U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

39–006 2005

Union Calendar No. 492 

108th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – – – House Report 108–807 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

FOR THE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 

the State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


E:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

KEN CALVERT, California 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

ED SCHROCK, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana1

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

CHARLES W. STENHOLM, Texas 2

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director 

ALEXIS R. LASSELLE, Legislative Operations Clerk 

1Mr. Alexander left the committee on August 9, 2004. 

2Mr. Stenholm was assigned to the committee on Sept. 8, 2004. 

(III) 

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, January 3, 2005. 

Hon. JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. TRANDAHL: Pursuant to House Rule XI 1(d), there is 

transmitted herewith the report of activities of the Committee on 

Armed Services for the 108th Congress. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Powers and Duties, Committee on Armed Services—108th Congress ................ 1 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Composition of the Committee on Armed Services—108th Congress ................. 13 

Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services—108th Congress ............. 14 

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

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

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee .......... 16 

Total Force Subcommittee ............................................................................... 17 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee ....................................................................... 17 

Projection Forces Subcommittee ...................................................................... 18 

Committee Staff ....................................................................................................... 19 

Committee Meetings ................................................................................................ 21 

Legislative Actions ................................................................................................... 21 

Legislation Enacted Into Law ......................................................................... 21 

Public Law 108–13 (H.R. 672) .................................................................. 21 

Public Law 108–121 (H.R. 3365) .............................................................. 21 

Public Law 108–136 (H.R. 1588) .............................................................. 22 

Public Law 108–220 (S. 2057) .................................................................. 24 

Public Law 108–234 (H.R. 3104) .............................................................. 25 

Public Law 108–236 (S.J. Res. 28) ........................................................... 25 

Public Law 108–268 (H.R. 4322) .............................................................. 25 

Public Law 108–375 (H.R. 4200) .............................................................. 26 

Public Law 108–458 (S. 2845) .................................................................. 29 

Legislation Reported but Not Enacted ........................................................... 30 

H.R. 1950 ................................................................................................... 30 

H. Res. 364 ................................................................................................. 30 

H. Con. Res. 374 ........................................................................................ 31 

H.R. 3966 ................................................................................................... 31 

H.R. 4323 ................................................................................................... 31 

H. Res. 499 ................................................................................................. 32 

H. Res. 640 ................................................................................................. 32 

H. Res. 689 ................................................................................................. 33 

Oversight Activities ................................................................................................. 35 

Summary of Oversight Plan ............................................................................ 35 

Actions and Recommendations ........................................................................ 35 

Additional Oversight Activities ....................................................................... 46 

Other Activities of the Full Committee ................................................................. 49 

Budget Activity ................................................................................................. 49 

Full Committee Hearings ................................................................................ 50 

Other Activities of Subcommittees ......................................................................... 61 

Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee ................................................. 61 

Readiness Subcommittee ................................................................................. 61 

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee .......... 63 

Total Force Subcommittee ............................................................................... 64 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee ....................................................................... 64 

Projection Forces Subcommittee ...................................................................... 65 

Publications .............................................................................................................. 67 

Committee Prints of Laws Relating to National Defense ............................. 67 

Committee Prints ............................................................................................. 67 

Page

VI 

Publications —Continued 

Published Proceedings ...................................................................................... 67 

House Reports ................................................................................................... 71 

Public Laws ....................................................................................................... 74 

Press Releases .......................................................................................................... 77 

Union Calendar No. 492 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–807 

REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES FOR THE 108TH CONGRESS 

JANUARY 3, 2005.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

ON 

POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES—108TH CONGRESS 

BACKGROUND

The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee 

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

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

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

1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and naval appropriations 

was taken from the Committee on Appropriations and given to the 

Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs, respectively. 

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

all appropriations was again placed in the Committee on Appropriations. 

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

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

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

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

the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially unchanged. 

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

programs, and government activities dealing with or involving 

international arms control and disarmament and the education of 

military dependents in school. 

2 

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; 

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

subjects within the jurisdiction of any standing committee shall be 

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

follows: 

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

Force reservations and establishments. 

(2) Common defense generally. 

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

and oil shale reserves. 

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

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

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

(7) Military applications of nuclear energy. 

(8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related activities of 

the Department of the Defense. 

(9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including 

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

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

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

privileges of members of the armed forces. 

(11) Scientific research and development in support of the 

armed services. 

(12) Selective service. 

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

and Air Force. 

(14) Soldiers’ and sailors’ homes. 

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

In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general oversight 

function, the Committee on Armed Services has special oversight 

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

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 

4 

committee to investigate matters within its jurisdiction. That 

amendment established a permanent investigative authority and 

relieved the committee of the former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative authority by a House resolution at the 

beginning of each Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the 

Rules of the House of Representatives by requiring, as previously 

indicated, that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on Armed 

Services. 

H. Res. 148, approved by the House on May 8, 2003, provided 

funds for, among other things, committee oversight responsibilities 

to be conducted in the 108th Congress, pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) 

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

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

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

investigations and studies). 

COMMITTEE RULES

The Committee held its organizational meeting on February 5, 

2003, and adopted the following rules governing procedure and 

rules for investigative hearings conducted by subcommittees. 

(H.A.S.C. No. 108–1) 

RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE

RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES

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

Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in these 

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

RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

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

at such other times as may be fixed by the chairman of the Committee (hereinafter referred to in these rules as the ‘‘Chairman’’), 

or by written request of members of the Committee pursuant to 

clause 2(c) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

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

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

RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES

Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive 

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

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

meeting dates after consultation with the Chairman, the other subcommittee chairmen, and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of 

committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings wherever possible. 

5 

RULE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES

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

Separate Orders, of H. Res. 5 as adopted by the House of Representatives on January 7, 2003, the Committee shall be organized 

to consist of six standing subcommittees with the following jurisdictions: 

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

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

addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all Navy and 

Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army and 

Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs. 

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

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

terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee 

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

Subcommittee on Total Force: Military personnel policy, reserve 

component integration and employment issues, military health 

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

issues and programs. 

Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except deep 

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

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

systems, and strategic lift programs. 

RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS

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

more than one subcommittee and to report to the Committee. 

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

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

six months, be reappointed by the Chairman. 

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

RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

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

appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee. 

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

when called by the Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee, 

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

6 

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

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

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

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

considered by the Committee until after the intervention of three 

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

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

Committee. 

RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

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

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

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

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

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

the Committee, subcommittee or panel so determines by majority 

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

chairman shall make the announcement at the earliest possible 

date. Any announcement made under this rule shall be promptly 

published in the Daily Digest, promptly entered into the committee 

scheduling service of the House Information Resources, and 

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

RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

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

shall apply to the Committee. 

RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

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

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

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

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

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

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

any law or rule of the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding 

the requirements of the preceding sentence, a majority of those 

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

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

meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether testimony or 

evidence to be received would endanger the national security, 

would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or would 

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

7 

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

Whenever it is asserted by a member of the committee that the 

evidence or testimony at a hearing may tend to defame, degrade, 

or incriminate any person, or it is asserted by a witness that the 

evidence or testimony that the witness would give at a hearing 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or meeting for the sole purpose of discussing whether evidence or 

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

receive such testimony in open session only if the Committee or 

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

any person. 

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

Chairman, each member of the Committee may designate by letter 

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

Top Secret security clearance to attend hearings of the Committee, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Representatives shall by majority vote authorize the Committee or 

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

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

for closing hearings to the public. 

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

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

consecutive days of hearings. 

RULE 10. QUORUM

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

members shall constitute a quorum. 

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

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

8 

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

(1) Reporting a measure or recommendation; 

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

(3) Authorizing the issuance of subpoenas; 

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

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

discuss whether evidence or testimony to be received would 

tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person. 

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

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

RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE

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

subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration shall 

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

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

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

exceed five minutes to address the Committee or subcommittee on 

behalf of an amendment which the member has offered to any 

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

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

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

in order of seniority. Those members arriving subsequently shall be 

recognized in order of their arrival. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 

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

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

as not to disadvantage the members of either party. 

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

RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

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

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

the Committee and any subcommittee are authorized (subject to 

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

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

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

adjourned, and to hold hearings, and 

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

testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 

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

as it considers necessary. 

9 

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

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

Committee or subcommittee being present. Authorized subpoenas 

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

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

of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued by the 

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

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

RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS

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

Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the Committee 

or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of presentation and 

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

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

security information bearing a classification of secret or higher, the 

statement shall be made available in the Committee rooms to all 

members of the Committee or subcommittee at least 24 hours in 

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

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

(b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each 

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

testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such appearance to 

a brief summary of his or her argument. 

RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES

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

may administer oaths to any witness. 

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

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

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

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

RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES

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

members of the Committee or subcommittee may put questions to 

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

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

shall have not to exceed five minutes to interrogate each witness 

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

opportunity to interrogate each witness or panel of witnesses; 

thereafter, additional rounds for questioning witnesses by members 

10 

are discretionary with the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as 

appropriate. 

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

before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration. 

RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS

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

Committee or a subcommittee that are decided by the Chairman to 

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

material requested for the record inserted at that place requested, 

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

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

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

place where the change is requested will be footnoted. 

RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS

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

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

of those members present. 

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

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

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

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

RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS

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

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

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

days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays except 

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

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

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

or matter. 

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

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

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

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

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

or matter. 

RULE 19. POINTS OF ORDER

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

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

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

order on that ground may be made by any member of the ComVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.005 HR807
11 

mittee or subcommittee which reported the measure if, in the Committee or subcommittee, such point of order was (a) timely made 

and (b) improperly overruled or not properly considered. 

RULE 20. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

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

shall be made available by the Committee for inspection by the 

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

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

of each member voting for and each member voting against such 

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

members present but not voting. 

RULE 21. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

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

the House of Representatives, all national security information 

bearing a classification of secret or higher which has been received 

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

received in executive session and shall be given appropriate safekeeping. 

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

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

judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure 

of any national security information received classified as secret or 

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

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

RULE 22. COMMITTEE STAFFING

The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, and 

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

of the House of Representatives. 

RULE 23. COMMITTEE RECORDS

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and 

Records Administration shall be made available for public use in 

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

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

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

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

RULE 24. HEARING PROCEDURES

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

(13) 

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES—

108TH CONGRESS 

Pursuant to H. Res. 24, election of the Chairman (adopted January 8, 2003), H. Res. 33, election of majority members (adopted 

January 28, 2003), and election of minority members H. Res. 22 

election of the Ranking Member (adopted January 8, 2003), H. Res. 

35 (adopted January 38, 2003), and H. Res. 52 (adopted February 

5, 2003), the following members served on the Committee on 

Armed Services in the 108th Congress. 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania, Vice 

Chairman 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

KEN CALVERT, California 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

ED SCHROCK, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Ranking Member 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 1

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

CHARLES W. STENHOLM,2 Texas 

1Mr. Alexander left the committee on August 9, 2004. 

2Mr. Stenholm was assigned to the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee on September 

15, 2004. 

14 

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 108TH CONGRESS 

The following subcommittees were established at the committee’s 

organizational meeting on February 5, 2003. 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—All Army and Air 

Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and lift programs, special operations and information and technology accounts). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for all 

Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and 

Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition programs. 

Mr. WELDON, Chairman 

Mr. GIBBONS 

Mr. AKIN 

Mr. BRADLEY 

Mr. TURNER (OH) 

Dr. GINGREY, Vice Chairman 

Mr. EVERETT 

Mr. MCKEON 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. RYUN (KS) 

Mr. SIMMONS 

Mr. SCHROCK 

Mr. FORBES 

Mr. HEFLEY 

Mr. WILSON (SC) 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member 

Mr. SKELTON 

Mr. SPRATT 

Mr. ORTIZ 

Mr. EVANS 

Mr. TURNER (TX) 

Mr. SMITH 

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Mr. BRADY 

Mr. LARSON (CT) 

Mr. ISRAEL 

Mr. COOPER 

Mr. MEEK 

Mr. ALEXANDER 1

Mr. STENHOLM 2

1Mr. Alexander left the committee on August 9, 2004. 

2Mr. Stenholm was assigned to the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcomittee on September 

15, 2004. 

15 

READINESS

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Military readiness, 

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

Mr. HEFLEY, Chairman 

Mr. MCKEON 

Mr. HOSTETTLER 

Mr. JONES 

Mr. RYUN (KS) 

Mr. HAYES 

Mrs. WILSON (NM) 

Mr. CALVERT 

Mr. FORBES 

Mr. MILLER (FL) 

Mr. COLE 

Mr. BISHOP 

Mrs. MILLER (MI) 

Mr. ROGERS, Vice Chairman 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mr. MCHUGH 

Mr. ORTIZ, Ranking Member 

Mr. EVANS 

Mr. TAYLOR 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE 

Mr. REYES 

Dr. SNYDER 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ 

Mr. BRADY 

Mr. HILL 

Mr. LARSON (CT) 

Ms. S. DAVIS (CA) 

Mr. LARSEN (WA) 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Ms. BORDALLO 

16 

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, the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, information technology and programs, force protection policy and oversight and related intelligence support. 

Mr. SAXTON, Chairman 

Mr. WILSON (SC) 

Mr. LOBIONDO 

Mr. KLINE 

Mr. MILLER (FL) 

Mr. BARTLETT 

Mr. THORNBERRY 

Mr. GIBBONS 

Mr. HAYES, Vice Chairman 

Mrs. J. DAVIS (VA) 

Mr. AKIN 

Mr. HEFLEY 

Mr. MEEHAN, Ranking Member 

Mr. TURNER (TX) 

Mr. SMITH 

Mr. MCINTYRE 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ 

Mr. HILL 

Ms. S. DAVIS (CA) 

Mr. LANGEVIN 

Mr. LARSEN (WA) 

Mr. COOPER 

17 

TOTAL FORCE

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Military personnel 

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

Recreation issues and programs. 

Mr. MCHUGH, Chairman 

Mr. COLE, Vice Chairman 

Mrs. MILLER (MI) 

Dr. GINGREY 

Mr. SAXTON 

Mr. RYUN (KS) 

Mr. SCHROCK 

Mr. HAYES 

Dr. SNYDER, Ranking Member 

Mr. MEEHAN 

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. COOPER 

Ms. BORDALLO 

STRATEGIC FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Strategic Forces (except deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense 

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

Mr. EVERETT, Chairman 

Mr. THORNBERRY 

Mr. WELDON 

Mrs. WILSON (NM), Vice Chairman 

Mr. BISHOP 

Mr. TURNER (OH) 

Mr. ROGERS 

Mr. FRANKS 

Mr. REYES, Ranking Member 

Mr. SPRATT 

Ms. SANCHEZ 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. MEEK 

Mr. RYAN (OH) 

18 

PROJECTION FORCES

Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4—Navy and Marine 

Corps programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations and information technology programs), deep strike bombers 

and related systems and strategic lift programs. 

Mr. BARTLETT, Chairman 

Mr. SIMMONS, Vice Chairman 

Mrs. J. DAVIS (VA) 

Mr. SCHROCK 

Mr. SAXTON 

Mr. HOSTETTLER 

Mr. CALVERT 

Mr. BRADLEY 

Mr. KLINE 

Mr. TAYLOR Ranking Member 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE 

Ms. TAUSCHER 

Mr. LANGEVIN 

Mr. ISRAEL 

Mr. MARSHALL 

Mr. ALEXANDER 1

Mr. STENHOLM 2

1Mr. Alexander left the committee on August 9, 2004. 

2Mr. Stenholm was assigned to the Projection Forces Subcommittee on September 15, 2004. 

