H. Rept. 109-731 - 109th Congress (2005-2006)
December 15, 2006, As Reported by the Armed Services Committee

Report text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this legislative text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.




House Report 109-731 - REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES of the COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES for the ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS




[House Report 109-731]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]




                                                 Union Calendar No. 435
 
109th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 109-731

                        REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                                for the

                       ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS


 <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>



 December 15, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                       One Hundred Ninth Congress

                  DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania            IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado                JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey               SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             LANE EVANS, Illinois
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama               GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,           MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
    California                       SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana          ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas                     MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada                  ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina          ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California              ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut             SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia               JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               STEVE ISRAEL, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            RICK LARSEN, Washington
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire           MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio                 TIM RYAN, Ohio
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                MARK UDALL, Colorado
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                DAN BOREN, Oklahoma
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
                   Robert L. Simmons, Staff Director
           Holly Graning, Director of Legislative Operations

----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective 
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.
  
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Washington, DC, December 15, 2006.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to House Rule XI 1(d), there is 
transmitted herewith the report of activities of the Committee 
on Armed Services for the 109th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                                           Duncan Hunter, Chairman.

                                     
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Powers and Duties, Committee on Armed Services--109th Congress...     1
    Background...................................................     1
    Constitutional Powers and Duties.............................     2
    House Rules on Jurisdiction..................................     3
    Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight............     4
Committee Rules..................................................     4
    Rules Governing Procedure....................................     4
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services--109th Congress...    13
Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services--109th Congress.    14
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................    14
    Subcommittee on Readiness....................................    15
    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
      Capabilities...............................................    15
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel...........................    16
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................    16
    Subcommittee on Projection Forces............................    16
Committee Staff..................................................    17
Committee Meetings...............................................    19
Legislative Actions..............................................    19
    Legislation Enacted Into Law.................................    19
        Public Law 109-100 (S. 37)...............................    19
        Public Law 109-104 (H.R. 4326)...........................    19
        Public Law 109-142 (H.J. Res. 38)........................    20
        Public Law 109-159 (S. 1988).............................    20
        Public Law 109-163 (H.R. 1815)...........................    20
        Public Law 109-164 (H.R. 972)............................    23
        Public Law 109-272 (H.R. 5683)...........................    23
        Public Law 109-364 (H.R. 5122)...........................    24
        Public Law 109-366 (S. 3930).............................    26
    Legislation Reported but Not Enacted.........................    27
        H. Res. 417..............................................    27
        H. J. Res. 65............................................    27
        H. Res. 645..............................................    28
        H. Res. 685..............................................    28
        H.R. 6054................................................    29
Oversight Activities.............................................    31
    Summary of Oversight Plan....................................    31
    Actions and Recommendations..................................    31
    Additional Oversight Activities..............................    56
Other Activities of the Full Committee...........................    77
    Budget Activity..............................................    77
    Full Committee Hearings......................................    82
Other Activities of the Subcommittees............................    93
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................    93
    Subcommittee on Readiness....................................    94
    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
      Capabilities...............................................    95
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel...........................    97
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................    97
    Subcommittee on Projection Forces............................    98
Publications.....................................................   101
    Published Proceedings........................................   101
    House Reports................................................   110
    Public Laws..................................................   111
Press Releases...................................................   113
                                                 Union Calendar No. 435
109th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     109-731

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




  REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR THE 
                             109TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 December 15, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on 
            the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                                   ON

     POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--109TH CONGRESS


                               Background

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

                    Constitutional Powers and Duties

    The powers and duties of Congress in relation to national 
defense matters stem from Article I, section 8, of the 
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;
          Exercise exclusive legislation . . . over all places 
        purchased . . . for the erection of forts, magazines, 
        arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and
          Make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for 
        carrying into execution the foregoing powers.

                      House Rules on Jurisdiction

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

           Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight

    H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority 
for each committee to investigate matters within its 
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent 
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the 
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative 
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each 
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated, 
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight 
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by 
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on 
Armed Services.
    H. Res. 224, approved by the House on April 27, 2005, 
provided funds for, among other things, committee oversight 
responsibilities to be conducted in the 109th Congress, 
pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives (relating to general oversight 
responsibilities), clause 3(h) of rule X (relating to special 
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to 
investigations and studies).

                            COMMITTEE RULES

    The Committee held its organizational meeting on January 
25, 2005, and adopted the following rules governing procedure 
and rules for investigative hearings conducted by 
subcommittees.
    (H.A.S.C. No. 109-1)

                       Rules Governing Procedure


                   RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES

    The Rules of the House of Representatives are the rules of 
the Committee on Armed Services (hereinafter referred to in 
these rules as the ``Committee'') and its subcommittees so far 
as applicable.

                  RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

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

                   RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES

    Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, 
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters 
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee 
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee 
chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the 
Chairman, the other subcommittee chairmen, and the ranking 
minority member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding 
simultaneous scheduling of committee and subcommittee meetings 
or hearings wherever possible.

                         RULE 4. SUBCOMMITTEES

    Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 3(b), relating 
to Separate Orders, of H. Res. 5 as adopted by the House of 
Representatives on January 4, 2005, the Committee shall be 
organized to consist of six standing subcommittees with the 
following jurisdictions:
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces: All Army and 
Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic weapons and 
lift programs, special operations and information technology 
accounts). In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible 
for all Navy and Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard 
and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, and ammunition 
programs.
    Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, training, 
logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the 
subcommittee will be responsible for all military construction, 
installations and family housing issues, including the base 
closure process.
    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities: Department of Defense counter proliferation and 
counter terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the 
subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations Forces, 
the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, information 
technology and programs, force protection policy and oversight, 
and related intelligence support.
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel 
policy, reserve component integration and employment issues, 
military health care, military education and POW/MIA issues. In 
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, 
Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic Forces (except 
deep strike systems), space programs, ballistic missile defense 
and Department of Energy national security programs (except 
non-proliferation programs).
    Subcommittee on Projection Forces: Navy and Marine Corps 
programs (except strategic weapons, space, special operations 
and information technology programs), deep strike bombers and 
related systems, and strategic lift programs.

                        RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS

    (a) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee 
consisting of members of the Committee to inquire into and take 
testimony on a matter or matters that fall within the 
jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee and to report to the 
Committee.
    (b) No panel so appointed shall continue in existence for 
more than six months. A panel so appointed may, upon the 
expiration of six months, be reappointed by the Chairman.
    (c) No panel so appointed shall have legislative 
jurisdiction.

           RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

    (a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters 
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
    (b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup 
only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or 
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of those present 
and voting.
    (c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a 
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter 
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by 
the Committee.
    (d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not 
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of 
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the 
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee, 
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee.

          RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

    Pursuant to clause 2(g)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Committee or of 
any subcommittee or panel shall make public announcement of the 
date, place, and subject matter of any committee or 
subcommittee hearing at least one week before the commencement 
of the hearing. However, if the Chairman of the Committee or of 
any subcommittee or panel, with the concurrence of the 
respective ranking minority member of the Committee, 
subcommittee or panel, determines that there is good cause to 
begin the hearing sooner, or if the Committee, subcommittee or 
panel so determines by majority vote, a quorum being present 
for the transaction of business, such chairman shall make the 
announcement at the earliest possible date. Any announcement 
made under this rule shall be promptly published in the Daily 
Digest, promptly entered into the committee scheduling service 
of the House Information Resources, and promptly posted to the 
internet web page maintained by the Committee.

        RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

    Clause 4 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.

            RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

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

                            RULE 10. QUORUM

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

                     RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE

    (a) The time any one member may address the Committee or 
subcommittee on any measure or matter under consideration shall 
not exceed five minutes and then only when the member has been 
recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as 
appropriate, except that this time limit may be exceeded by 
unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall be 
recognized for not to exceed five minutes to address the 
Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the 
member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-
minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee or subcommittee.
    (b) Members present at a hearing of the Committee or 
subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened shall be 
recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as 
appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving 
subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the ranking 
minority member will take precedence upon their arrival. In 
recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the 
Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the 
majority to minority members present and shall establish the 
order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to 
disadvantage the members of either party.
    (c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in 
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, or 
panel hearings and meetings.

             RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

    (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions 
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee are 
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
          (1) to sit and act at such times and places within 
        the United States, whether the House is in session, has 
        recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
          (2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the 
        attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
        production of such books, records, 
correspondence,memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not 
limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers necessary.
    (b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the 
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full 
Committee Chairman, 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 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 Committee or subcommittee which reported the measure if, in 
the Committee or subcommittee, such point of order was (a) 
timely made and (b) improperly overruled or not properly 
considered.

           RULE 20. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

    The result of each record vote in any meeting of the 
Committee shall be made available by the Committee for 
inspection by the public at reasonable times in the offices of 
the Committee. Information so available for public inspection 
shall include a description of the amendment, motion, order, or 
other proposition and the name of each member voting for and 
each member voting against such amendment, motion, order, or 
proposition and the names of those members present but not 
voting.

          RULE 21. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

    (a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security 
information bearing a classification of secret or higher which 
has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be 
deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be 
given appropriate safekeeping.
    (b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval 
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in 
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any national security information received 
classified as secret or higher. Such procedures shall, however, 
ensure access to this information by any member of the 
Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner of the House of Representatives who has requested 
the opportunity to review such material.

                      RULE 22. COMMITTEE STAFFING

    The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, 
and any panel designated by the Chairman shall be subject to 
the rules of the House of Representatives.

                       RULE 23. COMMITTEE RECORDS

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

                      RULE 24. HEARING PROCEDURES

    Clause 2(k) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives shall apply to the Committee.
     COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--109TH CONGRESS

    Pursuant to H. Res. 32, election of the Chairman (adopted 
January 6, 2005), H. Res. 48, election of majority members, 
(adopted January 26, 2005), H. Res. 33, election of the Ranking 
Member (adopted January 6, 2005), and H. Res. 49, election of 
minority members (adopted January 26, 2005), the following 
members served on the Committee on Armed Services in the 109th 
Congress:

DUNCAN HUNTER California, Chairman

IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Ranking MemberCURT WELDON, Pennsylvania, Vice 
JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina          Chairman
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas              JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
LANE EVANS, Illinois                 JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii             TERRT EVERETT, Alabama
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, 
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas                 California\1\
ADAM SMITH, Washington               MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        JIM RYUN, Kansas
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           KEN CALVERT, California
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
STEVE ISRAEL, New York               JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
RICK LARSEN, Washington              W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                J. RANDY FORBES,Virginia
JiIM MARSHALL, Georgia               JEFF MILLER, Florida
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida            JOE WILSON, South Carolina
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
TIM RYAN, Ohio                       JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire
MARK E. UDALL, Colorado              MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina     JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
CYNTHIA McKINNEY, Georgia            CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma                  MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
                                     TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
                                     BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
                                     THELMA DRAKE, Virginia
                                     JOE SCHWARZ, Michigan
                                     CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
                                     K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
                                     GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
                                     BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California\2\

----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective 
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.
    SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 109TH CONGRESS

    The following subcommittees were established at the 
committee's organizational meeting on January 25, 2005.

              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

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

       Mr. WELDON, Chairman

Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member      Mr. McKEON \1\ Vice Chairman
Mr. SKELTON                          Mr. GIBBONS
Mr. SPRATT                           Mr. CALVERT
Mr. ORTIZ                            Mr. LoBIONDO
Mr. EVANS                            Mr. BRADLEY
Mr. SMITH                            Mr. TURNER
Mr. McINTYRE                         Mr. CONAWAY
Mr. BRADY                            Mr. EVERETT
Mr. ISRAEL                           Mr. BARTLETT
Mr. COOPER                           Mr. JONES
Mr. MEEK                             Mr. RYUN (KS)
Mr. RYAN (OH)                        Mr. AKIN
Mr. BUTTERFIELD                      Mr. FORBES
Mr. BOREN                            Mr. WILSON
                                     Mr. SHUSTER
                                     Mr. BILBRAY \2\

----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective 
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.
                       Subcommittee on Readiness

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative 
jurisdiction over military readiness, training, logistics and 
maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the subcommittee 
will be responsible for all military construction, 
installations and family housing issues, including the base 
closure process.

       Mr. HEFLEY, Chairman

Mr. ORTIZ, Ranking Member            Mr. HOSTETTLER, Vice Chairman
Mr. EVANS                            Mr. JONES
Mr. TAYLOR                           Mr. RYUN (KS)
Mr. ABERCROMBIE                      Mr. FORBES
Mr. REYES                            Mr. MILLER
Dr. SNYDER                           Mr. ROGERS
Mr. BRADY                            Dr. SCHWARZ
Ms. DAVIS (CA)                       Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS
Mr. MARSHALL                         Mr. McHUGH
Mr. MEEK                             Mr. McKEON \1\
Ms. BORDALLO                         Mr. HAYES
Mr. RYAN (OH)                        Mr. SIMMONS
Mr. UDALL                            Mr. BRADLEY
Mr. BUTTERFIELD                      Mrs. MILLER
                                     Mr. FRANKS
                                     Mr. BILBRAY \2\

----------
\1\ Mr. McKeon took a leave of absence from the committee effective 
June 29, 2006.
\2\ Mr. Bilbray was elected to the committee on June 29, 2006.

   Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative 
jurisdiction over Department of Defense counter proliferation 
and counter terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, 
the subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations 
Forces, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 
information technology and programs, force protection policy 
and oversight and related intelligence support.

       Mr. SAXTON, Chairman

Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ranking Member      Mr. HAYES, Vice Chairman
Mr. SMITH                            Mr. AKIN
Mr. McINTYRE                         Mr. WILSON
Ms. TAUSCHER                         Mr. KLINE
Mr. ANDREWS                          Mr. SHUSTER
Mr. LANGEVIN                         Mr. DAVIS
Mr. LARSEN                           Mr. HEFLEY
Mr. COOPER                           Mr. THORNBERRY
Mr. MARSHALL                         Mr. GIBBONS
Ms. McKINNEY                         Mr. MILLER
                                     Mr. LoBIONDO
                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel

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

       Mr. McHUGH, Chairman

Dr. SNYDER, Ranking Member           Mrs. DAVIS (VA)
Mr. MEEHAN                           Mr. KLINE
Ms. SANCHEZ                          Mrs. DRAKE, Vice Chairman
Mr. ANDREWS                          Mr. CONAWAY
Ms. DAVIS (CA)                       Mr. SAXTON
Mr. UDALL                            Mr. JONES
Ms. McKINNEY                         Mr. RYUN (KS)
                                     Mr. HAYES

                    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

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

       Mr. EVERETT, Chairman

Mr. REYES, Ranking Member            Mr. THORNBERRY, Vice Chairman
Mr. SPRATT                           Mr. FRANKS
Ms. SANCHEZ                          Mr. TURNER
Ms. TAUSCHER                         Mr. ROGERS
Mr. LARSEN                           Dr. SCHWARZ
Mr. COOPER                           Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS
                                     Mr. DAVIS

                   Subcommittee on Projection Forces

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

      Mr. BARTLETT, Chairman

Mr. TAYLOR, Ranking Member           Mr. SIMMONS, Vice Chairman
Ms. TAUSCHER                         Mrs. DAVIS (VA)
Mr. LANGEVIN                         Mrs. MILLER
Mr. ISRAEL                           Mrs. DRAKE
Mr. MARSHALL                         Mr. WELDON
Ms. BORDALLO                         Mr. SAXTON
Mr. BOREN                            Mr. HOSTETTLER
                                     Mr. CALVERT
                            COMMITTEE STAFF

    By committee resolution adopted at the organizational 
meeting on January 25, 2005, or by authority of the Chairman, 
the following persons were appointed to the staff of the 
committee during the 109th Congress:

 Robert L. Simmons, Staff Director
 Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director 
      (resigned May 31, 2005)
  Hugh N. Johnston, Jr., Deputy 
   Staff Director/Chief Counsel
  Rita D. Thompson, Professional 
Staff Member (resigned January 4, 
               2005)
  Brenda J. Wright, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Frank A. Barnes, Staff Assistant
  Betty B. Gray, Staff Assistant
 Ernest B. Warrington, Jr., Staff 
Assistant (resigned April 1, 2005)
 Diane W. Bowman, Staff Assistant 
   (resigned February 16, 2005)
 Michael R. Higgins, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Jean D. Reed, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned September 1, 
               2005)
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff 
              Member
B. Ryan Vaart, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Robert W. Lautrup, Professional 
 Staff Member (resigned September 
             1, 2005)
  John F. Sullivan, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Nancy M. Warner, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Thomas E. Hawley, Professional 
           Staff Member
 William H. Natter, Professional 
           Staff Member
     Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr., 
     Professional Staff Member
    Mary Ellen Fraser, Counsel 
    (resigned January 12, 2006)
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff 
              Member
   Henry J. Schweiter, Counsel 
    (resigned August 31, 2005)
  Erin C. Conaton, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Douglas C. Roach, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Alexis R. Lasselle, Professional 
           Staff Member
    Danleigh S. Halfast, Staff 
 Assistant (resigned January 14, 
               2005)
   Justin P. Bernier, Research 
  Assistant (resigned January 7, 
               2005)
  Curtis Flood, Staff Assistant 
    (resigned December 4, 2005)
  Linda Burnette, Printing Clerk
  Hugh Brady, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned June 15, 2005)
   Harald Stavenas, Director of 
     Legislative Affairs and 
 Communications (resigned June 6, 
               2006)
Joseph Fengler, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned September 30, 
               2006)
      William R. Marck, Jr., 
    Professional Staff Member 
     (resigned March 1, 2005)
 Uyen T. Dinh, Counsel (resigned 
          August 1, 2005)
 Eric Sterner, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned March 17, 2006)
   W. Holly Graning, Director, 
      Legislative Operations
  William C. Ostendorff, Counsel
 Claire E. Dunne, Program Analyst 
   (resigned November 24, 2006)
    James William Godwin, Jr., 
     Professional Staff Member
  Lindsay Young, Staff Assistant 
   (resigned September 2, 2005)
  Jennifer E. Giglio, Executive 
Assistant (resigned July 14, 2006)
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff 
              Member
    Katherine A. Croft, Staff 
 Assistant (resigned September 8, 
               2006)
E. Hayes Arendall, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned June 22, 2005)
   Loren Dealy, Communications 
             Assistant
 Joshua T. Hartman, Professional 
 Staff Member (resigned March 6, 
               2006)
    Heather L. Messera, Staff 
             Assistant
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Carrie M. Sloan, Press Secretary 
     (resigned April 30, 2005)
     Jeffery A. Green, Counsel
 Jeanette S. James, Professional 
           Staff Member
   Chandler T. Lockhart, Staff 
 Assistant (resigned May 5, 2006)
 Miriam E. Wolff, Communications 
  Advisor (appointed January 1, 
               2005)
Brian R. Anderson, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed January 3, 2005)
Richard A. Pawloski, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed January 
             10, 2005)
Jordan Redmond, Intern (appointed 
 January 11, 2005; resigned June 
             10, 2005)
Taylor L. Clukey, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed January 18, 2005; 
    resigned January 11, 2006)
  Rebecca A. Ross, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed February 
             1, 2005)
  Sarah Gelinas, Staff Assistant 
  (appointed February 14, 2005; 
    resigned November 10, 2006)
Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed March 1, 2005)
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed March 14, 2005)
  Lynn M. Williams, Professional 
Staff Member (appointed March 14, 
               2005)
Diana Schimmel, Intern (appointed 
 March 10, 2005; resigned May 6, 
               2005)
  Mark Epley, Counsel (appointed 
March 28, 2005; resigned March 3, 
               2006)
  Paul Lewis, Counsel (appointed 
          March 28, 2005)
  Stephanie Sanok, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed April 4, 
               2005)
 Jennifer C. Guy, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed April 13, 2005; 
     resigned August 4, 2006)
   Joshua C. Holly, Director of 
 Communications (appointed May 2, 
               2005)
 Brady DeRemer, Intern (appointed 
 May 9, 2005; resigned August 5, 
               2005)
Lydia Chao, Intern (appointed May 
16, 2005; resigned August 5, 2005)
  John Wason, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed June 6, 2005)
Harry Cartland, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed June 10, 2005)
Regina Burgess, Research Assistant 
     (appointed June 14, 2005)
Kathleen Kelly, Intern (appointed 
 June 14, 2005; resigned July 29, 
               2005)
    Ben Kohr, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed July 25, 2005)
   Catherine K. Steadman, Staff 
  Assistant (appointed August 9, 
               2005)
     Robert W. DeGrasse, Jr., 
    Professional Staff Member 
    (appointed August 22, 2005)
Roger Zakheim, Counsel (appointed 
         August 29, 2005)
Diana Schimmel, Intern (appointed 
August 31, 2005; resigned November 
             7, 2005)
Kristine Ellison, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed September 7, 2005)
Jeness Simler, Professional Staff 
Member (appointed October 3, 2005)
  Doug Lane, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed October 14, 
               2005)
Julie Unmacht, Counsel (appointed 
         October 31, 2005)
    Kevin P. Coughlin, Counsel 
    (appointed January 4, 2006)
 Anne Skelly, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed January 30, 
 2006; resigned December 4, 2006)
  Lorry M. Fenner, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed February 
             15, 2006)
  Norman R. Morse, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed February 
 17, 2006; resigned June 30, 2006)
Christine Roushdy, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed March 1, 2006)
   Derek Scott, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed March 1, 2006)
Eryn Robinson, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed March 6, 2006)
Alexander Kugajevsky, Professional 
Staff Member (appointed March 10, 
               2006)
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed April 24, 2006)
Margee Meckstroth, Staff Assistant 
      (appointed May 1, 2006)
  John Kruse, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed May 8, 2006)
  Henry Nuzum, National Security 
 Analyst (appointed May 15, 2006)
Ryan Burke, Intern (appointed June 
12, 2006; resigned August 4, 2006)
Caroline Tripp, Intern (appointed 
June 12, 2006; resigned August 11, 
               2006)
Kathleen Kelly, Intern (appointed 
July 11, 2006; resigned August 11, 
               2006)
Andrew H. Tabler, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed August 9, 2006)
Aileen K. Alexander, Professional 
Staff Member (appointed August 28, 
               2006)
 Jason Hagadorn, Staff Assistant 
  (appointed September 11, 2006)
                           COMMITTEE MEETINGS

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

Full Committee....................................................   152
Subcommittees:
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces..................    27
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................    14
    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
      Capabilities................................................    38
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................    23
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................    23
    Subcommittee on Projection Forces.............................    24

                          LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS


                      Legislation Enacted Into Law


                       PUBLIC LAW 109-100 (S. 37)

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

    Public Law 109-100 extends by two years the breast cancer 
research special postage stamp. After passing the Senate by 
unanimous consent on September 27, 2005, S. 37 was referred to 
the Committee on Armed Services on September 28, 2005. The bill 
was considered by unanimous consent on October 27, 2005, and 
passed by the House. On November 11, 2005, the President signed 
S. 37 into law.

                     PUBLIC LAW 109-104 (H.R. 4326)

To authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for the 
 nuclear refueling and complex overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-
                                  70).

    Public Law 109-104 authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to 
enter into a contract for the nuclear refueling and complex 
overhaul of the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-70). The bill makes 
fiscal year 2006 funds available for commencement of work on 
the contract authorized during fiscal year 2006 but only for 
obligations in an amount not to exceed $89,000,000. The bill 
allows that additional amounts may be obligated for such work 
for fiscal year 2006 only to the extent to which authority is 
expressly provided by law, and funds are appropriated by law, 
for such obligations after the date of enactment of this Act.
    On November 15, 2005, H.R. 4326 was introduced and referred 
to the Committee on Armed Services. The measure was considered 
under suspension of the rules and passed the House on November 
16, 2005 by voice vote. The Senate passed the measure without 
amendment by Unanimous Consent on November 18, 2005. On 
November 19, 2005, H.R. 4326 was signed by the President and 
became law.

                   PUBLIC LAW 109-142 (H.J. RES. 38)

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

    Public Law 109-142 recognizes and honors Commodore John 
Barry as the first flag officer of the United States Navy. The 
measure commends Commodore Barry and honors his efforts and 
accomplishments in raising the United States Navy. H.J. Res. 38 
was introduced and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 
on March 17, 2005. On December 14, 2005, the joint resolution 
passed the House under suspension of the rules. The measure was 
passed in the Senate without amendment and with a preamble on 
December 16, 2005. The measure was signed by the President and 
became law on December 22, 2005.

                      PUBLIC LAW 109-159 (S. 1988)

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

    Public Law 109-159 authorizes the President to transfer to 
the Republic of Korea, any munitions, equipment, and/or 
materiel in the War Reserves Stockpile for Allies, Korea. After 
passing the Senate without amendment by unanimous consent on 
November 9, 2005, S. 1988 was referred to the Committee on 
International Relations and Armed Services on November 14, 
2005. The bill was considered under suspension of the rules and 
passed the House on December 18, 2005. On December 30, 2005, 
the President signed
S. 1988.

                     PUBLIC LAW 109-163 (H.R. 1815)

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

    Public Law 109-163, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006, authorizes funds totaling 
$435,970,473,000 for national defense functions for fiscal year 
2006 and provides a budget authority level of $441,536,600,000.

Division A

    Division A of Public Law 109-163 authorizes funds for 
fiscal year 2006 for the Department of Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I authorizes $76,914,011,000 for 
procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat 
vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed 
forces, defense agencies, and reserve components of the armed 
forces.
    Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional 
program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of, 
or funds for specified programs for the armed forces, 
including: multiyear procurement authority for the C-17 
aircraft and utility helicopters, the shipbuilding 
modernization initiative, the prohibition on the retirement of 
KC-135 and the F-117 aircraft; and restructuring the advanced 
SEAL delivery system.
    Subtitle A of title II authorizes $70,199,859,000 for 
research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces 
and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research 
and development-related matters.
    Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program 
requirements, restrictions, and limitations on six separate 
research and development-related matters, including: Future 
Combat Systems, requirements for the heavy lift rotorcraft, 
limitations on the VXX presidential helicopter and requirements 
for the development of the Joint Tactical Radio System.
    Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile 
defense programs and miscellaneous matters, including high-
performance defense manufacturing technology research and 
development.
    Subtitle A of title III authorizes $125,715,202,000 for 
operation and maintenance, $22,429,849,000 for other programs, 
and $3,129,057,000 for working capital funds for the armed 
forces and defense agencies.
    Subtitles B through H of title III address environmental 
provisions, workplace and depot issues, extensions of program 
authorities, outsourcing, studies and reports relating to 
military readiness, the Utah Test and Training Range, and other 
miscellaneous matters.
    Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the 
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2004 and authorizes 
appropriations of $108,942,746,000 for military personnel for 
fiscal year 2006. The end strengths for active duty personnel 
for fiscal year 2006 are as follows:
          Army, 512,400
          Navy, 352,700
          Marine Corps, 179,000
          Air Force, 357,400
    The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2006 are 
as follows:
          Army National Guard, 350,000
          Army Reserve, 205,000
          Naval Reserve, 73,100
          Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600
          Air National Guard, 106,800
          Air Force Reserve, 74,000
          Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000
    The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of 
the reserve components for fiscal year 2006 are as follows:
          Army National Guard, 27,396
          Army Reserve, 15,270
          Naval Reserve, 13,392
          Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261
          Air National Guard, 13,123
          Air Force Reserve, 2,290
    Title V sets military personnel policy, including 
provisions that address officer personnel policy; the reserve 
component management; education and training, including, DOD 
schools, ROTC, and the Naval postgraduate school; general 
service requirements; military justice and legal assistance 
matters; issues relating to casualties; defense dependents 
education; consumer protection; and other matters.
    Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; retiree 
and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality benefits; and other matters.
    Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as 
enhanced benefits for reservists; TRICARE program improvements; 
programs concerning mental health issues; reports; and other 
matters.
    Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition 
management and related matters, including amendments to general 
contracting authorities, and matters relating to the United 
States defense industrial base.
    Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and 
management provisions, including space activities; chemical 
demilitarization; and intelligence-related matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; 
homeland security; reports; military mail; and other matters.
    Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel 
matters, including the Veteran's preferences, and other federal 
government civilian personnel matters.
    Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, 
including: assistance and training; nonproliferation and 
countries of concern; related reports; and other issues.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with 
states of the Former Soviet Union.
    Title XIV addresses matters relating to detainees.
    Title XV includes authorization for increased cost due to 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Division B

    Division B of Public Law 109-163 authorizes appropriations 
in the amount of $12,166,611,000 for military construction and 
military family housing in support of the active forces, the 
reserve components, and the NATO security investment program 
for fiscal year 2006. In addition, Division B contains military 
construction and family housing program changes; property and 
facilities administration; provisions concerning base closure 
and realignment land conveyances, and other matters.

Division C

    Division C of Public Law 109-163 authorizes appropriations 
in the amount of $16,554,857,000 for Department of Energy 
national security programs for fiscal year 2006. Division C 
also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; National Defense Stockpile; 
Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration.
    The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 1815, as 
amended, to the House on May 20, 2005. The measure passed the 
House, as amended, on May 25, 2005. The Senate passed by 
unanimous consent H.R. 1815, as amended, on November 15, 2005, 
subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and 
inserting in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure, 
S. 1042. The conference report was agreed to in the House on 
December 18, 2005, and in the Senate on December 21, 2005. H.R. 
1815 was signed by the President and became law on January 6, 
2006.
    (H. Rept. 109-89; S. Rept. 109-69; H. Rept. 109-360; 
H.A.S.C. 109-2; H.A.S.C. 109-3; H.A.S.C. 109-4; H.A.S.C. 109-5; 
H.A.S.C. 109-6; H.A.S.C. 109-7; H.A.S.C. 109-8; H.A.S.C. 109-9; 
H.A.S.C. 109-10; H.A.S.C. 109-11; H.A.S.C. 109-13; H.A.S.C. 
109-14; H.A.S.C. 109-15; H.A.S.C. 109-16; H.A.S.C. 109-17; 
H.A.S.C. 109-18; H.A.S.C. 109-19; H.A.S.C. 109-20; H.A.S.C. 
109-21; H.A.S.C. 109-22; H.A.S.C. 109-23; H.A.S.C. 109-24; 
H.A.S.C. 109-25; H.A.S.C. 109-26; H.A.S.C. 109-27)

                     PUBLIC LAW 109-164 (H.R. 972)

  To authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 for the 
  Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes.

