compliance 

with the authorities provided in Public Law 111–84 through regular meetings with the Department’s NSPS transition team. 

INSOURCING

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced on April 6, 2009, 

his decision to scale back significantly the role of contractors in 

support services and bring appropriate contracted-out functions 

back in-house. This announcement aligned with the President’s 

March 4, 2009, memo on government contracting that was intended 

to ensure that ‘‘inherently governmental’’ functions and those closely associated with inherently governmental functions, as well as 

certain personal services contracts, are performed by federal government personnel and not by contractor personnel. The committee 

noted that section 2463 of Title 10, United States Code already required managers within the Department of Defense and the military services to consider using federal civilian employees for work 

that is new or currently being performed by contractors in certain 

circumstances. 

While generally supportive of the Department’s announced 

insourcing initiative, the committee noted in the committee report 

(H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that it should not be driven by random goals or arbitrary budget reductions, rather it should be considered as part of an overall strategic plan that looks at the total 

workforce (military, federal civilian, and contractor) required to accomplish the Department’s mission. As a result of these concerns, 

the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report 

on its insourcing implementation plan, including how it intended to 

address the impacts of insourcing on contractor employees, and to 

comply with other relevant laws (i.e., section 2463 as well as the 

establishment of service contract inventories); that report was submitted in December 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
85 

As a follow-up to the Department’s December report, the Subcommittee on Readiness held a briefing on March 12, 2010, with 

representatives from the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, the 

Department of Defense, and the Departments of the Army, Air 

Force, and Navy. The briefers focused on their agency’s insourcing 

initiatives, implementing guidance, and the criteria by which they 

determined which functions should be brought back in-house. As a 

result of the briefing, a provision was included in the Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 

6523) to prohibit the establishment of arbitrary goals or targets to 

convert work from performance by private sector contractors to performance by federal civilian employees; the provision also required 

an insourcing review by the Secretary of Defense and GAO. 

PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS

The committee continued to question the use of private security 

contractors both at domestic military installations and in areas of 

combat or contingency operations. The committee particularly was 

concerned with the harmful impact to military missions and foreign 

relations that can be caused by the misconduct of private security 

contractors. To address this concern, the committee report (H. 

Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 called for the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility of a third-party certification process that would 

screen out companies not being able to conform to specific operational, business and training standards. The Department’s report, 

issued in April 2010, supported a mandatory third-party certification as a prerequisite for contract award. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) 

included a provision to implement this recommendation by requiring a Department of Defense review of operational and business 

standards applicable to private security contractors. It also allows 

the Department to consider a third-party certification for all contractors who provide security services to the Department to ensure 

the quality and experience of private security contractors. 

Furthermore, the committee addressed the mandate to reduce reliance on private security guards at domestic and overseas military 

installations, pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). In the committee report 

(H. Rept. 111–491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the committee directed the Department to review, and provide a written letter of compliance, on its 

guidance related to conversion of private security positions and include prioritization for use of federal civilian employees to fill those 

positions 

PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION

Following up on several initiatives taken during the 110th Congress, the committee in the 111th Congress continued its review of 

public-private competitions conducted under Office of Management 

and Budget Circular A–76. The National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) included provisions that 

eliminated the de minimis standard and imposed time limitations 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
86 

for the conduct of public-private competitions as well as established 

a debriefing requirement for federal employee representatives similar to that provided to all contract offerors, and made technical 

amendments to the bid protest process for Federal civilian employees. In addition, Public Law 111–84 temporarily suspended DOD 

public-private competitions until the Secretary of Defense certified 

that the Department was in compliance with certain statutory requirements and conducted a review of the adequacy of DOD guidance to undertake public-private competitions. The committee is 

awaiting the final report and may take additional action, as necessary, in the 112th Congress. 

SECURITY CLEARANCE REFORM

An effective and efficient process for administering security clearances is critical to military readiness, and both the executive 

branch and Congress have focused attention on improving the security clearance process. During the 111th Congress, the committee 

continued to monitor progress toward developing a revamped security clearance system. In the committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010, the committee directed the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team (which includes DOD representatives as well 

as representatives from the Office of Management and Budget and 

OPM) to provide a report on the status of implementing all elements of the security clearance reform plan, rationale for any 

delays, and any obstacles that have been encountered. Responding 

to the report, which was submitted in February 2010, the committee noted in H. Rept. 111–491 that while significant progress 

has been made as a result of increased resources and improved information technology system, the executive branch should continue 

to demonstrate its commitment to sustaining that progress and 

identifying areas for further improvement. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE AND DISPOSAL

The real property management process requires extensive oversight to maintain more than $650.0 billion in infrastructure at an 

annual cost of over $50.0 billion, or nearly 11 percent, of the Department of Defense’s budget. The Subcommittee on Readiness in 

the 111th Congress reviewed issues pertaining to military construction, family housing, and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

activities of the Department of Defense. The Readiness Subcommittee held a budget hearing on June 3, 2009, on the fiscal 

year 2010 budget request and a hearing on March 18, 2010, on the 

fiscal year 2011 budget request to review military construction, 

family housing, BRAC activities, and facility operations and maintenance. The Readiness Subcommittee also conducted a hearing on 

February 24, 2009, on the Acquisition and Disposal of Military 

Lands. As a result of this oversight, additional real property conveyance authorities were included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to provide authority to the Department of Defense to expedite conveyance of exVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
87 

cess property at or below fair market value. This authority also allows the property recipient to enter into an agreement with the Department of Defense to provide Department of Defense compensation after property conveyance. The committee also reviewed the 

Army Base Operating Services account and found that significant 

shortfalls needed to be addressed to manage basic services. The 

committee supported various reprogramming requests in fiscal year 

2010 to address critical shortfalls in the Army Base Operating 

Services account. 

During the 111th Congress, committee staff conducted numerous 

site visits throughout the United States to assess the state of infrastructure and quality of life provided to the forces. The committee 

supported the expansion of Army and Marine Corps force structure 

and the subsequent infrastructure expansion that is being constructed to support the military expansion. 

BASING

The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant change in 

force structure both in the United States and overseas. These forcestructure changes are being performed by two infrastructure programs including the 2005 BRAC decisions and the Global Defense 

Posture Review. These rebasing movements affect not only U.S. 

global posture but they also have significant repercussions on readiness, surge capability, military construction, and quality of life for 

military members and their families. 

After concluding a briefing on Army and Marine Corps Grow the 

Force initiatives on March 10, 2009, the Subcommittee on Readiness included a provision in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that directed an assessment of the global defense posture realignment and interagency review to better assess the impacts of varying overseas basing proposals. The subcommittee also conducted a specific review 

of the Department of Defense’s intent to realign 8,000 Marines 

from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. Public Law 111–84 and the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(H.R. 6523) each included a legislative subsection that would support the realignment of Marine Corps assets to Guam that includes 

the following provisions: clarifying the use of Japanese contributions; defining the appropriate use of H2B visa workers required to 

support the construction effort; placing conditions of acceptance on 

new U.S. airfields in Japan; and assessing community assistance to 

Guam. 

Additionally, the committee continued to provide oversight on the 

significant rebasing efforts that are occurring throughout the 

world. Rebasing efforts to support U.S. troop movements in Japan 

and Korea are expected to exceed $50 billion. In Europe, the Department of Defense continues to consolidate the force structure 

and evaluate the required force mix and realign assets to better 

support the strategic posture of the United States. The committee 

staff during the 111th Congress conducted site visits to the Pacific, 

European and Central Command areas of operation to view the 

myriad of basing agreements with international partners and assess the long term viability of these cooperative agreements. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
88 

The committee completed a comprehensive review of the BRAC 

implementation process and as a result several legislative provisions were enacted. The Readiness and Military Personnel Subcommittees held a joint hearing on December 2, 2009, on the implementation of the Walter Reed Army Medical Command realignment that was included in BRAC 2005. The Readiness and Military 

Personnel Subcommittees also held a joint hearing on March 18, 

2009, on Medical Infrastructure and the proper use of medical facilities funding for new construction and renovation projects. As a 

result of this oversight hearing, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) included a provision that detailed the requirements related to providing a worldclass military medical facility in the National Capital Region. 

FACILITIES PRIVATIZATION

The Department of Defense has made extensive use of privatization of military assets including family housing, bachelor quarters, 

and utility-related infrastructure. The Department has leveraged 

available capital in Department of Defense infrastructure and entered into long-term contracts with private property managers. The 

Subcommittee on Readiness in the 111th Congress reviewed this 

privatization initiative and included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

to modify the utility systems conveyance authority to eliminate duplicative reviews and provide thresholds for utility conveyance to 

private partners. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING

There is increasing evidence that sufficient infrastructure in the 

United States may not be available to support a rapid reduction in 

overseas forces and concurrently sustain the Army’s and Marine 

Corps’ Grow-the-Force initiatives. The committee completed a detailed review of the Department’s military construction program to 

manage the overall capacity of the Department’s infrastructure and 

ensure prudent long-term military construction investments are 

provided. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) concluded that the Department had 

overpriced the military construction program and that significant 

savings were being realized in construction projects. Public Law 

111–84 reduced the overall account by $529 million. A similar savings review was conducted in the context of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

As an additional issue for construction programming, the committee continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to address emerging construction requirements. Both Public Law 111– 

84 and the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) contained provisions that authorized the 

use of Operations and Maintenance funds for contingency construction. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
89 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

ENERGY SECURITY AND NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS OF

CLIMATE CHANGE

During the 111th Congress, the committee conducted vigorous 

oversight of the Department’s energy activities and closely examined the strategies and policies for both installations energy and 

operational energy. In order to reduce the dependence on fossil fuel 

and reliance on foreign oil, the committee believes it is necessary 

for the Department to reduce its consumption and achieve efficiencies both on installations and in the operational theater. Additionally, the committee continued to remain concerned about national security implications and potential consequences of global 

climate change. Committee staff conducted site visits across installations in the continental United States and outside the United 

States to determine how policies were being implemented, to ensure necessary action was being taken, and to identify areas where 

potential legislation would help facilitate action across the Department of Defense. 

The committee believes that Department of Defense installations 

provide significant opportunity for advancing renewable energy 

technologies, pursuing energy security, and reducing overall demand. Congressional mandates, executive orders, federal and state 

legislation all have a role in directing the Department to advance 

the renewable energy market, reduce energy consumption, and 

achieve energy security in the event of a compromise to the public 

grid. The Subcommittee on Readiness took action in this area in 

both the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) and the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) to direct energy efficiencies, facilitate energy security, and fund investments in renewable energy technologies. It also directed the development of a comprehensive Energy Performance Master Plan in order to organize 

its activities in the context of the energy security laws, mandates 

and goals. 

On February 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Readiness received 

testimony from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each of 

the military services on defense energy management and initiatives 

on military installations. This hearing highlighted the Department’s initiatives and also highlighted additional areas of increased 

oversight for inclusion in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). In addition, committee 

staff visited installations such as Fort Bliss, Nellis Air Force Base, 

Naval Air Weapon Station China Lake and Marine Corps Air 

Ground Combat Center 29 Palms where the Services are undertaking large-scale renewable energy projects in response to mandates and goals. 

As Department of Defense installations respond to overarching 

directives for renewable energy on installations, they also compete 

with readiness demands impacted by increased encroachment of renewable energy projects in proximity to installations. The committee closely examined the impact on military readiness as renewable energy continued to proliferate throughout the country due to 

increased subsidies and funding provided by The American RecovVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
90 

ery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111–5). On June 29, 2010, 

the Subcommittee on Readiness received testimony from Department of Defense officials, the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), and an industry representative on the impact of wind farms 

on military installations, their missions, and radar interference 

that might adversely impact military readiness. Accordingly, the 

subcommittee in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) included a provision directing 

the Department to better organize its internal review of applications, encourage early engagement with industry, and establish a 

coherent review process jointly with the FAA for renewable energy 

applications. 

With a continued presence of U.S. forces in the Republic of Iraq 

and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Subcommittee on 

Readiness in the 111th Congress continued its oversight and emphasis of reducing demand for operational energy at forward-deployed locations to relieve the significant logistical burden and 

force protection requirements, and decrease operational 

vulnerabilities. The Subcommittee on Readiness received testimony 

on March 3, 2009, regarding Department of Defense Fuel Demand 

Management at Forward-Deployed Locations and Operational Energy Initiatives. The hearing informed members about the Department’s establishment of the Power Surety Task Force to address 

the need to reduce military dependence on fuel for power generation, the three-year Net-Zero Plus Joint Concept Technology Demonstration to assess technologies for tactical bases, and investments in research and development for biofuels and renewable energy technologies. 

Additionally in the 111th Congress, the committee pursued several provisions and report requirements to facilitate increased oversight and coordinated policies for operational energy. Specifically, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) authorized funding for the Office of the Director 

of Operational Energy Plans and Programs and directed a report 

on implementation of fuel demand management initiatives at forward-deployed locations. The committee continues to encourage the 

Department to seek efficiencies, cost savings, and decreased demand for fuel in theater. 

The Department addressed the criticality of climate change and 

its impact on defense in the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review for shaping the operating environment, roles, and missions 

that the Department undertakes. In light of the committee’s continued concerns about the implications and potential consequences of 

global climate change on the Department’s facilities, capabilities, 

and missions, the committee report (H. Rept. 111–491), directed 

the Secretary of Defense to submit a report capturing an assessment of the strategic national security objectives and restrictions in 

the Arctic Region, and an assessment on mission capabilities required to support the strategic national security objectives. 

ENVIRONMENT

The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues resulting from Department of Defense activities on military installations, training ranges, and operational activities to include the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
91 

military services’ environmental restoration program and adherence to federal, state and local cleanup, compliance, and pollution 

prevention requirements. An area of sustained interest to the committee is exposure to and cleanup of contaminants on Formerly 

Used Defense Sites (FUDS). In the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), the committee included a provision that directed the Department to prescribe regulations prohibiting the disposal of waste in burn pits during contingency operations, with limited exceptions. Additionally, the committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included language regarding continued oversight and study of Marine Corps Base Camp 

Lejeune, North Carolina, drinking water and potential impacts to 

affected populations. In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the committee took further action 

regarding Camp Lejeune, requiring the Department of the Navy to 

make all information available to the Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry to facilitate their continuing review, and it 

also limits the Department of the Navy’s use of funds for adjudication of claims subject to Congressional notification. Additionally, 

the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523) directed the Comptroller General to assess various issues associated with environmental exposures on military installations, including impacts to current and former members of 

the Armed Forces, their dependents, and civilian employees. In the 

committee report (H. Rept. 111–491), the committee directed the 

Secretary of Defense to conduct an Exposure Registry Feasibility 

Study capturing each incidence of exposure of occupational and environmental chemical hazards during conflicts, to monitor possible 

health risks and provide necessary treatment to those exposed 

In addition to the continued scrutiny and oversight, Public Law 

111–84 also reauthorized title 1 of the Sikes Act through fiscal year 

2014 to promote effectual planning, development, maintenance and 

coordination of wildlife, fish, and game conservation and rehabilitation in military reservations. Committee staff made site visits 

across installations to ensure the Department is providing necessary protections for endangered species, and taking appropriate 

precautions to prevent and mitigate any preexisting environmental 

issues. 

MILITARY PERSONNEL AND FAMILY MATTERS 

END STRENGTH

During fiscal year 2011, the committee continued its initiatives 

from the previous Congress to increase the size of both the active 

Army and active Marine Corps. The committee also supported the 

Department of Defense request to increase the Air Force and Navy 

end strengths to support growth in specific career fields and fill 

wartime manpower requirements. Due to the flexibility provided to 

the Department of Defense during the 110th Congress to accelerate 

increases in service end strength levels, both the Army and Marine 

Corps achieved their end strength goals early during fiscal year 

2010 and Congress supported maintaining these elevated strength 

levels. During the second session of the 111th Congress, the comVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
92 

mittee again supported an increase in Army end strength to 

569,400 to assist the Army with managing of the force, maintaining 

readiness, and increasing dwell time for soldiers. 

The committee also continued to recognize the need to increase 

requirements for fulltime support of the reserve components. The 

National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

required the Secretary of Defense to assess the requirements of the 

National Guard for non-dual status technicians. Although the report was not submitted in a timely manner the committee still supported the administration request for an increase in the number of 

non-dual status technicians in the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Bill for Fiscal year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

The committee continued to monitor recruiting and retention 

trends closely throughout the 111th Congress to ensure that programs remained effective notwithstanding the relatively large number of youth that are ineligible for enlistment, the increasing college attendance rate, and the growing awareness of the hardships 

and risks of war among potential recruits and their influencers. 

Largely due to the decline in economic conditions, the recruiting 

and retention environment has changed to drastically favor the 

military. All of the active services and their reserve components 

have met their goals for recruiting numbers and quality benchmarks for the past two years. This is a significant change from previous years. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel remains concerned that the services will not be able to sustain their recruiting 

and retention programs should economic conditions improve and 

the Nation remains engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. The subcommittee held two hearings during the 111th Congress to review 

the current status of the recruiting and retention programs and to 

understand the future challenges the Department of Defense faces 

with respect to these programs. The committee responded to Department of Defense legislative requests to bolster existing programs and launch new programs, and worked to anticipate active 

duty and reserve recruiting and retention program requirements 

for both officer and enlisted members. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION

The committee continued to closely monitor compensation programs during the 111th Congress to ensure an adequate quality of 

life for service members and their families and to ensure that pay 

and benefits met the needs of the wartime military and kept pace 

with private sector standards. The committee’s active oversight of 

these issues resulted in legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that authorized a 3.4 percent raise in basic pay during fiscal year 2010. This 

military pay raise was one-half of one percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and extended to 11 the number of consecutive years where Congress authorized pay raises above the ECI 

level. Although the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) included a pay raise 

that was one-half of one percent above the ECI level, a pay raise 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
93 

of 1.4 percent, equaling the ECI level, was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 

6523). The committee also extended the authorities to pay bonuses 

and special pays during fiscal years 2010 and 2011 and monitored 

the value of those bonuses and special pays to ensure they were 

sufficient to achieve the recruiting and retention objectives for 

which they were developed to address. The committee also continued to review pay issues related to wartime operations. To that 

end, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) included legislation that: 

(1) Provided for special compensation for military members 

with catastrophic injuries or illnesses; 

(2) Provided travel and transportation allowances for survivors of deceased military members to attend memorial services; and 

(3) Provided travel and transportation allowances for designated individuals of wounded, ill, or injured members of the 

uniformed services for the duration of inpatient treatment. 

MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

During the 111th Congress, the committee provided extensive 

oversight of the military health system. The committee continued 

its work to avoid the potential adverse impact of uncontrolled cost 

growth within the military health care system on the Department 

of Defense. The committee worked to improve the health status of 

beneficiaries and control cost growth within the military health 

care system by holding hearings on a number of discrete problem 

areas within the Defense Health Program, to include: medical military construction, health information technology, health budgeting, 

and Department of Defense Health Affairs/TRICARE Management 

Activity organization. These hearings resulted in legislative provisions to develop a plan to improve military health care, limit the 

obligation of fund on health information technology until certain reviews were conducted, explore new approaches for preventing suicides, energize Department of Defense efforts to find new solutions 

to improve access to and quality of mental health care, enhance Department of Defense research efforts to improve identification and 

treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, and impose a temporary limitation on inpatient fee increases. 

The committee also examined alternatives to the current system of 

providing Reserve Component medical and dental readiness, which 

led to the expansion of TRICARE benefits for members of the reserve components from 90 days before mobilization to 180 days and 

the enhancement of transitional dental care following demobilization, both contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). To ensure that the medical 

care interests of service members and families are protected, the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523) included provisions that authorized TRICARE 

beneficiaries to extend health coverage to their adult dependent 

children up to age 26 like other Americans under health care reform, continued to bar medical care premium increases, and expanded medical officer accession benefits and eligibility criteria. It 

should also be noted that that the House version of the National 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
94 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) also included a provision that would have authorized the establishment of 

a Unified Medical Command designed to enhance access to quality 

medical care and achieve efficiencies in medical management and 

structure to save critical medical appropriations. The provision was 

not included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

WOUNDED WARRIOR CARE

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its efforts 

to ensure that wounded and disabled service members and their 

families are afforded the support they need. Significant improvements to the programs and policies that support wounded and disabled service members have been made over the past several years. 

For example, a Department of Defense Task Force on the Care, 

Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces was mandated by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84) to ensure that independent evaluations of the Department of 

Defense’s wounded warrior programs continue to evolve to address 

issues that are raised by service members and their families, and 

that the circumstances that led to the scandal at the Walter Reed 

Army Medical Center are not allowed to happen again. The committee also continued its work to assess, improve, and expand programs for mental health and traumatic brain injuries, holding multiple hearings and oversight visits that resulted in legislative provisions to increase the mental health capabilities of the Department 

of Defense, study the management of medications for members of 

the Armed Forces, conduct clinical trials on cognitive rehabilitative 

therapy, and conduct an independent study on post-traumatic 

stress disorder efforts. Finally, the committee continued its vigorous oversight of the merger of Walter Reed Army Medical Center 

and the National Naval Medical Center mandated by the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to ensure that 

the resulting military treatment facilities in the National Capital 

Region provide world class medical care. The committee held a 

hearing to consider the findings and recommendations of the National Capital Region Base Realignment and Closure Health Systems Subcommittee of the Defense Health Board, which led to the 

committee codifying many of the recommendations into law in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84). 

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued to provide 

flexible authorities to support the transformation of the National 

Guard and Reserves to an operational Reserve and to maintain Reserve Component end strengths at levels that promote readiness 

and stability. Although the committee included portions of the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181) and 

other initiatives during the 111th Congress, there are still many 

issues to be resolved as the Reserve Components transition to an 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
95 

operational Reserve. The committee is waiting on several reports 

from the Department of Defense that could establish the foundation for the future of the Reserve Components that will be a focus 

during the 112th Congress. 

FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The high operational tempo has not only taken a toll on service 

members, but their families as well, particularly military children. 

During the 111th Congress, the committee held two hearings specifically on family support programs for the first time in decades. 

The hearings examined the strength, vitality, and sustainability of 

family support programs and the resiliency of military children 

confronted with multiple deployments of parents. The committee 

continued its efforts to oversee these programs and to ensure that 

families are provided adequate support as they cope with unprecedented numbers of deployments and operational stress. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 

111–84) required a number of important studies in this area including a report on domestic violence in military families, an assessment of the impact of repeated deployments on military children, and a report on financial assistance for childcare for members 

of the Armed Forces. 

UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND INVESTIGATIONS

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of the military justice system to ensure that its processes are 

transparent and just. The committee focused on prevention and response initiatives related to sexual assault. The committee also 

continued to monitor investigations into misconduct in the Republic 

of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan which may indicate 

recruiting, screening, and training deficiencies, and issues pertaining to command responsibility. 