(19) 

COMMITTEE STAFF 

By committee resolution adopted at the organizational meeting 

on February 5, 2003, or by authority of the Chairman, the following 

persons were appointed to the staff of the committee during the 

108th Congress: 

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director 

CARL D. COMMENATOR, Deputy Staff Director/Counsel (resigned May 4, 2003) 

HUGH N. JOHNSTON, JR., Deputy Staff Director 

RITA D. THOMPSON, Professional Staff Member 

BRENDA J. WRIGHT, Professional Staff Member 

FRANK A. BARNES, Staff Assistant 

BETTY B. GRAY, Staff Assistant 

ERNEST B. WARRINGTON, JR., Staff Assistant 

DIANE W. BOWMAN, Staff Assistant 

MICHAEL R. HIGGINS, Professional Staff Member 

JEAN D. REED, Professional Staff Member 

DUDLEY L. TADEMY, Professional Staff Member (resigned February 29, 2004) 

JOHN D. CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

STEPHEN P. ANSLEY, Professional Staff Member (resigned March 2, 2003) 

ROGER M. SMITH, Professional Staff Member (resigned June 28, 2003) 

B. RYAN VAART, Professional Staff Member 

ROBERT W. LAUTRUP, 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 

JOHN J. POLLARD III, Counsel (resigned August 30, 2003) 

JAMES M. LARIVIERE, Professional Staff Member (resigned November 14, 2003) 

JESSE D. TOLLESON, JR., Research Assistant 

MARY ELLEN FRASER, Counsel 

DEBRA S. WADA, Professional Staff Member 

HENRY J. SCHWEITER, Counsel 

J. J. GERTLER, Professional Staff Member (resigned December 5, 2004) 

DANIEL T. HILTON, Staff Assistant (resigned February 17, 2004) 

LAURA R. HAAS, Executive Assistant (resigned November 24, 2003) 

CHRISTOPHER A. KIM, Staff Assistant (resigned March 20, 2003) 

KATHERINE K. GORDON, Staff Assistant (resigned February 20, 2004) 

HARRY E. CARTLAND, Professional Staff Member (resigned June 30, 2004) 

ERIN C. CONATON, Professional Staff Member 

MEGHAN L. WEDD, Deputy Press Secretary (resigned June 13, 2003) 

DOUGLAS C. ROACH, Professional Staff Member 

VIRGINIA H. JOHNSON, Counsel (resigned October 24, 2004) 

ALEXIS R. LASSELLE, Analyst 

DANLEIGH S. KAPLAN, Staff Assistant 

ANGELA M. SOWA, Staff Assistant (resigned May 19, 2004) 

JUSTIN P. BERNIER, Research Assistant 

RICHARD I. STARK, JR., Professional Staff Member (resigned April 2, 2004) 

DAVID B. HEATON, Staff Assistant (resigned June 13, 2003) 

LORI SHAFFER, Staff Assistant (resigned January 16, 2004) 

LINDA M. BURNETTE, Printing Clerk 

CURTIS B. FLOOD, Staff Assistant 

MARY E. PETRELLA, Communications Coordinator (resigned December 5, 2004) 

HUGH P. BRADY, Professional Staff Member 

HARALD O. STAVENAS, Communications Director 

JOSEPH V. FENGLER, Professional Staff Member (appointed February 24, 2003) 

WILLIAM R. MARCK, JR., Professional Staff Member (appointed February 26, 2003) 

20 

KENNETH A. STEADMAN, Professional Staff Member (appointed March 3, 2003; resigned 

September 30, 2003) 

ERIC J. MASSA, Professional Staff Member (appointed March 5, 2003; resigned November 1, 

2003) 

PRESTON J. JOHNSON, Staff Assistant (appointed March 17, 2003; resigned July 2, 2004) 

UYEN T. DINH, Counsel (appointed March 24, 2003) 

ERIC R. STERNER, Professional Staff Member (appointed April 7, 2003) 

ELIZABETH L. MCALPINE, Staff Assistant (appointed April 14, 2003; resigned August 25, 2004) 

LYNN W. HENSELMAN, Professional Staff Member (appointed April 21, 2003; resigned June 

4, 2004) 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS, Professional Staff Member (appointed May 19, 2003) 

W. HOLLY NEAL, Executive Assistant (appointed June 2, 2003) 

RONALD S. PHILLIPS, Professional Staff Member (appointed July 1, 2003; resigned December 

22, 2004) 

WILLIAM C. OSTENDORFF, Counsel (appointed August 25, 2003) 

CLAIRE E. DUNNE, Staff Assistant (appointed October 14, 2003) 

JAMES WILLIAM GODWIN, JR., Professional Staff Member (appointed October 27, 2003) 

LINDSAY D. YOUNG, Staff Assistant (appointed December 8, 2003) 

JENNIFER E. GIGLIO, Staff Assistant (appointed January 14, 2004) 

MARK R. LEWIS, Professional Staff Member (appointed February 9, 2004) 

KATHERINE A. CROFT, Staff Assistant (appointed March 1, 2004) 

E. HAYES ARENDALL, Staff Assistant (appointed March 1, 2004) 

LOREN L. DEALY, Communications Assistant (appointed March 29, 2004) 

JOSHUA T. HARTMAN, Professional Staff Member (appointed April 5, 2004) 

HEATHER L. MESSERA, Staff Assistant (appointed July 6, 2004) 

PAUL ARCANGELI, Professional Staff Member (appointed August 1, 2004) 

CARRIE M. SLOAN, Press Secretary (appointed August 9, 2004) 

JEFFERY A. GREEN, Counsel (appointed September 1, 2004) 

JEANETTE S. JAMES, Professional Staff Member (appointed September 7, 2004) 

CHANDLER T. LOCKHART, Staff Assistant (appointed September 24, 2004) 

(21) 

COMMITTEE MEETINGS 

A total of 219 meetings were held by the Committee on Armed 

Services and its subcommittees during the 108th Congress. The 

committee held one joint hearing. A breakdown of the meetings follows: 

Full Committee ...................................................................................................... 115 

Subcommittees: 

Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee ............................................... 13 

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

Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee ........ 30 

Total Force Subcommittee ............................................................................. 18 

Strategic Forces Subcommittee ..................................................................... 15 

Projection Forces Subcommittee .................................................................... 10 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS

LEGISLATION ENACTED INTO LAW

PUBLIC LAW 108–13 (H.R. 672)

To rename the Guam South Elementary/Middle School of the Department of Defense Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary Schools System in honor 

of Navy Commander William ‘‘Willie’’ McCool, who was the pilot of the Space 

Shuttle Columbia when it was tragically lost on February 1, 2003 

Public Law 108–13 designates the Guam South Elementary/Middle School of the Department of Defense Domestic Dependents Elementary and Secondary Schools System in Apra Heights, Guam, as 

the ‘‘Commander William C. McCool Elementary/Middle School.’’

This designation is made in honor of William C. McCool, who was 

a commander in the U.S. Navy and pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia when it was tragically lost on February 1, 2003. H.R. 672 

was introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

on February 11, 2003. On February 26, 2003, the bill passed the 

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

the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on April 7, 

2003. The measure was signed by the President and became law 

on April 22, 2003. 

PUBLIC LAW 108–121 (H.R. 3365)

To amend title 10, United States Code, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

increase the death gratuity payable with respect to deceased members of the 

Armed Forces and to exclude such gratuity from gross income, to provide additional tax relief for members of the Armed Forces and their families, and for other 

purposes 

Public Law 108–121, the Military Family Tax Relief Act of 2003, 

provides various types of tax relief to members of the Armed 

Forces. Additionally, the Act suspends the tax-exempt status of organizations involved in terrorist activities, offers tax relief to astronauts who die in the line of duty, and extends the authorization 

for certain customs user fees. On October 21, 2003, H.R. 3365 was 

22 

introduced and referred to the Committees on Ways and Means 

and Armed Services. The measure was considered under suspension of the rules and passed the House on October 29, 2003. On November 3, 2003, the Senate passed the measure with amendment, 

and it was signed by the President and became law on November 

11, 2003. 

PUBLIC LAW 108–136 (H.R. 1588)

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 

Armed Forces, and for other purposes 

Public Law 108–136, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004, authorizes funds totaling $397,499,259,000 for 

national defense functions for fiscal year 2004 and provides a budget authority level of $401,297,477,000. 

Division A 

Division A of Public Law 108–136 authorizes funds for fiscal year 

2004 for the Department of Defense. Subtitle A of title I authorizes $74,203,511,000 for procurement 

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

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

the Stryker combat vehicle program; multiyear procurement authority for the F/A 18 aircraft, the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile, the Virginia-class submarine, the E–2C aircraft, and the Phalanx Close-in Weapons System; and limitations on funds for the F/ 

A 22 aircraft. 

Subtitle A of title II authorizes $63,384,721,000 for research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research and development-related matters. 

Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program requirements, 

restrictions, and limitations on six separate research and development-related matters, including the Army’s Future Combat Systems, the Navy’s Fleet Platform Architectures, and limitations on 

the development of the Joint Tactical Radio System. 

Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile defense programs and miscellaneous other matters, including the Department 

of Defense program to expand bandwidth capabilities for networkcentric operations. 

Subtitle A of title III authorizes $114,353,337,000 for operation 

and maintenance, $17,911,590,000 for other programs, and 

$2,849,548,000 for working capital funds for the armed forces and 

defense agencies. 

Subtitle B through D of title III addresses environmental provisions, workplace and depot issues, as well as other miscellaneous 

matters. 

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2004 and authorizes appropriaVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.014 HR807
23 

tions of $98,908,400,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 2004. 

The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 2004 are 

as follows: 

Army, 482,400 

Navy, 373,800 

Marine Corps, 175,000 

Air Force, 359,300 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2004 are as 

follows: 

Army National Guard, 350,000 

Army Reserve, 205,000 

Naval Reserve, 85,900 

Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600 

Air National Guard, 107,030 

Air Force Reserve, 75,800 

Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000 

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

reserve components for fiscal year 2004 are as follows: 

Army National Guard, 25,599 

Army Reserve, 14,374 

Naval Reserve, 14,384 

Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261 

Air National Guard, 12,191 

Air Force Reserve, 1,660 

Title V sets military personnel policy, including provisions that 

address officer personnel policy; the reserve components; ROTC 

and military service academies; education and training; administrative matters; military justice matters; benefits; domestic violence; and other matters. 

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

pays; travel and transportation allowances; retiree and survivor 

benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund instrumentality 

benefits; and other matters. 

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

Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including United States defense industrial 

base matters, and defense acquisition workforce matters. 

Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and management provisions, including duties and functions of officers; space 

activities; reports; and other related matters. 

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; reports; extension of expiring authorities; and other matters. 

Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel matters, including the National Security Personnel System, and other 

federal government civilian personnel matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to other nations, including 

matters relating to Iraq; matters relating to export protections; administrative requirements and authorities; and related reports. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with states of 

the Former Soviet Union. 

24 

Title XIV, also referred to as the ‘‘Services Acquisition Reform 

Act,’’ addresses federal government contracting for services. 

Title XV establishes the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission. 

Title XVI addresses defense biomedical countermeasures. 

Division B 

Division B of Public Law 108–136 authorizes appropriations in 

the amount of $9,685,700,000 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 

2004. In addition, Division B contains military construction and 

family housing program changes; increased authority for emergency construction and one-year authority for the use of operations 

and maintenance funds for contingency construction; expanded 

leasing authorities for facilities in Korea; and land conveyance authorizations. 

Division C 

Division C of Public Law 108–136 authorizes appropriations in 

the amount of $16,698,752,000 for Department of Energy national 

security programs for fiscal year 2004. Division C also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 

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

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 1588, as 

amended, to the House on May 16, 2003. The measure passed the 

House, as amended, on May 22, 2003. The Senate passed by voice 

vote H.R. 1588, as amended, on June 4, 2003, subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the 

provisions of a similar measure, S. 1050. The conference report was 

agreed to in the House on November 7, 2003, and in the Senate on 

November 12, 2003. H.R. 1588 was signed by the President and became law on November 24, 2003. 

(H. Rept. 108–106; H. Rept. 108–106, Part II; S. Rept. 108–46; 

H. Rept. 108–354; H.A.S.C. 107–2; H.A.S.C. 107–3; H.A.S.C. 107–

4; H.A.S.C. 107–5; H.A.S.C. 107–6; H.A.S.C. 107–7; H.A.S.C. 107–

8) 

PUBLIC LAW 108–220 (S. 2057)

To require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of the United States 

Armed Forces for certain transportation expenses incurred by the members in 

connection with leave under the Central Command Rest and Recuperation Leave 

Program before the program was expanded to include domestic travel 

Public Law 108–220 directs the Secretary of Defense to reimburse a member of the armed forces for transportation expenses incurred in connection with the Rest and Recuperation Leave Program. It provides retroactive payments to service members for the 

period beginning on September 25, 2003, and ending on December 

18, 2003. S. 2057 was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services on February 9, 2004. On March 3, 2004, 

the bill was discharged by the Senate Committee on Armed Services, passed by the Senate without amendment by unanimous conVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.014 HR807
25 

sent, and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. On 

March 17, 2004, the committee held a markup session to consider 

S. 2057. The committee ordered the bill to be reported by a voice 

vote. The measure was considered under suspension of the rules 

and passed by the House on March 30, 2004. The President signed 

the bill into law on April 22, 2004. 

PUBLIC LAW 108–234 (H.R. 3104)

To provide for the establishment of separate campaign medals to be awarded to 

members of the uniformed services who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom and to members of the uniformed services who participate in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom 

Public Law 108–234 establishes two distinct campaign medals to 

recognize specifically service by members of the armed forces in the 

two separate campaigns of the global war on terrorism: Operation 

Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. H.R. 3104 was 

introduced and referred to the House Committee on Armed Services on September 16, 2003. After being ordered reported by the 

committee by a voice vote, the measure was considered and passed 

under suspension of the rules on March 30, 2004. On May 18, 2004, 

the Senate passed the measure without amendment. It was signed 

by the President and became public law on May 20, 2004. 

PUBLIC LAW 108–236 (S.J. RES. 28)

Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy during World 

War II 

Public Law 108–220 recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy, and requests the President to issue a 

proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe 

the anniversary with appropriate ceremonies and programs to 

honor the sacrifices of their fellow countrymen who liberated Europe. The measure commends the American, British, and Canadian 

troops who conducted the most extensive amphibious military operation ever to occur, an act which helped to end Nazi tyranny in Europe and restore freedom and human dignity to millions of people. 

After passing the Senate by unanimous consent on April 1, 2004, 

S.J. Res. 28 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services on 

April 2, 2004. The joint resolution was considered under suspension 

of the rules on June 1, 2004, and passed the House on June 2, 

2004. On June 15, 2004, the President signed S.J. Res. 28 into law. 

PUBLIC LAW 108–268 (H.R. 4322)

To provide for the transfer of the Nebraska Avenue Naval Complex in the District 

of Columbia to facilitate the establishment of the headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security, to provide for the acquisition by the Department of 

the Navy of suitable replacement facilities, and for other purposes 

Public Law 108–268 requires the Secretary of the Navy to transfer the majority of the Nebraska Avenue Complex to the Administrator of General Services, in order to accommodate the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security. The bill requires 

the Department of Homeland Security to be responsible for the initial costs of relocation of Navy functions located at the complex, 

and expresses the Sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy 

should receive funds from other federal agencies to meet long-term 

26 

relocation costs. Finally, the bill includes authority for the Secretary of the Navy to reclaim and then sell the complex should 

costs incurred by the Navy to relocate from the complex exceed 

amounts received from the Department of Homeland Security and 

other agencies. 

H.R. 4322 was introduced and referred to the Committee on 

Armed Services on May 11, 2004, where it was considered and ordered reported by voice vote on May 13, 2004. The measure was 

considered and passed under suspension of the rules on May 14, 

2004. On June 21, 2004, the Senate passed the measure without 

amendment by unanimous consent, and the President signed it into 

law on July 2, 2004. 

PUBLIC LAW 108–375 (H.R. 4200)

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the 

Armed Forces, and for other purposes 

Public Law 108–375 authorizes funds totaling $418,841,315,000 

for national defense functions for fiscal year 2005 and provides a 

budget authority level of $420,610,620,000. 

Division A 

Division A of Public Law 108–375 authorizes funds for fiscal year 

2005 for the Department of Defense. 

Subtitle A of title I authorizes $74,182,957,000 for procurement 

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

Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of, or funds for specified programs for the armed forces, including: multiyear procurement authority for the Army and Marine Corps lightweight 155–

millimeter howitzer program; acceleration of the Navy DDG–51 

modernization program; the development of deployable systems to 

include consideration of force protection operating in asymmetric 

threat environments, and the requirement that those operational 

units that are deployed to, or preparing to deploy to, Operation 

Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, regardless of the 

status of those units as active, guard, or reserve component units, 

will receive priority for equipment allocation. 

Subtitle A of title II authorizes $66,497,758,000 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 seven separate research and development-related matters, such as restrictions on the Army’s Future 

Combat Systems program strategy. 

Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile defense programs and miscellaneous other matters. 

Subtitle A of title III authorizes $121,520,189,000 for operation 

and maintenance, $20,086,885,000 for other programs, and 

27 

$2,896,138,000 for working capital funds for the armed forces and 

defense agencies. 

Subtitle B through F of title III address environmental provisions, workplace and depot issues, information technology, as well 

as other miscellaneous matters. 

Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the active 

and reserve forces for fiscal year 2005 and authorizes appropriations of $106,542,982,000 for military personnel for fiscal year 

2005. The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 

2005 are as follows: 

Army, 502,400 

Navy, 365,900 

Marine Corps, 178,000 

Air Force, 359,700 

The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2005 are as 

follows: 

Army National Guard, 350,000 

Army Reserve, 205,000 

Naval Reserve, 83,400 

Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600 

Air National Guard, 106,800 

Air Force Reserve, 76,100 

Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000 

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

reserve components for fiscal year 2005 are as follows: 

Army National Guard, 26,602 

Army Reserve, 14,970 

Naval Reserve, 14,152 

Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261 

Air National Guard, 12,263 

Air Force Reserve, 1,900 

Title V sets military personnel policy, including provisions that 

address officer personnel policy; the reserve components; joint officer management and joint professional military education; military 

services academies; education and training; defense dependents 

education; medals, decorations, and special promotions and appointments; military voting; military justice matters; sexual assault 

in the armed forces; management and administrative matters; and 

other matters. 

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

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

Title VII contains military health care provisions, including enhanced benefits for reserves; other health care program improvements; health care planning, programming, and management; and 

Medical Readiness Tracking and Health Surveillance. 

Title VIII addressed acquisition policy, acquisition management 

and related matters, including United States defense industrial 

base matters. 

Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and management provisions, including duties and functions of Department 

28 

of Defense; space activities; intelligence-related matters; and other 

related matters. 

Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial matters; 

naval vessels and shipyards; counterdrug matters; matters relating 

to museums and commemorations; miscellaneous report requirements; defense against terrorism and other domestic security matters; personnel security matters; transportation-related matters; 

and other matters such as energy savings performance contracts 

and actions to prevent the abuse of detainees. 

Title XI addressed Department of Defense civilian personnel 

matters. 

Title XII concerns matters relating to other nations including 

matters relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism; counterproliferation matters; and other matters. 

Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with states of 

the Former Soviet Union. 

Title XIV addresses sunken military craft. 

Title XV authorizes $25,000,000,000 for increased costs due to 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, to include such things as vehicle and body armor; munitions; and improvised explosive device countermeasures equipment. 

Division B 

Division B of Public Law 108–375 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $9,930,100,000 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 

2005. In addition, Division B contains military construction and 

family housing program changes; increased oversight requirements 

for operations, maintenance, and repair of general and flag officer 

quarters; new requirements to ensure regular assessments of the 

vulnerability of military installations to terrorist attacks; repeal of 

statutory limitations on the Military Housing Privatization Initiative; continuation of the temporary authority for the use of operation and maintenance funds for contingency construction; several 

modifications to base realignment and closure authorities; and land 

conveyance authorizations. 

Division C 

Division C of Public Law 108–375 authorizes appropriations in 

the amount of $16,816,911,000 for Department of Energy national 

security programs for fiscal year 2005. Title XXXI pertaining to Department of Energy national security programs also includes program restrictions and limitations; proliferation matters; the Energy 

Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program; and other 

matters. Division C also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; National Defense 

Stockpile; Naval Petroleum Reserves; the Maritime Administration; 

and assistance to firefighters. 

The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 4200, as 

amended, to the House on May 14, 2004. The measure passed the 

House, as amended, on May 20, 2004. The Senate passed H.R. 

4200, as amended, on June 23, 2004, subsequent to striking all 

after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the proviVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.015 HR807
29 

sions of a similar measure, S. 2400. On October 9, 2004, the conference report was agreed to in both the House and the Senate, the 

latter by unanimous consent. H.R. 4200 was signed by the President and became law on October 28, 2004. 

(H. Rept. 108–491; H. Rept. 108–491, Part II; S. Rept. 108–260; 

H. Rept. 108–767; H.A.S.C. 108–21; H.A.S.C. 108–22; H.A.S.C. 

108–23; H.A.S.C. 108–24; H.A.S.C. 108–25; H.A.S.C. 108–26; 

H.A.S.C. 108–27) 

PUBLIC LAW 108–458 (S. 2845)

To reform the intelligence community and the intelligence and intelligence-related 

activities of the United States Government, and for other purposes 

Public Law 108–458, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, creates a Director of National Intelligence to 

lead the intelligence community, serve as the principal intelligence 

adviser to the President, and oversee and direct the implementation of the National Intelligence Program; establishes a National 

Counterterrorism Center to coordinate across departmental lines 

and serve as the primary executive branch organization for 

counterterrorism intelligence and strategic operational planning; 

addresses specific efforts designed to tighten border control and increase transportation security against terrorist activities. 

After being introduced in the Senate on September 23, 2004, and 

laid before the Senate by unanimous consent on September 27, 

2004, S. 2845 passed the Senate with amendments on October 6, 

2004. A House bill pertaining to the same subject matter, H.R. 10, 

was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), as well as the Committees on Armed 

Services, Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Government Reform, International Relations, the 

Judiciary, Rules, Science, Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways 

and Means, and Homeland Security (Select) on September 24, 

2004. On September 29, 2004, the Committee on Armed Services 

met to consider H.R. 10 and ordered the bill reported to the House 

with amendments. The measure passed the House on October 8, 

2004. The House passed S. 2845, as amended, on October 16, 2004, 

subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and inserting 

in lieu thereof the provisions of the similar measure, H.R. 10. Conferees filed a conference report on December 7, 2004, which was 

agreed to in the House and the Senate on December 7, 2004, and 

December 8, 2004, respectively. S. 2845 was presented to the President on December 15, 2004, and was signed into law on December 

17, 2004. 

(H. Rept. 108–724, Part II; H. Rept. 108–796; H.A.S.C. 108–36) 

30 

LEGISLATION REPORTED BUT NOT ENACTED 

H.R. 1950

To establish the Millennium Challenge Account to provide increased support for certain developing countries; to authorize the expansion of the Peace Corps; to authorize appropriations for the Department of State for fiscal years 2004 and 2005; 

and to authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 for security assistance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 

H.R. 1950, the Department of State Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Years 2004 and 2005, would have authorized activities of the Department of State in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy and national interests in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. As amended by the House 

Armed Services Committee, the bill would have preserved existing 

national security controls on communication satellite exports, and 

provided for limited transfer of the financial costs of the Department of State airlift requirements to the Department of Defense. 

H.R. 1950 was introduced and referred to the Committee on International Relations on May 5, 2003. On May 16, 2003, after being 

amended and reported by the Committee on International Relations, H.R. 1950 was referred jointly and sequentially to the Committees on Armed Services, Energy and Commerce, and the Judiciary. On June 26, 2003, the Committee on Armed Services ordered 

reported the measure, as amended, to the House. The measure 

passed the House on July 16, 2003. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 108–105, Part III) 

H. RES. 364

Resolution of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution 

the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom 

Strategic Lessons Learned’’ and documents in his possession on the reconstruction 

and security of post-war Iraq 

H. Res. 364 is a resolution of inquiry designed to request specific 

factual information from the President of the United States or the 

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

of Representatives provide for a committee to report on a qualifying 

resolution of inquiry, such as H. Res. 364, within 14 legislative 

days or a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. 

H. Res. 364 would have requested the President to transmit to the 

House of Representatives the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff entitled, ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons 

Learned,’’ and any other documents in his possession on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq. H. Res. 364 was referred 

to the Committees on Armed Services and International Relations 

on September 9, 2003. On September 30, 2003, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered the resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 108–289, Part II) 

31 

H. CON. RES. 374

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense, Federal banking 

agencies, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Trade Commission should work to mitigate the financial hardships experienced by members 

of the reserve component as a result of being called to active duty 

H. Con. Res. 374 would have expressed the sense of Congress 

that the Secretary of Defense, the Federal banking agencies, the 

National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Trade 

Commission should work to mitigate the financial hardships experienced by mobilized reserve members. This would have included 

issuing guidance to allow deferral of home loans by financial institutions. H. Con. Res. 374 was referred to the Committees on Armed 

Services and Financial Services on February 26, 2004. On March 

17, 2004, the committee held a markup session to consider the 

measure. The committee ordered the bill to be reported, as amended, by a voice vote. No further action was taken. 

H.R. 3966

To amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the ability of the Department 

of Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps units 

at institutions of higher education, to improve the ability of students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and to ensure that institutions of higher education provide military recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that 

is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer 

H.R. 3966, the ROTC and Military Recruiter Equal Access to 

Campus Act of 2004, would have improved the ability of the Department of Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) units at institutions of higher education, improved the ability of students to participate in Senior 

ROTC programs, and ensured that institutions of higher education 

provide military recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided 

to any other employer. H.R. 3966 was referred to the Committees 

on Armed Services and Education and Workforce on March 12, 

2004. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill to be reported, as amended, on March 17, 2004. The measure passed the 

House on March 30, 2004. The text of H.R. 3966, as modified, was 

incorporated into H.R. 4200, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

H.R. Rept. 108–443) 

H.R. 4323

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide rapid acquisition authority to the 

Secretary of Defense to respond to combat emergencies 

H.R. 4323 would have authorized the Secretary of Defense to 

rapidly acquire equipment needed by a combatant commander to 

eliminate a combat capability deficiency that has resulted in combat fatalities. Additionally, the measure would have required the 

Secretary to develop a process for such rapid acquisition authority 

and submit to Congress a detailed explanation of the process, including procedures to be followed in carrying out the process. H.R. 

4323 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services on May 11, 

2004. On May 12, 2004, the committee held a markup session to 

consider H.R. 4323 and ordered the bill reported by a voice vote. 

32 

The bill passed the House under suspension of the rules on June 

14, 2004. The text of H.R. 4323 was incorporated into H.R. 4200, 

the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

H. RES. 499

Resolution of inquiry requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State, 

the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of 

Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the President and those officials relating to 

the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame 

H. Res. 499 is a resolution of inquiry designed to request specific 

factual information from the President of the United States or the 

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

of Representatives provide for a committee to report on a qualifying 

resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. H. Res. 499 would have 

requested the President and directed the Secretary of State, the 

Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the 

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

the adoption of the resolution all documents including telephone 

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

and records of internal discussions in the possession of the President and those officials relating to the disclosure of the identity of 

Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency during the period beginning on May 6, 2003, and ending on July 

31, 2003. 

H. Res. 499 was introduced and referred to Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select), as well as the Committees on Armed 

Services, International Relations, and the Judiciary on January 21, 

2004. On February 25, 2004, the Committee on Armed Services ordered the resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No further 

action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 108–413, Part IV) 

H. RES. 640

Resolution of inquiry requesting that the Secretary of Defense transmit to the 

House of Representatives before the expiration of the 14–day period beginning on 

the date of the adoption of this resolution any picture, photograph, video, communication, or report produced in conjunction with any completed Department of Defense investigation conducted by Major General Antonio M. Taguba relating to allegations of torture or allegations of violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 

at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or any completed Department of Defense investigation relating to the abuse or alleged abuse of a prisoner of war or detainee by any 

civilian contractor working in Iraq who is employed on behalf of the Department 

of Defense 

H. Res. 640 is a resolution of inquiry designed to request specific 

factual information from the President of the United States or the 

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

of Representatives provide for a committee to report on a qualifying 

resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. H. Res. 640 would have 

requested the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 

Representatives within 14 days any picture, photograph, video, 

communication, or report produced in conjunction with the investigation conducted by Major General Antonio Taguba relating to alVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.016 HR807
33 

legations of violations of the Geneva Conventions at Abu Ghraib 

prison in Iraq or any completed investigation relating to the abuse 

of detainees by civilian contractors working in Iraq on behalf of the 

Department of Defense. H. Res. 640 was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services on May 12, 2004. On June 14, 2004, the Committee on Armed Services ordered the resolution of inquiry to be 

reported adversely. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 108–547) 

H. RES. 689

Resolution of inquiry requesting the President and directing certain other Federal 

officials to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after 

the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the 

President and those officials relating to the treatment of prisoners or detainees 

in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo Bay. 

H. Res. 689 is a resolution of inquiry designed to request specific 

factual information from the President of the United States or the 

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

of Representatives provide for a committee to report on a qualifying 

resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the committee is in order. H. Res. 689 would have 

called for the transmission of documents in the possession of the 

President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 

Attorney General, which relate to the treatment of prisoners and 

detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. The resolution also would have directed these cabinet members to provide 

documentation of work completed and planned in over 20 comprehensive categories. These categories encompass a broad range of 

information including reports, memorandums, complaints, chain-ofcommand charts, contracting receipts, interrogation doctrine, and 

translation data produced by sources such as the International 

Committee of the Red Cross, local sub-contractors, and individual 

military units. 

H. Res. 689 was referred to the Committee on Armed Services on 

June 23, 2004. On July 15, 2004, the committee held a markup session to consider this resolution of inquiry. The committee ordered 

the resolution to be reported adversely to the House. No further action was taken. 

(H. Rept. 108–632) 

(35) 

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES 

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

consideration of the annual defense authorization bills, which cover 

the breadth of the operations of the Department of Defense as well 

as a significant portion of the annual operating budget of the Department of Energy. The annual national defense budget of approximately $411.0 billion involves millions of military and civilian 

personnel, thousands of facilities, and hundreds of agencies, departments, and commands located throughout the world. 

SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT PLAN 

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

United States and U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee conducted extensive oversight activities during 

the 108th Congress, paying particular attention to intelligence, the 

conduct of the war on terrorism, force protection of military personnel, equipment and installations. The committee regularly received briefings on national security threats, and conducted a series of hearings and briefings on the status of U.S Forces in Iraq. 

In addition, prior to consideration of the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 

defense budgets, the committee conducted oversight hearings with 

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

the individual service secretaries and chiefs of staff, combatant 

commanders, other officials of the Department of Defense and the 

military departments, officials of the Central Intelligence Agency 

and other defense-related intelligence agencies, and the Secretary 

of Energy, the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and other officials of the Department of Energy. The committee also received testimony from outside experts in academia, industry, associations, 

and those in private life on these matters. 

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

support the annual defense authorization bill, the committee also 

conducted oversight activities as demanded by critical current 

events. 

ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The following specific areas and subjects were designated for special attention during the 108th Congress: 

DEFENSE BUDGET

The committee dedicated annual budget oversight to ensure continued increases in budget authorization for national security programs for a nation at war. The committee focused on the troops 

that are defending our freedom. More than 200,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have served in the global war on terVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR807.017 HR807
36 

rorism. The committee worked to ensure that our troops on the battlefield were protected while supporting their needs at home. As a 

result, the 108th Congress adopted: (1) Funding for an additional $1.5 billion for critical procurement and research, development, test and evaluation programs 

over the President’s last two budget requests. (2) An additional $25.0 billion of emergency authorizations 

for the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005. 

(3) Full concurrent receipt of benefits for military retirees for 

the most severely disabled veterans. 

(4) Pay raises for military personnel and their families to include special pay and bonuses for active duty personnel, increases in the family separation allowance for service members 

with dependents, and increases in the rate of special pay for 

those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger. 

(5) Civilian personnel system reforms that allow the Department of Defense to develop a merit-based system of management for civilian employees that will support emerging national security objectives. 

(6) Increased end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps 

to provide the needed flexibility to execute the global war on 

terrorism. 

(7) Enhancements to TRICARE benefits for reservists and 

family members to include providing health care benefits up to 

90 days before the date on which the member’s period of active 

duty begins, waiving deductible payments required by the 

TRICARE program for dependents of reservists who are called 

to active duty for more than 30 days, and providing transitional medical assistance program benefits to service members 

and their dependents for up to 180 days following separation 

from active duty. 

(8) Changes in survivor benefits plan annuities that eliminate social security offsets to protect the financial security of 

the survivors of military retirees. 

(9) Increases in authority for the military housing privatization initiative for continued improvement and revitalization of 

military housing on domestic military bases. 

(10) Rapid acquisition authorities and force protection initiatives to protect our military personnel in combat. 

(11) Improvements to tuition assistance for reserve officers 

on active duty by waiving the two-year active duty service obligation required as a condition for receiving tuition assistance. 

(12) The repeal of the requirement for wounded service personnel to pay subsistence charges while they recuperate in 

military hospitals. 

IRAQ

In March 2003, the United States led a coalition of nations in a 

series of military operations to: (1) depose the regime of Saddam 

Hussein, a recognized state sponsor of international terrorism and 

source of instability in the international security environment; (2) 

bring Iraq into compliance with a series of United Nations Security 

37 

Council Resolutions; and, (3) establish a representative government 

in Iraq. 

By May 1, 2003, major combat operations were concluded and 

the United States—together with its allies—assumed provisional 

control of the country. Most reviews of military operations in Iraq 

concluded that it was an extraordinary military campaign, in which 

a limited number of U.S. military forces soundly defeated a numerically superior adversary. From that standpoint, Operation 

Iraqi Freedom (OIF) was a major test of past efforts to transform 

the military for its 21st century missions. Operation Iraqi Freedom 

demonstrated successful implementation of and pointed the way towards future operational concepts and capabilities designed to 

maximize the utility of new technologies for the United States military. Early lessons, including the importance of force protection 

and command and control systems, such as Blue Force Tracker, 

which improved the situational awareness of U.S. commanders, 

were incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). 

