Report text available as:

(PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip?


111th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     111-710

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



 
  REPORT OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES FOR THE 
                             111TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                                   on

                 POWERS AND DUTIES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
                        SERVICES--111TH CONGRESS


                               Background

    The House Committee on Armed Services, a standing committee 
of Congress, was established on January 2, 1947, as a part of 
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 812), by 
merging the Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs. 
The Committees on Military Affairs and Naval Affairs were 
established in 1882. In 1885, jurisdiction over military and 
naval appropriations was taken from the Committee on 
Appropriations and given to the Committees on Military Affairs 
and Naval Affairs, respectively. This practice continued until 
July 1, 1920, when jurisdiction over all appropriations was 
again placed in the Committee on Appropriations.
    In the 93rd Congress, following a study by the House Select 
Committee on Committees, the House passed H. Res. 988, the 
Committee Reform Amendments of 1974, to be effective January 3, 
1975. As a result of those amendments, the jurisdictional areas 
of the Committee on Armed Services remained essentially 
unchanged. However, oversight functions were amended to require 
each standing committee to review and study on a continuing 
basis all matters and jurisdiction of the committee. Also, the 
Committee on Armed Services was to review and study on a 
continuing basis all laws, programs, and government activities 
dealing with or 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 
Services 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 the rule, all bills, resolutions, and 
other matters relating to subjects within the jurisdiction of 
any standing committee shall be referred to such committee. The 
jurisdiction of the House Committee on Armed Services, pursuant 
to clause 1(c) of rule X is as follows:
    (1) Ammunition depots; forts; arsenals; and Army, Navy, and 
Air Force reservations and establishments.
    (2) Common defense generally.
    (3) Conservation, development, and use of naval petroleum 
and oil shale reserves.
    (4) The Department of Defense generally, including the 
Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, generally.
    (5) Interoceanic canals generally, including measures 
relating to the maintenance, operation, and administration of 
interoceanic canals.
    (6) Merchant Marine Academy and State Maritime Academies.
    (7) Military applications of nuclear energy.
    (8) Tactical intelligence and intelligence-related 
activities of the Department of Defense.
    (9) National security aspects of merchant marine, including 
financial assistance for the construction and operation of 
vessels, maintenance of the U.S. shipbuilding and ship repair 
industrial base, cabotage, cargo preference, and merchant 
marine officers and seamen as these matters relate to the 
national security.
    (10) Pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and 
privileges of members of the Armed Forces.
    (11) Scientific research and development in support of the 
armed services.
    (12) Selective service.
    (13) Size and composition of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 
and Air Force.
    (14) Soldiers' and sailors' homes.
    (15) Strategic and critical materials necessary for the 
common defense.
    In addition to its legislative jurisdiction and general 
oversight function, the Committee on Armed Services has special 
oversight functions with respect to international arms control 
and disarmament and military dependent education.

           Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight

    H. Res. 988 of the 93rd Congress, the Committee Reform 
Amendments of 1974, amended clause 1(b) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, to provide general authority 
for each committee to investigate matters within its 
jurisdiction. That amendment established a permanent 
investigative authority and relieved the committee of the 
former requirement of obtaining a renewal of the investigative 
authority by a House resolution at the beginning of each 
Congress. H. Res. 988 also amended rule X of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives by requiring, as previously indicated, 
that standing committees are to conduct legislative oversight 
in the area of their respective jurisdiction, and by 
establishing specific oversight functions for the Committee on 
Armed Services.
    H. Res. 279 was approved by the House on March 31, 2009, 
and provided funds for, among other things, committee oversight 
responsibilities to be conducted in the 111th Congress. The 
committee derives its authority to conduct oversight from, 
among other things, clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives (relating to general oversight 
responsibilities), clause 3(b) of rule X (relating to special 
oversight functions), and clause 1(b) of rule XI (relating to 
investigations and studies).

                            COMMITTEE RULES

    The committee held its organizational meeting on January 
14, 2009, and adopted the following rules governing rules and 
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full 
committee and its subcommittees.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-1; Committee Print 1)

                   RULE 1. APPLICATION OF HOUSE RULES

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

                  RULE 2. FULL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE

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

                   RULE 3. SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING DATES

    Each subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, 
receive evidence, and report to the Committee on all matters 
referred to it. Insofar as possible, meetings of the Committee 
and its subcommittees shall not conflict. A subcommittee 
Chairman shall set meeting dates after consultation with the 
Chairman, other subcommittee Chairmen, and the Ranking Minority 
Member of the subcommittee with a view toward avoiding, 
whenever possible, simultaneous scheduling of Committee and 
subcommittee meetings or hearings.

   RULE 4. JURISDICTION AND MEMBERSHIP OF COMMITTEE AND SUBCOMMITTEES

(a) Jurisdiction
    (1) The Committee retains jurisdiction of all subjects 
listed in clause 1(c) and clause 3(b) of rule X of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and retains exclusive jurisdiction 
for: defense policy generally, ongoing military operations, the 
organization and reform of the Department of Defense and 
Department of Energy, counter-drug programs, security and 
humanitarian assistance (except special operations-related 
activities) of the Department of Defense, acquisition and 
industrial base policy, technology transfer and export 
controls, joint interoperability, the Cooperative Threat 
Reduction program, Department of Energy nonproliferation 
programs, detainee affairs and policy, and inter-agency reform 
as it pertains to the Department of Defense and the nuclear 
weapons programs of the Department of Energy. While 
subcommittees are provided jurisdictional responsibilities in 
subparagraph (2), the Committee retains the right to exercise 
oversight and legislative jurisdiction over all subjects within 
its purview under rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.
    (2) The Committee shall be organized to consist of seven 
standing subcommittees with the following jurisdictions:
    Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces: All Army and Air Force 
acquisition programs (except strategic missiles, special 
operations and information technology programs). In addition, 
the subcommittee will be responsible for deep strike bombers 
and related systems, National Guard and Army and Air Force 
reserve modernization, and ammunition programs.
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel: Military personnel 
policy, reserve component integration and employment issues, 
military health care, military education, and POW/MIA issues. 
In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Morale, 
Welfare and Recreation issues and programs.
    Subcommittee on Readiness: Military readiness, training, 
logistics and maintenance issues and programs. In addition, the 
subcommittee will be responsible for all military construction, 
installations and family housing issues, including the base 
closure process, and energy policy and programs of the 
Department of Defense.
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces: Navy and 
Marine Corps acquisition programs (except strategic weapons, 
space, special operations, and information technology programs) 
and Naval Reserve equipment. In addition, the subcommittee will 
be responsible for maritime programs under the jurisdiction of 
the Committee as delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 
1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Strategic weapons (except 
deep strike bombers and related systems), space programs, 
ballistic missile defense, intelligence policy and national 
programs, and Department of Energy national security programs 
(except non-proliferation programs).
    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities: Department of Defense counter-proliferation and 
counter-terrorism programs and initiatives. In addition, the 
subcommittee will be responsible for Special Operations Forces; 
science and technology policy, including the Defense Advanced 
Research Projects Agency and information technology programs; 
force protection policy; homeland defense and consequence 
management programs within the Committee's jurisdiction; and 
related intelligence support.
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations: Any matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Committee, subject to the 
concurrence of the Chairman of the Committee and, as 
appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee 
shall have no legislative jurisdiction.
(b) Membership of the Subcommittees
    (1) Subcommittee memberships, with the exception of 
membership on the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 
shall be filled in accordance with the rules of the Majority 
party's caucus and the Minority party's conference, 
respectively.
    (2) The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations shall be filled in 
accordance with the rules of the Majority party's caucus and 
the Minority party's conference, respectively. Consistent with 
the party ratios established by the Majority party, all other 
Majority members of the subcommittee shall be appointed by the 
Chairman of the Committee, and all other Minority members shall 
be appointed by the Ranking Minority Member of the Committee.
    (3) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking Minority 
Member thereof may sit as ex officio members of all 
subcommittees. Ex officio members shall not vote in 
subcommittee hearings or meetings or be taken into 
consideration for the purpose of determining the ratio of the 
subcommittees or establishing a quorum at subcommittee hearings 
or meetings.
    (4) A member of the Committee who is not a member of a 
particular subcommittee may sit with the subcommittee and 
participate during any of its hearings but shall not have 
authority to vote, cannot be counted for the purpose of 
achieving a quorum, and cannot raise a point of order at the 
hearing.

                RULE 5. COMMITTEE PANELS AND TASK FORCES

(a) Committee Panels
    (1) The Chairman may designate a panel of the Committee 
consisting of members of the Committee to inquire into and take 
testimony on a matter or matters that fall within the 
jurisdiction of more than one subcommittee and to report to the 
Committee.
    (2) No panel appointed by the Chairman shall continue in 
existence for more than six months after the appointment. A 
panel so appointed may, upon the expiration of six months, be 
reappointed by the Chairman for a period of time which is not 
to exceed six months.
    (3) Consistent with the party ratios established by the 
Majority party, all Majority members of the panels shall be 
appointed by the Chairman of the Committee, and all Minority 
members shall be appointed by the Ranking Minority Member of 
the Committee. The Chairman of the Committee shall choose one 
of the Majority members so appointed who does not currently 
chair another subcommittee of the Committee to serve as 
Chairman of the panel. The Ranking Minority Member of the 
Committee shall similarly choose the Ranking Minority Member of 
the panel.
    (4) No panel shall have legislative jurisdiction.
(b) Committee and Subcommittee Task Forces
    (1) The Chairman of the Committee, or a Chairman of a 
subcommittee with the concurrence of the Chairman of the 
Committee, may designate a task force to inquire into and take 
testimony on a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee or subcommittee, respectively. The Chairman and 
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee shall 
each appoint an equal number of members to the task force. The 
Chairman of the Committee or subcommittee shall choose one of 
the members so appointed, who does not currently chair another 
subcommittee of the Committee, to serve as Chairman of the task 
force. The Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or 
subcommittee shall similarly appoint the Ranking Minority 
Member of the task force.
    (2) No task force appointed by the Chairman of the 
Committee or subcommittee shall continue in existence for more 
than three months. A task force may only be reappointed for an 
additional three months with the written concurrence of the 
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee or 
subcommittee whose Chairman appointed the task force.
    (3) No task force shall have legislative jurisdiction.

           RULE 6. REFERENCE AND CONSIDERATION OF LEGISLATION

    (a) The Chairman shall refer legislation and other matters 
to the appropriate subcommittee or to the full Committee.
    (b) Legislation shall be taken up for a hearing or markup 
only when called by the Chairman of the Committee or 
subcommittee, as appropriate, or by a majority of the Committee 
or subcommittee, as appropriate.
    (c) The Chairman, with approval of a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee, shall have authority to discharge a 
subcommittee from consideration of any measure or matter 
referred thereto and have such measure or matter considered by 
the Committee.
    (d) Reports and recommendations of a subcommittee may not 
be considered by the Committee until after the intervention of 
three calendar days from the time the report is approved by the 
subcommittee and available to the members of the Committee, 
except that this rule may be waived by a majority vote of a 
quorum of the Committee.
    (e) The Chairman, in consultation with the Ranking Minority 
Member, shall establish criteria for recommending legislation 
and other matters to be considered by the House of 
Representatives, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XV of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives. Such criteria shall not 
conflict with the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
other applicable rules.

                RULE 7. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS

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

        RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

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

            RULE 9. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

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

                            RULE 10. QUORUM

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

                     RULE 11. THE FIVE-MINUTE RULE

    (a) Subject to rule 15, the time any one member may address 
the Committee or subcommittee on any measure or matter under 
consideration shall not exceed five minutes and then only when 
the member has been recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee 
chairman, as appropriate, except that this time limit may be 
exceeded by unanimous consent. Any member, upon request, shall 
be recognized for not more than five minutes to address the 
Committee or subcommittee on behalf of an amendment which the 
member has offered to any pending bill or resolution. The five-
minute limitation shall not apply to the Chairman and Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee or subcommittee.
    (b)(1) Members who are present at a hearing of the 
Committee or subcommittee when a hearing is originally convened 
shall be recognized by the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, 
as appropriate, in order of seniority. Those members arriving 
subsequently shall be recognized in order of their arrival. 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chairman and the Ranking 
Minority Member will take precedence upon their arrival. In 
recognizing members to question witnesses in this fashion, the 
Chairman shall take into consideration the ratio of the 
Majority to Minority members present and shall establish the 
order of recognition for questioning in such a manner as not to 
disadvantage the members of either party.
    (2) Pursuant to rule 4 and subject to rule 15, a member of 
the Committee who is not a member of a subcommittee may be 
recognized by a subcommittee chairman in order of their arrival 
and after all present subcommittee members have been 
recognized.
    (3) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, with 
the concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may 
depart with the regular order for questioning which is 
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule provided that 
such a decision is announced prior to the hearing or prior to 
the opening statements of the witnesses and that any such 
departure applies equally to the Majority and the Minority.
    (c) No person other than a Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner of Congress and committee staff may be seated in 
or behind the dais area during Committee, subcommittee, panel, 
or task force hearings and meetings.

             RULE 12. POWER TO SIT AND ACT; SUBPOENA POWER

    (a) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions 
and duties under rules X and XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee and any subcommittee is 
authorized (subject to subparagraph (b)(1) of this paragraph):
          (1) to sit and act at such times and places within 
        the United States, whether the House is in session, has 
        recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold hearings, and
          (2) to require by subpoena, or otherwise, the 
        attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the 
        production of such books, records, correspondence, 
        memorandums, papers and documents, including, but not 
        limited to, those in electronic form, as it considers 
        necessary.
    (b)(1) A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the 
Committee, or any subcommittee with the concurrence of the full 
Committee Chairman and after consultation with the Ranking 
Minority Member of the Committee, under subparagraph (a)(2) in 
the conduct of any investigation, or series of investigations 
or activities, only when authorized by a majority of the 
members voting, a majority of the Committee or subcommittee 
being present. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed only by the 
Chairman, or by any member designated by the Committee.
    (2) Pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, compliance with any subpoena issued 
by the Committee or any subcommittee under subparagraph (a)(2) 
may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House of 
Representatives.

                      RULE 13. WITNESS STATEMENTS

    (a) Any prepared statement to be presented by a witness to 
the Committee or a subcommittee shall be submitted to the 
Committee or subcommittee at least 48 hours in advance of 
presentation and shall be distributed to all members of the 
Committee or subcommittee as soon as practicable but not less 
than 24 hours in advance of presentation. A copy of any such 
prepared statement shall also be submitted to the Committee in 
electronic form. If a prepared statement contains national 
security information bearing a classification of Secret or 
higher, the statement shall be made available in the Committee 
rooms to all members of the Committee or subcommittee as soon 
as practicable but not less than 24 hours in advance of 
presentation; however, no such statement shall be removed from 
the Committee offices. The requirement of this rule may be 
waived by a majority vote of the Committee or subcommittee, a 
quorum being present. In cases where a witness does not submit 
a statement by the time required under this rule, the Chairman 
of the Committee or subcommittee, as appropriate, with the 
concurrence of the respective Ranking Minority Member, may 
elect to exclude the witness from the hearing.
    (b) The Committee and each subcommittee shall require each 
witness who is to appear before it to file with the Committee 
in advance of his or her appearance a written statement of the 
proposed testimony and to limit the oral presentation at such 
appearance to a brief summary of the submitted written 
statement.