PRISONER OF WAR AND MISSING IN ACTION AFFAIRS

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its increased oversight of Prisoner of War (POW) and Missing in Action 

(MIA) programs and policies which fall under the jurisdiction of the 

committee. During the first session of the 111th Congress, the committee held a hearing to receive an update on the activities and 

programs under the purview of the Defense Prisoner of War and 

Missing Personnel Office (DPMO), and understand the status and 

challenges of the programs operated by the Joint Prisoner of War 

and Missing in Action Accounting Command (JPAC). The hearing 

also provided testimony from nongovernmental organizations involved in the POW/MIA community. The hearing led to legislation 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) requiring the Secretary of Defense institute a 

plan to increase the number of identifications dramatically to a 

rate of 200 per year by 2015. This requirement will increase synergy within the POW/MIA accounting community through increased collaboration required to achieve the mandate. During the 

second session of the 111th Congress, the committee made visits to 

several organizations in the POW/MIA accounting community to inVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
96 

clude recovery sites in Asia in order to assess progress in building 

capacity for the increased identification mandate. 

GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER MANAGEMENT

During the 111th Congress, the committee, as it has for many 

years, sought to closely manage general and flag officers because 

of the importance of their leadership to mission readiness and operational success. In a continuing effort to provide oversight and assist the Department of Defense to retain management flexibility, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) directed the Secretary of Defense to provide assessments of the propriety of title 10 provisions that exclude general and flag officers from authorized strength levels and the sufficiency of the number of general and flag officers in an active status 

in the reserve components. Although the review was completed in 

late July 2010, its transmission to Congress was delayed due to the 

cost efficiency review being conducted by the Secretary of Defense 

to determine whether a decrease of general and flag officers would 

increase the cost effectiveness of the force. The committee expects 

the report to be transmitted in order to continue its oversight efforts on the management of general and flag officers. 

YELLOW RIBBON REINTEGRATION PROGRAM

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program through site visits to ensure such programs are properly structured and funded. As 

a result, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Bill for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) authorized travel and transportation 

allowances for yellow ribbon events for persons who are significant 

to the reintegration of service members, but who are not family 

members and promoted more robust program outreach to service 

members and families. 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ASSAULT

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its ongoing 

efforts to prevent and resolve sexual assault offenses by or against 

military members. Congress required the creation of the Defense 

Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services (DTFSAMS) 

as an extension of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment 

and Violence at the Military Service Academies. Once the 

DTFSAMS final report was received during the 111th Congress, 

the committee noted its depth, breadth, thoughtfulness, in addition 

to the quality of the recommendations during a hearing on the subject. The committee acted on many of the DTFSAMS recommendations when it included 10 sections on sexual assault in the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(H.R. 6523) to improve sexual assault prevention and response by 

the Department of Defense in the following areas: strategic direction; prevention and training; response to victims; and accountability. The committee remained strongly committed to ensuring 

that comprehensive measures are implemented to improve sexual 

assault prevention and response (SAPR) programs within the Department of Defense. Oversight activities included monitoring 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
97 

budgeting and funding for SAPR programs, evaluating program effectiveness, and reviewing the effectiveness of Uniform Code of 

Military Justice provisions on sexual assault. 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

On June 10, 2010, the Secretary of the Army announced sweeping changes in the management and oversight of Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) following the completion of a series of investigations and inspections conducted by the Military District of 

Washington and Inspector General of the Army as a result of allegations of lost accountability of gravesites and mishandling of remains. The committee conducted a full committee investigative 

hearing, numerous staff briefings, and one on-site examination to 

understand the failures of ANC management authorities and the 

Army’s supporting activities. The committee was committed to seeing honor and dignity restored to this National shrine and closely 

monitored the Army’s initiatives to establish management controls, 

revise regulations, complete a 100 percent audit of the cemetery 

grave sites, finalize criminal or administrative action against 

former employees, resolve the budget and manpower questions, and 

correct the acquisition and contracting processes. The committee 

remains committed in its oversight responsibilities of this most hallowed ground. 

MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR) 

PROGRAMS

During the 111th Congress, the committee acted to improve the 

effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and commissaries 

and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs and to protect these critical programs for future generations of service members. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a hearing 

during the 111th Congress and received numerous staff briefings 

that fully explored policy issues and the fiscal status of the commissary and military exchange stores and the service MWR programs. These issues included adequacy of appropriated funding for 

MWR programs, adequacy of funding for recapitalization of military resale and MWR facilities, propriety of exchange consolidation, 

continuation of appropriated second destination transportation 

funding for military resale goods shipped overseas, continuation of 

unofficial personal information services, protection of commissary 

appropriated funding levels, adequacy of access to quality child 

care services, continuation of military resale activities at base closure sites, and approval of new business concepts such as exchange 

lifestyle centers. The Department of Defense consulted the committee on a wide range of management proposals regarding new 

construction or facility renovation, store expansions or closures, 

public-private ventures, business practices, and new business opportunities and models. In each case, the committee provided guidance and decisions, as requested. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) and the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 

(H.R. 6523) included legislative initiatives to address the concerns 

that had been brought to the attention of the committee and to imVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
98 

prove the policies and processes used to manage military resale 

and MWR programs. 

MAJOR PERSONNEL SYSTEM REFORMS

During the 111th Congress, the committee examined various proposals to reduce the cost of military personnel programs and reform 

major elements of the military personnel system to include compensation, recruiting, retention, promotion, disability evaluation, 

separation, and retirement policies and programs. The committee 

has explored and researched the proposals during hearings and 

staff briefings throughout the 111th Congress. When incremental 

elements of reform could be identified they were included in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 

Law 111–84) and the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

GAY MEN, LESBIANS, AND BISEXUALS IN THE MILITARY

During the 110th and the 111th Congress, the committee continued the process of examining the law and policy surrounding the 

issue of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals serving in the military by 

conducting hearings within the Subcommittee on Military Personnel that examined the various divergent perspectives on the 

issue to include advocates for both retaining and repealing the current law and the process by which the Department of Defense intended to assess the actions that would be required to successfully 

repeal current law. The committee also received a briefing on the 

results of a DOD comprehensive review of the issues associated 

with the repeal of the current law. Ultimately, repeal of current 

law was included in the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 

(H.R. 6523) which establishes a process leading to repeal of the 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ code following the certification of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff that a review of the requirements to support repeal 

of the law has been completed, that all policies and regulations to 

support repeal has been prepared, and that the policies and regulations supporting repeal are consistent with the standards and requirements to maintain military readiness, military effectiveness, 

unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. 

This same provision had been previously adopted in the House 

version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 5136). 

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

During the 111th Congress, the Oversight and Investigations examined officer in-resident professional military education (PME) in 

March 2009. The committee released a bipartisan report, ‘‘Another 

Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two Decades After the 

Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel’’ (Committee Print 4, 

111th Congress), in April 2010. The subcommittee undertook this 

project with the view that professional military education (PME) is 

a critical investment in the most important element of our military, 

its people. At the same time, the examination was conducted recognizing that PME is but one component of officer development, with 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
99 

training, experience, and self-study also contributing. In the current period of high operational tempo, however, the subcommittee 

was concerned that the services may be tempted to shortchange 

educational opportunities. The subcommittee held six hearings and 

conducted numerous member briefings and fact-finding trips in 

support of this effort. 

The subcommittee found that the current PME system, although 

basically sound, could be improved to meet the country’s needs of 

today and tomorrow. The findings of the investigation concentrated 

on two broad areas: the overall PME system and issues related to 

individual schools, and their leaders, faculty members, and students. Additionally, joint and service efforts at cultivating military 

strategists were assessed. 

The subcommittee recommended specific areas for departmental 

action and for further congressional oversight to promote continuing improvement of the system. 

MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS 

FORCE PROTECTION

The committee selected force protection for special oversight, focusing on areas having direct impact on the safety of U.S. military 

personnel engaged in operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The objective of committee activity 

was to expedite the promulgation of policies and equipment programs to prevent or reduce combat casualties. The committee continued to emphasize and support capabilities to protect personnel 

and equipment against both symmetrical and asymmetrical threats 

from an offensive as well as defensive perspective. 

The Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces both held separate and joint hearings and briefings throughout the 111th Congress on specific force protection issues in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and Operation Enduring Freedom. Focus areas included: effective 

and realistic requirements generation, standardizing test and evaluation procedures for vehicles and personal equipment across the 

military services; production, fielding, and modernization of the 

family of mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles; properly resourced and adequate quantities of body and improved addon vehicle armor to counter any new emerging threats; promoting 

effective and non-duplicative counter-improvised explosive device 

(IED) equipment throughout the military services; tactical persistent surveillance in support of ground operations, particularly 

prevention of IED emplacement; capabilities to counter indirect 

fires at forward operating bases; and individual warfighter equipment that could help mitigate traumatic brain injury. 

Consistent with the areas of inquiry in furtherance of force protection of past Congresses, the committee also continued its indepth oversight activities, including: visits to contractor and government production sites and assembly lines; assessing manufacturing processes and schedules; active oversight of various aspects 

of testing, including developmental testing, field testing and source 

selection testing; and identification and referral to the Department 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
100 

of Defense of sources and vendors with capability and capacity to 

meet critical requirements and deployment timelines. 

Finally, the committee maintained close oversight of the Joint 

IED Defeat Organization and other Department of Defense task 

forces to ensure appropriate intra-departmental coordination and 

communication for fielding effective and affordable force protection 

measures. 

MINE RESISTANT AMBUSH PROTECTED VEHICLE ACQUISITION

The committee has long been concerned whether the immediate 

force protection needs of the warfighter were being met by the Department of Defense (DOD) in a timely and urgent manner, to include vehicle armor and protection. During the 111th Congress, the 

committee continued its intensive oversight of the family of mine 

resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle, to include the production and fielding of a lighter, smaller, more maneuverable variant, 

the MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (MATV), which was intended for and 

is used exclusively in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 

The committee ensured that DOD was placing the highest possible priority on MATV production and fielding by delegating subcommittee staff oversight teams to: visit the sole source MATV contractor, where teams observed and analyzed production capability 

and met with senior company officials; visited suppliers for low 

density/high demand items for the MATV, such as radio-controlled 

electronic counter measures; traveled to Aberdeen Proving 

Grounds, Maryland to observe test and evaluation procedures, analyze lessons learned regarding the performance of current MRAP 

vehicles in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as development, testing, and fielding of add-on armor 

kits for MRAP vehicles to protect against explosively formed 

penetrators (EFP) and rocket propelled grenades; completed multiple oversight visits to the primary facility being used for all government furnished equipment integration and installation on 

MATVs, in order to observe the facility’s capability to meet demand 

and determine whether possible chokepoints existed for MATV production; meet with officials from United States Transportation 

Command to assess airlift and sealift capacity for transporting 

MATVs to the combat theater in the most expeditious manner; 

meet with officials from the DOD Office of Industrial Policy and 

the Defense Contract Management Agency to review on-going Industrial Capabilities Assessments for the MRAP vehicle program; 

and meet with officials from the Office of the Director for Operational Test and Evaluation to assess MRAP and MATV performance against evolving threats. 

The committee also continued to cite the importance of having an 

adequate supply of vehicles to meet home station training requirements and encouraged the use of vehicle simulators for next-to-deploy units if the actual vehicles were unavailable for training. 

In order to assist in detailed oversight of this program, the committee also requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

to monitor and observe the MRAP vehicle and MATV programs. 

The committee received quarterly updates on the GAO’s observations and findings. Additionally, the committee continues to receive 

weekly status updates from the MRAP joint program office on 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
101 

MRAP and MATV production and fielding; operation and support 

status; product improvement efforts, and supply chain management. 

Because of direct congressional involvement and the willingness 

of the Secretary of Defense to make this program a top priority, 

over 25,000 MRAP vehicles will have been produced by December 

2010. Since the start of the MRAP family of vehicles program in 

2007, Congress, largely a result of committee activity, has authorized and appropriated full funding for the program totaling over 

$40.0 billion, to accelerate production, fielding, and mobilization of 

the industrial base. It has been estimated by United States Central 

Command that the use of MRAPs have helped reduce casualties 

from improvised explosive devices by almost 80 percent. Department of Defense officials have stated that the casualty rate for 

MRAPs is 6 percent of that experienced by the other vehicles, making it ‘‘the most survivable vehicle we have in our arsenal, by a 

multitude.’’ 

BODY ARMOR PROGRAMS

The committee continued its extensive oversight of individual 

body armor programs throughout the 111th Congress through hearings, briefings, and other activities. The committee maintained 

strong interest and support for any new technology developments 

that could provide significant improvements in body armor, and in 

particular, advancements in lighter-weight solutions. 

To ensure fairness to competing contractors; transparency of the 

testing and selection process; and improve standardization within 

the testing process, the committee required the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to provide procedural and technical oversight 

over the body armor test and evaluation procedures and processes 

used for Department of Defense body armor programs. As a result 

of this effort, the DOD’s body armor program will have a standardized set of test procedures and protocols that will improve confidence and statistical knowledge regarding the overall performance of body armor systems. This should allow for higher-confidence procurement decisions, ensuring that the best possible individual body armor capability is qualified, produced, procured, and 

issued to the warfighter in a timely manner. The Subcommittee on 

Air and Land Forces, in correspondence to the Department of Defense, strongly encouraged the Secretary of Defense to apply these 

standardized processes and implement recommendations reported 

by the GAO regarding improvements to body armor test procedures. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) required individual procurement and research, 

development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) line items be established for body armor beginning in fiscal year 2011 in order to provide increased visibility and oversight within the Department of 

Defense and Congress. The committee noted the total body armor 

program has evolved from a $40.0 million program in 1999, to over 

a $6.0 billion program through 2010. This represents significant investment by the military services for individual personnel protection. The establishment of RDT&E program elements would proVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
102 

vide better visibility within the DOD acquisition accounts for body 

armor programs, increasing the likelihood that: the warfighter is 

equipped with the most current personal protection equipment; 

technology funding is forthcoming and sufficient to pursue ways to 

reduce weight with current technologies; and increased investment 

is provided for promising technologies that would eventually 

achieve reduced weight and increased protection together, as well 

as maximize flexibility and modularity. The establishment of an individual procurement line item would generate better accountability and transparency in long-term planning, programming, and 

investment by the military services for the acquisition of body 

armor. 

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) directs the Secretary of Defense to identify 

a federally funded research and development center to examine the 

requirements for lighter weight body armor systems as well as to 

provide recommendations in how the Secretary and the secretary 

of each military department may more effectively address the research, development, and procurement requirements regarding reducing the weight of body armor. 

Largely as a result of committee leadership, Congress authorized and appropriated over $1.0 billion for individual body armor and 

associated components in the 111th Congress. 

JOINT IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE DEFEAT ORGANIZATION

To date, Congress has provided approximately $19.0 billion 

[2006–2010] to JIEDDO to address the IED threat through 

JIEDDO’s three lines of operation: attacking the network, defeating 

the device, and training the force. 

In the 111th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of 

the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

(JIEDDO), the Department of Defense’s focal point for the counterimprovised explosive devices (C–IED) mission. In October 2009, the 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations continued to conduct hearings on JIEDDO to follow up on prior hearings and determine whether shortcomings identified previously had been rectified. Previously identified deficiencies included a lack of rigor 

within JIEDDO management and reporting; concerns regarding 

JIEDDO’s line of authority under the Deputy Secretary of Defense; 

and JIEDDO’s effectiveness in transferring counter-IED technologies to the services. 

The subcommittee continued to find that although the nearly 

3,100-person strong JIEDDO obligates over $2.0 billion annually, 

and it reports significant progress in the counter-IED mission, it is 

not clear how well the organization is accomplishing its mission. In 

particular, the subcommittee found that JIEDDO does not actively 

lead all DOD C–IED efforts, as its charter calls for. In fact, in November 2009, Secretary Gates chartered a task force to combat 

IEDs, the Counter-IED Senior Integration Group (C–SIG) that was 

co-led by the Under Secretary of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Director of Operations of the Joint Staff. C–SIG was 

originally chartered to report monthly and complete its tasking by 

June 2010. The subcommittee held two classified member briefings 

with the C–SIG members. The C–SIG appears to have been very 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
103 

effective in facilitating C–IED initiatives in support of the troop 

surge in Afghanistan. However, it remains unclear whether the C– 

SIG will replace the integrating function originally envisioned for 

JIEDDO or evolve into something else. It also remains unclear 

whether JIEDDO’s charter to lead all C–IED efforts remains valid. 

The subcommittee made various recommendations to the Department, subcommittee findings identified in the follow-on report contributed to the committee’s oversight of JIEDDO, and force protection, more generally. In addition, the subcommittee continues to 

follow the progress of other DOD C–IED initiatives, in particular 

the C–SIG. 

In addition to the subcommittee’s persistent work and detailed 

analysis, the committee also required JIEDDO to provide monthly 

updates on all obligations and expenditures. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) 

requires the Secretary of Defense to direct the Director of JIEDDO 

to work with the military services and to develop a comprehensive 

Department of Defense-wide database for all C–IED initiatives. 

This database would help to improve visibility, knowledge, transparency, and accountability across the Department in managing C– 

IED programs as well as prevent duplication of effort. 

INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAMS

The Department of Defense procurement budget request for nonspace-based or tactical intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 was 

approximately $4.0 billion and $5.0 billion, respectively. Funding 

for ISR is requested in all four service budgets and the Special Operations Command. In many cases, this funding is for very similar 

capabilities. Throughout the 111th Congress, because of the integral role ISR assets contribute to force protection, the committee 

continued to provide close oversight over myriad projects operated 

throughout the Department of Defense. As currently configured, 

many ISR programs not only provide ISR, but have a collateral onboard kinetic capability that allows for immediate targeting of 

threats posed to U.S. and coalition forces. This capability makes 

ISR assets all the more critical to U.S. force protection capability. 

Longstanding concerns of the committee regarding DOD policy, 

roles and missions and acquisition of ISR assets include: lack of an 

adequate long-term ISR architecture and acquisition strategy; lack 

of oversight and management by the Office of the Secretary of Defense of the military services’ programs; failure of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System to fulfill its role in 

screening proposed programs from the services and commands; lack 

of supporting analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to balance collection programs data output with adequate resources to 

process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; unnecessary 

proliferation of unmanned and manned vehicles, sensors, and 

ground stations; and a fundamental failure to establish roles and 

missions of the military services for such ISR assets as unmanned 

aerial systems. 

The committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) expressed the committee’s concern that DOD was not balancing its collection assets with 

the required analytical capabilities and directed the Secretary of 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
104 

Defense to provide the GAO required information and data to meet 

the committee’s request to support oversight requirements. Also, 

due to committee concern that ISR assets were not being effectively 

allocated to the force protection mission, the committee directed 

that a study be conducted of the effectiveness of aerial ISR systems 

in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 

with the particular emphasis on the allocation and tasking of these 

systems, and the relative benefits and trade-offs of providing control of a dedicated system or platform to ground force commanders 

versus centrally controlling individual assets across the theater of 

operations. 

MILITARY MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES

Throughout the 111th Congress, particular attention was again 

given to continuing examination of military equipment modernization with respect to military capability. In many cases, major weapons system development and acquisition programs have experienced cost growth and schedule delays. The committee assessed the 

need for legislative action by examining causes of these problems 

including: mil poor cost estimating; improper funding profiles; overcapacitization for achieved production rates; labor and material 

cost increases; poor program execution; and program instability. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84) included the following legislative provisions to 

address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance issues 

with programs: limitation on low-rate initial production quantities 

for the Future Combat Systems Spin-Out Early-Infantry Brigade 

Combat Team equipment; limitation on costs of littoral combat 

ships; designation of the Littoral Combat Ship program as a major 

defense acquisition program; limitation on the availability of funds 

pending reports regarding surface combatant shipbuilding programs; conditional authorization of multi-year procurement for F/ 

A–18E, F/A–18E/F or EA–18G aircraft; limitation on reduction of 

the pace of execution of the E–8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar Systems re-engining program; establishment of dedicated line items for body armor procurement and research and development programs; limitation on obligation of procurement funding until certification of approved joint and common requirement 

for unmanned cargo-carrying-capable aerial vehicles; limitation on 

the expenditure of research and development funding for the joint 

submersible program pending an assessment of cost-sharing; establishment of dedicated procurement and research and development 

line items for the F–35B and F–35C aircraft programs; limitation 

of funding for the Army Tactical Ground Network program pending 

a report; assessment of technology maturity and integration risk of 

specified Army modernization programs; assessment of research 

and development activities for modernization of the combat vehicle 

fleet and the armored tactical vehicle fleet; assessment of the coordination of energy storage device requirements purchases and investments; requirement for the conduct of an annual review of the 

F–35 aircraft program; limitation of funding until completion of a 

report on the integration of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; report on the future research and developVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
105 

ment of man-portable and vehicle-mounted guided missile systems; 

and report on command and control systems. 

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) included the following legislative provisions 

to address acquisition-related issues: multiyear funding for detail 

design and construction of LHA Replacement ship designated 

LHA–7; requirement to maintain Navy airborne signals intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities; reports on 

service-life extension of F/A–18 aircraft by the Department of the 

Navy; limitations on biometric system funds; system management 

plan and matrix for the F–35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program; 

study of lightweight body armor solutions; integration of solid state 

laser systems into certain aircraft; contracts for commercial imaging satellite capacities; program for research, development, and deployment of advanced ground vehicles, ground vehicle systems, and 

components; demonstration and pilot projects on cybersecurity; acquisition accountability reports on the ballistic missile defense system; report on analysis of alternatives and program requirements 

for the Ground Combat Vehicle program; cost benefit analysis of future tank-fired munitions; annual Comptroller General report on 

the VH–(XX) presidential helicopter acquisition program; sense of 

congress affirming the importance of Department of Defense participation in development of next generation semiconductor technologies; pilot program on collaborative energy security; and pilot 

program to include technology protection features during research 

and development of defense systems. 

ARMY AVIATION PROGRAMS

During the 111th Congress, the Army sustained operations in 

the Republic of Iraq in 2009 and the first half of 2010, initiating 

the drawdown of forces in mid–2010, while Army operations surged 

in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 2010. Large numbers of 

legacy rotorcraft deployed to the Central Command area of operations continued, continued to be operated at high tempos. Aircraft 

deployed included the CH–47, UH–60, AH–64, and OH–58. The 

committee fully supported funding requirements for these aircraft, 

including research and development and procurement of significant 

aircraft survivability equipment upgrades to provide warning and 

protection against the insurgent surface-to-air missile threat. Further, due to committee concerns that the Army was not fully addressing the significant effort required to fully address sustainment 

of the fleet of OH–58 aircraft, the committee directed in the report 

accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (H. Rept. 111–166), that a report be provided detailing 

the requirements for upgrading the power train for the OH–58 

Kiowa Warrior aircraft. 

FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS PROGRAM

The committee devoted considerable oversight efforts to the longtroubled Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. These efforts focused on ensuring adequate testing of all FCS elements and 

reducing risk to the program by encouraging the Army to take a 

more measured, cautious path to beginning large-scale production. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
106 

Although the Army terminated the FCS program in June 2009, the 

committee’s efforts ensured that the residual program elements 

were not rushed to production before they were ready, saving substantial sums that were available to meet other Army priorities. In 

addition to adjusting program funding, the committee included two 

legislative provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that restricted the Army’s 

ability to move beyond production rates otherwise established by 

Department of Defense standards for low-rate initial production 

and ensured that post-FCS research and development efforts met 

other Department of Defense requirements for technology maturity. 

ARMY TACTICAL MISSILE PROGRAMS

The committee increased its oversight activities regarding Army 

missile programs due to the very high production rates proposed in 

budget requests and concerns about the long-term health of the 

tactical missile industrial base. While supporting warfighter needs, 

the committee was able to identify significant savings in both fiscal 

years 2010 and 2011 based on production efficiencies and increasing foreign military sales for Army tactical missile systems. Oversight efforts focused on ensuring upgrades or replacement programs were in place for the Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, 

Wire-Guided (TOW), Javelin, and Stinger missile systems. In addition, the committee included legislation in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that 

required the Army to further clarify its plans for future missile production. 

ARMY ARMORED VEHICLE MODERNIZATION

The committee focused closely on the Army’s plans for upgrading 

current combat vehicles and starting new replacement programs. 

These oversight efforts included the committee’s continued efforts 

to reshape and reduce funding for the eight manned ground vehicles (MGV) that the Army originally planned to procure through 

the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, based on concerns regarding vehicle survivability, cost, and complexity. After years of 

cost growth and schedule delays, the Army terminated all eight 

variants of the MGV in June 2009, largely justifying the committee’s long-standing concerns about the requirements and acquisition strategy the Army was using for this troubled program. In the 

aftermath of this termination, the committee focused on ensuring 

the Army’s plans for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) did not repeat the errors of previous programs. 

With regard to existing armored vehicles, the committee’s sought 

to protect and strengthen vehicle upgrade programs, for which the 

Army showed varying levels of support. In particular, the committee attempted to place continued upgrades to the M1 Abrams 

tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles, and Paladin 

Artillery Vehicles on a firm footing for the future by ensuring the 

Army carried through with upgrade plans and used authorized 

funds as directed. These oversight efforts included hearings, site 

visits, close coordination with Army leadership, and careful scrutiny of reprogramming requests. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
107 

TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE ACQUISITION STRATEGY

Throughout the 111th Congress, the committee paid particular 

attention to the Department’s attempt to develop a comprehensive, 

joint tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) strategy. From 2003 to 2010, 

Congress provided $43.0 billion for the procurement and recapitalization of TWVs, which consists of 260,000 light, medium and 

heavy vehicles; the sheer magnitude of which presents many challenges. 

Despite strong support from Congress through legislation and 

authorization of appropriations, the committee through hearings, 

briefings, and legislation observed that DOD still does not have a 

comprehensive long-term TWV acquisition strategy that takes into 

consideration joint requirements and sustainment. The committee 

repeatedly noted that a potential risk exists of unplanned overlap 

in capabilities throughout the military services in TWV procurement and this particular risk needs to be better managed by the 

Department of Defense. Since 2004, a major portion of TWV modernization procurement funding has been provided through Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), supplemental appropriations, 

through annual requirements-based contracts, which the committee 

believes to be inefficient and preclude the Department from benefiting from potential cost savings. 

During the 111th Congress, the committee requested GAO to 

continue its work in the area of TWV acquisition and fleet management and the committee continues to receive quarterly updates 

from GAO. The committee requested GAO to conduct a performance audit of the Army and Marine Corps’s tactical wheeled vehicle 

investment strategies as well as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) all-terrain vehicle (MATV) program and Joint Light 

Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The committee specifically required GAO to assess the current status of acquiring and fielding 

MATVs, including estimated acquisition cost and demonstrated 

performance; JLTVs expected features and cost compared to that of 

other TWV such as the MATV; and the extent to which current 

plans for MATV and JLTV are consistent with the broad objectives 

and strategies that the Army and Marine Corps have stated in 

their TWV investment strategies. 

The JLTV program is the largest new procurement of tactical 

wheeled vehicles planned for the Department of Defense. No firm 

quantities have been determined for the JLTV, but the current estimate is that the Army alone would like to have one-third of the 

light tactical vehicle fleet be JLTVs, approximately 50,000 vehicles. 

Accordingly, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) required the establishment of separate research, development, test, and evaluation program elements for the JLTV program in order to improve oversight of the 

JLTV program. 

ARMY TACTICAL NETWORK PROGRAMS

Due to a significant increase in Army funding for tactical communications equipment, the committee pursued aggressive oversight efforts to shape the Army’s plans for future battlefield networking equipment. These efforts stemmed from the committee’s 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
108 

concern that the Army was procuring an incompatible combination 

of commercial and military communications equipment based on redundant programs, unclear requirements, and uncoordinated acquisition plans. In response, the committee pursued a combination of 

legislative restrictions, funding adjustments to select programs, 

hearings, reprogramming decisions, and outside expert reports to 

help guide the Army to a more suitable and affordable path forward. Due in large part to the committee’s efforts, senior Army 

leaders in 2010 began taking the necessary actions to address and 

correct the numerous challenges facing the Army in this critical 

area. 

FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FORCE STRUCTURE ADEQUACY

During the 111th Congress, the committee investigated the adequacy of fighter force structure in both the Navy and the Air Force. 

The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces held a 

hearing on May 19, 2009. The Navy witness testified that F/A–18A/ 

B/C/D aircraft are reaching their projected service-life and will require replacement or modifications to further extend their servicelife to eventual deployment of the F–35 aircraft. The committee 

later learned that the Department of the Navy estimated its strike 

fighter shortfall to be 146 aircraft. The Subcommittee on Air and 

Land Forces held a hearing on May 20, 2009, on Air Force modernization programs, at which the Air Force witness testified to the 

planned retirement of 254 fighter aircraft in fiscal year 2010. Air 

Force officials briefed the committee that the proposed fighter aircraft retirements were an acceleration of retirements already 

planned in the near term, and would not worsen fighter shortfalls 

projected between fiscal years 2017 and 2024. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

authorized an increase of nine F/A–18E/F aircraft for the Navy and 

also authorized other Navy and Air Force requests for the procurement of new fighter aircraft, including F–35s for both the Navy and 

the Air Force. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces held 

a joint hearing on fiscal year 2011 Navy and Air Force combat 

aviation programs. At this hearing, Navy witnesses noted that, 

with the changes in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, the strike 

fighter shortfall analysis was updated and the peak Department of 

the Navy shortfall rose from 146 to 177 aircraft, primarily due to 

an F–35 delivery ramp reduction of 55 aircraft and removing the 

assumption of aircraft reaching 10,000 flight hours. The Navy witnesses also testified that the peak shortfall can be managed to 

about 100 aircraft in 2018. Also at this hearing, Air Force witnesses testified that in April 2008 the Air Force informed Congress 

of a projected fighter gap of over 800 aircraft in 2024, and that 

since that testimony, three key fighter force structure assumptions 

have changed. First, during the Department’s fiscal year 2010 

budget cycle, the Air Force elected to accept increased short to midterm war fighting risk and a subsequent smaller fighter force in exchange for modernization. Second, the Air Force F–35 procurement 

rate used for planning was increased from 48 to 80 per year. Third, 

the approach to fighter service life computations was refined. The 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
109 

combination of these changes significantly reduced the fighter gap. 

Consequently, the Air Force witness testified that the Air Force did 

not see a fighter inventory shortfall at that time. The Ike Skelton 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 

6523), authorized an increase of eight F/A–18E/F aircraft for the 

Navy and also authorized other Navy and Air Force requests for 

the procurement of new fighter aircraft, including F–35s for both 

the Navy and the Air Force. However, it also decreased the Air 

Force Overseas Contingency Operations budget request by one F– 

35, justified as a replacement for an operational loss of a F–15E 

aircraft, because the committee believed that the Air Force could 

alternatively choose to retire one less aircraft than planned, immediately meeting its requirement. Additionally, Public Law 111–238, 

which was initiated by the House Armed Services Committee and 

signed into law by the President on September 27, 2010, provided 

the Navy with the authority to procure additional F/A–18E/F and 

EA–18G aircraft under a multiyear procurement contract, and is 

expected to reduce the procurement unit cost of these future aircraft. 

F–35 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued oversight of 

the F–35 program, particularly the competitive propulsion system, 

the F136 alternate engine, program. The F–35 competitive propulsion system program is developing the F136 engine, which is intended to eventually provide F–35 equipped forces a competitive 

choice between the primary F135 engine and the F136 engine. Congress and the Department of Defense had originally supported the 

competitive engine initiative since 1995, but the Department of Defense has not included funding for the competitive propulsion system program in its budget requests since 2006. The Subcommittee 

on Air and Land Forces held a hearing on May 20, 2009. At that 

hearing, the Office of the Secretary of Defense witness testified 

that the F–35 acquisition strategy contains provisions for a competitive engine program, provided funds are available to execute 

that strategy, and that the Department continues to execute appropriated F136 development funding to ensure that a competitive engine program remains viable while there is funding is available. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) witness testified that 

the GAO’s prior analysis indicated that competitive pressures could 

yield enough savings to offset the costs of engine competition over 

the F–35 program’s life. The National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) authorized $430.0 million 

for continued development and $130.0 million for procurement of 

the F–35 competitive propulsion system. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittees on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and Air and Land Forces held a joint hearing on fiscal year 2011 Navy and Air Force aviation programs. The Secretary 

of Defense witness testified that $2.9 billion remains to be invested 

to fund the competitive engine program to provide for an engine 

competition in fiscal year 2017. Further a 2010 update of the 2007 

Department of Defense business case for the F–35 alternate engine, 

which accounts for the additional funding provided by Congress 

since fiscal year 2007 and more recent engine program actual cost 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
110 

performance, concludes that the second engine is at the break-even 

point in net present value. The GAO witness testified that under 

certain assumptions, the additional costs of continuing the F136 alternate engine program could be recouped if competition were to 

generate approximately 10.1 to 12.6 percent savings over the life 

of the program. Additionally, the GAO witness testified that Air 

Force data on the first four years of competition for engines on the 

F–16 aircraft projected they would recoup at least that much and 

that competition could also provide non-quantifiable benefits with 

respect to better contractor responsiveness, technical innovation 

and improved operational readiness. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), authorized the amounts necessary for the Department of the Navy requests for F–35, F/A–18E/F, and EA–18G fighter aircraft, and for 

the Department of the Air Force request for F–35 fighter aircraft. 

Additionally, Public Law 111–238, which was sponsored by a member of the Committee on Armed Services and signed into law by the 

President on September 27, 2010, provided the Navy with the authority to procure additional F/A–18E/F and EA–18G aircraft under 

a multiyear procurement contract, and is expected to reduce the 

procurement unit cost of these future aircraft. 

F–22A AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued oversight of 

the Air Force F–22 aircraft procurement program. Fiscal year 2009 

was the final year of a three-year, 60-aircraft F–22 aircraft 

multiyear procurement program that will result in a force structure 

of 187 F–22 aircraft, including the four additional F–22s appropriated in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 

111–32). During committee deliberations on the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) members expressed concern about the disposition of tooling used to 

produce F–22 aircraft, and recommended that the Department of 

the Air Force submit a report on the preservation and storage of 

unique tooling for F–22 aircraft. Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

required the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report on the 

plan to preserve and store unique F–22 tooling related to the production of hardware and end-items for F–22 aircraft. 

LONG-RANGE STRIKE AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

During the 111th Congress, the committee maintained close oversight of the Department’s long-range strike bomber programs. The 

Nation maintains a legacy fleet of 163 long range strike aircraft. 

The fiscal year 2010 budget request contained approximately 

$1.1 billion for modernization of 20 B–2 bomber ($699.4 million), 76 

B–52 bomber ($172.7 million), and 67 B–1 bomber ($276.1 million) 

aircraft. 

The fiscal year 2011 budget request contains $817.3 million for 

modernization of 20 B–2 bomber, 76 B–52 bomber, and 67 B–1 

bomber aircraft. The budget request also contains $200.0 million 

for sustainment of the industrial base bomber workforce, and in 

total, $1.7 billion is included in fiscal years 2011 through 2015 for 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
111 

development of a long-range strike platform. According to Air Force 

budget officials, the $1.7 billion is divided into the Future Years 

Defense Plan (FYDP): $200 million in each of fiscal years 2011 and 

2012; $300 million in fiscal year 2013; $400 million in fiscal year 

2014; and, $600 million in fiscal year 2015. 

Prior to the release of the fiscal year 2010 budget request, the 

Secretary of Defense announced on April 6, 2009, that the Department ‘‘will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air 

Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the 

requirement, and the technology. We will examine all of our strategic requirements during the Quadrennial Defense Review, the 

Nuclear Posture Review, and in light of post-Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) arms control negotiations.’’ 

Out of concern for the imperative of sustaining the industrial 

base for long range strike aircraft capability, the engineering and 

manufacturing workforce related to highly specialized and unique 

work involved with the Next Generation Bomber (NGB) program, 

the committee authorized $140.0 million in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) to continue key technology development efforts associated with longrange strike aircraft requirements. 

In testimony on the fiscal year 2011 DOD budget request the 

Secretary of Defense stated that a new Air Force bomber ‘‘would 

probably not appear into the force until the late ’20s’’ and that the 

Department is ‘‘still wrestling’’ with the type of bomber platform to 

pursue (e.g., stand-off, penetrating, manned, unmanned, nuclear, 

non-nuclear, or some combination of those attributes). 

In accordance with Section 231a of the Duncan Hunter National 

Defense Authorization Act for FY09, the Secretary of Defense submitted the Departments of the Navy and Air Force 30-year Aircraft 

Investment Plan with the fiscal year 2011 President’s Budget. In 

this report, the Department categorized its aircraft capabilities into 

four principal investment objectives, with the following highlights 

for the long-range strike category: ‘‘Modernize long-range strike capabilities . . . the current fleet of Air Force bombers continues to 

be modernized since much of the inventory has a planned servicelife through FY 40. A study is currently underway to identify the 

‘‘right mix’’ of manned and unmanned technologies that will provide future long-range strike capabilities and to determine the 

right balance between range, payload, speed, stealth, and on-board 

sensors. A result of that study should be the identification of a replacement aircraft for the legacy bomber fleet with an associated 

timing and funding profile required to support recapitalization of 

long-range strike bombers.’’ 

The report states that the FY11–FY40 aviation plan is consistent 

with the tenets of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and 

meets the national security requirements of the United States, and 

that the future years defense plan (FYDP) provides the funding 

needed to implement the aviation plan through FY 15. However, 

for the years beyond the FYDP, the funding projections presented 

in the plan assume three percent real growth, on average, in annual investments, which is acknowledged as optimistic. The report 

also states that the aviation plan incorporates realistic projections 

of program costs within the FYDP. According to the bomber invenVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
112 

tory plan in the report, the Air Force plans to maintain a total of 

162 bomber aircraft in fiscal years 2011 through 2020. Additionally, the QDR states that the Air Force plans to maintain a force 

structure of 5 bomber wings and a total of 96 primary mission aircraft. 

Over the past 18 years, the Air Force has conducted numerous 

studies and analyses with the assistance of the Institute for Defense Analyses and the Defense Science Board to determine options 

for a new bomber platform. The committee understands that the 

Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved an Initial Capabilities Document and that the Next Generation Bomber acquisition strategy formulated by the Air Force, was approved by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in 

late 2008. The committee also understands that efforts were underway in early 2009 for the Air Force to seek approval by the Joint 

Requirements Oversight Council of the Capabilities Development 

Document. Because of committee concerns of continued delays in 

the long range strike aircraft program, the Ike Skelton National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) included a provision, which would require the Secretary of the Air 

Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees 

outlining the plan for current bomber modernization and 

sustainment, as well as a comparative cost and requirements analysis of developing a single long-range strike platform as compared 

to a ‘‘family of systems.’’ 

KC–X AERIAL REFUELING AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION PROGRAM

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued to support 

the Air Force’s number one acquisition program of tanker recapitalization, believing that the ability for aerial refueling during military operations is a critical enabling capability in meeting National 

Military Strategy objectives. The committee noted that recapitalization of the KC–135 fleet of 415 aircraft, currently delayed 9 years 

because of failures internal to the Pentagon’s acquisition system, 

once initiated, would take over 30 years to complete, based on current budget constraints and other Department of Defense priorities 

that require significant funding. 

Subsequent to the Secretary of Defense’s direction to suspend the 

KC–X competition on September 10, 2008, he announced on April 

6, 2009, that the program would be restarted and a 179–aircraft 

KC–X contract would be awarded in March or April 2010. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 authorized 

the Department’s budget request of $439.6 million for this purpose. 

Since the Secretary’s announcement on April 6, 2009, further 

delays have resulted in an estimated contract award date of January 2011. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) authorized an amount necessary in 

the appropriation for Air Force research, development, test and 

evaluation to provide for the Air Force KC–X development program 

in fiscal year 2011. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
113 

INTER/INTRA-THEATER AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS

The 111th Congress continued to closely oversee the modernization and sustainment of its inter/intra theater airlift aircraft. In 

testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces and 

the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on February 25, 2009, the Commander of the United States Transportation Command testified that a force structure of 205 C–17s, 52 

C–5Ms, and 59 C–5As modified with the avionics modernization 

program, a total of 316 strategic airlift aircraft, meets the requirement to transport 33.95 million ton-miles per day. Additionally, the 

committee noted that the previous Commander of the United 

States Transportation Command and the current Air Force Chief 

of Staff identified 316 strategic airlift aircraft as the global mobility 

inter-theater aircraft requirement. Accordingly, the committee recommended a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that would require the 

Department of Defense to maintain a minimum strategic airlift 

force structure of 316 aircraft. Committee concerns on C–5 basing 

resulting from projected C–5 aircraft retirements also resulted in 

a legislative provision that would require the Department of Defense to submit a report at least 120 days before such retirements 

would occur on how C–5 retirements would affect installations, 

which was also included in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). Finally, committee members’ concern regarding legislative restrictions on the Air Force’s 

ability to fully retire C–130E aircraft due to previous congressional 

restrictions, resulted in a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that repealed the requirement to maintain certain C–130E aircraft. 

On April 28, 2010, the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 

held a hearing on Air Mobility Programs at which the primary 

focus was on a recently released Department of Defense Mobility 

Capabilities Study (MCS) 2016 and the KC–X aerial refueling 

tanker acquisition program. Members expressed concern about 

whether the Department of Defense met its stated objectives in the 

MCS 2016, and, as a result, directed the GAO to conduct a study 

on the Department of Defense’s methodology for MCS 2016 and to 

determine whether MCS 2016 met the Department’s stated objectives. The GAO report is planned to be submitted in November 

2010. Committee members also expressed concern at this hearing 

about the effect of foreign subsidies impacting the competition in 

the KC–X aerial refueling tanker acquisition program. The House 

passed a bill, H.R. 6540, to require the removal of any unfair competitive advantage in the pending competition for KC–X. 

COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE–X (CSAR–X) AIRCRAFT ACQUISITION

PROGRAM

In the 111th Congress, the committee continued to remain concerned about the Air Force CSAR–X acquisition program which had 

been intended to procure 141 helicopters to replace the existing 

HH–60G fleet with a helicopter capable of greater range, increased 

payload, and improved engine performance compared to the HH– 

60G. In 2007, following a series of protests by the CSAR–X offerors 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
114 

and new proposals in 2008, the Secretary of Defense announced on 

April 6, 2009, that the Department had canceled the Air Force 

CSAR–X program and that the Department would review the requirement for a specialized Air Force search-and-rescue aircraft 

and determine whether it should be a joint capability. For fiscal 

year 2010, the budget request included $90.0 million in Air Force 

research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) for the 

CSAR–X program, of which the Air Force budgeted $75.0 million 

for the procurement of two HH–60M helicopters to replace HH– 

60G operational losses. The committee recommended a reduction of 

$75.0 million based on the absence of justification for the request 

for two HH–60M helicopters. The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) did not authorize any 

funds for Air Force CSAR–X RDT&E. 

On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces held 

a joint hearing on fiscal year 2011 Navy and Air Force combat 

aviation programs. At this hearing, Air Force witnesses testified 

that the budget request included funding for six HH–60G Operational Loss Replacement aircraft, including three from Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, and that those aircraft 

would continue to restore the legacy HH–60G fleet to the 112-aircraft program of record. The Air Force witness also testified that 

the Air Force is working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

and Joint Staff to finalize the requirements and acquisition strategy for a full fleet recapitalization of the legacy HH–60G fleet. The 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523) authorized an amount necessary in the Air Force 

research, development, test, and evaluation appropriation for the 

budget request for development of HH–60 recapitalization. The Act 

also authorized an amount required in the Air Force aircraft procurement appropriation for the budget request for operational loss 

replacement aircraft. 

SPACE PROGRAMS

Concerns about the vulnerability of space-based national security 

capabilities were underscored by two events during the 111th Congress: the collision of a defunct Russian Cosmos satellite with an 

Iridium communications satellite on February 10, 2009 and the 

Chinese test of a missile defense interceptor on January 11, 2010 

that was similar to the anti-satellite system tested in February 

2007. On March 18, 2009, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 

held an open hearing that explored three key issues related to 

space and U.S. security: First, do we have the right national policy 

to ensure the security of our space assets, particularly those supporting the warfighter and national intelligence collection? Second, 

do we have the right investment strategy for protecting and defending critical space assets and capabilities? Finally, what role 

can diplomacy play in ensuring the security of our space assets? 

Subsequently, the committee proposed legislation, ultimately included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84), making permanent the pilot program for 

sharing space surveillance data with state governments, U.S. and 

foreign commercial entities, and foreign governments in an effort to 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
115 

reduce potential satellite collisions. On July 21, 2009, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces received a classified briefing on the 

space protection program from the joint sponsors, Air Force Space 

Command and the National Reconnaissance Office. On November 

17, 2009, the subcommittee was briefed on cyber threats to strategic systems, including the implications for key satellite capabilities. 

With a number of military space programs behind schedule and 

over cost, the committee continued its oversight of national security 

space acquisitions. On April 30, 2009, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on space system acquisitions and the 

industrial base focused on the following questions: What are the 

root causes of cost growth and schedule delays in the acquisition 

of national security space systems? Are plans for national security 

space acquisitions properly balanced with the industry’s capacity to 

deliver? And finally, what recommendations should the Congress 

and the executive branch consider for addressing these problems? 

One recommendation that emerged from the hearing was the need 

for a research and development strategy, coordinated across the 

Department of Defense and the intelligence community, to provide 

an overall plan for maintaining and improving our space capabilities. A requirement for such a strategy was included as section 911 

of the National Defense Authorization Act or Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84). 

The committee continued tracking the performance of several 

high profile space programs including the Advanced Extremely 

High Frequency communications satellite, the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), and 

the Space-Based Infrared System-High missile warning program. 