    Public Law 109-164, the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2005, which authorized appropriations 
for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 to combat international 
trafficking in persons and domestic trafficking in persons. The 
measure is meant to assist in the prevention of trafficking in 
conjunction with post-conflict and humanitarian emergency 
assistance, protection of victims of trafficking in person, and 
enhancing prosecutions of trafficking in persons offenses 
especially when they are employed by or accompanying the 
Federal Government outside the United States.
    H.R. 972 was introduced and referred to the Committee on 
International Relations, as well as the Committees on Armed 
Services, the Judiciary, and Energy and Commerce on February 
17, 2005. On December 14, 2005, the bill, as amended, passed 
the House under suspension of the rules. The Senate passed the 
measure on December 22, 2005 by unanimous consent without 
amendment. It was signed by the President and became law on 
January 10, 2006.

                     PUBLIC LAW 109-272 (H.R. 5683)

To preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, 
   by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the 
                             United States.

    Public Law 109-272, to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans 
Memorial in San Diego, California, for the immediate 
acquisition of the memorial by the United States. The measure 
vests title and possession of the Mt. Soledad Veterans 
Memorial, a national memorial honoring American veterans of all 
wars, including the War on Terrorism, in the United States.
    On June 26, 2006, H.R. 5683 was introduced and referred to 
the Committee on Resources, as well as the Committee on Armed 
Services. On July 19, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5683 under 
suspension of the rules. The Senate passed the measure on 
August 1, 2006 by unanimous consent without amendment. On 
August 14, 2006, H.R. 5683 was signed by the President and 
became law.

                     PUBLIC LAW 109-364 (H.R. 5122)

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

    Public Law 109-364, the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, authorizes funds 
totaling $455,383,431,000 for national defense functions for 
fiscal year 2006 and provides a budget authority level of 
$462,760,229,000.

Division A

    Division A of Public Law 109-364 authorizes funds for 
fiscal year 2007 for the Department of Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I authorizes $84,153,588,000 for 
procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat 
vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed 
forces, defense agencies, and reserve components of the armed 
forces.
    Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional 
program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of, 
or funds for specified programs for the armed forces, 
including: acquisition strategy for tactical wheeled vehicles; 
multiyear procurement authority for the MH-60R helicopter, the 
V-22 aircraft, and the F-22A fighter aircraft; sense of 
Congress on the size of the attack submarine force; 
modernization of the intercontinental ballistic missile; 
description of the bomber force structure and strategic airlift 
force structure.
    Subtitle A of title II authorizes $73,607,976,000 for 
research, development, test and evaluation for the armed forces 
and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research 
and development-related matters.
    Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program 
requirements, restrictions, and limitations on six separate 
research and development-related matters, including: Future 
Combat Systems, acquisition and cost estimate for the joint 
strike fighter propulsion system.
    Subtitles C and D of title II address ballistic missile 
defense programs and miscellaneous matters, including 
limitation on funds for space-based interceptor.
    Subtitle A of title III authorizes $129,018,149,000 for 
operation and maintenance, $23,847,112,000 for other programs, 
and $2,436,430,000 for working capital funds for the armed 
forces and defense agencies.
    Subtitles B through F of title III address environmental 
provisions; program requirements, restrictions, and 
limitations; workplace and depot issues; studies and reports 
relating to military readiness; and other miscellaneous 
matters.
    Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the 
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2004 and authorizes 
appropriations of $110,098,628,000 for military personnel for 
fiscal year 2007. The end strengths for active duty personnel 
for fiscal year 2007 are as follows:
          Army, 512,400
          Navy, 340,700
          Marine Corps, 180,000
          Air Force, 334,200
    The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2007 are 
as follows:
          Army National Guard, 350,000
          Army Reserve, 205,000
          Naval Reserve, 73,100
          Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600
          Air National Guard, 106,800
          Air Force Reserve, 74,000
          Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000
    The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of 
the reserve components for fiscal year 2006 are as follows:
          Army National Guard, 27,396
          Army Reserve, 15,270
          Naval Reserve, 13,392
          Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261
          Air National Guard, 13,123
          Air Force Reserve, 2,290
    Title V sets military personnel policy, including 
provisions that address officer personnel policy, including 
officer promotion policy and joint officer management 
requirements; the reserve component management; education and 
training, including service academies, JROTC, and scholarships 
and financial assistance programs; general service authorities; 
military justice matters; decorations and awards; issues 
relating to casualties; impact aid and defense dependents 
education; the armed forces retirement home; reports; and other 
matters.
    Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired 
pay and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality benefits; and other matters.
    Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as 
TRICARE program improvements; selected studies and reports; 
planning, programming and management of military health care; 
and other matters.
    Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition 
management and related matters, including: issues relating to 
Major Defense Acquisition Programs; amendments to general 
contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations; and 
matters relating to the United States defense industrial base.
    Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and 
management provisions, including space activities; chemical 
demilitarization; and intelligence-related matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; policy relating to vessels and shipyards; counter-drug 
activities; force structure and defense policy matters; 
reports; general authorities and limitations of the 
availability and use of funds; matters involving detainees; and 
additional issues.
    Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel 
matters.
    Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, 
including: assistance and training; nonproliferation and 
countries of concern.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with 
states of the Former Soviet Union.
    Title XIV addresses matters relating to defense against 
terrorism and other related security matters.
    Title XV includes authorization for increased cost due to 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

Division B

    Division B of Public Law 109-364 authorizes appropriations 
in the amount of $17,098,423,000 for military construction and 
military family housing in support of the active forces, the 
reserve components, and the NATO security investment program 
for fiscal year 2007.
    In addition, Division B contains military construction and 
family housing program changes; property and facilities 
administration; provisions concerning base closure and 
realignment; land conveyances; energy security; and other 
matters.

Division C

    Division C of Public Law 109-364 authorizes appropriations 
in the amount of $15,840,330,000 for Department of Energy 
national security programs for fiscal year 2007. Division C 
also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; National Defense Stockpile; 
Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime Administration.
    The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 5122, as 
amended, to the House on May 5, 2006. The measure passed the 
House, as amended, on May 11, 2006. The Senate passed by 
unanimous consent H.R. 5122, as amended, on June 22, 2006, 
subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and 
inserting in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure, 
S. 2766. The conference report was agreed to in the House on 
September 29, 2006, and in the Senate on September 30, 2006. 
H.R. 5122 was signed by the President and became law on October 
17, 2006.
    (H. Rept. 109-452; S. Rept. 109-254; H. Rept. 109-702; 
H.A.S.C. 109-48; H.A.S.C. 109-53; H.A.S.C. 109-54; H.A.S.C. 
109-57; H.A.S.C. 109-60; H.A.S.C. 109-62; H.A.S.C. 109-68; 
H.A.S.C. 109-69; H.A.S.C. 109-72; H.A.S.C. 109-73; H.A.S.C. 
109-74; H.A.S.C. 109-76; H.A.S.C. 109-95; H.A.S.C. 109-99; 
H.A.S.C. 109-101; H.A.S.C. 109-102)

                      PUBLIC LAW 109-366 (S. 3930)

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

    Public Law 109-366, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 
was enacted by Congress in response to the Supreme Court's 
decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. _, 126 S. Ct. 2749 
(June 29, 2006). The measure provides for congressional 
authorization of military commissions to try alien unlawful 
enemy combatants for war crimes committed before, on or after 
September 11, 2001. In addition, the measure eliminates Federal 
court jurisdiction over pending and future habeas and civil 
suits by enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo Bay and in 
other U.S. facilities and limits judicial review by the D.C. 
Circuit Court of Appeals to find judgments of military 
commissions on matters of law. After being introduced in the 
Senate on September 22, 2006, and laid before the Senate by 
unanimous consent on September 27, 2006, S. 3930 passed the 
Senate with an amendment on September 28, 2006. A House bill 
pertaining to the same subject matter, H.R. 6054 was introduced 
on September 12, 2006; it was referred to the Committee on 
Armed Services, as well as the Committees on the Judiciary and 
International Relations. On September 13, 2006, the Committee 
on Armed Services met to consider H.R. 6054 and ordered the 
bill to be reported, as amended. On September 25, 2006, another 
bill pertaining to the same subject matter, H.R. 6166 was 
introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services, as well as the Committees on the Judiciary and 
International Relations. H.R. 6166 passed the House on 
September 27, 2006. On September 29, 2006, the House passed S. 
3930, a similar measure to H.R. 6166, without amendment. On 
October 17, 2006, the President signed S. 3930 into law.
    (H. Rept. 109-664, Part I)

                  Legislation Reported but Not Enacted


                              H. RES. 417

      Directing Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 
 Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption 
  of this resolution documents in the possession of the Secretary of 
 Defense relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of 
                           Ms. Valerie Plame.

    H. Res. 417 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request 
specific factual information from the President of the United 
States or the head of one of the executive departments. The 
Rules of the House of Representatives provide for a committee 
to report on a qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14 
legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the 
committee is in order. H. Res. 417 would have directed the 
Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the 
adoption of the resolution all documents, including telephone 
and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, personnel 
records, and records of internal discussions in the possession 
of the Secretary of Defense relating to the disclosure of the 
identity of Ms. Valerie Plame as an employee of the Central 
Intelligence Agency during the period beginning on May 6, 2003, 
and ending on July 31, 2003.
    H. Res. 417 was introduced and referred to Committee on 
Armed Services on July 29, 2005. On September 20, 2005, the 
Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and ordered 
the resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No further 
action was taken.
    (H. Rept. 109-234)

                              H.J. RES. 65

   Disapproving the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and 
                        Realignment Commission.

    H.J. Res. 65 is a joint resolution which states that 
Congress disapproves the recommendations of the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Commission as submitted by the 
President on September 15, 2005. H.J. Res. 65 was introduced on 
September 20, 2005 and referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. On September 29, 2005, the Committee on Armed 
Services held a mark-up session and ordered the joint 
resolution to be reported adversely. The measure failed in the 
House on October 27, 2005. No further action was taken.
    (H. Rept. 109-243)

                              H. RES. 645

Requesting the President and directing Secretary of Defense to transmit 
 to the House of Representatives all information in the possession of 
the President or the Secretary of Defense relating to the collection of 
intelligence information pertaining to persons inside the United States 
without obtaining court-ordered warrants authorizing the collection of 
 such information and relating to the policy of the United States with 
 respect to the gathering of counterterrorism within the United States.

    H. Res. 645 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request 
specific factual information from the President of the United 
States or the head of one of the executive departments. The 
Rules of the House of Representatives provide for a committee 
to report on a qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14 
legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the 
committee is in order. H. Res. 645 would have requested the 
President and directed the Secretary of Defense to transmit to 
the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after the 
date of the adoption of this resolution, all documents, 
including telephone and electronic mail records, logs, 
calendars, minutes, and memos, in the possession of the 
President relating to the scope of the activities undertaken by 
the Department of Defense, the Counterintelligence Field 
Activity, or any related agency with regard to Threat and Local 
Observation Notice reports; and the legal authority upon which 
surveillance by the National Security Agency or the Department 
of Defense of persons inside the United States and the 
gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within the United 
States without obtaining court-ordered warrants is based.
    H. Res. 645 was introduced on December 22, 2005 and 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On March 1, 2006 
the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and 
ordered the resolution of inquiry to be reported adversely. No 
further action was taken.

                              H. RES. 685

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

    H. Res. 685 was a resolution of inquiry designed to request 
specific factual information from the President of the United 
States or the head of one of the executive departments. The 
Rules of the House of Representatives provide for a committee 
to report on a qualifying resolution of inquiry within 14 
legislative days or a privileged motion to discharge the 
committee is in order. H. Res. 685 would have requested the 
President and directed the Secretary of State and Secretary of 
Defense to provide to the House of Representatives, not later 
than 14 days after the date of adoption of this resolution, all 
documents in the possession of the President, the Secretary of 
State, or the Secretary of Defense, respectively, relating to 
any entity (including the Rendon Group and the Lincoln Group) 
with which the United States has entered into a contract for 
public relations purposes concerning Iraq insofar as such 
documents relate to such contract.
    H. Res. 685 was introduced and referred to the Committee on 
Armed Services on February 15, 2006. The Committee on Armed 
Services held a mark-up session to consider the measure and 
ordered the resolution to be reported adversely on March 16, 
2006. No further action was taken.
    (H. Rept. 109-397)

                               H.R. 6054

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize trial by military 
  commission for violations of the law of war, and for other purposes.

    H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was a bill 
to provide for congressional authorization of military 
commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants for war 
crimes, and other offenses committed before, on or after 
September 11, 2001. H.R. 6054 was introduced on September 12, 
2006, and referred to the Committee on Armed Services, as well 
as, the Committees on the Judiciary and International 
Relations. On September 13, 2006, the Committee on Armed 
Services held a mark-up session and ordered the bill reported, 
as amended. No further action was taken.
    (H. Rept. 109-664, Part I)
                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

    The oversight responsibilities of the Committee on Armed 
Services were conducted primarily within the context of the 
committee's consideration of the annual defense authorization 
bills, which cover the breadth of the operations of the 
Department of Defense (DOD) and a significant portion of the 
operating budget of the Department of Energy. The annual 
national defense budget of approximately $462.8 billion 
involves millions of military and civilian personnel, thousands 
of facilities, and hundreds of agencies, departments, and 
military commands located throughout the world.

                       SUMMARY OF OVERSIGHT PLAN

    In response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on 
the United States and the ongoing U.S. military operations in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee conducted extensive 
oversight activities during the 109th Congress, paying 
particular attention to the conduct of the global war on 
terrorism and force protection of military personnel, 
installations, and equipment. The committee regularly received 
briefings on national security threats and conducted a series 
of hearings and briefings on the status of U.S. forces in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, including the significant threat posed by 
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). In addition, prior to 
consideration of the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 defense budgets, 
the committee conducted oversight hearings with the Secretary 
of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
individual service secretaries and chiefs of staff, combatant 
commanders, other officials of the Department of Defense and 
the military departments, officials of the Central Intelligence 
Agency, and other defense-related intelligence agencies, and 
the Secretary of Energy, the Director of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, and other officials of the Department 
of Energy. The committee also received testimony from outside 
experts in academia, industry, associations, and those in 
private life on these matters.
    While the majority of the committee's oversight was planned 
to support the annual defense authorization bill, the committee 
also conducted oversight activities as demanded by critical 
current events.

                      ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

       NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY AND OTHER DEFENSE POLICY ISSUES

    During the 109th Congress, the committee took particular 
interest in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and other 
strategic documents of the Department of Defense. The 
committee's interest included a focus on DOD transformation 
efforts to improve U.S. military capabilities to address 21st 
Century security challenges. Throughout both sessions of 
Congress, the committee received numerous presentations and 
briefings from representatives of the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense, the joint staff, the services, and the combatant 
commands.
    On June 15, 2006, the committee received a top secret 
briefing from the Department on its national defense strategy, 
national military strategy, and its process for conducting the 
2005 QDR. On September 14, 2005, the committee conducted an 
open hearing and received testimony from former DOD officials 
and outside experts on the goals and principles of the QDR. The 
witnesses included the Honorable Dov S. Zakheim; Ms. Michele 
Flournoy, Center for Strategic and International Studies; Dr. 
Daniel Goure, Lexington Institute; and Dr. Andrew F. 
Krepinevich, Jr., Center for Strategic and Budgetary 
Assessments. Following the release of the QDR on February 6, 
2006, the committee turned its attention to the DOD plan to 
implement the QDR's strategic direction. On March 14, 2006, the 
committee conducted a hearing and received testimony on the 
QDR's key findings and implementation roadmaps. Members heard 
from a panel comprised of the Honorable Gordon England, Deputy 
Secretary of Defense and Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., 
United States Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
Following that panel, the committee heard testimony from 
outside experts, including Mr. Thomas Donnelly, Resident 
Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Dr. Andrew F. 
Krepinevich, Jr., Executive Director, Center for Strategic and 
Budgetary Assessments; and Mr. Lawrence J. Korb, Senior Fellow, 
Center for American Progress. These two panels offered 
different perspectives on the overall QDR process, key 
findings, and the DOD implementation plan.
    Following these oversight efforts, the committee concluded 
that the 2006 QDR was ``resource constrained,'' which affected 
DOD assessment of threats and the capabilities required to meet 
them; contradictory in its conclusions about force structure; 
and at odds regarding some programmatic decisions. As a result, 
in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee amended 
section 118 of title 10, United States Code. This amendment 
required that the analysis and recommendations in the DOD QDR 
are not to be constrained by the budget request; the 
identification of specific capabilities to achieve strategic 
and warfighting objectives; an independent assessment of the 
QDR; and a more comprehensive risk assessment from the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The committee also included a 
provision in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) requiring the 
Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports on the 
implementation of recommendations described in the 2006 QDR.

                        GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

    Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
has conducted continuous military operations against those who 
might threaten the security of the United States or its allies. 
While the United States and allied forces have successfully 
weakened al-Qaeda's senior leadership by capturing or killing 
many al-Qaeda leaders, like the U.S. military operation which 
killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist organization has 
morphed into an affiliated network of terrorist cells that is 
diffuse and decentralized. The al-Qaeda-affiliated network 
operates in cells of varying size and organization in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Europe, Africa, Asia, and South America. In the 
Middle East, Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan 
and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) place new demands on the 
armed forces and require new strategies that alter standard 
operating procedures, training, doctrine, and traditional 
concepts of operations. Moreover, as the enemy adapts their 
tactics and techniques to exploit those areas where U.S. 
capabilities might not be as strong, the United States requires 
increased cooperation between and among federal departments and 
agencies to fill those gaps.
    Committee delegations visited the U.S. Central Command area 
of operations to assess progress in OIF and OEF, as well as 
other regions where U.S. forces are engaged in the global war 
on terrorism (GWOT). In addition to oversight activities 
reviewing ongoing military operations in OEF and OIF, the 
committee conducted numerous hearings and classified 
briefingson our military strategy for the global war on terrorism. In 
November 2005, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats 
and Capabilities held a classified briefing with representatives from 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the joint staff on DOD 
roles, missions, and capabilities in counterterrorism. On February 8, 
2006, following the release of the National Military Strategic Plan for 
the global war on terrorism, administration officials, representatives 
from the joint staff, and U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) 
briefed the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and 
Capabilities on the new strategic plan. The briefing clarified how the 
military had refined its plan to meet its top priorities for defeating 
al-Qaeda and affiliated movements; how the GWOT operational planning 
process works; and identified those tasked with the execution of 
command and control of counterterrorism operations.
    The committee's review of newly published plans for the 
GWOT reinforced the conclusion that winning the global war on 
terrorism requires improved interagency coordination, greater 
synchronization within the Department, and increased capability 
to carry out irregular warfare missions, such as training and 
equipping security forces in countries where terrorist 
organizations operate or in countries that have large 
ungoverned spaces. The Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and the full committee 
held hearings in March and April 2006, on improving interagency 
coordination. In both hearings, administration officials, 
general officers, and outside experts all testified that 
interagency coordination needs to be improved and that the U.S. 
Government is insufficiently applying all elements of national 
power in the GWOT. A number of witnesses advised the committee 
to monitor and oversee the work of the National 
Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and the implementation of the 
NCTC's National Implementation Plan for the global war on 
terrorism, which provides operational direction to all 
government agencies, including the Department, on the execution 
of a synchronized, national effort in the GWOT.
    With respect to improving intra-agency execution of the 
GWOT strategy, on June 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities held a hearing that 
looked at how USSOCOM is executing its role as the lead 
combatant command for planning, synchronizing, and executing 
global operations against terrorist networks. This hearing, and 
subsequent classified briefings, reviewed the DOD Global 
Campaign Plan for the global war on terrorism, which was 
completed in 2005. In light of the military strategic plan's 
emphasis on unconventional warfare operations in the global war 
on terrorism, as well as the 2006 QDR's irregular warfare 
roadmap, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, 
and Capabilities held a hearing on September 27, 2006, on steps 
the Department is taking to increase and improve the military's 
irregular warfare capability.
    As a result of these oversight activities, the committee 
recommended the statutory adoption of several provisions 
designed to oversee and enhance implementation of U.S. strategy 
in the global war on terrorism. These provisions, contained in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) and the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
required the Secretary of Defense to issue quarterly reports on 
the war strategy in Iraq, to report on the findings of the 
assessment process relating to the global war on terrorism, and 
authorized enhancements to the regional combating terrorism 
fellowship program. In the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702) 
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee 
directed the Secretary to submit a report that clarifies the 
roles and responsibility of the commander of USSOCOM in his 
capacity as the supported combatant commander in the GWOT.
    Committee hearings and briefings on the need for improved 
interagency coordination in the global war on terrorism 
contributed to a provision in the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), 
which required a presidential report on building interagency 
capacity and enhancing integration of civilian capabilities of 
the executive branch with capabilities of the armed forces. 
Similarly, in the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702) 
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee 
directed the Secretary to provide a report on how the 
Department is improving and strengthening internal Department 
of Defense mechanisms for global war on terrorism interagency 
coordination at the strategic, operational, and tactical 
levels. Finally, the committee's emphasis on increasing our 
capability to operationalize the global war on terrorism 
strategy, particularly increasing the military's irregular 
warfare capability, contributed to a provision in the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), which required the Secretary to report on 
the implementation of the 2006 QDR recommendations.

                                  IRAQ

    The committee closely observed the Iraqi political events 
in 2005 and 2006, which established an inclusive constitutional 
process for Iraq. In January 2005, Iraq held elections as 
scheduled to select a 275-seat Transitional National Assembly, 
with a 58 percent voter turnout. In April 2005, interim Prime 
Minister Ayad Allawi stepped down after the Assembly selected 
Ibrahim al-Jaafari as the permanent prime minister. By August 
2005, the Iraqi Constitutional Committee completed its final 
draft of the constitution to replace the Transitional 
Administrative Law. In October, more than 63 percent of 
eligible Iraqis voted in the referendum with the constitution 
passing by a 79 percent majority. Parliamentary elections were 
held in December 2005, with the final results certified in 
January 2006. There was close to 80 percent voter turnout and 
minimal violence surrounding the election. Iraqi leaders formed 
a broad, unity government in April 2006, with significant Sunni 
representation and Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister.
    While the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) continued to grow in 
numbers and capability in 2006, violence escalated, notably in 
Baghdad, after the February 2006, bombing of the Askariya 
mosque. The death of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 
2006, was a major success for coalition forces and the 
government of Iraq. Also in June, the Director of National 
Intelligence, John Negroponte, released unclassified key points 
from a National Ground Intelligence Center report on the 
recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. In November 2006, an 
Iraqi court, independent of the political process, convicted 
Saddam Hussein for murdering his own people and sentenced him 
to death.
    To exercise proper oversight, the committee conducted 
briefings and hearings with representatives from the Department 
of Defense (DOD) and policy community. In January 2005, the 
committee received a top secret briefing on operations and 
intelligence in support of Iraq, tsunami relief, and activities 
in Afghanistan; and a secret briefing on the efforts to train 
Iraqi security forces and on the then-upcoming Iraqi elections. 
The committee met on February 2, 2005, to receive a secret 
briefing on the Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 
Freedom force protection initiatives and on March 8, 2005, to 
receive a secret briefing from General George W. Casey, Jr., 
United States Army, Commander, Multi-National Forces, Iraq. The 
committee met again on March 17, 2005, to receive testimony on 
current operations and the political transition in Iraq from 
witnesses, including Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, Executive 
Director, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Dr. 
Steven Metz, Chairman, Regional Strategy, and Planning, 
Research Professor of National Security Affairs, United States 
Army War College Strategic Studies Institute; and the Honorable 
Walter B. Slocombe, Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy 
and former Senior Advisor for Defense and Security Sector 
Affairs to the Coalition Provisional Authority for Iraq.
    On April 6, 2005, the committee received testimony on 
Iraq's past, present, and future from General Wesley Clark, 
United States Army (Ret.), Former Combatant Commander, European 
Command and the Honorable Richard Perle, Former Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. In June 
2005, committee members attended a session to review the most 
recent reports from the International Committee of the Red 
Cross related to the Iraq theater of operations detention 
facilities and received a top secret brief from joint staff 
officials on metrics, trends, and the Iraqi security forces; a 
briefing from General Barry McCaffrey, United States Army 
(Ret.) on his experiences and observation in Iraq; and a closed 
briefing with DOD officials on Iraqi Security Forces. The 
committee also received testimony on June 23, 2005, on the 
Progress of the Iraqi Security Forces from witnesses, including 
the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; General 
Richard B. Myers, United States Air Force, Chairman, Joint 
Chiefs of Staff; General John Abizaid, United States Army, 
Commander, Central Command; and General George W. Casey, Jr., 
United States Army, Commander, Multi-National Forces--Iraq. On 
July 21, 2005, the committee received a secret brief on the DOD 
work in developing and tracking metrics for OIF.
    On September 29, 2005, the committee held an open hearing 
and closed briefing on operations in Iraq. The Honorable Donald 
Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, refuted the notion that 
commanders on the ground had been reluctant to request an 
increase in troop strength, stating that the needs of the 
commanders on the ground for force levels would be met. Al-
Qaeda and its associated extremists, according to General John 
Abizaid, United States Army, Commander, U.S. Central Command, 
were the main threat to peace and stability in the region. 
General George W. Casey, Jr., United States Army, Commander, 
Multi-National Forces, Iraq, warned that the United States 
should expect a protracted conflict in Iraq.
    On June 29, 2006, the director of the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, United States 
Army, testified in an open session on the revelations 
concerning weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. He stated 
that the munitions in question--containing mustard and Sarin 
nerve agent--qualified as chemical weapons and would be capable 
of causing mass casualties under certain circumstances. Mr. 
Frank J. Gaffney, President and Chief Executive Officer of the 
Center for Security Policy, started off a second panel of 
civilian witnesses by stressing that these chemical weapons 
were precisely the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam 
Hussein had been required by the United Nations Security 
Council to destroy. In his written testimony for the panel, Mr. 
Terence Taylor, Director of the International Council for Life 
Sciences and former commissioner to the United Nations Special 
Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq, underscored the dangers posed by 
insurgents obtaining and using these weapons. David Kay, 
weapons inspector and the first director of the Central 
Intelligence Agency's Iraq Survey Group, expressed disagreement 
about the lethality of the munitions. Immediately following 
that open hearing, the committee attended a highly classified 
briefing from intelligence officials on the contents of the 
report.
    On November 15, 2006, the committee held an open hearing to 
assess the ongoing military operations in Iraq. General John 
Abizaid, United States Army, Commander, U.S. Central Command, 
addressed the level of sectarian violence, noting its 
concentration in the vicinity of Baghdad, and the need for 
meaningful national reconciliation to quell it. He stated that 
Iraq could still be stabilized and supported managing force 
levels without specific timetables for withdrawal. Ambassador 
David Satterfield, Senior Advisor on Iraq to the Secretary of 
State, stressed that Iraqis do not want to see their country 
torn apart. He advised that the dissolution of Iraq into 
separate political entities would come at a price in human 
suffering that the United States would not be willing to bear.
    Attaching importance to the acceleration of transitioning 
responsibility for security and stability to the Iraqi Security 
Forces, the committee responded with an emergency authorization 
of $1.7 billion in the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
This additional authorization for the Iraq Security Forces Fund 
Program will enhance the ability of the commander, Multi-
National Security Transition Command--Iraq, to provide 
equipment, supplies, services, training, facility and 
infrastructure repair, renovation, and construction for the 
Iraqi Security Forces.
    The committee recognized the good will of the Iraqi people 
that accrued from the humanitarian support for Iraqi children 
in urgent need of medical care. Therefore, it recommended a 
provision adopted in the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
that authorized $1.0 million and expressed a sense of Congress 
that the Secretary of Defense continue to provide space-
available transportation on military aircraft from Baghdad to 
Amman, Jordan for Iraqi children.
    Finally, in expressing appreciation for the actions that 
resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Committee on 
Armed Services joined with the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to commend the U.S. 
armed forces, the intelligence community, other Federal 
agencies and coalition partners. The provision also contained a 
sense of Congress that exhorted Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to 
end ethnic and sectarian violence.