               RULE 14. ADMINISTERING OATHS TO WITNESSES

    (a) The Chairman, or any member designated by the Chairman, 
may administer oaths to any witness.
    (b) Witnesses, when sworn, shall subscribe to the following 
oath: ``Do you solemnly swear (or affirm) that the testimony 
you will give before this Committee (or subcommittee) in the 
matters now under consideration will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?''

                   RULE 15. QUESTIONING OF WITNESSES

    (a) When a witness is before the Committee or a 
subcommittee, members of the Committee or subcommittee may put 
questions to the witness only when recognized by the Chairman 
or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate, for that purpose 
according to rule 11 of the Committee.
    (b) Members of the Committee or subcommittee who so desire 
shall have not more than five minutes to question each witness 
or panel of witnesses, the responses of the witness or 
witnesses being included in the five-minute period, until such 
time as each member has had an opportunity to question each 
witness or panel of witnesses. Thereafter, additional rounds 
for questioning witnesses by members are within the discretion 
of the Chairman or subcommittee chairman, as appropriate.
    (c) Questions put to witnesses before the Committee or 
subcommittee shall be pertinent to the measure or matter that 
may be before the Committee or subcommittee for consideration.

         RULE 16. PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MARKUPS

    The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the 
Committee, subcommittee, or panel will be published officially 
in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record 
inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the record, 
as appropriate. The transcripts of markups conducted by the 
Committee or any subcommittee may be published officially in 
verbatim form. Any requests to correct any errors, other than 
those in transcription, will be appended to the record, and the 
appropriate place where the change is requested will be 
footnoted. Any transcript published under this rule shall 
include the results of record votes conducted in the session 
covered by the transcript and shall also include materials that 
have been submitted for the record and are covered under rule 
19. The handling and safekeeping of these materials shall fully 
satisfy the requirements of rule 20. No transcript of an 
executive session conducted under rule 9 shall be published 
under this rule.

                     RULE 17. VOTING AND ROLLCALLS

    (a) Voting on a measure or matter may be by record vote, 
division vote, voice vote, or unanimous consent.
    (b) A record vote shall be ordered upon the request of one-
fifth of those members present.
    (c) No vote by any member of the Committee or a 
subcommittee with respect to any measure or matter shall be 
cast by proxy.
    (d) In the event of a vote or votes, when a member is in 
attendance at any other committee, subcommittee, or conference 
committee meeting during that time, the necessary absence of 
that member shall be so noted in the record vote record, upon 
timely notification to the Chairman by that member.
    (e) The Chairman of the Committee or a subcommittee, as 
appropriate, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority 
Member or the most senior Minority member who is present at the 
time, may elect to postpone requested record votes until such 
time or point at a markup as is mutually decided. When 
proceedings resume on a postponed question, notwithstanding any 
intervening order for the previous question, the underlying 
proposition shall remain subject to further debate or amendment 
to the same extent as when the question was postponed.

                       RULE 18. COMMITTEE REPORTS

    (a) If, at the time of approval of any measure or matter by 
the Committee, any member of the Committee gives timely notice 
of intention to file supplemental, Minority, additional or 
dissenting views, that member shall be entitled to not less 
than two calendar days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal 
holidays except when the House is in session on such days) in 
which to file such views, in writing and signed by that member, 
with the Staff Director of the Committee, or the Staff 
Director's designee. All such views so filed by one or more 
members of the Committee shall be included within, and shall be 
a part of, the report filed by the Committee with respect to 
that measure or matter.
    (b) With respect to each record vote on a motion to report 
any measure or matter, and on any amendment offered to the 
measure or matter, the total number of votes cast for and 
against, the names of those voting for and against, and a brief 
description of the question, shall be included in the Committee 
report on the measure or matter.

           RULE 19. PUBLIC INSPECTION OF COMMITTEE ROLLCALLS

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

     RULE 20. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND OTHER INFORMATION

    (a) Except as provided in clause 2(g) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, all national security 
information bearing a classification of Secret or higher which 
has been received by the Committee or a subcommittee shall be 
deemed to have been received in executive session and shall be 
given appropriate safekeeping.
    (b) The Chairman of the Committee shall, with the approval 
of a majority of the Committee, establish such procedures as in 
his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any national security information that is 
received which is classified as Secret or higher. Such 
procedures shall, however, ensure access to this information by 
any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or 
Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives, staff of 
the Committee, or staff designated under rule 9(c) who have the 
appropriate security clearances and the need to know, who has 
requested the opportunity to review such material.
    (c) The Chairman of the Committee shall, in consultation 
with the Ranking Minority Member, establish such procedures as 
in his judgment may be necessary to prevent the unauthorized 
disclosure of any proprietary information that is received by 
the Committee, subcommittee, panel, or task force. Such 
procedures shall be consistent with the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and applicable law.

                      RULE 21. COMMITTEE STAFFING

    The staffing of the Committee, the standing subcommittees, 
and any panel or task force designated by the Chairman or 
chairmen of the subcommittees shall be subject to the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                       RULE 22. COMMITTEE RECORDS

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

                      RULE 23. HEARING PROCEDURES

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

     COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--111TH CONGRESS

    Pursuant to H. Res. 8, election of the chairman (adopted 
January 6, 2009), H. Res. 12, election of the ranking member 
(adopted January 6, 2009), H. Res. 24, election of majority 
members (adopted January 7, 2009), H. Res. 38, election of 
minority members (adopted January 9, 2009), H. Res. 137, 
technical corrections to H. Res. 24, election of majority 
members (adopted February 9, 2009), H. Res. 381, election of 
majority members (adopted April 30, 2009), H. Res. 548, 
election of the ranking member (adopted June 16, 2009), H. Res. 
921, election of a majority member (adopted November 19, 2009), 
H. Res. 1334, election of majority members (adopted May 6, 
2010), H. Res. 1397, election of a majority member (adopted May 
26, 2010), H. Res. 1415, election of a minority member (adopted 
May 28, 2010), the following members served on the Committee on 
Armed Services in the 111th Congress:

  IKE SKELTON, Missouri, Chairman

JOHN M. McHUGH, New York, Ranking Member\1\PRATT, South Carolina
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' MCKEON, California, Ranking Member\2\s
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii\3\
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            ADAM SMITH, Washington
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California\4\
ROB BISHOP, Utah                     ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                RICK LARSEN, Washington
 BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania\5\       JIM COOPER, Tennessee
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   JIM MARSHALL, Georgia
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia                PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania\6\
MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma                CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
JOHN C. FLEMING, Louisiana           DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York\7\
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida            JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania\8\ GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
CHARLES K. DJOU, Hawaii\9\           NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
                                     GLENN NYE, Virginia
                                     CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
                                     LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
                                     MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
                                     FRANK M. KRATOVIL Jr., Maryland
                                     ERIC J.J. MASSA, New York\10\
                                     BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
                                     SCOTT MURPHY, New York\11\
                                     WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York\12\
                                     JOHN GARAMENDI, California\13\
                                     MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania\14\
                                     LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa\15\
                                     DAN BOREN, 
                                     Oklahoma16,}17
                                     HANK JOHNSON, Georgia\18\

----------
\1\ Mr. McHugh resigned from the committee on June 3, 2009.
\2\ Mr. McKeon became Ranking Member and resigned from the 
Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and Strategic Forces on June 16, 
2009.
\3\ Mr. Abercrombie resigned from the House of Representatives on Feb. 
28, 2010.
\4\ Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 
2009.
\5\ Mr. Shuster resigned from the committee on May 27, 2010.
\6\ Mr. Murphy (PA) resigned from the committee on May 6, 2010.
\7\ Ms. Gillibrand resigned from the House of Representatives on Jan. 
26, 2009.
\8\ Mr. Platts was appointed to the committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and Oversight and Investigations 
on June 16, 2009.
\9\ Mr. Djou was appointed to the committee and to the Subcommittees on 
Readiness and Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on May 
27, 2010.
\10\ Mr. Massa resigned from the House of Representatives on Mar. 8, 
2010.
\11\ Mr. Murphy (NY) was appointed to the committee on Apr. 30, 2009.
\12\ Mr. Owens was appointed to the committee and the Subcommittees on 
Air and Land Forces and Strategic Forces on Nov. 19, 2009.
\13\ Mr. Garamendi was appointed to the committee on May 6, 2010.
\14\ Mr. Critz was appointed to the committee and the Subcommittees on 
Military Personnel and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on May 25, 
2010.
\15\ Mr. Boswell was appointed to the committee on May 6, 2010.
\16\ Mr. Boren took a leave of absence from the committee on Feb. 5, 
2009.
\17\ Mr. Boren was appointed to the committee on Apr. 30, 2009.
\18\ Mr. Johnson was ranked immediately after Mr. Boren on May 6, 2010.

    SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES--111TH CONGRESS

    The following subcommittees were established at the 
committee's organizational meeting on January 14, 2009.

                  Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Legislative 
jurisdiction over all Army and Air Force acquisition programs 
(except strategic missiles, special operations and information 
technology programs). In addition, the subcommittee will be 
responsible for deep strike bombers and related systems, 
National Guard and Army and Air Force reserve modernization, 
and ammunition programs.

         Mr. ABERCROMBIE, 
     Chairman19,}20
      Mr. SMITH Chairman\21\

Mr. BARTLETT, Ranking Member         Mr. SPRATT
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS (WA)           Mr. REYES
Ms. FALLIN                           Mr. McINTYRE
Mr. HUNTER                           Ms. TAUSCHER\22\
Dr. FLEMING                          Mr. BRADY
Mr. COFFMAN                          Mr. COOPER
Mr. McKEON\23\                       Mr. MARSHALL
Mr. AKIN                             Mr. BOREN\24\
Mr. MILLER                           Mr. SESTAK
Mr. WILSON                           Ms. GIFFORDS
Mr. LoBIONDO                         Ms. TSONGAS
Mr. BISHOP                           Mr. KISSELL
Mr. TURNER                           Mr. KRATOVIL
Mr. PLATTS\26\                       Mr. MASSA\25\
                                     Mr. BRIGHT
                                     Mr. OWENS\27\
                                     Mr. GARAMENDI\28\
                                     Mr. BOSWELL\29\
                                     Mr. BOREN\30\

----------
\19\Mr. Abercrombie resigned as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air 
and Land Forces on Jan. 20, 2010.
\20\Mr. Abercrombie resigned from the House of Representatives on Feb. 
28, 2010.
\21\Mr. Smith was elected as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and 
Land Forces on Jan. 21, 2010.
\22\Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 
2009.
\23\Mr. McKeon became Ranking Member and resigned from the Subcommittee 
on Air and Land Forces on June 16, 2009.
\24\Mr. Boren took a leave of absence from the committee on Feb. 5, 
2009.
\25\Mr. Massa resigned from the House of Representatives on Mar. 8, 
2010.
\26\Mr. Platts was appointed to the Committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces on June 16, 2009.
\27\Mr. Owens was appointed to the committee and the Subcommittee on 
Air and Land Forces on Nov. 19, 2009.
\28\Mr. Garamendi was assigned to the Subcommittee on Air and Land 
Forces on May 7, 2010.
\29\Mr. Boswell was assigned to the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
on May 7, 2010.
\30\Mr. Boren was appointed to the committee on Apr. 30, 2009.

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel

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

      Mrs. DAVIS, Chairwoman

Mr. WILSON, Ranking Member           Dr. SNYDER
Mr. JONES                            Ms. SANCHEZ
Mr. KLINE                            Ms. BORDALLO
Mr. ROONEY                           Mr. MURPHY (PA)\1\
Mr. WITTMAN\2\                       Ms. SHEA-PORTER
Ms. FALLIN                           Mr. LOEBSACK
Dr. FLEMING\3\                       Ms. TSONGAS
                                     Mr. CRITZ\4\
                                     Mr. JOHNSON\5\

----------
\1\Mr. Murphy (PA) resigned from the committee on May 6, 2010.
\2\Mr. Wittman resigned from the Subcommittee on Military Personnel on 
Feb. 3, 2009.
\3\Dr. Fleming was assigned to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
on Feb. 3, 2009.
\4\Mr. Critz was appointed to the committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel on May 25, 2010.
\5\Mr. Johnson was ranked immediately after Mr. Boren on May 6, 2010.
                       Subcommittee on Readiness

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

        Mr. ORTIZ, Chairman

Mr. FORBES, Ranking Member           Mr. TAYLOR
Mr. BISHOP                           Mr. ABERCROMBIE\1\
Mr. ROGERS (AL)                      Mr. REYES
Mr. FRANKS                           Mr. MARSHALL
Mr. SHUSTER\2\                       Ms. BORDALLO
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS (WA)\4\        Mr. BOREN\3\
Mr. CONAWAY                          Ms. SHEA-PORTER
Mr. LAMBORN                          Mr. COURTNEY
Mr. WITTMAN                          Ms. GIFFORDS
Ms. FALLIN                           Mr. NYE
Dr. FLEMING                          Mr. KISSELL
Mr. LoBIONDO                         Mr. HEINRICH
Mr. TURNER\5\                        Mr. BRIGHT
Mr. DJOU\7\                          Mr. GARAMENDI\6\
                                     Mr. BOREN\8\
                                     Mr. JOHNSON\9\

----------
\1\Mr. Abercrombie resigned from the House of Representatives on Feb. 
28, 2010.
\2\Mr. Shuster resigned from the Committee on May 27, 2010.
\3\Mr. Boren took a leave of absence from the Committee on Feb. 5, 
2009.
\4\Mrs. McMorris Rodgers resigned from the Subcommittee on Readiness on 
Feb. 12, 2009.
\5\Mr. Turner was assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness on Feb. 12, 
2009.
\6\Mr. Garamendi was assigned to the Subcommittee on Readiness on May 
7, 2010.
\7\Mr. Djou was appointed to the Committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee on Readiness on May 27, 2010.
\8\Mr. Boren was appointed to the Committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee on Readiness on Apr. 30, 2009.
\9\Mr. Johnson was ranked immediately after Mr. Boren on May 6, 2010.
           Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy and Marine 
Corps acquisition programs (except strategic weapons, space, 
special operations, and information technology programs), and 
Naval Reserve equipment. In addition, the subcommittee will be 
responsible for maritime programs under the jurisdiction of the 
committee as delineated in paragraphs 5, 6, and 9 of clause 
1(c) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

       Mr. TAYLOR, Chairman

Mr. AKIN, Ranking Member             Mr. ORTIZ
Mr. WITTMAN                          Mr. LANGEVIN
Mr. BARTLETT                         Mr. LARSEN
Mr. FORBES                           Mr. ELLSWORTH
Mr. HUNTER                           Mr. COURTNEY
Mr. COFFMAN                          Mr. SESTAK
Mr. ROONEY                           Mr. NYE
                                     Ms. PINGREE
                                     Mr. MASSA\1\
                                     Mr. CRITZ\2\

----------
\1\Mr. Massa resigned from the House of Representatives on Mar. 8, 
2010.
\2\Mr. Critz was appointed to the committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on May 25, 2010.
                    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Strategic 
weapons (except deep strike bombers and related systems), space 
programs, ballistic missile defense, intelligence policy and 
national programs, and Department of Energy national security 
programs (except non-proliferation programs).