In the case of NPOESS program, the committee included significant directive language in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). Given the cost and 

schedule problems encountered by the NPOESS program, and recognizing that military commanders must have access to accurate 

and timely weather information in order to prepare for operations, 

the committee supported legislation directing the President to develop a strategy for the management and funding of the tri-agency 

(Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, and the National Aviation and Space Administration) program, and an implementation plan for that strategy. Subsequently, the President recommended a major restructuring of the nation’s weather observation program. 

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 long 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 that regard, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces recommended an increase of $23.0 

million to support the launch of the first ORS imaging satellite in 

its markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
116 

Year 2010. This satellite program was triggered by an urgent need 

from United States Central Command to address a gap in surveillance coverage and should be launched by the end of 2010. 

The committee coordinated its oversight of space activities with 

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence through 

joint briefings on issues of mutual concern. Specifically, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held joint briefings with the House 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on 

Technical and Tactical Intelligence on the way ahead on overhead 

commercial imagery on November 17, 2009, and the state of the 

U.S. space launch enterprise on January 13, 2010. 

Committee delegations visited the United States Strategic Command and several military installations to gain insight into 

warfighter needs and the integration of space in military operations, as well as service laboratories and industry sites to assess 

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

MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

In addition to the annual Missile Defense Agency oversight hearings carried out by the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the committee focused significant attention on evaluating the President’s 

decision, announced on September 17, 2009, to adopt a new strategy for defending our European allies, forward-deployed troops, and 

the United States homeland from the threat of an Iranian ballistic 

missile attack. Based on a full committee hearing on the matter 

held on October 1, 2009, House conferees agreed to provisions in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that: (1) authorized of up to $309.0 million for the 

President’s European missile defense plan, known as the Phased 

Adaptive Approach, if the Secretary of Defense certified that the 

system is operationally effective and cost-effective in providing protection for Europe and the United States; (2) permanently extended 

the prohibition on deployment of long-range missile defense interceptors in Europe until the Secretary of Defense certifies these 

interceptors will be operationally effective and have the ability to 

accomplish the mission; and (3) required an independent assessment of the Phased Adaptive Approach. 

The committee also focused on encouraging effective integration 

of operational testing into the missile defense procurement process. 

On February 25, 2009, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held 

a hearing to ascertain the current status of the missile defense 

testing program; Missile Defense Agency (MDA) plans to restructure the testing program to collect data necessary to validate, 

verify, accredit models and simulations; and the specific steps needed to ensure a high level of confidence that the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) will work in an operationally effective, suitable, and survivable manner. The committee’s concern about 

BMDS testing was reflected in section 236 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) which 

required the Secretary of Defense to establish a comprehensive 

plan for the developmental and operational testing and evaluation 

of the ballistic missile defense system and its various elements. On 

April 14, 2010, the Strategic Forces Subcommittee held a classified 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
117 

briefing on the efforts of the MDA and the Operational Test and 

Evaluation community to develop an integrated testing plan. 

Finally, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces took a special interest in the transition of the Airborne Laser (ABL) program from 

an acquisition effort to a test bed. The subcommittee received a 

briefing on April 15, 2010 from the Director of Defense Research 

and Engineering and the Director of the MDA on potential uses of 

the ABL platform for testing and the roadmap for research on directed energy weapons for strategic purposes. 

U.S. NUCLEAR FORCES AND POSTURE

United States nuclear forces received significant oversight attention during the course of the 111th Congress. On May 6, 2009, the 

committee received the final report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States, which the committee had initiated through section 1062 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110–181). The 

bipartisan Commission, chaired by William Perry and James 

Schlesinger concluded that it was a ‘‘moment of opportunity to revise and renew U.S. nuclear strategy, but also a moment of urgency.’’ It recommended additional investment in the scientific, 

technical, and physical infrastructure that supports the stockpile; 

the maintenance of safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal; the 

development and, where appropriate, the deployment of missile defenses against regional nuclear aggressors; and a renewal of arms 

control with the Russian Federation. 

On April 6, 2010, the Administration submitted to the committee 

its Nuclear Posture Review required by section 1070 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 

110–181). This new nuclear strategy review, the first since the 

2001 nuclear posture review, reaffirmed the importance of a strong 

deterrent and offered a plan for focusing nuclear policy on the 

gravest threats to our security: nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. On April 14, 2010, the committee held an oversight hearing on the Nuclear Posture Review that assessed the role of nuclear weapons and missile defenses, nuclear deterrence, force structure requirements, and nuclear complex plans. 

The committee continues to oversee and assess the safety and 

surety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. On January 21, 2010, the 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on status 

of the Air Force Nuclear Security Roadmap to follow up on changes 

made in the Air Force to improve the management and culture related to maintaining and deploying nuclear weapons. The committee took a leadership role in seeking the remediation of significant shortcomings that had resulted in the mistaken shipment of 

missile nosecones to Taiwan in lieu of helicopter batteries, and the 

unauthorized transfer of nuclear weapons from Minot Air Force 

Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana on 

August 30, 2007. 

MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

As the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal continues to age, the 

committee took action to assure the continued safety, security, and 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
118 

reliability of our nuclear deterrent forces. Building on the findings 

of the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the committee 

recommended a provision creating a ‘‘stockpile management program’’ to provide better guidance to the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) for extending the effective life of our nuclear weapons. That provision, which was included in the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111– 

84), established three fundamental objectives for managing the 

stockpile: to increase its reliability, safety, and security; to further 

reduce the likelihood of a return to nuclear weapons testing; and 

to achieve reductions in the future size of the nuclear weapons 

stockpile. The Administration embraced the Stockpile Management 

Program in its Nuclear Posture Review, which was released on 

April 6, 2010, along with the recommendation of the commission to 

substantially increase investments that support the stockpile. On 

July 1, 2010, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces received a 

briefing on the NNSA’s first Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan. 

The subcommittee also continued its intensive oversight of the 

NNSA, the organization within the Department of Energy (DOE) 

responsible for the safety, security, and reliability of United States 

nuclear weapons. The subcommittee was briefed regularly on the 

status of the weapons stockpile, life extension programs, infrastructure needs, and scientific progress in understanding weapons performance. Subcommittee members and staff visited every laboratory and site within the NNSA nuclear weapons complex. In late 

2009, the NNSA released an independent report by the JASON scientific panel which the subcommittee had requested in 2008 in an 

effort to better understand options for stockpile life extension. The 

subcommittee explored the findings of the JASON panel in a classified briefing on July 14, 2010. Issues identified during these briefings and visits led the committee to recommend increased funding 

for experimentation and stockpile support at selected weapons production facilities, and to require the NNSA Administrator to submit a revised plan for stockpile surveillance in the committee report (H. Rept. 111–491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011. 

The subcommittee also conducted oversight of the Department of 

Energy’s management of defense nuclear waste and defense environmental management activities, including critical cleanup activities at the Hanford Site in Washington State and the Savannah 

River Site in South Carolina, as well as the Miamisburg Mound 

Closure Project in Ohio. Oversight of these waste management efforts was intensified in light of the substantial increase in funding 

provided by the President’s economic stimulus plan. In addition, 

the subcommittee regularly reviewed the DOE’s efforts to consolidate and dispose of special nuclear materials. 

OTHER REPORTS

During the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations examined the Department’s efforts to improve language skills, cultural awareness, and regional expertise. The committee released a bipartisan report, ‘‘Building Language Skills and 

Cultural Competencies in the Military: Bridging the Gap’’ (ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
119 

mittee Print 11, 110th Congress), in November 2008. The interest 

in this area was prompted to a large degree by the profound implications that these capabilities have for the nation’s success in irregular warfare. At the time the subcommittee initiated this investigation, the Department was in the process of completing the implementation of the tasks in its 2004 ‘‘Defense Language Transformation Roadmap.’’ The subcommittee undertook the initial study 

to determine the extent to which the tasks had been fully implemented, and what additional progress was necessary to provide the 

capabilities needed by the combatant commands. The subcommittee 

recommended specific areas for departmental action and for further 

congressional oversight to promote continuing improvement building these competencies. In addition, section 529 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) 

directed the Secretary of Defense to establish language training 

centers at universities and the senior military colleges to accelerate 

the development of expertise in critical and strategic languages. In 

a continuing oversight capacity, the subcommittee held a hearing 

in June 2010 along with briefings, interviews, and fact-finding trips 

to ascertain the progress in implementing the subcommittee’s recommendations. This follow-on oversight effort is to result in a report update titled, ‘‘Building Language Skills and Cultural Competencies in the Military: Bridging the Gap,’’ in December 2010 

which finds that, although the Department has largely addressed 

the recommendations in the November 2008 report, there are still 

shortcomings which merit further oversight. The subcommittee’s 

follow-on oversight effort prompted two items of legislation, in part, 

addressing these deficiencies. In the committee report (H. Rept. 

111–491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011, the committee instructs the Government Accountability Office to review the services’ language, regional expertise, and cultural awareness training of the general purpose forces, 

particularly for ground components. In H. Rept. 111–491, the committee also encourages the services to provide the Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus Pay for special operations personnel testing at the lower, but still required, proficiency levels. 

The subcommittee continued its oversight of the Defense Travel 

System (DTS) during the 111th Congress. In 2009, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducted a follow-on 

study of the DTS to determine whether shortcomings identified in 

2008 by the subcommittee and the Government Accountability Office had been rectified. This study resulted in an ISI in the committee report (H. Rept. 111–166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that in part directed 

the Department to enforce the order that DTS serve as the only online travel system. The subcommittee, in coordination with the 

Readiness Subcommittee, conducted a follow-up effort in 2010 to 

review the Department’s efforts to streamline and simplify all travel conducted under its purview. This project attempted to assess 

the extent to which the Defense Travel Management Office, which 

has jurisdiction over Defense travel, implemented the recommendations in the committee’s report (H. Rept. 111–166). In addition, 

Congress required the Department to produce a report on Defense 

Travel Simplification on or before December 31, 2009. This report 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
120 

was delivered on May 24, 2010, and discusses a ‘‘multi-pronged, incremental approach over multiple years’’ but does not give a specific time-frame for the implementation of this plan. The subcommittee published follow-up reports on DTS in 2009 and 2010. 

The latter found that several of the recommendations had not been 

implemented and that detailed plans for defense simplification 

were lacking. The subcommittee made various recommendations to 

the Department in support of the Subcommittee on Readiness. 

The Subcommittee on Readiness and the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform referred a whistleblower from the 

275th Military Police Company, a unit of the Washington, D.C., 

Army National Guard, to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in 2008. The subcommittee conducted a case study of 

the unit including its readiness status, personnel, equipment, and 

training at home station and under the First Army at Camp Shelby, Mississippi in 2007. The subcommittee issued an internal committee report in 2009 for the Military Personnel and Readiness 

Subcommittees. The Readiness and the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee staffs conducted a follow-up review of Camp 

Shelby in 2010. Also in 2010, a second, unrelated whistleblower reported similar readiness, personnel, training, and equipment predeployment issues related to the U.S. Army Reserve’s 656th Transportation Company, which the subcommittees explored. 

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

(JIEDDO), the Department of Defense’s focal point for the battle 

against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee worked closely with the Air and Land 

Forces and the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittees to follow up on work in the 110th Congress and 

to determine whether shortcomings identified previously had been 

corrected. Through two hearings, two reports, and numerous briefings, the subcommittee continued to find that although the nearly 

3,100-person strong JIEDDO spends over $2.0 billion annually and 

it reports significant progress in the Counter-IED (C–IED) fight, it 

is not clear how well the organization is accomplishing its mission. 

In November 2009, Secretary Gates called for a task force to combat IEDs that resulted in the Counter-IED Senior Integration 

Group (C–SIG) co-led by the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and Director of Joint Staff for Operations (J– 

3). The subcommittee made various recommendations to the Department in its follow-up reports contributing to the committee’s 

and other subcommittees’ oversight of JIEDDO and of force protection, more generally. In addition, the Oversight and Investigations 

Subcommittee continues to follow the progress of other Department 

of Defense C–IED initiatives, in particular, the C–SIG. 

In 2010, the subcommittee also investigated and convened a 

hearing on the problem of outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections in military hospitals, which emerged early on during military 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The outbreaks created challenges for the military and it took several years to bring the infections under control. The subcommittee found that the number of infections is now significantly lower because the Department and 

services strengthened infection surveillance, control, and prevenVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
121 

tion in military hospitals, particularly those that treat combatwounded service members. However, the infection problem has not 

been completely solved and new outbreaks will be a continuing risk 

because drug-resistant infections are a national and global problem 

in civilian and military hospitals. The subcommittee found that the 

Department needs better capabilities to monitor infections and enhanced training and expertise in infection control practices. In addition, while the Department and services have supported a number of research and development studies and projects in response 

to the outbreak of these types of infections, there is no coordinated 

and sustained approach in place for continuing to conduct needed 

research in this area. The subcommittee issued a report entitled, 

‘‘DOD’s Response to Multidrug-Resistant Infections in Military 

Hospitals’’ in early December 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(123) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE 

BUDGET ACTIVITY

On March 13, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services forwarded 

its views and estimates regarding the budget outline for the National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal year 2010 to the 

Committee on the Budget. 

The committee noted that the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget 

outline requested $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense’s 

base budget. The President’s budget outline also requested $75.5 

billion in supplemental funding for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 

to support the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee looked forward to reviewing all the programmatic details 

when they become available. 

In the absence of these details but in review of the preliminary 

submission, the committee believed the budget request was the 

minimum necessary to support both our core national security requirements and on-going military operations. The committee supported war time supplemental funding that provided the resources 

necessary for American servicemembers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee noted that the President’s request 

planned to incorporate into the base budget many items previously 

funded in emergency supplementals, such as medical services, family support initiatives, security assistance to foreign governments, 

and enhancements to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The committee also supported efforts to fold foreseeable wartime costs into the baseline budget, but identified that these war 

costs were in addition to core national security requirements that 

resided in the base budget. The budget outline suggested a balance 

between ensuring our forces had what they would need to protect 

this nation, as well as a commitment both to fiscal responsibility 

in challenging economic times and to weeding out waste wherever 

possible. 

However, within the Department’s base budget funding request, 

the committee highlighted several concerns. First, with respect to 

mandatory funding, the committee respectfully requested an increase to the committee’s allocation for mandatory spending to implement the President’s concurrent receipt proposal and to continue 

to protect our beneficiaries from exorbitant health care fees. Second, with respect to readiness, the committee noted that continuous combat operations over the past seven and one-half years, 

with repeated deployments and limited dwell times, have stretched 

our forces and consumed readiness just as quickly as it was obtained. As the war in Iraq wound down and our efforts in Afghanistan ramped up, the Department would face huge reset costs associated with moving troops and materiel, repairing and replacing 

worn out equipment, and re-orienting training programs to assure 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
124 

that our troops could function in a full-spectrum environment. The 

committee argued that it was critical to the nation’s security that 

our readiness levels be improved and that sufficient investments be 

made to ensure this. Third, with respect to acquisition programs, 

very little was known regarding the priorities of the new Administration and, with a pending Quadrennial Defense Review, an updated National Military Strategy, and a Nuclear Posture Review, 

it was difficult to know what the proper funding level should be for 

acquisition programs. The committee understood that the Department was attempting to make the best decisions on important acquisition programs, and would closely review them when the detailed budget request was received. Finally, the committee discussed that its efforts would continue to develop recommendations 

for improving government performance and, where appropriate, develop legislation. The committee noted the establishment of a Panel 

on Defense Acquisition Reform to comprehensively identify the root 

causes of acquisition failures and recommend further changes to 

improve acquisition processes. The committee expected that such 

efforts, when properly implemented, would reduce wasteful spending by the agencies within its jurisdiction. 

On March 4, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services forwarded 

its views and estimates regarding the budget request for National 

Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal year 2011 to the Committee on the Budget. 

The committee noted that the President’s fiscal year 2011 budget 

request totaled $573.8 billion in discretionary budget authority for 

national defense. Of this total, $548.9 billion was for the Department of Defense, $17.8 billion was for the Department of Energy’s 

defense activities, and $7.0 billion was for other defense-related activities. The President’s budget also included $5.6 billion in mandatory budget authority. 

In addition to the base budget request, the committee noted that 

as required by Section 1008 of the John Warner National Defense 

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

President’s budget for fiscal year 2011 included a separate request 

of $159.3 billion for war-related expenditures in support of ongoing 

military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, presented as Overseas 

Contingency Operations (OCO). The Department of Defense also 

submitted an additional request of $33.0 billion in OCO funds for 

fiscal year 2010 in support of increased military personnel and operations in Afghanistan. The committee was pleased that the focus 

of the Department of Defense’s request was to ensure scarce resources received were dedicated to the needs of the warfighter. The 

committee supported the progress made by the Department, considering the Nation’s limited resources. 

The committee supported the complete allocation of funds by the 

Committee on the Budget to the levels requested in the President’s 

fiscal year 2011 budget for the National Defense Budget Function, 

to include contingency operations and mandatory spending. The 

committee noted—in light of the ongoing military conflicts, significant reset and modernization needs of the services, and the substantial investments required to recruit and retain highly qualified 

servicemembers and families—that the budget request was the 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
125 

minimum necessary level to support our national security requirements. 

However, within the Department’s base budget funding request, 

the committee highlighted several concerns. First, with respect to 

mandatory funding, the committee was pleased that the President’s 

budget again included a proposal to fully fund concurrent receipt 

for military retirees that were retired due to disability, but was disappointed to learn that the budget request also failed to identify 

the $5.1 billion in mandatory offsets over ten years necessary to 

adopt the proposal. Second, with respect to readiness, the committee noted that in fiscal year 2011 the readiness levels of ground 

forces, both in the aggregate and in terms of full-spectrum training, 

may finally have begun to improve. The committee identified that 

improving readiness levels was critical to the Nation’s security and 

that sufficient investments should be made to ensure this, requiring sustained funding levels for readiness and reset over a period 

of years. Third, with respect to acquisition programs, the committee noted that it will need to carefully review investment programs to determine whether the Department’s investment strategy 

matched the resources needed to meet National Military Strategy 

requirements. For example, the F–35 development program had 

been delayed due to late delivery of test aircraft and the accomplishment of fewer than ten percent of the planned test flights in 

fiscal year 2009. Delays in the test program led to unexpected and 

unprecedented concurrency of development and production. Despite 

the delay, the Air Force requested to retire approximately 250 aircraft in fiscal year 2010. Finally, the committee asserted that it undertakes careful and detailed analysis of each of the programs 

within its jurisdiction with an eye toward cutting any unjustified 

expense and reallocating funds where appropriate to higher-priority and well-executing programs. The committee planned to continue this same level of oversight while reviewing the fiscal year 

2011 budget request. As an example, the committee intended to 

emphasize the need for the Department of Defense and its subordinate entities to put in place the necessary financial management 

systems and internal controls to produce auditable financial statements, resulting in the eventual receipt of an unqualified audit 

opinion. 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS

During the 111th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 

held numerous hearings in accordance with its legislative and oversight roles. These hearings focused on areas including the budget 

of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the posture of the armed 

services and combatant commands, strategy, the Quadrennial Defense Review, the war in the Republic of Iraq, the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, combating terrorism, Department of 

Defense management and acquisition reform, detainee policy, U.S. 

policy toward Russia, China, and Japan and the Guam realignment, Pakistan, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear weapons and 

missile defense policy, the Army’s investigation into Arlington National Cemetery, Fort Hood, and the stand-up of US Cyber Command. A full account of these hearings is below. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
126 

(H.A.S.C. 111–1; H.A.S.C. 111–2; H.A.S.C. 111–3; H.A.S.C. 111– 

4; H.A.S.C. 111–5; H.A.S.C. 111–6; H.A.S.C. 111–7; H.A.S.C. 111– 

8; H.A.S.C. 111–9; H.A.S.C. 111–10; H.A.S.C. 111–11; H.A.S.C. 

111–12; H.A.S.C. 111–13; H.A.S.C. 111–14; H.A.S.C. 111–15; 

H.A.S.C. 111–16; H.A.S.C. 111–18; H.A.S.C. 111–19; H.A.S.C. 111– 

20; H.A.S.C. 111–21; H.A.S.C. 111–23; H.A.S.C. 111–24; H.A.S.C. 

111–26; H.A.S.C. 111–27; H.A.S.C. 111–28; H.A.S.C. 111–29; 

H.A.S.C. 111–30; H.A.S.C. 111–31; H.A.S.C. 111–32; H.A.S.C. 111– 

33; H.A.S.C. 111–34; H.A.S.C. 111–35; H.A.S.C. 111–37; H.A.S.C. 

111–38; H.A.S.C. 111–39; H.A.S.C. 111–40; H.A.S.C. 111–41; 

H.A.S.C. 111–42; H.A.S.C. 111–43; H.A.S.C. 111–44; H.A.S.C. 111– 

45; H.A.S.C. 111–46; H.A.S.C. 111–47; H.A.S.C. 111–48; H.A.S.C. 

111–49; H.A.S.C. 111–50; H.A.S.C. 111–52; H.A.S.C. 111–53; 

H.A.S.C. 111–55; H.A.S.C. 111–56; H.A.S.C. 111–57; H.A.S.C. 111– 

58; H.A.S.C. 111–59; H.A.S.C. 111–60; H.A.S.C. 111–61) 

POSTURE AND BUDGET

During the 111th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 

held multiple hearings on the posture, financial requirements, and 

status of the U.S. Armed Forces as they continue to fight in several 

theaters of combat. These hearings, combined with the committee’s 

responsibility for assembling the annual defense authorization bill, 

are a central element in the discharge of the committee’s oversight 

responsibilities. 

During the first session of the 111th Congress, the committee 

held a series of budget and posture hearings. On January 27, 2009, 

the committee convened a hearing with Robert M. Gates, Secretary 

of Defense, to discuss the priorities of the Department of Defense 

in the new administration. On May 13, 2009, the committee received testimony from Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, and 

Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

to review the budget request for funding and authorities during fiscal year 2010. 

In addition to this hearing, the committee held posture hearings 

in which it sought and received testimony from each of the military 

departments. On May 14, 2009, Peter Geren, Secretary of the 

Army, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General George Casey, 

appeared before the committee to discuss their service’s portion of 

the fiscal year 2010 budget request. Later that day, the committee 

convened a hearing to receive testimony from B.J. Penn, the Acting 

Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval 

Operations; and General James T. Conway, the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps, who appeared before the committee to testify on 

the United States Navy’s portion of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. The following week, on May 19, 2009, Michael B. Donley, 

Secretary of the Air Force; and General Norton A. Schwartz, the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified on the budget as it related 

to the U.S. Air Force. 