                Detainee Policy and Military Commissions

    On May 11, 2005, the U.S. Southern Command announced that 
General John Craddock, commander, U.S. Southern Command, had 
directed an inquiry into allegations of mishandling of the 
Koran at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 
The inquiry was prompted by allegations in the media in May 
2005 that U.S. personnel at Guantanamo had flushed a Koran down 
a toilet. Additional media allegations of torture, harsh 
interrogations techniques, and improper medical treatment 
involving detainees continued to focus public attention on 
detainee affairs and the committee continued its intensive 
oversight into detainee policy begun in the 108th Congress. 
Because the detainee treatment issue involved sensitive matters 
associated with criminal investigations and prosecutions and 
into classified matters associated with intelligence collection 
techniques, much of the committee's oversight of detainee 
matters was conducted in classified forums. Thus, in addition 
to the four public hearings specifically on detainee treatment 
and one posture hearing devoted in part to detainee matters, 
the committee conducted eight member briefings (including 
several opportunities for members to review reports by the 
International Committee of the Red Cross) and fourteen staff 
briefings related to detainee affairs. Additionally, many 
committee members and several staff made separate trips to 
reviewdetainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The 
committee also received documents detailing the results of three 
investigations by the Department of Defense regarding alleged detainee 
mistreatment. Finally, the committee received 108,000 pages of 
documents from the Department of Defense related to Freedom of 
Information Act requests regarding detainee matters. The conferees for 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 
109-163), consisting of 26 members of the committee and 23 members of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, added a Title to that measure 
regarding detainee treatment and the committee reported out one bill 
concerning detainee matters.
    The first statutory provision, the ``Detainee Treatment Act 
of 2005'' (Title XIV of Public Law 109-163) originated in the 
Senate amendment to H.R. 1815, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The Senate amendment 
contained three provisions (secs. 1074, 1075, and 1092) 
relating to detainees. The first provision (sec. 1074) provided 
for uniform standards for the interrogation of persons under 
the detention of the Department of Defense. The second 
provision (sec. 1075) prohibited cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
treatment or punishment of persons under the custody or control 
of the U.S. Government. The third provision (section 1092) 
provided procedures for the legal review of detainees held by 
the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The House 
bill contained no similar provisions. The House receded with an 
amendment that would establish a new title of the bill, Title 
XIV, addressing matters relating to detainees. Section 1401 
designated the title as the ``Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.'' 
Section 1402 contained the text of Senate section 1074 without 
change. Section 1403 contained the text of Senate section 1075 
without change. Section 1404 was a new provision providing for 
an affirmative defense in any civil action or criminal 
prosecution against an officer, employee, member of the armed 
forces, or other agent of the U.S. Government, arising out of 
that person's engaging in specific operation practices 
involving detention or interrogation of aliens who the 
President or his designees determined to be engaged in or 
associated with international terrorist activity. Section 1405 
amended Sec. 1092 of the Senate amendment and addressed the 
procedures for legal review of detainees held by the Department 
of Defense. Section 1406 was a new provision requiring the 
Department of Defense to train Iraqi military forces regarding 
the international obligations and laws applicable to the humane 
detention of detainee, including protections afforded under the 
Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and 
providing for Arabic translation and distribution of the Army 
Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation to Iraqi security 
forces. The conference report for H.R. 1815 was agreed to 
without amendment by the House of Representatives on December 
19, 2005 by a reported vote of 374-41. The Senate agreed to the 
Conference report by Voice Vote on December 21, 2005. The 
President signed H.R. 1815 on January 6, 2006 and it became 
Public Law 190-163. Similar legislation was passed as Title X 
of Public Law 109-148, signed by the President on December 30, 
2005.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Public Law 109-148, the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 contained an earlier draft of the Detainee 
Treatment Act of 2005 than adopted by Congress in Public Law 109-163. 
Public Law 109-148 contained a minor punctuation difference between 
Section 1005(b) and Section 1405(b) of Public Law 109-168. Sections 
1006(a)(1) (required policies in general); Section 1006(b)(91) (provide 
portions of Field Manual) and Section 1006(b)(2) (distrubution of Field 
Manual) of Public Law 109-148 did not include modifications later 
written into Sections 1406(a)(1), 1406(b)(1) and 1406(b)(2) of Public 
Law 109-163.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second statutory provision, the ``Military Commissions 
Act of 2006'' (``MCA') was enacted by Congress in response to 
the Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. _, 
126 S. Ct. 2749 (June 29, 2006). In a 5-3 decision, the court 
held that military commissions set up by the Bush 
Administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay were illegal 
under both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and common 
Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Court also found that 
Section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (Public Law 
109-148, December 30, 2005) did not deprive the Court of 
jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court ruled absent clear 
congressional intent, there would be a presumption against 
retroactive application of the statute and also found that 
because the provision excluding the Court of jurisdiction 
lacked explicit language regarding pending cases contained in 
two other jurisdictional provisions, a negative inference could 
be drawn because of the exclusion of the language. After the 
Hamdan decision the committee held three oversight hearings 
into military commissions and related matters and on September 
12, 2006 Mr. Hunter introduced H.R. 6054, which was referred to 
the Committee on Armed Services and to the Committees on the 
Judiciary and International Relations. On September 13, 2006, 
the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session and 
ordered the bill to be reported, as amended. On September 25, 
2006, Mr. Hunter introduced a similar measure, H.R. 6166, which 
was the result of a compromise between the Administration, the 
Senate and House Republican. On September 27, 2006, H.R. 6166 
was considered and passed by the House, 253-168, without 
amendment. On September 28, 2006, the Senate considered and 
passed S. 3930, an identical measure to H.R. 6166, by a 
recorded vote of 65-34. On September 29, 2006, the House 
considered S. 3930 and passed it without amendment by a vote of 
250-170. On October 17, 2006, the President signed S. 3930 into 
law. As adopted, sections 2 and 3 of the MCA provide 
congressional authorization for military commissions to try 
alien unlawful enemy combatants for war crimes and other 
offenses committed before, on or after September 11, 2001. 
Section 3 also establishes procedures for the use of classified 
evidence, hearsay and statements allegedly obtained by coercive 
methods. Section 5 of the MCA clarifies that the Geneva 
Conventions are not an enforceable source of rights in any 
habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding by an 
individual in U.S. courts. Section 6 of the MCA amends the War 
Crimes Act (18 USC-2441) to criminalize grave breaches of 
common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and provides that 
the amended War Crimes Act fully satisfies U.S. treaty 
obligations under common Article 3. Section 6 of the MCA also 
provides that the President may promulgate standards for 
violations of treaty obligations which are not grave breaches 
of the Geneva Conventions. Sections 7 and 10 of the MCA 
eliminates Federal court jurisdiction over pending and future 
habeas and civil suits by enemy combatants detained at 
Guantanamo Bay and in other U.S. facilities and limits judicial 
review by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to find judgments 
of military commissions on matters of law. These cases will be 
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia. Finally, Sections 8-10 of the MCA 
amend the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to conform with 
military commissions established under the Military Commissions 
Act.

                              INTELLIGENCE

    The committee worked closely with the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the Undersecretary 
of Defense for Intelligence in monitoring the transition by the 
Department of Defense from the prior Joint Military 
Intelligence Program/Tactical Intelligence and Related 
Activities Program to the new Military Intelligence Program. 
The committee held a number of classified intelligence 
briefings dealing with both the global war on terrorism (GWOT) 
and matters of strategic intelligence. On February 8, 2006, the 
committee received briefings by the Department of Defense on 
the gathering of counterterrorism intelligence within the 
United States (the Threat and Local Observation Notice program) 
and by the Department of Justice on the legal basis for the 
National Security Agency's electronic surveillance program. On 
March 1, 2006, the committee held a mark-up of a resolution of 
inquiry (H. Res. 645) on these two issues.
    On February 15, 2006, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held a joint hearing on a Special Operations 
Command project conducted in the 1999-2000 timeframe. This 
project, known as ``Able Danger,'' involved the use of data-
mining tools to perform ``linkage analysis'' to map out certain 
features of the al-Qaeda network. There had been certain 
allegations made that prior to the September 11th terrorist 
attacks certain elements of the Department of Defense knew the 
identity of one or more of the September 11th hijackers. 
Testimony at the hearing was focused on the value of the ``Able 
Danger'' data-mining intelligence program and what information 
was known prior to September 11, 2001. The joint subcommittee 
hearing concluded that the intelligence community did not know 
the identity or intended actions of the hijackers prior to the 
attacks and that nothing known in the ``Able Danger'' project 
could have prevented the tragedy.

                             SPACE PROGRAMS

    The committee remained focused on the policies and programs 
associated with the protection of national security space 
assets and the development of space-based effects in military 
operations. Committee members regularly received briefings on 
threats to our space assets and space security issues. A 
hearing on space and U.S. national power provided a greater 
understanding of the importance of space to national security 
and the economy, bringing together perspectives from the 
combatant commands, civil agencies, industry, and academia. The 
committee's recognition of the expanding role of space in 
military operations and increasing threats led to a requirement 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) for the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
develop a space situational awareness strategy and conduct a 
space control mission review and assessment for ensuring 
freedom to operate domestic space assets.
    In addition, particular attention was given to efforts that 
increase the responsiveness of space capabilities to meet the 
evolving needs of the warfighter. The committee has been at the 
forefront of encouraging the Department to develop low-cost, 
rapid reaction, operationally responsive space (ORS) satellite 
and launch capabilities that can provide prompt, focused space 
support to warfighters in their theaters of operations and more 
rapidly fill the void that exists between space science, 
technology efforts, and operational space requirements 
development. In an effort to focus ORS activities to better 
support military users, the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
established an operationally responsive space program office.
    With a number of military space programs behind schedule 
and over cost, the committee continued its strong oversight of 
Department space acquisitions. The committee continued tracking 
the performance of several high profile space programs 
including Space Radar, Transformational Satellite 
Communications System, Space-Based Infrared System High, and 
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 
System, and tasked the Government Accountability Office to 
examine several of these programs and the cost estimating 
processes employed by the Department. A hearing was conducted 
on national security space acquisitions with government and 
industry officials to discuss acquisition problems and provide 
a forum for potential solutions. Committee delegations visited 
the United States Strategic Command and several military 
installations to gain insight into warfighter needs and the 
integration of space in military operations, as well as service 
laboratories and industry sites to assess technology 
development in tactical satellites, responsive launch vehicles, 
and progress on major space acquisition programs.

                        MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS

    In addition to the annual Missile Defense Agency budget 
hearings, the committee held several briefings on the status of 
the development, operational testing, and fielding of specific 
elements of the ballistic missile defense system to include 
Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Aegis Ballistic Missile 
Defense, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, Airborne Laser, 
and the Kinetic Energy Interceptor. The committee received 
several briefings on the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) 
corrective actions in the aftermath of two unsuccessful tests 
of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system. The committee 
explored various options for accelerating the development of 
the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, specifically how to 
increase the production rate of SM-3 Block IA interceptors. The 
committee also met with the services and the MDA to review 
plans to transition individual ballistic missile defense 
elements from the MDA to the services.

        ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    The committee examined a wide range of issues related to 
DOD management and guidance during the 109th Congress. As a 
result of the legislation enacted, the Department will be able 
to respond more effectively and flexibly to the needs of the 
country. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee standardized 
policies regarding gifts to regional centers for security 
studies. The committee continued to refine policies related to 
regional centers for security studies in the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364). New language to streamline center management 
allowed for personnel to conduct research and facilitated the 
exchange of ideas among United States and foreign military 
personnel, civilian government personnel, and non-governmental 
personnel. In addition, during the second session the committee 
authorized the creation of a tenth Assistant Secretary of 
Defense (ASD) billet, in order to develop a balanced set of 
portfolios among ASDs that would allow for more effective 
interaction with both commanders of the unified combatant 
commands and other Federal departments and agencies.

                MILITARY APPLICATIONS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

    In addition to the annual budget hearings for the Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities programs, the committee received 
several briefings on topics relating to the nuclear weapons 
complex, including the Reliable Replacement Warhead, nuclear 
weapons complex transformation, the nuclear weapons stockpile 
stewardship program, consolidation of nuclear materials, the 
Department of Energy's Design Basis Threat, nuclear weapons 
complex physical security, and cyber-security practices. 
Additionally, committee delegations visited the national 
security laboratories and several industrial sites to gain 
further insight into the nuclear weaponscomplex activities, 
management, operations, and challenges. Recognizing the need for 
transformation, the committee established objectives and directed the 
Department of Energy to develop a plan for the transformation of the 
nuclear weapons complex in the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
    The committee established key objectives for the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead program in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-363). In 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee further directed 
the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of the 
methodology used by the national security laboratories for the 
certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile. This study was 
directed in order to reduce the likelihood that the Reliable 
Replacement Warhead will require a resumption of underground 
nuclear weapons testing.
    The committee conducted oversight of the management of 
defense nuclear waste. The committee received briefings to 
address problems associated with the Waste Treatment Plant 
construction project at Hanford, Washington, and radioactive 
tank waste processing and disposition at the Savannah River 
Site in South Carolina. The committee conducted oversight of 
the implementation of Waste Incidental to Reprocessing 
legislation and recommendations made by the National Academy of 
Sciences study on nuclear waste, which was required by the 
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375).

             NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND THREAT REDUCTION

    The committee examined execution of Department of Energy 
nuclear non-proliferation programs, paying close attention to 
unobligated account balances in those non-proliferation 
programs involving the Russian Federation. The committee 
convened a hearing on July 26, 2006, to examine the United 
States and Russian plutonium disposition strategy, as well as 
the future of the United States Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel Facility 
construction project.
    The committee conducted oversight of the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction (CTR) program. In the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee 
authorized a permanent waiver on restrictions for use of CTR 
funds in the states of the former Soviet Union. Additionally, 
the committee modified authorities to allow for the use of CTR 
funds outside of the former Soviet Union. The committee 
authorized a study on the proliferation of biological weapons 
by the National Academy of Sciences in the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364).

                TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS AND EXPORT CONTROLS

    During the first session of the 109th Congress, the 
committee took particular interest in the potential transfer of 
European advanced technologies to China in an effort to enhance 
its military modernization program. On April 14, 2005, the 
committee conducted a joint hearing with the Committee on 
International Relations and received testimony on arms exports 
to the People's Republic of China by member states of the 
European Union. The committee heard testimony from the 
Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political 
Affairs, Department of State; the Honorable Peter Rodman, 
Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs, 
Department of Defense; and the Honorable Peter Lichtenbaum, 
Acting Undersecretary for Industry and Security, Department of 
Commerce.
    In both the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the committee was careful to ensure consistently that all 
training and equipment provided to allies and coalition 
partners remains subject to existing export control laws. For 
example, section 1207 of (Public Law 109-364) requires that any 
transfer of learning content and information technology is 
subject to the Arms Control Act and any other export control 
regime under law relating to the transfer of military 
technology for foreign nations.

           HOMELAND DEFENSE AND SUPPORT TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES

    During the 109th Congress, the committee conducted 
substantial oversight over the DOD homeland defense and support 
to civil authorities missions. These activities included a 
committee delegation visit to U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), 
and a March 15, 2005, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on how the Department, 
particularly NORTHCOM, is setting and implementing homeland 
defense policy, and how it is improving its coordination with 
Department of Homeland Security. As a result of this oversight, 
the committee included a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) 
that required the Secretary of Defense to report on the use of 
DOD aerial reconnaissance assets to support border security 
missions. During the second session, the committee focused its 
attention on the military's role in securing our borders. The 
committee held a hearing on the border security mission of the 
National Guard and held two field hearings on the security of 
our northern and southern borders.
    In response to Hurricane Katrina and to assess the lessons 
learned from the federal response, a committee delegation 
visited Mississippi and Louisiana to view the disaster zone, 
the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and 
Capabilities held a hearing that evaluated DOD roles and 
responsibilities during catastrophic disasters, and committee 
staff supported the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate 
the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina. As a 
result of the committee's findings, in its review of the 
federal response to Hurricane Katrina, the committee included a 
number of provisions in the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364).
    The committee included a provision in the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) that authorized the National Guard's weapons of 
mass destruction civil support teams to respond within the 
United States to intentional or unintentional releases of 
nuclear, biological, radiological, toxic, or poisonous chemical 
materials, or to natural or manmade disasters that could result 
in the catastrophic loss of life or property. In addition, the 
committee included a provision directing the Secretary of 
Defense to maintain a database of emergency response 
capabilities, which would include the types of emergency 
response capabilities that each State's National Guard may 
provide in response to a domestic disaster and the types of 
capabilities the Department may provide in support of the 
National Response Plan's emergency support functions. The 
committee authorized the Secretary of Defense to consult with 
the Secretary of Homeland Security and state governments in the 
development of Department of Defense concept plans for 
providing support to civil authorities.
    In the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee included a 
Katrina-inspired provision that amended chapter 15 of the title 
10, United States Code, the so called ``Insurrection Act'', to 
authorize the President to use the armed forces to restore 
public order and enforce the laws of the United States, until 
state authorities are capable of maintaining order, in the 
event of a natural disaster, terrorist attack or incident, 
epidemic, or other serious public health emergency to such an 
extent that the constituted authorities of the state are 
incapable of maintaining public order and the violence impedes 
the execution of the laws of the United States.

                           Acquisition Issues


                           ACQUISITION POLICY

    The oversight of ever increasing costs of providing goods 
and services to the warfighter was of particular importance to 
the Committee on Armed Services during the 109th Congress. In 
that vein, the committee held numerous briefings and hearings 
related to acquisition policy and acquisition reform. In the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163), the committee took aggressive steps to reform the 
defense acquisition process. Notably, the committee passed 
legislation requiring certification of numerous precautionary 
steps before major defense acquisition programs may proceed to 
the system development and demonstration phase. In addition, 
the committee required a determination by the Secretary of 
Defense and notification to Congress before procurement of 
major weapons systems, as commercial items, is allowed. 
Furthermore, the committee enacted a major change in the 
procurement system by modifying the parameters of the long-
standing ``Nunn-McCurdy'' reporting requirements for programs 
that exceed certain cost thresholds. By enacting stricter 
reporting mechanisms, the committee ensured greater 
transparency and accountability related to the purchase of 
major defense acquisition programs. The committee's legislative 
efforts also resulted in a wide-arching mandate that the 
Department of Defense (DOD) create a management structure for 
the procurement of contract services, as well as a total 
reorganization of the Board of Contract Appeals. Finally, in 
fiscal year 2006, the committee mandated that the Department's 
review and report on DOD efforts to identify contract fraud, 
waste and abuse.
    On November 2, 2005, the full committee held a hearing on 
the future of acquisition reform. Witnesses included: the 
Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Honorable Claude M. 
Bolton, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, 
Logistics and Technology); the Honorable John J. Young, Jr., 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Research, Development and 
Acquisition; and Lieutenant General Donald J. Hoffman, United 
States Air Force, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. On November 9, 
2005, the full committee met in a follow-on hearing to discuss 
issues related to the Defense Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor 
Program. Witnesses included: the Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics, and Vice Admiral Keith W. Lippert, United States 
Navy, Director, Defense Logistics Agency.
    In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee 
continued its aggressive push to reform DOD's acquisition 
system. By requiring, through legislation, a requirements 
management certification-training program, the committee hopes 
to drive down acquisition costs by forcing the Department to 
ensure better control over ``requirements creep'' in its major 
weapons procurements.
    The committee also acted on several recommendations of 
various acquisition reform study groups by passing legislation 
allowing for a pilot program on time-certain development in 
acquisition of major weapon systems, the establishment of a 
panel on contracting integrity, and a formally required 
determination of contract type for development programs. In 
addition, the committee noted several areas of concern and 
required the Department to address issues related to the use of 
lead system integrators and a report and regulations on 
excessive pass-through charges. In reaction to the committee's 
observation of contracting in support of the global war on 
terrorism, a requirement now exists for the Department to 
capture the ``lessons learned'' of these operations through 
formal joint policies on requirements definition, contingency 
program management, and contingency contracting. Finally, the 
committee signaled its concern regarding the outsourcing of 
critical acquisition functions to private industry, which 
raises serious concerns over potential organizational conflicts 
of interest. In response, the committee passed legislation in 
the annual defense bill requiring government performance of 
critical acquisition functions, such as program management, 
cost estimation, and systems engineering, within five years.
    To address the issues surrounding the need for significant 
acquisition reform, the committee held two full committee 
hearings devoted to the issue. The first hearing, on March 29, 
2006, addressed numerous acquisition reform studies conducted 
by the Department, academia, and the private sector. Witnesses 
included: Mr. Pierre Chao, Senior Fellow and Director of 
Defense Industrial Initiatives, International Security Program, 
Center for Strategic and International Studies; the Honorable 
Robert J. Hermann, Task Force Co-Chair, Defense Science Board 
Summer Study on Transformation; Lieutenant General Ronald T. 
Kadish, United States Air Force (Ret.), Chairman, Defense 
Acquisition Performance Assessment Panel; and Mr. Terry R. 
Little, Acquisition Advisor to the Director, Missile Defense 
Agency. The second hearing, on April 5, 2006, addressed the 
approach by the Department in addressing the recommendations of 
the various acquisition reform studies. Witnesses included: the 
Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United 
States, Government Accountability Office; the Honorable Kenneth 
Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics; Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, United States 
Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Mr. David 
Patterson, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, 
Comptroller.

         FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF WEAPONS PROGRAMS

    Major weapons system development and acquisition programs 
continued to experience cost growth and schedule delays over 
the past several years. The committee assessed the need for 
legislative action by examining causes of these problems 
including: proceeding with development with immature 
technology, requirements growth, late determination of 
requirements, poor cost estimating, improper funding profiles, 
labor, and material cost increases, poor program execution, and 
program instability.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) included the following legislation to 
address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance 
issues with programs: Virginia-Class submarine program (section 
121); LHA replacement amphibious assault ship program (section 
122); cost limitation for next generation destroyer program 
(section 123); Littoral Combat Ship program (section 124); 
limitation on initiation of new unmanned aerial vehicle systems 
(section 142); annual Comptroller General report on the Future 
Combat Systems program (section 211 single set of requirements 
for Army and Marine Corps heavy lift rotorcraft program 
(section 217); limitation on systems development and 
demonstration of Personnel Recovery Vehicle (section 219); 
limitation on VXX helicopter program (section 220); report on 
capabilities and costs of operational boost/ascent phase 
missile defense systems (section 231); requirement for 
certification before major defense acquisition program may 
proceed to milestone B (section 801); and report on lead 
systems integrators in the acquisition of major systems 
(section 805).
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-163) included the following legislation to 
address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and 
performanceissues with programs: funding profile for the Modular Force 
Initiative of the Army (section 113); Bridge to Future Networks Program 
(section 114); Comptroller General report on the contract for the 
Future Combat Systems program (section 115); CVN-21 class aircraft 
carrier procurement (section 121); adherence to cost estimates for CVN-
21 class of aircraft carriers (section 122); modification of limitation 
on total cost procurement of CVN-77 aircraft carrier (section 123); 
construction of the first two vessels of the DDG-1000 Next Generation 
Destroyer program (section 124); adherence to Navy cost estimates for 
LHA Replacement Amphibious Assault Ship program (section 125); cost 
limitation for the San Antonio (LPD-17) class amphibious ship program 
(section 126); procurement of Joint Primary Aircraft Training System 
aircraft after fiscal year 2006 (section 138); acquisition of, and 
independent cost analyses for, the Joint Strike Fighter propulsion 
system (section 211); independent estimate of the costs of the Future 
Combat Systems program (section 216); limitation on use of funds for 
the space-based interceptor (section 222); study and report on 
revisions to the Selected Acquisition Report requirements (section 
803); additional certification requirements for major defense 
acquisition programs before proceeding to Milestone B (section 805); 
original baseline estimate for major defense acquisition programs 
(section 806); and linking of award and incentive fees to acquisition 
outcomes (section 814).

                         MILITARY MODERNIZATION

    Throughout the 109th Congress, particular attention was 
given to the following: a continuing examination of military 
equipment modernization with respect to military capability; 
Army modularity; tactical aviation; shipbuilding requirements; 
unmanned aerial vehicles; missile defense; and development of 
joint-service transformation programs.
    The National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2006 
included the following legislation to address issues related to 
military modernization: Virginia-Class submarine program 
(section 121); LHA replacement amphibious assault ship program 
(section 122); Cost limitation for next generation destroyer 
program (section 123); Littoral Combat Ship Program (section 
124); Authorization of Two Additional Arleigh Burke Class 
Destroyers (section 125); Limitation on initiation of new 
unmanned aerial vehicle systems (section 142); Annual 
Comptroller General report on Future Combat Systems program 
(section 211); Single set of requirements for Army and Marine 
Corps heavy lift rotorcraft program (section 217); Limitation 
on systems development and demonstration of Personnel Recovery 
Vehicle (section 219); Limitation on VXX helicopter program 
(section 220); Report on capabilities and costs of operational 
boost/ascent phase missile defense systems (section 231); 
Requirement for certification before major defense acquisition 
program may proceed to milestone B (section 801); and Report on 
lead systems integrators in the acquisition of major systems 
(section 805).
    The National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 2007 
included the following legislation to address issues related to 
military modernization: Funding profile for the Modular Force 
Initiative of the Army (section 113); Bridge to Future Networks 
Program (section 114); Comptroller General report on the 
contract for the Future Combat Systems program (section 115); 
CVN-21 class aircraft carrier procurement (section 121); 
Adherence to cost estimates for CVN-21 class of aircraft 
carriers (section 122); Modification of limitation on total 
cost procurement of CVN-77 aircraft carrier (section 123); 
Construction of first two vessels under the DDG-1000 Next 
Generation Destroyer program (section 124); Adherence to navy 
cost estimates for LHA Replacement amphibious assault ship 
program (section 125); Cost limitation for San Antonio (LPD-17) 
class amphibious ship program (section 126); Procurement of 
Joint Primary Aircraft Training System aircraft after fiscal 
year 2006 (section 138); Acquisition of, and independent cost 
analyses for, the Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system 
(section 211); Independent estimate of costs of the Future 
Combat Systems Program (section 216); Limitation on use of 
funds for space-based interceptor (section 222); and Additional 
certification requirements for major defense acquisition 
programs before proceeding to Milestone B (section 805).

                           Military Readiness


                  BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT (BRAC)

    On May 13, 2005, the President submitted base closure and 
realignment recommendations to the BRAC Commission. Over the 
next 4 months, the committee reviewed the process used by the 
Department of Defense to reach recommendation decisions, 
evaluated the recommendations for consistency with the BRAC 
legal requirements, and ensured that the Department complied 
with procedural requirements associated with the BRAC statute.
    On September 8, 2005, the commission submitted amended base 
realignment and closure recommendations to the President. On 
September 15, 2005, the President approved the commission's 
list of closures and realignments, triggering a 45 
``legislative day'' clock upon expiration of which the 
recommendations would become final, unless a resolution of 
disapproval was enacted.
    On September 29, 2005, the committee considered and 
reported adversely, H.J. Res. 65, a joint resolution 
disapproving the recommendations of the BRAC commission. On 
October 27, 2005, the House of Representatives did not agree to 
the resolution by an 85-324 vote, with one member voting 
present. In the absence of an enacted joint resolution of 
disapproval, the BRAC recommendations became final on November 
9, 2005.
    Throughout the 109th Congress, the committee reviewed the 
costs and savings associated with base realignment and closure 
actions, as well as anticipated budgets for BRAC 
implementation. Through hearings and briefings, the committee 
uncovered significant shortfalls in planned BRAC funding levels 
and resolved to authorize funding to fully support executable 
expenses for BRAC during fiscal years 2006 and 2007.
    In addition, the committee reviewed the impact of BRAC on 
affected local communities, military readiness, and the 
management of the BRAC process by the military services. These 
efforts resulted in a number of modifications to statutes 
governing BRAC, including increased requirements for 
information on the status of closure, realignment, and reuse 
activities in annual reports; improved authority for the 
Department to assist communities adversely affected by mission 
realignments; termination of authority for construction of 
projects at bases approved for closure; and additional 
requirements to encourage interaction between the Department 
and local communities affected by increases in military 
populations resulting from BRAC.

                      Force Readiness and Adequacy


                              END STRENGTH

    The committee sustained its initiatives from the previous 
Congress to increase the size of both the active Army and 
active Marine Corps, despite proposals in the budget requests 
to maintain the authorized end strengths for those services at 
fiscal year 2004 levels. As a result, the 109th Congress, in 
the National Defense Authorization Acts for fiscal years 2006 
and 2007, adopted committee recommendations for increases in 
active Army end strength from 502,400 to 512,400 (or more than 
6 percent above the 2004 levels), and for increases in active 
Marine Corps end strength from 178,000 to 180,000 (or 2.9 
percent above the 2004 levels). Also enacted were the 
committee's recommendations for continued growth in the Army's 
end strength to 532,400 and the Marine Corps end strength to 
184,000 by fiscal year 2009.
    During the second session of the 109th Congress, committee 
concerns arose over Army plans for fiscal year 2007 to reduce 
Army National Guard end strength to 332,900, which was more 
than 17,000 below the 2006 authorization. Although a revised 
budget request eventually restored the Army National Guard end 
strength authorization to 350,000--the same as authorized in 
fiscal year 2006--the committee acted to provide the additional 
funding to sustain the increased end strength in the revised 
budget request. As a result, the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
provided an additional $500.0 million to Army National Guard 
military personnel, operations and maintenance, and defense 
health accounts and $318.0 million for procurement.

         MOBILIZATION AND SUSTAINMENT OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS

    Increased reliance on the reserve components to perform a 
broader range of missions required the committee to consider 
revisions to the statutory authorities governing the scope of 
activities that could be performed by full-time support 
personnel, such as military technicians (dual status) and 
active guard and reserve (AGR) personnel. In general, such 
personnel had been limited to missions involved in organizing, 
administering, recruiting, training or instructing only the 
reserve components. As a result, the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) expanded that authority to permit AGRs and military 
technicians to support operational missions assigned to the 
reserve components and to instruct or train active-duty members 
of the armed forces, foreign military forces and Department of 
Defense civilian employees and contractors, as long as that 
training was conducted in the United States.
    During the second session of the 109th Congress, committee 
members testified before the Commission on the National Guard 
and Reserves, which had been established by the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(Public Law 108-375), providing recommendations and 
perspectives with regard to the future roles and missions, pay, 
benefits, support and sustainment of the reserve components. To 
ensure that the commission had sufficient time to complete its 
important work, the committee supported an extension of the 
commission's reporting deadline to January 31, 2008. This 
extension was enacted in the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
That Public Law also expanded the scope of the commission's 
work by requiring an assessment be provided to the Congress not 
later than March 1, 2007, of matters directly related to the 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau, and the role of the Bureau.

        HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL READINESS OF RESERVE COMPONENTS

    Continuing the commitment to the medical readiness for 
members of the reserve components, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) enhanced the TRICARE benefits for reservists and 
their family members. In the first session, the 109th Congress 
extended eligibility for TRICARE Standard benefits to family 
members under the TRICARE Reserve Select program for six months 
following the death of a covered service member. In addition, 
all members of the Selected Reserve who committed to continued 
service in the Selected Reserves and their families became 
eligible for TRICARE Standard when not on active duty, with 
cost shares ranging from 28 percent to 85 percent. The second 
session of the 109th Congress standardized the cost share at 28 
percent for all members of the Selected Reserve and their 
families who enrolled in TRICARE Standard.

                        RECRUITING AND RETENTION

    The committee continued to monitor recruiting and retention 
trends closely throughout the 109th Congress to ensure that 
programs remained effective in response to the low private 
sector unemployment rate, the increasing college attendance 
rate by America's youth, and the growing awareness of the 
hardships and risks of war. The committee worked to anticipate 
aspects of the wide array of active duty and reserve recruiting 
and retention programs that require improvement and to develop 
legislative solutions. To that end, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 
(Public Law 109-364) included legislation that:
          (1) Increased the maximum active duty enlistment 
        bonus from $60,000 to $90,000 and reenlistment bonus 
        from $20,000 to $40,000.
          (2) Authorized a new bonus to encourage members to 
        transfer between services and set the maximum amount at 
        $10,000.
          (3) Increased the reserve enlistment bonus from 
        $10,000 to $20,000.
          (4) Made reservists eligible for a critical skill 
        retention bonus of up to $100,000 over a career.
          (5) Increased medical education loan repayment 
        authority from $22,000 to $60,000.
          (6) Increased the stipend under the Health 
        Professions Scholarship Program from $579 a month to a 
        maximum of $30,000 a year.
          (7) Increased the maximum grant under the Health 
        Professions Scholarship Program from $15,000 to 
        $45,000.
          (8) Increased the reserve critical health skill 
        special pay from $10,000 to $25,000.
          (9) Increased the accession bonus for dentists from 
        $30,000 to $200,000.
          (10) Established a $400,000 accession bonus for 
        critical physician and dentist skills.
          (11) Authorized a $50,000 bonus to encourage retired 
        members and separated members to return to active duty 
        to fill shortage manpower requirements in units with 
        high-demand, low-density missions.
          (12) Increased the maximum amount of the nuclear 
        career accession bonus from $20,000 to $30,000.
          (13) Increased the Army bonus for referral of 
        recruits from $1,000 to $2,000 and expands the eligible 
        population to retirees and civilian employees.
          (14) Established an $8,000 bonus for enlistments to 
        enter a commissioning program.

                         MILITARY COMPENSATION

    The committee continued to closely monitor compensation 
programs during the 109th Congress to ensure an adequate 
quality of life for service members and their families and to 
ensure that pay and benefits met the needs of the wartime 
military and kept pace with privatesector standards. The 
committee's active oversight of these issues resulted in legislation in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 
109-163) and John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 
(Public Law 109-364) that authorized a 3.1 percent raise in basic pay 
during fiscal year 2006 and a 2.2 percent raise in basic pay during 
fiscal year 2007. Public Law 109-364 also included additional targeted 
pay raises for warrant officers and mid-grade and senior enlisted 
personnel. The combination of the basic pay raise and the targeted pay 
raise resulted in an average pay increase during fiscal year 2007 of 
2.7 percent. The two military pay raises in the 109th Congress were 
both one-half of one percent above the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and 
extended to eight the number of consecutive years where Congress 
authorized pay raises above the ECI level. As a result of the pay 
raises in fiscal year 2006 and 2007, the gap between military and 
private sector pay during the 109th Congress was reduced from 5.0 
percent to 4.0 percent, well below the peak pay gap of 13.5 percent in 
fiscal year 1999. With the addition of the fiscal year 2007 pay raise, 
average pay levels have increased 41 percent over the last 8 years.
    In addition, the committee saw the need to increase 
benefits for deployed service members, to include mobilized 
reserve component members serving at locations inside the 
United States and overseas. As a result, legislation enacted 
during the 109th Congress: increased the maximum hardship duty 
pay from $300 to $750 per month; authorized income replacement 
of up to $3,000 per month for reservists who experienced 
reduced income while serving extended or frequent tours on 
active duty; set the reserve component rates for basic 
allowance for housing (BAH) at active duty levels when 
reservists are mobilized for over 30 days, thereby eliminating 
the discriminatory Type II BAH for reserve members; and 
authorized an allowance to pay the premiums for the full cost 
of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance premiums for service 
members serving in the Iraq or Afghanistan combat zone.

         MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

    During the 109th Congress the committee spent considerable 
time assessing the adequacy of mental heath services available 
to service members and their families. In particular, the 
committee focused on the continuum of mental health services 
provided throughout the deployment cycle. The committee staff 
continued to visit military installations to gather information 
from returning service members and their families regarding the 
availability and adequacy of mental health programs. These 
visits led to a Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing on 
mental health in July 2005, and several legislative initiatives 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 
(Public Law 109-163) and John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364). As a result, 
Congress required the Secretary of Defense to establish a task 
force to examine mental health issues in the armed forces and 
to develop a long-term plan for improving mental health 
services provided to service members and their families. In 
addition, legislative provisions authorized pilot projects that 
focused on early diagnosis and treatment of post traumatic 
stress disorder (PTSD) and required the use of internet-based 
tools to assist family members to identify early signs of PTSD.
    In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee 
recognized the increased incidence of traumatic brain injury in 
service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Of 
particular concern are injuries suffered as a result of blasts 
that may not be accompanied by obvious head trauma and thus may 
never be diagnosed. The committee took action in the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 
109-364) to ensure deployment medical screening included 
screening for traumatic brain injury and directed a 
longitudinal study on the long term physical and mental effects 
of traumatic brain injury incurred by service members. The 
purpose of the study was to identify the health care needs, the 
availability of long-term health care and the effects of a 
traumatic brain injured service member on family members.

               MILITARY AND MILITARY RETIREE HEALTH CARE

    Throughout the 109th Congress, the committee exercised 
vigorous oversight on the military health system. The committee 
focused substantial attention on the cost of military health 
care to the Department of Defense (DOD) and to military 
beneficiaries and to the long term viability of the military 
health system. For several years the committee was aware of the 
rising cost of providing health care to military beneficiaries 
and the potential negative impact of health care costs on other 
critical readiness programs. The committee closely examined 
DOD's proposal to sustain the military health care benefit and 
contain costs by shifting costs to military beneficiaries, 
particularly military retirees. As a result, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) and the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
2007 (Public Law 109-364) included several legislative 
initiatives to control the cost of the military health system 
while ensuring the future of the military health benefit. For 
example, Congress established a task force to conduct a 
comprehensive assessment on the future of military health care 
and provide the Department with recommendations for improving 
and sustaining the military health system; required the 
Comptroller General to study the pharmacy benefits program and 
to audit DOD's health care costs and cost saving measures; and 
imposed temporary prohibitions on cost increases in the retail 
pharmacy program and TRICARE fees. In addition, committee 
action led to the enactment of a demonstration project on 
coverage of over-the-counter drugs under the pharmacy benefits 
program and a feasibility study of using Medicare Advantage 
managed care methods for TRICARE-Medicare dual eligible 
beneficiaries.
    The committee continued to focus attention on the 
availability of health care providers under TRICARE and access 
to care for military beneficiaries. Responding to concerns 
raised by health care providers over the administrative 
requirements of the TRICARE program, Congress adopted 
legislation to standardize claims processing under the TRICARE 
and Medicare programs.

                     SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY

    In the 109th Congress, the committee took an active role in 
reviewing how the military justice system treated sexual 
assaults and in preventing sexual assaults in the armed forces. 
Specifically with regard to the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice (UCMJ), the committee devoted much effort to examining 
the recommendations from the Joint Service Committee on 
Military Justice for amending the Code to improve the ability 
of the military justice system to address sexual assault 
offenses and conform more closely to other Federal laws. As a 
result of this review, Congress adopted legislation amending 
the UCMJ, including: establishing stalking as a separate 
offense; providing a series of graded offenses relating to 
rape, sexual assault and other sexual misconduct based on 
aggravating factors; and extending the statute of limitations 
for murder and child abuse. The Congress further clarified that 
under the UCMJ the offense of rape has an unlimited statute of 
limitations.
    The committee remained vigilant in ensuring that the 
efforts to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the 
military continued as a Department of Defense priority. The 
committee became aware that the majority of the cadets and 
midshipmen at the military service academies considered the 
annual requirement for gathering information on sexual assault 
and sexual harassment to be burdensome, an attitude that 
threatened the quality and reliability of the survey data. To 
address these concerns the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364) changed the 
frequency of the service academy sexual assault survey from an 
annual requirement to one in which surveys would be conducted 
in odd numbered years. In any year that a survey is not 
required, the secretary of the military service will provide 
focus groups to gather information regarding sexual assault and 
sexual harassment issues at the academy.

   MILITARY RESALE AND MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION (MWR) PROGRAMS

    The committee acted throughout the 109th Congress to 
improve the effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and 
commissaries and MWR programs and to protect these critical 
programs for future generations of service members. As a 
result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 (Public Law 109-163) and John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364) included a 
number of legislative initiatives to address the many concerns 
that had been brought to the attention of the committee. The 
legislation that the 109th Congress adopted included 
initiatives that:
          (1) Protected commissaries from contracting out 
        competitions under Office of Management and Budget 
        Circular A-76 until December 31, 2008.
          (2) Mandated the use of appropriated dollars to 
        support second destination transportation costs for 
        shipping exchange products to overseas stores.
          (3) Allocated $7.0 million to Armed Forces Recreation 
        Centers to reimburse for costs of facilities used to 
        support the Rest and Recuperation Leave Program.
          (4) Clarified that the revenue for products that are 
        sold in commissaries as special exceptions to the 
        standard surcharge of five percent shall be applied to 
        the surcharge fund as if the products were uniform 
        surcharge products.
          (5) Protected the right for exchanges, commissaries, 
        and MWR activities to provide support services in 
        enhanced use leases of government property.
          (6) Required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
        study to determine the cost effectiveness of non-
        appropriated fund activities purchasing commercial 
        insurance to protect financial interests in facilities.

              Science, Technology and Environmental Issues


                   INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL BASE

    Perhaps one of the most overlooked and underappreciated 
components of our national defense is the criticality of 
ensuring a strong industrial and technological base. Beyond 
simply providing American workers jobs and economic 
opportunity, the role of the industrial and technological base 
is a vital component of our national security. In its efforts 
to strengthen the industrial base, the committee enacted 
significant reforms related to section 2533a of title 10, 
United States Code, commonly known as the Berry Amendment. In 
the first session of the 109th Congress, the committee included 
in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), requirements for 
training of the defense acquisition workforce on the 
requirements of the Berry Amendment. In addition, a change was 
made to the Berry amendment to clarify domestic source 
requirements relating to clothing materials and components.
    On July 13, 2005, the full committee addressed the issue of 
the national security implications of the possible merger of 
the China National Offshore Oil Corporation with Unocal 
Corporation. Witnesses included: R. James Woolsey, former 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Honorable C. 
Richard D'Amato, Chairman, U.S.-China Economic and Security 
Review Commission, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President and CEO, 
Center for Security Policy, and Jerry Taylor, Director of 
Natural Resources Studies, CATO Institute.
    In the second session of the 109th Congress, the committee 
took even stronger action to strengthen the industrial base by 
enacting major reform of the Berry amendment through the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364). By dividing the Berry amendment into two 
separate sections of the United States Code, sections 2533a and 
2533b, the committee created a distinction between the 
requirements for protection of domestic sources of different 
types of materials. In section 2533b of title 10, United States 
Code, the committee created a separate section to signify the 
strategic and national security significance of ensuring a 
reliable supply of specialty metals. By requiring the 
Department of Defense to create a robust and workable waiver 
process, to include transparency and compliance plans, the 
committee sought to capitalize on market forces to strengthen 
our industrial base. The committee hopes that the market will 
recognize the opportunities presented by awareness of Berry 
waivers to stimulate new producers to meet the growing, and 
transparent, needs of the Department.
    To ensure that the Department continues to recognize the 
strategic significance of domestic protection for certain 
materials, the committee created a Strategic Materials 
Protection Board, within the Department of Defense, which will 
meet on a bi-annual basis. The purpose of the board is to 
leverage the assets of the Executive Branch to conduct a 
periodic analysis of those items whose domestic availability is 
critical to national security. The committee is hopeful that 
those analyses will result in thoughtful recommendations for 
the inclusion or exclusion of certain materials from future 
domestic preference legislation.

                    ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

    The Committee on Armed Services addressed the following 
areas and subjects in addition to those designated for special 
attention during the 109th Congress:

                          Global Force Posture

    During the 109th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to realign its 
forces around the world. Over the last two years, the committee 
conducted several hearings and received briefings on those 
efforts. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee included a 
provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop 
criteria, as part of the Global Force Posture Review, for 
assessing the costs and benefits of deploying to particular 
overseas locations and for establishing new overseas 
facilities. The committee also included a provision requiring 
the Secretary of Defense to notify the committee within 30 days 
after the United States entered into an agreement with a 
foreign country to support the deployment of elements of the 
U.S. armed forces in that country.
    During the second session of the 109th Congress, the 
committee received an update on DOD force realignment plans and 
used the hearing to assess whether the Department is prepared 
to address the many resulting requirements of those realignment 
plans. On June 20, 2006, the committee heard testimony from the 
Honorable Ryan Henry, Principal Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy; the Honorable Philip W. Grone, Deputy Under Secretary 
of Defense for Installations and Environment; and Rear Admiral 
William D. Sullivan, Vice Director for Strategic Plans and 
Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

                           Interagency Reform

    During the 109th Congress, the committee noted that the 
United States faces a more diverse set of national security 
challenges than those faced during the Cold War and that the 
major national security institutions designed for the Cold War 
lack adequate capacity to address the security challenges of 
the 21st Century. The committee recognized that the executive 
branch and Congress must continue to strengthen Federal 
institutions to ensure that interagency structure, policies, 
and processes support integrated planning and unified action in 
response to current and future national security challenges. On 
April 4, 2006, the committee conducted a hearing and received 
testimony on both existing deficiencies in interagency 
collaboration and the executive branch's efforts to improve 
interagency coordination for current conflicts and beyond. The 
witnesses included the Honorable Thomas W. O'Connell, Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity 
Conflict, Department of Defense; Admiral Edmund P. 
Giambastiani, United States Navy, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs 
of Staff; Ambassador Henry A. Crumpton, Coordinator for 
Counterterrorism, Department of State; and Vice Admiral John 
Scott Redd, United States Navy (Retired), Director, National 
Counterterrorism Center.
    In an effort to improve the effective employment of all 
instruments of U.S. national power, the committee included 
legislation on interagency reform in the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). This provision requires the President to submit a report 
to Congress on building interagency capacity and enhancing the 
integration of civilian and military capabilities to achieve 
U.S. national security goals and objectives. This report should 
also include recommendations for specific legislative proposals 
to improve interagency coordination to be considered in the 
future. In addition, the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
included a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the committee on interagency counter-drug 
implementation plans for Afghanistan and 10 other countries in 
South and Central Asia.

          Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States

    During the 109th Congress, the committee spent considerable 
time examining the practices of the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in terms of how it 
reviews the national security implications of foreign 
acquisitions of, or mergers with, U.S. companies. On July 13, 
2005, the committee conducted a hearing on the national 
security implications of the possible merger of the China 
Offshore National Oil Corporation with Unocal Corporation, 
where witness testimony advocated a more rigorous and 
transparent national security-minded CFIUS process. Similarly 
in response to CFIUS' approval of Dubai Ports World's 
acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation 
Company, the committee held a hearing on March 2, 2006, on the 
national security implications of the deal and the CFIUS 
process, and on November 14, 2006, the committee held a closed 
briefing on the Lucent Technologies-Alcatel merger. Both 
activities included witness testimony which advocated 
legislative reform of CFIUS.
    In addition to these committee activities, committee staff 
investigated the national security implications of other 
pending CFIUS cases, such as the Toshiba Westinghouse 
acquisition and Dubai International Capital's acquisition of 
Doncasters Group Limited. The committee also participated in 
the drafting of the National Security Foreign Investment Reform 
and Strengthened Transparency Act of 2006, which the House of 
Representatives approved by a vote of 424-0 on July 26, 2006. 
The Senate has not taken action on the National Security 
Foreign Investment Reform and Strengthened Transparency Act, 
but if codified, the legislation would improve how CFIUS 
monitors and enforces mitigation agreements in CFIUS-approved 
deals, and would increase Congressional oversight of the CFIUS 
process. Finally, in the conference report (H. Rept. 109-702) 
accompanying the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364), the committee 
directed the Secretary of Defense to report on how the 
Department of Defense evaluates national security implications 
of mergers, acquisitions, or takeovers subject to CFIUS review.

                           Foreign Assistance

    During the second session of the 109th Congress, the 
committee received testimony on building the capacity of 
foreign military forces to address the broader authority that 
allows the Department of Defense to work with the Department of 
State to enable foreign militaries to carry out such missions 
as combating terrorism and stability operations. On April 7, 
2006, the committee heard testimony from Ambassador Eric S. 
Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of 
Defense; Dr. John Hillen, Assistant Secretary for Political-
Military Affairs, Department of State; and General James L. 
Jones, United States Marine Corps, Commander, U.S. European 
Command.
    The committee came to several conclusions from its 
observations of allies and coalition partners, who are 
participating in the global war on terrorism and in security, 
stabilization, transition, and reconstruction operations around 
the world. In particular, the committee determined that 
commanders on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan need access to 
funds to use in local rehabilitation projects. As a result, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163) authorized the use of $500.0 million annually in 
fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 funds for the Commander's 
Emergency Response Program and a similar program to assist the 
people of Afghanistan.
    Additionally, the committee improved authorities regarding 
the transfer of defense articles and to provide defense 
services to the military and security forces of Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) authorized the President to 
transfer $500.0 million in defense articles and related 
services during fiscal year 2006 to the military and security 
forces of Iraq and Afghanistan to support efforts to restore 
and maintain peace and security in those countries.
    The committee also took action to support coalition forces 
in Iraq and Afghanistan through the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364). This legislation provided temporary authority for the 
Secretary of Defense to use Acquisition and Cross-Servicing 
Agreements to lend certain significant military equipment to 
the military forces of foreign nations that are participating 
in combined operations with U.S. armed forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Limited to fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and to 
specific categories of ``significant military equipment'' on 
the U.S. munitions list, this authority allows the United 
States to help its allies and coalition partners to better 
protect their forces against weapons, such as IEDs, in theater.
    Committee members also showed support for the goal of 
enabling foreign militaries to carry out counterterrorism and 
stability missions so that U.S. troops can focus their energies 
in other arenas. In the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), the committee 
established a pilot program within the Department of Defense to 
allow the Administration to establish a successful track record 
for the Department, in coordination with the Department of 
State, to take on this type of limited, focused mission and to 
allow the Administration to address the larger issue of how the 
Department of State administers the nation's traditional 
foreign assistance programs. This authority, known as ``section 
1206 authority,'' allowed the President to direct the Secretary 
of Defense to conduct or support such a program, using up to 
$200.0 million annually. This provision required the Secretary 
of Defense to work with the Secretary of State to formulate and 
implement such programs and provide a notification to specified 
congressional committees before initiating any activities under 
this authority. It further required a report from the President 
on the strengths and weaknesses of current laws governing and 
relating to the provision of this type of foreign assistance; 
recommended changes, if any, to those laws; any organizational 
and procedural changes that should be made in the Department of 
Defense and the Department of State to improve their ability to 
conduct such programs; and the resources and funding mechanisms 
required to assure adequate funding for such programs. 
Originally, this authority would have expired on September 30, 
2007, but the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) extended ``section 
1206 authority'' until September 30, 2008. This legislation 
also modified the authority by providing it directly to the 
Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of 
State, and allowing the Secretary of Defense to use up to 
$300.0 million annually.
    The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) also expanded the 
Combatant Commander Initiative Fund, allowing geographic 
combatant commanders to provide urgent and unanticipated 
humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance, particularly 
to countries in which the United States is engaged in 
contingency operations. Moreover, this legislation authorized 
the Secretary of Defense to use up to $100.0 million to provide 
logistic support, supplies, and services to allied forces that 
are participating in operations alongside U.S. forces and an 
additional $5.0 million to improve interoperability of 
logistical support systems of allied forces.
    Finally, the committee recognized the importance of 
Department of Defense support for the Department of State's 
effort to provide reconstruction, security, and stabilization 
assistance to foreign countries. To help the two Departments to 
work together in addressing the stability and reconstruction 
needs of foreign nations, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) authorized the 
Secretary of Defense to provide services to, and transfer 
defense articles and funds to, the Secretary of State toward 
that end. The authority, which expires on September 30, 2007, 
limits the aggregate value of such services, articles, and 
funds to $100.0 million annually.

                        Committee Defense Review

    During the 109th Congress, the committee conducted a 
defense review to complement the 2006 QDR. During the summer of 
2005, a bipartisan group of members developed a three-phase 
format to address the future national security environment. 
First, members established a threat panel to identify and 
categorize the many threats found around the world. Second, 
members created six gap panels to address the categories of 
threats, evaluating whether the current and future U.S. 
military would have the capabilities and capacity to protect 
U.S. national security. Finally, senior members of the 
committee formed an integration panel to examine the gap 
panels' evaluation and create an integrated product reflective 
of future threats and U.S. military capabilities. Each panel 
functioned on a strictly bipartisan basis, equally halving 
membership and alternating control of the chairmanship from 
meeting to meeting.
    Fifty-five of the 62 members of the committee participated 
in the CDR process. The threat panel held numerous hearings and 
briefings, as well as an on-site briefing at the Central 
Intelligence Agency. The gap panels (Regional Powers, Regional 
Conflicts, Asymmetric and Unconventional Threats, Current and 
Emerging Nuclear Powers, Terrorism and Radical Islam, and Non-
Traditional Missions and Catastrophic Disasters) met for a 
total of 10 hearings and 24 briefings. The integration panel 
met three times and edited multiple CDR drafts. The final CDR 
was released in December 2006.
    While the final CDR is a bipartisan creation, it is not a 
unanimous document. Rather, it is a product endorsed by those 
committee members who reviewed the final product and chose to 
participate as signatories.

   Wounded, Disabled and Deceased Service Members and Their Families

    The committee devoted substantial attention during the 
109th Congress to the emerging needs of active duty and reserve 
wounded and disabled service members and their families. The 
committee investigated a wide range of problems involving 
transitional compensation, medical treatment, evaluation and 
rating of disabilities, retention of members with disabilities 
on active duty, and post separation programs to assist members 
and families as they transition to civilian life. As the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 
109-364) included a number of legislative initiatives to 
address the many concerns that had been brought to the 
attention of the committee. For example, a new payment of $430 
per month was authorized to ensure that hospitalized combat 
wounded service members did not suffer a reduction in income 
after departing the combat zone. Legislation revamped the 
military services' physical evaluation boards to ensure that 
members receive consistent, fair, and timely judgments 
delivered by efficient, well-trained personnel who are prepared 
to reach out to service members with information and insight 
into the disability process. The Congress also clarified that 
assistive technology provided to severely injured members would 
be provided on a permanent basis and that the service member 
would be authorized to retain such equipment after separation. 
In addition, the Congress required the Department of Defense to 
ensure that the military departments used uniform procedures 
and standards for assisting severely wounded and injured 
members of the armed forces. To augment the programs operated 
by each of the military services in support severely injured 
and wounded service members and their families, legislation 
authorized a Military Severely Injured Center and required that 
a central data base be established to track support provided by 
the center to severely wounded and injured service members. 
Furthermore, Congress authorized service members on active duty 
with disabilities to participate in the Paralympic Games.

                 Benefits for Surviving Family Members

    During the examination of benefits for wounded and disabled 
service members, the committee recognized that a greater level 
of benefit was required to fully meet the needs of surviving 
family members of those service members who die while on active 
duty. Accordingly, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) authorized an increase in 
the death gratuity payment from just over $12,000 to $100,000 
for the survivors of all active duty deaths. The legislative 
remedy also authorized survivors of all military deaths after 
October 7, 2001 to receive a retroactive payment of both the 
increased $100,000 death gratuity and a $150,000 payment to 
recognize the increase in Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
(SGLI) coverage from $250,000 to $400,000. As a result of the 
increase in death gratuity and SGLI, the up-front cash payments 
to survivors of service members who die on active duty were 
increased to over $500,000. Additionally, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) 
increased from 180 to 365 days the period that surviving 
families may remain in housing or receive military housing 
allowances.

         Respectful Transportation and Preservation of Remains

    In the 109th Congress the committee took a number of steps 
to ensure that the remains of military personnel who die during 
combat operations or who die of non-combat related injuries in 
the theater of combat are handled with dignity and respect. The 
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) required the remains of military personnel be 
moved by dedicated military or military contracted aircraft 
from Dover Air Force Base, Delaware, to the military airfield 
nearest to the service member's place of interment or to a 
location designated by the next of kin. It also required that 
proper military honors be rendered by military personnel at the 
destination airfield.
    The Act also required each military department to provide 
pre-deployment training of health care professionals in the 
preservation of remains. In addition, the Act required a 
comprehensive review of the mortuary affairs process focused on 
the capabilities and standards employed in combat theaters that 
could preserve the remains of deceased personnel and expedite 
the return of remains to the United States in a non-decomposed 
state.

       Protections for Service Members Against Predatory Lenders

    The committee expressed strong concerns about predatory 
lending practices and the hidden costs that many service 
members and their dependents face. Accordingly, the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) provided the additional safeguards for service members and 
their dependents who are extended credit. These safeguards 
include:
          (1) Unambiguous coverage to any service member on 
        active duty regardless of deployment status;
          (2) Extension of ``predatory lender'' coverage to the 
        service member's dependents;
          (3) Giving the Secretary of Defense direct control 
        and oversight over the program;
          (4) Prohibiting creditors from charging service 
        members an annual interest percentage rate for loans 
        that is higher than that charged the legal residents of 
        the state, and capping the annual percentage rate at 36 
        percent, including fees;
          (5) Expanding the definition of interest to include 
        all costs associated with the credit, including credit 
        insurance, premiums, or any ancillary product sold with 
        any extension of credit;
          (6) Prohibiting creditors from extending credit if 
        the borrower's legal rights are waived, the creditor 
        demands unreasonable notice from the borrower, 
        arbitration is required in case of dispute, a creditor 
        uses a check or other means of access to borrower's 
        financial account as security for the obligation, the 
        creditor requires an allotment as a condition of the 
        extension of credit, or if the borrower is prohibited 
        from prepaying loan or charged a fee for repaying;
          (7) Prohibiting rollovers, and
          (8) Requiring that the Secretary with other 
        regulatory agencies, establish the implementing 
        regulations of this provision.

                           Military Chaplains

    The committee became concerned about Air Force and Navy 
policies governing the conduct of military chaplains, 
especially polices that regulated the manner and form in which 
chaplains might pray. As a result the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for 2007 (Public Law 109-364) 
directed that the Secretary of the Air Force rescind the policy 
and revised interim guidelines concerning the exercise of 
religion in the Air Force issued on February 9, 2006, and 
reinstate the policy that was set forth in Air Force Policy 
Directive 52-1, dated 1 July, 1999. The Act also directed that 
the Secretary of the Navy rescind Secretary of the Navy 
Instruction 1730.7C, dated February 21, 2006, titled 
``Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy'' and 
directed that the Secretary of the Navy reinstate the policy 
that was set forth in Secretary of the Navy Instruction 
1730.7B, dated October 12, 2000.

                            Force Protection

    The committee selected force protection for special 
oversight, focusing on areas having a direct impact on the 
safety of our military personnel engaged in operations in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. The objective of committee activity was to 
expedite the promulgation of policies and the fielding of 
technology and equipment that would prevent or reduce combat 
casualties. The committee was also concerned by inflated claims 
with respect to the capabilities of certain products, some of 
which were targeted at the families of military personnel 
serving overseas, and the committee viewed exposure of inferior 
capabilities as equally important.
    This special oversight was conducted within the formal 
committee structure under the jurisdiction of the full 
committee, and supplemented by dedicated staffing with 
specialized expertise. In addition to the methods of past 
congresses, the committee engaged in more in-depth oversight 
activities, including: visits to contractor and government 
production sites and assembly lines, and assessment of 
manufacturing processes and schedules; active oversight of 
various aspects of testing, including developmental testing, 
field testing and source selection testing; and identification 
and referral to the Department of Defense (DOD) of sources and 
vendors with capability and capacity to meet critical 
deployment timelines. Focus areas included the following: body 
and vehicle armor capabilities and quantities; counter 
improvised explosive device (IED) technologies, especially 
electronic countermeasures to radio control initiated devices; 
tactical persistent surveillance in support of ground 
operations, particularly prevention of IED emplacement; and 
technologies to counter indirect fires.

                      RAPID ACQUISITION AUTHORITY

    The committee has long been concerned by the length of time 
required by the Department to acquire even comparatively simple 
technologies and equipment to meet warfighting needs. The 
recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and particularly the 
evolution of the IED as a weapon of strategic influence, have 
illustrated the ability of an adaptive enemy to work to 
advantage inside a normal defense acquisition cycle. To ensure 
the prompt fielding of critical warfighting capabilities, the 
committee recommended, and Congress approved, section 811 of 
the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) granting to the Secretary 
of Defense a rapid acquisition authority. This authority 
specifically allows the Secretary to waive all federal 
acquisition regulations to eliminate capability deficiencies 
that have resulted in combat fatalities.