     Ms. TAUSCHER, Chairman\1\
     Mr. LANGEVIN, Chairman\2\

Mr. TURNER, Ranking Member           Mr. SPRATT
Mr. McKEON\3\                        Ms. SANCHEZ
Mr. THORNBERRY                       Mr. ANDREWS
Mr. FRANKS                           Mr. LARSEN
Mr. LAMBORN                          Ms. GILLIBRAND\4\
Mr. HUNTER\5\                        Mr. HEINRICH
                                     Mr. MURPHY (NY)\6\
                                     Mr. OWENS\7\

----------
\1\Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 
2009.
\2\Mr. Langevin was elected Chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces on July 9, 2009.
\3\Mr. McKeon became Ranking Member and resigned from the Subcommittee 
on Strategic Forces on June 16, 2009.
\4\Ms. Gillibrand resigned from the House of Representatives on Jan. 
26, 2009.
\5\Mr. Hunter was assigned to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on 
June 16, 2009.
\6\Mr. Murphy (NY) was assigned to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces 
on May 6, 2009.
\7\Mr. Owens was appointed to the committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on Nov. 19, 2009.
   Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Department of 
Defense counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism programs 
and initiatives. In addition, the subcommittee will be 
responsible for Special Operations Forces; science and 
technology policy, including the Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency and information technology programs; force 
protection policy; homeland defense and consequence management 
programs within the committee's jurisdiction; and related 
intelligence support.

      Mr. SMITH, Chairman\1\
    Ms. SANCHEZ, Chairwoman\2\

Mr. MILLER, Ranking Member           Mr. McINTYRE
Mr. LoBIONDO                         Mr. ANDREWS
Mr. KLINE                            Mr. LANGEVIN
Mr. SHUSTER\3\                       Mr. COOPER
Mr. CONAWAY                          Mr. MARSHALL
Mr. ROONEY                           Mr. ELLSWORTH
Mr. THORNBERRY                       Mr. MURPHY (PA)\4\
Mr. DJOU\6\                          Ms. GILLIBRAND\5\
                                     Mr. BRIGHT
                                     Mr. MURPHY (NY)\7\

----------
\1\Mr. Smith resigned as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on Jan. 21, 2010.
\2\Ms. Sanchez was elected as Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on Jan. 21, 2010.
\3\Mr. Shuster resigned from the committee on May 27, 2010.
\4\Mr. Murphy (PA) resigned from the committee on May 6, 2010.
\5\Ms. Gillibrand resigned from the House of Representatives on Jan. 
26, 2009.
\6\Mr. Djou was appointed to the committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on 
May 27, 2010.
\7\Mr. Murphy (NY) was assigned to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on May 6, 2009.
              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Any matter 
within the jurisdiction of the committee, subject to the 
concurrence of the chairman of the committee and, as 
appropriate, affected subcommittee chairmen. The subcommittee 
shall have no legislative jurisdiction.

       Dr. SNYDER, Chairman

Mr. WITTMAN, Ranking Member          Mr. SPRATT
Mr. JONES                            Ms. SANCHEZ\1\
Mr. ROGERS (AL)                      Ms. TAUSCHER\2\
Mr. FRANKS                           Mrs. DAVIS
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS (WA)           Mr. COOPER
Mr. LAMBORN                          Mr. SESTAK
Mr. HUNTER\3\                        Mr. NYE
Mr. PLATTS\4\                        Ms. PINGREE
                                     Ms. TSONGAS\5\

----------
\1\Ms. Sanchez resigned from the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on Jan. 21, 2010.
\2\Ms. Tauscher resigned from the House of Representatives on June 26, 
2009.
\3\Mr. Hunter resigned from the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on June 16, 2009.
\4\Mr. Platts was appointed to the committee and assigned to the 
Subcommittee and Oversight and Investigations on June 16, 2009.
\5\Ms. Tsongas was assigned to the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations on Mar. 3, 2010.

                          FULL COMMITTEE PANEL

    The following full committee panel was appointed during the 
111th Congress (appointed March 19, 2009, reappointed September 
18, 2009):

                  Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform

    Purpose--To examine the defense acquisition system and 
possible ways to improve the system.

       Mr. ANDREWS, Chairman

Mr. CONAWAY, Ranking Member          Mr. COOPER
Mr. HUNTER                           Mr. ELLSWORTH
Mr. COFFMAN                          Mr. SESTAK

                            COMMITTEE STAFF

    By committee resolution adopted at the organizational 
meeting on January 14, 2009, or by authority of the chairman, 
the following persons were appointed to the staff of the 
committee during the 111th Congress:

 Erin C. Conaton, Staff Director 
     (resigned Mar. 12, 2010)
  Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
   Debra S. Wada, Deputy Staff 
             Director
   Paul Oostburg Sanz, General 
 Counsel (resigned Mar. 11, 2010)
  Paul L. Lewis, General Counsel 
     (appointed Mar. 15, 2010)
Betty B. Gray, Executive Assistant
 Michael R. Higgins, Professional 
           Staff Member
John D. Chapla, Professional Staff 
              Member
  John F. Sullivan, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Nancy M. Warner, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Thomas E. Hawley, Professional 
           Staff Member
 William H. Natter, Professional 
  Staff Member (resigned May 22, 
               2009)
     Jesse D. Tolleson, III, 
     Professional Staff Member
  Douglas C. Roach, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Linda Burnette, Printing Clerk 
     (resigned Oct. 31, 2009)
 Robert L. Simmons, Professional 
           Staff Member
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff 
 Member and Senior Policy Advisor 
          to the Chairman
   Loren Dealy, Press Secretary 
      (resigned July 5, 2009)
 Jeanette S. James, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Rebecca A. Ross, Professional 
           Staff Member
Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff 
              Member
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Lynn M. Williams, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Joshua C. Holly, Professional 
           Staff Member
  John Wason, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Bob DeGrasse, Professional Staff 
              Member
Roger Zakheim, Counsel (appointed 
          Jan. 23, 2009)
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Julie Unmacht, Counsel (resigned 
           Jan. 2, 2011)
  Lorry M. Fenner, Professional 
  Staff Member (resigned Jan. 2, 
               2011)
   Derek Scott, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned Aug. 31, 2009)
Eryn Robinson, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned June 24, 2010)
Alexander Kugajevsky, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
              Member
  John Kruse, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2011)
    Andrew H. Tabler, Research 
Assistant (resigned June 11, 2010)
Aileen K. Alexander, Professional 
 Staff Member (resigned July 31, 
               2010)
   Cyndi Howard, Staff Assistant
 Douglas Bush, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Rudy Barnes, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned Mar. 5, 2010)
   Lara Battles, Press Secretary
  Frank Rose, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned June 19, 2009)
 Christine Lamb, Staff Assistant 
      (resigned July 1, 2009)
 William Ebbs, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2011)
 Cathy Garman, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Vickie Plunkett, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Roy Phillips, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned Mar. 13, 2009)
  Suzanne McKenna, Professional 
 Staff Member (resigned Feb. 28, 
               2010)
 Sasha Rogers, Research Assistant 
      (resigned July 1, 2009)
  Timothy McClees, Professional 
           Staff Member
   Joe Hicken, Program Analyst 
      (resigned Jan. 2, 2011)
 Kevin Gates, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Dave Kildee, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned Jan. 2, 2011)
  Mike Casey, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Alicia Haley, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned Oct. 23, 2009)
 Benjamin Glerum, Staff Assistant 
      (resigned July 6, 2009)
David Sienicki, Professional Staff 
              Member
    Caterina Dutto Fox, Staff 
 Assistant (resigned Jan. 2, 2011)
    Kathleen Kelly, Executive 
Assistant (resigned July 23, 2010)
Kyle Wilkens, Special Assistant to 
 the Chairman (resigned Feb. 28, 
               2009)
  Michael McErlean, Professional 
  Staff Member (resigned Apr. 1, 
               2009)
   Trey Howard, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned Aug. 18, 2010)
 Rosellen C. Kim, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned Dec. 31, 2009)
  Megan Putnam, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned Apr. 30, 2010)
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative 
            Operations
    Elizabeth Drummond, Staff 
Assistant (resigned Aug. 31, 2010)
  Everett Coleman, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Craig Greene, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Anne LeMay, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed Jan. 3, 2009, 
      resigned June 30, 2009)
   Mary Kate Cunningham, Staff 
  Assistant (appointed Jan. 12, 
               2009)
Abraham Kanter, Intern (appointed 
  Feb. 2, 2009, resigned May 21, 
               2009)
  Phil MacNaughton, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed Mar. 1, 
               2009)
 Jack Schuler, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed Apr. 13, 2009)
 Megan Howard, Intern (appointed 
  May 6, 2009, resigned July 31, 
               2009)
Krissy Ellison, Intern (appointed 
 May 19, 2009, resigned July 31, 
               2009)
Nate Allen, Intern (appointed June 
 2, 2009, resigned Sept. 26, 2009)
 Katy Bloomberg, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed June 3, 2009)
  Scott Bousum, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed June 15, 2009)
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed July 1, 2009)
 John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed July 1, 2009)
   William S. Johnson, Counsel 
     (appointed July 9, 2009)
  Jennifer Kohl, Press Secretary 
     (appointed Sept. 4, 2009)
 Will Chapman, Intern (appointed 
Sept. 12, 2009, resigned Oct. 30, 
               2009)
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed Oct. 19, 2009)
     Peter Kavanewsky, Intern 
(appointed Nov. 2, 2009, resigned 
          Feb. 25, 2010)
   Alejandra Villarreal, Staff 
Assistant (appointed Nov. 9, 2009)
  Megan Howard, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed Jan. 4, 2010)
Peter Villano, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed Jan. 19, 2010)
   James Weiss, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed Feb. 1, 2010)
   Jeff Cullen, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed Mar. 15, 2010)
Zach Warma, Intern (appointed Mar. 
 29, 2010, resigned Aug. 6, 2010)
Leonor Tomero, Counsel (appointed 
          Apr. 12, 2010)
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed May 17, 2010)
Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed May 27, 2010)
  John Harris, Intern (appointed 
 July 6, 2010, resigned Aug. 12, 
               2010)
Michele Pearce, Counsel (appointed 
           July 9, 2010)
   Famid Sinha, Staff Assistant 
     (appointed July 12, 2010)
 Amy D'Arella, Intern (appointed 
 July 13, 2010, resigned Aug. 19, 
               2010)
   Catherine Sendak, Executive 
  Assistant (appointed July 15, 
               2010)
   Jay Grimes, Staff Assistant 
(appointed Sept. 1, 2010, resigned 
           Jan. 2, 2011)
  Benjamin Runkle, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed Sept. 8, 
               2010)
  John Bailey, Intern (appointed 
 Sept. 8, 2010, resigned Dec. 10, 
               2010)
 Melissa Tuttle, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed Sept. 20, 2010)
  Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed 
          Sept. 27, 2010)

                           COMMITTEE MEETINGS

    A total of 340 meetings and markups were held by the 
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees and panel 
during the 111th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows:

Full Committee....................................................    99
Subcommittees:
    Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces...........................    23
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................    29
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................    31
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces.............    32
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................    35
    Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
      Capabilities................................................    43
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................    29
Full Committee Panel:
    Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform...........................    19

                          LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS

                      Legislation Enacted Into Law

                   PUBLIC LAW 111-61 (H. J. RES. 44)

 Recognizing the service, sacrifice, honor, and professionalism of the 
           Noncommissioned Officers of the United States Army

    H. J. Res. 44, ``Recognizing the service, sacrifice, honor, 
and professionalism of the Noncommissioned Officers of the 
United States Army,'' was introduced on April 29, 2009, by Mr. 
Skelton and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. J. Res. 44, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Marshall moved to 
consider H. J. Res. 44, as introduced, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote 
on July 27, 2009. On August 4, 2009, H. J. Res. 44 passed the 
Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous 
Consent. On August 19, 2009, H. J. Res. 44 was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 111-61.

                     PUBLIC LAW 111-84 (H.R. 2647)

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

    Public Law 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010, authorizes funds totaling $680.2 billion 
in budget authority for national defense programs, of which 
$550.2 billion is directed to the base budget and $130.0 
billion is directed to ``overseas contingency Operations.''
Division A
    Division A of Public Law 111-84 authorizes funds for fiscal 
year 2010 for the Department of Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I authorizes $105,029,379,000 for 
procurement of aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat 
vehicles, ammunition, and other procurement for the armed 
forces, defense agencies, Reserve Components of the armed 
forces, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Fund.
    Subtitles B through E of title I establish additional 
program requirements, restrictions, limitations, transfers of, 
or funds for specified programs for the Armed Forces, 
including: procuring additional F-35 aircraft for use by the 
Air National Guard; conditional authority for the Secretary of 
the Navy to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for F/
A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft procurement; and terminates 
production of the F-22A aircraft.
    Subtitle A of title II authorizes $79,251,608,000 for 
research, development, test and evaluation for the Armed Forces 
and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research 
and development-related matters.
    Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program 
requirements, restrictions, and limitations on 12 separate 
research and development-related matters, including: the Joint 
Multi-Mission Submersible program; individual body armor and 
associated components; Army tactical ground network program; 
program elements for the F-35B and F-35C Joint Strike Fighter 
aircraft; and ground combat vehicle and self-propelled howitzer 
capabilities.
    Subtitles C through E of title II address ballistic missile 
defense programs, reports and miscellaneous matters.
    Subtitle A of title III authorizes $156,179,872,000 for 
operation and maintenance.
    Subtitles B through F of title III address environmental 
provisions, workplace and depot issues, energy security, 
studies and reports relating to military readiness, and other 
miscellaneous matters.
    Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the 
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2010 and authorizes 
appropriations of $136,016,281,000 for military personnel for 
fiscal year 2010. The end strengths for active duty personnel 
for fiscal year 2010 are as follows:
          (1) The Army, 562,400.
          (2) The Navy, 328,800.
          (3) The Marine Corps, 202,100.
          (4) The Air Force, 331,700.
    The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2010 are 
as follows:
          (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 
        358,200.
          (2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
          (3) The Navy Reserve, 65,500.
          (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
          (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 
        106,700.
          (6) The Air Force Reserve, 69,500.
          (7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.
    The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of 
the Reserve Components for fiscal year 2010 are as follows:
          (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 
        32,060.
          (2) The Army Reserve, 16,261.
          (3) The Navy Reserve, 10,818.
          (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
          (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 
        14,555.
          (6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,896.
    Title V sets military personnel policy, including 
provisions that address officer personnel policy; Reserve 
Component management; joint qualified officers and 
requirements; general service authorities; education and 
training; Defense Dependents Education system; military 
justice; decorations, awards, and honorary promotions; military 
families; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired 
pay and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality benefits and operations; and other matters.
    Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as 
improvements to military health benefits; preventative care; 
wounded warrior matters; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition 
management and related matters, including provisions relating 
to major defense acquisition programs; amendments to general 
contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations; 
provisions relating to acquisition workforce and inherently 
governmental functions; Department of Defense contractor 
matters; matters relating to Iraq and Afghanistan; government-
wide acquisition improvements; and other matters.
    Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and 
management provisions, including space activities; 
intelligence-related matters; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; 
miscellaneous authorities and limitations; studies and reports; 
and other matters.
    Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel 
matters, including civilian personnel benefits, compensation, 
and leave; repeal of the National Security Personnel System; 
and other federal government civilian personnel matters.
    Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, 
including; assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq 
and Afghanistan; and reports.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction with 
states of the Former Soviet Union.
    Title XIV authorizes miscellaneous authorizations totaling 
$34,033,949,000 for the defense health program; drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities; the Office of the 
Inspector General, chemical agents and munitions destruction, 
revolving and management funds; and the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home.
    Title XV includes authorization of $128,594,760,000 for 
overseas contingency operations.
    Title XVII addresses Department of Defense-Department of 
Veterans Affairs medical facility demonstration project.
    Title XVIII addresses military commissions.
    Title XIX contains provisions regarding federal employee 
benefits.
Division B
    Division B of Public Law 111-84 authorizes appropriations 
in the amount of $24,573,949,000 for military construction and 
military family housing in support of the active forces, the 
Reserve Components, and the NATO security investment program 
for fiscal year 2010. In addition, Division B contains military 
construction and family housing program changes; property and 
facilities administration; provisions related to Guam 
realignment; provisions concerning land conveyances; energy 
security; and other matters.
Division C
    Division C of Public Law 111-84 authorizes appropriations 
in the amount of $16,512,450,000 for Department of Energy 
national security programs for fiscal year 2010. Division C 
also includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense 
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and 
the Maritime Administration.
Division D
    Division D of Public Law 111-84 contains funding tables 
that provide for the allocation of funds among programs, 
projects, and activities.
Division E
    Division E of Public Law 111-84 includes the Matthew 
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act that 
would: (1) prohibit hate crimes based on the actual or perceive 
race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual 
orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person; (2) 
provide support for the criminal investigation and prosecution 
of hate crimes by State, local, and tribal law enforcement 
officials; and (3) prohibit attacks on United States service 
members based on their military service.
    The Committee on Armed Services reported H.R. 2647, as 
amended, to the House on June 18, 2009. The measure passed the 
House, as amended, on June 25, 2009. The Senate passed H.R. 
2647 by unanimous consent with an amendment, on July 23, 2009, 
subsequent to striking all after the enacting clause and 
inserting in lieu thereof the provisions of a similar measure, 
S. 1390. The conference report was agreed to in the House on 
October 8, 2009, and in the Senate on October 22, 2009. H.R. 
2647 was signed by the President and became law October 28, 
2009.
    (H. Rept. 111-166; parts I & II; S. Rept. 111-35; Conf. 
Rept. 111-288; H.A.S.C. 111-45; H.A.S.C. 111-56 through 
H.A.S.C. 111-62; H.A.S.C. 111-64; H.A.S.C. 111-65; H.A.S.C. 
111-66; H.A.S.C. 111-68; H.A.S.C. 111-69; H.A.S.C. 111-70; 
H.A.S.C. 111-71; H.A.S.C. 111-73; H.A.S.C. 111-75)