In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, commanders of the unified combatant commands appeared before the 

committee to discuss the security situation in their respective areas 

of responsibility. These hearings began with testimony from Admiral James G. Stavridis, the Commander of U.S. Southern ComVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
127 

mand; General Victor Eugene ‘‘Gene’’ Renuart, the Commander of 

U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense 

Command; General James N. Mattis, the Commander of U.S. Joint 

Forces Command and Supreme Allied Commander Transformation 

for NATO; and General William E. ‘‘Kip’’ Ward, the Commander of 

U.S. Africa Command, on March 18, 2009. This hearing was followed one week later by Admiral Timothy J. Keating, the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; General Bantz J. Craddock, the 

Commander of U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe; and General Walter L. ‘‘Skip’’ Sharp, the 

Commander of United Nations Command, the Republic of KoreaUnited States Combined Forces Command, and the United States 

Forces Korea, on March 24, 2009. On April 2, 2009, the committee 

received testimony from the Honorable Miche ́le Flournoy, Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy; General David H. Petraeus, the 

Commander of U.S. Central Command; and Admiral Eric Olson, 

the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. 

During the second session of the 111th Congress in 2010, the 

committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in preparation for the fiscal year 2011 budget. On February 3, 2010, the committee received testimony on the fiscal year 2011 budget request 

from the Department of Defense. It heard testimony from Robert 

M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On February 23, 2010, the 

committee convened on the fiscal year 2011 budget request from 

the Department of the Air Force, receiving testimony from Michael 

B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force; and General Norton A. 

Schwartz, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The following day, on 

February 24, 2010, Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral 

Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations; and General James 

T. Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on the 

Navy’s portion of the fiscal year 2011 budget request. On February 

25, 2010, the committee concluded its service posture hearings by 

receiving testimony from John McHugh, Secretary of the Army, 

and General George Casey, Jr., the Chief of Staff of the Army, on 

the Army’s budget request. 

The committee also received testimony from the unified combatant commanders on the posture of their commands in 2010. On 

March 10, 2010, Admiral James G. Stavridis, the Commander of 

U.S. European Command; General William E. ‘‘Kip’’ Ward, the 

Commander of U.S. Africa Command; and General James N. 

Mattis, the Commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command. The following week, on March 17, 2010, the committee convened to hear 

testimony from General David H. Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. 

Central Command; Admiral Eric Olson, Commander of U.S. Special 

Operations Command; and General Duncan McNabb, the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command on the status of their 

commands. The committee received testimony on March 18, 2010 

from General Douglas Fraser, the Commander of U.S. Southern 

Command; and General Victor E. Renuart, Jr., Commander of the 

U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense 

Command. One week later, on March 25, 2010, the committee met 

to receive testimony from Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander 

of U.S. Pacific Command; and General Walter L. ‘‘Skip’’ Sharp, 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
128 

Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, United Nations Command, and 

Republic of Korea-United States Command Forces Command. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–3; H.A.S.C. 111–8; H.A.S.C. 111–9; H.A.S.C. 111– 

11; H.A.S.C. 111–18; H.A.S.C. 111–19; H.A.S.C. 111–20; H.A.S.C. 

111–21; H.A.S.C. 111–40; H.A.S.C. 111–42; H.A.S.C. 111–43; 

H.A.S.C. 111–44; H.A.S.C. 111–45; H.A.S.C. 111–46; H.A.S.C. 111– 

47; H.A.S.C. 111–48) 

STRATEGY

The committee views the role of strategy as a critical component 

of Department of Defense decision-making. During the first session 

of the 111th Congress, the committee met to discuss emerging concerns regarding Department of Defense strategy. On March 5, 

2009, the committee heard testimony on ‘‘Combating Piracy on the 

High Seas.’’ The following week, on March 11, 2009, the committee 

met to receive testimony on ‘‘Security Challenges Arising from the 

Global Financial Crisis.’’ On November 18, 2009, the committee 

met again to discuss another key strategy issue, receiving testimony on ‘‘Resourcing the National Defense Strategy: Implications 

of Long Term Defense Budget Trends.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–5; H.A.S.C. 111–6; H.A.S.C. 111–32) 

THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

The committee dedicated significant oversight resources on the 

Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review process and 

the findings of the final report. On February 4, 2010, the committee met to receive testimony on ‘‘The 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review.’’ The committee also met to receive testimony from the 

Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel. On April 15, 

2010, the committee received testimony on the independent panel’s 

assessment of the Quadrennial Defense Review. Later, on July 29, 

2010, the committee reconvened to receive testimony on the ‘‘Final 

Report of the Independent Panel’s Assessment of the Quadrennial 

Defense Review.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–41; H.A.S.C. 111–50; H.A.S.C. 111–59) 

WAR IN IRAQ

The committee devoted significant oversight resources to the war 

in the Republic of Iraq and the effect of that war on the Department of Defense and the broader national security interests of the 

United States. On February 12, 2009, the committee convened a 

hearing on ‘‘Addressing U.S. Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and Resources.’’ The following month, on March 

25, 2009, the committee received testimony on ‘‘Effective Counterinsurgency: How the Use and Misuse of Reconstruction Funding 

Affects the War Effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.’’ On September 30, 

2009, the committee held a hearing on the ‘‘Status of Ongoing U.S. 

Efforts in Iraq.’’ On October 21, 2009, the committee heard testimony on ‘‘U.S. Military Redeployment from Iraq: Issues and Challenges.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–4; H.A.S.C. 111–10; H.A.S.C. 111–28; H.A.S.C. 

111–31) 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
129 

WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

In the 111th Congress, the committee renewed its commitment 

to provide focused oversight to the war in the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan. The committee held a hearing on February 12, 2009 

on ‘‘Addressing U.S. Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing 

Interests and Resources.’’ It followed up with another hearing the 

next month on ‘‘Effective Counterinsurgency: How the Use and 

Misuse of Reconstruction Funding Affect the War Efforts in Iraq 

and Afghanistan’’ on March 25, 2009. On April 2, 2009, the committee convened a hearing to receive testimony on the ‘‘New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Developments in the U.S. 

Central Command and Special Operations Command.’’ On October 

30, 2009, the committee met to receive testimony on ‘‘Afghanistan: 

Getting the Strategy Right.’’ The committee continued its vigorous 

oversight over the war in Afghanistan, holding two back-to-back 

hearings in December 2009. On December 3, 2009, the committee 

held the first of two hearings on ‘‘Afghanistan: The Results of the 

Strategic Review, Part I.’’ The following week, the committee convened to hold the second hearing of the series, ‘‘Afghanistan: The 

Results of the Strategic Review, Part II.’’ 

In the second session of the 111th Congress, the committee held 

a hearing on May 5, 2010 on ‘‘Developments in Security and Stability in Afghanistan.’’ On June 16, 2010, the committee held another follow-up hearing on ‘‘Developments in Afghanistan.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–4; H.A.S.C. 111–10; H.A.S.C. 111–11; H.A.S.C. 

111–30; H.A.S.C. 111–34; H.A.S.C. 111–35; H.A.S.C. 111–53; 

H.A.S.C. 111–55) 

COMBATING TERRORISM

The committee conducted oversight over the ongoing threat of 

terrorism. On January 27, the committee met to receive testimony 

on ‘‘Al Qa’ida in 2010: How Should the U.S. Respond?’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–39) 

DETAINEE POLICY

Over the course of the 111th Congress, the committee held hearings on issues related to the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody 

at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On July 16, 2009, the committee received testimony on ‘‘Prosecuting Law of War Violations: Reforming 

the Military Commissions Act of 2006.’’ On July 24, 2009, the committee met again to discuss ‘‘Reforming the Military Commissions 

Act of 2006 and Detainee Policy.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–24; H.A.S.C. 111–26) 

DOD MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION REFORM: MITIGATING WASTE, 

FRAUD, AND ABUSE

In upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud, abuse, 

or mismanagement in federal government programs, and pursuant 

to House Rule XI, clauses 2(n), (o), and (p), the committee met several times to conduct oversight over Department of Defense activities, as noted above in this report. On March 12, 2009, the committee held a hearing on the ‘‘Department of Defense at High Risk: 

Recommendations of the Comptroller General for Improving DeVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
130 

partmental Management.’’ The following month, on April 30, 2009, 

the committee met to receive testimony on the ‘‘Reform of Major 

Weapons System Acquisition and Related High Risk Areas.’’ On 

May 6, 2009, the committee reconvened to receive testimony on the 

‘‘Department of Defense at High Risk: The Chief Management Officer’s Recommendations for Acquisition Reform and Related High 

Risk Areas.’’ 

During the second session of the 111th Congress, the committee 

continued its oversight activities on Department of Defense management. On July 22, 2010, the committee held a hearing on ‘‘Managing the Department of Defense in a Time of Tight Budgets.’’ On 

September 29, 2010, the committee convened to receive testimony 

on ‘‘The Department of Defense’s Efficiency Initiative.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–7; H.A.S.C. 111–14; H.A.S.C. 111–15; H.A.S.C. 

111–57; H.A.S.C. 111–61) 

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND THREAT REDUCTION

The committee continued its efforts to monitor and address the 

security threats related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. On January 22, 2009, the committee met to hear testimony on the December 2, 2008 report of the Commission on the 

Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, entitled ‘‘World at Risk’’. 

On July 15, 2009, the committee met to hear testimony on U.S. 

efforts to address a new generation of security threats from weapons of mass destruction, including through Department of Energy 

nonproliferation programs and the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–2; H.A.S.C. 111–23) 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND MISSILE DEFENSE

The committee continued its oversight over U.S. policy on nuclear weapons and missile defense. During the first session of the 

111th Congress, on May 6, 2009, the committee met to receive testimony on the ‘‘Report of the Congressional Commission on the 

Strategic Posture of the United States.’’ On October 1, 2009, the 

committee convened a hearing to receive testimony on ‘‘President 

Obama’s New Plan for Missile Defense in Europe and Implications 

for International Security.’’ 

During the second session of the 111th Congress, on April 14, 

2010, the committee met to receive testimony on ‘‘United States 

Nuclear Weapons Policy and Force Structure.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–16; H.A.S.C. 111–29; H.A.S.C. 111–49) 

RUSSIA

On July 30, 2009, the committee met to receive testimony on the 

‘‘U.S. Security Relationship with Russia and Its Impact on Transatlantic Security.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–27) 

CHINA

The committee continued its effort to remain cognizant of longerterm security issues beyond those relating to current operations. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
131 

On January 13, 2010, the committee met to hear testimony on security developments involving China. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–37) 

JAPAN AND GUAM

The committee continued its oversight issues related to the U.S.- 

Japan security relationship and issues pertaining to Guam, including the realignment of 8,000 Marines from Japan to Guam. On December 2, 2009, the committee held a hearing on ‘‘Assessing the 

Guam War Claims Process.’’ On July 27, 2010, the committee received testimony on ‘‘Recent Security Developments Involving 

Japan.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–33; H.A.S.C. 111–58) 

PAKISTAN

On April 23, 2009, the committee met for the first of two hearings on effective counterinsurgency in Pakistan and the future of 

the U.S.-Pakistan military partnership. On April 29, 2009, the committee met to hear testimony on the Administration’s perspective 

on effective counterinsurgency in Pakistan and the future of the 

U.S.-Pakistan military partnership. 

During the second session of the 111th Congress, the committee 

convened on April 29, 2010, to hear testimony on security and stability in Pakistan and developments in U.S. policy and funding. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–12; H.A.S.C. 111–13; H.A.S.C. 111–52) 

ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

On June 30, 2010, the committee met to receive testimony on a 

‘‘Review of Army Investigation of Arlington National Cemetery.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–56) 

FORT HOOD

On January 20, 2010, the committee convened to receive testimony on the ‘‘Department of Defense Independent Review Relating 

to Fort Hood.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–38) 

U.S. CYBER COMMAND

The committee has been actively engaged in overseeing the 

stand-up of US Cyber Command. On September 23, 2010, it met 

to receive testimony on ‘‘US Cyber Command: Organizing for 

Cyberspace Operations.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–60) 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(132) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THE 

PANEL 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND LAND FORCES

The Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces provided oversight of 

all Departments of the Army and Air Force acquisition programs 

(with the exception of space programs, strategic missile and information technology programs), including Army and Air Force Reserve and National Guard equipment programs. The subcommittee 

conducted 13 oversight hearings during its consideration of the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 Department of Defense (DOD) 

budget requests, including: February 4, 2009, Army and Marine 

Corps Force Protection Programs; February 25, 2009, U.S. Transportation Command’s Airlift, Sealift, and Surface Lift Programs; 

March 26, 2009, The Status of the Future Combat Systems Program; April 23, 2009, Army Aircraft Programs; May 5, 2009, Army 

National Guard and Air National Guard Equipment Programs; 

May, 21, 2009, Army acquisition, reset, and modernization programs; July 9, 2009, the status of Army and Marine Corps reset 

requirements, Part I; December 10, 2009, the status of Army and 

Marine Corps reset requirements, Part II; March 10, 2010, Army 

acquisition and modernization programs; March 17, 2010, force protection equipment programs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; March 24, 2010, Department of the Navy and Air Force combat aviation programs; April 22, 2010, Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve Component equipment posture; and 

April 28, 2010, aircraft mobility programs. 

In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee received briefings from representatives of the Department of Defense on the following: surface-to-surface munitions and laser threats; special access programs; Afghanistan force protection; improvised explosive 

devices; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems; 

body armor protection for warfighters; mine resistant ambush protected vehicle programs; and body armor protection equipment. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on June 

12, 2009, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), and met to consider 

and report legislation on May 13, 2010, that was included in the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523). The legislation covered a range of issues, including the Future Combat Systems Spin Out Early-Infantry Brigade 

Combat Team equipment; 4.5 generation fighter aircraft; F–22A 

aircraft; E–8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System 

re-engining; retirement of C–130E aircraft; retirement of C–5 aircraft; strategic airlift aircraft, body armor procurement and separate program elements for body armor; unmanned cargo carrying 

capable aerial vehicles; data links for tactical unmanned aerial veVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
133 

hicles; Army tactical ground network program; Army ground combat vehicle and self-propelled howitzer capability; operation, 

sustainment, modernization, and personnel of major ranges and 

test facilities; assessment of technological maturity and integration 

risk of Army modernization programs; technology modernization of 

combat vehicle and armored tactical wheeled vehicle fleets; annual 

report of the F–35 aircraft program; report on integration of DoD 

ISR capabilities; man-portable and vehicle mounted guided missile 

systems; command and control systems; extended range modular 

sniper rifle systems; and next generation bomber aircraft. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–5; H.A.S.C. 111–9; H.A.S.C. 111–35; H.A.S.C. 111– 

45; H.A.S.C. 111–50; H.A.S.C. 111–69; H.A.S.C. 111–78; H.A.S.C. 

111–133; H.A.S.C. 111–140; H.A.S.C. 111–146; H.A.S.C. 111–158; 

and H.A.S.C. 111–162.) 

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 2010 and 2011 budget requests: May 15, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request on 

the Defense Health Program; May 21, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request on Military Personnel 

Overview; February 3, 2010, Report of the Defense Task Force on 

Sexual Assault in the Military; March 3, 2010, Review of the DOD 

Process for Assessing the Requirements to Implement Repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; March 9, 2010, Reviewing the Studies of the 

Effects of Deployment on Military Children; March 15, 2010, Legislative Priorities in Support of Families; March 17, 2010, Military 

Personnel Legislative Priorities; March 23, 2010 Military Associations’ Legislative Priorities; April 13, 2010, DOD Medical Centers 

of Excellence; April 15, 2010 Supporting the Reserve Component as 

an Operational Reserve and Key Personnel Legislative Initiatives; 

April 20, 2010, Implementation of Requirement to Provide a Medical Examination Before Separating Members Diagnosed with PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) 

and the Capacity of DOD to Provide Care to PTSD Cases; April 21, 

2010; Defense Health Program. 

In addition to its budget request hearings, the subcommittee conducted hearings related to the following topics: January 28, 2009, 

Sexual Assault in the Military: Victim Support and Advocacy; February 25, 2009, Beneficiary and Advocacy Overview; March 3, 2009, 

Recruiting, Retention, and End Strength; March 6, 2009, Sexual 

Assault in the Military; March 12, 2009, Overview of Military Resale and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation; March 18, 2009, Joint 

hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on Prioritization of 

Health Affairs/TRICARE Management with the Services Requirements on Medical Infrastructure; March 24, 2009, Joint hearing 

with the Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities 

Subcommittee on Future of the Department of Defense Health Information Technology, AHTLA; April 2, 2009, Improving the Recovery and Full Accounting of POW/MIA Personnel from all past conflicts; April 29, 2009, Future Organization of the Military Health 

Care System and TRICARE Management Activity; July 22, 2009, 

Oversight of Family Support Programs; July 29, 2009, PsychoVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
134 

logical Stress in the Military: What Steps are Leaders Taking?; December 2, 2009, Joint hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on 

New Walter Reed: Are We on the Right Track? 

The subcommittee also conducted a briefing on the following 

topic: March 9, 2010, unclassified briefing on the Navy’s Plans to 

Assign Women to Submarines; June 17, 2010, unclassified briefing 

on the status of the Comprehensive Review Working Group on the 

Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell; June 23, 2010, unclassified brief 

on the Wanat, Afghanistan Battle; July 28, 2010, unclassified briefing on the Army Study on Suicides. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on June 

11, 2009, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act For Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) and met to consider 

and report legislation on May 12, 2010, that was included in the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523). The legislation covered a range of military personnel issues, including the following: force structure, end 

strengths, recruiting, retention, decorations, promotion, education, 

training, separation, retirement, personnel policy, compensation 

systems, benefits, and health care. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–4; H.A.S.C. 111–11; H.A.S.C. 111–12; H.A.S.C. 

111–17; H.A.S.C. 111–22; H.A.S.C. 111–26; H.A.S.C. 111–29; 

H.A.S.C. 111–40; H.A.S.C. 111–48; H.A.S.C. 111–60; H.A.S.C. 111– 

70; H.A.S.C. 111–85; H.A.S.C. 111–90; H.A.S.C. 111–109; H.A.S.C. 

111–121; H.A.S.C. 111–130; H.A.S.C. 111–131; H.A.S.C. 111–135; 

H.A.S.C. 111–139; H.A.S.C. 111–143; H.A.S.C. 111–149; H.A.S.C. 

111–154; H.A.S.C. 111–155; H.A.S.C. 111–156) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

The Subcommittee on Readiness reviewed the programs within 

the operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts for fiscal years 

2010 and 2011 to ensure that appropriate funds were available to 

maintain a high level of military readiness. The subcommittee held 

hearings on May 20, 2009, and March 16, 2010, to receive testimony on the military services’ operation and maintenance budget 

requests for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, respectively. As a result, 

the subcommittee authorized $156.2 billion in the operation and 

maintenance accounts in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84), plus $88.3 billion for 

Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) operation and maintenance. The subcommittee recommended $167.6 billion in O&M for 

Fiscal Year 2011 and $114.0 billion for OCO operation and maintenance. 

To provide context for its actions on the fiscal years 2010 and 

2011 defense authorization acts, the subcommittee on April 30, 

2009, received a briefing on the classified readiness status of the 

Army and Marine Corps, and on July 27, 2010, the subcommittee 

hosted a classified briefing for the full committee on the current 

readiness status of all the military services. 

The subcommittee held a hearing on April 22, 2009, to review 

the Department’s air sovereignty alert (ASA) operations and examine the readiness of the forces tasked with carrying out this priority mission. The ASA mission is aimed at protecting U.S. airspace. During the Cold War, this mission was focused on potential 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
135 

air threats from the Soviet Union. Following the September 11, 

2001, terrorist attacks, the Department initiated Operation Noble 

Eagle which added the protection of U.S. airspace from internal 

threats to NORAD’s responsibility, and DOD policy reiterates that 

protecting the U.S. homeland from direct attacks is the Department’s highest priority. The Air Force provides 100 percent of the 

mission’s fighter aircraft at 18 sites throughout the United States; 

the Air National Guard primarily performs this mission. 

Testimony at the April hearing focused on a January 2009 report 

issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) that 

highlighted the current and future challenges affecting the units 

that conduct ASA operations in the homeland. In summary, GAO 

found that: NORAD had not conducted routine risk assessments to 

determine ASA operational requirements, including the appropriate 

levels and types of units, personnel, and aircraft for the mission; 

the readiness of the units conducting these operations on a daily 

basis is not fully assessed because their mission document statements do not reflect their ASA responsibilities or the personnel, 

training, and equipment necessary to conduct these operations; and 

the Air Force had not developed plans to address challenges going 

forward to ASA operation, specifically, the recapitalization of the 

F–15 and F–16 aircraft that conduct these operations. In addition 

to GAO, witnesses included representatives from the Department 

of Defense, the U.S. Air Force and the Air National Guard. While 

the subcommittee was pleased that funding for the ASA mission 

was included in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, pursuant to 

a requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2009 (Public Law 110–417), it remained concerned that most 

of the GAO recommendations remained unimplemented. Accordingly, a provision was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) to require a report by NORAD, and an independent analysis of such report by the 

National Guard Bureau, on the ASA mission and the actions being 

taken to implement the GAO recommendations to improve management of the ASA mission. 

The subcommittee on July 23, 2009, met to receive testimony 

from officials of the Department of Defense and the Institute for 

Defense Analyses on the proposed reconfiguration of the national 

defense stockpile. The subcommittee noted that in 2006 and 2007 

Congress asked the Department of Defense to review its current 

stockpiling strategy. This review included the possibility of reconfiguring the Stockpile and proposing changes in the Strategic 

and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1979 to allow for stockpile requirements based on economic purposes in peacetime. Non 

war-related stockpiling was prohibited under current law. The subcommittee concluded that testimony from the witnesses did not effectively address the issue from a federal government perspective; 

rather, the discussion was focused on current requirements specifically under the Department of Defense. The subcommittee also 

identified that a subsequent President’s budget request should address its current stockpiling strategy across all pertinent departments of the federal government, to include the Departments of 

Commerce and Energy. Subsequently, the subcommittee included a 

provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
136 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) that required the Secretary of Defense 

to submit to the congressional defense committees a report on any 

actions the Secretary plans to take in response to the recommendations in the April 2009 report entitled ‘‘Reconfiguration of the National Defense Stockpile Report to Congress.’’ The subcommittee is 

still awaiting the Department’s response to the requirement in 

Public Law 111–84. 

The subcommittee continued to assess the performance of the Defense Travel System (DTS) during the 111th Congress. After several informal staff-level briefings, the subcommittee included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2010 (Public Law 111–84) that required the Department to address 

ways to simplify the Defense Travel System on or before December 

31, 2009. This report was delivered on May 24, 2010, and included 

suggestions which the subcommittee is analyzing and could incorporate in future legislation. In coordination with the subcommittee, 

the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation also held two 

hearings on DTS. 

The subcommittee received two classified briefings related to the 

logistical challenges of moving troops and supplies to support military operations in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 

Afghanistan. The first briefing, held on January 21, 2010, focused 

on the critical role played by the U.S. Transportation Command 

and the Defense Logistics Agency in simultaneously supporting the 

drawdown of forces in the Republic of Iraq and fulfilling requirements for the troop surge into the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 

while continuing to carry out their other missions throughout the 

globe. Briefers included representatives from the Joint Staff, the 

U.S. Transportation Command, the Military Surface Deployment 

and Distribution Command, the 618th Tanker Airlift Control Center, and the Defense Logistics Agency. The second briefing, held on 

July 28, 2010, focused on the redeployment from and disposal of 

equipment in the Republic of Iraq. Briefers included representatives from the U.S. Transportation Command and the Defense Logistics Agency. 