                              ADD-ON ARMOR

    Immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, the 
committee recognized the dire need to armor tactical vehicles 
used in convoys and combat patrols. Insurgents were using small 
arms, rocket propelled grenades, and improvised explosive 
devices IEDs to attack U.S. forces in unarmored tactical 
wheeled vehicles.
    The committee visited Aberdeen Proving Ground to review 
testing of potential vehicle add-on armor solutions and 
assisted with the establishment of a direct mechanism for 
receiving armor coupons from the commercial sector for 
immediate testing. After reviewing the Army's original 
production schedule, which called for completion of 7,000 high 
mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) add-on armor 
kits by December, 2004, the committee determined that a best 
production effort could reach that objective no later than 
April 30, 2004. The committee sent a formal memo to the Army 
noting that arsenals, depots, industry, and steel mills were 
not operating at maximum capacity. Committee and Army teams 
visited U.S. steel mills and reached an agreement with 
management and union officials to voluntarily set aside 
commercial work and dedicate 100% capacity to vehicle add-on 
armor plate production. Through on-site visits using a hands-on 
approach, the committee was active in the resolution of other 
problems affecting the delivery schedule.
    The original Army installation plan required the cycling of 
vehicles from Iraq into Kuwait for add-on armor kit 
installation. The committee determined that U.S. production 
would outpace installation capability in Kuwait, and issued a 
memo to the Army's Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command 
suggesting that 11 sites be opened in Iraq to install HMMWV and 
tactical truck add-on armor kits. The Army adopted the 
committee's recommendation, greatly enhancing kit installation 
capacity.
    Ultimately, as a direct result of committee efforts, the 
Army completed 6,670 HMMWV add-on armor kits one week late to 
the committee's best production effort schedule, but eight 
months ahead of the original Army schedule.
    In February 2005, the committee met with senior DOD staff 
and Marine Corps officials to discuss a potential interim 
solution for underbody add-on armor kits to mitigate an 
intensifying stacked mine threat to Marines engaged in combat 
operations in Iraq. In April the committee learned that the 
Marine Corps was proceeding down a path for underbody armor 
protection that would take considerable time to deploy. The 
committee located readily available excess \3/8\th inch armor 
panels at an Army Materiel Command depot in Kuwait, 
recommending their use in an in-theater fabricated interim 
solution to the HMMWV underbody protection requirement.
    Largely as a result of committee leadership, Congress 
authorized and appropriated over $3.0 billion for vehicle add-
on armor between fiscal years 2004 and 2007.

                               GUN TRUCK

    At the encouragement of the committee, the Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency teamed to produce a relatively low-cost, up-
armor kit to convert 5-ton tactical trucks to ``gun trucks'' 
for use as convoy security vehicles and for other defensive 
missions. The larger cargo capacity of the 5-ton trucks allows 
for heavier armor and therefore better protection than is 
possible with lighter vehicles. There are currently 112 of 
these gun trucks in Iraq and Afghanistan serving multiple 
missions and protecting U.S. forces.

                             STRYKER STEEL

    During a time when troops in Iraq were using mild steel and 
even plywood to armor their tactical trucks, the committee 
located a supply of military specification armor steel plate 
left over from Stryker production stored at a steel mill. At 
the committee's insistence, the armor plate was procured, and 
half of the armor plates were shipped to the Marine Corps to be 
converted into an armor shield for gunner's turrets and the 
other half were delivered to the Army to be converted into 
armored box kits for protecting soldiers transported by 5-ton 
trucks.

                         GUNNER PROTECTION KITS

    Early versions of gunner's armor shields were made entirely 
from opaque armor and did not provide adequate protection from 
IED attack. The committee strongly encouraged both the Marine 
Corps and the Army to develop improved Gunner's Protection Kits 
(GPK) which incorporated transparent armor. The transparent 
armor allows gunners to maintain situational awareness while 
protected from IED and small arms attack. The Marines are 
currently fielding a GPK called Marine Corps transparent armor 
gun shield and the Army is about to start producing an upgraded 
GPK. Both systems incorporate several panels of transparent 
armor.

                          FRAG KIT PRODUCTION

    Both the Army and the Marine Corps have recognized the need 
to further upgrade factory up-armored HMMWVs (UAH) to a 
threshold level of protection, and have developed add-on armor 
kits (``frag kits'') for this purpose. However, the schedule 
for producing and installing these upgrade kits was not 
acceptable and the committee strongly encouraged the two 
departments to accelerate production of objective kits, and to 
continue to produce interim armor kits to provide added 
protection until objective kits could be installed.
    As a result of committee efforts, 1,300 additional UAH 
interim door kits were produced. In addition, the schedule for 
fielding of the Marine Corps's objective door kits was 
acceleratedfrom February 2007, to December 2006. The schedule 
for fielding the Army's M1151 objective door kits was accelerated from 
July 2007, to April 2007. And the schedule for fielding the Army's 
M1114 objective door kits was accelerated from June 2007, to March 
2007. The committee continues to work with both departments to further 
accelerate production.

                REDEFINITION OF ARMOR PROTECTION LEVELS

    The efforts to quickly armor tactical vehicles resulted in 
three basic methods of installing armor, including: armor 
integrated into the vehicle on the assembly line; armor added 
as a DOD-approved kit specifically designed for a particular 
vehicle; and armor added in the field. These three methods of 
armor installation were designated Levels I, II, and III, 
respectively. Although these levels only refer to the method of 
armor installation, they are generally viewed as defining level 
of crew protection with I being the greatest and III being the 
least. After careful review of all the tactical vehicles and 
their true armor protection level, the committee found that the 
levels as currently defined do not necessarily indicate a level 
of protection.
    The committee has strongly advocated the development of new 
definitions for armor protection level and has provided 
suggestions on how this might be done. The Joint Staff is 
working on these new definitions and expects to complete them 
by early 2007. The committee continues to encourage the Joint 
Staff to move faster so that commanders and their troops 
understand the true level of protection offered by myriad armor 
configurations present in the force.

                           VEHICLE USE POLICY

    In conjunction with committee efforts on redefinition of 
armor protection levels, the committee has strongly encouraged 
the Secretary of Defense to promulgate policies restricting 
tactical vehicles to use on secure military operating bases 
unless those vehicles meet a threshold level of armor 
protection. The committee remains concerned that there are many 
thinly armored vehicles in theater, and that these should 
either be upgraded to the threshold level or not be used 
outside of secure bases. The Department is considering the 
implementation of such a policy in early 2007.

                               BODY ARMOR

    Under intense committee scrutiny, by April 2004, initial 
shortfalls in body armor were resolved and all DOD civilians 
and military personnel in Iraq had been issued interceptor body 
armor and small arms protective inserts (SAPI). The committee 
continued its intensive oversight of personal armor programs 
throughout the 109th Congress, advocating in 2005 for 
replacement of SAPI with an enhanced version capable of 
defeating more challenging ballistic threats, and in 2006 for 
accelerated production of enhanced side SAPI plates to protect 
vulnerable torso areas.
    In the area of head protection, a Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces hearing was followed by the Marine Corps' 
adoption of the padded combat helmet suspension system already 
in use by the Army, which provides ballistic protection 
equivalent to the legacy sling suspension system and better 
blunt trauma survivability.

                      NEW BODY ARMOR TECHNOLOGIES

    The committee maintains strong interest in new developments 
that could lead to significant improvements in body armor. The 
committee closely followed and encouraged Army testing of 
alternative flexible body armor systems. Although the Army 
determined that alternatives do not meet current body armor 
requirements, they appear to offer some advantages for 
specialty use. The committee also followed vendor development 
and encouraged Army testing of mosaic tile body armor. The 
initial test results have been favorable and this technology 
may offer the next advancement in personnel armor.

                      MANNED SURVEILLANCE AIRCRAFT

    During a January 2004, congressional delegation to Iraq, 
the committee observed the need for persistent surveillance of 
roads and other locations where IED attacks against U.S. forces 
occur frequently. From that time to present the committee has 
promoted a ``take back the roads'' campaign which encourages 
the Department to provide tactical persistent surveillance 
platforms coupled with quick reaction forces to neutralize IED 
emplacers. In early 2006, the Army responded to this call from 
the committee by establishing Task Force ODIN, which comprises 
a specialized Army aviation battalion equipped with airborne 
reconnaissance multi-sensor (ARMS) manned surveillance aircraft 
and Warrior Alpha unmanned aerial vehicles for tactical use in 
countering the IED threat. The Army is also sending medium 
altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system (MARSS) manned 
aircraft to theater in advance of the ARMS aircraft to provide 
an interim capability. Though well intended, the schedule for 
deploying both MARSS and ARMS has slipped significantly. To 
fill the gap left by these delays, the committee has since 
July, 2006, advocated the redeployment of two Airborne 
Reconnaissance Low (ARL) aircraft from U.S. Southern Command, 
where they were seeing little use, to U.S. Central Command 
(CENTCOM), where they could be used to patrol the roads in 
Iraq. One of the ARL aircraft has been redeployed.
    The committee has further planned for the time when the 
primary responsibility for security in Iraq falls to the Iraqi 
Security Forces (ISF) and understands that the ISF will need 
some airborne surveillance capability for that mission. Many of 
the surveillance platforms that the committee has promoted for 
use in Iraq can be left behind for the ISF, and the committee 
has investigated contractor support for this activity, 
conveying the results to the Army.
    Although not included in the budget request, the committee 
provided $100.0 million in title XV of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) to support tactical persistent surveillance programs.

             JOINT SURVEILLANCE TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM

    The committee ascertained during briefings and 
Congressional delegation oversight visits to Iraq that the 
joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) platform 
was not optimally employed when used as a communications relay 
platform, a role other aircraft are equipped to perform. The 
committee believed this adversely impacted the ability of the 
combined forces air component commander to wholly support Army 
and Marine Corps ground component commanders' requests for 
ground moving target indicator capability using this platform. 
The committee was further troubled that no formal process 
existed to analyze or assess JSTARS post-mission intelligence 
data. Lastly, the committee became aware that a JSTARS mission-
crew shortfall existed, and that without fully manning 24 
combat coded mission-crews, JSTARS was unable to perform at 
surge-rate operational tempos for extended periods of time.
    The committee strongly urged the CENTCOM combatant 
commander to reassess the prioritization of missions assigned 
to the JSTARS platform, and directed the Secretary of the Air 
Force to implement formal procedures to analyze JSTARS post-
mission intelligence data to more effectively support the 
warfighter at all levels. The committee authorized an increase 
of 85 active guard and reserve (AGR) positions for the Air 
National Guard, and encouraged the Secretary of the Air Force 
to program the required funding in the Air Force Future Years 
Defense Program to convert the remaining 107 part-time 
positions to AGR positions.

                               AEROSTATS

    Based on the success of the persistent threat detection 
system (PTDS) at the Baghdad International Airport, the 
committee has encouraged the deployment of additional aerostat 
systems with upgraded equipment to help reduce the ``sensor-to-
shooter'' time after detection of a threat. At present, there 
are six new PTDS systems being produced for deployment to both 
Iraq and Afghanistan.

                          GROUND SURVEILLANCE

    In addition to air surveillance platforms, the committee 
promoted the use of ground-based overt and covert camera 
surveillance systems of the types used with great success in 
high-crime areas of large U.S. cities. As a direct result of 
committee encouragement, a system was deployed in Baghdad by 
the Army and has proven very useful in thwarting insurgent 
activities. The Marine Corps selected another portable remote 
surveillance system called the Tactical Concealed Video System 
and have procured at least five of these systems for deployment 
at the end of 2006.

                       ELECTRONIC COUNTERMEASURES

    Radio-control initiated IEDs (RCIED) have emerged as the 
most lethal threat to coalition forces deployed to Iraq and 
Afghanistan, currently accounting for more than half of all 
combat deaths. Although extensive effort had gone into 
protecting military personnel in vehicles by the spring of 
2005, far less had been accomplished to protect dismounted 
troops. In early 2005, the committee identified a lightweight 
dismounted Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare (CREW) technology 
capable of suppressing threats commonly encountered in urban 
areas. Largely due to intensive committee oversight, this CREW 
system, designated Warlock Blue, was designed, tested and 
manufactured, with production deliveries to the Department 
commencing 33 days after initial contract award in June 2005. 
The 8000th production unit was shipped in August 2005, only 70 
days after contract award and 6 months ahead of the 
Department's original delivery schedule. This uncharacteristic 
production and deployment timeline was enabled in part by the 
first use of the rapid acquisition authority granted to the 
Secretary under section 811 of the Ronald W. Reagan National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-
375), and in part by direct participation of the committee in 
identifying vendors with prototyping and production capacity 
sufficient to meet an accelerated schedule.
    Recognizing that deficiencies still existed, in August 
2005, the committee initiated efforts to ensure the fielding of 
more capable dismounted CREW technologies to combat the 
evolving threat. Again largely due to intensive committee 
oversight, in April 2006, the Navy initiated a Quick Reaction--
Dismounted (QRD) acquisition effort under the rapid acquisition 
authority. In September 2006, the Navy announced a CREW QRD 
source selection decision, awarding a base contract for an 
initial quantity of 1400 Guardian dismounted systems, with 
delivery to complete by early February 2007. Guardian will 
provide a ``backpackable'' capability to suppress all known 
RCIEDs.
    Concurrent with the CREW QRD acquisition effort, the 
committee pressed for further evolution of vehicle mounted CREW 
systems to correct capability deficiencies in currently 
deployed systems. In June 2006, the Navy initiated the CREW 2.1 
acquisition effort. Source selection testing completed in 
December 2006, and production contract award is scheduled for 
January 2007.
    Although not included in the budget request, the committee 
provided $109.7 million in title XV of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364) for acquisition and deployment of dismounted and mounted 
CREW systems. Section 1403 of the Act further requires that the 
Secretary take such steps as are necessary to ensure that, by 
the end of fiscal year 2007, CREW systems protect all U.S. 
military wheeled vehicles operating outside of secure military 
bases.

                            JIEDDO REPORTING

    The committee has exercised extensive oversight of the 
Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) and its institutional 
predecessor, the Joint IED Defeat Task Force. The JIEDDO was 
formally established as a permanent organization by the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense in January 2006, to lead and coordinate 
all DOD efforts to defeat improvised explosive devices as 
weapons of strategic influence. The committee has strongly 
supported the IED defeat effort, but grew concerned about its 
ability to oversee the execution of funds entrusted to JIEDDO. 
The committee understood the need for flexibility, security, 
and expeditious action to counter the rapidly evolving IED 
threat. However, at almost $3.6 billion for fiscal year 2006, 
JIEDDO funding was completely ``off-budget'' with none of the 
justification materials normally available to Congress for a 
program of such size and importance. The committee was also 
aware of other Department efforts to defeat the IED threat. 
Consequently, the committee included section 1402 of the John 
Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(Public Law 109-364), which established a quarterly reporting 
requirement on the status of the threat and efforts undertaken 
to defeat it.

                 COUNTER-ROCKETS, ARTILLERY AND MORTARS

    The committee's strong commitment to the adaptation, 
further development, and testing of certain air defense 
artillery technologies to combat rocket and mortar fire led to 
deployment of an operational capability to defeat these threats 
for the first time in history.

                            Special Studies

    The committee engaged in other special studies and 
oversight activities that crossed formal subcommittee 
jurisdiction.

                          UNIT READINESS STUDY

    From February 2005 through the end of the 109th Congress, 
the committee conducted an extensive study on unit readiness in 
relation to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Designed to provide 
insight into the readiness challenges facing Army and Marine 
Corps units and personnel, this ongoing study focuses on pre-
deployment activities such as training, logistics planning, and 
family preparations. Over several months, committee staff 
periodically embedded with one Army battalion and one Marine 
Corps battalion as they prepared for deployment to Iraq. Close 
observation revealed the development of individual and 
collective skills throughout the training process, as well as 
improved preparedness in areas such as medical, family, and 
logistical readiness. During the units' deployments, staff 
continued to monitor their status via correspondence, 
classified data, media accounts, and a staff delegation to 
Iraq. With the battalions' recent redeployment to the United 
States, the staff continues to receive information on the 
units' operational experiences and ``lessons learned.''

                         RETURNING UNITS STUDY

    In March 2006, the committee commenced a systematic study 
of Army and Marine Corps units (active, reserve, and Guard) 
returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation 
Enduring Freedom (OEF). The intent of this study is to collect 
information regarding units' deployment and operational 
experiences through multiple, standard interviews of enlisted 
personnel and officers from battalions that have recently 
returned from theater. This study is ongoing, and no 
conclusions or reports have been formulated.

                           IN LIEU OF FORCES

    The need for additional military personnel to support 
ground force troop rotations has led to the deployment in 
significant numbers of Air Force and Navy ``in lieu of'' 
forces. The committee spent considerable time examining the 
training and use of these airmen and sailors to provide 
temporary augmentation in nontraditional combat environments 
around the globe. This oversight is ongoing.

 OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM OVERSIGHT TEAM 
                                 EFFORT

    At the beginning of the 109th Congress, the chairman 
temporarily reorganized the committee staff into ``oversight 
teams'' and directed an extensive evaluation of key issue areas 
pertinent to combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 
oversight teams identified issue areas having the potential for 
prompt benefit from committee review and involvement. The issue 
areas were: vehicle armor protection, IED jammers, tactical 
surveillance, ammunition, tactical weapons availability, 
counter-rocket/mortar, contractor operations on the 
battlefield, care for wounded and injured, post separation 
support for wounded and injured service members and their 
family members and survivors, training of Iraqi security 
forces, active and reserve components' ability to sustain 
rotation requirements, configurations of units deploying, 
resetting the force, and the Joint Rapid Action Cell. Oversight 
teams were encouraged to ``get out in the field'' and ``walk 
the lines''. The activities of these teams, which included 
actions such as site visits of production facilities, 
interviews with service members, and reviews of DOD regulations 
and military doctrine, led to a number of actions during the 
109th Congress. In many cases, the efforts of these oversight 
teams raised awareness in the Department and defense industry 
of many pressing war-related issues, instigated internal DOD 
review of the Department's policies or programs, spawned new 
committee oversight activities on related matters, or 
influenced committee legislative action throughout fiscal years 
2006 and 2007. Examples of some of the teams' activities 
follow.
    The oversight team charged with investigating vehicle armor 
protection continued from the 108th Congress the committee's 
aggressive oversight activities of the Department's add-on 
armor program for tactical wheeled vehicles. To evaluate if 
maximum effort and productivity were achieved in providing add-
on armor kit solutions to OIF and OEF, the team engaged in 
activities that included, but were not limited to: multiple 
oversight delegations to the prime contractor for the UAH; the 
primary arsenals and depots responsible for fabricating light 
tactical vehicle add-on armor solutions; the prime contractors 
producing add-on armor solutions for medium and heavy tactical 
wheeled vehicles; the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to observe test 
and evaluation procedures of add-on armor solutions as well as 
discuss and analyze lessons learned regarding the performance 
of existing add-on armor solutions in OIF and OEF; and the 
primary U.S. steel mill that produced the majority of armor 
plates. The team received weekly and monthly armor summaries 
from the Army and Marine Corps and maintained direct links to 
U.S. industry and the U.S. steel industry in helping to provide 
better visibility into current and future add-on armor 
requirements. Activities also resulted in several hearings that 
addressed vehicle add-on armor concerns for medium and heavy 
tactical vehicles as well as underbody armor protection for 
Marine Corps light tactical vehicles. The activities of this 
team also helped the committee to adequately address funding 
requirements for armor solutions in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 
(109-364). During the 109th Congress, the committee provided an 
additional $1.47 billion for add-on armor solutions. Also, the 
committee noted the importance of a long term, sustained 
armoring strategy that would utilize an ``A Kit''/``B Kit'' 
construct allowing for maximum protection and flexibility in 
combat and non-combat situations.
    The ammunition oversight team was created with the primary 
mission of better understanding conventional ammunition 
requirements, production rates and sustainability of production 
for current usage levels and determine best course of actions 
for meeting new requirements for small and medium caliber 
ammunition. The overall approach was review of inventory 
requirements, war reserves, consumption rates, production 
rates, and abilities to deliver critical war related materials 
in quantity, quality, and in the time frame required by the 
warfighter. The team traveled to the Lake City Army Ammunition 
Plant, the Radford Army Ammunition Plant, and the Holston Army 
Ammunition Plant to meet with officials and observe and 
determine current capabilities of these plants and requirements 
for production base upgrades. Meetings and conference calls 
were also conducted by the team with other experts and 
suppliers within the ammunition community including such 
organizations as the Office of Secretary of Defense 
(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), the Joint Munitions 
Command, the Joint Staff, the Army, the Marine Corps, Munitions 
Industrial Base Task Force, and industry. The activities of the 
team followed up on previous committee actions taken during the 
108th Congress such as a June 2004 hearing that addressed 
whether or not a shortage in small-caliber ammunition existed 
for OIF and OEF. The team provided information to the committee 
that determined no such shortage had prevented military 
personnel from being able to conduct their mission. The team 
continues to work with the Army to help create better 
methodology for tracking current conventional ammunition 
inventory. The services now provide to the committee annually 
an inventory matrix that denotes previous year expenditures and 
current year requirements. The committee during the 109th 
Congress authorized an additional $245.6 million over the 
President's budget requests for ammunition industrial base 
upgrades and small-caliber ammunition production.
    The tactical weapon shortfall oversight team was created 
with the primary mission to better understand current usage and 
OIF and OEF theater requirements for crew served weapons as 
well as primary and secondary small arms. The team specifically 
analyzed the current inventoried stock of M2 .50 caliber crew 
served weapons. M2s were no longer in production but were being 
used extensively and to great effect in OIF and OEF. 
Operational needs statements (ONS) continued to to be generated 
in theater. As such, the team traveled to the Anniston Army 
Depot, the depot responsible for all small arms and crew served 
weapon refurbishment activity for the U.S. military, including 
the M2, in order to ascertain whether or not a shortage existed 
for small arms and crew served weapons. The team walked the 
production lines at Anniston Army depot and observed the M2 .50 
caliber refurbishment program. The team found that Anniston 
Army Depot and the prime contractor had substantial capability 
to increase production and address any M2 requirements as well 
as determined that all in theater validated requirements were 
being fulfilled expediently. In addition to field travel the 
team met with officials representing the Program Executive 
Office--Soldier, the organization responsible for small arms 
acquisition and program management in the Army, officials from 
the Marine Corps, and industry in order to better understand 
current and future small arms acquisition strategy and 
capability. Activities led to even greater scrutiny of the 
Army's Objective Individual Combat Weapon, Increment One 
program; the program originally planned to replace all primary 
small arms for the Army such as the M4 carbine and M16 rifle. 
The committee during the 109th Congress provided $538.4 million 
for small arms and modifications, in particular, providing 
$20.0 million for quick change barrel kits for the M2, a 
critical aspect to the .50 caliber refurbishment program. The 
team continues to monitor new efforts such as the M240 medium 
machine gun conversion program.
    The team assembled to evaluate DOD policy for contractors 
operating on the battlefield examined issues such as force 
protection for civilian contractors, contractors' use of 
personal weapons, the role of private security companies, and 
the impact of these civilians on combatant commanders' 
operations. Through more than 35 briefings with DOD agencies 
and subordinate activities, private companies, and trade groups 
responsible for aspects of contractor operations, the team 
gathered a multitude of information, enabling the committee to 
call for clarification and expansion of DOD guidance for 
contractors. The committee introduced legislation in fiscal 
year 2006 that would have taken steps to clarify and regulate 
the growing sector of contractors that are present during 
military operations.
    A team assembled to understand the configuration of units 
deploying in OIF 04-06, how this configuration differs from OIF 
II and how these units compare to the new modular brigade 
configuration. Particular attention was paid to the Army's 
ongoing transformation to modularity while executing ongoing 
combat operations. The team examined the tables of organization 
and equipment for both a theoretical and actual deploying 
modular brigade. The team received briefings on the subject 
from the Joint Staff and Army G-3.
     The Joint Rapid Action Cell team assembled to understand 
the implementation of ``rapid acquisition authority,'' as 
created in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314) and modified in the 
Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375). The team was concerned that 
after 18 months of authority, the Department of Defense had 
only used the rapid acquisition authority twice. The JRAC is a 
new organization within the Department designed to increase the 
velocity of the acquisition system in meeting urgent 
requirements from the combatant commander. The team received 
briefings from various DOD officials including the Director of 
the Joint Rapid Acquisition Cell and the Director, Defense 
Procurement and Acquisition Policy.
    The committee pursued two closely aligned oversight 
projects involving the care and support provided to wounded and 
injured military personnel and their families (1) during their 
active duty service and (2) during their transition from active 
duty into their post separation lives. The later project also 
examined the programs designed to support the surviving family 
members of those who die in the theater of operations.
    The two teams began their examination of the issues with 
over 40 formal meetings in the months just preceding and 
following the inauguration of the 109th Congress and remained 
actively engaged throughout the 109th Congress. The 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on the care 
of injured and wounded service members early in the 109th 
Congress. The oversight process involved extensive travel to 
Department of Defense and other governmental activities, in-
office research, and informational briefings from the 
Department, other governmental agencies, and private sector 
organizations. The teams examined the following issues:
         (1) Adequacy of medical treatment and support with 
        special attention paid to mental health services.
         (2) Effectiveness and efficiency of the medical 
        holdover system.
         (3) Identification and resolution of problems 
        encountered by wounded and injured members and their 
        families with particular attention paid to reservists.
         (4) Effectiveness of new programs operated by the 
        military services to assist severely disabled service 
        members and their families.
         (5) Fairness and effectiveness of physical disability 
        evaluation system.
         (6) Effectiveness and efficiency of Department of 
        Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Department 
        of Labor programs intended to provide a seamless 
        transition for wounded and injured service members and 
        families and survivors of deceased members.
         (7) Scope and nature of the services and resources 
        available to wounded and injured service members and 
        families and survivors of deceased members from the 
        Department of Defense, other governmental agencies, and 
        the private sector and the ability of the Department of 
        Defense to integrate and coordinate access to those 
        services and resources.
    The two oversight projects resulted in the following 
legislation being enacted during the 109th Congress:
         (1) The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
        Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) included the following 
        provisions:
                 a. Authority for members to participate in the 
                Paralympic Games.
                 b. Assessment and standardization of policy 
                and procedures involved in providing assistance 
                to survivors of casualties.
                 c. Assessment and standardization of policy 
                and procedures involved in providing assistance 
                to severely wounded service members.
                 d. Requirement for members to designate 
                persons to direct the disposition of remains 
                should they become a casualty.
                  e. Prohibition against charging the cost of 
                meals to hospitalized wounded and injured 
                members.
                  f. Increase in the length of time that 
                surviving family members may remain in 
                government housing or receive housing 
                allowances.
                  g. Transitional pay for hospitalized wounded 
                and injured members.
                  h. Increase in the length of time provided to 
                surviving family members to make a final home 
                of selection.
                  i. Authority to provide travel and 
                transportation allowances to families visiting 
                hospitalized members.
                  j. Increase in death gratuity provided to 
                survivors of members who die on active duty.
          (2) The John Warner National Defense Authorization 
        Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) included 
        the following provisions:
                  a. Authority for members to retain assistive 
                technology and devices after separation from 
                active duty.
                  b. Enhanced guidelines for the proper 
                transportation of remains to burial sites.
                  c. Standards and guidelines for the 
                establishment of a severely injured center by 
                the Secretary of Defense.
                  d. Comprehensive review of DOD mortuary 
                affairs procedures.
                  e. Requirement to deploy personnel trained in 
                techniques to better preserve remains under 
                combat conditions.
                  f. Reform of Physical Evaluation Board policy 
                and procedures to improve fairness and 
                efficiency.
                  g. Inclusion of military members in the 
                policy to provide continued housing allowances 
                at increased rates to spouses of members who 
                die while serving on active duty.
                  h. Inclusion of military members in the 
                policy to provide travel and transportation 
                allowances to family members visiting wounded 
                and injured service members.
                  i. Correction of effective date to 
                retroactively provide certain Survivor Benefit 
                Plan annuities to all surviving family members 
                of members who died on active duty during the 
                global war on terrorism.
    In addition to the above legislative initiatives, the 
committee devoted considerable effort to oversight of the 
support provided wounded and injured service members and their 
families at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National 
Naval Medical Center, Bethesda. The effort focused not only on 
the overall functioning of the patient support systems, but 
also in resolving the specific problems related to housing, 
pay, benefits, and care arising for military personnel and 
their families.
    As of the end of the 109th Congress, committee staff has 
conducted seventy nine visits to Walter Reed Army Medical 
Center and more than sixty visits to the National Naval Medical 
Center at Bethesda interviewing an average of five severely 
injured or wounded service members each visit and many of their 
visiting family members. This effort prompted more than twenty 
case inquires concerning pay, accommodations, and patient 
support systems. Significant effort was also devoted to making 
direct contact with severely injured service members following 
their hospitalization to assist in their transition to civilian 
life including guidance and support toward career, education 
and financial recovery.
    Formal staff visits to three of the four Veterans 
Administration Poly-trauma Centers (Minneapolis, Minnesota; 
Tampa, Florida; and Richmond, Virginia), together with 
individual case inquiries from the remaining facility at Palo 
Alto, California, prompted committee interest in the 
establishment of Fisher House facilities near the California 
and Virginia centers. These facilities are currently in the 
development process. The extended care of military traumatic 
brain and spinal cord patients at the Poly-trauma Centers is 
facilitated by participation of family members in their 
therapy.
    Committee staff coordinated closely with the Department of 
Labor to establish on-site employment specialists at the Walter 
Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center 
at Bethesda. These specialists will be readily available for 
preliminary consultations with wounded service members and 
their spouses concerning employment plans and objectives. This 
effort included collecting and tracking skills and interest 
data, resume preparation, and research into career 
opportunities at or near their homes.
    On December 5, 2006, the House of Representatives adopted 
House Resolution 1070, a resolution expressing the sense of the 
House of Representatives that Members of the House should 
actively engage with employers and the American public at large 
to encourage the hiring of members and former members of the 
armed forces who were wounded in service and are facing a 
transition to civilian life. The resolution was sponsored by 
Chairman Duncan Hunter and included a provision to eliminate 
any perception of inappropriate conduct by Members of the House 
when they contact private sector and government employers to 
provide job search and hiring assistance to wounded service 
members.
                 OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