                     PUBLIC LAW 111-238 (H.R. 6102)

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
    extend the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to enter into 
     multiyear contracts for F/A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft

    H.R. 6102, ``To amend the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to extend the authority of the 
Secretary of the Navy to enter into multiyear contracts for F/
A-18E, F/A-18F, and EA-18G aircraft,'' was introduced on August 
10, 2010, by Mr. Taylor and was referred to the House Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. 
Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Akin of the Subcommittee on 
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee 
consideration of H.R. 6102, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Taylor moved to consider H.R. 6102, as introduced, 
under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 
agreed to by voice vote on September 14, 2010. On September 16, 
2010, H.R. 6102 passed the Senate without amendment by 
Unanimous Consent. On September 27, 2010, H.R. 6102 was signed 
by the President and became Public Law 111-238.

  Legislation Passed by Both Houses of Congress and Presented to the 
                               President

                               H.R. 6523

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

    H.R. 6543, the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011, and the material found in the 
committee print are the product of an agreement between the 
Chairman the House Armed Services Committee and the Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committees on 
the reconciliation of H.R. 5136, as passed by the House of 
Representatives on May 28, 2010, and S. 3454, as reported out 
of committee on June 4, 2010. The negotiated agreement was 
introduced as an original bill by Chairman Skelton on December 
15, 2010, and was passed by the House, as amended, two days 
later. The Senate passed the bill with an amendment offered by 
Chairman Levin and Ranking Member McCain by Unanimous Consent 
on December 22. The House concurred in the Senate amendment and 
passed H.R. 6523 the same day. H.R. 6523 was presented to the 
President on December 29, 2010, and was awaiting further action 
at the time of transmittal of this report.
    H.R. 6523 authorizes $724.6 billion national defense 
discretionary programs and includes $548.2 billion for the base 
budget of the Department of Defense, $158.7 billion for 
overseas contingency operations, and $17.7 billion for national 
security programs in the Department of Energy. In addition, 
H.R. 6523 authorizes an increase to title XV of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) of $33.1 billion for increased overseas contingency 
operations.
Division A
    Division A of H.R. 6523 authorizes funds for fiscal year 
2011 for the Department of Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I authorizes $110,432,638,000 for 
procurement, including for aircraft, missiles, weapons and 
tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, and shipbuilding and 
conversion; and the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Fund.
    Subtitles B and C of title I establish additional program 
requirements, restrictions, and limitations for specified 
programs for the Armed Forces, Creates a counter-IED database 
and enhances the effort to develop new, lightweight body armor; 
and Ensures that the Navy and Marine Corps have the planes 
needed to meet mission requirements.
    Subtitle A of title II authorizes $76,586,915,000 for 
research, development, test and evaluation for the Armed Forces 
and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic research 
and development-related matters.
    Subtitle B of title II establishes certain program 
requirements, restrictions, and limitations on separate 
research and development-related matters, including enhancing 
our defense against cyber attacks as well as for advanced 
ground vehicles, ground vehicle systems, and components.
    Subtitles C through E of title II address ballistic missile 
defense programs, reports and miscellaneous matters.
    Subtitle A of title III authorizes $168,150,992,000 for 
operation and maintenance.
    Subtitles B through F of title III address environmental 
provisions, workplace and depot issues, energy security, 
studies and reports relating to military readiness, and other 
miscellaneous matters.
    Title IV provides military personnel authorizations for the 
active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2011 and authorizes 
appropriations of $138,540,700,000 for military personnel for 
fiscal year 2011. The end strengths for active duty personnel 
for fiscal year 2011 are as follows:
          (1) The Army, 569,400.
          (2) The Navy, 328,700.
          (3) The Marine Corps, 202,100.
          (4) The Air Force, 332,200.
    The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2011 are 
as follows:
          (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 
        358,200.
          (2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
          (3) The Navy Reserve, 65,500.
          (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
          (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 
        106,700.
          (6) The Air Force Reserve, 71,200.
          (7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.
    The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of 
the Reserve Components for fiscal year 2011 are as follows:
          (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 
        32,060.
          (2) The Army Reserve, 16,261.
          (3) The Navy Reserve, 10,688.
          (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
          (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 
        14,584.
          (6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,992.
    Title V establishes military personnel policy, including 
provisions addressing officer personnel policy; Reserve 
Component management; joint qualified officers and 
requirements; general service authorities; education and 
training; Defense Dependents Education system; military 
justice; decorations, awards, and honorary promotions; military 
families; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; retired 
pay and survivor benefits; commissary and nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality benefits and operations; and other matters.
    Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as 
improvements to military health benefits; preventative care; 
wounded warrior matters; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition 
management and related matters, including provisions relating 
to major defense acquisition programs; amendments to general 
contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations; 
provisions relating to acquisition workforce and inherently 
governmental functions; Department of Defense contractor 
matters; matters relating to Iraq and Afghanistan; government-
wide acquisition improvements; and other matters.
    Title VIII also includes agreed upon provisions from H.R. 
5013--The IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010, concerning: (1) 
civilian management of the defense acquisition system; (2) 
acquisition related functions of chiefs of the Armed Forces; 
and (3) performance assessments of the defense acquisition 
system.
    Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and 
management provisions, including space activities; 
intelligence-related matters; cyber warfare and cyber security 
related matters, and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; naval vessels and shipyards; counter-drug activities; 
miscellaneous authorities and limitations; studies and reports; 
and other matters.
    Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel 
matters, including the civilian personnel benefits, 
compensation, and leave; and other federal government civilian 
personnel matters.
    Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, 
including; assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq 
and Afghanistan; and reports.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
    Title XIV authorizes miscellaneous authorizations totaling 
$36,274,325,000 for the defense health program; drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities; the Office of the 
Inspector General, chemical agents and munitions destruction, 
revolving and management funds; and the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home.
    Title XV includes authorization of $157,527,108,000 for 
overseas contingency operations.
    Title XVI contains provisions addressing improved sexual 
assault prevention and response in the Armed Forces.

Division B

    Division B authorizes appropriations in the amount of 
$19,413,399,000 for military construction and military family 
housing in support of the active forces, the Reserve 
Components, and the NATO security investment program for fiscal 
year 2011. In addition, Division B contains military 
construction and family housing program changes; property and 
facilities administration; provisions related to Guam 
realignment; provisions concerning land conveyances; energy 
security; and other matters.

Division C

    Division C authorizes appropriations in the amount of 
$17,715,831,000 for Department of Energy national security 
programs for fiscal year 2011. Division C also includes 
authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the 
Maritime Administration.
    (Committee Print 5; H. Rept. 111-491 parts I & II; S. Rept. 
111-201; H. Rept. 111-465; H.A.S.C. 111-120; H.A.S.C. 111-123; 
H.A.S.C. 111-124; H.A.S.C. 111-126; H.A.S.C. 111-129; H.A.S.C. 
111-132; H.A.S.C. 111-137; H.A.S.C. 111-138; H.A.S.C. 111-141; 
H.A.S.C. 111-142; H.A.S.C. 111-145; H.A.S.C. 111-147; H.A.S.C. 
111-148; H.A.S.C. 111-151; H.A.S.C. 111-153; H.A.S.C. 111-157; 
H.A.S.C. 111-159; H.A.S.C. 111-170)

                  Legislation Reported But Not Enacted


                               H.R. 2101

Weapons Acquisition System Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge 
                       and Oversight Act of 2009

    The purpose of H.R. 2101, the Weapons Acquisition System 
Reform Through Enhancing Technical Knowledge and Oversight Act 
of 2009, was to amend title 10, United States Code, and to 
establish other new statutory requirements, to improve 
efficiency and the quality of outcomes in the acquisition of 
major weapons systems of the Department of Defense.
    This bill seeks to improve the efficiency and quality of 
outcomes in major weapons system acquisition using four primary 
mechanisms. It focuses additional oversight on the early stages 
of major defense acquisition programs, during which time more 
than 70 percent of total program costs are determined. It also 
focuses oversight on programs that demonstrate lack of 
performance: either by failing to satisfy the statutory 
criteria for entering into development for production or by 
experiencing a Nunn-McCurdy breach. It promotes greater use of 
competition. And it promotes and enables the consideration of 
trade-offs between cost, schedule, and performance. The bill 
requires the Secretary of Defense to designate an official or 
officials to perform three critical oversight functions: cost 
estimation, systems engineering, and performance assessment. 
These officials will assist the Secretary in implementing the 
mechanisms the bill establishes. The bill makes other 
organizational improvements in the Department by increasing the 
role of the combatant commanders in setting requirements for 
major defense acquisition programs, requiring the Department to 
address potential organizational conflicts of interest of 
contractors, and rewards excellence in acquisition. The 
committee believes that in addition to improving the operation 
of the Department, the bill will result in the development and 
submission of more accurate and objective information to 
support the committee's review of major defense acquisition 
programs.
    H.R. 2101 was introduced on April 27, 2009, and referred to 
the Committee on Armed Services. On May 7, 2009, the Committee 
on Armed Services held a mark-up session to consider H.R. 2101, 
as introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered 
reported H.R. 2101, as amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation by a record vote of 59-0, and was placed on the 
Union Calendar, Calendar No. 47. Pursuant to the provisions of 
H. Res. 432, H.R. 2101 was considered passed House as amended 
on May 13, 2009. For further action, please see S. 454.
    (H. Rept. 111-101)

                               H.R. 5013

 Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain 
                 Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010

    The purpose of H.R. 5013, the Implementing Management for 
Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every 
Acquisition Act of 2010, is to amend title 10, United States 
Code, and to establish other new statutory requirements, to 
improve performance and the quality of outcomes in the defense 
acquisition system.
    On March 17, 2009, Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike 
Skelton and then-Ranking Member John McHugh appointed a Panel 
on Defense Acquisition Reform from among Members of the 
committee to carry out a comprehensive review of the defense 
acquisition system. A central finding of this review was that 
while the nature of defense acquisition has substantially 
changed in the last two decades, the defense acquisition system 
has not kept pace. The system remains structured primarily for 
the acquisition of weapon systems at a time when services 
represent a much larger share of the Department's acquisitions. 
As a result, the Department's acquisition policy has limited 
application to the majority of the Department's acquisitions. 
Furthermore, the acquisition system is poorly designed for the 
acquisition of information technology. This legislation seeks 
to establish a statutory framework to achieve comprehensive 
improvements in defense acquisition. H.R. 5013 would require 
the Department of Defense to use performance management 
techniques to improve the defense acquisition system and the 
acquisition workforce. The bill would also require new 
standards and techniques for training and rewarding that 
workforce.
    H.R. 5013 was introduced on April 14, 2010, and referred to 
the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition to the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On April 21, 
2010, the Committee on Armed Services held a mark-up session to 
consider H.R. 5013, as introduced. The committee, a quorum 
being present, ordered reported H.R. 5013, as amended, to the 
House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 56-0. 
The measure passed the House, as amended, on April 28, 2010 by 
a recorded vote of 417-3 (Roll no. 230). On April 29, 2010, the 
bill was received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. Please see H.R. 5136 and H.R. 6523 
for further action.
    (H. Rept. 111-465; House Committee Print 5; H.A.S.C. 111-
36; H.A.S.C. 111-44; H.A.S.C. 111-63; H.A.S.C. 111-72; H.A.S.C. 
111-77; H.A.S.C. 111-82; H.A.S.C. 111-84; H.A.S.C. 111-94; 
H.A.S.C. 111-95; H.A.S.C. 111-98; H.A.S.C. 111-100; H.A.S.C. 
111-104; H.A.S.C. 111-127; H.A.S.C. 111-134)