The subcommittee on February 24, 2010, met to receive testimony from DOD officials on energy management and initiatives on 

military installations. The subcommittee heard that the Department of Defense owns vast amounts of property, comprising more 

than 500 permanent installations and more than 300,000 buildings 

and 2 billion square feet of space. As such, it is a critical asset that 

requires significant investment and deliberate policy oversight to 

ensure energy security, energy reduction, and deliberate pursuit of 

renewable energy projects. The Department provided increased emphasis on energy security as a priority from defense leadership and 

included it in the Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010. The Department’s strategy included reduced demand for energy, increased 

supply of renewable and alternative energy, and continued investment in research and development to stimulate new technologies. 

Accordingly, the subcommittee, in both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) and the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523), included several provisions specific to installation 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
137 

energy, energy security, and demand reduction domestically, internationally and in operations. 

On April 27, 2010, the subcommittee met for a hearing on Army 

Reserve, Army National Guard, and Air National Guard training, 

operations, and readiness. The focus of the hearing was the resource requirements for maintaining these reserve component 

forces in an operational reserve posture, with the witnesses testifying that significant funding had to migrate from Overseas Contingency Operations funding to the base budget. The Chief of the 

Army Reserve stated that a ‘‘demand signal’’ of at least 20,000 

Army Reserve soldiers per year, along with the necessary training 

funding, was needed to maintain the Army Reserve in an operational reserve status. The Acting Director, Army National Guard 

did not specify a figure, but testified that, absent large-scale mobilizations and full base budget funding, the Army National Guard 

would have to go back to a strategic reserve status. The Air National Guard witness focused his remarks on the need for recapitalization of the Air National Guard fighter inventory, which he stated was required for maintaining current air sovereignty mission capability. As a result of this hearing, the subcommittee increased 

recommended funding levels for operation and maintenance accounts for the reserve components in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

On July 20, 2010, the subcommittee met to receive testimony 

from DOD officials and an industry representative on the use of 

modeling and simulation (M&S) to enhance military readiness. The 

subcommittee heard that the military services have all, to some degree, invested in modeling and simulation (M&S) to improve training, reduce costs, and improve fidelity of budgetary and material 

maintenance projections. These efforts vary in complexity and are 

evolving as technological advances in M&S provide improved capability shaped to meet the Department’s needs. Some of the most notable current uses of M&S in the Department described to the subcommittee included tools for modeling readiness levels and maintenance requirements, flight simulators for aviation training, and 

immersive training devices for infantry training. When used appropriately, the subcommittee believes these tools can enhance training, reduce operations and maintenance costs, and increase the 

lifecycle of weapons systems. Accordingly, the subcommittee in the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523) included a provision to require a Congressional 

Budget Office review of M&S tools used by the Department to develop and analyze the annual budget submission. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–8; H.A.S.C. 111–13; H.A.S.C. 111–31; H.A.S.C. 

111–38; H.A.S.C. 111–42; H.A.S.C. 111–65; H.A.S.C. 111–73; 

H.A.S.C. 111–78; H.A.S.C. 111–86; H.A.S.C. 111–109; H.A.S.C. 

111–125; H.A.S.C. 111–137; H.A.S.C. 111–142; H.A.S.C. 111–159; 

H.A.S.C. 111–167; H.A.S.C. 111–171; H.A.S.C. 111–174) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SEAPOWER AND EXPEDITIONARY FORCES

The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget requests for fiscal 

years 2010 and 2011 during the 111th Congress, including; FebVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
138 

ruary 25, 2009, U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) 

airlift, sealift, and surface lift programs (Joint with Air and Land 

Forces Subcommittee); March 10, 2009, Littoral Combat Ship Program; May 15, 2009, Fiscal year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of the Navy Shipbuilding acquisition programs; May 19, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of the Navy 

Acquisition Programs; March 3, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National 

Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of the Navy 

shipbuilding acquisition programs; March 24, 2010, Department of 

the Navy and Department of the Air Force combat aviation programs (Joint with Air and Land Forces Subcommittee), July 14, 

2010, Oversight Hearing on Activities of the Maritime Administration. 

In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities regarding 

DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings on the following: February 4, 2009, Army and Marine Corps 

Force Protection Programs (Joint with Air and Land Forces Subcommittee); March 26, 2009, Requirements for the Future Capabilities of the United States Maritime Forces; July 9, 2009, Status of 

Army and Marine Corps Reset Requirements (Joint with Readiness 

and Air and Land Forces Subcommittees); July 16, 2009, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS); July 30, 2009, Efforts 

to Improve Shipbuilding Effectiveness; December 10, 2009, Status 

of Army and Marine Corps Reset Requirements, Part II (Joint with 

Readiness and Air and Land Forces); January 20, 2010, Issues Affecting Naval Force Structure; March 17, 2010, Force Protection 

Equipment Programs for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Joint 

with Air and Land Forces); July 28, 2010, Surface Fleet Readiness 

(Joint with Readiness Subcommittee). 

Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee 

conducted numerous briefings on the following topics: February 4, 

2009, Force Protection Programs; February 12, 2009, Afghanistan 

Operations-Intelligence; March 3, 2009, the Marine Corps’ Investigation into the F/A–18 mishap in Miramar, California; March 4, 

2009, the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task 

Force; March 5, 2009, the Littoral Combat Ship contracts; March 

17, 2009, Threats to the Future Naval Force; May 5, 2009, VH–71 

Presidential Helicopter Program; September 15, 2009, Force Protection Issues in Afghanistan; September 23, 2009, Littoral Combat 

Ship; October 22, 2009, USS Hartford Collision; March 11, 2010, 

Future Surface Combat Radar Hull Study; March 23, 2010, Oliver 

Hazard Perry Class Frigates (FFGs); June 10, 2010, Force Protection Programs in Afghanistan; and June 23, 2010, the Ohio-class 

Submarine Replacement Program. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on June 

12, 2009 that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) and considered and 

reported legislation on May 13, 2010 that was included in the Ike 

Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

(H.R. 6523). The legislation covered a range of issues, including 

(contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84)), authorization of appropriations for 

procurement programs and research, development, test, and evalVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
139 

uation programs for the Department of the Navy, special contract 

authority for a multi-ship acquisition strategy for the LCS, authorization to use advance procurement funding for production planning and related support services and in the case of the vessel designated CVN 79, use of advance procurement funding for advance 

construction of components, conditional authority for multi-year 

procurement of F/A–18E, F/A–18F, or EA–18G aircraft (this authority was subsequently extended by passage of H.R. 6102 (Public 

Law 111–238)), granting a temporary reduction in the number of 

operational aircraft carriers in the battle force fleet of the Navy, 

one time authority to transfer certain military hardware along with 

limitations on modification of government furnished equipment for 

developmental programs, authorization of appropriations for the 

National Defense Sealift Fund, authorization of appropriations for 

the activities of the Maritime Administration of the Department of 

Transportation, five separate provisions allowing the Maritime Administration to correct past financial and management irregularities at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, and a requirement for self defense protective measures for commercial vessels under contract with the United States for the carriage of military cargo. 

For fiscal year 2011, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) contained: authorization 

of appropriations for procurement programs and research, development, test, and evaluation programs for the Department of the 

Navy, incremental funding authority for certain large naval vessels, multi-year procurement authority for certain naval strike 

fighter aircraft (note, this authority was subsequently granted by 

passage of H.R. 6102 (Public Law 111–238), requirements for the 

content of the long range plans for the construction of naval vessels, three separate provisions dealing with the retirement of naval 

vessels, authorization of appropriations for the National Defense 

Sealift Fund, authorization of appropriations for the activities of 

the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, 

extension of the authorization for the Maritime Security Program, 

clarification of the nominating official for appointment to the 

United States Merchant Marine Academy for residents of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, technical corrections to the Port of 

Guam Improvement Enterprise Program, and revisions in the process for the processing of loans for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan 

Program authorized under chapter 537 of title 46, United States 

Code. 

In accordance with the Committee Oversight plan submitted for 

the 111th Congress in accordance with clause 2(d) of rule X of the 

House of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary held numerous hearings and briefings on the tactical 

aircraft force structure for the Department of the Navy, the industrial base supporting construction of naval vessels, and the maintenance of a viable national defense sealift fleet. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year authorized: an increase of nine F/A–18E/F aircraft beyond the planned 

procurement of the Department of the Navy, an increase for advanced procurement of economic order quantity items, an increase 

for EA–18G support items, and an increase in funds to establish 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
140 

core depot maintenance capability for the ALQ–214 electronic countermeasures system on Navy and Marine Corps tactical aircraft. In 

addition, the legislation granted multi-year procurement contract 

authority for F/A–18E/F and EA–18G to the Secretary of the Navy 

and authorized the budget requests for the procurement of new 

fighter aircraft, including F–35s for the Navy, Marine Corps and 

the Air Force. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 authorizes an increase of F/A–18E/F aircraft 

for the Navy. 

Lastly, Public Law 111–238, signed into law by the President on 

September 27, 2010, renewed the Secretary of the Navy’s expired 

multi-year procurement authority provided in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and reduced the procurement cost of new F/A–18E/F and EA–18G aircraft. 

The committee investigated through briefings, hearings, and site 

visits, the issues associated with rising costs for naval ship construction. The committee proposed legislation subsequently adopted 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

that supports increased efficiency of planning and technical support 

prior to construction of vessels by authorizing the use of funding 

prior to the construction contract for those purposes. In addition, 

the committee authorized advance construction of modules and assemblies for the vessel designated CVN 79 for the purpose of garnering efficiency from the stability of the industrial work force. The 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 continues to expand the committee’s desire to improve the efficiency of construction by allowing certain large naval vessels to 

be appropriated in multiply fiscal years up to the number that is 

three quarters of the number of years of planned ship construction. 

The committee took significant action in the 111th Congress to 

address emergent needs at the United States Merchant Marine 

Academy (USMMA). Poor oversight from the Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation had allowed a number of 

financial and management irregularities to exist at the USMMA. 

The committee, after briefings, hearings, and site visits acted to 

propose legislation subsequently adopted in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) that 

allowed for the imposition of correct financial controls and management structure at the USMMA. The Ike Skelton National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 grants authority to the Administrator of the Maritime Administration to continue corrective 

actions at the USMMA. The Act also streamlines the process for 

commercial ship-owners to obtain favorable mortgage terms for the 

construction of new vessels in U.S. utilizing the maritime guarantee loan program (46 U.S.C. 537), and extends the Maritime Security Program to fiscal year 2025 insuring a robust fleet of U.S. 

flagged commercial vessels capable of serving the on-going or emergent needs of the Department of Defense. 

The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2011 included the following provisions: authorization of appropriations for procurement programs and research, development, 

test, and evaluation programs for the Department of the Navy; a 

report on naval force structure and missile defense; an annual 

Comptroller General report on the VH–(XX) presidential helicopter 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
141 

acquisition program; requirements for the content of the long range 

plans for the construction of naval vessels; expressing the sense of 

Congress regarding the naming of a naval combat vessel after Father Vincent Capodanno; authorization of appropriations for the 

National Defense Sealift Fund; authorization of appropriations for 

the activities of the Maritime Administration of the Department of 

Transportation; extension of the authorization for the Maritime Security Program; and, clarification of the nominating official for appointment to the United States Merchant Marine Academy for residents of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–5, H.A.S.C. 111–9, H.A.S.C. 111–18, H.A.S.C. 111– 

34, H.A.S.C. 111–61, H.A.S.C. 111–64, H.A.S.C. 111–78, H.A.S.C. 

111–83, H.A.S.C. 111–92, H.A.S.C. 111–117, H.A.S.C. 111–129, 

H.A.S.C. 111–140, H.A.S.C. 111–146, H.A.S.C. 111–170. H.A.S.C. 

111–174) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC FORCES

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed strategic forces 

programs (except deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic 

missile defense programs, intelligence policy and national programs, as well as Department of Energy national security programs (except nuclear non-proliferation programs), by conducting 

hearings during its consideration of the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal 

year 2011 budget requests, including: May 13, 2009, Department of 

Energy atomic energy defense activities; May 21, 2009, national security space and missile defense programs; March 16, 2010, United 

States strategic forces; March 25, 2010, Department of Energy 

atomic energy defense activities; April 15 ,2010, report on the Ballistic Missile Defense Review and missile defense programs; April 

21, 2010, national security space activities. 

In addition to its oversight responsibilities regarding the budget 

requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings on the 

following: February 25, 2009, the future of missile defense testing; 

March 17, 2009, the status of U.S. strategic forces; March 18, 2009, 

space and U.S. security; March 26, 2009, future roles and missions 

of the Missile Defense Agency; April 30, 2009, space system acquisitions and the industrial base; and January 21, 2010, status of the 

Air Force Nuclear Security Roadmap. 

In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics: February 24, 2009, Iranian space 

launch and possible missile test by the North Korean government; 

March 4, 2009, military space systems and architecture; March 12, 

results of the Institute for Defense Analyses’ study on alternative 

missile defense options in Europe; March 31, status of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal; April 28, 2009, joint briefing with the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, the Subcommittee on Seapower 

and Expeditionary Forces, and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on intelligence programs; 

May 5, 2010, nuclear weapons capabilities of Russia and China; 

July 21, 2009, space protection program; July 29, 2009, Missile Defense Agency special programs; October 7, 2009, Department of Energy’s Environmental Management program; October 21, 2009, status of the Nuclear Posture Review; October 28, joint briefing with 

the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence SubVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
142 

committee on Technical and Tactical Intelligence, the way ahead on 

overhead commercial imagery; November 17, 2009, cyber threats to 

strategic systems; January 13, 2010, joint briefing with the House 

Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on 

Technical and Tactical Intelligence, state of the U.S. space launch 

enterprise; March 24, 2010, ballistic missile proliferation issues in 

Iran and North Korea; April 14, 2010, Missile Defense Agency’s Integrated Master Test Plan; April 15, 2010, Missile Defense Agency’s Airborne Laser Test Bed; July 1, 2010, Stockpile Stewardship 

and Management Plan; July 14, 2010, JASON Panel Life Extension 

Program study and status of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile; September 15, 2010, phased adaptive approach to missile defense in 

Europe. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on June 

11, 2009, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). Among other initiatives, that legislation: established a stockpile management program 

to assure the continued safety, security and reliability of the U.S. 

nuclear stockpile consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan commission on the U.S. nuclear posture; required the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan for the long-term sustainment 

and modernization of the Ground-based, Midcourse Defense program; made permanent the pilot program for sharing space surveillance data with state governments, U.S. and foreign commercial 

entities, and foreign governments in an effort to reduce potential 

satellite collisions with space debris; and required the Secretary of 

Defense and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly develop 

and submit a biannual space science and technology strategy to ensure coordination in maintaining and improving U.S. space capabilities. 

The subcommittee also considered and reported legislation on 

May 12, 2010, that was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (HR 6523). Legislation 

initiated by the subcommittee would: limit the deployment of 

medium- or long-range missile defense until basing agreements are 

ratified by host nations and the interceptors are certified as operationally effective based on flight testing; repeal the ban on contracting directly with a foreign government for missile defense activities to allow more direct collaboration with our friends and allies on missile defense; fully fund the Administration’s request for 

the NNSA’s Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programs; 

and fully authorize funding for critical defense environmental 

cleanup activities. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–10; H.A.S.C. 111–23; H.A.S.C. 111–25; H.A.S.C. 

111–33; H.A.S.C. 111–57; H.A.S.C. 111–71; H.A.S.C. 111–118; 

H.A.S.C. 111–136; H.A.S.C. 111–148; H.A.S.C. 111–153; H.A.S.C. 

111–157) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND

CAPABILITIES

The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 

Capabilities provided oversight of the majority of Department of 

Defense counter-terrorism and unconventional warfare programs 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
143 

and other activities under the subcommittee’s jurisdictional responsibility. 

During the 111th Congress the subcommittee devoted substantial 

attention assessing the Department’s strategy and capabilities to 

defend against the global terrorist threat. Related hearings included: February 12, 2009, Strategies for Countering Violent Extremists Ideologies; March 3, 2009, Special Operations Forces: 

Challenges and Opportunities; March 11, 2009, Tracking and Disrupting Terrorist Financial Networks: A potential model for Interagency success; April 2, 2009, Terrorism and the New Age of Irregular Warfare: Challenges and Opportunities; May 7, 2009, Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare: Issues and Lessons Learned; October 22, 2009, Counterterrorism within Afghan Counterinsurgency; and December 16, 2009, Understanding Cyberspace as a Medium for Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization. 

The subcommittee continued its review and oversight of the Department’s information technology (IT) policies and programs to improve efficiencies through better use of IT technologies and improve 

information assurance against the cyber threat. The following hearings addressed these areas: March 24, 2009 and held jointly with 

the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Department of Defense 

Health Information Technology: AHLTA is Intolerable, Where Do 

We Go From Here; and May 5, 2009, Cyberspace as a Warfighting 

Domain: Policy, Management and Technical Challenges to Mission 

Assurance. In addition, the subcommittee, on July 28, 2009, received testimony from the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Policy, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland 

Defense, the Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North 

American Aerospace Defense Command, and the Director Defense 

Capabilities and Management of the U.S. Government Accountability Office on the current state of readiness and coordination in 

responding to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear 

or high-yield explosives attack. 

Hearings pertaining to a review of the budget request for fiscal 

year 2010 included: May 20, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request—Department of Defense 

Science and Technology Priorities; and June 4, 2009, Fiscal Year 

2010 National Defense Authorization Act Budget Request—U.S. 

Special Operations Command. 

Hearings pertaining to the budget request for fiscal year 2011 included: March 23, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Budget Request Department of Defense’s Science and Technology Programs; and April 14, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National 

Defense Authorization Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense Program and 

Counterproliferation Initiatives. 

The subcommittee continued to address the Departments efforts 

toward countering terrorism, including the cyber threat during the 

second session of the 111th Congress. Related hearings included: 

January 20, 2010, Threat posed by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and other regions; February 25, 2010, Private Sector Perspectives on Department of Defense Information Technology and Cybersecurity Activities; April 27, 2010, Closing the Gap: Addressing 

Critical Rotary Wing Shortfalls for U.S. Special Operations Forces 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
144 

in Fiscal Year 2011 and Beyond; July 28, 2010, Harnessing small 

business innovation for national security cyber needs; and September 23, 2010, Operating in the Digital Domain: Organizing the 

Military Departments for Cyber Operations. The subcommittee, on 

September 29, 2010, conducted a hearing titled on small business’ 

role and opportunities in restoring affordability to the Department 

of Defense. Additionally, the subcommittee on November 30, 2010, 

conducted a hearing on the continued crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the implications for U.S. national security. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on June 

11, 2009, that was included in the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84). The subcommittee 

considered and reported legislation on May 13, 2010, that was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The legislative provisions covered a 

range of issues, to include: a provision to codify the position of the 

acquisition executive at Special Operations Command; provisions to 

provide an extension and expansion of authority for support of special operations to combat terrorism; a requirement to improve government-wide strategic communication initiatives; and greater acquisition authority to improve information technology capabilities. 

In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee held a total of 

17 briefings which included: February 26, 2009, Biometrics; March 

5, 2009, 1208 Program; March 11, 2009, Counter Threat Finance; 

March 12, 2009, Army Special Operations Command; March 17, 

2009, Marine Special Operations Command; March 19, 2009, Air 

Force Special Operations Command; March 24, 2009, Afghanistan 

and Pakistan; March 26, 2010, Naval Special Operations Command; April 29, 2009, Trusted Microelectronics; May 7, 2009, 

Counter-proliferation policy and issues; July 21, 2009, Global disposition of Special Operations Command; July 23, 2009, Department of Defense efforts to curb drug cartel activity; December 9, 

2009, Internet propaganda. Additional briefings included: February 

24, 2010, Special Operations Forces combat medicine; March 24, 

2010, Air Force Special Operations Forces; May 6, 2010 and joint 

with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was 

a briefing on Al Qaeda in Iraq leadership; and November 16, 2010 

on Yemen and the foiled cargo airliner plot. 

The subcommittee sponsored a technology demonstration, March 

3, 2010, with the U.S. Army Medical Research, Science, and Technology Office to highlight advances in military medical technologies 

intended to support the warfighter. On March 18, 2010, the subcommittee met with visiting Special Forces officers from the Republic of Iraq. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–7; H.A.S.C. 111–14; H.A.S.C. 111–20; H.A.S.C. 

111–41; H.A.S.C. 111–51; H.A.S.C. 111–55; H.A.S.C. 111–66; 

H.A.S.C. 111–75; H.A.S.C. 111–88; H.A.S.C. 111–102; H.A.S.C. 

111–113; H.A.S.C. 111–116; H.A.S.C. 111–119; H.A.S.C. 111–128; 

H.A.S.C. 111–145; H.A.S.C. 111–151; H.A.S.C. 111–161; H.A.S.C. 

111–176; H.A.S.C. 111–180; H.A.S.C. 111–183; H.A.S.C. 111–185) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

The subcommittee was reestablished by the 110th Congress and, 

pursuant to Committee Rule 4, conducts oversight and investigaVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
145 

tion over any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee. The 

subcommittee’s work includes not only its own separate subcommittee hearings and reports, but also supports the hearings 

and oversight responsibilities of the other subcommittees and the 

full committee. The subcommittee continued work on areas it addressed in the 110th Congress as well as exploring new areas. 

Through its efforts, the subcommittee supported efforts of the subcommittees to include provisions within the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) and the 

Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2011 (H.R. 6523). Furthermore, the subcommittee identified best 

practices and model organizations as well as those in need of improvement or reform within the Department of Defense and other 

related areas within the committee’s jurisdiction. 

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations examined officer in-resident professional military education (PME) in March 

2009. The committee released a bipartisan report, ‘‘Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two Decades After the 

Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel’’ (Committee Print 4, 

111th Congress), in April 2010. The Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the service chiefs each provided their views on the report as directed in House Report 111– 

491. In general, they concurred with the report’s findings and expressed a commitment to improve the Department’s and service 

PME systems. 

During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 

Investigations examined the Department’s efforts to improve language skills, cultural awareness, and regional expertise. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

(Public Law 111–84), directed the Secretary of Defense to establish 

language training centers at universities and the senior military 

colleges to accelerate the development of expertise in critical and 

strategic languages. In its continuing oversight capacity, the subcommittee held a hearing in June 2010 along with briefings, interviews, and fact-finding trips to ascertain the progress in implementing the subcommittee’s recommendations. This follow-on oversight effort resulted in a report update titled, ‘‘Building Language 

Skills and Cultural Competencies in the Military: Bridging the 

Gap,’’ in December 2010 which finds that, although the Department has largely addressed the recommendations in the November 

2008 report, there are still shortcomings which merit further oversight. The subcommittee’s follow-on oversight effort prompted two 

items of legislation, in part, addressing these deficiencies. The committee report (H. Rpt. 111–491) instructs the GAO to review the 

services’ language, regional expertise, and cultural awareness 

training of the general purpose forces, particularly for ground components. 