                            Budget Activity

    On March 3, 2003, the committee forwarded its views and 
estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function 
050) for fiscal year 2006 to the Committee on the Budget. The 
Committee noted that our security and defense environment is 
rapidly changing and in flux. The daily headlines out of Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Iran or North Korea reflect the unpredictable 
security climate we faced. At the same time, our armed forces 
were experiencing the most severe challenges and demands that 
have been placed on them in decades. Our military--a critical 
component of our national security structure--was undergoing 
sweeping and fundamental change while simultaneously carrying 
most of the free world's burden in the global war on terrorism. 
Unfortunately, despite a concerted effort to improve 
modernization and investment funding, our forces today rely on 
heavily-used and rapidly aging equipment. Continued operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan require our critical warfighting 
systems to be used at significantly higher rates (for some by a 
factor of 5 to 10 times) than expected under peacetime 
conditions. Critical equipment is aging quickly. For example: 
our bomber fleet, which has been so successful in recent 
operations, is on average 29 years old; our Marine helicopters 
and ground combat vehicles are on average 24.7 and 15.2 years 
old, respectively; and our Army helicopters and ground combat 
vehicles are on average 18.5 and 14.3 years old. All of these 
weapons systems are either at or past their projected half-
life. Clearly, our defense capability will erode if we continue 
to rely on aged equipment. Against this backdrop, the President 
submitted a defense budget request of $419.3 billion for Fiscal 
Year 2006, an increase of $19.2 billion over the budget 
authority appropriated for Fiscal Year 2005. However, the 
Committee noted that even with this proposed increase, defense 
spending would amount to a far lower percentage of the nation's 
gross domestic product (GDP) than it did 20 years ago--a 
projected 4.3 percent in 2005 compared to 6.0 percent in 1985. 
While the annual defense budget should not be solely determined 
by an arbitrary percentage of GDP, it does serve as a useful 
measure of the relative means available to the nation to 
properly fund the national defense function. Thus, for a nation 
at war, the committee believes that defense spending remains 
relatively low. Between Fiscal Years 2000 and 2005, equipment 
modernization funding has increased by an average of 7.2 
percent annually. However, the President's budget request 
proposes to increase modernization accounts by less than one-
half of one percent relative to Fiscal Year 2005. Further, the 
Fiscal Year 2006 Future Year Defense Plan (FYDP) reduces 
modernization funding between Fiscal Year 2006 and 2009 by 
$12.9 billion. Therefore, the committee proposed that 
additional funding be provided over this period in order to 
sustain the needed pace of modernization of our military 
forces. It is also important to note the President's budget 
request proposed to continue the practice of deferring funding 
for significant elements of the base defense program until 
future supplemental appropriations requests. As expected, and 
in keeping with historical practice, the budget request did not 
include the costs of conducting operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The Committee was also concerned, however, that 
the proposed budget provided no funding for additional 
Congressionally mandated military personnel end strength 
increases, Army transformation, force protection initiatives 
and other critical activities. Thus, the combination of this 
strategy of deferred program funding and the expected costs 
resulting from continued operations in the global war on 
terrorism required the Committee to insist that the Budget 
Resolution contain a contingency fund mechanism that would 
allow the defense authorization and appropriations process to 
pursue an appropriate level of ``bridge'' funding for the 
initial quarters of Fiscal Year 2006. Finally, the 
Administration included in the Fiscal Year 2005 supplemental 
request a proposal to increase the benefits afforded to the 
survivors of military members. The proposal had three 
components. First, it provided an increase in the death 
gratuity from $12,420 to $100,000 for deaths incurred in 
designated combat zones. Second, it provided an increase in the 
maximum amount of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) 
from $250,000 to $400,000 for service members. Third, it 
provided $238,000 in retroactive payments to surviving family 
members of combat deaths occurring on or after October 7, 2001. 
The Committee requested the necessary discretionary and 
mandatory spending increases in the military personnel accounts 
to provide increases in the death gratuity and SGLI payments 
for military deaths.
    On March 3, 2006, the Committee forwarded its views and 
estimates regarding the budget for National Defense (function 
050) for fiscal year 2007 to the Committee on the Budget. By 
way of background, during the fall of 2005, the committee 
initiated a comprehensive study of the Department of Defense's 
ability to secure our national defense over the next 25 years. 
The ``Committee Defense Review'' (CDR) brought together members 
of the committee to receive testimony from experts in the 
government, academia and the private sector. This independent 
review, conducted in parallel with the Department of Defense 
Quadrennial Defense Review, addressed the threats facing the 
United States and gaps in our current capabilities. Given the 
environment our nation is in today, the Committee noted that it 
had serious concerns that the base budget for Fiscal Year 2007 
was inadequate to support non-deployed programs not directly 
involved in the day-to-day operations of the global war on 
terrorism. In conjunction with the CDR initiative, and based on 
our hearings and briefings from the Department of Defense and 
Department of Energy, the budget request presented Congress 
with the following challenges:
          (1) $10.0 billion short for the minimum requirements 
        for training and maintenance;
          (2) $5.0 billion needed to avoid delays in procuring 
        necessary weapon systems;
          (3) $25.0 billion to fund the initial reset 
        requirements of our deployed equipment;
          (4) $4.6 billion for military end strength and 
        TRICARE requirements;
          (5) $45.0 million in mandatory authority for 
        shortfalls in death gratuity benefits;
          (6) $600.0 million in mandatory authority for new 
        overseas housing; and
          (7) $500.0 million in mandatory authority to extend 
        the maximum lease term permitted for family housing in 
        foreign nations.
    The Committee did not make these observations lightly. 
Against the current President's budget request, three 
observations needed to be made about the proposed Fiscal Year 
2007 budget request: (1) there is virtually no growth in the 
defense budget from Fiscal Year 2006, (2) defense spending is 
low compared to the 1980s, and (3) Congressionally mandated 
savings and personnel spending over the past five years are 
eroding our training and investment account. The President 
submitted a budget request for national defense budget function 
(050) of $513.0 billion for Fiscal Year 2007.
    The discretionary budget request for the Department of 
Defense includes two distinct elements. First, $439.3 billion 
for military forces not deployed in the global war on 
terrorism. This funding baseline request represented an 
increase of $28.5 billion over the budget authority 
appropriated to the Department of Defense last year for non-
global war on terrorism accounts. To the casual observer this 7 
percent increase would seem to be a robust boost to our 
national defense capabilities. Unfortunately, this growth can 
be attributed to three things:
          (1) $11.4 billion covers annual inflation and pay 
        raises;
          (2) $3.0 billion finances increased fuel costs; and
          (3) $4.1 billion funds Base Realignment and Closure 
        initiatives.
    Of the remaining $10.0 billion increase for traditional 
military programs and procurement, close to one-half supported 
the implementation of the Army modularity program this fiscal 
year. Aside from Army modularity, the remaining critical 
investment, personnel, training and maintenance accounts only 
experienced a $5.0 billion increase--which translates into 1.2 
percent growth over Fiscal Year 2006. For the first time this 
year, the President requested $50.0 billion for estimated 
future emergency spending for the global war on terrorism. This 
is a significant step in fiscal responsibility. Until now, the 
global war on terrorism was funded outside the traditional 
budget. Therefore, it was not included in the formal 
calculation of the federal government's annual liabilities. By 
including the $50.0 billion in the budget request, this 
represents an important step towards accurately budgeting for 
our nation's defense. It is important to note that even with 
funding of $513.0 billion, defense spending amounts to a far 
lower percentage of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) 
than it did twenty years ago--projected 4.0 percent in 2007 
compared to 6 percent in 1985. While the annual defense budget 
should not be solely determined by an arbitrary percentage of 
GDP, it does serve as a useful measure of the relative means 
available to the nation to properly fund the national defense 
function. Another comparison that perhaps is a better metric is 
the percentage of discretionary budget authority spent on 
Department of Defense (function 051) in relation to the total 
federal discretionary budget request. In 1985, the Department 
of Defense discretionary budget authority was 62.9 percent of 
the total federal discretionary budget. In 1986, that amount 
grew to 64.4 percent. In contrast, this year's Department of 
Defense discretionary budget authority is only 53 percent of 
the total discretionary budget. Thus, for a nation at war, the 
funding for our national defense remains relatively low. To 
return spending on our nation's defense to 6 percent of GDP, 
the amount required would translate to $734.0 billion for 
Fiscal Year 2007. Similarly, if we were to fund the Department 
of Defense at 62.9 percent of the $923 billion federal 
discretionary budget authority requested for Fiscal Year 2007, 
the total discretionary budget request for function 050 would 
be $580.6 billion. The Committee further noted that while the 
Department faced rising health care costs, fuel costs and 
inflation, as well as congressionally imposed budget caps, the 
most severe budget challenges were found in the operation and 
maintenance accounts. Currently, all the services are funded 
well below the levels required to conduct the minimal training 
necessary to maintain adequate military readiness. For example, 
the shortfalls in Fiscal Year 2007 budget request were as 
follows:
          (1) Navy funds only 36 steaming days a quarter versus 
        required 51 steaming days per quarter;
          (2) Army funds 615 tank miles a year versus combined 
        arms training strategy requirement of 899 miles;
          (3) Army funds 11.6 helicopter flying hours per month 
        versus 14.5 hours helicopter flying hours per month;
          (4) Marine Corps funds 88 percent of the combat ready 
        days--equipment and training requirement; and
          (5) Air Force funds 98 percent of the flying hour 
        training requirement while mission capable rates are 
        scheduled to fall to 75 percent for the first time 
        since 1998.
          (6) In the Fiscal Year 2006 FYDP, the services 
        anticipated receiving $154.7 billion for operation and 
        maintenance programs in Fiscal Year 2007. Instead, this 
        year's request is $152.0 billion--a $2.7 billion 
        reduction. Combined with the $4.0 billion in price 
        growth due to inflation and the $3.0 billion in price 
        growth due to rising fuel costs, the budget request 
        would actually reduce critical training and maintenance 
        programs by close to $10.0 billion. With respect to 
        procurement and despite a concerted effort to improve 
        modernization and investment funding, the budget 
        request defered critical weapon systems by pushing 
        procurement quantities over the next 5 years--
        increasing cost and delaying acquisition.
    On the procurement side of the ledger, the services were 
scheduled in the 2006 FYDP, to receive $91.6 billion for 
procurement programs in Fiscal Year 2007. Instead, this year's 
request was $84.2 billion for those accounts--a $7.4 billion 
reduction. While some of these funds were transferred to 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation accounts, the 
procurement accounts experienced a $5.0 billion reduction from 
last year.
    Finally, the Army and Marine Corps estimated that a large 
percentage of equipment currently operating in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom will be unserviceable at 
the conclusion of these campaigns. The Army and Marine Corps 
are confronted with the challenging task of ``resetting'' their 
forces, restoring heavily used operating equipment to combat 
readiness and replacing worn out equipment. The initial cost 
estimates for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset are close 
to $50.0 billion. Given the rising costs of current and future 
modernization programs and the ongoing global war on terrorism, 
the Committee believes that the Army and Marine Corps' ability 
to properly resource equipment reset is in jeopardy. The sheer 
size of the unfunded reset bill is starting to impact future 
force development. Last year the Army testified that with the 
funding projected in the FYDP they could field between 77 to 82 
Brigade Combat Teams. Yet, in less than one year, the Army plan 
has been modified develop only 70 Brigade Combat Teams in order 
to fit within the proposed budget this year.
    The Committee has a responsibility to consider funding the 
reset of our critical warfighting capability. Equipment reset 
is critical to maintaining warfighting capability. Accordingly, 
we believe the services have an immediate requirement of $25.0 
billion for equipment reset. The budget request contained 
legislative proposals designed to contain the cost of military 
health care by substantially increasing the out-of-pocket costs 
for military retirees under age 65 and their families. Those 
proposals would also increase the pharmacy co-payments for all 
beneficiaries--active duty members, retirees, Medicare-
eligibles and their families. In anticipation of enactment of 
this legislation, the budget request reduces the Defense Health 
Program by $735.0 million--the amount of savings estimated by 
the Department that results from increased beneficiary cost 
shares. The committee believed that these proposals depend too 
exclusively on increasing cost shares and believes that no 
action should be taken in Fiscal Year 2007 until a full review 
of additional cost control options is completed. Circumventing 
Congressional oversight by quickly implementing fundamental 
changes to a highly viable medical benefit is not keeping the 
promise to the sailors, soldiers, airmen and Marines that serve 
our country. The Committee was concerned that the proposed 
budget did not provide funding for the additional 34,000 
military personnel end strength congressionally mandated for 
the active components of the Army and Marine Corps. The budget 
request also funded Army National Guard end strength at 
332,900, which was 17,100 below what was authorized in Fiscal 
Year 2006. The Committee had estimated the cost to fully fund 
the end strength for Fiscal Year 2007 was $3.9 billion.
    The President included a proposal to permit the sale of the 
remaining government-owned industrial commodities in the 
National Defense Stockpile that were not needed for national 
defense requirements. Furthermore, the proposal requested the 
receipts from these additional sales be deposited in the 
Treasury for deficit reduction. The savings identified in this 
proposal are $1.0 million in Fiscal Year 2007 and $299.0 
million between Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2011. However, 
against the $299.0 million in savings, the committee has 
identified three mandatory proposals totaling more than $1.1 
billion that need immediate attention in Fiscal Year 2007.
    First, the committee had identified the need for an 
amendment to the death gratuity provision in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-
163) to ensure that 300 surviving families of members who died 
while on active duty after October 7, 2001, receive a 
retroactive $150,000 payment. The payment was intended to 
compensate surviving families of both combat and non combat 
deaths for the increase in Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
(SGLI) that went into effect on September 1, 2005.
    The death gratuity amendment would revise the effective 
date of section 664 to cover the benefit population from May 5, 
2005 through August 31, 2005. The amendment would incur a one-
time $45.0 million mandatory spending cost. Accordingly, the 
committee requested $45.0 million in mandatory spending to 
include the legislative authority to address this unintended 
lack of coverage in the death gratuity benefits.
    Finally, the committee requested that an additional $600.0 
million be allocated in mandatory spending be allocated from 
Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2015 to accelerate 
rebasing plans and the acquisition of safe, secure housing for 
U.S. military personnel and their families stationed in the 
Republic of Korea. The Department is currently implementing a 
global integrated presence and basing strategy to ensure our 
military forces stationed overseas are adequately postured to 
meet emerging threats to our national security. In order to 
provide for the most efficient use of military resources, the 
committee wanted to provide the Department with legislative 
authorities which resulted in this mandatory increase to the 
obligation authority in the Fiscal Year 2007 budget.

                        Full Committee Hearings

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 
held numerous hearings in accordance with its legislative and 
oversight roles. These hearings focused on areas including the 
budget of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the posture of 
the armed services, the global war on terrorism, detainee 
policy, the creation of military commissions to try those 
accused of illegal acts in the war on terrorism, force 
protection initiatives, national security concerns, acquisition 
reform, U.S. border security, and Department of Defense 
management and strategy. A full account of these hearings is 
below.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-1; H.A.S.C. 109-2; H.A.S.C. 109-3; H.A.S.C. 
109-4; H.A.S.C. 109-5; H.A.S.C. 109-6; H.A.S.C. 109-7; H.A.S.C. 
109-31; H.A.S.C. 109-32; H.A.S.C. 109-33; H.A.S.C. 109-35; 
H.A.S.C. 109-36; H.A.S.C. 109-37; H.A.S.C. 109-38; H.A.S.C. 
109-39; H.A.S.C. 109-48; H.A.S.C. 109-53; H.A.S.C. 109-57; 
H.A.S.C. 109-60; H.A.S.C. 109-63; H.A.S.C. 109-69; H.A.S.C. 
109-79; H.A.S.C. 109-80; H.A.S.C. 109-81; H.A.S.C. 109-82; 
H.A.S.C. 109-87; H.A.S.C. 109-88; H.A.S.C. 109-92; H.A.S.C. 
109-93; H.A.S.C. 109-95; H.A.S.C. 109-96; H.A.S.C. 109-97; 
H.A.S.C. 109-98; H.A.S.C. 109-99; H.A.S.C. 109-100; H.A.S.C. 
109-101; H.A.S.C. 109-102; H.A.S.C. 109-103; H.A.S.C. 109-104; 
H.A.S.C. 109-105; H.A.S.C. 109-106; H.A.S.C. 109-107; H.A.S.C. 
109-108; H.A.S.C. 109-109; H.A.S.C. 109-110; H.A.S.C. 109-111; 
H.A.S.C. 109-112; H.A.S.C. 109-113; H.A.S.C. 109-114; H.A.S.C. 
109-115; H.A.S.C. 109-116; H.A.S.C. 109-117; H.A.S.C. 109-118; 
H.A.S.C. 109-119; H.A.S.C. 109-120)

                           POSTURE AND BUDGET

    During the 109th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 
held multiple hearings on the posture, financial requirements, 
and status of the U.S. armed forces as they continue to fight 
the global war on terrorism to protect and defend the United 
States, her people, her interests, and her friends and allies 
around the world. These hearings, combined with the committee's 
responsibility for assembling the annual defense authorization 
bill, are the primary means by which it leads Congress in the 
latter's discharge of its Constitutional duties.
    On February 9 and March 10, 2005, the committee convened a 
hearing with Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of 
Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General 
Richard B. Myers, USAF, to review the budget request for 
funding and authorities during fiscal year 2006. In addition to 
this hearing, the committee sought and received testimony from 
each of the services and several unified combatant commanders. 
On February 9, 2005, Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army; 
and the Chief of Staff of the Army, Peter J. Schoomaker, 
appeared before the committee to discuss their service's 
portion of the fiscal year 2006 budget request. They were 
followed on February 17th by Gordon England, Secretary of the 
Navy; Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vernon E. Clark; and 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Michael W. Hagee, who 
testified on the budget as it related to the U.S. Navy and 
Marine Corps. The following month, Pete Teets, Acting Secretary 
of the Air Force; and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General 
John P. Jumper, appeared before the committee to testify on the 
United States Air Force's portion of the fiscal year 2006 
budget request.
    In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily 
responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, 
commanders of the unified combatant commands, who are in the 
chain of command, appeared before the committee to discuss the 
security situation in their respective areas of responsibility. 
These included General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. 
Central Command; and General Bryan D. Brown, USA, Commander of 
U.S. Special Operations Command on March 2, 2005. They were 
followed one week later by General James L. Jones, USMC, 
Commander of U.S. European Command; Admiral William J. Fallon, 
USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; and General Bantz J. 
Craddock, USA, Commander of U.S. Southern Command on March 9, 
2005.
    During the second session of the 109th Congress in 2006, 
the committee continued its tradition of conducting intensive 
hearings in preparation of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for fiscal year 2007. On February 8, 2006, the committee 
received testimony from Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary 
of Defense; General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff; and General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of 
Staff of the Army, to review the budget request for the 
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007. On February 15, 
2006, Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army; and General 
Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified on 
the Army's portion of the fiscal year 2007 budget request. The 
committee continued its hearings on the budget request by 
inviting the senior leaders of the Department of the Air Force 
to appear before it on March 1, 2006, when Michael T. Wynne, 
Secretary of the Air Force, testified before the committee with 
General T. Michael Moseley, Chief of Staff of the Air Force. 
The committee concluded its uniformed service posture hearings 
that same day with a separate hearing when Donald C. Winter, 
Secretary of the Navy, testified before the committee with 
Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chief of Naval Operations, and 
General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    After completing its hearings with the leadership of the 
uniformed services, the committee turned its attention to the 
combatant commands. On March 2, 2006, General Norton A. 
Schwartz, USAF, Commander of U.S. Transportation Command, 
testified before the committeealong with General Duncan J. 
McNabb, USAF, Commander of Air Mobility Command, Vice Admiral David L. 
Brewer III, USN, Commander of Military Sealift Command, and Major 
General Charles W. Fletcher, USA, Commander of Military Surface 
Deployment and Distribution Command. They were followed by geographic 
unified combatant commanders when on March 8, 2006, General James L. 
Jones, USMC, Commander of U.S. European Command testified before the 
committee. Admiral William J. Fallon, USN, Commander of U.S. Pacific 
Command, and General B.B. Bell, USA, Commander of United Nations 
Command, Combined Forces Command, U.S. Forces Korea, testified before 
the committee on March 9, 2006. General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of 
U.S. Central Command, testified before the committee on March 15, 2006. 
In the last posture hearing of the 109th Congress, on March 16, 2006, 
General Bantz J. Craddock, USA, Commander of U.S. Southern Command, 
testified before the committee.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-2; H.A.S.C. 109-3; H.A.S.C. 109-4; H.A.S.C. 
109-5; H.A.S.C. 109-6; H.A.S.C. 109-7; H.A.S.C. 109-48; 
H.A.S.C. 109-53; H.A.S.C. 109-57; H.A.S.C. 109-60; H.A.S.C. 
109-69; H.A.S.C. 109-95; H.A.S.C. 109-99; H.A.S.C. 109-101; 
H.A.S.C. 109-102)

                        GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

    The committee continued its work from the 108th Congress 
with intensive oversight of the global war on terrorism. While 
much of this oversight is necessarily classified, the committee 
is committed to publicly reviewing the developments associated 
with the activities and deployments of the U.S. armed forces. 
On June 22, 2005, the committee received testimony on 
operations and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan from Peter 
Rodman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
Security Affairs, Lieutenant General Walter Sharp, USA, 
Director of Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Staff, and Nancy 
Powell, Assistant Secretary of State for International 
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Oversight of operations 
in Afghanistan continued in the second session on June 28, 
2006, when the committee received testimony on the status of 
security and stability from Karen Tandy, Administrator of the 
Drug Enforcement Agency, Mary Beth Long, Principal Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, 
Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, USA, Commanding General of 
Combined Forces Command--Afghanistan, and James Kunder, 
Assistant Administrator for Asia and the Near East for the U.S. 
Agency for International Development. Both of the hearings 
highlighted the committee's concern over the growing poppy 
cultivation problem in Afghanistan. On June 29, 2005, the 
committee met to review detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay, 
Cuba. Brigadier General Jay Hood, USA, Commander of Joint Task 
Force Guantanamo, Commander Cary Ostergaard, USN, Detainee 
Hospital Commander, and Command Sergeant Major Anthony Mendez, 
USA, Joint Detention Group testified.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-38; H.A.S.C. 109-114; H.A.S.C. 109-37)

                                  IRAQ

    The committee continued to spend large amounts of time on 
the war in Iraq as members sought to ensure that U.S. military 
forces had every thing necessary to assist in Iraq's eventual 
successful transition to a fully functioning stable and 
autonomous state. On March 17, 2005, Dr. Andrew Krepinevich, 
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Dr. Steven 
Metz, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, and 
Walter B. Slocombe, former Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy and Senior Adviser for Defense and Security Sector 
Affairs to the Coalition Provisional Authority met with the 
committee to discuss current operations and the political 
transition in Iraq. On April 4, 2005, General Wesley K. Clark, 
USA (Ret.), former Commander of U.S. European Command, and 
Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
International Security Policy, testified before the committee 
on Iraq's past, present, and future. Soon after these outside 
experts testified, senior Department of Defense leaders 
including Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, General 
Richard B. Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General 
John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command, and 
General George W. Casey, Jr., USA, Commander of Multi-National 
Forces--Iraq, appeared before the committee on June 23, 2005, 
to examine the progress of the Iraqi Security Forces. On 
September 29, 2005, the committee met to receive an update on 
operations in Iraq from Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of 
Defense, General Richard B. Myers, USAF, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, General John Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central 
Command, and General George W. Casey, Jr., USA, Commander of 
Multi-National Forces--Iraq. The committee met on November 3, 
2005, to recognize and discuss the contributions of 
servicemembers with testimony from a representative panel of a 
few of America's finest: Brigadier John F. Kelly, USMC, 
Legislative Assistant to the Commandant, Colonel Robert Abrams, 
USA, Chief of Staff, 1st Cavalry Division, and Command Sergeant 
Major Neil Citola, USA, Command Sergeant Major, III Corps.
    In the second session of the 109th Congress on June 29, 
2006, the committee me to review reports of weapons of mass 
destruction findings in Iraq with Lieutenant General Michael D. 
Maples, USA, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Mr. 
Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, Dr. 
David Kay, former Director of the Iraq Survey Group, and Dr. 
Terence Taylor, Former Commissioner, U.N. Special Commission on 
Iraq. On November 15, 2006, the committee received testimony on 
the current situation and military operations in Iraq from 
Ambassador David M. Satterfield, Senior Adviser to the 
Secretary of State and Coordinator for Iraq, and General John 
Abizaid, USA, Commander of U.S. Central Command. For the last 
full committee hearing of the 109th Congress, on December 7, 
2006, the committee received testimony from Lieutenant General 
James J. Lovelace, USA, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, 
Major General Carter F. Ham, USA, Commanding General of the 1st 
Infantry Division, and Major General George F. Flynn, USMC, 
Commanding General of Training and Education Command, on 
military transition teams in Iraq.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-31; H.A.S.C. 109-32; H.A.S.C. 109-33; 
H.A.S.C. 109-87; H.A.S.C. 109-93; H.A.S.C. 109-115; H.A.S.C. 
109-92; H.A.S.C. 109-97)

                            FORCE PROTECTION

    All members of the committee are dedicated to making 
certain that every servicemember who enters a theater of combat 
operations has the necessary force protection equipment to give 
them the best opportunity to come home safe. In light of this 
commitment, the members met on May 5, 2005, to discuss the 
status of tactical wheeled vehicle armoring initiatives and 
improvised explosive device jammer initiatives in Operation 
Iraqi Freedom with Dr. Steven J. deTeresa, Engineer, Laurence 
Livermore National Laboratory, Brigadier General Joseph L. 
Votel, USA, Director, Joint IED Defeat Task Force, Brigadier 
General Jeffrey A. Sorenson, USA, Deputy for Acquisition and 
Systems Management, Department of the Army, Brigadier General 
William D. Catto, USMC, Commanding General of the Marine Corps 
System Command, Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, USMC, 
Commanding General of the Marine Corps Combat Development 
Command, and Lieutenant Colonel Paul J. Kennedy, USMC, former 
battalion commander, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st 
Marine Division. On June 21, 2005, the committee met to review 
Marine Corps force protection with General William L. Nyland, 
Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Brigadier General 
William D. Catto, Commanding General of the Marine Corps System 
Command. The committee invited Hon. Francis J. Harvey, 
Secretary of the Army, and General Richard Cody, Vice Chief of 
Staff of the Army, to testify on the Army's M1114 up-armor high 
mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle distribution strategy on 
October 20, 2005.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-79; H.A.S.C. 109-80; H.A.S.C. 109-88)

                          MILITARY COMMISSIONS

    To prosecute expeditiously those individuals who have 
wreaked terror on the United States, the committee devoted a 
large segment of its second session to enacting law governing 
military commissions. On July 12, 2006, the committee summoned 
Mr. Steven J. Bradbury, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mr. 
Daniel J. Dell'Orto, Principal Deputy General Counsel for the 
Department of Defense, Honorable Theodore Olson, former 
Solicitor General of the United States, and Rear Admiral John 
Hutson, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General to testify on 
the standards of military commissions and tribunals. Two weeks 
later the committee met again on July 26, 2006, to hear from 
Honorable Patricia M. Wald, former Chief Judge for the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Gerald 
Gahima, former Judge for the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of 
Bosnia Herzegovina and former Deputy Chief Justice and Attorney 
General for Rwanda, Mr. Michael P. Scharf, Professor of Law and 
Director of the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center at 
Case Western Reserve University, and Ms. Jennifer Elsea, 
Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional 
Research Service on the same topic. On September 7, 2006, the 
committee met again to discuss the standards of military 
commissions and tribunals with Mr. Steven Bradbury, Acting 
Assistant Attorney General, Major General Scott C. Black, The 
Judge Advocate General of the Army, Rear Admiral Bruce E. 
MacDonald, The Judge Advocate General of the Navy, Major 
General Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., Deputy Judge Advocate General 
of the Air Force, Brigadier General James C. Walker, Staff 
Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, and 
Colonel Ronald Reed, USAF, Legal Counsel to the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-116; H.A.S.C. 109-117; H.A.S.C. 109-120)

                       National Security Concerns

    As part of its larger responsibility to oversee matters 
related to national security, the committee hosted a joint 
hearing with the House Committee on International Relations on 
April 14, 2005, to discuss arms exports to the People's 
Republic of China by member states of the European Union. 
Honorable R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political 
Affairs at the Department of State, Honorable Peter W. Rodman, 
Assistant Secretary for International Security Affairs for the 
Department of Defense, and Mr. Peter Lichtenbaum, Acting Under 
Secretary for Industry and Security for the Department of 
Commerce testified on the importance maintaining the embargo 
for U.S. national security.
    On July 27, 2005, the committee met to receive testimony on 
Chinese military power from Honorable Franklin Kramer, former 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security 
Affairs, Dr. Richard D. Fisher, Vice President of the 
International Assessment and Strategy Center, and Mr. John J. 
Tkacik, Jr., Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. In the 
second session, the committee met on June 22, 2006, to discuss 
the military power of the People's Republic of China with 
Honorable Peter W. Rodman, Assistant Secretary for 
International Security Affairs for the Department of Defense, 
Mr. Mark Cozad, China Forces Senior Intelligence Officer for 
the Defense Intelligence Agency, and COL Robert Carr, USA, 
Assistant Director of Intelligence for the Joint Staff.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-35; H.A.S.C. 109-36; H.A.S.C. 109-112)