                               H.R. 5136

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

    On April 26, H.R. 5136 to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2011 for military activities of the Department of 
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such 
fiscal year, and for other purposes was referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
    The bill would: (1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2011 for procurement and for research, development, test, 
and evaluation (RDT&E;); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2011 for operation and maintenance (O&M;) and for working 
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2011: (a) the 
personnel strength for each active duty component of the 
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the 
Selected Reserve for each Reserve Component of the Armed 
Forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the 
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) 
modify various elements of compensation for military personnel 
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel 
actions in the defense establishment; (5) authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for military construction 
and family housing; (6) authorize appropriations for overseas 
contingency operations; (7) authorize appropriations for fiscal 
year 2011 for the Department of Energy national security 
programs; (8) modify provisions related to the National Defense 
Stockpile; and (9) authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
2011 for the Maritime Administration.
    H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011, is a key mechanism through which Congress 
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in 
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 
which grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; 
to provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the 
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X 
of the House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the 
Department of Defense generally, and over the military 
application of nuclear energy, to the Committee on Armed 
Services. The committee includes the large majority of the 
findings and recommendations resulting from its oversight 
activities in the current year, as informed by the experience 
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.
    On May 19, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services held a 
mark-up session to consider H.R. 5136. The committee, a quorum 
being present, ordered reported H.R. 5136, as amended, to the 
House with a favorable recommendation by a record vote of 59-0. 
The measure passed the House, as amended, on May 28, 2010 by a 
recorded vote of 229--186 (Roll no. 336). On June 28, 2010, the 
bill was received in the Senate, read twice and placed on 
Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 
447. No further action was taken on H.R. 5136. For further 
action on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011, please see H.R. 6523.
    (H. Rept. 111-491 parts I & II; S. Rept. 111-201; H. Rept. 
111-465; House Committee Print 5; H.A.S.C. 111-120; H.A.S.C. 
111-123; H.A.S.C. 111-124; H.A.S.C. 111-126; H.A.S.C. 111-129; 
H.A.S.C. 111-132; H.A.S.C. 111-137; H.A.S.C. 111-138; H.A.S.C. 
111-141; H.A.S.C. 111-142; H.A.S.C. 111-145; H.A.S.C. 111-147; 
H.A.S.C. 111-148; H.A.S.C. 111-151; H.A.S.C. 111-153; H.A.S.C. 
111-157; H.A.S.C. 111-159; H.A.S.C. 111-170)

                              H. RES. 477

    Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 
Representatives the fiscal year 2010 30-year shipbuilding plan relating 
to the long-term shipbuilding strategy of the Department of Defense, as 
        required by section 231 of title 10, United States Code

    H. Res. 477, ``Directing the Secretary of Defense to 
transmit to the House of Representatives the fiscal year 2010 
30-year shipbuilding plan relating to the long-term 
shipbuilding strategy of the Department of Defense, as required 
by section 231 of title 10, United States Code,'' was 
introduced on May 21, 2009, and referred to the Committee on 
Armed Services.
    Section 231 of title 10, United States Code, requires the 
Secretary of Defense to submit along with the budget request 
required by section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
for each fiscal year, a long-range plan for the construction of 
naval vessels. The long-range plan must describe the naval 
force required to meet the current national security strategy 
or the current Quadrennial Defense Review; and must certify 
that the construction plan and budget request for the current 
year, and for programmed future years is sufficient to maintain 
such a naval force.
    The budget request submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of 
title 31, United States Code, for fiscal year 2010 did not 
contain the long-range plan for the construction of naval 
vessels. On May 21, 2009, the Honorable Randy Forbes of 
Virginia introduced H. Res. 477, a resolution of inquiry that 
would direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit, within 14 
days of the adoption of the resolution, to the House of 
Representatives, the long-range construction plan for naval 
vessels along with all documents, including telephone and 
electronic mail records, logs and calendars, and records of 
internal discussions in the possession of the Secretary of 
Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget relating to the long-range plan 
for the construction of naval vessels.
    On June 16, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a 
mark-up session to consider H. Res. 477, as introduced. The 
committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. 
Res. 477, as amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation by voice vote. H. Res. 477, as amended, was 
placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 77. No further 
action was taken.
    (H. Rept. 111-167)

                              H. RES. 478

    Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 
Representatives the fiscal year 2010 30-year aviation plan relating to 
the long-term aviation plans of the Department of Defense, as required 
            by section 231a of title 10, United States Code

    H. Res. 478, ``Directing the Secretary of Defense to 
transmit to the House of Representatives the fiscal year 2010 
30-year aviation plan relating to the long-term aviation plans 
of the Department of Defense, as required by section 231a of 
title 10, United States Code,'' was introduced on May 21, 2009, 
and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    Section 231(a) of title 10, United States Code, requires 
the Secretary of Defense to submit along with the budget 
request required by section 1105(a) of title 31, United States 
Code, for each fiscal year, a long-range aviation plan. The 
long-range plan must describe the aircraft force structure 
required to meet current national security strategy or 
quadrennial defense review and must certify that the 
procurement plan and budget request for the current year and 
programmed for future years are sufficient to maintain such a 
naval force.
    The budget request submitted pursuant to section 1105(a) of 
title 10, United States Code, for fiscal year 2010 did not 
contain the long-range aviation plan. On May 21, 2009, the 
Honorable Randy Forbes of Virginia submitted H. Res. 478, a 
resolution of inquiry, which would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to transmit, within 14 days of the adoption of the 
resolution, to the House of Representatives, the long-range 
aviation plan for aircraft along with all documents, including 
telephone and electronic mail records, logs and calendars, and 
records of internal discussions in the possession of the 
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy, and the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to the 
long-range procurement plan for aircraft. The resolution was 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services.
    On June 16, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a 
mark-up session to consider H. Res. 478, as introduced. The 
committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. 
Res. 478, as amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation by voice vote. H. Res. 478, as amended, was 
placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 78. No further 
action was taken.
    (H. Rept. 111-168)

                              H. RES. 602

   Requesting that the President and directing that the Secretary of 
  Defense transmit to the House of Representatives all information in 
    their possession relating to specific communications regarding 
          detainees and foreign persons suspected of terrorism

    H. Res. 602, ``Requesting that the President and directing 
that the Secretary of Defense transmit to the House of 
Representatives all information in their possession relating to 
specific communications regarding detainees and foreign persons 
suspected of terrorism,'' was introduced on June 26, 2009, and 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The resolution 
requests the President, and directs the Secretary of Defense, 
to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 
days after the date of adoption of the resolution, copies of 
any portions of all documents, records, and communications in 
their possession referring or relating to the notification of 
rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), by the 
Department of Justice, including all component agencies, to 
foreign persons, captured in Afghanistan, who are suspected of 
terrorism and detainees in the custody of the Armed Forces of 
the United States in Afghanistan.
    On July 21, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held a 
mark-up session to consider H. Res. 602, as introduced. The 
committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. 
Res. 602, as amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation by voice vote. H. Res. 602 was amended to 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a plan, by December 
31, 2009, or three months after the adoption of the resolution, 
whichever comes later, on the impact of giving Miranda warnings 
to detainees overseas. H. Res. 602, as amended, was placed on 
the House Calendar, Calendar No. 95. No further action was 
taken.
    (H. Rept. 111-221)

                              H. RES. 924

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

    On November 19, 2009, Ranking Member McKeon introduced H. 
Res. 924 that was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. 
The resolution, as introduced, would direct the Secretary of 
Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives not later 
than 14 days after the date of the adoption of the resolution, 
copies of any document, record, memo, correspondence, or other 
communication of the Department of Defense, or any portion of 
such communication, that refers or relates to the trial or 
detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih 
Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, or 
Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawii.
    On December 15, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services held 
a mark-up session to consider H. Res. 924, as introduced. The 
committee, a quorum being present, ordered to be reported H. 
Res. 924, as amended, to the House with a favorable 
recommendation by a voice vote. H. Res. 924 was amended to 
direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of 
Representatives certain documents and records not later than 30 
days prior to the transfer of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid 
Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin 'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul 
Aziz Ali, or Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawii from the United 
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United 
States, to include, as also required by section 1041 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84), the location(s) at which the detainee will be 
held, attendant costs, a summary of the consultation required 
by section 1041, and certification that the detainee poses 
little or no risk in compliance with section 1041. 
Additionally, the title of H. Res. 924 was amended. H. Res. 
924, as amended, was placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 
147. No further action was taken.
    (H. Rept. 111-383)

Legislation Not Reported But Managed By The Committee On Armed Services 
              On The Floor Of The House Of Representatives


                                H.R. 24

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

    H.R. 24, ``To redesignate the Department of the Navy as the 
Department of the Navy and Marine Corps,'' was introduced on 
January 6, 2009, by Mr. Jones and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
McKeon waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 
Heinrich moved to consider H.R. 24, as introduced, under 
suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 
agreed to by voice vote on May 4, 2010. On May 5, 2010, H.R. 24 
was received in the Senate and read twice, and referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. No further action was taken.

                               H.R. 2990

              Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009

    H.R. 2990, ``Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 
2009,'' was introduced on April 29, 2009, by Mr. Skelton and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H.R. 2990 and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McHugh waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Skelton moved to consider H.R. 2990, introduced, 
under Suspension of the Rules of the House, and it was agreed 
to by yeas and nays, 404-0 (Roll no. 433) on June 24, 2009. 
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 572, H.R. 2990 was laid 
on the table. Please reference H.R. 2647 for further action.

                               H.R. 6494

To amend the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to 
          improve the Littoral Combat Ship program of the Navy

    H.R. 6494, ``To amend the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 to improve the Littoral Combat Ship 
program of the Navy,'' was introduced on December 2, 2010, by 
Mr. Taylor and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived 
full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Taylor moved 
to consider H.R. 6494, as amended, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote 
on December 15, 2010. On December 16, 2010, H.R. 6494 was 
received in the Senate. On December 22, 2010, the bill was read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. No 
further action was taken.

                               H.R. 6540

                    Defense Level Playing Field Act

    H.R. 6540, ``Defense Level Playing Field Act,'' was 
introduced on December 17, 2010, by Mr. Inslee and was referred 
to the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman Skelton waived 
full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Inslee moved 
to consider H.R. 6540, as introduced, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House. Mr. Inslee and Mr. Moran (KS), both of whom 
are not members of House Armed Services committee, managed the 
time on the Floor during consideration of the measure. H.R. 
6540 was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 325-23 (Roll no. 658), 
on December 21, 2010. On December 21, 2010, H.R. 6540 was 
received in the Senate, and the following day, it was read 
twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. No 
further action was taken.

                            H. CON. RES. 64

 Urging the President to designate 2009 as the ``Year of the Military 
                                Family''

    H. Con. Res. 64, ``Urging the President to designate 2009 
as the `Year of the Military Family''' was introduced on 
February 26, 2009, by Chairman Skelton and was referred to the 
House Armed Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McHugh waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Skelton moved to consider H. Con. Res. 64, as 
introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 422-0 (Roll no. 
119), on March 11, 2009. On March 12, 2009, the resolution was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary. No further action was taken.

                            H. CON. RES. 129

 Congratulating the Sailors of the United States Submarine Force upon 
 the completion of 1,000 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) 
                           deterrent patrols

    H. Con. Res. 129, ``Congratulating the Sailors of the 
United States Submarine Force upon the completion of 1,000 
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) deterrent 
patrols,'' was introduced on May 20, 2009, by Mr. Dicks and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower 
and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member 
Akin of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 129, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon subsequently waived 
full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Kissell moved 
to consider H. Con. Res. 129, as introduced, under suspension 
of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the 
yeas and nays, 412-0 (Roll no. 915), on December 2, 2009. On 
December 3, 2009, the resolution was received in the Senate and 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. No further action 
was taken.

                            H. CON. RES. 139

  Congratulating the first graduating class of the United States Air 
  Force Academy on their 50th graduation anniversary and recognizing 
                   their contributions to the Nation

    H. Con. Res. 139, ``Congratulating the first graduating 
class of the United States Air Force Academy on their 50th 
graduation anniversary and recognizing their contributions to 
the Nation,'' was introduced on June 3, 2009, by Mr. Lamborn 
and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Con. Res. 139, and Chairman Skelton and 
Ranking Member McKeon subsequently waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mrs. Davis (CA) moved to consider 
H. Con. Res. 139, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of 
the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 
411-0 (Roll no. 860), on November 5, 2009. On November 6, 2009, 
the resolution was received in the Senate and referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. No further action was taken.

                            H. CON. RES. 199

  Recognizing the 10th Anniversary of the redesignation of Company E, 
 100th Battalion, 442d Infantry Regiment of the United States Army and 
   the sacrifice of the soldiers of Company E and their families in 
                      support of the United States

    H. Con. Res. 199, ``Recognizing the 10th Anniversary of the 
redesignation of Company E, 100th Battalion, 442d Infantry 
Regiment of the United States Army and the sacrifice of the 
soldiers of Company E and their families in support of the 
United States,'' was introduced on October 13, 2009, by Mr. 
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 
199, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 
subsequently waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. Con. Res. 199, as 
amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 400-0 (Roll no. 
932), on December 8, 2009. On December 9, 2009, the resolution 
was received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on 
Armed Services. No further action was taken.

                            H. CON. RES. 206

Commending the soldiers and civilian personnel stationed at Fort Gordon 
   and their families for their service and dedication to the United 
 States and recognizing the contributions of Fort Gordon to Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom and its role as a pivotal 
                  communications training installation

    H. Con. Res. 206, ``Commending the soldiers and civilian 
personnel stationed at Fort Gordon and their families for their 
service and dedication to the United States and recognizing the 
contributions of Fort Gordon to Operation Iraqi Freedom and 
Operation Enduring Freedom and its role as a pivotal 
communications training installation,'' was introduced on 
October 28, 2009, by Mr. Broun and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman Ortiz and 
Ranking Member Forbes of the Subcommittee on Readiness waived 
subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 206, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. 
Con. Res. 206, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 404-
0 (Roll no. 933), on December 8, 2009. On December 22, 2009, 
the resolution was agreed to in the Senate without amendment 
and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

                            H. CON. RES. 286

        Recognizing the 235th birthday of the United States Army

    H. Con. Res. 286, ``Recognizing the 235th birthday of the 
United States Army,'' was introduced on June 16, 2010, by Mr. 
Edwards and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 286, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Ortiz moved to 
consider H. Con. Res. 286, as introduced, under suspension of 
the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice 
vote on June 17, 2010. On June 18, 2010, the resolution was 
received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, which was subsequently discharged. H. Con. Res. 286 
passed the Senate with amendments on June 28, 2010.

                            H. CON. RES. 319

 Recognizing the anniversary of the tragic shootings that occurred at 
                 Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009

    H. Con. Res. 319, ``Recognizing the anniversary of the 
tragic shootings that occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 
5, 2009,'' was introduced on September 22, 2010, by Mr. Carter 
(TX) and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 
Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived 
subcommittee consideration of H. Con. Res. 319, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to consider H. 
Con. Res. 319, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of 
the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on 
September 28, 2010. On September 29, 2010, the resolution was 
received in the Senate, considered, and agreed to by Unanimous 
Consent without amendment and with a preamble.

                              H. RES. 259

       Expressing the gratitude and appreciation of the House of 
Representatives for the acts of heroism and military achievement by the 
members of the United States Armed Forces who participated in the June 
 6, 1944, amphibious landing at Normandy, France, and commending them 
 for leadership and valor in an operation that helped bring an end to 
                              World War II

    H. Res. 259, ``Expressing the gratitude and appreciation of 
the House of Representatives for the acts of heroism and 
military achievement by the members of the United States Armed 
Forces who participated in the June 6, 1944, amphibious landing 
at Normandy, France, and commending them for leadership and 
valor in an operation that helped bring an end to World War 
II,'' was introduced on March 18, 2009, by Mr. Boozman and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 259, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McHugh also waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Kratovil moved to consider H. Res. 259, as 
amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by voice vote on June 2, 2009.

                              H. RES. 329

  Recognizing the anniversary of the tragic accident of the steamboat 
                            ship SS Sultana

    H. Res. 329, ``Recognizing the anniversary of the tragic 
accident of the steamboat ship SS Sultana,'' was introduced on 
April 2, 2009, by Dr. Snyder and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Committee. Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member 
McHugh waived full committee consideration of the measure. Dr. 
Snyder moved to consider H. Res. 329, as amended, under 
suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 
agreed to by the yeas and nays, 393-0 (Roll no. 207), on April 
27, 2009.