Additionally, in order to review long-term lessons, the committee 

conducted a series of briefings and hearings with representatives 

from the Department of Defense and analytical community to review the conduct of military operations and their implications for 

the future force. On July 10, 2003, the Combatant Commander for 

U.S. Central Command, General Tommy Franks, USA, testified before the committee on both Operations Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. General Franks stressed 

the value of speed and surprise in achieving U.S. military objectives, noting that even though U.S. forces had been deploying to his 

command’s area of operations for several months, they were still 

able to achieve operational surprise by initiating combat operations 

before completing the deployment of all military forces. In General 

Franks’ view, that surprise reduced coalition casualties and enabled them to secure Iraqi infrastructure intact for use in rebuilding the country. 

On October 2, 2003, the committee conducted an open hearing 

and a classified briefing with a special team created by the Department of Defense specifically to review and identify lessons learned 

from OIF. The study, led by Admiral E.P. Giambastiani, USN, 

Commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, confirmed the importance of speed and surprise in the Defense Department’s estimation 

of its successes in OIF. Following this hearing, on October 21, 

2003, the committee invited several outside experts to offer their 

thoughts on lessons learned. Major General Robert Scales, USA 

(ret.), former commandant of the Army War College, Dr. Andrew 

Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and 

Budgetary Assessments and author of ‘‘The Army in Vietnam,’’ and 

Dr. Stephen Biddle, Associate Research Professor at the Army War 

College, reviewed the analytical community’s general thoughts, the 

Department’s assessments, and their own interpretations of OIF. 

The outside experts had a variety of explanations for the speed 

with which the United States achieved its military goals in Iraq. 

Dr. Biddle, for example, led an Army War College team that concluded speed and flexibility were less important factors than professionalism and the overmatching capabilities of U.S. forces. AcVerDate Aug 04 2004 08:27 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR807.017 HR807
38 

cording to Dr. Biddle, OIF was successful due to a unique combination of U.S. capabilities, which lined up in synchronicity with specific Iraqi weaknesses. General Scales took a slightly different—but 

not incompatible—perspective, noting that advanced technology, 

the speed of its advance, and the professionalism of its troops gave 

the United States military a significant advantage. However, General Scales also argued for improved intelligence and awareness of 

foreign political and cultural issues, noting that U.S. technical advantages could be offset by an inadequate understanding of its enemies. In particular, General Scales recommended additional training in foreign languages and cultures at more junior levels. Dr. 

Krepinevich stressed the value of speed, precision, improved command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in 

achieving the coalition victory, but also highlighted the need to recognize that the United States military was now in the ‘‘regime 

change business’’ and would have to incorporate that mission into 

its force structure and procurement programs. 

As decisive as the major combat operations were in deposing the 

Hussein regime, Iraq’s transition to a secure and sovereign country 

with a representative government was quickly complicated by the 

rise of an ad hoc insurgency, which grew more organized and lethal 

over time. As a result, U.S. military forces need to remain in the 

country at numbers higher than initially expected. The extended 

deployments place unanticipated pressure on the military, particularly the Army and Marine Corps, to rotate units through Iraq in 

order to continue fighting the insurgency. Normally, roughly onethird of the existing military is available for deployment at any 

given time. Units not deployed are either preparing to deploy or 

conducting reconstitution and training activities. Thus, the need to 

maintain large formations in Iraq increases the stress on the total 

size of the force. At the same time, U.S. military forces took on a 

large share of initial reconstruction activities, a mission for which 

they often had little experience or formal training, and became increasingly involved in the process of preparing Iraqi society for the 

return of its sovereignty. To review these issues, the committee 

conducted regular briefings with representatives from the Departments of Defense and State, as well as outside experts. Additionally, it held ten formal hearings, including five on reconstruction 

and stability operations, four on the plans for, and implications of, 

returning sovereignty to Iraq, and one focusing on the long-term 

impact of higher operational tempos on military force structure. 

The last hearing specifically addressed a topic that figured prominently in authorization and posture hearings throughout 2004, as 

well as hearings regarding Army transformation. 

The committee came to several conclusions from these activities. 

First, it determined that the overall size of the military was insufficient for the tasks put before it. As a result, the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public 

Law 108–375) authorized an additional 30,000 active personnel for 

the Army and 9,000 personnel for the Marine Corps over five years. 

Second, the committee determined that existing laws regarding reconstruction and stability operations were inadequate. However, 

the committee was also concerned that neither the Department of 

Defense nor Congress possessed enough information about the long 

39 

term impact of reconstruction and stability operations on the military to consider long-term changes to existing law. Therefore, the 

committee recommended provisions in its fiscal year 2005 defense 

bill that would temporarily address the issue while collecting additional information. For instance, the enacted law (Public Law 108– 375) authorizes the use of appropriated funds for the Commander’s 

Emergency Response Program, under which local commanders 

have access to funds for use in local rehabilitation projects intended to improve their relationships with local Iraqis. Additionally, the law permits the Department of Defense to use funds— with certain restrictions—to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan security forces and to assist Special Operations Forces in their work 

with indigenous forces in the global war on terrorism. Because 

these authorities are limited, the law further directs the Secretary 

of Defense to survey existing legal authorities and make recommendations for improvements. Finally, the committee determined that reconstruction and stability operations would require 

an integrated strategy and increased guidance on the role of contractors in a combat zone. Therefore, it recommended provisions 

adopted in the fiscal year 2005 defense bill that directed the President to develop a strategy, and report on its implementation, for 

the stabilization of Iraq. Additional provisions in the law require 

the Secretary of Defense to issue guidance on the use and roles of 

contractors in support of deployed combat forces. 

DETAINEE POLICY

In January of 2004, spokesmen for U.S. Central Command announced that the Commander of Combined Joint Task Force 7 

(CJTF–7), Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, USA, had ordered 

an investigation into allegations that U.S. military personnel had 

abused Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad. 

In April of that year, media coverage of the issue included the release of pictures of the alleged abuse. Because the detainee treatment issue crossed into sensitive matters associated with criminal 

investigations and prosecutions and into classified matters associated with intelligence collection techniques, much of the committee’s oversight of detainee matters was conducted in classified forums. Thus, in addition to the three public hearings specifically on 

detainee treatment and three hearings on operations in Iraq, during which detainee issues were discussed at length, the committee 

conducted four member briefings, fourteen staff briefings, and 

hosted several opportunities for members to review photographic 

evidence and specific reports by the International Committee of the 

Red Cross. Additionally, several members and staff made separate 

trips to review detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 

committee also sought and received over 15,000 pages of classified 

internal documents from the Department of Defense, provided 

every member of the committee with an opportunity to review the 

classified material, and reported out two bills concerning detainee 

matters. 

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

ensure that detainees are treated humanely and in accordance with 

the Constitution, laws, international obligations, and policies of the 

40 

United States; and that individuals who fail to comply with these 

requirements are held accountable for their actions. These provisions, contained in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), require 

the Secretary of Defense to issue new guidance, rules, regulations, 

and orders concerning detainee treatment. The actions further require improvements in training and detention practices and contain extensive reporting requirements so that Congress can ensure 

its direction is being carried out. Finally, the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 clarified 

the applicability of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act 

(Public Law 106–523) to contractors supporting military forces in 

regard to the treatment of detainees. 

FORCE PROTECTION

Ensuring that our men and women in uniform have the necessary systems and equipment to be successful in accomplishing 

their mission in the global war on terrorism has been a primary 

focus for the committee during the 108th Congress. The difficult 

environments in Iraq and Afghanistan and an enemy that employs 

rapidly changing asymmetric tactics require that our military personnel are provided in an expeditious manner with essential force 

protection equipment to meet the changes in tactics. 

Committee delegations visited the theater of operations to assess 

the state of force protection of our military forces. Further, the 

committee conducted oversight of the industrial base and military 

depots responsible for providing force protection equipment and 

systems to the warfighter. 

In addition, the committee conducted a hearing and received 

compelling testimony that the current defense acquisition system is 

not responding in a timely manner to the battlefield commanders’ needs. 

As a result of these oversight efforts, section 806 of the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–314) was amended to require the Secretary of Defense to use a streamlined acquisition process when combat casualties have occurred, the combatant commander has an urgent need 

of equipment, and delay would cause a continuation of combat fatalities. The committee also added in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375) more than $2.0 billion for force protection measures, including vehicle and body armor, munitions, communications and 

surveillance equipment, and improvised explosive device (IED) 

countermeasures equipment. 

The committee also took an active role in mobilizing the industrial base, solving production capacity constraints, and increasing 

funding levels to more rapidly provide vehicle armor and IED countermeasures equipment. Improving force protection will be subject 

to continued committee oversight during the 109th Congress. 

INTELLIGENCE REFORM

Following the release of the report of the National Commission 

on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States on July 22, 2004, the 

committee held four hearings on August 10 and 11, 2004, to review 

41 

commission recommendations that affected the Department of Defense (DOD) elements of the intelligence community. The hearings 

focused on the relationship between military intelligence and national intelligence and whether DOD intelligence agencies had a 

role in the intelligence failures leading to the events of September 

11, 2001. Testimony by the chairman and vice chairman of the 

commission confirmed that the commission found no link between 

the intelligence operation and structure of DOD and the events of 

September 11. Additionally, testimony demonstrated that the relationship between national intelligence and military intelligence had 

been built to support both national and military intelligence missions and had provided an unprecedented level of support to recent 

military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

On September 24, 2004, the Speaker introduced H.R. 10, the 9/ 

11 Recommendations Implementation Act, which was referred to 

the committee and 12 other House committees. On September 29, 

the committee marked up H.R. 10, which subsequently passed the 

House. The differences between H.R. 10 and S. 2845, the Senate’s 

version of this legislation, were resolved in a conference committee 

and resulted in the enactment of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458). The committee’s participation in developing this legislation focused on maintaining the Secretary of Defense’s authority to direct the national 

intelligence agencies of DOD to support combatant commanders, 

defining the respective budget authorities of the Secretary and the 

newly created Director of National Intelligence; and maintaining 

the classification of the overall intelligence budget. The committee 

will monitor and provide oversight during the 109th Congress as 

this legislation is implemented. 

ADEQUACY OF MILITARY MANPOWER

The committee has been concerned for a number of years that 

the active components of the military services are inadequately 

sized to sustain the range of missions required by the national 

military strategy. Reflecting that concern, the committee in the second session of the 107th Congress, in the fiscal year 2003 defense 

bill, authorized an increase of 12,652 in active end strength over 

the fiscal year 2002 levels. While that increase was not sustained 

in the enacted version of the bill, increases in active component end 

strength were enacted in both sessions of the 108th: 2,400 for the 

Army and 300 for the Air Force in fiscal year 2004; and 20,000 for 

the Army, 3,000 for the Marine Corps, and 400 for the Air Force 

in fiscal year 2005. In addition, the committee authorized future 

growth of 10,000 for the Army and 6,000 for the Marine Corps in 

the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375). 

RECRUITING AND RETENTION

Continuing its oversight of the all-volunteer military, the committee moved in the 108th Congress to address the numerous recruiting and retention challenges facing both the active and reserve 

components of the military services. Those challenges, reasonably 

difficult to achieve in peacetime, were complicated by the simultaneous challenges of fighting the global war on terrorism and transVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.018 HR807
42 

forming of the military personnel systems in each of the services. 

Such transformation included the conversion of military positions 

to civilian positions. To assist that transformation the committee 

authorized a new skill conversion incentive bonus of up to $4,000 

for enlisted members who agree to serve in a critically short occupational specialty. The committee monitored recruiting and retention trends closely throughout the 108th Congress and noted the 

increasing threats to recruiting and retention of a reemerging private sector job market, increasing college attendance by America’s 

youth, and the growing awareness of the hardships and risks of 

war. The committee recognized the growing stress on recruiting 

and retention in the reserve components and moved aggressively to 

anticipate recruiting and retention challenges faced by the National Guard and the other reserve components. To that end, the 

Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) included measures that substantially increased the amounts of bonuses payable to reserve component members upon enlistment or reenlistment, and broadened the 

flexibility of the secretaries of the military services in the payment 

of those bonuses. These reforms reflect the committee’s belief that 

sustaining future reserve component manpower, especially in light 

of the demands placed on the reserve components by the global war 

on terrorism, will require close attention in the 109th Congress. 

For the last several years, a growing number of colleges and universities have treated military recruiters in ways significantly different from the recruiters of other employers. As a result, military 

recruiters and the persons they seek to interview have been subjected to various degrees of harassment or ill treatment designed 

to make military recruiting difficult, or to frustrate its objectives. 

To remedy this situation, the committee, as part of the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375), required colleges and universities to give 

military recruiters access to campuses and students that is at least 

equal in quality and scope as that provided to any other employer. 

RESERVE COMPONENTS

The committee devoted substantial attention during the 108th 

Congress to assessing and resolving issues arising from the increasingly heavy reliance that is being placed on the reserve components as a result of the global war on terrorism. As a result, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 

Law 108–136) and the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) included 

a number of substantial reforms. For example, to reduce the need 

for some involuntary mobilizations by permitting volunteers to provide support during normal peacetime operations, as well as during 

times of national emergency, the committee eliminated the 180-day 

end strength accounting standard that required reservists on active 

duty beyond that limit to count against active component end 

strengths. In its place, the committee authorized up to 37,000 reservists to serve voluntarily on active duty for up to three years, 

or a cumulative three years over a four-year period, before counting 

against active end strengths. 

43 

Legislative initiatives in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) and the Ronald W. 

Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

(Public Law 108–375) also supported substantial reforms in reserve 

component health care. Specifically, the committee provided permanent eligibility for reservists and their dependents to obtain 

TRICARE health care benefits up to 90 days before the date on 

which the member’s period of active duty is to begin. To mitigate 

financial hardships on activated reservists, the committee authorized waiving deductible payments required by TRICARE programs 

for dependents of reservists who are called to active duty for more 

than 30 days, and shielded dependents of reservists who are ordered to active duty for more than 30 days from paying a health 

care provider any amount above the TRICARE maximum allowable 

cost. Furthermore, the committee made permanent the authority to 

provide Transitional Assistance Medical Program benefits to service members and their dependents for up to 180 days following separation from active duty and directed the Secretary of Defense to 

provide physical examinations to all active duty service members 

prior to separation. In addition, the committee authorized federal 

employees, who serve in the military reserves and are ordered into 

active duty and placed on leave without pay, to continue to receive 

coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program for 

two years, and to authorize both the employee’s and agency’s share 

of the premiums to be covered for up to two years. 

Finally, the committee authorized certain reservists when not on 

active duty and their families to obtain health care through 

TRICARE Standard if those reservists commit to continued service 

in the Selected Reserve. 

WARTIME NEEDS OF SERVICE MEMBERS AND FAMILIES

During the 108th Congress, the committee recognized that wartime conditions had created new requirements that had not been 

anticipated and revealed inadequacies within some existing programs. The committee responded to these emerging issues with legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2004 (Public Law 108–136) and the Ronald W. Reagan National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–

375). The committee improved the Survivor Benefit Program (SBP) 

by ensuring that equitable benefits are provided to the survivors of 

active duty deaths regardless of the circumstances of the death, 

and to extend SBP benefits to the surviving spouses of reservists 

not eligible for retirement, who die from an injury or illness incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during inactive duty training. The committee recognized that service members subjected to 

the high operations tempo of war are not afforded the opportunity 

to take leave. Accordingly the committee acted to increase the number of days leave that a member may accumulate after serving in 

an imminent danger area from 90 to 120. Recognizing the importance of non-citizen service members and the many sacrifices and 

contributions they have made to our military, the committee included several provisions to ease and expedite the naturalization 

process for members and their families. 

44 

When the authority used for family members to visit seriously injured service members proved inadequate, the committee acted to 

expand the number of family members that were authorized to 

travel and increased the compensation those families were entitled 

to receive. Similarly, the committee included legislation that clarified that family members were authorized to travel at government 

expense to the burial site of a member who dies while on duty and 

that the member’s parents are always eligible to travel at government expense to attend the burial ceremony. In a further effort to 

assist surviving family members after the death of a service member, the committee authorized annual increases in the amount of 

the death gratuity payable to survivors of deceased service members. The increase in the gratuity will be the same as the average 

percentage of the increase in rates of basic pay taking effect each 

year. 

The committee also took action to expand to all hospitalized service members an exemption from paying for their meals while they 

recuperate in military hospitals that had previously been limited to 

service members injured on the battlefield. When the committee observed situations where seriously wounded and ill military personnel involved in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom have been medically evacuated from the battlefield without civilian clothes, the committee acted to remedy this situation by authorizing the purchase of civilian clothing, at a cost not to exceed 

$250. 