The subcommittee continued its oversight of the Defense Travel 

System (DTS) during the 111th Congress, in coordination with the 

Readiness Subcommittee. This project attempted to assess the extent to which the Defense Travel Management Office, which has jurisdiction over Defense travel, implemented the recommendations 

set forth by the review. The subcommittee made various recVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
146 

ommendations to the Department in support of the Readiness Subcommittee. 

During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its oversight of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization 

(JIEDDO), the Department of Defense’s focal point for the battle 

against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee worked closely with the Air and Land 

Forces and the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittees to follow up on work in the 110th Congress and 

to determine whether shortcomings identified previously had been 

corrected. Through two hearings, two reports, and numerous briefings, the subcommittee continued to find that although the nearly 

3,100-person strong JIEDDO spends over $2.0 billion annually and 

it reports significant progress in the Counter-IED (C–IED) fight, it 

is not clear how well the organization is accomplishing its mission. 

In 2010, the subcommittee also investigated and convened a 

hearing on the problem of outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections in military hospitals, which emerged early on during military 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subcommittee found that 

the Department needs better capabilities to monitor infections and 

enhanced training and expertise in infection control practices. In 

addition, while the Department and services have supported a 

number of research and development studies and projects in response to the outbreak of these types of infections, there is no coordinated and sustained approach in place for continuing to conduct needed research in this area. The subcommittee plans to issue 

a report entitled, ‘‘DOD’s Response to Multidrug-Resistant Infections in Military Hospitals’’ in early December 2010. 

The subcommittee held two hearings on interagency national security reform and supported legislation requiring a study on the 

creation of a system for development and management of national 

security professionals. Also of note, the subcommittee: (1) held four 

hearings and a member briefing in support of committee acquisition reform efforts; (2) examined alternative strategies during three 

hearings on Iraq and Afghanistan; and, (3) investigated and conducted oversight on defense requirements for rare earth elements 

in support of committee policy efforts and Readiness Subcommittee 

stockpile responsibilities and supporting several provisions related 

to rare earth elements in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). 

The subcommittee also conducted a study involving briefings and 

fact-finding trips, and held a hearing on the Department of Defense’s oversight of the quality of off-duty college education programs available to service members using government-provided tuition assistance. The subcommittee found that while the Department and the services have had policies and processes in place to 

oversee college programs located on military installations, there 

was little focus on distance learning programs. The Department 

and the services now plan to increase their oversight of distance 

learning and for-profit schools. The committee will continue to 

monitor the Department’s oversight efforts in this area. 

The subcommittee also continued work with the Project on Government Reform and the Congressional Research Service on the 

ability of the Department of Defense’s audit and inspector general 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
147 

organizations to adequately conduct oversight of the Department. 

This work supports oversight of the Defense Contract Audit Agency 

and the Defense Contract Management Agency as well as the Department’s and the services’ IGs. 

(H.A.S.C. 111–16; H.A.S.C. 111–27; H.A.S.C. 111–32; H.A.S.C. 

111–37; H.A.S.C. 111–46; H.A.S.C. 111–67; H.A.S.C. 111–74; 

H.A.S.C. 111–76; H.A.S.C. 111–80; H.A.S.C. 111–89; H.A.S.C. 111– 

93; H.A.S.C. 111–103; H.A.S.C. 111–105; H.A.S.C. 111–106; 

H.A.S.C. 111–107; H.A.S.C. 111–144; H.A.S.C. 111–160; H.A.S.C. 

111–165) 

PANEL ON DEFENSE ACQUISITION REFORM

The Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform held 14 hearings in 

support of its mandate to examine the defense acquisition system. 

These hearings were held in three phases: 1) examining how the 

Department of Defense measures performance in the defense acquisition system, 2) examining specific issues in the performance of 

the defense acquisition systems, and 3) obtaining feedback on the 

panel’s initial findings and recommendations. 

During the first phase of the panel’s hearings, the panel met on 

April 1, 2009, to receive testimony on ‘‘Measuring Value and Efficiency: How to Assess the Performance of the Defense Acquisition 

System.’’ On April 23, 2009, the Panel met to receive testimony on 

‘‘Measuring Value and Risk in Services Contracts.’’ On May 19, 

2009, the panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘Measuring Performance: Developing Good Acquisition Metrics.’’ 

In the second phase of the panel’s hearing, the committee examined discrete problems in the defense acquisition system that had 

been identified as significant problems that cause the Department 

of Defense to receive less than full value in the defense acquisition 

system. The panel met on June 3, 2009 to receive testimony on 

‘‘Coordinating Requirements, Budgets, and Acquisition: How Does 

It Affect Costs and Acquisition Outcomes?’’ On June 9, 2009, the 

panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘Challenges to Effective Acquisition and Management of IT Systems.’’ On July 16, 2009, the panel 

met to receive testimony on ‘‘Managing Service Contracts: What 

Works and What Doesn’t.’’ On July 21, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘Shaping a Workforce for Today’s Acquisition 

Environment That Can Meet DOD’s Needs.’’ On September 17, 

2009, the panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘The Department of 

Defense and Industry: Does DOD Effectively Manage its Industrial 

Base and Match its Acquisition Strategies to the Marketplace?’’ On 

September 24, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘DOD 

Supply Chain Management: Can the Department Identify and 

Meet its Supply Needs Efficiently?’’ On October 8, 2009, the panel 

met to receive testimony on ‘‘The Department of Defense’s Rapid 

Acquisition Process: Is It a Model for Improving Acquisition?’’ On 

October 15, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘Can the 

Department of Defense Protect Taxpayers When It Pays Its Contractors?’’ On October 29, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony 

on ‘‘Can DOD Improve Innovation and Competition in Acquisition 

by Better Utilizing Small Business?’’ 

In the third phase of the panel’s hearings, the panel received 

feedback from outside experts and Department of Defense witVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
148 

nesses on its initial findings and recommendations. On February 

25, 2010, the panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘Expert Perspectives on Managing the Defense Acquisition System and the Defense 

Acquisition Workforce.’’ On March 11, 2010, the panel met to receive testimony on ‘‘Administration Perspectives on Managing the 

Defense Acquisition System and the Defense Acquisition Workforce.’’ 

(H.A.S.C. 111–36; H.A.S.C. 111–44; H.A.S.C. 111–63; H.A.S.C. 

111–72; H.A.S.C. 111–77; H.A.S.C. 111–82; H.A.S.C. 111–84; 

H.A.S.C. 111–94; H.A.S.C. 111–95; H.A.S.C. 111–98; H.A.S.C. 111– 

100; H.A.S.C. 111–104; H.A.S.C. 111–127; H.A.S.C. 111–134) 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(149) 

PUBLICATIONS 

COMMITTEE PRINTS

111–1—Committee Rules of the Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, adopted January 4, 2009. 

111–2—A Ceremony Unveiling the Portrait of the Honorable 

Duncan L. Hunter. September 15, 2009. 

111–4—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Report— 

Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two Decades 

After the Goldwater—Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel. April 

2010. 

111–5—Ike Skelton National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2011— 

Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 6523. December, 

2010. 

PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS

H.A.S.C. 111–1—Full Committee hearing on Committee Organization. January 14, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–2—Full Committee hearing on Preventing Weapons 

of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. January 22, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–3—Full Committee hearing on Priorities of the Department of Defense in the New Administration. January 27, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–4—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing on 

Sexual Assault in the Military: Victim Support and Advocacy. January 28, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–5—Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on Army and Marine Corps Force Protection Programs. February 4, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–6—Full Committee hearing on Addressing U.S. 

Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and Resources. February 12, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–7—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities hearing on Strategies for Countering Violent Extremist Ideologies. February 12, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–8—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Acquisition and Disposal of Military Lands: Department of Defense’s Real 

Property Management Challenges in the 21st Century. February 

24, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–9—Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on U.S. Transportation Command’s (USTRANSCOM) Airlift, Sealift, and Surface 

Lift Programs. February 25, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–10—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

The Future of Missile Defense Testing. February 25, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–11—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on The Views of Military Advocacy and Beneficiary groups. February 25, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
150 

H.A.S.C. 111–12—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Recruiting, Retention and End Strength Overview. March 3, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–13—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Department of Defense Fuel Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Locations and Operational Energy Initiatives. March 3, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–14—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities hearing on U.S. Special Operations Command: Challenges and Opportunities. March 3, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–15—Full Committee hearing on Combating Piracy 

on the High Seas. March 5, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–16—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Can DOD Travelers Book A Trip? Defense Travel System Update. March 5, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–17—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Sexual Assault in the Military: Prevention. March 6, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–18—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 

Forces hearing on The Navy Littoral Combat Ship Program. March 

10, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–19—Full Committee hearing on Security Challenges Arising from the Global Financial Crisis. March 11, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–20—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities hearing on Tracking and Disrupting Terrorist Financial Networks: A Potential Model for Interagency Success? March 11, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–21—Full Committee hearing on the Department of 

Defense at High Risk: Recommendations of the Comptroller General for Improving Departmental Management. March 12, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–22—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview. 

March 12, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–23—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

The Status of U.S. Strategic Forces. March 17, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–24—Full Committee hearing on Security Developments in the Areas of Responsibility of the U.S. Southern Command, Northern Command, Africa Command, and Joint Forces 

Command. March 18, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–25—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

Space and U.S. Security. March 18, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–26—Subcommittees on Military Personnel and 

Readiness joint hearing on Medical Infrastructure: Are Health Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity Priorities Aligned with Service Requirements? March 18, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–27—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on The Project on National Security Reform: Commentary 

and Alternative Views. March 19, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–28—Full Committee hearing on Security Developments in the Areas of Responsibility of the U.S. Pacific Command, 

U.S. European Command, and U.S. Forces Korea. March 24, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–29—Subcommittee on Military Personnel and Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Joint Hearing on 

Department of Defense Health Information Technology: AHTLA is 

‘‘Intolerable,’’ Where Do We Go From Here? March 24, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
151 

H.A.S.C. 111–30—Full Committee hearing on Effective Counterinsurgency: How the Use and Misuse of Reconstruction Funding 

Affect the War Effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. March 25, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–31—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Readiness and Sustainment of the Navy’s Surface Fleet. March 25, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–32—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Contingency Contracting: Has the Call for Urgent Reform Been Answered? March 25, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–33—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

Future Roles and Missions of the Missile Defense Agency. March 

26, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–34—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 

Forces hearing on Future Roles and Missions of the United States 

Navy and Marine Corps. March 26, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–35—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing 

on the Status of the Future Combat Systems Program. March 26, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–36—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Measuring Value and Efficiency: How to Assess the Performance 

of the Defense Acquisition System. April 1, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–37—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Coordinating Contract Support on the Battlefield: Defense, State and USAID. April 1, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–38—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Department of Defense National Security Personnel System. April 1, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–39—Full Committee hearing on The New Strategy 

for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Developments in U.S. Central 

Command and Special Operations Command. April 2, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–40—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Improving Recovery and Full Accounting of POW/MIA Personnel 

from All Past Conflicts. April 2, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–41—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Terrorism and 

the New Age of Irregular Warfare: Challenges and Opportunities. 

April 2, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–42—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Air 

Sovereignty Alert Operations. April 22, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–43—Full Committee hearing on Effective Counterinsurgency: The Future of the U.S.-Pakistan Military Partnership. 

April 23, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–44—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Measuring Value and Risk in Service Contracts. April 23, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–45—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

on Army Aircraft Programs. April 23, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–46—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on The Acquisition Workforce: Merely a Business Expense 

or a Force Multiplier for the Warfighter? April 28, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–47—Full Committee hearing on Effective Counterinsurgency: The Administration’s Perspective on the Future of the 

U.S.-Pakistan Military Partnership. April 29, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
152 

H.A.S.C. 111–48—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on The Military Health System: Health Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity Organization. April 29, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–49—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

Space Systems Acquisition and the Industrial Base. April 30, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–50—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing 

on Army National Guard and Air National Guard Equipment Programs. May 5, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–51—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Cyberspace as a Warfighting 

Domain: Policy, Management, and Technical Challenges to Mission 

Assurance. May 5, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–52—Full Committee hearing on The Department of 

Defense at High Risk: The Chief Management Officer’s Recommendations for Acquisition Reform and Related High Risk 

Areas. May 6, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–53—Full Committee hearing on Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 

States. May 6, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–54—Full Committee hearing on Reform of Major 

Weapons System Acquisition and Related Legislative Proposals. 

April 30, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–55—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities hearing on Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare: Issues and Lessons Learned. May 7, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–56—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of Defense. May 13, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–57—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for 

Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities. May 13, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–58—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Navy. March 14, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–59—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Army. May 14, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–60—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Defense Health 

Program Overview. May 15, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–61—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 

Forces hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs— 

Budget Request for Department of the Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs. May 15, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–62—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of PreVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
153 

viously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force. May 19, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–63—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Measuring Performance: Developing Good Acquisition Metrics. 

May 19, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–64—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 

Forces hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs— 

Budget Request for Department of the Navy Aviation Programs. 

May 19, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–65—Subcommittee Readiness hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for the 

Military Services’ Operation and Maintenance Funding. May 20, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–66—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Department of Defense 

Science and Technology Programs. May 20, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–67—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education 

Twenty Years After the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton 

Panel. May 20, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–68—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

for Air Force Modernization Programs. May 20, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–69—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

for Army Acquisition, Reset and Modernization Programs. May 21, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–70—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request 

on Military Personnel Overview. May 21, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–71—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for 

National Security Space and Missile Defense Programs. May 21, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–72—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Coordinating Requirements, Budgets, and Acquisition: How 

Does it Affect Costs and Acquisition Outcomes? June 3, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–73—Subcommittee on Readiness on the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 

Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Military 

Construction, Family Housing, Base Closure, Facilities Operation 

and Maintenance. June 3, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–74—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Thinkers and Practitioners: Do Senior Professional Military Education Schools Produce Strategists? June 4, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
154 

H.A.S.C. 111–75—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats, and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for the U.S. Special Operations Command. June 4, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–76—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Raising Thinking from the Tactical to the Operational 

Level: JPME I and JPME II at the Services’ and Joint Command 

and Staff Colleges. June 25, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–77—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Challenges to Effective Acquisition and Management of Information Technology Systems. July 9, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–78—Subcommittees on Readiness, Air and Land 

Forces, and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on 

Army and Marine Corps Reset Requirements (Parts I and II). July 

9, 2009 and December 10, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–79—Full Committee hearing on Addressing a New 

Generation of Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction: Department of Energy Nonproliferation Programs and the Department of 

Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. July 15, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–80—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Beyond Service Core Competency: Are Our Junior Officers Prepared for Today’s Security Environment? July 15, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–81—Full Committee hearing on Prosecuting Law of 

War Violations: Reforming the Military Commissions Act of 2006. 

July 16, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–82—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Managing Service Contracts: What Works and What Doesn’t. 

July 16, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–83—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 

Forces hearing on Oversight of the Electromagnetic Aircraft 

Launch System (EMALS). July 16, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–84—Defense Acquisition Reform Panel hearing on 

Shaping A Workforce for Today’s Acquisition Environment That 

Can Meet DOD’s Needs. July 21, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–85—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Oversight of Family Support Programs. July 22, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–86—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Proposed Reconfiguration of the National Defense Stockpile. July 23, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–87—Full Committee hearing on Reforming the 

Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Detainee Policy. July 24, 

2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–88—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives Consequence Management. July 28, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–89—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Investing in Our Military Leaders: The Role of Professional Military Education in Officer Development. July 28, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–90—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on the Psychological Stress in the Military: What Steps are Leaders Taking? July 29, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
155 

H.A.S.C. 111–91—Full Committee hearing on the U.S. Security 

Relationship with Russia and Its Impact on Transatlantic Security. 

July 30, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–92—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 

Forces hearing on Efforts to Improve Shipbuilding Effectiveness. 

July 30, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–93—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

hearing on Charting the Course for Effective Professional Military 

Education. September 10, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–94—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on The Department of Defense and Industry: Does DOD Effectively 

Manage Its Industrial Base and Match Its Acquisition Strategies to 

the Marketplace? September 17, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–95—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on DOD Supply Chain Management: Can the Department Identify 

and Meet Its Supply Needs Efficiently? September 24, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–96—Full Committee hearing on the Status of Ongoing U.S. Efforts in Iraq. September 30, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–97—Full Committee hearing on President Obama’s 

New Plan for Missile Defenses in Europe and the Implications for 

International Security. October 1, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–98—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on The Department of Defense’s Rapid Acquisition Process: Is It a 

Model for Improving Acquisition? October 8, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–99—Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: Getting the Strategy Right. October 14, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–100—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Can the Department of Defense Protect Taxpayers When It 

Pays Its Contractors? October 15, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–101—Full Committee hearing on U.S. Military Redeployment from Iraq: Issues and Challenges. October 21, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–102—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Counterterrorism Within the 

Afghanistan Counterinsurgency. October 22, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–103—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy, Part 1. October 22, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–104—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Can DOD Improve Innovation and Competition in Acquisition 

by Better Utilizing Small Business? October 29, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–105—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Defeating the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) 

and Other Asymmetric Threats: Reviewing the Performance and 

Oversight of the Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). October 

29, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–106—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy, Part 2. November 5, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–107—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on U.S. Strategy, Part 3. November 17, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–108—Full Committee hearing on Resourcing the 

National Defense Strategy: Implications of Long Term Defense 

Budget Trends. November 18, 2009. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
156 

H.A.S.C. 111–109—Subcommittees on Readiness and Military 

Personnel joint hearing on The New Walter Reed: Are We On the 

Right Track? December 2, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–110—Full Committee hearing on Assessing the 

Guam War Claims Process. December 2, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–111—Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: The 

Results of the Strategic Review, Part I. December 3, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–112—Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: The 

Results of the Strategic Review, Part II. December 8, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–113—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Understanding Cyberspace as 

a Medium for Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization. December 

16, 2009. 

H.A.S.C. 111–114—Full Committee hearing on China: Recent Security Developments. January 13, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–115—Full Committee hearing on Findings of the 

Department of Defense Independent Review Relating to Fort Hood. 

January 20, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–116—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on The Threat Posed by al Qa’ida 

in the Arabian Peninsula and Other Regions. January 20, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–117—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces hearing on Issues Affecting Naval Force Structure. 

January 20, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–118—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

Status of the Air Force Nuclear Security Roadmap. January 21, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–119—Full Committee hearing on Al Qa’ida in 2010: 

How Should the U.S. Respond? January 27, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–120—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of Defense. February 3, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–121—Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 

the Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the 

Military Services. February 3, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–122—Full Committee hearing on The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review. February 4, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–123—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Air Force. February 23, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–124—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Navy. February 24, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–125—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Energy Management and Initiatives on Military Installations. February 24, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–126—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request from the Department of the Army. February 25, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
157 

H.A.S.C. 111–127—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Expert Perspectives on Managing the Defense Acquisition System and the Defense Acquisition Workforce. February 25, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–128—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Private Sector Perspectives on 

Department of Defense Information Technology and Cybersecurity 

Activities. February 25, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–129—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Department of the Navy Shipbuilding 

Acquisition Programs. March 3, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–130—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on A Review of the DOD Process for Assessing the Requirements 

to Implement Repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’’ March 3, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–131—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Recent Studies on the Effects of Deployment on Military Children. March 9, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–132—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Requests from the U.S. European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Joint Forces 

Command. March 10, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–133—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing on Army Acquisition and Modernization Programs. March 10, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–134—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform hearing 

on Administration Perspectives on Managing the Defense Acquisition System and the Defense Acquisition Workforce. March 11, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–135—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Legislative Priorities in Support of Families. March 15, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–136—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

The Status of United States Strategic Forces. March 16, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–137—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for the 

Military Services’ Operation and Maintenance Funding. March 16, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–138—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Requests from the U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. Transportation Command. March 17, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–139—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Military Personnel Legislative Priorities. March 17, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–140—Subcommittees on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces and Air and Land Forces joint hearing on Force Protection Equipment Programs for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. March 17, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–141—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Requests from the U.S. 

Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command. March 18, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
158 

H.A.S.C. 111–142—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Military Construction, Family Housing, Base Closure, Facilities Operation and Maintenance. March 18, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–143—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Military Associations’ Legislative Priorities. March 23, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–144—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Interagency Coordination of Grants and Contracts 

in Iraq and Afghanistan: Progress, Obstacles, and Plans. March 23, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–145—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Department of Defense’s 

Science and Technology Programs. March 23, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–146—Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and 

Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on Department of 

the Navy and Air Force Combat Aviation Programs. March 24, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–147—Full Committee hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Requests from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. March 25, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–148—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and 

Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for 

Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities. March 25, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–149—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Department of Defense Medical Centers of Excellence. April 13, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–150—Full Committee hearing on The United 

States Nuclear Weapons Policy and Force Structure. April 14, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–151—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense Program and 

Counterproliferation Initiatives. April 14, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–152—Full Committee hearing on the Independent 

Panel’s Assessment of the Quadrennial Defense Review. April 15, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–153—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

Report on the Ballistic Missile Defense Review and the Fiscal Year 

2011 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile 

Defense Programs. April 15, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–154—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Supporting the Reserve Components as an Operational Reserve 

and Key Reserve Personnel Legislative Initiatives. April 15, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–155—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Implementation of the Requirement to Provide a Medical Examination Before Separating Members Diagnosed with Post-TrauVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:21 Jan 11, 2011 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00166 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR710.XXX HR710

sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
159 

matic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and 

the Capacity of the Department of Defense to Provide Care to 

PTSD Cases. April 20, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–156—Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 

on Defense Health Program. April 21, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–157—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing on 

Space Posture Review and the Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense 

Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space Activities. April 21, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–158—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing on Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Posture. April 22, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–159—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for 

Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and Air National Guard 

Training and Operations. April 27, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–160—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Simplifying Defense Travel: Reviewing Progress 

on Improving the Defense Travel System for the User. April 27, 

2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–161—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Closing the Gap: Addressing 

Critical Rotary Wing Shortfalls for U.S. Special Operations Forces 

in Fiscal Year 2011 and Beyond. April 27, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–162—Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces hearing on Air Mobility Programs. April 28, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–163—Full Committee hearing on Security and Stability in Pakistan: Developments in U.S. Policy and Funding. April 

29, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–164—Full Committee hearing on Developments in 

Security and Stability in Afghanistan. May 5, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–165—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Interagency National Security Reform: Pragmatic 

Steps Towards a More Integrated Future. June 9, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–166—Full Committee hearing on Developments in 

Afghanistan. June 16, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–167—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Wind 

Farms: Compatible with Military Readiness? June 29, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–168—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Beyond the Defense Language Transformation 

Roadmap: Bearing the Burden for Today’s Educational Shortcomings. June 29, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–169—Full Committee hearing on Review of Army 

Investigation of Arlington National Cemetery. June 30, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–170—Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs—Budget Request for Oversight of the Activities of the Maritime Administration. July 14, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–171—Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Modeling and Simulation: Enhancing Military Readiness. July 20, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–172—Full Committee hearing on Managing the Department of Defense in a Time of Tight Budgets. July 22, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
160 

H.A.S.C. 111–173—Full Committee hearing on Japan: Recent Security Developments. July 27, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–174—Subcommittees on Readiness and Seapower 

and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on Surface Fleet Subcommittee on Readiness. July 28, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–175—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Transformation in Progress: The Services’ Enlisted Professional Military Education Programs. July 28, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–176—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Harnessing Small Business 

Innovation for National Security Cyber Needs. July 28, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–177—Full Committee hearing on Final Report of 

the Independent Panel’s Assessment of the Quadrennial Defense 

Review. July 29, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–178—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on A Question of Quality and Value: Department of 

Defense Oversight of Tuition Assistance Used for Distance Learning and For-Profit Colleges. September 22, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–179—Full Committee hearing on U.S. Cyber Command: Organizing for Cyberspace Operations. September 23, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–180—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Operating in the Digital Domain: Organizing the Military Departments for Cyber Operations. 