                              H. RES. 339

  Expressing the sense of the United States House of Representatives 
   regarding the hijacking of the Maersk Alabama, the kidnapping of 
   Captain Richard Phillips by Somali pirates, the rescue of Captain 
     Phillips by United States Navy SEALs and the crews of the USS 
 Bainbridge, USS Boxer, USS Halyburton and Patrol Squadron (VP) 8, and 
                           for other purposes

    H. Res. 339, ``Expressing the sense of the United States 
House of Representatives regarding the hijacking of the Maersk 
Alabama, the kidnapping of Captain Richard Phillips by Somali 
pirates, the rescue of Captain Phillips by United States Navy 
SEALs and the crews of the USS Bainbridge, USS Boxer, USS 
Halyburton and Patrol Squadron (VP) 8, and for other 
purposes,'' was introduced on April 21, 2009, by Mr. Welch and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McHugh waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Langevin moved to consider H. 
Res. 339, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote, on April 
22, 2009.

                              H. RES. 377

 Recognizing Armed Forces Day and the exemplary service of the members 
                   of the United States Armed Forces

    H. Res. 377, ``Recognizing Armed Forces Day and the 
exemplary service of the members of the United States Armed 
Forces,'' was introduced on April 29, 2009, by Mr. Calvert and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 377, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McHugh waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Massa moved to consider H. Res. 377, as 
introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 420-0 (Roll no. 
263), on May 14, 2009.

                              H. RES. 408

    Recognizing the vital role family readiness volunteers play in 
             supporting service members and their families

    H. Res. 408, ``Recognizing the vital role family readiness 
volunteers play in supporting service members and their 
families,'' was introduced on May 6, 2009, by Mrs. Davis and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 408, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mrs. Davis moved to consider H. Res. 408, as 
introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by voice vote on October 14, 2009.

                              H. RES. 445

  Recognizing 100 years of military aviation and expressing continued 
    support for military aviators of the United States Armed Forces

    H. Res. 445, ``Recognizing 100 years of military aviation 
and expressing continued support for military aviators of the 
United States Armed Forces,'' was introduced on May 14, 2009, 
by Mr. Olson and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 445, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Smith (WA) moved to consider 
H. Res. 445, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on October 
14, 2009.

                              H. RES. 471

Expressing sympathy to the victims, families, and friends of the tragic 
 act of violence at the combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty, Iraq, on 
                              May 11, 2009

    H. Res. 471, ``Expressing sympathy to the victims, 
families, and friends of the tragic act of violence at the 
combat stress clinic at Camp Liberty, Iraq, on May 11, 2009,'' 
was introduced on May 21, 2009, by Mr. Kratovil and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 471, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McHugh waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Kratovil moved to consider H. Res. 471, as 
amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 416-0 (Roll no. 
299), on June 3, 2009.

                              H. RES. 494

Recognizing the exemplary service of the soldiers of the 30th Infantry 
  Division (Old Hickory) of the United States Army during World War II

    H. Res. 494, ``Recognizing the exemplary service of the 
soldiers of the 30th Infantry Division (Old Hickory) of the 
United States Army during World War II,'' was introduced on 
June 2, 2009, by Mr. Kissell and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 494, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Kissell moved to 
consider H. Res. 494, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 
of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and 
nays, 415-0 (Roll no. 914), on December 2, 2009.

                              H. RES. 627

  Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard of the State of 
   Washington, including the 81st Brigade Combat Team (Heavy) of the 
                     Washington Army National Guard

    H. Res. 627, ``Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the 
National Guard of the State of Washington, including the 81st 
Brigade Combat Team (Heavy) of the Washington Army National 
Guard,'' was introduced on July 10, 2009, by Mr. Smith (WA) and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 627, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Smith (WA) moved to consider H. Res. 627, as 
amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by voice vote on October 14, 2009.

                              H. RES. 699

 Expressing the appreciation of Congress for the service and sacrifice 
      of the members of the 139th Airlift Wing, Air National Guard

    H. Res. 699, ``Expressing the appreciation of Congress for 
the service and sacrifice of the members of the 139th Airlift 
Wing, Air National Guard,'' was introduced on July 30, 2009, by 
Mr. Graves and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 699, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Marshall moved to consider H. 
Res. 699, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 421-
0 (Roll no. 84), on March 4, 2010.

                              H. RES. 747

  Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West Point on 
   being named by Forbes magazine as America's Best College for 2009

    H. Res. 747, ``Congratulating the United States Military 
Academy at West Point on being named by Forbes magazine as 
America's Best College for 2009,'' was introduced on September 
15, 2010, by Mr. Hall (NY) and was referred to the House Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis 
and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 747, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Marshall moved to 
consider H. Res. 747, as introduced, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas 
and nays, 416-0 (Roll no. 79), on March 3, 2010.

                              H. RES. 754

  Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the National Guard of the State of 
 Pennsylvania, including the 56th Brigade Combat Team (Stryker) of the 
  Pennsylvania Army National Guard on its return to the United States 
                        from deployment in Iraq

    H. Res. 754, ``Honoring the citizen-soldiers of the 
National Guard of the State of Pennsylvania, including the 56th 
Brigade Combat Team (Stryker) of the Pennsylvania Army National 
Guard on its return to the United States from deployment in 
Iraq,'' was introduced on September 17, 2009, by Mr. Holden and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 754, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Smith (WA) moved to consider H. Res. 754, as 
introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by voice vote on October 14, 2009.

                              H. RES. 812

 Recognizing the significant contributions of the Military Working Dog 
               Program to the United States Armed Forces

    H. Res. 812, ``Recognizing the significant contributions of 
the Military Working Dog Program to the United States Armed 
Forces,'' was introduced on October 7, 2009, by Mr. Leonard and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 812, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon also waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Marshall moved to consider H. Res. 812, as 
amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by voice vote on March 2, 2010.

                              H. RES. 845

 Recognizing the United States Air Force and Dyess Air Force Base for 
their success in achieving energy savings and developing energy-saving 
               innovations during Energy Awareness Month

    H. Res. 845, ``Recognizing the United States Air Force and 
Dyess Air Force Base for their success in achieving energy 
savings and developing energy-saving innovations during Energy 
Awareness Month,'' was introduced on October 20, 2009, by Mr. 
Neugebauer and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman Ortiz and Ranking Member 
Forbes of the Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 845, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. Res. 845, as 
amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 409-0 (Roll no. 
935), on December 8, 2009.

                              H. RES. 856

        Recognizing the Commissioning of the USS New York LPD 21

    H. Res. 856, ``Recognizing the Commissioning of the USS New 
York LPD 21,'' was introduced on October 22, 2009, by Mr. 
Nadler and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. Chairman 
Taylor and Ranking Member Akin of the Subcommittee on Seapower 
and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee consideration of 
H. Res. 856, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 
waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Taylor 
moved to consider H. Res. 856, as introduced, under suspension 
of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the 
yeas and nays, 420-0 (Roll no. 855), on November 4, 2009.

                              H. RES. 861

        Supporting the goals and ideals of Military Family Month

    H. Res. 861, ``Supporting the goals and ideals of Military 
Family Month,'' was introduced on October 22, 2009, by Mr. 
Rooney and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 861, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon also waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Kissell moved to consider H. 
Res. 861, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 417-
0 (Roll no. 916), on December 2, 2009.

                              H. RES. 868

 Honoring and recognizing the service and achievements of current and 
               former female members of the Armed Forces

    H. Res. 868, ``Honoring and recognizing the service and 
achievements of current and former female members of the Armed 
Forces,'' was introduced on October 23, 2009, by Mrs. Davis 
(CA) and was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member 
Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived 
subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 868, and Chairman Skelton 
and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee consideration 
of the measure. Mrs. Davis (CA) moved to consider H. Res. 868, 
as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and 
the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 366-0 (Roll no. 
858), on November 5, 2009.

                              H. RES. 895

 Honoring the lives of the brave soldiers and civilians of the United 
 States Army who died or were wounded in the tragic attack of November 
                      5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas

    H. Res. 895, ``Honoring the lives of the brave soldiers and 
civilians of the United States Army who died or were wounded in 
the tragic attack of November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, Texas,'' 
was introduced on November 6, 2009, by Mr. Carter (TX) and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 895, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Skelton moved to consider H. Res. 895, as 
introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 428-0 (Roll no. 
888), on November 7, 2009.

                              H. RES. 900

Honoring the sacrifices and contributions made by members of the Armed 
  Forces during the Cold War and encouraging the people of the United 
  States to participate in local and national activities honoring the 
           sacrifices and contributions of those individuals

    H. Res. 900, ``Honoring the sacrifices and contributions 
made by members of the Armed Forces during the Cold War and 
encouraging the people of the United States to participate in 
local and national activities honoring the sacrifices and 
contributions of those individuals,'' was introduced on 
November 6, 2009, by Mr. Israel and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 900, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to 
consider H. Res. 900, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 
of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and 
nays, 429-0 (Roll no. 161), on March 21, 2010.

                              H. RES. 925

  Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the 
 meritorious service performed by aviators in the United States Armed 
  Forces who, as a result of hostile action, mechanical failures, or 
  other problems, were forced to evade or escape enemy capture, were 
captured but subsequently escaped, or were compelled to endure arduous 
 confinement, retaliation, and even death as a result of their efforts 
                      to evade capture or escape.

    H. Res. 925, ``Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives regarding the meritorious service performed by 
aviators in the United States Armed Forces who, as a result of 
hostile action, mechanical failures, or other problems, were 
forced to evade or escape enemy capture, were captured but 
subsequently escaped, or were compelled to endure arduous 
confinement, retaliation, and even death as a result of their 
efforts to evade capture or escape,'' was introduced on 
November 19, 2009, by Mr. DeFazio and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 925, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to 
consider H. Res. 925, as amended, under suspension of the Rules 
of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and 
nays, 426-0 (Roll no. 164), on March 21, 2010.

                              H. RES. 940

  Recognizing and honoring the National Guard on the occasion of its 
                           373rd anniversary

    H. Res. 940, ``Recognizing and honoring the National Guard 
on the occasion of its 373rd anniversary,'' was introduced on 
December 1, 2009, by Mr. Latta and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 940, and 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to 
consider H. Res. 940, as introduced, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas 
and nays, 401-0 (Roll no. 934), on December 8, 2009.

                              H. RES. 1052

Honoring the members of the Army National Guard and Air National Guard 
 of the State of Oklahoma for their service and sacrifice on behalf of 
               the United States since September 11, 2001

    H. Res. 1052, ``Honoring the members of the Army National 
Guard and Air National Guard of the State of Oklahoma for their 
service and sacrifice on behalf of the United States since 
September 11, 2001,'' was introduced on February 2, 2010, by 
Mr. Boren and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1052, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Boren moved to consider H. 
Res. 1052, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 378-
0 (Roll no. 519), on September 14, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1066

Recognizing the bravery and efforts of the United States Armed Forces, 
local first responders, and other members of Operation Unified Response 
  for their swift and coordinated action in light of the devastation 
    wrought upon the nation of Haiti after a horrific 70 magnitude 
earthquake struck Port-Au-Prince and surrounding cities on January 12, 
                                  2010

    H. Res. 1066, ``Recognizing the bravery and efforts of the 
United States Armed Forces, local first responders, and other 
members of Operation Unified Response for their swift and 
coordinated action in light of the devastation wrought upon the 
nation of Haiti after a horrific 70 magnitude earthquake struck 
Port-Au-Prince and surrounding cities on January 12, 2010,'' 
was introduced on February 3, 2010, by Mr. Meek and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton moved to consider H. 
Res. 1066, as introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 406-
0 (Roll no. 52), on February 23, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1075

 Commending the members of the Agri-business Development Teams of the 
    National Guard and the National Guard Bureau for their efforts, 
together with personnel of the Department of Agriculture and the United 
 States Agency for International Development, to modernize agriculture 
      practices and increase food production in war-torn countries

    H. Res. 1075, ``Commending the members of the Agri-business 
Development Teams of the National Guard and the National Guard 
Bureau for their efforts, together with personnel of the 
Department of Agriculture and the United States Agency for 
International Development, to modernize agriculture practices 
and increase food production in war-torn countries,'' was 
introduced on February 4, 2010, by Mr. Luetkemeyer and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Committee. Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton moved to consider H. 
Res. 1075, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 418-
3 (Roll no. 158), on March 21, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1099

       Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima

    H. Res. 1099, ``Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the 
Battle of Iwo Jima,'' was introduced on February 23, 2010, by 
Mr. Braley and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1099, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Owens moved to consider H. 
Res. 1099, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 421-
0 (Roll no. 168), on March 21, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1119

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

    H. Res. 1119, ``Expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that all people in the United States should 
participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service 
and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both 
at home and abroad,'' was introduced on February 25, 2010, by 
Mr. Peters and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1119, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Ms. Bordallo moved to consider H. 
Res. 1119, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 400-
0 (Roll no. 169), on March 21, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1132

   Honoring the USS New Mexico as the sixth Virginia-class submarine 
  commissioned by the U.S Navy to protect and defend the United States

    H. Res. 1132, ``Honoring the USS New Mexico as the sixth 
Virginia-class submarine commissioned by the U.S, Navy to 
protect and defend the United States,'' was introduced on March 
2, 2010, by Mr. Heinrich and was referred to the House Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces. 
Chairman Taylor and Ranking Member Akin of the Subcommittee on 
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 1132, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Heinrich moved to consider H. Res. 1132, as 
amended, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 378-1 (Roll no. 
245), on May 4, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1153

Recognizing the heroic efforts of the West Virginia National Guard and 
 local responders for their work rescuing 17 individuals from a downed 
     military helicopter on a rugged, snow-covered mountain on the 
                    Pocahontas-Randolph county line

    H. Res. 1153, ``Recognizing the heroic efforts of the West 
Virginia National Guard and local responders for their work 
rescuing 17 individuals from a downed military helicopter on a 
rugged, snow-covered mountain on the Pocahontas-Randolph county 
line,'' was introduced on March 9, 2010, by Mr. Rahall and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 1153, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Critz moved to consider H. Res. 1153, as 
introduced, under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the 
measure was agreed to by voice vote on June 29, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1217

 Honoring Fort Drum's soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division for their 
 past and continuing contributions to the security of the United States

    H. Res. 1217, ``Honoring Fort Drum's soldiers of the 10th 
Mountain Division for their past and continuing contributions 
to the security of the United States,'' was introduced on March 
24, 2010, by Mr. Owens and was referred to the House Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis 
and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1217, 
and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Owens moved to 
consider H. Res. 1217, as amended, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by recorded 
vote, 415-0 (Roll no. 594), on December 1, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1251

Recognizing and honoring the American troops who gave their lives on D-
                     Day at the Battle of Normandy

    H. Res. 1251, ``Recognizing and honoring the American 
troops who gave their lives on D-Day at the Battle of 
Normandy,'' was introduced on April 14, 2010, by Mr. Poe and 
was referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson 
of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 1251, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Taylor moved to consider H. Res. 1251, as amended, 
under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 
agreed to by voice vote on September 14, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1385

 Recognizing and honoring the courage and sacrifice of the members of 
         the Armed Forces and veterans, and for other purposes