In an effort to help reunite deployed military members and their 

families in times of need, the conferees authorized giving the Secretary of Defense the authority to accept the donation of frequent 

flyer miles, credits and tickets and distribute those benefits to service members and their families. 

When the committee observed that service members would not be 

awarded separate medals for service in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) for separate periods 

of service in Afghanistan and Iraq, respectively, the committee created separate campaign medals for OEF and OIF service. Those 

medals were authorized in a bill adopted in Public Law 108–234, 

outside the defense authorization act process. 

RETIREMENT BENEFITS

During the 108th Congress, the committee continued reforms related to the concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability 

payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs and addressed 

new issues related to survivors’ benefits. 

Specifically with regard to concurrent receipt, the committee, as 

part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), made all 20-year military retirees with a 

Purple Heart or combat-related disability, including national 

guardsmen and reservists, eligible for concurrent receipt, effective 

January 1, 2004; and also authorized full concurrent receipt, to be 

phased in over 10 years, for the remaining military retirees who 

are the most severely disabled (50% disabled and above). As part 

of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), the committee removed 

100 percent disabled retirees from the 10-year phase-in period by 

45 

making them eligible for full concurrent receipt effective January 

2005. 

With the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375), the committee eliminated the Social Security offset under the Survivor Benefit Plan by 

increasing the annuities paid to survivors of military retirees who 

are 62 or older from 35 percent of retired pay to 55 percent of retired pay. The phased increase in annuities will be completed in 

March 2008. 

MILITARY COMPENSATION

The committee examined a wide range of compensation issues 

during the 108th Congress. As a result of hearings with military 

personnel, association representatives and defense officials, as well 

as from meetings with military personnel deployed overseas and 

here at home in order to ascertain their ‘‘lessons learned,’’ the committee pursued concerns about military pay levels, the role of special and incentive pays, and the adequacy of pay during deployments. These reviews resulted in legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) 

and the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375) that, in fiscal year 2004, 

provided an increase in basic pay for members of the armed forces 

averaging 4.1 percent, as well as targeted increases for mid-grade 

and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers; 

and, in fiscal year 2005, provided a 3.5 percent across-the-board 

pay raise for our men and women in uniform. These raises continued the committee’s commitment to reduce the gap between average military and private sector pay and represented the fifth and 

sixth consecutive years the committee has recommended a pay 

raise larger than the level of private sector pay raises. With the 3.5 

percent pay raise expected in fiscal year 2005, the average military 

pay raises over the last six years have totaled 33 percent. The gap 

between military and private sector pay increases has been reduced 

from 13.5 percent during fiscal year 1999 to an anticipated 5.1 percent in fiscal year 2005. During the same period the targeting of 

pay increases to mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers resulted in increases in basic pay exceeding 40 percent in some 

grades. 

In addition, the committee eliminated the average out of pocket 

housing expenses by increasing the basic allowance for housing, 

supplemented the allowance for subsistence expenses of service 

members based at high-cost or unique duty locations, and made 

permanent the increased rates for imminent danger pay from $150 

per month to $225 per month and family separation allowance from 

$100 per month to $250 per month. 

HEALTH CARE

In the first session of the 108th Congress, the committee focused 

attention on the specific problems experienced by Department of 

Defense beneficiaries in using the TRICARE Standard fee-for-service option of the Defense Health Program. As a result, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–

136) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan and impleVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.019 HR807
46 

mentation schedule for an information outreach program designed 

to assist beneficiaries and their families understand their health 

care coverage, obtain health care provider information, and gain assistance resolving any difficulties with the program that they may 

encounter. 

In both sessions of the 108th Congress the committee devoted 

special oversight attention to the transition of the TRICARE system to new contracting requirements and regional structure. The 

new contracts consolidated the TRICARE regions 12 to three and 

sought to improve portability of benefits and reduce the administrative costs of negotiating change orders and providing government oversight. The initial implementation of the new contracts 

was completed in the second session of the 108th Congress without 

major disruption of services to beneficiaries. The committee will 

continue close oversight of the TRICARE program in the 109th 

Congress. 

In an effort to preclude problems with the continuity of health 

care that were experienced by beneficiaries following previous 

rounds of base closure, the committee, in National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), required the 

establishment of a working group to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission on the impact of base closures on health care delivery. The 

working group was directed to provide a plan for continuing health 

care for individuals relying on health care facilities affected by the 

planned 2005 BRAC round. 

ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

During the 108th Congress the committee conducted a special investigation into domestic violence among military families and 

oversaw the Department of Defense’s implementation of recommendations for corrective action. The committee continued that 

oversight during the 108th Congress. In the first session, following 

a three-year effort, the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence, 

which had been established by committee action, made significant 

recommendations, including proposed changes to law, to improve 

Department efforts to prevent and respond to domestic violence in 

the military. In support of these proposals, the committee included 

the following authorities in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136): travel and transportation allowances for dependents who are victims of domestic violence for the purpose of relocating for personal safety; transitional 

compensation to victims for no less than 12 months and no more 

than 36 months, to begin upon the sentencing of a domestic violence offender. In addition, the committee directed the Secretary of 

Defense to conduct multidisciplinary fatality reviews for each domestic violence or child abuse fatality. 

MILITARY ABSENTEE VOTING

The committee remained vigilant on military absentee voter 

issues during the 108th Congress. When the committee noted that 

operational requirements and the mobility of military personnel 

47 

were preventing military voters from receiving state-provided absentee ballots by mail in time for an election, the committee included a provision in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108–375) that would remedy these problems and ensure that military voters are able to participate in the electoral process. The committee authorized military 

voters and their dependents, who are stationed in the U.S., but absent from their home states, to use federal write-in absentee ballots. 

In an effort to monitor the absentee voting of military members 

during election 2004 and ensure that military voters were not 

disenfranchised, the fiscal year 2005 act also included a provision 

that required the Secretary of Defense to submit reports to Congress on: 

(1) The actions that the Secretary has taken to ensure that 

the Federal Voting Assistance Program functions effectively to 

support absentee voting. 

(2) The actions that the Secretary has taken to ensure that 

the military postal system functions effectively to support the 

morale of military members and their ability to vote by absentee ballot. 

(3) The actions taken to implement the recommendations of 

the Military Postal Service Agency Task Force of August 28, 

2000. 

MILITARY EXCHANGES AND COMMISSARIES

The committee acted throughout the 108th Congress to improve 

the effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and commissaries and to protect these critical programs for future generations of service members. 

The committee included provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) that 

would: 

(1) Clarify that exchanges and commissaries must be operated as separate systems. 

(2) Limit the contracting of commissary functions. 

(3) Mandate the use of appropriated funding to support commissary operations. 

(4) Expand the eligibility for reserve members and their families to access exchanges and commissaries on an unlimited 

basis. 

(5) Authorize exchanges and commissaries to recoup the 

value of investments in facilities at military installations that 

were closed or realigned. 

The committee included provisions in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375) that would: 

(1) Define commissary and exchange systems and clarify that 

the systems’ purposes are to enhance the quality of life of the 

military, military retirees and their dependents and to support 

military readiness, recruitment and retention. 

(2) Require the designation of a senior official to oversee both 

systems and an executive governing body, including military 

members, to ensure complimentary operations of both systems. 

48 

(3) Authorize the Secretary of Defense to consider the quality 

of life of reservists whenever assessing whether to close a commissary store. 

(4) Require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress 

written notice of the reasons supporting the closure of a commissary and wait 90 days before undertaking a closure. 

(5) Authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct a test program on the sale of telephone cards, film and one-time use 

cameras. 

(6) Require the Government Accountability Office to evaluate 

the impact of the expansion of categories of merchandise sold 

in commissary stores and its impact on the exchange dividend. 

(7) Require the Secretary of Defense to maintain the de ́cor, 

format and product selection in military commissaries consistent with modern grocery store norms. 

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: SUBSTANDARD TREATMENT OF PERSONNEL

IN MEDICAL HOLDOVER (MHO) STATUS

During the 108th Congress the committee spent considerable 

time examining reports of substandard treatment of military personnel in Army and Navy medical holdover detachments. Committee staff visited six Army installations serving as power projection platforms or power support platforms for mobilization and demobilization of Army personnel. The committee also requested that 

the Navy examine the effectiveness of its two MHO operations. The 

committee’s objective was to review the extent of and reasons for 

MHO backlogs, substandard living conditions, and whether any 

disparities existed with regard to access to medical existed between 

RC and active component soldiers. The investigation led to a Force 

Subcommittee hearing in January 2004, a request for the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) to review the adequacy of MHO resources 

and procedures and medical readiness issues for all the military 

services, and legislative initiatives in the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 

108–375) to improve reserve component medical and dental screening and care. 

(49) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE 

BUDGET ACTIVITY

On February 28, 2003, the committee forwarded its views and estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function 050) 

for fiscal year 2004 to the Committee on the Budget. The committee noted that the United States finds itself not only in a global 

war on terrorism, but also conducting a military buildup in the 

Persian Gulf in preparation for a possible conflict in Iraq. The committee recognized the President’s commitment to reverse the decade-long decline in defense spending from the previous Administration. The committee observed that the increase for fiscal year 2003 

over fiscal year 2002 was 13 percent. However, despite this recent 

increase, the proposed defense spending budget still amounts to a 

far lower percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product than it 

did twenty years ago—a projected 3.4 percent in 2004 compared to 

6 percent in 1983. Specifically, the committee noted that the budget 

request of $72.7 billion for procurement of military equipment falls 

significantly short of what has been broadly identified as the level 

of investment necessary to merely sustain the current force. Accordingly, the committee requested an additional $31.3 billion over 

the President’s budget request of $399.7 billion for National Defense. This level of funding would ensure that we continue to make 

the necessary progress in addressing the military’s pressing modernization, force structure, infrastructure and operational and quality of life requirements. Beyond the discretionary funding level request, the committee also sought additional entitlement authority 

to expand the concurrent receipt offset on military retirement for 

the most deserving military retirees. Section 636 of the Bob Stump 

National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2003 eliminated 

the concurrent receipt offset for those military retirees that received a military disability rating due to combat injuries that resulted in the award of the Purple Heart medal or those that received a disability rating of 60 percent or higher due to injuries received as a direct result of combat, training for combat, hazardous 

service, or an instrumentality of war. The committee noted that 

while this represents a good initial start on this issue, it does not 

provide the necessary total solution to the inequities that result 

from the existing concurrent receipt policy. Therefore, the committee requested additional mandatory budget authority to the national defense budget to build on the policy established in the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act in order to eliminate 

the concurrent receipt offset. 

On February 26, 2004, the committee forwarded its views and estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function 050) 

for fiscal year 2005 to the Committee on the Budget. The committee noted that the military is dramatically smaller than it was 

50 

a decade ago despite the fact that we are a nation at war. The committee was troubled that our military forces are meeting the challenge by sustaining a rate of deployment and operations not experienced in over three decades with aging equipment. The committee 

observed that against this backdrop, the President submitted a defense budget that requested an increase of $19.6 billion over the 

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004. The committee was concerned that even with the proposed increase, defense spending 

would amount to a far lower percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) than it did twenty years ago—a projected 3.6 

percent increase in 2004 compared to 5.9 percent in 1985. The committee also noted that in addition to fighting the global war on terror, the Army was undertaking the most fundamental reform of its 

organization since World War II. While the Department estimated 

that this effort required an additional 30,000 troops, the President 

did not include the costs of this effort in the budget request. Consequently, the committee sought additional resources for both the 

additional end strength and the requirements associated with the 

equipment modernization funding. Beyond the discretionary funding level request, the committee also sought additional entitlement 

authority to address the two critical issues for our men and women 

who have served and those that continue to serve. The committee 

noted that under the current survivor benefit program, a survivor’s 

annuity is decreased from 55 percent to 35 percent upon reaching 

the age of 62 as a result of social security payments. This social 

security offset penalizes the families who have made the greatest 

sacrifice to our nation. In addition, the committee recognized that 

the Department would exhaust statutory budget authority limitation on military housing privatization initiative projects during the 

first quarter of fiscal year 2005. This program leverages private 

sector expertise to construct, improve and maintain housing that 

may be rented by military families at little or no cost to the government. For that reason, the committee requested additional entitlement budget authority to eliminate the social security offset to the 

survivor benefit program over a 10-year phased implementation period as well as provide the required funding to fully implement the 

military housing privatization initiative. 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARINGS

During the 108th 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 and the posture of the armed services, the global war on terrorism, military activity in Iraq, the 

treatment of individuals detained as a result of U.S. military operations, military transformation, the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (9/ 

11 Commission), global posture review, emerging threats to U.S. 

national security, and the U.S. industrial base. A full account of 

these hearings is below. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–1; H.A.S.C. 108–2; H.A.S.C. 108–9; H.A.S.C. 108–

14; H.A.S.C. 108–15; H.A.S.C. 108–19; H.A.S.C. 108–21; H.A.S.C. 

108–28; H.A.S.C. 108–29; H.A.S.C. 108–31; H.A.S.C. 108–32; 

51 

H.A.S.C. 108–33; H.A.S.C. 108–36; H.A.S.C. 108–37; H.A.S.C. 108– 38; H.A.S.C. 108–39; H.A.S.C. 108–43; H.A.S.C. 108–44) 

POSTURE AND BUDGET

During the 108th 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 wage the Global War on Terrorism in defense of the United States, its people, its 

interests, and its overseas friends and allies. These hearings, combined with its responsibility for assembling the annual defense authorization bill, are the primary means by which the committee 

leads Congress in the latter’s discharge of its Constitutional duties. 

On February 5, 2003, the committee convened a hearing with the 

Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, USAF, accompanied by Undersecretary of Defense Dov Zakheim, to review the 

President’s request for funding and authorities during fiscal year 

2004. Following this hearing, the committee sought and received 

testimony from each of the services and several unified combatant 

commanders. On February 12, 2003, the Secretary of the Army, 

Thomas E. White, and the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric 

Shinseki, USA, appeared before the committee to discuss their 

service’s portion of the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

They were followed on February 26th by Hansford T. Johnson, Acting Secretary of the Navy, Admiral Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, and General Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, who discussed the budget request as it related to the United 

States Navy and Marine Corps. The following day, James G. Roche, 

Secretary of the Air Force, and General John P. Jumper, Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force, appeared before the committee to discuss the 

United States Air Force’s portion of the fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, commanders of the unified combatant commands, who are in the chain 

of command, appeared before the committee to discuss the security 

situation in their respective areas of responsibility. These included 

General Charles Holland, USAF, Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, General James Hill, USA, Commander of U.S. 

Southern Command, and Admiral E.P. Giambastiani, Commander 

of U.S. Joint Forces Command on March 12, 2003. They were followed the same day by a separate hearing with Admiral Thomas 

Fargo, USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and General 

Leon Laporte, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea to discuss the security situation in the Pacific. On March 13, the committee held its 

third hearing with combatant commanders when General Ralph 

Eberhart, USAF, Commander of U.S. Northern Command and Admiral James Ellis, USN, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, 

appeared before it. 

The committee concluded its series of hearings on the fiscal year 

2004 budget request by delving more deeply into specific programs, 

policies, and activities. These hearings began with a review of the 

Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction program 

and the Department of Energy’s nonproliferation programs on 

52 

March 4th, when J.D. Crouch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

for International Security Policy, Ambassador Linton Brooks, Acting Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, 

Paula DeSutter, Assistant Secretary of State at the Bureau of 

Verification and Compliance, David Steentsma, Deputy Inspector 

General at the Department of Defense, and Joseph Christoff of the 

U.S. General Accounting Office appeared before the committee. On 

March 20, 2003, the committee examined the Department’s ballistic 

missile defense programs more closely when it invited E.C. ‘‘Pete’’

Aldridge, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, J.D. Crouch, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

International Security Policy, Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, 

Director of the Missile Defense Agency, and Thomas Christie, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Department of Defense to testify on the status and plans of missile defense programs 

contained in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. The committee 

broadened its scope somewhat to consider the issue of acquisition 

reform on April 1, 2003, when Undersecretary Aldridge returned to 

testify about all major Department of Defense acquisition programs, and review the Department’s plans for acquisition reform 

and future acquisition programs. The committee addressed many of 

the issues discussed during this hearing a part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The committee also 

delved deeply into the problems of replacing the United States Air 

Force’s aging fleet of aerial refueling aircraft, a controversial issue 

since the Department first proposed replacing its tankers through 

a lease with the Boeing Corporation. On July 23rd, Michael 

Wynne, Acting Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics appeared with Dr. Marvin Sambur, Assistant 

Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, and Major General Paul 

Essex, Director of Plans and Programs at the Headquarters for Air 

Mobility Command to discuss the issue. Neal Curtin of the General 

Accounting Office and John Plueger, President and Chief Operating 

officer of the International Lease Finance Corporation appeared on 

a second panel to round out the hearing. 