          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

    The process of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States (CFIUS) came under increasing scrutiny in the 
109th Congress, as the committee sought to ensure important 
national security matters were given due consideration in the 
voluntary CFIUS process. On July 13, 2005, the committee met to 
investigate the national security implications of the possible 
merger of the China National Offshore Oil Corporation with 
Unocal Corporation. The four witnesses were Honorable R. James 
Woolsey, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 
Honorable C. Richard D'Amato, Chairman of the U.S.-China 
Economic and Security Review Commission, Mr. Frank J. Gaffney, 
President of the Center for Security Policy, and Mr. Jerry 
Taylor, Director of Natural Resource Studies for the Cato 
Institute. On March 2, 2006, the committee met to receive 
testimony on the national security implications of the Dubai 
Ports World deal to take over management of U.S. ports from Mr. 
Frank J. Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, 
Dr. James Carafano, Senior Fellow for National Security and 
Homeland Security for the Heritage Foundation, Mr. Stephen 
Flynn, Senior Fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations, Mr. 
Edward H. Bilkey, Chief Operating Officer for Dubai Ports 
World, Mr. George Dalton, General Counsel for Dubai Ports 
World, Mr. Michael Moore, Senior Vice President for Commercial 
Dubai Ports World, Mr. Robert Scavone, Executive Vice President 
for Security for the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation 
Company, Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy for the Department of Defense, Mr. Stewart Baker, 
Assistant Secretary for Policy, Planning, and International 
Affairs for the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Clay 
Lowery, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs for the 
Department of Treasury, Mr. Alan Misenheimer, Director of the 
Office of Arabian Peninsula and Iran Affairs for the Department 
of State, and Rear Admiral Thomas Gilmour, USCG, Assistant 
Commandant for Marine Safety, Security, and Environmental 
Protection.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-81; H.A.S.C. 109-100)

                                  IRAN

    The committee continued to investigate the efforts of Iran 
to develop nuclear capabilities. On February 1, 2006, the 
committee received testimony on options in countering a nuclear 
Iran from Mr. Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute 
for Near East Policy, Dr. George Perkovich of the Carnegie 
Endowment for International Peace, and Dr. Ilan Berman of the 
American Foreign Policy Council. On June 8, 2006, the committee 
met to assess the geopolitical dynamics and U.S. policy options 
in relation to Iran with testimony from Dr. Patrick Clawson, 
Deputy Director of Research for the Washington Institute for 
Near East Policy, and Dr. Ray Takeyh, Senior Fellow for Middle 
Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-98; H.A.S.C. 109-109)

                           ACQUISITION REFORM

    Recognizing the importance of a smoothly functioning, 
efficient acquisition process to the members of the armed 
services, the committee remained extremely interested in all 
aspects of acquisition reform. On November 2, 2005, the 
committee met to receive a general overview of all acquisition 
reform efforts from Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary 
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 
Honorable Claude M. Bolton, Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Honorable John J. 
Young, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, 
Development, and Acquisition, and Lieutenant General Donald J. 
Hoffman, USAF, Military Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of 
the Air Force for Acquisition. One week later on November 9, 
2005, the committee met to take a closer look at the Defense 
Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor Program with testimony from 
Honorable Kenneth J. Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and Vice Admiral Keith 
W. Lippert, USN, Director of the Defense Logistics Agency. In 
the second session the committee continued to review 
acquisition reform and related issues with a hearing on March 
29, 2006, with testimony from Mr. Pierre Chao, Senior Fellow 
and Director of Defense Industrial Initiatives for the Center 
for Strategic and International Studies, Honorable Robert J. 
Hermann, Task Force co-chair, Defense Science Board Summer 
Study on Transformation, Lieutenant General Robert T. Kadish, 
USAF (Ret.), Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Performance 
Assessment Panel, and Mr. Terry R. Little, Acquisition Adviser 
to the Director of the Defense Missile Agency. On April 5, 
2006, the committee met to discuss further reviews of major 
defense acquisition reforms with Honorable David M. Walker, 
Comptroller General of the United States, Honorable Kenneth J. 
Krieg, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN, Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Mr. David Patterson, 
Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-63; H.A.S.C. 109-96; H.A.S.C. 109-104; 
H.A.S.C. 109-106)

                            BORDER SECURITY

    The committee conducted several hearings over the course of 
the Congress on border security, including two conducted in the 
field. On May 24, 2006, the committee met to receive testimony 
on the mission of the National Guard in regards to border 
security from Honorable Paul McHale, Assistant Secretary of 
Defense for Homeland Defense, Major General Richard J. Rowe, 
USA, Director of Operations for U.S. Northern Command, 
Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau, and Mr. David Aguilar, Chief of Border Patrol for 
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency. On August 1, 
2006, the committee held a field hearing at Selfridge Air 
National Guard Base, Michigan, to investigate U.S. Northern 
border security with testimony from Brigadier General Michael 
Peplinski, USAF, Commander 127th Wing, Selfridge Air National 
Guard Base, Chief Patrol Agent John Bates, Sector Chief for 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, Captain Patrick 
Brennan, USCG, Commanding Officer for Sector Detroit, Mr. John 
Jamian, former Maritime Administrator for the Maritime 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Sheriff Dan 
Lane, St. Clair County Sheriff's Department, St. Clair County, 
Michigan, Colonel Paul Disney, USA, Director of Operations for 
Joint Task Force North, U.S. Northern Command, and Mr. Ghurdit 
Dillon, Director of Field Operations for the Detroit Field 
Office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of 
Homeland Security. On August 2, 2006, the committee moved south 
to receive testimony regarding U.S. Southern border security 
from Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau, Colonel Ben Hancock, USMC, Commanding 
Officer for the Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona, Deputy 
Chief Patrol Agent Jeffrey Calhoon, Sector Deputy Chief, U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection Agency, Major General Antonio J. 
Pineda, National Commander of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol, and 
Ms. Vivian Juan-Saunders, Chairwoman of the Tohono O'odham 
Nation.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-108; H.A.S.C. 109-118; H.A.S.C. 109-119)

              DEPARTMENT OF DFENSE MANAGEMENT AND STRATEGY

    In preparation for the release of the February 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) the committee conducted a 
hearing on September 14, 2005, on the goals and principles of 
the QDR with testimony from outside experts Honorable Dov S. 
Zakheim, former Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, Ms. 
Michele Flournoy, Center for Strategic and International 
Studies, Dr. Daniel Goure, Lexington Institute, and Dr. Andrew 
F. Krepinevich, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. 
After the QDR was released the committee met again on March 14, 
2006, to discuss the document with Honorable Gordon England, 
Deputy Secretary of Defense, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, 
USN, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Mr. Thomas Donnelly, 
American Enterprise Institute, Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich, 
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and Mr. 
Lawrence J. Korb, Center for American Progress.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-82; H.A.S.C. 109-103)

                                 OTHER

    The committee held multiple hearings throughout the 109th 
Congress to investigate issues at the full committee level that 
functioned as stand alone hearings.
    On July 20, 2005, the committee met to review the Air 
Force's Future Total Force Plan with Lieutenant General Stephan 
G. Wood, USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs, 
Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum, USA, Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau, Lieutenant General Daniel James III, USAF, 
Director of the Air National Guard, Lieutenant General John A. 
Bradley, USAF, Chief of the Air Force Reserve, Major General 
Roger P. Lempke, USAF, Adjutant General of Nebraska, and Major 
General Mason C. Whitney, USAF, Adjutant General of Colorado.
    On April 4, 2006, the committee received testimony on 
improving interagency coordination for the global war on 
terrorism and beyond from Honorable Thomas W. O'Connell, 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., USN, 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ambassador Henry A. 
Crumpton, Coordinator for Counterterrorism for the Department 
of State, and Vice Admiral John Scott Redd, USN (Ret.), 
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
    On April 7, 2006, the committee met to investigate the 
appropriateness of avenues for building the capacity of foreign 
forces through the Department with the following witnesses: 
Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy, Dr. John Hillen, Assistant Secretary for Political-
Military Affairs for the Department of State, and General James 
L. Jones, USMC, Commander of U.S. European Command.
    On June 13, 2006, the committee examined issues related to 
H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard 
Empowerment Act of 2006, with Honorable Gordon England, Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, USN, Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Cody, 
USA, Vice Chief of Staff for the Army, General John D.W. 
Corley, USAF, Vice Chief of Staff for the Air Force, Brigadier 
General Stephen Koper, USAF (Ret.), President of the National 
Guard Association of the United States, and Major General 
Francis D. Vavala, USA (Ret.), Vice President of the Adjutants 
General Association of the United States.
    On June 20, 2006, the committee received testimony on 
significant force realignments of the Department, including 
beddown, support, and other costs and requirements related to 
those realignments from Honorable Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy 
Secretary of Defense for Policy, Honorable Philip W. Grone, 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Management, and Rear Admiral William D. Sullivan, Vice Director 
for Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Staff.
    On June 27, 2006, the committee met to review Army and 
Marine Corps reset strategies for ground equipment and 
rotorcraft with General Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Staff of 
the Army, and General Michael W. Hagee, Commandant of the 
Marine Corps.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-39; H.A.S.C. 109-105; H.A.S.C. 109-107; 
H.A.S.C. 109-110; H.A.S.C. 109-111; H.A.S.C. 109-113)
                   OTHER ACTIVITIES OF SUBCOMMITTEES

              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces addressed 
all Army and Air Force acquisition programs (except strategic 
airlift and weapons programs, space programs, special 
operations and information technology programs); Navy and 
Marine Corps aviation programs; National Guard, Army, and Air 
Force reserve modernization programs; and ammunition programs 
by conducting 14 oversight hearings during its consideration of 
the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense 
(DOD) budget requests, including: March 3, 2005, Navy and Air 
Force aviation acquisition programs; March 9, 2005, DOD 
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and joint unmanned combat air 
system investment programs; March 16, 2005, Future Combat 
Systems (FCS), modularity, and force protection initiatives; 
April 14, 2005, DOD major rotorcraft programs; March 9, 2006, 
DOD major rotorcraft programs; March 16, 2006, Navy and Air 
Force aviation acquisition programs; April 4, 2006, FCS, 
modularity, and force protection initiatives; April 6, 2006, 
UAV and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
capabilities.
    In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities 
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted 
oversight hearing on the following: June 29, 2005, small 
business technologies; October 20, 2005, aerial common sensor 
program; February 1, 2006, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) ground forces vehicle and 
personnel protection and rotary wing safety of flight update; 
March 30, 2006, Army and Marine Corps reset strategies for 
ground equipment and rotorcraft; June 15, 2006, the use of 
combat helmets, vehicle armor, and body armor by ground forces 
in OIF and OEF; September 21, 2006, combat vehicle active 
protection systems. In addition to formal hearings, the 
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following: major 
rotorcraft programs, DOD intelligence programs, tactical 
aviation programs, force protection initiatives, and active 
protection systems.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
12, 2005, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163), 
and considered and reported legislation on April 26, 2006, that 
was included in the John W. Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). 
The legislation covered a range of issues, including multiyear 
procurement authority for F-22 aircraft, and an independent 
cost estimate for the Army's Future Combat Systems program. 
Legislation initiated by the subcommittee also increased 
funding for a Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, as well as 
increased funding for M-1 tanks, Bradley fighting vehicle 
upgrades, and tactical wheeled vehicles.
    (H.A.S.C. No. 109-8; H.A.S.C. No. 109-9; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
10; H.A.S.C. No. 109-11; H.A.S.C. No. 109-29; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
46; H.A.S.C. No. 109-66; H.A.S.C. No. 109-68; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
73; H.A.S.C. No. 109-74; H.A.S.C. No. 109-76; H.A.S.C. No. 109-
121; H.A.S.C. No. 109-122; H.A.S.C. No. 109-126)

                       Subcommittee on Readiness

    The Subcommittee on Readiness reviewed the programs within 
the operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal years 2006 
and 2007 to ensure that appropriate funds were available to 
maintain a high level of military readiness. Oversight 
activities of the subcommittee included a hearing on March 3, 
2005, as well as classified briefings on February 15, 2006, and 
June 28, 2006, to examine the current state of military 
readiness and the adequacy of the fiscal year 2006 and 2007 
budget requests. As a result, the subcommittee authorized 
$125.7 billion in the operation and maintenance accounts in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public 
Law 109-163) and authorized $129.0 billion in operation and 
maintenance accounts the John Warner National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364) to 
fund critical readiness needs.
    In order to assess the military forces' preparedness for 
the global war on terrorism and the effects of this ongoing 
campaign on military readiness, the subcommittee performed a 
number of oversight activities. The subcommittee met in joint 
session with the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
on February 2, 2006, to receive testimony on vehicle and 
personnel protection and rotary wing flight safety. During the 
109th Congress, the subcommittee also evaluated programs for 
the repair, modernization, and replacement of equipment used in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The subcommittee 
met on April 6, 2005, to hear testimony on the military 
services' requirements to reset and reconstitute their forces. 
The Subcommittees on Readiness and Tactical Air and Land Forces 
met in a joint session on March 30, 2006, to investigate Army 
and Marine Corps reset strategies for ground equipment and 
rotorcraft. In continuation of this effort, the full committee 
took up this topic in a hearing on June 27, 2006. In addition 
to formal subcommittee meetings to evaluate equipment reset, 
the subcommittee charged staff to conduct multiple meetings 
with service representatives and undergo several fact-finding 
staff delegations to military facilities in the United States 
and the theater of operations. As a result, the subcommittee 
recommended an increase of $23.8 billion in the fiscal year 
2007 supplemental bridge fund to meet all outstanding 
requirements for Army and Marine Corps equipment reset.
    The subcommittee also reviewed the impacts of service 
contracting on military readiness. On April 5, 2006, the 
subcommittee held a hearing on the potential for the 
inappropriate use of operation and maintenance funds for 
military construction and procurement activities. As a result, 
the subcommittee recommended a provision in the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 
Law 109-364) that would limit the use of service contracts for 
the acquisition of certain major systems. The subcommittee also 
received testimony on Navy transformation efforts on April 6, 
2006, resulting in legislation requiring additional information 
prior to the expenditures of funds for the Naval Expeditionary 
Combat Command.
    In addition, the subcommittee reviewed issues pertaining to 
military construction, family housing, and base realignment and 
closure activities (BRAC) of the Department of Defense (DOD). 
The subcommittee held a hearing on March 15, 2005, on the 
fiscal year 2006 budget request for military construction, 
family housing, base realignment and closure activities, and 
facilities operations and maintenance. The subcommittee also 
met to receive testimony on the DOD management of historic and 
historic-eligible facilities on March 8, 2006.
    In relation to the BRAC process, the subcommittee held a 
briefing on March 17, 2005, on reutilization of closed and 
realigned military bases. Subsequently, the full committee met 
on September 15, 2005, to consider H.J. Res. 65, a resolution 
to disapprove the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Commission. On September 29, 2005, the 
committee reported the resolution adversely to the House. The 
resolution failed to pass the House on November 27, 2005.
    On September 21, 2006, the subcommittee joined the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities in closed session for a briefing on Northern 
Command's (USNORTHCOM) decision to maintain the Cheyenne 
Mountain Operations Center in a ``warm standby'' status and to 
relocate some North American Aerospace Defense Command and 
USNORTHCOM military and civilian positions to Peterson Air 
Force Base, Colorado. The Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness subsequently requested that the 
Government Accountability Office investigate the relocation 
decision.
    Finally, the Subcommittees on Readiness and Terrorism, and 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on 
September 26, 2006, to explore alternative energy and energy 
efficiency programs of the Department of Defense. This hearing 
resulted in legislation to establish an Energy Security chapter 
of title 10, United States Code, to consolidate and improve 
energy policy authorities of the Department of Defense.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-12; H.A.S.C. 109-13; H.A.S.C. 109-14; 
H.A.S.C. 109-46; H.A.S.C. 109-66; H.A.S.C. 109-123; H.A.S.C. 
109-124; H.A.S.C. 109-125; H.A.S.C. 109-127)

   Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities

    The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities conducted a series of hearings to review programs 
included in the Department of Defense budget requests for 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007 during the 109th Congress, 
including: March 3, 2005, Tactical C-4 Systems: Why Does the 
Department of Defense Have So Many Systems Performing the Same 
Functionality?; March 10, 2005, Defense Science and Technology 
in Support of the War on Terrorism and Beyond; March 15, 2005, 
Department of Defense Responsibilities in Homeland Defense and 
Homeland Security Missions; March 17, 2005, U.S. Special 
Operations Command Policy and Programs; April 6, 2005, 
Destruction of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile--Program 
Status and Issues; March 8, 2006, Special Operations Command: 
Transforming for the Long War; March 29, 2006, Defense Science 
and Technology: Investments to Shape the Evolving Terrorist 
Threat; April 6, 2006 Information Technology Issues and Defense 
Transformation.
    In addition to its optional oversight responsibilities 
regarding the President's budget requests, the subcommittee 
conducted oversight hearings on the following: July 21, 2005, 
Counter Terrorism Technology Sharing (a joint hearing with the 
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology 
of the Committee on Homeland Security Committee); Financing the 
Iraq Insurgency (a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigation of the Financial Services 
Committee); September, 29, 2005, Understanding the Iran Threat; 
November 9, 2005, Military and National Guard Roles in Disaster 
Response; February 15, 2006, The Able Danger Program (a joint 
hearing with the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the 
Committee on Armed Services); February 16, 2006, Combating al 
Qaeda and the Militant Jihadist Threat; March 15, 2006, 
Implementing the Global War on Terror Strategy: Overcoming 
Interagency Problems; April 5, 2006, Implementing the 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review Recommendations to Combat Weapons of 
Mass Destruction; May 25, 2006, Applying Lessons Learned from 
Hurricane Katrina: How the Department of Defense is Preparing 
for the Upcoming Hurricane Season; June 29, 2006, Assessing 
U.S. Special Operations Command's Missions and Roles; September 
26, 2006, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs of 
the Department of Defense; September 27, 2006, Irregular 
Warfare Roadmap.
    Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the 
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics: 
Middle Eastern Foreign Policy, U.S. Special Operations Command, 
the global war on terrorism, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation 
Enduring Freedom, human intelligence issues, Alternative Energy 
Policy, and Information Ops (Winning Hearts and Minds).
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
met to consider and report legislation on April 27, 2006, that 
was included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation 
covered a range of issues, including the following: Improved 
interagency coordination in prosecuting the global war on 
terrorism, Chemical Biological defense basic research, added 
funding for counterterrorism technology development, Special 
Operations Command unfunded requirements, Test and Evaluation 
policy for rapid acquisition and Information technology program 
concerns.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-15; H.A.S.C. 109-16; H.A.S.C. 109-17; 
H.A.S.C. 109-18; H.A.S.C. 109-19; H.A.S.C. 109-40; H.A.S.C. 
109-41; H.A.S.C. 109-42; H.A.S.C. 109-43; H.A.S.C. 109-52; 
H.A.S.C. 109-55; H.A.S.C. 109-56; H.A.S.C. 109-59; H.A.S.C. 
109-71; H.A.S.C. 109-83; H.A.S.C. 109-84; H.A.S.C. 109-85; 
H.A.S.C. 109-127; H.A.S.C. 109-128; H.A.S.C. 109-129)

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel

    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a series 
of hearings to review and evaluate matters under its 
jurisdiction in the fiscal years 2006 and 2007 budget requests: 
March 16, 2005, Recruiting, Retention and Military Personnel 
Policy, and Benefits and Compensation Overview; April 7, 2005, 
Military Resale and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Overview; 
March 15, 2006, Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and 
Recreation Overview; March 29, 2006, The Defense Health 
Program--Department of Defense Initiatives to Control Costs; 
and April 6, 2006, Policy, Compensation, and Benefits Overview.
    In addition to its budget request hearings, the 
subcommittee conducted hearings related to the following 
topics: February 2, 2005, Adequacy of Army Forces; March 3, 
2005, Care of Injured and Wounded Service Members; June 28, 
2005, The Religious Climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy; July 
19, 2005, Current Status of Military Recruiting and Retention; 
July 26, 2005, Mental Health; October 19, 2005, Defense Health 
Program Overview; June 21, 2006, Trafficking in Persons; and 
September 27, 2006, The Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the 
Selected Reserve.
    The subcommittee also conducted briefings on the following 
topics: March 18, 2005, Report on the Service Academy Sexual 
Assault and Leadership Survey; April 6, 2005, Department of 
Defense Briefing on Sexual Assault; April 11, 2005, the 
Inspector General Report on Sexual Assault; April 21, 2005, 
Proposed Changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice on 
Rape and Sexual Assault; March 2, 2006, Combatant Commander 
Warfighting Requirements and the Quadrennial Defense Review 
Force (classified); June 14, 2006, The Viability of the 
Selective Service; and June 20, 2006, Veterans? Affairs Data 
Loss.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
met to consider and report legislation on April 26, 2006, that 
was included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation 
covered a range of issues, including the following: increased 
active component end strength for the Armyand Marine Corps, 
support for the Defense Health Program, protection of service members 
from predatory lenders, and bonuses and incentive pay for service 
members.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-20; H.A.S.C. 109-21; H.A.S.C. 109-44; 
H.A.S.C. 109-45; H.A.S.C. 109-64; H.A.S.C. 109-65; H.A.S.C. 
109-70; H.A.S.C. 109-75; H.A.S.C. 109-78; H.A.S.C. 109-86; 
H.A.S.C. 109-89; H.A.S.C. 109-90; H.A.S.C. 109-91)

                    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed the 
Department of Energy's atomic energy defense activities, as 
well as the missile defense and space programs of the 
Department of Defense (DOD), by conducting hearings during its 
consideration of the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 
budget requests, including: March 2, 2005, Department of 
Energy's budget request for atomic energy defense activities; 
March 9, 2005, the status of military space activities; March 
15, 2005, budget request for missile defense programs; March 1, 
2006, Department of Energy's budget request for atomic energy 
defense activities; March 9, 2006, budget request for the 
Missile Defense Agency and ballistic missile defense programs; 
and on March 16, 2006, the status of military space activities.
    Separate from the traditional budget oversight reviews, the 
subcommittee held hearings on the following: July 12, 2005, on 
space acquisitions; February 15, 2006, the Able Danger Program 
(joint with the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities); April 5, 2006, future plans for the 
Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex infrastructure; 
June 21, 2006, space and U.S. national power; July 26, 2006, on 
plutonium disposition and the U.S. mixed oxide fuel facility.
    Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the 
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics: 
adversarial information operations and cyber attacks as part of 
a threat-based defense review to complement the DOD's on-going, 
capabilities-based Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Conventional Trident Modification 
program, Reliable Replacement Warhead program, National 
Security Space Threat and Space Control, and strategic 
implications of the QDR.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
considered and reported legislation on April 27, 2006, that was 
included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation 
covered a range of issues, including the following: the 
Reliable Replacement Warhead program, transformation of the 
nuclear weapons complex, consolidation of the 
counterintelligence programs of the Department of Energy and 
the National Nuclear Security Administration, plans for the 
test and evaluation of the ballistic missile defense system, 
the policy of the United States on priorities in the 
development, testing and fielding of missile defense 
capabilities, Space Situational Awareness Strategy, and 
Operationally Responsive Space.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-22, H.A.S.C. 109-23, H.A.S.C. 109-24, 
H.A.S.C. 109-34, H.A.S.C. 109-54, H.A.S.C. 109-58, H.A.S.C. 
109-62, H.A.S.C. 109-71, H.A.S.C. 109-72, H.A.S.C. 109-77, 
H.A.S.C. 109-130)

                   Subcommittee on Projection Forces

    The Subcommittee on Projection Forces conducted a series of 
hearings to review programs included in the Department of 
Defense (DOD) acquisition budget requests for fiscal years 2006 
and 2007 during the 109th Congress, including: March 2, 2005, 
Navy Research and Development: Programs in Support of the War 
on Terrorism, Naval Transformation, and Future Naval 
Capabilities; March 10, 2005, The Navy's Future Fleet: 
Assessing the Strength of Today's Navy for Tomorrow; March 15, 
2005, Navy Critical Enablers--The Department of the Navy's 
Program and Antisubmarine Warfare, Mine Countermeasures, Ship 
Self-Defense and Naval Surface Fire Support; and March 30, 
2006, The Department of the Navy's Shipbuilding Acquisition 
Strategy.
    In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities 
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted 
oversight hearings on the following: June 13, 2005, The Nuclear 
Submarine Force--Past, Present and Future; June 29, 2005, Small 
Business Technologies (joint with Subcommittee on Tactical Air 
and Land Forces); July 19, 2005, Department of the Navy Fiscal 
Year 2006 Plans and Programs for the DD(X) Next-Generation 
Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship (Part I) and July 20, 
2005, Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2006 Plans and 
Programs for the DD(X) Next-Generation Multi-Mission Surface 
Combatant Ship (Part II); February 28, 2006, U.S. Air Force 
Aerial Refueling Recapitalization Requirements; March 15, 2006, 
Evolving Missions of the U.S. Navy and the Role of Surface and 
Subsurface Combatants; March 28, 2006, The U.S. Navy's Future 
Submarine Force Structure; April 5, 2006, The U.S. Shipbuilding 
Industrial Base; April 6, 2006, Integration of Energy Efficient 
Propulsion Systems for Future U.S. Navy Vessels.
    Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the 
subcommittee conducted briefings on the following topics: 
antisubmarine warfare, mine countermeasures, alternate 
propulsion systems, threats to U.S. naval forces, mobility 
capability study, conventional trident modification, aircraft 
carrier force structure, and alternate aircraft carrier 
designs.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
11, 2005, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163) and 
considered and report legislation on April 27, 2006, that was 
included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364). The legislation 
covered a range of issues, including the following: measures to 
enhance the force projection capabilities of the U.S. Navy and 
U.S. Air Force; steps to assess the processes, technologies, 
and performance incentives required to improve the efficiencies 
and effectiveness of naval vessel construction; and efforts to 
ensure that current capabilities are not permanently or 
prematurely retired to fund future replacement capabilities 
that are either undefined or unaffordable.
    (H.A.S.C. 109-25; H.A.S.C. 109-26; H.A.S.C. 109-27; 
H.A.S.C. 109-28; H.A.S.C. 109-29; H.A.S.C. 109-30; H.A.S.C. 
109-47; H.A.S.C. 109-49; H.A.S.C. 109-50; H.A.S.C. 109-51; 
H.A.S.C. 109-61; H.A.S.C. 109-67)
                              PUBLICATIONS