    H. Res. 1385, ``Recognizing and honoring the courage and 
sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces and veterans, and 
for other purposes,'' was introduced on May 20, 2010, by Mr. 
Skelton and was referred to the House Armed Services Committee. 
Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton moved to 
consider H. Res. 1385, as introduced, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas 
and nays, 414-0 (Roll no. 303), on May 26, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1411

    Honoring the service and commitment of the 111th Fighter Wing, 
                    Pennsylvania Air National Guard

    H. Res. 1411, ``Honoring the service and commitment of the 
111th Fighter Wing, Pennsylvania Air National Guard,'' was 
introduced on May 27, 2010, by Ms. Schwartz and was referred to 
the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 
Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. 
Res. 1411, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 
waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz 
moved to consider H. Res. 1411, as amended, under suspension of 
the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by 
recorded vote, 417-0 (Roll No. 460), on July 21, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1483

Recognizing the exemplary service and sacrifice of the soldiers of the 
     14th Armored Division of the United States Army, known as the 
                    Liberators, during World War II

    H. Res. 1483, ``Recognizing the exemplary service and 
sacrifice of the soldiers of the 14th Armored Division of the 
United States Army, known as the Liberators, during World War 
II,'' was introduced on June 28, 2010, by Mr. Gingrey and was 
referred to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel waived subcommittee 
consideration of H. Res. 1483, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking 
Member McKeon waived full committee consideration of the 
measure. Mr. Critz moved to consider H. Res. 1483, as amended, 
under suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 
agreed to by voice vote on July 20, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1516

 Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II, honoring 
the service members who fought in World War II and their families, and 
   honoring the service members who are currently serving in combat 
                               operations

    H. Res. 1516, ``Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the end 
of World War II, honoring the service members who fought in 
World War II and their families, and honoring the service 
members who are currently serving in combat operations,'' was 
introduced on July 14, 2010, by Mr. Skelton and was referred to 
the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 
Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. 
Res. 1516, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 
waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Skelton 
moved to consider H. Res. 1516, as introduced, under suspension 
of the Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the 
yeas and nays, 408-0 (Roll no. 453), on July 20, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1585

  Honoring and recognizing the exemplary service and sacrifice of the 
     60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th Air Mobility Wing, the 15th 
 Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, and the 615th Contingency Response 
     Wing civilians and families serving at Travis Air Force Base, 
                               California

    H. Res. 1585, ``Honoring and recognizing the exemplary 
service and sacrifice of the 60th Air Mobility Wing, the 349th 
Air Mobility Wing, the 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task Force, 
and the 615th Contingency Response Wing civilians and families 
serving at Travis Air Force Base, California,'' was introduced 
on July 30, 2010, by Mr. Garamendi and was referred to the 
House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. 
Chairwoman Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee 
on Military Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. 
Res. 1585, and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon 
waived full committee consideration of the measure. Mr. 
Garamendi moved to consider H. Res. 1585, as amended, under 
suspension of the Rules of the House, and the measure was 
agreed to by recorded vote, 408-0 (Roll no. 585), on November 
30, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1605

  Recognizing the service of the medical and air crews in helping our 
wounded warriors make the expeditious and safe trip home to the United 
    States and commending the personnel of the Air Force for their 
     commitment to the well-being of all our service men and women

    H. Res. 1605, ``Recognizing the service of the medical and 
air crews in helping our wounded warriors make the expeditious 
and safe trip home to the United States and commending the 
personnel of the Air Force for their commitment to the well-
being of all our service men and women,'' was introduced on 
July 30, 2010, by Mr. Thompson and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1605, 
and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to 
consider H. Res. 1605, as amended, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by voice 
vote, on September 28, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1630

        Expressing support for National POW/MIA Recognition Day

    H. Res. 1630, ``Expressing support for National POW/MIA 
Recognition Day,'' was introduced on September 16, 2010, by Mr. 
Lipinski and was referred to the House Armed Services 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman Davis and 
Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1630, and Chairman 
Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the measure. Mr. Critz moved to consider H. 
Res. 1630, as amended, under suspension of the Rules of the 
House, and the measure was agreed to by voice vote on September 
28, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1724

  Commending the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas, for its outstanding 
 support in creating a unique and lasting partnership with Little Rock 
Air Force Base, members of the Armed Forces stationed there, and their 
                                families

    H. Res. 1724, ``Commending the City of Jacksonville, 
Arkansas, for its outstanding support in creating a unique and 
lasting partnership with Little Rock Air Force Base, members of 
the Armed Forces stationed there, and their families,'' was 
introduced on November 17, 2010, by Dr. Snyder and was referred 
to the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman 
Ortiz and Ranking Member Forbes of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1724, 
and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Dr. Snyder moved to 
consider H. Res. 1724, as amended, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by the yeas 
and nays, 411-0 (Roll no. 595), on December 1, 2010.

                              H. RES. 1740

  Recognizing and honoring the National Guard on the occasion of its 
                           374th anniversary

    H. Res. 1740, ``Recognizing and honoring the National Guard 
on the occasion of its 374th anniversary,'' was introduced on 
November 29, 2010, by Mr. Latta and was referred to the House 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Chairwoman 
Davis and Ranking Member Wilson of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel waived subcommittee consideration of H. Res. 1740, 
and Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon waived full 
committee consideration of the measure. Mr. Garamendi moved to 
consider H. Res. 1740, as introduced, under suspension of the 
Rules of the House, and the measure was agreed to by recorded 
vote, 404-0 (Roll no. 586), on November 30, 2010.

                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

   National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy and Related 
                         Defense Policy Issues

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
traditional interest in the overarching national security 
challenges facing the United States and how the nation might 
best posture itself to face them, in both the near- and long-
term. The committee placed an emphasis on conducting oversight 
on issues surrounding Department of Defense efforts to improve 
United States military capabilities to address 21st century 
security challenges, including the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. Throughout both sessions of Congress, the 
committee received numerous presentations and briefings from 
representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 
joint staff, the military services, the combatant commands, 
noted academics, and other experts.
    The committee also explored certain strategic issues that 
have not been a prominent part of recent discussions of defense 
strategy, including long-term budget trends, the global 
financial crisis, and the threat of international piracy. On 
the issue of piracy, the committee focused on piracy in the 
waters off the Horn of Africa and the coast of Somalia. The 
committee had a full committee hearing on the topic and 
included several provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) such 
as increased security requirements for ships transiting high-
risk waters while carrying Department of Defense materiel.
    Much of the committee's oversight on overarching defense 
policy was a byproduct of posture and budget hearings. In 
addition, the committee held hearings on the Quadrennial 
Defense Review, discussed further below, and Secretary Gates' 
vision of the Department of Defense's priorities.

                       Quadrennial Defense Review

    The committee has remained concerned about both the process 
of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and the report required 
at the conclusion of the review and, anticipating the delivery 
of the 2010 QDR, reiterated and clarified those concerns in the 
first session of the 111th Congress. In the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), 
Congress required additional reporting requirements and added 
12 congressionally appointed members to the Secretary of 
Defense's independent review panel. The committee met regularly 
with Department of Defense personnel to influence the review as 
it was being conducted, and then held two hearings and a major 
classified briefing on the QDR once the report was released.

                         The War in Afghanistan

    The committee continued its pattern of conducting vigorous 
oversight of issues related to the war in the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan. The committee held numerous hearings, detailed 
elsewhere, on the status of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and 
the way ahead in that conflict, including two with General 
David Petraeus, the former Commander of United States Central 
Command and current Commander of the International Security 
Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations also conducted a series of three 
hearings to receive testimony from independent experts on 
options for U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and the Republic of 
Iraq.
    The committee acted on a number of legislative proposals to 
enhance U.S. progress in Afghanistan and oversight of the 
United States effort in that country. In the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the 
committee provided authority to transfer certain defense 
articles from United States stocks in Iraq and the State of 
Kuwait to the Afghan National Security Forces. The committee 
further required the Department of Defense to develop a program 
for the registration and end-use monitoring of defense articles 
and defense services transferred to Afghanistan and the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan. Public Law 111-84 also updated a number 
of reporting requirements, including modifying the report on 
progress towards stability and security in Afghanistan and the 
report on the command and control structure for military forces 
in Afghanistan. In addition, the Act required a new report on 
community-based security programs in Afghanistan and required 
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to begin regular 
reporting on the campaign plan for Afghanistan.
    The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), further adjusted reporting 
requirements to take into consideration the President's new 
strategy in Afghanistan by requiring a discussion the 
conditions that would need to exist to transition security 
responsibilities in key areas to the Afghan National Security 
Forces. The Act also established a new, stand-alone authority 
to fund projects and activities related to reintegrating former 
Taliban fighters into Afghan society, and established that each 
combat brigade deployed to Afghanistan should be provided the 
requisite number of combat enablers. In addition, the Act would 
require that the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction, in consultation with the Inspectors General of 
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the 
Agency for International Development, to issue recommendations 
for additional oversight of contractors in Afghanistan. The Act 
also limits the amount of funds that could be provided for 
elections in Afghanistan until the President of the United 
States made certifications about the ability of certain Afghan 
governmental institutions to oversee such elections. Finally, 
the Act requires a study of the long-term costs of Operation 
Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
    During the 111th Congress, members and staff of the House 
Committee on Armed Services traveled to Afghanistan on numerous 
occasions to conduct oversight on the ground and meet with 
commanders, U.S. troops, diplomats, and Afghan officials to 
improve the members understanding of U.S. objectives and 
operations. At least 30 members of the committee and 27 members 
of the committee staff led or participated in more than 22 
trips to Afghanistan.

                            The War in Iraq

    In the 111th Congress, the committee continued its pattern 
of vigorous oversight of the war in Iraq. The committee held 
several hearings regarding the war, including with the 
commander of Multi-National Forces--Iraq (now United States 
Forces--Iraq), the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction, the GAO, senior officials from the Department 
of Defense, and experts from outside the government. In 
addition, the committee held a number of classified briefings, 
particularly on the subject of the redeployment of U.S. forces 
from Iraq, which included briefers from the Joint Staff, the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the commander of 
Multi-National Forces--Iraq.
    The committee also continued to enact provisions and report 
requirements concerning Iraq and the redeployment of U.S. 
forces from that country. In the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the committee 
formalized a requirement for the GAO to examine and report on 
shortcomings in the Joint Campaign Plan jointly authored by 
commander of Multi-National Forces--Iraq (now United States 
Forces--Iraq) and the U.S. Ambassador to Baghdad. The committee 
also provided authority for the Department of Defense to 
transfer certain military equipment present in Iraq or Kuwait 
to the Government of Iraq to assist in further building the 
Iraqi Security Forces.
    The committee took further action in the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 
6523), modifying some reporting requirements to better reflect 
the ongoing redeployment of United States Forces from Iraq. In 
addition, the committee required a report on the long-term 
costs associated with the war in Iraq. Finally, following on 
the heels of legislation passed in the 110th Congress, the 
committee required a report on the status of Iraqi citizens who 
worked on behalf of the United States or associated 
organizations.
    Members of the committee and committee staff continued to 
travel to Iraq during the 111th Congress to provide on-the-
ground oversight and to meet with U.S. commanders, officials 
from the Department of State, and officials of the government 
of Iraq. At least 22 members of the committee and 19 committee 
staff led or participated in more than 12 trips to Iraq, and a 
number of members and staff traveled to Iraq on more than one 
occasion.

                     Interagency Process and Reform

    In the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
longstanding interest in efforts to improve and reform the 
interagency national security process. The committee held a 
number of hearings and briefings to conduct oversight on how 
the Department of Defense works with, coordinates with, and 
supports other departments. The committee also held hearings 
throughout the 111th Congress conducting oversight of U.S. 
Southern Command and U.S. Africa Command; two combatant 
commands at the forefront of reorganizing to better integrate 
interagency partners and address transnational threats through 
whole-of-government approaches.
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also 
conducted two hearings examining recommendations to strengthen 
and reform interagency cooperation. In the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-81), the 
committee required the Secretary of Defense to commission a 
study of the interagency national security system by an 
independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization. The resulting 
study, conducted by the Project on National Security Reform 
(PNSR), recommended sweeping reforms of the Government's 
national security system. The subcommittee held a hearing to 
receive testimony, commentary, and alternative views from 
independent witnesses on the findings and recommendations of 
the PNSR report. In a follow-up hearing, the subcommittee 
explored next-steps that could be taken by the committee and 
Congress to enhance interagency national security 
collaboration.
    As a result of this oversight, the committee undertook 
significant legislative activities to further address problems 
regarding the interagency national security system. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84) required the President to commission a study on 
creation of a system for the development and management of 
interagency national security professionals across the United 
States Government. The Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) requires the 
Secretary of Defense to commission a study to assess the 
current state of interagency national security knowledge and 
skills possessed by Department of Defense civilians and 
uniformed personnel. The committee expects this study to 
provide the Department and Congress a baseline understanding of 
the interagency knowledge and skills of Department personnel 
and provide actionable recommendations for how to improve such 
knowledge and skills. Another provision in the Act would 
require the Comptroller General to assess the need for and 
implications of a common alignment of world regions in the 
internal organization of departments and agencies with 
international responsibilities.

                     Building Partnership Capacity

    The committee continued its oversight of ``building 
partnership capacity,'' a phrase used to describe a series of 
Department of Defense initiatives designed to strengthen (i.e. 
``train and equip'') the security forces of partner nations 
critical to the national security of the United States. These 
initiatives require the Department of Defense to engage in 
significant consultation and coordination with the Department 
of State, which sets policy for foreign military assistance. 
Accordingly, the committee conducted multiple train and equip 
related briefings with the Department of Defense, in 
conjunction the Department of State and other governmental 
agencies, both as part of the routine congressional 
notification process and as part of an ongoing effort to 
evaluate the building partnership capacity-related programs. 
The committee also sent several delegations overseas to observe 
the execution of these programs.
    As part of this effort, the committee worked with the 
Department of Defense to clarify congressional intent on how 
the global train and equip authority could be used, and in the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (H.R. 6523), extended that authority through fiscal year 
2012.
    The committee is also aware of an ongoing effort within the 
U.S. Government to take a holistic look at the security 
assistance and security cooperation authorities that current 
law provides both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
State in an effort to determine the proper mix and design of 
these authorities in the future. Therefore, the committee 
extended the authority for the Secretary of Defense to provide 
support to the Secretary of State for the purposes of security 
and stability assistance for one year in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), and 
then allowed it to expire, while strongly encouraging the 
Administration to move that funding into the Department of 
State's budget for fiscal year 2011. The Administration 
complied with this direction.

        Organization and Management of the Department of Defense

    In keeping with the tradition established in the Goldwater 
Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 
(Public Law 99-433), the committee continued to exercise 
oversight of the organization and management of the Department 
of Defense during the 111th Congress. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
established specific legislative requirements to standardize 
certain senior positions to streamline the Department's 
organization. The Department was required to submit a plan as 
to how it would comply with that statute. Upon receipt of the 
plan, the committee allowed the Department to enact those 
changes within the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The committee also 
examined the critical issues of management and organization 
described immediately below.
    In upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud, 
abuse, or mismanagement in federal government programs, and 
pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 2(n), (o), and (p), the 
committee met several times to conduct oversight over 
Department of Defense activities, as detailed below in this 
report.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-7; H.A.S.C. 111-14; H.A.S.C. 111-15; H.A.S.C. 
111-57; H.A.S.C. 111-61)

                           Roles and Missions

    The committee received the report of the quadrennial roles 
and missions review along with the President's budget request 
for fiscal year 2010 as required by section 181b of title 10, 
United States Code. In addition to outlining the Department's 
overall approach to organizing its roles and missions and 
identifying the Department's core mission areas and core 
competencies, the review contained specific recommendations on 
the division of responsibilities within the Department in the 
areas of irregular warfare, cyberspace, unmanned aerial 
vehicles, and intra-theater lift. During the 111th Congress, 
the committee performed significant oversight on these focus 
areas as detailed below in this report.