September 23, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–181—Full Committee hearing on The Department 

of Defense’s Efficiency Initiative. September 29, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–182—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Fighting Superbugs: DOD’s Response to 

Multidrug-Resistant Infections in Military Treatment Facilities. 

September 29, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–183—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on Small Business’ Role and Opportunities in Restoring Affordability to the Department of Defense. September 29, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–184—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on Continued Engagement: Department of Defense 

Responses to the House Armed Services Committee April 2010 Report on Professional Military Education. November 30, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–185—Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 

Threats and Capabilities hearing on the Crisis in the Democratic 

Republic of Congo: Implications for U.S. National Security. November 30, 2010. 

H.A.S.C. 111–186—Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 

the Status of the Phased Adaptive Approach. December 1, 2010. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
161 

HOUSE REPORTS 

Report number Date filed Bill number Title 

111–124 ............................................................ May 20, 2009 ................................................... S. 454 Conf. Rept. (H.R. 2101) ....................... To improve the organization and procedures of the Department of 

Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes. 

111–166 Parts I and II ..................................... June 18, 2009 .................................................. H.R. 2647 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 

personnel strengths fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. 

111–167 ............................................................ June 19, 2009 .................................................. H. Res. 477 ...................................................... Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 

Representatives the fiscal year 2010 30-year shipbuilding plan relating to the long-term shipbuilding strategy of the Department of Defense, as required by section 231 of title 10, United States Code. 

111–168 ............................................................ June 19, 2009 .................................................. H. Res. 478 ...................................................... Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 

Representatives the fiscal year 2010 30-year aviation plan relating to the long-term aviation plans of the Department of Defense, as required by section 231a of title 10, United States Code. 

111–221 ............................................................ July 23, 2009 ................................................... H. Res. 602 ...................................................... Requesting that the President and directing that the Secretary of 

Defense transmit to the House of Representatives all information in their possession relating to specific communications regarding detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism. 

111–383 ............................................................ Dec. 17, 2009 .................................................. H. Res. 924 ...................................................... Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 

Representatives copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other communication of the Department of Defense, or any portion of such communication, that refers or relates to the trial or detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin’Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi. 

111–465 ............................................................ Apr. 23, 2010 ................................................... H. R. 5013 ....................................................... To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for performance management of the defense acquisition system, and for 

other purposes. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
162 

HOUSE REPORTS—Continued 

Report number Date filed Bill number Title 

111–491 Parts I and II ..................................... May 28, 2010 ................................................... H. R. 5136 ....................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 

to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. 

PUBLIC LAWS 

Public Law number Date enacted Bill number Title 

111–23 .............................................................. May 22, 2009 ................................................... S. 454 (H.R. 2101) .......................................... To improve the organization and procedures of the Department of

Defense for the acquisition of major weapon systems, and for other purposes. 

111–61 .............................................................. August 19, 2009 .............................................. H. J. Res. 44 .................................................... Recognizing the service, sacrifice, honor, and professionalism of 

the Noncommissioned Officers of the United States Army. 

111–84 .............................................................. October 28, 2009 ............................................. H.R. 2647 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, 

to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. 

111–238 ............................................................ September 27, 2010 ........................................ H.R. 6102 ......................................................... To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2010 to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and EA– 18G aircraft. 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
(163) 

PRESS RELEASES 

FIRST SESSION

January 7, 2009—Skelton Welcomes New Democratic Members 

to House Armed Services Committee 

January 9, 2009—Skelton Statement on H. Res. 34 and the Situation in Gaza 

January 9, 2009—Skelton, McHugh Announce House Armed 

Services Committee Membership 

January 14, 2009—House Armed Services Committee Holds 

111th Congress Organizational Meeting 

January 14, 2009—Skelton Announces House Armed Services 

Committee Democratic Subcommittee Assignments 

January 22, 2009—Skelton on Executive Orders Concerning 

Guantanamo and Detainees 

January 29, 2009—Skelton on the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review Report 

January 30, 2009—Skelton Troubled by Inspector General’s Findings on Reconstruction Efforts in Afghanistan 

February 2, 2009—Skelton Concerned by Disturbing Trends in 

Afghanistan 

February 5, 2009—Taylor Statement on Future of U.S. Naval 

Shipbuilding 

February 6, 2009—Davis ‘‘Deeply Troubled’’ Over Increasing 

Numbers of Suicides in the Army 

February 13, 2009—Skelton, Ortiz Call for Halt to NSPS Conversions Pending Review 

February 17, 2009—Skelton Praises Announcement to Increase 

U.S. Troop Commitment in Afghanistan 

February 23, 2009—Skelton Leads Congressional Delegation to 

Hawaii, Guam, South Korea, and Japan 

February 24, 2009—Skelton Visits Iwo Jima 

February 25, 2009—Skelton Introduces ‘‘Year of the Military 

Family’’ Resolution 

February 26, 2009—Skelton Statement on President’s FY2010 

Budget Outline 

February 27, 2009—Skelton Statement on President’s Iraq Redeployment Plan 

March 3, 2009—Skelton on the Role of the U.S. Navy 

March 6, 2009—Skelton, McHugh Announce Formation of Panel 

on Defense Acquisition Reform 

March 6, 2009—Snyder and Wittman Statement on Defense 

Travel System 

March 9, 2009—Skelton, Snyder Commend President for Presidential Memorandum on Signing Statements 

March 16, 2009—Skelton, Ortiz Commend DOD Decision to Review NSPS 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
164 

March 17, 2009—Skelton on the Security Challenges Arising 

From the Global Economic Crisis 

March 18, 2009—Skelton Praises DOD Announcement to End 

Stop Loss 

March 18, 2009—Skelton on Nomination of Admiral James 

Stavridis to U.S. European Command 

March 18, 2009—Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform Release 

Organizational Plan 

March 19, 2009—Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee 

Hears Recommendations for National Security Reform 

March 25, 2009—Skelton Statement on Annual Report to Congress on China’s Military Power 

March 27, 2009—Skelton Statement on President’s Strategy for 

Afghanistan and Pakistan 

March 27, 2009—Skelton, Ortiz Call for Halt to All DOD A–76 

Competitions 

March 27, 2009—Skelton Meets With President Calderon of Mexico and Supports Counter-Drug Fight 

April 1, 2009—Skelton Commends President for Working Towards Nuclear Reduction 

April 1, 2009—House Passes Towns-Skelton Bill to Reduce ‘‘Widow’s Tax’’ for Surviving Military Spouses 

April 1, 2009—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Holds 

Hearing on FY08 NDAA Battlefield Contracting Provision 

April 1, 2009—Skelton Statement on U.S.-China Military-to-Military Relations and Security Cooperation 

April 2, 2009—Skelton Says Budget Resolution Supports Defense 

April 5, 2009—Skelton, Tauscher Statement on North Korea Missile Launch 

April 8, 2009—Skelton Says Recent Hijacking Highlights Need 

for Increased International Effort Against Piracy 

April 13, 2009—Skelton Praises Rescue of Captain Phillips, Calls 

for International Action to End Pirate Threat 

April 15, 2009—Skelton Urges President to Fight Piracy by Denying Safe Haven in Somalia 

April 22, 2009—Skelton Statement on H. Res. 339, Praising the 

Actions of Captain Phillips, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. Navy 

SEALs 

April 23, 2009—Skelton, McHugh Introduce Weapons Acquisition 

Reform Legislation 

April 28, 2009—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Hearing on NDAA Acquisition Workforce Provisions 

May 7, 2009—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton (DMO) Mark-up of H.R. 2101, the WASTE TKO Act 

May 7, 2009—Skelton Statement on FY10 Defense Budget Proposal 

May 13, 2009—Skelton Floor Statement on H.R. 2101, the 

WASTE TKO Act 

May 15, 2009—House Approves WASTE TKO Act, SkeltonMcHugh Bill Reforms Weapons Acquisition Process 

May 19, 2009—Skelton, McHugh Announce Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act Conference Agreement 

May 20, 2009—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Hearing on Professional Military Education 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
165 

May 21, 2009—Skelton on President Obama’s National Security 

Speech 

May 21, 2009—House Unanimously Approves Weapon Systems 

Acquisition Reform Conference Report 

May 22, 2009—President Signs Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 

June 2, 2009—Skelton Commends McHugh Nomination as Secretary of the Army 

June 2, 2009—Skelton Pays Tribute to D-Day Veterans on 65th 

Anniversary 

June 4, 2009—How Well Do Senior Professional Military Schools 

Produce Strategists? 

June 16, 2009—Committee Improves Defense Cybersecurity Efforts 

June 16, 2009—Committee Focuses Resources on Effective Missile Defense System for Today’s Threats, HASC Democrats Lead by 

Passing Legislation that Keeps Americans Safe 

June 16, 2009—Skelton Congratulates Congressman McKeon, 

New HASC Ranking Member 

June 16, 2009—Committee Protects Ability of National Security 

Personnel to Focus on Supporting Commanders during Time of 

War 

June 16, 2009—Committee Strengthens the Stockpile Stewardship Program 

June 16, 2009—Democrats Support Veterans with Action, Not 

Lip Service 

June 16, 2009—Committee Restricts Transfer of Detainees until 

President has Plan to Mitigate Risk 

June 16, 2009—Missile Defense Fact Sheet—H.R. 2647, the 

FY10 NDAA 

June 16, 2009—Committee Supports National Security Personnel 

Democrats Lead by Passing Legislation that Prevents Increased 

NSPS Roles Until Task Force Review is Complete 

June 17, 2009—House Armed Services Committee Approves Fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill 

June 19, 2009—Skelton Speaks at U.S. Naval War College Graduation 

June 23, 2009—Skelton Bill Offers Relief From Disabled Veterans Tax 

June 23, 2009—Skelton and Smith Praise Creation of Cyber 

Command 

June 24, 2009—House Approves Disabled Military Retiree Relief 

Act 

June 24, 2009—Skelton Remarks on H.R. 2647, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 

June 25, 2009—House Approves FY10 Defense Authorization Bill 

June 25, 2009—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Third PME Hearing 

July 9, 2009—HASC Democrats Elect New Subcommittee Chair 

July 15, 2009—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Fourth PME Hearing 

July 20, 2009—Skelton Says Larger Army Will Reduce Strain on 

the Force 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
166 

July 22, 2009—Skelton: DOD faces Challenges as U.S. Forces Redeploy From Iraq 

July 24, 2009—Skelton Says Need for National Guard Equipment At Home Should Be Considered During Iraq Redeployment 

Planning 

August 3, 2009—Skelton-Berman-Davis-Harman Express Concern About Security of Election Monitors in Afghanistan 

August 7, 2009—Skelton Statement on Reported Death of 

Taliban Leader in Pakistan 

August 10, 2009—Skelton: Fort Leavenworth Not an Appropriate 

Option for Guantanamo Detainees 

August 14, 2009—Skelton Calls on Americans to Honor U.S. and 

NATO Forces in Afghanistan 

August 20, 2009—Skelton Statement on Afghanistan’s Election 

September 9, 2009—Skelton Speaks on 9/11 Resolution 

September 9, 2009—Video of Skelton’s Floor Speech on 9/11 

September 10, 2009—Skelton: Americans Must Not Forget Why 

We Are in Afghanistan 

September 16, 2009—Skelton Statement on Afghanistan 

September 17, 2009—Skelton Says New Strategy Focuses on Immediate Threats 

September 22, 2009—Skelton: Best Approach in Afghanistan is a 

Properly Resourced Counter-Insurgency Strategy 

September 25, 2009—Skelton Statement on Iran’s Covert Nuclear Facility 

October 7, 2009—House-Senate Committee Agreement Reached 

on Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill 

October 8, 2009—House Approves FY 2010 Defense Authorization Conference 

October 21, 2009—Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton, 

Hearing on U.S. Military Redeployment from Iraq: Issues and 

Challenges 

October 22, 2009—Skelton Praises Senate Passage of Defense 

Authorization Conference Report 

October 28, 2009—President Signs Defense Authorization Bill 

November 2, 2009—Skelton Statement on Afghanistan Election 

Outcome 

November 5, 2009—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Hearing on U.S. Strategy Options for Afghanistan and Iraq 

November 5, 2009—Skelton-McKeon Statement on Fort Hood 

Shooting 

November 6, 2009—Skelton Floor Speech on Resolution on Tragic 

Shooting at Fort Hood 

November 10, 2009—Skelton Statement on Fort Hood Investigation 

November 10, 2009—Skelton Praises Nomination of Erin 

Conaton as Under Secretary of the Air Force 

November 17, 2009—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Third Hearing on U.S. Strategy Options for Afghanistan and 

Iraq 

November 19, 2009—Langevin-Turner Statement on JASON Report 

November 20, 2009—Skelton Concerned About Decision to Prosecute Detainees in Federal Criminal Court 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
167 

November 20, 2009—Skelton Praises Nomination of Paul 

Oostburg Sanz as General Counsel of the Navy 

November 20, 2009—Skelton Welcomes Congressman Bill Owens 

to House Armed Services Committee 

November 28, 2009—Skelton and McKeon Commend Medical 

Professionals at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center 

November 28, 2009—Skelton, McKeon Pay Tribute to World War 

II Veterans at American Cemetery in Luxembourg 

December 8, 2009—Skelton Discusses Afghanistan with Top General and Diplomat 

December 14, 2009—Skelton Appoints Members to Independent 

Panel to Assess the Quadrennial Defense Review 

December 16, 2009—Skelton on Oversight Plans Regarding Fort 

Hood Shooting Investigations 

December 31, 2009—Skelton Letter to Obama Regarding Dec. 

25th Attempted Terrorist Attack 

SECOND SESSION

January 14, 2010—Skelton Statement on President’s FY 2011 

Defense Budget 

January 15, 2010—Skelton on DOD’s Independent Review Relating to Fort Hood 

January 21, 2010—HASC Democrats Elect New Subcommittee 

Chairs 

January 22, 2010—Skelton Praises Navy-USDA Cooperation on 

Renewable Energy 

February 1, 2010—Skelton Statement on President’s FY 2011 

Budget 

February 8, 2010—Skelton: Murtha a ‘‘First Class Marine and 

Member of Congress’’ 

February 16, 2010—Skelton Encouraged by Recent Events in Afghanistan and Pakistan 

February 18, 2010—Skelton Statement on Reports of Additional 

Taliban Captures 

February 23, 2010—Skelton Praises U.S. Armed Forces on Haiti 

Earthquake Relief Effort 

February 24, 2010—Skelton Statement on New KC-X Tanker Request for Proposal 

February 25, 2010—Skelton Statement on Joint Strike Fighter/ 

F–35 Competitive Engine 

March 4, 2010—Skelton Calls for Review of Military Medical Officers’ Records 

March 5, 2010—Skelton Announces Committee Staff Appointments 

March 9, 2010—Skelton Statement on KC-X Tanker Program 

March 10, 2010—Skelton Statement on Earmark Changes 

March 18, 2010—Skelton Statement on Anniversary of Iraq Invasion 

March 18, 2010—Skelton to Introduce Legislation to Protect 

TRICARE 

March 20, 2010—Video of Skelton’s Floor Speech on TRICARE 

Affirmation Act 

March 20, 2010—Skelton Introduces Legislation to Protect 

TRICARE 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
168 

March 20, 2010—House Approves Legislation to Protect 

TRICARE 

March 23, 2010—Defense Acquisition Reform Panel Approves 

Final Report 

March 23, 2010— Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Hearing on Interagency Coordination of U.S. Contracts and 

Grants in Iraq and Afghanistan 

March 26, 2010—Skelton Statement on New START Treaty 

April 5, 2010—Skelton on Recent Remarks by Afghan President 

Karzai 

April 6, 2010—Skelton-Langevin Statement on Nuclear Posture 

Review 

April 8, 2010—Skelton-Langevin Statement on Signing of the 

New START Treaty 

April 12, 2010—Skelton Statement on the Nuclear Security 

Statement 

April 13, 2010—Skelton Praises Senate Passage of TRICARE Affirmation Act 

April 14, 2010—Skelton, McKeon, Andrews, Conaway Introduce 

Bill to Overhaul DOD Acquisition 

April 19, 2010—Skelton: Al Qaeda Capture Signals Continued 

Progress 

April 19, 2010—Skelton on Military Power of Iran Report 

April 20, 2010—Skelton: Export Control Reform Will ‘‘Better Protect Americans’’ 

April 21, 2010—HASC Approves DOD Acquisition Reform Bill 

April 26, 2010—Skelton’s TRICARE Affirmation Act Signed into 

Law 

April 27, 2010—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Hearing on Simplifying the $10B Defense Travel System 

April 28, 2010—Skelton Floor Statement on H.R. 5013, the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 

April 28, 2010—House Approves Legislation to Overhaul Defense 

Acquisition Spending 

May 3, 2010—Langevin Applauds Transparency, Leadership with 

Nuclear Weapons Program 

May 5, 2010—Skelton Applauds Success in Afghanistan Under 

Obama 

May 6, 2010—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Releases First Comprehensive Congressional Review of Professional 

Military Education System in 20 Years 

May 6, 2010—Skelton Praises Success in Combating Terrorism 

May 7, 2010—Skelton Welcomes New Democratic Members to 

House Armed Services Committee 

May 19, 2010—Armed Services Committee Democrats Block Irresponsible Republican Legislation; Forbes Amendment to NDAA 

Would Have Jeopardized National Security 

May 19, 2010—House Armed Services Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Authorization Bill 

May 20, 2010—Skelton on the Sinking of the Republic of Korea 

Navy Ship 

May 25, 2010—Skelton on the FY11 Defense Authorization and 

‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
169 

May 25, 2010—Skelton-McKeon Resolution Honors Armed Forces 

and Veterans 

May 26, 2010—Skelton Welcomes Congressman Mark Critz to 

House Armed Services Committee 

May 27, 2010—Skelton Remarks on H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 

May 28, 2010—Skelton Pleased by Progress on U.S.-Japan Security Issues 

May 28, 2010—Skelton Praises Bill Providing Relief for Disabled 

Military Retirees 

May 28, 2010—House Approves FY11 Defense Authorization Bill 

June 9, 2010—Agency Stovepipes Leading to National Security 

Vulnerabilities: Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Holds 

Hearing on Interagency National Security Reform 

June 10, 2010—Skelton Says Committee Will Investigate Problems at Arlington National Cemetery 

June 17, 2010—Skelton Announces June 30 Hearing on Arlington National Cemetery 

June 21, 2010—Langevin and Turner Call for Improved Accounting of Total Nuclear Weapons Complex Costs 

June 22, 2010—Skelton Statement on General McChrystal Profile 

June 23, 2010—Skelton Statement on President’s Decision to 

Change Commanders in Afghanistan 

June 24, 2010—Skelton Supports Iran Sanctions Act Conference 

Report 

June 29, 2010—Skelton on SIGAR Report Identifying Flaws in 

Assessing Capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces 

June 29, 2010—Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Holds Hearing on Building Foreign Language and Cultural Skills 

in Our Military: Improving but Still Work To Do 

July 1, 2010—Skelton Calls for Vote to Support Troops in Afghanistan and Iraq 

July 21, 2010—Skelton Honors WWII and Current Service Members 

July 26, 2010—Skelton Statement on WikiLeaks 

July 27, 2010—Skelton Statement on the Vote on the War Supplemental 

July 29, 2010—Skelton on Army Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, and Suicide Prevention Report 

July 31, 2010—Skelton Delivers Keynote Address at USS Missouri Commissioning Ceremony 

August 9, 2010—Skelton Statement on Gates Announcement to 

Improve Efficiency of DOD 

August 16, 2010—Skelton Statement on Annual China Report 

August 20, 2010—Skelton Statement on Final Ft. Hood Review 

August 31, 2010—Skelton Salutes U.S. Troops As Combat Forces 

Leave Iraq 

September 3, 2010—Langevin and Turner Thank General Kevin 

P. Chilton for his Lifetime of Public Service and Leadership 

September 8, 2010—Skelton and Colleagues Applaud DOD Intent to Sign David’s Sling Weapon System Project Agreement 

September 9, 2010—Skelton Statement on ROK Sanctions 

Against Iran 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS
170 

September 10, 2010—Skelton Statement on 9/11 Anniversary 

September 14, 2010—Skelton Urges Colleagues to Pass $600 Million in Taxpayer Savings 

September 15, 2010—Andrews and Conaway Praise DOD’s Plans 

for Acquisition Reform, Call on Senate to Pass IMPROVE Acquisition Act 

September 22, 2010—A Quality Education for All: Oversight and 

Investigations Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Military’s Efforts to 

Oversee Distance Learning and For-Profit Colleges 

September 30, 2010—Fighting Superbugs: Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Holds hearing on Military’s Efforts to Prevent Outbreaks of Multidrug-Resistant Infections in Military Hospitals 

September 30, 2010—Skelton, Davis Introduce Groundbreaking 

Interagency Reform Legislation 

October 8, 2010—Skelton on National Security Advisor General 

James L. Jones 

October 29, 2010—Skelton Offers Tribute to Heightened Vigilance of National Security Community 

November 23, 2010—Skelton on North Korean Shelling of South 

Korean Island 

December 1, 2010—Skelton Delivers Farewell Speech to Colleagues 

December 15, 2010—Skelton Reintroduces Defense Authorization 

Bill 

December 16, 2010—Skelton Statement on NSC Af/Pak Review 

December 17, 2010—Skelton Congratulates Congressman Adam 

Smith, new HASC Ranking Member 

December 17, 2010—House Approves FY11 National Defense Authorization Act 

December 22, 2010—Skelton Praises House-Senate Approval of 

FY11 Defense Authorization 

December 22, 2010—Langevin Applauds Senate Adoption of New 

START Treaty 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK3CLS3C1PROD with REPORTS