                         Published Proceedings

    H.A.S.C. 109-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee 
Organization. January 26, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-2--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. February 9, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-3--Full Committee hearings on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. February 16 and March 10, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-4--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. February 17, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-5--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Combatant Commanders of the U.S. Central Command and U.S. 
Special Operations Command. March 2, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-6--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Combatant Commanders of the U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific 
Command and U.S. Southern Command. March 9, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-7--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. March 16, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-8--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--The 
Department of the Navy and Department of the Air Force Aviation 
Acquisition Programs and Future Technology Initiatives. March 
3, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-9--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 
and Joint Unmanned Combat Air System Investment Programs. March 
9, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-10--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Future Combat Systems, Modularity and Force 
Protection Initiatives. March 16, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-11--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on the Department of Defense's Major Rotorcraft 
Programs. April 14, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-12--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on The 
Adequacy of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget to Meet Readiness 
Needs. March 3, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-13--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Military Construction, Family Housing, Base Closures, and 
Facilities Operations and Maintenance. March 15, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-14--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Military Services' Requirement on Reconstitution of Equipment. 
April 6, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-15--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Tactical C4 
Systems: Why Does the DOD Have so Many Systems Performing the 
Same Functionality? March 3, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-16--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Defense 
Science and Technology Policy Programs. March 10, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-17--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Department of 
Defense Responsibilities in Homeland Defense and Homeland 
Security Missions. March 15, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-18--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--U.S. Special Operations Command 
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget Request. March 17, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-19--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on Destruction 
of the U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile--Program Status and 
Issues. April 6, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-20--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on 
Recruiting, Retention and Military Personnel Policy, and 
Benefits and Compensation Overview. March 16, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-21--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on 
Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview. 
April 7, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-22--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request 
from the Department of Energy on Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities. March 2, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-23--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Space Activities. March 9, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-24--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Missile Defense Programs. March 15, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-25--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on 
Navy Research and Development: Programs in Support of the War 
on Terrorism, Naval Transformation, and Future Naval 
Capabilities. March 2, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-26--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request--
The Navy's Future Fleet: Assessing the Strength of Today's Navy 
for Tomorrow. March 10, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-27--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request on 
Navy Critical Enablers: The Department of the Navy's Program 
and Budget Request for Antisubmarine Warfare, Mine Counter 
Measures, Ship Self-Defense, and Naval Surface Fire Support. 
March 15, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-28--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
The Nuclear Submarine Force--Past, Present and Future. June 13, 
2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-29--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
joint hearing with the Projection Forces Subcommittee on Small 
Business Technologies. June 29, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-30--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearings on 
the Department of the Navy Plans and Programs for the DD(X) 
Next-Generation Multi-Mission Surface Combatant Ship. July 19 
and 20, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-31--Full Committee hearing on Current 
Operations and the Political Transition in Iraq. March 17, 
2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-32--Full Committee hearing on Iraq's Past, 
Present and Future. April 6, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-33--Full Committee hearing on Progress of the 
Iraqi Security Forces. June 23, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-34--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
Space Acquisitions. July 12, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-35--Full Committee joint hearing with the 
Committee on International Relations--Arms Exports to the 
People's Republic of China by Member States of the European 
Union. April 14, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-36--Full Committee hearing on Chinese Military 
Power. July 27, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-37--Full Committee hearing on Detainee 
Operations at Guantanamo Bay. June 29, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-38--Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: 
Operations and Reconstruction. June 22, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-39--Full Committee hearing on The Air Force's 
Future Total Force Plan. July 20, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-40--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Subcommittee 
on Emergency Preparedness, Science and Technology of the 
Homeland Security Committee on Counter Terrorism Technology 
Sharing. July 21, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-41--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee of the Committee on Financial 
Services--Financing of the Iraq Insurgency. July 28, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-42--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Understanding the Iran 
Threat. September 29, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-43--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Combating al Qaeda and the 
Militant Jihadist Threat. February 16, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-44--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
The Current Status of Military Recruiting and Retention. July 
19, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-45--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
The Care of Injured and Wounded Service Members. March 3, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-46--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
joint hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Ground Forces 
Vehicle and Personnel Protection and Rotary Wing Safety of 
Flight Update. February 1, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-47--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
U.S. Air Force Aerial Refueling Recapitalization Requirements. 
February 28, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-48--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the United 
States Transportation Command and Component Commands. March 2, 
2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-49--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
Evolving Missions of the U.S. Navy and the Role of Surface and 
Subsurface Combatants. March 15, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-50--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the Department of the Navy's Shipbuilding Acquisition Strategy. 
March 30, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-51--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
U.S. Navy's Future Submarine Force Structure. March 28, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-52--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Implementing the Global 
War on Terrorism Strategy: Overcoming Interagency Problems. 
March 15, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-53--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. March 1, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-54--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
the Missile Defense Agency and Ballistic Missile Defense 
Programs. March 9, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-55--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Special Operations 
Command: Transforming for the Long War. March 8, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-56--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Defense Science and 
Technology: Investments to Shape the Evolving Terrorist Threat. 
March 29, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-57--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. March 1, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-58--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
Future Plans for the Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons 
Complex Infrastructure. April 5, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-59--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Information Technology 
Issues and Defense Transformation. April 6, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-60--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S. 
Central Command. March 15, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-61--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
The Integration of Energy Efficient Propulsion Systems for 
Future U.S. Navy Vessels. April 6, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-62--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
the Department of Energy's Atomic Energy Defense Activities. 
March 1, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-63--Full Committee hearing on Acquisition 
Reform. November 2, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-64--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
Mental Health. July 26, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-65--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
Defense Health Program Overview. October 19, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-66--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
joint hearing with the Readiness Subcommittee on Army and 
Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and 
Rotorcraft. March 30, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-67--Projection Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
The U.S. Shipbuilding Industrial Base. April 5, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-68--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on the Department of the Navy and Department of 
the Air Force Aviation Acquisition Programs. March 16, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-69--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. February 15, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-70--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
The Religious Climate at the U.S. Air Force Academy. June 28, 
2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-71--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee joint hearing with the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee on The Able Danger Program. February 15, 
2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-72--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Space Activities. March 16, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-73--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on the Department of Defense Major Rotorcraft 
Programs. March 9, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-74--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Future Combat Systems, Modularity, and Force 
Protection Initiatives. April 4, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-75--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
the Adequacy of Army Forces. February 2, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-76--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2007 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and 
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) 
Capabilities. April 6, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-77--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
Space and U.S. National Power. June 21, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-78--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
Policy, Compensation and Benefits Overview. April 6, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-79--Full Committee hearing on The Status of 
the Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armoring Initiatives and 
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Jammer Initiatives in 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. May 5, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-80--Full Committee hearing on Review of Marine 
Corps Force Protection. June 21, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-81--Full Committee hearing on National 
Security Implications of the Possible Merger of the China 
National Offshore Oil Corporation (Cnooc) with Unocal 
Corporation. July 13, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-82--Full Committee hearing on the Quadrennial 
Defense Review: Goals and Principles. September 14, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-83--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Military and National 
Guard Roles in Disaster Response. November 9, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-84--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Implementing the 2006 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Recommendations to Combat 
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). April 5, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-85--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on The Irregular Warfare 
Roadmap. September 27, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-86--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview. 
March 15, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-87--Full Committee hearing on Operations in 
Iraq. September 29, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-88--Full Committee hearing on The Army's M1114 
Up-Armor High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH) 
Distribution Strategy. October 20, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-89--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
The Defense Health Program--Department of Defense initiatives 
to Control Costs. March 29, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-90--Military Personnel Subcommittee joint 
hearing with the Subcommittee on Africa of the Committee on 
International Relations on Trafficking in Persons. June 21, 
2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-91--Military Personnel Subcommittee joint 
hearing with the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee on The Montgomery G.I. Bill for 
Members of the Selected Reserve. September 27, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-92--Full Committee hearing on the Current 
Situation and Military Operations in Iraq. November 15, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-93--Full Committee hearing on Your Troops: 
Their Story. November 3, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-94--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
Examination of Criteria for Awards and Decorations. December 6, 
2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-95--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S. 
Southern Command. March 16, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-96--Full Committee hearing on the Defense 
Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor Program. November 9, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-97--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Military 
Transition Teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. December 7, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-98--Full Committee hearing on Countering a 
Nuclear Iran. February 1, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-99--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. February 8, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-100--Full Committee hearing on National 
Security Implications of the Dubai Ports World Deal to Take 
over Management of U.S. Ports. March 2, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-101--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
European Command. March 8, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-102--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the U.S. 
Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. March 9, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-103--Full Committee hearing on the Department 
of Defense Quadrennial Defense Review. March 14, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-104--Full Committee hearing on Issues Relating 
to Defense Acquisition Reform. March 29, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-105--Full Committee hearing on Improving 
Interagency Coordination for the Global War on Terrorism and 
Beyond. April 4, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-106--Full Committee hearing on Review of Major 
Defense Acquisition Reform Initiatives. April 5, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-107--Full Committee hearing on Building the 
Capability of Foreign Military Forces. April 7, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-108--Full Committee hearing on Border 
Security--Mission of the National Guard. May 24, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-109--Full Committee hearing on Iran: Assessing 
Geopolitical Dynamics and U.S. Policy Options. June 8, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-110--Full Committee hearing on Issues Related 
to H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement and National 
Guard Empowerment Act of 2006. June 13, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-111--Full Committee hearing on Significant 
Force Realignments of the Department of Defense, Including 
Beddown, Support, and Other Costs and Requirements Related to 
those Realignments. June 20, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-112--Full Committee hearing on Military Power 
of the People's Republic of China. June 22, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-113--Full Committee hearing on Army and Marine 
Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and Rotorcraft. 
June 27, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-114--Full Committee hearing on The Status of 
Security and Stability in Afghanistan. June 28, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-115--Full Committee hearing on Reports of 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Findings in Iraq. June 29, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-116--Full Committee hearing on Standards of 
Military Commissions and Tribunals. July 12, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-117--Full Committee hearing on Standards of 
Military Commissions and Tribunals. July 26, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-118--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Northern 
Border Security--National Security Implications and Issues for 
the Armed Services. August 1, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-119--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Southern 
Border Security--National Security Implications and Issues for 
the Armed Services. August 2, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-120--Full Committee hearing on Standards of 
Military Commissions and Tribunals. September 7, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-121--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical 
Intelligence of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
on Aerial Common Sensor Program. October 20, 2005.
    H.A.S.C. 109-122--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on an Update on the Use of Combat Helmets, Vehicle 
Armor and Body Armor by Ground Forces in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. June 15, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-123--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on the 
Department of Defense Management of Historic and Historic-
Eligible Facilities. March 8, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-124--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Service 
Contracting's Impact on Military Readiness. April 5, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-125--Readiness Subcommittee hearing on Navy 
Transformation. April 6, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-126--Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee 
hearing on Combat Vehicle Active Protection Systems. September 
21, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-127--Readiness Subcommittee joint hearing with 
the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee on Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency 
Programs of the Department of Defense. September 26, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-128--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Applying Lessons Learned 
from Hurricane Katrina: How the Department of Defense is 
Preparing for the Upcoming Hurricane Season. May 25, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-129--Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Assessing United States 
Special Operations Command's Missions and Roles. June 29, 2006.
    H.A.S.C. 109-130--Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on 
Plutonium Disposition and the U.S. Mixed Oxide Fuel Facility. 
July 26 2006.

                                                  HOUSE REPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Report number                   Date filed              Bill number                  Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-89.............................  May 20, 2005..........  H.R. 1815.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2006 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, to
                                                                                      prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      fiscal year 2006, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
109-234............................  Sept. 22, 2005........  H. Res. 417...........  Directing Secretary of
                                                                                      Defense to transmit to the
                                                                                      House of Representatives
                                                                                      not later than 14 days
                                                                                      after the date of the
                                                                                      adoption of this
                                                                                      resolution documents in
                                                                                      the possession of the
                                                                                      Secretary of Defense
                                                                                      relating to the disclosure
                                                                                      of the identity and
                                                                                      employment of Ms. Valerie
                                                                                      Plame.
109-243............................  Sept. 29, 2005........  H.J. Res. 65..........  Disapproving the
                                                                                      recommendations of the
                                                                                      Defense Base Closure and
                                                                                      Realignment Commission.
109-360............................  Dec. 18, 2005.........  H.R. 1815 Conf. Rept..  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2006 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, to
                                                                                      prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      fiscal year 2006, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
109-384............................  Mar. 7, 2006..........  H.Res. 645............  Requesting the President
                                                                                      and directing Secretary of
                                                                                      Defense to transmit to the
                                                                                      House of Representatives
                                                                                      all information in the
                                                                                      possession of the
                                                                                      President or the Secretary
                                                                                      of Defense relating to the
                                                                                      collection of intelligence
                                                                                      information pertaining to
                                                                                      persons inside the United
                                                                                      States without obtaining
                                                                                      court-ordered warrants
                                                                                      authorizing the collection
                                                                                      of such information and
                                                                                      relating to the policy of
                                                                                      the United States with
                                                                                      respect to the gathering
                                                                                      of counterterrorism within
                                                                                      the United States.
109-397............................  Mar. 16, 2006.........  H.Res. 685............  Requesting the President
                                                                                      and directing the
                                                                                      Secretary of State and
                                                                                      Secretary of Defense
                                                                                      provide to the House of
                                                                                      Representatives certain
                                                                                      documents in their
                                                                                      possession relating to any
                                                                                      entity with which the
                                                                                      United States has
                                                                                      contracted for public
                                                                                      relations purposes
                                                                                      concerning Iraq.
109-452............................  May 5, 2006...........  H.R. 5122.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2007 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, to
                                                                                      prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      fiscal year 2007, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
109-664, Part I....................  Sept. 15, 2006........  H.R. 6054.............  To amend title 10, United
                                                                                      States Code, to authorize
                                                                                      trial by military
                                                                                      commission for violations
                                                                                      of the law of war, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
109-702............................  Sept. 29, 2006........  H.R. 5122 Conf. Rept..  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2007 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, to
                                                                                      prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      fiscal year 2007, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                   PUBLIC LAWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Public law number                Date enacted             Bill number                  Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109-59.............................  Dec. 30, 2005.........  S. 1988...............  To authorize the transfer
                                                                                      of items in the War
                                                                                      Reserves Stockpile for
                                                                                      Allies, Korea.
109-100............................  Nov. 11, 2005.........  S. 37.................  A bill to extend the
                                                                                      special postage stamp for
                                                                                      breast cancer research for
                                                                                      2 years.
109-104............................  Nov. 19, 2005.........  H.R. 4326.............  To authorize the Secretary
                                                                                      of the Navy to enter into
                                                                                      a contract for the nuclear
                                                                                      refueling of the U.S.S.
                                                                                      ``Carl Vinson'' (CVN-70).
109-142............................  Dec. 22, 2005.........  H.J. Res. 38..........  Recognizing Commodore John
                                                                                      Barry as the first flag
                                                                                      officer of the United
                                                                                      States.
109-163............................  Jan. 6, 2006..........  H.R. 1815.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2006 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, to
                                                                                      prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      fiscal year 2006, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
109-164............................  Jan. 6, 2006..........  H.R. 972..............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal years 2006 and
                                                                                      2007 for the Trafficking
                                                                                      Victims Protection Act of
                                                                                      2000, and for other
                                                                                      purposes.
109-272............................  Aug. 14, 2006.........  H.R. 5683.............  To preserve the Mt. Soledad
                                                                                      Veterans Memorial in San
                                                                                      Diego, California, by
                                                                                      providing for the
                                                                                      immediate acquisition of
                                                                                      the memorial by the United
                                                                                      States.
109-364............................  Oct. 17, 2006.........  H.R. 5122.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2007 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, to
                                                                                      prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      fiscal year 2007, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
109-366............................  Oct. 17, 2006.........  S. 3930...............  A bill to authorize trial
                                                                                      by military commission for
                                                                                      violations of the law of
                                                                                      war, and for other
                                                                                      purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             PRESS RELEASES

                             First Session

    January 24, 2005--Hunter Statement on Intelligence 
Activities of the Department of Defense (DOD)
    January 26, 2005--Hunter, Hyde, Manzullo Urge Treasury to 
Extend Review of IBM's Computer Sale to Chinese Firm
    January 28, 2005--Hunter Statement on Awarding of 
Presidential Helicopter Contract
    February 7, 2005--Hunter Statement on the DOD Budget 
Proposal
    February 9, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of the Army 
Budget Request
    February 16, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Department of Defense's Budget Request
    February 17, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Department of the Navy's Budget Request
    February 23, 2005--Hunter Statement on Secretary Rumsfeld's 
Recent Appearance at the Committee on Armed Services and the 
Inaccurate Washington Post Coverage That Followed
    March 2, 2005--Hunter Statement on the Passing of Former 
Rep. Tillie Fowler (FL)
    March 15, 2005--Emergency Supplemental Wartime 
Appropriations Act Includes Congressman Terry Everett's Death 
Benefits Expansion Proposal
    March 15, 2005--Cole Amendment Keeps Military Benefits on 
Track
    March 16, 2005--Chairman Hunter Announces Committee on 
Armed Services Subcommittee Vice Chairmen for the 109th 
Congress
    March 31, 2005--Hunter Statement on Silberman-Robb 
Commission Report on WMD Intelligence
    April 6, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Progress in Iraq
    May 5, 2005--Hunter Opening Statement on the Status of 
Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Armoring Initiatives and IED Jammer 
Initiatives in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
    May 11, 2005--Committee on Armed Services Prohibits Women 
in Combat
    May 13, 2005--Hunter Statement on Base Realignment and 
Closure Commission
    May 19, 2005--Mark-up of H.R. 1815--the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
    May 19, 2005--Hunter Announces Changes in Committee Staff 
Leadership
    May 25, 2005--Hunter Statement on DOD Direct Ground Combat 
Policy
    May 25, 2005--House Approves Fiscal Year 2006 Defense 
Authorization Bill; Focuses on Major Procurement Overhaul, 
Force Protection and Personnel Benefits
    June 13, 2005--Hunter Statements on Guantanamo Bay, 
including Menus for Detainees
    June 16, 2005--Hunter Condemns Durbin Statements on 
Guantanamo Bay
    June 21, 2005--Members of the Committee on Armed Services 
Issue Statements in Response to Calls to Form a Select 
Committee to Investigate Alleged Abuses against Terrorists Held 
at Guantanamo Bay
    June 21, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Status of U.S. Marine Corps HMMWV 
Underbody Armor Kits in OIF
    June 22, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Afghanistan: Operations and Reconstruction
    June 23, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Progress of the Iraqi Security Forces
    June 27, 2005--Congressional Delegation Inspects Guantanamo 
Detainee Facility
    June 29, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Detainee Operations at Guantanamo
    July 13, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the National Security Implications of the 
Possible Merger of the China National Offshore Oil Corporations 
(CNOOC) and the Unocal Corporation
    July 13, 2005--Hunter Statement on CNOOC's Attempted 
Purchase of UNOCAL
    July 20, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Air Force's Future Total Force
    July 25, 2005--Gun Truck Armor Kits Provide Protection for 
U.S. Troops in Iraq
    July 25, 2005--Congressional Delegation Visits With British 
Prime Minister Tony Blair to Express America's Condolences
    July 27, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on China's Grand Strategy and Military 
Modernization
    July 29, 2005--Hunter Appoints Three Distinguished 
Individuals to the Commission on National Guard and the 
Reserves
    September 14, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Quadrennial Defense Review: Goals and 
Principles
    September 29, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing to Review the Current Operations in Iraq
    October 20, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Army's M-1114 Up-Armor HMMWV 
Distribution Strategy
    October 27, 2005--Hunter Statement on Floor Consideration 
of Base Realignment and Closure Commission Recommendations
    November 2, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Acquisition Reform
    November 3, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Your Troops--Their Stories
    November 9, 2005--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Defense Logistics Agency's Prime Vendor 
Program
    November 10, 2005--Everett Addresses Space and National 
Security Implications
    November 15, 2006--Hunter Calls on American Media to Print 
U.S. Laws Banning Torture
    November 17, 2005--Hunter Calls on Americans to ``Hold 
Steady'' in Iraq
    November 22, 2005--Rep. Hayes Named to the Conference 
Committee on the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense 
Authorization Act
    December 15, 2005--Detainee Deal Now Resolved as Hunter 
Gains Protections for American Personnel; Hunter Gets Letter of 
Assurance from Director of National Intelligence
    December 18, 2005--House and Senate Conferees Reach 
Agreement on H.R. 1815, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2006.

                             Second Session

    January 6, 2006--Congressional Delegation Visits Troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan
    January 20, 2006--Hunter Statement on Pete Geren's 
Nomination for Undersecretary of the Army
    February 1, 2006--Weldon Statement at Joint Hearing on Body 
and Vehicle Armor, Rotorcraft Safety
    February 1, 2006--Hefley Statement at Joint Hearing on Body 
and Vehicle Armor, Rotorcraft Safety
    February 1, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Options Available to the United States to 
Counter a Nuclear Iran
    February 3, 2006--Hunter Statement on the DOD Quadrennial 
Defense Review
    February 6, 2006--Hunter Statement on President Bush's 
Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2007
    February 8, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Posture Hearing on the DOD Fiscal Year 2007 Budget 
Request
    February 15, 2006--Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Posture Hearing on the Army's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget 
Request
    February 15, 2006--Hunter Statement on the Final Select 
Committee Report on Hurricane Katrina
    February 16, 2006--Saxton Opening Statement at the Joint 
Hearing on the Able Danger Program
    February 16, 2006--Weldon Opening Statement at the Joint 
Hearing on the Able Danger Program
    February 16, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on 
Combating al-Qaeda and the Militant Jihadists
    February 17, 2006--Hunter Statement on Rep. Joel Hefley's 
(CO) Retirement
    February 17, 2006--Hunter Statement on the Release of 
Additional Photographs from Abu Ghraib
    February 28, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Projection Forces Hearing on the Aerial Refueling and 
Recapitalization Program
    March 1, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request on the Department of 
Energy's Atomic Energy Defense Activities
    March 1, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Posture Hearing on the Department of the Air Force's 
Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
    March 1, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Posture Hearing on the Department of the Navy's Fiscal 
Year 2007 Budget Request
    March 2, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the National Security Implications of Dubai 
Ports World's Takeover of U.S. Ports
    March 2, 2006--Hunter Statement on Dubai and U.S. Ports
    March 2, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Posture Hearing on the United States Transportation 
Command's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request
    March 6, 2006--Hunter Statement on U.S. Supreme Court 
Ruling Allowing Military Recruiters Access to College Campuses
    March 7, 2006--Hunter Statement on Dubai Ports World's 
Announcement to Divest U.S. Holdings
    March 8, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on 
the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for the Special Operations Command
    March 8, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request from the U.S. European Command
    March 9, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request for the Missile Defense 
Agency and Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
    March 9, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request 
for DOD Major Rotorcraft Programs
    March 9, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request from the U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea
    March 14, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Department of Defense's Quadrennial 
Defense Review
    March 15, 2006--McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel Hearing on the Current Status of Military 
Commissaries, Morale, Welfare and Recreation Activities
    March 15, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Projection Forces Hearing on the Evolving Missions of the U.S. 
Navy and the Role of Surface and Subsurface Combatants
    March 15, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on 
Overcoming Interagency Problems in Implementing the Global War 
on Terror Strategy
    March 15, 2006--Hunter Statement on Dubai Ports World's 
Release of Additional Information on Its Divestment of U.S. 
Holdings
    March 15, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Central Command
    March 16, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request 
for Space Activities
    March 16, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing on Fiscal Year 2007 Budget 
Request for Navy and Air Force Aviation Acquisition Programs
    March 16, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Southern Command
    March 17, 2006--Hunter Calls on American Citizens to 
Emulate ``Purpose and Mission'' of Brave U.S. Troops on Third 
Anniversary of OIF
    March 29, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Projection Forces Hearing on the Future Submarine Force 
Structure
    March 29, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Acquisition Reform: Bringing Change to the 
Process
    March 29, 2006--McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel Hearing on the Defense Health Program and 
Department of Defense Initiatives to Control Cost
    March 29, 2006--Subcommittee on Readiness Chairman Hefley's 
Statement at Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Acquisition 
Reform: Bringing Change to the Process
    March 29, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on 
the Fiscal Year 2007 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for Defense Science and Technology--Investments to 
Shape the Evolving Terrorist Threat
    March 29, 2006--Hunter Statement Honoring Casper 
Weinburger's Services to America
    March 30, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Projection Forces Hearing on the Navy's Fiscal Year 2007 
Shipbuilding Acquisition Strategy
    March 30, 2006--Hefley Statement at Joint Hearing on Army 
and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and 
Rotorcraft
    March 30, 2006--Weldon Statement at Joint Hearing on Army 
and Marine Corps Reset Strategies for Ground Equipment and 
Rotorcraft
    March 31, 2006--Prime Vender Investigation a Win for 
American Taxpayers; Committee on Armed Services Members Release 
Results from DOD Investigation into Exorbitant Pricing
    April 4, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces Posture Hearing on the Fiscal Year 2007 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Future Combat 
Systems, Modularity and Force Protection Initiatives
    April 4, 2006--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities Chairman Saxton Statement at 
Committee on Armed Services Hearing on Improving Interagency 
Coordination in the Global War on Terrorism and Beyond
    April 4, 2006--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
Chairman Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed Services 
Hearing on Improving Interagency Coordination in the Global War 
on Terrorism and Beyond
    April 5, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Projection Forces Hearing on the United States Shipbuilding 
Industrial Base
    April 5, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces Hearing on Plans for Transforming the 
Department of Energy's Nuclear Weapons Complex
    April 5, 2006--Hefley Statement at Subcommittee on 
Readiness Hearing on the Impact of Service Contracting on 
Military Readiness
    April 5, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on 
Improving the Department of Defense's Capability to Combat 
Weapons of Mass Destruction
    April 5, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Major Defense Acquisition Reform 
Initiatives
    April 6, 2006--Bartlett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Projection Forces Hearing on Efficient Propulsion Systems for 
Navy Vessels
    April 6, 2006--Hefley Statement at Subcommittee on 
Readiness Hearing on the Navy's Transformation
    April 6, 2006--McHugh Statement at Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel Hearing on Recruitment and Retention and Military 
Personnel Policy, Compensation and Benefits
    April 6, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on 
Information Technology Issues and Defense Transformation
    April 7, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Building the Capacity of Foreign Military 
Forces
    April 7, 2006--New Congressionally-Mandated Reporting 
Requirement Highlights Dramatic Cost Increases in 36 Major 
Weapons Systems
    April 18, 2006--Hunter expresses Strong Support for 
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
    April 22, 2006--U.S. Congressional Delegation Attends 
Historic Meeting of Iraqi Parliament
    April 28, 2006--Hunter Letter to President Bush Outlining 
His Grave Concerns with the Potential Merger Between French-
owned Alcatel and American-Owned Lucent Technologies
    May 3, 2006--Mark-up of H.R. 5122, the Fiscal Year 2007 
National Defense Authorization Act
    May 19, 2006--Hunter: ``Don't Tar the Service of 922,000 
Brave American Troops''
    May 24, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the National Guard's Border Security 
Mission
    May 25, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on 
the Department of Defense's Preparedness for the Upcoming 
Hurricane Season
    June 8, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Iran: Geopolitical Dynamics and U.S. Policy 
Options
    June 8, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Members Comment 
on the Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
    June 13, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on H.R. 5200, the National Defense Enhancement 
and National Guard Empowerment Act of 2006
    June 15, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces Hearing on Combat Helmets, Body and Vehicle 
Armor in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
    June 16, 2006--Hunter Speech during House Debate on H. Res. 
861, Declaring that the United States Will Prevail in the 
Global War on Terror
    June 20, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on DOD Global Defense Posture Strategy 
Including Beddown, Support and Other Requirements
    June 20, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 
on DOD Global Defense Posture Strategy
    June 20, 2006--Hunter Statement: ``Potential North Korea 
Missile Test Underscores Need for Ballistic Missile Defense 
System''
    June 21, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces Hearing on Space and U.S. National Power
    June 21, 2006--Subcommittee for Strategic Forces Hearing 
Focuses on Protecting Space and U.S. National Power
    June 21, 2006--McHugh Statement at Joint Hearing on Global 
Human Rights, Specifically Human Trafficking
    June 21, 2006--Subcommittee on Military Personnel and 
Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Africa 
Joint Hearing Focuses on Global Human Rights, specifically 
Human Trafficking
    June 22, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Military Power of the People's Republic of 
China
    June 26, 2006--Everett Statement at Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces Hearing on Plutonium Deposition and the U.S. 
Mixed Oxide Facility
    June 27, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Army and Marine Corps Reset Programs for 
Ground Equipment Utilized in OIF and OEF
    June 27, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 
on Army and Marine Corps Reset Strategies
    June 28, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on the Status of Safety and Security in 
Afghanistan
    June 28, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Receives Update 
on the Status of Safety and Security in Afghanistan
    June 29, 2006--Hunter to Explore all Legislative Options 
Available to Try Terrorists
    June 29, 2006--Rep. Weldon Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on New Discovery of Weapons of Mass 
Destruction in Iraq
    June 29, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 
on Reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction Findings in Iraq
    June 29, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on 
the Missions and Responsibilities of the U.S. Special 
Operations Command
    June 29, 2006--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities Focuses on the United States Special 
Operations Command's Roles and Missions
    July 10, 2006--Hunter Statement Clarifying House Position 
on Legal Immigrants Serving in the U.S. Armed Services
    July 12, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Tribunals
    July 12, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing Focuses 
on Possible Legislative Initiatives to Try Detainees for War 
Crimes
    July 20, 2006--Hunter Supports President Bush on Oman Free 
Trade Agreement
    July 25, 2006--Committee on Armed Services to Hold Field 
Hearing in Michigan to Address Border Security
    July 26, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Standards Utilized 
in Trying Detainees
    July 26, 2006--Hunter Statement Regarding the National 
Foreign Investment and Strengthened Transparency Act
    July 31, 2006--Committee on Armed Services to Hold Field 
Hearing in Arizona
    August 23, 2006--Hunter Announces Increase in Funding for 
Combat Readiness, Equipment Reset
    September 1, 2006--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 
Chairman Everett Lauds Successful Missile Defense Test
    September 6, 2006--Hunter Statement Regarding President 
Bush's Proposal for the Treatment and Prosecution of Terrorists
    September 7, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Military Commissions and Standards Utilized 
in Trying Detainees
    September 7, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing 
Focuses on White House Legislative Initiative to Try Detainees
    September 11, 2006--Hunter Unveils Military Commissions Act 
of 2006
    September 12, 2006--Hunter Reacts to Democrat Leader's 
Osama bin Laden Comments
    September 13, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Mark-up on H.R. 6054, the Military Commissions Act of 
2006
    September 13, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Votes to 
Create New Process to Prosecute Terrorists, Protect Troops on 
the Battlefield
    September 21, 2006--Weldon Statement at Subcommittee on 
Tactical Air and Land Forces Hearing on Combat Vehicle Active 
Protection Systems
    September 21, 2006--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing focuses on Combat Vehicle Active Protection 
Systems
    September 26, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hearing on 
Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy Programs of the 
Department of Defense
    September 26, 2006--Joint Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities and Subcommittee on 
Readiness Hearing Focuses on Energy Efficiency and Alternative 
Energy Programs of the Department of Defense
    September 26, 2006--Hunter Responds to Democrat Allegations 
about the Iraq War
    September 26, 2006--Hunter, Sensenbrenner Introduce 
Military Commissions Agreement Reached Among House, Senate and 
Bush Administration
    September 27, 2006--Saxton Statement at Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing on 
the Department of Defense's Irregular Warfare Map
    September 27, 2006--Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Hearing Focuses on 
Irregular Warfare Map
    September 27, 2006--Hunter Floor Statement during Debate on 
H.R. 6166, Military Commissions Act of 2006
    September 27, 2006--McHugh Opening Statement at Joint 
Hearing on the Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected 
Reserve
    September 27, 2006--Joint Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel and Committee on Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on 
Economic Opportunity Hearing Focuses on the Montgomery G.I. 
Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve
    September 28, 2006--Hunter, Warner Reach Deal on Annual 
Defense Authorization Bill
    September 29, 2006--House and Senate Conferees Approve the 
Conference Report for the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007
    October 24, 2006--Hunter: Send Iraqi Military Battalions to 
Baghdad
    October 31, 2006--Hunter Calls on Kerry to Apologize to 
U.S. Troops
    November 3, 2006--Hunter Corrects New York Times Regarding 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Provision in National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
    November 8, 2006--Hunter Comments on Secretary Rumsfeld's 
Resignation
    November 14, 2006--Hunter Statement on Lucent Alcatel 
Merger
    November 15, 2006--Hunter Statement at Committee on Armed 
Services Hearing on Current Situation and Military Operations 
in Iraq
    November 15, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Hearing 
Focuses on Situation in Iraq
    November 15, 2006--Hunter Statement Regarding Rep. Simmons
    November 20, 2006--Hunter: Best Option is to ``Go Iraqi''
    December 5, 2006--House Overwhelmingly Approves Resolution 
to Help Wounded Servicemembers Find Employment
    December 6, 2006--Hunter: ``American Policy Should Flow 
From Our Shores With One Voice''
    December 6, 2006--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
Chairman McHugh Holds Hearing to Assess Criteria, Consistency 
and Timeliness of Valor Awards and Decoration
    December 6, 2006--Chairman Hunter, Members of the House 
Armed Services Committee Release Comprehensive Defense Review
    December 7, 2006--Committee on Armed Services Holds Hearing 
to Assess Military Training Teams Embedded With Iraqi Units
    December 13, 2006--Hunter: ``Goodyear Tire and Steelworkers 
Need to Step Up For America''