During the second session of the 108th Congress in 2004, the 

committee renewed its history of conducting thorough hearings in 

preparation of the Defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2005. 

On February 4th, 2004, the committee received testimony from 

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense and General Peter Pace, 

USMC, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to review the 

President’s budget request for fiscal year 2005. The committee continued its hearings on the fiscal year 2005 budget by inviting the 

senior leaders of the Department of the Navy to appear before it 

on February 12th, when Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy, 

Admiral Vern Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, and General 

Michael Hagee, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps, presented testimony. On February 25th, Les Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army, and General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of 

Staff, testified further on the fiscal year 2005 defense budget request. They were followed on February 26th by James Roche, Secretary of the Air Force, and General John Jumper, USAF, Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force. 

53 

After completing its hearings with the leadership of the uniformed services, the committee turned its attention to the combatant commands, seeking information from them to help formulate 

the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill. On March 3rd, General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command, 

and Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, appeared before the committee to discuss 

issues in Central Command’s Area of Responsibility. They were followed on March 24th by General James Jones, USMC, Commander 

of U.S. European Command, and General James Hill, USA, Commander of U.S. Southern Command. On March 31st, the committee 

completed its review with testimony from Admiral Thomas Fargo, 

USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and General Leon 

Laporte, USA, Commander of U.S. Forces Korea. 

The committee also continued its efforts to focus more closely on 

specific programmatic and organizational issues within the Department of Defense as part of its consideration of the President’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2005. On February 11th, the committee received testimony on aviation safety in the Department of 

Defense from Major General Kenneth Hess, USAF, Chief of Safety 

and Commander of the United States Air Force Safety Center, 

Brigadier General Joseph Smith, USA, Commanding General of the 

United States Army Safety Center, Rear Admiral Richard Brooks, 

USN, Commander of the United States Naval Center, Brigadier 

General Samuel Helland, USMC, Assistant Deputy Commandant 

for Aviation, and Christopher Bolkcom, Congressional Research 

Service. On March 18, the committee met to review a proposal to 

change the name of the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of 

the Navy and Marine Corps. The witnesses were William Dudley, 

Director of Naval History at the Naval Historical Center, Admiral 

Stansfield Turner, USN (ret.), former Director of Central Intelligence, General Carl Mundy, Jr., USMC (ret.), former Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Donald Howard, former Undersecretary of the Navy. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–2; H.A.S.C. 108–14; H.A.S.C. 108–21; H.A.S.C. 

108–29) 

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

Much of the committee’s work related to the Global War on Terrorism involved classified briefings and discussions. Nevertheless, 

the committee continued to publicly review developments associated with the Global War on Terrorism. On April 29th, 2004 the 

committee received testimony regarding reconstruction and stability operations in Afghanistan from Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Lieutenant 

General Walter Sharp, USA, Director for Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff, Ambassador William Taylor, Coordinator for 

Afghanistan in the Department of State. On September 8th, 2004, 

the committee met to receive testimony on the performance of individual soldiers and Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq in their efforts to defeat insurgents there. The witnesses included, Colonel 

Michael Linnington, USA, former Brigade Commander with the 

101st Air Assault Division, Captain Patrick Costello, USA, former 

Commander of an Air Defense Artillery unit with the 101st Air AsVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.022 HR807
54 

sault Division, Lieutenant Colonel Bryan McCoy, USMC, former 

Commander of the 3rd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, Captain 

Morgan Savage, USMC, former Company Commander with the 3rd 

Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, and Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery 

Springman, USA, former Commander of an artillery unit attached 

to the 4th Infantry Division. The committee concluded its hearings 

for the 108th Congress on November 17, 2004 by inviting the chiefs 

of the military services to appear before the committee to provide 

a status report on their forces engaged in the Global War on Terrorism. The witnesses were General Peter Schoomaker, USA, Chief 

of Staff of the United States Army, Admiral Vernon Clark, USN, 

Chief of Naval Operations, General John Jumper, USAF, Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force, and General Michael Hagee, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–28; H.A.S.C. 108–33; H.A.S.C. 108–44) 

IRAQ

The war in Iraq consumed a significant amount of the committee’s time as members sought perspectives on lessons learned from 

Operation Iraqi Freedom that could apply to the future of the military and on the tasks of securing Iraq and enabling it to re-enter 

the international system as a stable and secure state that represents the interests of its citizens and respects the security of its 

neighbors. Hearings on the subject in the 108th Congress began 

shortly after military operations commenced, when the Hussein regime immediately began violating the laws of war. On April 4, 

2003, W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters in 

the Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army, appeared before the Committee to discuss specific Iraqi actions in the context 

of internationally recognized laws of war. On July 10, 2003, after 

leaving the position of Combatant Commander, U.S. Central Command, General Tommy Franks, USA, who had led American and 

coalition forces in military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and 

elsewhere, appeared before the committee to discuss his views on 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and lessons the military should take from 

it. He was followed on September 25, 2003, by Deputy Secretary of 

Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and General John 

Abizaid, USA, Combatant Commander of U.S. Central Command, 

who reviewed the status of stability and reconstruction operations, 

as well as the state of initial planning to transition Iraq toward its 

sovereignty. On October 2, 2003, the committee’s efforts to further 

document lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom resulted 

in a hearing with Admiral E.P. Giambastiani, USN, Commander of 

U.S. Joint Forces Command, which the Secretary of Defense had 

tasked with undertaking a major study of lessons learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom. Later that month, on October 8, 2003, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs 

Peter Rodman and John Hamre, President of the Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) appeared before the committee to discuss a study of reconstruction activities that CSIS had 

undertaken at the request of the Department of Defense. On October 21, 2003, the committee received testimony from a panel of outside witnesses discussing the military lessons they took from OperVerDate Aug 04 2004 05:15 Jan 12, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR807.022 HR807
55 

ation Iraqi Freedom. The witnesses were: Major General Robert 

Scales, USA (ret.), former Commandant of the Army War College, 

Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and Dr. Stephen Biddle, Associate Research Professor at the Army War College. On October 29, 

2003, the committee convened a panel of outside witnesses to review Iraq’s political future and the military’s role in reconstruction 

and stability operations. The witnesses were: Dr. Michael 

O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Karl Zinsmeister, 

J.B. Fuqua Fellow, American Enterprise Institute, and Dr. Marina 

S. Ottaway, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 

U.S. military operations in Iraq figured no less prominently in 

the committee’s agenda during the second session of the 108th Congress. On January 28, 2004, the committee met to receive testimony from General Peter Schoomaker, USA, Chief of Staff of the 

United States Army, General Michael Hagee, USMC, Commandant 

of the Marine Corps, Lieutenant General Norton Schwartz, USAF, 

Director for Operations on the Joint Staff, and Lieutenant General 

James Cartwright, USMC, Director for Force Structure, Resources, 

and Assessment on the Joint Staff to discuss the Operation Iraqi 

Freedom force rotation plan. On April 21, 2004, the committee met 

to review plans and issues associated with Iraq’s transition to sovereignty at the end of June. The witnesses included Paul 

Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, General Richard Myers, 

USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Marc Grossman, 

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs. A second panel of outside experts included, Dr. Judith Yaphe, Senior Fellow at the National Defense University, Dr. Amatzia Baram, Senior Fellow at 

the United States Institute of Peace, and General John Keane, 

USA (ret.), former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army. 

On May 21, 2004, the committee continued its review of Operation 

Iraqi Freedom with a hearing on the conduct and support of operations with testimony from General Richard Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Schoomaker, USA, 

Chief of Staff of the United States Army, and General Michael 

Hagee, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. On June 16, 

2004, the committee held a hearing to review the status of U.S. 

military forces in Iraq after the restoration of Iraq’s sovereignty. 

The witnesses included: Peter Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Lieutenant General Walter 

Sharp, USA, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint 

Staff, and Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, Coordinator for Iraq 

Transition at the Department of State. The following day, June 17, 

2004, the committee received testimony on the status of programs 

training Iraqi security forces and received testimony from Lieutenant General David Petraeus, USA, Chief of the Office of Security 

Transition in the Coalition Provisional Authority, and Brigadier 

General Kevin Bergner, USA, Deputy Director for Strategic Plans 

on the Joint Staff. On June 22, 2004, the committee met again to 

review progress in performing stability and reconstruction operations in Iraq with Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, 

and General Peter Pace, USMC, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff. On July 7, 2004, following Iraq’s transition to sovereignty, 

56 

the committee refocused its attention on the demands that Operation Iraqi Freedom continued to make on U.S. military forces with 

a hearing on troop rotations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Witnesses included David S.C. Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness, Lieutenant General Norton Schwartz, USAF, Director of Operations on the Joint Staff, General Richard Cody, USA, 

Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, and Lieutenant General Jan Huly, 

USMC, Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Plans, Policies, and Operations. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–15; H.A.S.C. 108–28) 

DETAINEE POLICY

In addition to its general work to incorporate the lessons of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the committee has focused intently on the 

treatment of individuals detained as a result of U.S. military operations. Because much of the information associated with detention 

policy is classified, the committee has conducted most of its activities through a series of classified briefings. However, on occasion, 

it has been able to examine the issue in an unclassified setting. On 

May 7, 2004, it convened a hearing to review the treatment of detainees in U.S. Central Command’s Area of Responsibility. The witnesses included Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, General 

Richard Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Les 

Brownlee, Acting Secretary of the Army, General Peter 

Schoomaker, USA, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Lieutenant General Lance Smith, Deputy Commander, U.S. Central Command. On 

September 9th, the committee met twice in open session to review 

two major investigations of detention policies and practices. The 

first hearing focused on the report of an independent panel established by the Department of Defense and led by distinguished 

former policymakers. The committee heard from the Panel’s Chairman, James R. Schlesinger, former Secretary of Defense, and Harold Brown, a panel member who also had served as a Secretary of 

Defense. The second hearing concerned the investigation by General Paul Kern, USA, of the intelligence aspects of detention activities. The witnesses included General Kern, Lieutenant General Anthony Jones, USA, the lead investigator, and Major General George 

Fay, USA, who served as investigating officer. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–28) 

TRANSFORMATION

The administration of President George W. Bush has made military transformation a cornerstone of its long-term strategy to provide for the national security of the United States and prepare the 

Department of Defense for its missions in the 21st century. Much 

of the committee’s transformation related work is reflected in the 

annual defense authorization bills it develops. However, on several 

occasions, the committee has held hearings dedicated to specific aspects of transformation in order to explore the issue more fully. A 

two-part hearing was conducted regarding proposals to reform personnel policies associated with civilian employees of the Department of Defense in a proposed bill entitled, ‘‘The Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act.’’ On May 1, 2003, the committee met to receive testimony from Paul D. Wolfowitz, Deputy 

57 

Secretary of Defense, General Richard B. Myers, USAF, Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, David S.C. Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, E.C. ‘‘Pete’’ Aldridge, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, David 

Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, and Bobby 

Harnage, National President of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO. The second part of the two-part 

hearing was conducted on May 2, 2003, and included testimony 

from David S.C. Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, Admiral Vernon E. Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations, Lawrence J. Korb, Director of National Security Studies, 

Council on Foreign Relations, and Lieutenant General Theodore G. 

Stroup, Jr., USA (ret.), Vice President of Education, Association of 

the United States Army. On July 15, 2004, the committee held a 

hearing of outside witnesses to consider the Army’s transformation 

plan. The witnesses included, General John Keane, USA (ret.), 

former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army, Major General Robert Scales, USA (ret.), former Commandant of the Army 

War College, Colonel Douglas Macgregor, USA (ret.), and Patrick 

Towell, Visiting Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary 

Assessments. The committee conducted its review of the Army’s 

transformation plan in two parts and convened a second hearing on 

July 21, 2004. The witnesses included, General Peter Schoomaker, 

USA, Chief of Staff of the Army, Lieutenant General Benjamin 

Griffin, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff for Program Analysis and Evaluation, and Lieutenant General John Curran, USA, Deputy Commanding General, Futures, in the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–2; H.A.S.C. 108–38) 

9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS

On July 22, 2004, The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 

upon the United States released its final report. The report reviewed the series of events precipitating the September 11th attacks on the United States and made a series of recommendations. 

On August 10th, during a congressional recess, the committee reconvened for a series of hearings to review the findings and recommendations of the commission report. The hearings began on 

August 10th with testimony from the Chairman of the Commission, 

Thomas Kean, and the Vice-Chairman, Lee Hamilton. Both witnesses summarized the commission findings and recommendations. 

Later that day, the committee held a second hearing to focus attention more closely on the commission recommendation to deny terrorists sanctuary. The Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul 

Wolfowitz, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General 

Peter Pace, USMC, and General Bryan Brown, USA, Commander 

of U.S. Special Operations Command presented testimony. The 

committee held two additional hearings on August 11th to scrutinize specific commission recommendations in greater detail. In the 

morning, Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, USN, Director of the Defense 

Intelligence Agency, and Major General Raymond Odierno, USA, 

former Commander of the 4th Infantry Division, discussed the vital 

role intelligence plays in supporting the planning and conduct of 

58 

military operations. In the afternoon, the committee invited outside 

experts with significant government experience to review their conclusions about the role of intelligence in warfighting. The witnesses 

included John Hamre, President of the Center for Strategic and 

International Studies and former Deputy Secretary of Defense, 

Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (ret.), Senior Fellow at 

The Hudson Institute and a former Director of the National Security Agency, and Lowell Wood, Senior Scientist at the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–36) 

GLOBAL POSTURE REVIEW

Early in his tenure, the Secretary of Defense initiated a review 

of the overseas deployments of all U.S. military forces with an eye 

towards adjusting those deployments in order to bring them into 

accord with the security environment of the 21st century. This review, subsequently known as the Global Posture Review, involved 

major shifts in U.S. troop deployments, complex negotiations with 

foreign governments, the dismantling of overseas bases, and the development of new deployments concepts for all three services. The 

Committee on Armed Services undertook a lengthy series of hearings on this process in order to ensure that it reflected the best interests of the American people and to assess the Global Posture Review for its implications for U.S. force structure. On February 26, 

2003, the committee began its review with a hearing on the historical strategy of forward-deploying U.S. military forces in Europe. 

Witnesses included General Montgomery Meigs, USA (ret.), former 

Commanding General U.S. Army Europe and U.S. 7th Army, Dr. 

Fred Kagan, Associate Professor of Military History at the United 

States Military Academy, and Mr. Tom Donnelly of the American 

Enterprise Institute. The committee followed that hearing on June 

18th with a hearing on worldwide U.S. military commitments with 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, USMC. The 

committee delved into further detail with a November 5th hearing 

on the implications for U.S. military forces of sustaining U.S. global 

commitments. The witnesses included David S.C. Chu, Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, General Peter Pace, 

USMC, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dr. Douglas 

Holtz-Eakin, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, and Lieutenant General Theodore Stroup, Jr., USA, (ret.), Vice President for 

Education of the Association of the United States Army. 

On June 15th, 2004, the committee examined a particular aspect 

of the Global Posture Review in conducting a hearing on the review’s implications for security on the Korean peninsula. The witnesses were outside experts, including Peter Brookes, Director of 

the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, and Michael 

O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. On June 

23rd, the committee again broadened its view with a hearing on 

the global defense footprint with Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of 

Defense for Policy, Lieutenant General James Cartwright, USMC, 

Director of Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment on the 

Joint Staff, Lincoln Bloomfield, Assistant Secretary of State in the 

59 

Bureau of Political Military Affairs, and Ray Dubois, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and the Environment. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–9; H.A.S.C. 108–31) 

EMERGING THREATS TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY

Members of the committee have paid close attention to international trends that may present new or evolutionary threats to 

U.S. national security. On November 19, 2003, it met to conduct a 

hearing reviewing the overall national security strategy of the 

United States to deal with these threats. The witnesses included 

Jeane Kirkpatrick, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, and 

Samuel ‘‘Sandy’’ Berger, Chairman of Stonebridge International. 

When possible, the committee held hearings to examine specific 

trends in greater detail. On March 17th, 2004, the committee met 

to consider comprehensive strategies for combating the spread of 

weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them. 

The witnesses were Larry Wortzel, Vice President of the Heritage 

Foundation, Gary Milhollin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on 

Nuclear Arms Control, and Ashton Carter, Co-Director of the Preventive Defense Project at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of 

Government. On June 16, 2004, the committee held a hearing to 

review the latest report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security 

Review Commission and received testimony from the commission’s 

chairman, Roger Robinson, Jr., and another commissioner, Carolyn 

Bartholomew. 

The committee has a long-standing concern that potential adversaries might utilize asymmetric means to attack the United States. 

Working with the Senate, it helped create the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse 

(EMP) Attack. On July 22nd, the committee convened to receive 

testimony from the commission’s chairman, Dr. William Graham, 

who was accompanied by a majority of the commissioners. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–9; H.A.S.C. 108–19; H.A.S.C. 108–37) 

INDUSTRIAL BASE

During the 108th Congress, the committee took a particular interest in the health and capabilities of the U.S. defense industrial 

base. The demands of the Global War on Terrorism have made it 

clear that the county’s ability to prevail in the long-term will be 

tied to the ability of its industrial base to meet the needs of our 

uniformed services. On April 21, 2004, the committee received testimony on the performance of the Department of Defense acquisition process in meeting the force protection needs of our deployed 

military forces. The witnesses were led by Michael Wynne, Acting 

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Lieutenant General Joseph Yakovac, Jr., USA, Director of the 

Army Acquisition Corps, Major General Buford Blunt, III, USA, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army, Lieutenant General Edward Hanlon, Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Combat 

Development, and Brigadier General William Catto, USMC, Commanding General of Marine Corps Systems Command. 

On June 17th, the committee convened a hearing to focus on the 

impact of defense trade offsets, in which foreign customers for U.S. 

60 

military goods require U.S. firms to invest in their countries as a 

pre-condition for buying those goods. The witnesses included Owen 

Herrnstadt, Director for Trade and Globalization at the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Roland 

Doktor, Manager for New Programs at Warren Pumps, Inc., and 

Rick Edgar, President and Chief Executive Officer of Jered Industries, Inc. On July 8th, the committee convened its second hearing 

on offsets, with a focus on the implications for economic, technological, and vocational skill sets. The witnesses included Katherine 

Schinasi, Managing Director of the Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team in the General Accounting Office, Charles Wessner, 

Director of the Program on Technology and Innovation at the National Academy of Sciences, and Stanley Sorscher, the Labor Representative of the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in 

America. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–39; H.A.S.C. 108–43) 

(61) 

OTHER ACTIVITIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES 

TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE

The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces addressed all 

Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons 

and lift programs, special operations and information technology 

accounts); Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs; National 

Guard, Army, and Air Force reserve modernization programs; and 

ammunition programs by conducting numerous oversight hearings 

during its consideration of the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 

Department of Defense (DOD) budget requests, including: March 

12, 2003, Army and Navy rotorcraft programs and the associated 

industrial base; March 20, 2003, Army and Marine Corps ground 

forces requirements and the current and future industrial base; 

March 26, 2003, DOD unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) and 

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) programs; April 2, 2003, Air Force 

and Navy tactical weapon system acquisition programs and future 

technology initiatives; March 4, 2004, aviation industrial base and 

DOD rotorcraft investment programs; March 17, 2004, DOD UCAV 

and UAV Programs; March 25, 2004, Navy and Air Force tactical 

weapon acquisition programs; April 1, 2004, Army future combat 

systems and DOD land component programs. In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities regarding DOD budget requests, 

the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings on the following: 

July 19, 2003, Air Force science and technology programs; June 24, 

2004, DOD small-caliber ammunition programs and the associated 

industrial base; July 21, 2004, DOD small business innovation research programs and the development of innovative technology. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–3; H.A.S.C. 108–13; H.A.S.C. 108–22; H.A.S.C. 

108–41; H.A.S.C. 108–42) 

READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE

The subcommittee reviewed the readiness programs within the 

operations and maintenance accounts for fiscal years 2004 and 

2005 to evaluate the budget request and ensure appropriate funds 

were available to maintain a high level of readiness. These hearings included: March 18, 2003, state of military readiness and review of President’s Budget; and March 11, 2004, adequacy of the 

fiscal year 2005 budget to meet readiness needs. 

The subcommittee also held several hearings on Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Most focused on the 

military services plans to reset and reconstitute troops and 

prepositioned assets involved with Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom. These hearings included: October 21, 

2003, resetting and reconstituting the forces; March 24, 2004, 

prepositioned equipment programs of the United States Army and 

United States Marine Corps; March 30, 2004, logistics and lessons 

62 

learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom and logistics transformation; 

and July 20, 2004, depot maintenance—capacity and resources for 

future work. The committee also heard testimony on how the Department of Defense is utilizing and overseeing contractors in the 

field during combat: June 24, 2004, contractor support in the Department of Defense. 

The subcommittee’s detailed and extensive examination of encroachment on military training ranges resulted in legislation in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) that restored a balance between readiness and 

compliance with environmental statutes. A hearing on environmental legislative proposals was held on March 13, 2003. 

The subcommittee also undertook an extensive evaluation of 

rules and regulations affecting civilian personnel within the Department of Defense and enacted a new human resources management system for Department of Defense civilian personnel in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (108–136). 

During the 108th Congress, the subcommittee also evaluated the 

legislation, regulation, and administration policy affecting the process of outsourcing commercial activities within the Department of 

Defense. A hearing was held on March 25, 2003, outsourcing and 

the Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 process. The 

evaluation resulted in major legislation in the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) that 

impacted federal government civilian personnel’s standing to appeal the process to the General Accountability Office. 

The subcommittee also examined training and the requirements 

of joint training at a joint hearing with the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee: March 18, 2004, 

training transformation and examination of the Joint National 

Training Capability. 

Finally, the subcommittee examined and evaluated the military 

construction and military family housing accounts within the Department of Defense. It conducted numerous hearings during its 

consideration of the fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 military 

construction budget requests, including: March 18, 2003, fiscal year 

2004 military construction budget request for programs of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the defense agencies, and the active and reserve components of the Department of the Army; 

March 20, 2003, fiscal year 2004 military construction budget request for programs of the active and reserve components of the Departments of the Navy and the Air Force; February 26, 2004, fiscal 

year 2005 military construction budget request for programs of the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, the defense agencies, and the active and reserve components of the Department of the Air Force; 

and March 4, 2004, fiscal year 2005 military construction budget 

request for programs of the active and reserve components of the 

Departments of the Army and Navy. 

The subcommittee also met to hear testimony on the progression 

of the upcoming base realignment and closure round: March 25, 

2004, oversight hearing on the 2005 base realignment and closure 

process. Subsequently, the subcommittee passed legislation impacting the Base Realignment and Closure Act. 

63 

(H.A.S.C. 108–4; H.A.S.C. 108–17; H.A.S.C. 108–23; H.A.S.C. 

108–30, H.A.S.C. 108–34; H.A.S.C. 108–35) 

TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

SUBCOMMITTEE

The Subcommittee on Unconventional Threats and Capabilities 

held several hearings in support of its consideration of the fiscal 

year 2004 and 2005 budget requests for counter proliferation and 

counter terrorism programs and initiatives, special operations 

forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, information technology policy and programs, force protection policy, and related programs in the military services. 

The subcommittee conducted the following oversight hearings on 

the budget requests for fiscal years 2004 and 2005: March 13, 2003, 

force protection policy: the role of the Department of Defense and 

the national guard in homeland security; March 19, 2003, Department of Defense efforts to address the chemical and biological 

threat; March 27, 2003, defense science and technology policy and 

programs; April 1, 2003, United States Special Operations Command budget request; April 3, 2003, the Department of Defense’s 

information technology programs and policies; March 4, 2004, Department of Defense responsibilities in homeland defense and 

homeland security missions; March 11, 2004, Special Operations 

Command budget request; March 25, 2004, Department of Defense 

science and technology policy and programs; March 31, 2004, Department of Defense’s business transformation efforts; and April 1, 

2004, Destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile—program 

status and issues. 

In addition, the subcommittee conducted numerous oversight 

hearings and briefings during the 108th Congress on the nature of 

the global terrorism threat and various policy and technological 

means by which the threat could be addressed. The following oversight hearings were conducted: July 24, 2003, cyber terrorism: the 

new asymmetric threat; October 21, 2003, C4I interoperability: new 

challenges in 21st century warfare; October 30, 2003, destruction 

of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile—program status and issues; 

February 11, 2004, DOD information systems architecture and net 

centricity; February 26, 2004, Department of Defense transformation; March 18, 2004, training transformation: examination of 

the joint national training capability (joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Readiness); and July 20, 2004, Special Operations 

Command personnel issues. 

The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 9, 

2003, that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) and met to consider and 

report legislation on May 5, 2004, that was included in the Ronald 

W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 (Public Law 108–375). The legislation covered a range of 

issues, including measures to enhance the authority of the Special 

Operations Command to conduct counter terror operations and the 

authority of Department of Defense and the newly created Northern Command to conduct homeland defense missions. Legislation 

initiated by the subcommittee also made substantial improvements 

to Department counter chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, 

64 

and to the management of information technology programs of the 

Department and the military services. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–5; H.A.S.C. 108–10; H.A.S.C. 108–12; H.A.S.C. 

108–24; H.A.S.C. 108–45; H.A.S.C. 108–46; H.A.S.C. 108–47) 

TOTAL FORCE SUBCOMMITTEE

The Total Force Subcommittee held a series of hearings to review 

the manpower portion of the fiscal years 2004 and 2005 defense 

budget requests: March 12, 2003, patron and industry perspectives 

on military exchanges, commissaries and morale, welfare and 

recreation programs; March 13, 2003, Department of Defense total 

force transformation initiatives and overview of the fiscal year 2004 

military personnel budget request; March 19, 2003, domestic violence, joint officer management and education reform, employer 

support of the guard and reserve, reserve pay and benefits and Department of Defense active and reserve components force mix 

study; March 27, 2003, defense health program and the next generation of TRICARE contracts and the TRICARE retail pharmacy 

contracts; April 1, 2003, U.S. Air Force report on sexual assault 

issues at the academy; April 2, 2003, military resale and morale, 

welfare and recreation program activities; April 3, 2003, views from 

the field—perspectives of mobilized reservists; January 21, 2004, 

reserve component healthcare, medical holdovers in current and future deployments; February 25, 2004, force health protection and 

surveillance in the global war on terrorism; March 3, 2004, military 

resale and morale, recreation and welfare programs; March 10, 

2004, the adequacy of the total force; March 18, 2004, defense 

health programs—current and future issues; March 24, 2004, military personnel policy, benefits and compensation overview; March 

31, 2004, reserve component transformation and relieving the 

stress in the reserve component. In addition the subcommittee met 

to conduct oversight hearings: September 24, 2003, final report of 

the panel to review sexual misconduct allegations at the U.S. Air 

Force Academy; June 3, 2004, sexual assault prevention and response in the armed forces. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–6, H.A.S.C. 108–16, H.A.S.C. 108–20, H.A.S.C. 

108–25) 

STRATEGIC SUBCOMMITTEE

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed the Department of Energy’s atomic energy defense activities, and well as the 

missile defense and space programs of the Department of Defense, 

by conducting hearings during its consideration of the fiscal year 

2004 and fiscal year 2005 budget requests, including: March 6, 

2003, Department of Energy’s budget request for atomic energy defense activities; March 19, 2003, the status of military space activities; February 25, 2004, the budget request for space activities; 

March 18, 2004, the Department of Energy’s budget request for 

atomic energy defense activities; and on March 25, 2004, the budget request for missile defense programs. Separate from the traditional budget oversight reviews, the subcommittee held a hearing 

on July 22, 2004, to address the need for and development of a 

cadre of space professionals. In addition to formal hearings, the 

65 

subcommittee conducted briefings on the following: nuclear weapons laboratory security, an update to the Department of Defense’s 

Nuclear Posture Review, and the Air Force’s Space-Based Radar 

program. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–7; H.A.S.C. 108–18; H.A.S.C. 108–26; H.A.S.C. 

108–40) 

PROJECTION FORCES SUBCOMMITTEE

The Subcommittee on Projection Forces conducted a series of 

hearings to review programs included in the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget requests for fiscal years 2004 and 

2005 during the 108th Congress, including: March 27, 2003, Navy’s 

projection forces program; April 3, 2003, Navy transformation and 

future Navy capabilities; March 3, 2004, DOD conventional longrange strike capabilities; March 11, 2004, Navy research and development, transformation and future Navy capabilities; March 17, 

2004, United States Transportation Command’s airlift and sealift 

programs; March 30, 2004, Navy force structure and ship construction. In addition to traditional review of the budget requests, the 

subcommittee held an oversight hearing to address the Air Force’s 

air refueling tanker requirements: June 24, 2003, the U.S. Air 

Force’s air refueling tanker requirements and readiness. 

(H.A.S.C. 108–8, H.A.S.C. 108–11, H.A.S.C. 108–27) 

(67) 

PUBLICATIONS 

COMMITTEE PRINTS OF LAWS RELATING TO NATIONAL DEFENSE

To assist individuals in referencing statutes that are frequently 

under consideration by the Committee on Armed Services and the 

Department of Defense and others in looking for statutory guidance, the committee printed six volumes pertaining to current law 

in the 108th Congress: 

Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, Subtitle A, General Military Law, amended December 31, 2003, March 2004. 

Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, Subtitle B, 

Army; Subtitle C, Navy and Marine Corps; Subtitle D, Air 

Force, and Subtitle E, Reserve Components, amended December 31, 2003, March 2004. 

Selected Defense-Related Laws, amended through December 

31, 2003, Volume II, February 2004. 

Laws Relating to Federal Procurement, amended December 

31, 2002, April 2003. 

Defense-Related Health Laws, amended through Jan. 23, 

2004, Volume III, April 2004. 

Defense-Related Nuclear Laws, amended through December 

31, 2003, Defense-Related Laws, Volume IV, April 2004. 

(Committee Prints 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 5, and 6). 

COMMITTEE PRINTS

1. Committee rules of the Committee on Armed Services, House 

of Representatives, adopted February 20, 2003. 

2A. Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, Subtitle A, General Military Law, amended December 31, 2003, March 2004. 

2B. Title 10, United States Code, Armed Forces, Subtitle B, 

Army; Subtitle C, Navy and Marine Corps; Subtitle D, Air Force, 

and Subtitle E, Reserve Components, amended December 31, 2003, 

March 2004. 

3. Selected Defense-Related Laws, amended through December 

31, 2003, Volume II, February 2004. 

4. Laws Relating to Federal Procurement, amended through December 31, 2002, April 2003. 

5. Defense-Related Health Laws, amended through Jan. 23, 2004, 

Volume III, April 2004. 

6. Defense-Related Nuclear Laws, amended through December 

31, 2003, Defense-Related Laws, Volume IV, April 2004. 

PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS

H.A.S.C. 108–1—Full committee hearing on committee organization. February 5, 2003. 

68 

H.A.S.C. 108–2—Full Committee hearings on National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004—H.R. 1588 and Oversight 

of Previously Authorized Programs. February 5, 12, 26, 27, March 

4, 12, 12, 13, 20, April 1, May 1 and 2, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–3—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2004—H.R. 1588 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title I—Procurement and Title II—Research, Development, 

Test and Evaluation. March 12, 20, 26 and April 2, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–4—Readiness Subcommittee hearings on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004—H.R. 1588 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title III—Operations and Maintenance and Division B—Military Construction Authorizations. March 13, 18, 18, 20 and 25, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–5—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearings on National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004—H.R. 1588 and Oversight of Previously 

Authorized Programs, Title I—Procurement, Title II—Research, 

Development, Test, and Evaluation, and Title III—Operation and 

Maintenance. March 13, 19 and 27, April 1 and 3, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–6—Total Force Subcommittee hearings on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004—H.R. 1588 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title IV—Personnel Authorizations, Title V—Military Personnel Policy, Title 

VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits, and Title VII—

Health Care Provisions. March 12, 13, 19, 27, April 1, 2, and 3, 

2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–7—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

Department of Energy’s National Security Programs Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2004. May 6, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–8—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004—H.R. 

1588 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title I—

Procurement, Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation. March 27, and April 3, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–9—Full Committee hearings on United States 

Global Defense Posture. February 26, June 18, November 5, and 

19, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–10—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Destruction of the U.S. Chemical 

Weapons Stockpile—Program Status and Issues. October 30, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–11—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 

the U.S. Air Force’s Air Refueling Tanker Requirements and Readiness. June 24, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–12—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearings on Information Technology in 21st 

Century Battlespace. July 24 and October 21, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–13—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on Air Force Science and Technology Programs. July 19, 

2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–14—Full Committee hearing on the Air Force 

Tanker Lease Proposal. July 23, 2003. 

69 

H.A.S.C. 108–15—Full Committee hearings on Operation Iraqi 

Freedom: Operations and Reconstruction. April 4, July 10, September 25, October 2, 8, 21, and 29, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–16—Total Force Subcommittee hearing on the 

Final Report of the Panel to Review Sexual Misconduct Allegations 

at the U.S. Air Force Academy. September 24, 2003 

H.A.S.C. 108–17—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Resetting 

and Reconstituting the Forces. October 21, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–18—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

Status of Military Space Activities. March 19, 2003. 

H.A.S.C. 108–19—Full Committee hearing on Combating the 

Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. March 17, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–20—Total Force Subcommittee hearing on Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces. June 3, 

2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–21—Full Committee hearings on National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005—H.R. 4200 and Oversight 

of Previously Authorized Programs. February 4, 12, 25, 26, March 

3, 18, 24, and 31, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–22—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005—H.R. 4200 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title I—Procurement and Title II—Research, Development, 

Test and Evaluation. March 4, 17, 25 and April 1, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–23—Readiness Subcommittee hearings on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005—H.R. 4200 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title III—Operations and Maintenance and Division B—Military Construction Authorizations. February 26, March 4, 11, 18, 24, and 30, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–24—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearings on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005—H.R. 4200 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title I—Procurement, Title II—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, and Title III—Operation and Maintenance. March 4, 11, 25, 31, and April 1, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–25—Total Force Subcommittee hearings on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005—H.R. 4200 

and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title IV—Personnel Authorizations, Title V—Military Personnel Policy, Title 

VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits, and Title VII—

Health Care Provisions. January 21, February 25, March 3, 10, 18, 

24, and 31, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–26—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearings on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005—H.R. 

4200 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs. February 

25, March 18, and 25, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–27—Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005—H.R. 

4200 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, Title I—

Procurement, Title II—Research, Development, Test and Evaluation hearings. March 3, 11, 17, 30, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–28—Full Committee hearings on Operations and 

Reconstruction Efforts in Iraq. January 28, April 21, May 7, 21, 

June 16, 17, 22, July 7, September 8, 9, and 9, 2004. 

70 

H.A.S.C. 108–29—Full Committee hearing on Department of Defense Aviation Safety Initiatives. February 11, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–30—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the 2005 

Base Realignment and Closure Process. March 25, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–31—Full Committee hearings on the Revisions to 

the U.S. Global Defense Footprint. June 15 and 23, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–32—Full Committee hearing on the Report of the 

U.S.—China Economic and Security Commission. June 16, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–33—Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: Security and Reconstruction. April 29, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–34—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Contractor Support in the Department of Defense. June 24, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–35—Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Depot 

Maintenance—Capacity and Resources for Future Work. July 20, 

2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–36—Full Committee hearings on United States Intelligence Reform. August 10, 10, 11, and 11, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–37—Full Committee hearing on the Report of the 

Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack. July 22, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–38—Full Committee hearings on Army Transformation. July 15 and 21, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–39—Full Committee hearings on Department of 

Defense Trade Offsets. June 17 and July 8, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–40—Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the 

Space Cadre/Space Professionals. July 22, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–41—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on Small Business Innovation Research Program and the 

Development of Innovative Technology. July 21, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–42—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

hearing on Department of Defense Small-Caliber Ammunition Programs and the Associated Industrial Base. June 24, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–43—Full Committee hearing on the Performance of 

the Department of Defense Acquisition Process in Support of Force 

Protection for Combat Forces. April 21, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–44—Full Committee hearing on the Status of U.S. 

Forces. November 17, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–45—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Special Operations Command 

Personnel Issues. July 20, 2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–46—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the Department of Defense Information Systems Architecture: Are We on the Right Path to Achieving Net-Centricity and Ensuring Interoperability? February 11, 

2004. 

H.A.S.C. 108–47—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Department of Defense Transformation. February 26, 2004. 

71 

HOUSE REPORTS 

Report number Date filed Bill number Title 

108–105, Part III ............................................... June 30, 2003 .................................................. H.R. 1950 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for the Department of State for the 

fiscal years 2004 and 2005; to authorize appropriations under the Arms Export Control Act and the Foreign Assistance Act for 1961 for security assistance for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and for other purposes. 

108–106 ............................................................ May 16, 2003 ................................................... H.R. 1588 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 

personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. 

108–106, Part II ................................................ May 21, 2003 ................................................... H.R. 1588 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 

personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. 

108–289, Part II ................................................ Oct. 2, 2003 ..................................................... H. Res. 364 ...................................................... Of inquiry requesting the President to transmit to the House of 

Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution the report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled ‘‘Operation Iraqi Freedom Strategic Lessons Learned’’ and documents in his possession on the reconstruction and security of post-war Iraq. 

108–354 ............................................................ Nov. 7, 2003 .................................................... H.R. 1588 Conf. Rept. ..................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 

personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. 

108–413, Part IV ............................................... Feb. 27, 2004 .................................................. H. Res. 499 ...................................................... Requesting the President and directing the Secretary of State, 

the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the President and those officials relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame. 

72 

HOUSE REPORTS

—Continued 

Report number Date filed Bill number Title 

108–443, Part I ................................................. Mar. 23, 2004 .................................................. H.R. 3966 ......................................................... To amend title 10, United States Code, and the Homeland Security Act of 2002, to improve the ability of the Department of 

Defense to establish and maintain Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps units at institutions of higher education, to improve the ability of students to participate in Senior ROTC programs, and to ensure that institutions of higher education provide military recruiters entry to campuses and access to students that is at least equal in quality and scope to that provided to any other employer. 

108–491 ............................................................ May 14, 2004 ................................................... H.R. 4200 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 

personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes. 

108–491, Part II ................................................ May 20, 2004 ................................................... H.R. 4200 ......................................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 

personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes. 

108–547 ............................................................ June 16, 2004 .................................................. H. Res. 640 ...................................................... Of inquiry requesting that the Secretary of Defense transmit to

the House of Representatives before the expiration of the 14- day period beginning on the date of the adoption of this resolution any picture, photograph, video, communication, or report produced in conjunction with the any completed Department of Defense investigation conducted by Major General Antonio M. Taguba relating to allegations of torture or allegations of violations of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq or any completed Department of Defense investigation relating to the abuse or alleged abuse of a prisoner or war or detainee by any civilian contractor working in Iraq who is employed on behalf of the Department of Defense. 

108–632 ............................................................ July 22, 2004 ................................................... H. Res. 689 ...................................................... Of inquiry requesting the President and directing certain other 

Federal officials to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of this resolution documents in the possession of the President and those officials relating to the treatment of prisoners or detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Guantanamo Bay. 

73 

108–724, Part II ................................................ Oct. 4, 2004 ..................................................... H.R. 10 ............................................................. To provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism 

prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes. 

108–767 ............................................................ Oct. 9, 2004 ..................................................... H.R. 4200 Conf. Rept. ..................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military 

personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes. 

74 

PUBLIC LAWS 

Law number Date approved Bill number Title 

108–13 ............................................................. Apr. 22, 2003 ..................................................... H.R. 672 ............................................................. To rename the Guam South Elementary/Middle School of the

Department of Defense Domestic Dependents elementary and Secondary Schools System in honor of Navy Commander William ‘‘Willie’’ McCool, who was the pilot of the 

Space Shuttle Columbia when it was tragically lost on February 1, 2003. 

108–121 ........................................................... Nov. 11, 2003 .................................................... H.R. 3365 ........................................................... To amend title 10, United States Code, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the death gratuity payable 

with respect to deceased members of the Armed Forces, and to exclude such gratuity from gross income. 

108–136 ........................................................... Nov. 24, 2003 .................................................... H.R. 1588 (S. 1050) ........................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military 

activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes. 

108–212 ........................................................... Apr. 1, 2004 ....................................................... H.R. 1977 ........................................................... To amend title 18, United States Code, and the Uniform Code 

of Military Justice to protect unborn children from assault and murder and for other purposes. 

108–220 ........................................................... Apr. 22, 2004 ..................................................... S. 2057 ............................................................... To require the Secretary of Defense to reimburse members of 

the United States Armed Forces for certain transportation expenses incurred by the members on connection with leave under the Central Command Rest and Recuperation Leave program before the program was expanded to include domestic travel. 

108–234 ........................................................... May 28, 2004 ..................................................... H.R. 3104 ........................................................... To provide for the establishment of campaign medals to be 

awarded to members of the Armed Forces who participate in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

108–236 ........................................................... June 15, 2004 .................................................... S.J. Res. 28 ........................................................ Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the Allied landing at Normandy during World War II. 108–268 ........................................................... July 2, 2004 ....................................................... H.R. 4322 ........................................................... To provide for the establishment of the headquarters for the 

Department of Homeland Security in the District of Columbia, to require the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the Nebraska Avenue Naval Complex in the District of Columbia to serve as the location for the headquarters, to facilitate the acquisition by the Department of the Navy of suitable replacement facilities, and for other purposes. 

75 

108–375 ........................................................... Oct. 28, 2004 ..................................................... H.R. 4200 (S. 2400) ........................................... To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military 

activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes. 

108–458 ........................................................... Dec. 17, 2004 .................................................... S. 2845 ............................................................... To provide for reform of the intelligence community, terrorism 

prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation and coordination, and for other purposes. 

(77) 

PRESS RELEASES 

FIRST SESSION

January 9, 2003—Congressman Duncan Hunter Elected to Chair 

the House Committee on Armed Services 

January 9, 2003—Chairman Hunter Announces Reorganization 

of House Armed Services Committee 

January 28, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Statement on the State of 

the Union Address 

February 2, 2003—House Armed Services Committee Chairman 

Statement on the Release of the FY04 Defense Budget 

January 5, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on the FY 2004 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 

February 11, 2003—Chairman Hunter Announces Hearings Regarding the Realignment of U.S. Forces in Europe 

February 12, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Statement at Full Committee Hearing on the Army’s FY 2004 Budget Request 

February 14, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Statement on the Latest 

U.N. Report 

February 19, 2003—Hunter and Skelton Announce New Committee Assignments 

February 26, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at 

Full Committee Hearing on U.S. forward-deployed strategy in the 

European Theater 

February 26, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at 

Full Committee Hearing on the Navy’s FY 2004 Budget Request 

February 27, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at 

Full Committee Hearing on the Air Forces’ FY 2004 Budget Request 

March 4, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction and 

Non-Proliferation Programs 

March 12, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces 

Korea 

March 12, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on U.S. Special Operations Command, U.S. 

Southern Command and U.S. Joint Forces Command 

March 18, 2003—Chairman Hunter Statement on the Evolving 

Situation in Iraq 

March 19, 2003—Chairman Hunter Statement on the Iraq Conflict 

March 20, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on Ballistic Missile Defense 

April 1, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Opening Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on DOD FY04 Acquisition Program and Policy 

78 

April 4, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Opening Statement 

at Full Committee Hearing on Iraq’s Violations of the Law of 

Armed Conflict 

April 8, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter and Ranking Member 

Skelton Suggest Framework for Iraqi War Crimes Trials 

May 1, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Opening Statement at 

Full Committee Hearing on The Defense Transformation for the 

21st Century Act 

May 1, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement on Appointing Rep. Gingrey to Board 

May 13, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Opening Statement 

at Full Committee Mark up on H.R. 1588 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

May 14, 2003—HASC Approves FY 2004 Defense Authorization 

Act—Summary of Committee Mark-up 

May 22, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement at Passage of H.R. 1588, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 

May 23, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement on Air 

Force Tanker Decision 

May 27, 2003—House Congressional Delegation Returns from 

Iraqi Theater of Operations 

June 4, 2003—House Approves Resolution Commending All Involved in Operations Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Iraqi 

Freedom 

June 12, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations 

in Iraq 

June 18, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on Worldwide U.S. Military Commitments 

June 21, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement on the 

Death of Former HASC Chairman Bob Stump 

June 26, 2003—Chairman Hunter’s Statement at Full Committee 

Mark Up of H.R. 1590 

July 10, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement at Full 

Committee Hearing on Operation Iraqi Freedom 

July 10, 2003—Press Advisory—Tactical Air and Land Forces 

Subcommittee field hearing on Air Force Science & Technology 

(S&T) Programs at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, 

Ohio 

July 23, 2003—Chairman Duncan Hunter’s Statement on the Air 

Force Tanker Lease Proposal 

July 25, 2003—Chairman Hunter Announces Approval of Air 

Force Tanker Lease 

September 8, 2003—Statement Regarding War on Terrorism 

Funding Request 

November 7, 2003—Summary of the Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1588, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 

SECOND SESSION

February 25, 2004—Chairman Hunter Comments on GAO Report Identifying needed Improvements in Export Controls 

79 

March 3, 2004—Chairman Hunter Statement Before the House 

Committee on Budget 

March 18, 2004—HASC Approves Legislation 

March 30, 2004—House Passes Rogers ROTC Equal Access Legislation 

April 6, 2004—Hunter Statement on Transfer of Power in Iraq 

April 7, 2004—Hunter Says U.S. Has Overwhelming Firepower 

in Iraq 

April 27, 2004—GAO Finds Russia Lacks Plan for Destruction of 

Poison Gas Stockpile 

May 4, 2004—Hunter Statement on Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners 

May 5, 2004—Statement on New Defense Funding Request 

May 6, 2004—Hunter statement on Iraq Resolution 

May 7, 2004—Hunter statement on Secretary of Defense Donald 

Rumsfeld 

May 13, 2004—Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2005 Defense 

Authorization Bill: ‘‘Year of the Troops’’ Legislation Focuses on 

Force Protection and Personnel Benefits 

May 19, 2004—Hunter letter to General Sanchez on Iraqi prisoner hearings 

May 20, 2004—House Approves Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act 

May 21, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Conduct and Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom—Opening Remarks of Chairman 

Hunter 

May 26, 2004—Statement Regarding Status of Air Force Tankers 

June 3, 2004–Statement Regarding Shortfalls in International 

Export Control System 

June 14, 2004—Full Committee Mark-up of H. Res. 640, Resolution of Inquiry Concerning Abu Ghraib Prison—Opening Remarks 

of Chairman Hunter 

June 15, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Strategic Implications of U.S. Troop Withdrawals from Korea—Opening Remarks 

of Chairman Hunter 

June 16, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Status of Forces 

in Iraq After June 30—Opening Remarks of Chairman Hunter 

June 16, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Report of the 

United States—China Economic and Security Review Commission—Opening Remarks of Chairman Hunter 

June 17, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Training of Iraqi 

Security Forces—Opening Remarks of Chairman Hunter 

June 17, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Impacts of Defense Trade Offsets—Opening Remarks of Chairman Hunter 

June 22, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on Iraq Transition to 

Sovereignty—Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter 

June 23, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the U.S. Global Defense Posture—Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter 

June 28, 2004—Statement by Chairman Hunter and Committee 

Members Reyes and Calvert on Iraqi Sovereignty 

July 7, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Iraq/Afghanistan 

Troop Rotation Plan—Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter 

July 8, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Impacts of Defense 

Offsets—Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter 

80 

July 20, 2004—Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee Hearing on the Personnel Status of the U.S. 

Special Operations Command (SOCOM)—Opening Statement of 

Chairman Saxton 

July 20, 2004—Readiness Subcommittee Hearing on Depot Maintenance—Capacity and Resources for Future Work—Opening 

Statement of Chairman Hefley 

July 21, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on Army Transformation—Part Two—Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter 

July 21, 2004—Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 

Hearing on Small Business Innovation and Technology—Opening 

Statement of Chairman Weldon 

July 22, 2004—Full Committee Hearing on the Report of the 

Commission to Assess the Threat to the U.S. from Electromagnetic 

Pulse Attack—Opening Statement of Chairman Hunter 

July 22, 2004—Strategic Forces Subcommittee Hearing on the 

Development of a Space Cadre—Opening Statement of Chairman 

Everett 

July 22, 2004—Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Everett 

and Ranking Member Reyes Urge Quick Resolution of Recurring 

Security Breaches at Los Alamos National Laboratory 

July 30, 2004—Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Everett 

Reviews Key Missile Defense Programs 

September 1, 2004—Chairman Hunter on Allegations of a Secret 

Military Reserve Troop Call-Up After the November Election 

September 30, 2004—Committee Unanimously Approves 9/11 

Recommendations Implementation Act 

October 5, 2004—Statement on the Rejection of the Military 

Draft Bill 

October 8, 2004—Conferees Approve 2005 Defense Authorization 

Act 

October 8, 2004—Statement on Passage of H.R. 10, The 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act 

October 9, 2004—Statement on Passage of H.R. 4200, The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 

October 12, 2004—Hunter Named Conferee on Intelligence Reform Legislation 

November 17, 2004—Hunter Statement on Status of U.S. Forces 

December 7, 2004—Hunter Statement on Final Passage of the 

Intelligence Reform Bill 

December 10, 2004—Saxton: Humvee Armoring Programs Not 

Yet Complete 

Æ