                       Chief Management Officers

    The committee continued to perform oversight on the 
Department's implementation of the requirements to establish a 
Chief Management Officer for the Department of Defense, a 
Deputy Chief Management Officer, and Chief Management Officers 
of the Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and the 
Department of the Air Force. In addition to receiving testimony 
from these officials as previously discussed, the committee 
reviewed the resources and staffing associated with these 
officials' organizations as part of its review of the 
President's budget requests for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to 
determine their sufficiency in enabling better management 
capabilities.

                         Efficiency Initiative

    The Department of Defense began a major process in May 2010 
of identifying efficiencies in the way it operates. The 
efficiency initiative was undertaken in response to the long-
term budget challenges confronting the Department which will 
constrain its ability to sustain the budget and program growth 
of the previous decade. The committee explored the Department's 
long-term budget challenges in-depth in a hearing with defense 
budget experts in November 2009. After the efficiency 
initiative was announced, the committee provided oversight to 
the initiative in two hearings with senior Department witnesses 
as well as with numerous additional staff and member-level 
exchanges. The committee's focus has been on ensuring that the 
Department has a solid analytical basis for decisions made in 
the efficiency initiative to ensure that these decisions both 
support national security and reduce cost.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-108)

             Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Threat Reduction

    The committee conducted oversight of the Department of 
Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program and 
Department of Energy nuclear nonproliferation programs. The 
committee held hearings and briefings on specific programs and 
issues, including a hearing on the report of the Commission on 
the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and 
Terrorism, and briefings on the nuclear programs of the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic 
of Iran, and on nuclear smuggling.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84), the committee authorized program 
funding increases, including for the Department of Energy 
Global Threat Reduction Initiative to secure and eliminate 
vulnerable nuclear and radiological material around the world. 
The committee also authorized funding for new CTR initiatives 
to strengthen and expand the CTR Program. In addition, the 
committee provided authority for urgent nonproliferation and 
threat reduction activities; provided authority to accept 
international contributions for certain program activities; and 
required the Secretary of Defense to develop metrics for the 
CTR Program. In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the committee authorized 
the full amount of the budget request for the CTR Program and 
Department of Energy nuclear nonproliferation programs.

                            Detainee Affairs

    The committee dedicated significant attention to the 
evolving legal and policy-based framework related to detention 
operations and trials by military commission. The committee 
held two full committee hearings dedicated to these issues. On 
July 16, 2009, the committee received testimony from senior 
military lawyers on the implications of proposed reforms to the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006 on the prosecutions of certain 
detainees for violations of the law of war and other crimes. 
The following week, on July 24, 2009, the committee received 
testimony from Administration witnesses on the same subject 
matter. In addition to these two public hearings, which 
centered specifically on laws and policies affecting detainees, 
and four posture hearings, which addressed these same matters 
as part of a broader discussion, the committee conducted 
numerous member and staff-level briefings related to detainee 
affairs. Many of the particulars involving the custody, 
interrogation, treatment, and prosecution of detainees are 
sensitive law enforcement matters and are classified. 
Consequently, much of the committee's oversight of detainee 
issues was conducted in classified form and cannot be 
delineated in this report. Additionally, members and staff of 
the committee made several trips to U.S. Naval Station, 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Republic of Iraq, the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, and Thomson, Illinois to review actual 
and proposed detainee operations at these locations.
    The committee's activities with respect to detainee affairs 
resulted in numerous legislative provisions being enacted into 
law. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84) incorporated the Military Commissions 
Act of 2009, which superseded the Military Commissions Act of 
2006 and introduced various substantive and procedural reforms 
to the statutory basis for using military commissions to try 
certain detainees accused of violations of the law of war or 
other criminal offenses. Public Law 111-84 also included 
provisions that: prohibit contractor personnel from 
interrogating detainees; prohibit members of the Armed Forces 
from issuing Miranda warnings to individuals captured or 
detained as an enemy belligerent outside of the United States; 
provided notification and access for the International 
Committee of the Red Cross to detainees held at Bagram Air 
Base, Afghanistan; and limited the use of funds for the 
transfer or release of individuals detained at U.S. Naval 
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Act also required the 
President to submit to the congressional defense committees a 
comprehensive plan for the disposition of those individuals 
detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
    The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) imposes a prohibition on the use 
of funds to effect the transfer or release of individuals 
detained at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into the 
United States, and it specifies certain limitations and 
procedures related to transfer of those detainees to foreign 
destinations. It prohibits the use of funds to modify or 
construct facilities in the United States, its territories, or 
possessions to house detainees transferred from U.S. Naval 
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for the purposes of detention or 
imprisonment. The Act also requires the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the 
merits, costs, and risks of using any facility within the 
United States, its territories, or possessions for those same 
purposes.

          Global Security Assessment and Intelligence Matters

    In keeping with its past practice, the committee remained 
mindful that potential areas of conflict beyond those where 
current operations are underway require significant attention 
and also that understanding the regional context of ongoing 
operations is critical to developing strategies for success, 
particularly with respect to stability operations. During each 
session of the 111th Congress, first on February 26, 2009, and 
then on April 28, 2010, the committee was briefed by the 
intelligence community on its classified assessment of global 
security issues. The committee held a number of hearings and 
classified intelligence briefings regarding emerging threats 
and matters of strategic intelligence. On February 24, 2009, 
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces was briefed by the 
intelligence community on the Iranian space launch and possible 
missile test by the North Korean government. On March 17, 2009, 
the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces held a 
briefing on threats to the future naval force. On June 3, 2009, 
the committee was briefed on North Korea's recent nuclear test 
and missile launches; and then, on June, 24, 2009, on North 
Korea's long-range missile capabilities. On October 28, 2009, 
the committee received a classified briefing on the status of 
the Iranian nuclear program.
    On January 13, 2010, the committee received a briefing on 
terrorist threats emanating from Yemen. On March 11, 2010, the 
committee was briefed on Iranian threats to U.S. forces in the 
Middle East. On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces was briefed on ballistic missile proliferation issues in 
Iran and North Korea. On May 5, 2010, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces was briefed by the Defense Intelligence Agency 
analysts on nuclear weapons capabilities of Russia and China. 
On September 15, 2010, the committee was briefed on Hezbollah, 
Hamas and Lebanon. On November 30, 2010, the Subcommittee on 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities held a 
hearing that examined the continued crisis in the Democratic 
Republic of Congo and the implications for U.S. national 
security.
    The committee continued to coordinate with the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence and the Office of the 
Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence in the 
implementation of the new Military Intelligence Program. In 
particular, the committees worked to adopt a common perspective 
on major system acquisitions including satellite systems and 
unmanned aerial vehicles. Several issues, detailed immediately 
below, received particular focus in the committee's oversight.

                                Pakistan

    The committee held hearings on security and stability in 
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, focusing both on the internal 
security and stability of that nation, and on the unique 
security challenges arising in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border 
region. The committee also held numerous briefings on issues 
relating to Pakistan including intelligence briefings and 
briefings on the use of Department of Defense coalition support 
funds for Pakistan and the Department of Defense Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund. The committee reviewed several specific 
issues related to Pakistan whose classification level precludes 
any discussion in this report, but which were nonetheless 
important to the committee's oversight.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84), the committee extended the 
requirement for detailed notifications on coalition support 
funds for Pakistan; provided authority for the funds to be used 
for specialized training, supplies and equipment; and required 
quarterly reports on the use of the funds. Additionally, the 
committee authorized the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund to 
improve the counterinsurgency capabilities of Pakistan security 
forces and to provide limited humanitarian assistance to 
Pakistan as part of civil-military training exercises. The 
committee also required a program for the registration and end-
use monitoring of defense articles and services transferred to 
Afghanistan and Pakistan; a Department of Defense assessment of 
possible alternatives to coalition support funds for Pakistan; 
and a semi-annual presidential report on progress toward 
security and stability in Pakistan, which would include goals, 
objectives and timelines for achieving progress in specified 
areas and metrics to measure progress.
    In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the committee provided authority 
for coalition support funds to be used by Pakistan to confront 
the threat posed by Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan; and 
also extended the requirement for detailed notifications on 
coalition support funds for Pakistan. Additionally, the 
committee authorized a one-year extension of the Pakistan 
Counterinsurgency Fund.

                                  Iran

    During the 111th Congress, the committee held two 
classified briefings to consider aspects of the situation 
concerning the Islamic Republic of Iran. These briefings 
addressed the Iranian nuclear program and Iran's relationship 
to various terrorist organizations in the Middle East, 
particularly Hezbollah and Hamas. These briefings were 
conducted by members of the intelligence community and 
representatives from the Department of Defense.
    The committee enacted a number of pieces of significant 
legislation concerning Iran as part of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The 
committee required a report on United States engagement with 
Iran as well as a new annual report on the military power of 
Iran. The Act also included a sense of Congress concerning 
sanctions on Iran, and included the Victims of Iranian 
Censorship (the ``VOICE Act''). This Act authorized funds to 
expand Farsi language broadcasting into Iran, enhance 
technology to counter efforts to block or censor the Internet 
in Iran, and other purposes.
    The committee continued to pay close attention to Iran and 
to enact legislation on this subject in the second session of 
the 111th Congress. As part of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the 
committee included a requirement for the Department of Defense 
to produce a National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran. 
In addition, the committee included a prohibition on defense 
contracts with any entity or successor entity that engages in 
commercial activity in the energy sector of Iran.

                                 China

    The committee continued to monitor a range of significant 
security developments in the People's Republic of China. The 
committee held hearings and briefings on a range of specific 
issues, including China's defense budget and military 
modernization; U.S.-China military-to-military contacts and 
security cooperation; the security situation in the Taiwan 
Strait and the South and East China Seas; and the findings of 
the Department of Defense Annual Report to Congress: Military 
Power of the People's Republic of China, required by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public 
Law 106-65). Additionally, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, 
Unconventional Threats and Capabilities addressed the impact of 
China activities in cyberspace through a number of briefings 
and hearings related to U.S. computer network operations
    Additionally, in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), the committee expanded 
the scope of the Annual Department of Defense Report to include 
information on U.S. engagement and cooperation with China on 
security matters, including through military-to-military 
contacts, and the U.S. strategy for such engagement and 
cooperation in the future.

                            Korean Peninsula

    The committee continued to monitor the security situation 
on the Korean peninsula. The committee held briefings on North 
Korea's nuclear and missile activities, as well as the sinking 
of a South Korean navy ship, the Cheonan, on March 26, 2010, 
and the firing on Yeonpyeong Island on November 23, 2010.
    The committee also continued to monitor progress of the 
relocation of U.S. forces in the Republic of Korea and the plan 
to transfer wartime operational control of Republic of Korea 
forces to the Republic of Korea.

             Department of Defense Counter-Drug Activities

    The committee continued its oversight of Department of 
Defense involvement in worldwide drug interdiction and counter-
drug activities, and was generally supportive of those efforts. 
The Department's drug interdiction and counter-drug activities 
budget was structured in fiscal year 2010 to address four broad 
priorities: (1) international support; (2) domestic support; 
(3) intelligence and technology support; and (4) demand 
reduction. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) authorized $1.4 billion to fund 
execution of these priorities, including $356.6 million for 
international support within the U.S. Central Command's area of 
operations. The Act also devoted an entire sub-title to 
counter-drug activities provisions, which included re-
authorizations of important counter-drug programs, such as the 
ongoing unified counter-drug and counter-terrorism campaign in 
the Republic of Colombia, and expanded reporting requirements 
regarding foreign assistance and joint task force support to 
law enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism 
activities.
    The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for 
Department of Defense drug interdiction and counter-drug 
activities was prioritized in the same manner as the fiscal 
year 2010 budget. The Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) authorizes 
$1.6 billion toward these priorities, and it supports various 
programmatic extensions and reporting requirements. It extends 
and modifies the authority for joint task force support to law 
enforcement agencies conducting counterterrorism activities, 
and it expands a notice requirement for military construction 
projects for facilities supporting counter-drug activities.
    During the 111th Congress, the committee monitored numerous 
regional developments in the production, trafficking, and usage 
of illicit drugs. The committee voiced particular concern over 
growth trends in the drug trade and related criminal activities 
in Central and Southern Asia, the United Mexican States, 
Central America, and the African continent, and, with respect 
to certain regions, the committee subsequently recommended 
legislative and policy-based responses.
    The committee worked closely with the Department of Defense 
to optimize the Department's participation in inter-agency, 
counter-drug efforts in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, 
wherein poppy cultivation and opium production continue to 
flourish. However, the committee expressed concern that the 
Department has not adequately focused its counter-drug 
resources with respect to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The 
committee noted that the Department primarily allocates 
counter-drug funding to efforts along the Makran coast and to 
counter-insurgency/counterterrorism efforts within the 
Northwest Frontier Province, rather than to address pronounced 
trafficking through Baluchistan, Pakistan. To reduce 
duplicative efforts with respect to counter-insurgency and 
counterterrorism efforts, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 prohibited the use of Department of 
Defense drug interdiction and counter-drug funds for the 
construction, expansion, repair, or operation and maintenance 
of any border coordination center in Afghanistan or Pakistan, 
absent a waiver from the Secretary of Defense predicated on 
vital national security interests. The committee has 
consistently encouraged the Department to focus more of its 
interdiction and counter-drug efforts on the difficult 
situation in Baluchistan and to keep the committee informed of 
its progress.
    The committee was also particularly attentive to 
significant increases in drug cartel crime and violence in the 
United Mexican States, especially along the U.S.-Mexico border. 
Conditions conducive to illicit activities along Mexico's 
borders with Belize and the Republic of Guatemala prompted the 
committee to support coordinated Departmental and inter-agency 
efforts to build governmental capacities to remedy those 
conditions in each of the three neighboring states. The 
committee also registered its concerned interest over the 
recent influx of illicit drug trafficking operations that 
effect intercontinental transshipments via one or more African 
states. Because of these regionally contextualized concerns and 
others, the committee supported Department of Defense drug 
interdiction and counter-drug activities for fiscal year 2011.

                           ACQUISITION ISSUES

    The acquisition policy of the Department of Defense serves 
as an important enabler for both the modernization and 
operation of the Armed Forces. At the same time, acquisition 
policy must protect the taxpayers' interest and ensure the 
optimal use of the Department's resources. The committee 
continued its tradition of seeking to strike the proper balance 
between these sometimes competing priorities.

                  Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform

    On March 17, 2009, the committee organized a panel on 
defense acquisition reform pursuant to Committee Rule 5(a). The 
committee was responding to widespread concerns among its 
members that the defense acquisition system was not responsive 
enough to the Department's current mission needs; not rigorous 
enough in protecting taxpayers; and not disciplined enough in 
the acquisition of weapons systems for tomorrow's wars. The 
breadth of the problems that had come to light in the 
committee's oversight efforts led the committee to conclude 
that a systemic examination was appropriate. The panel's 
oversight covered three phases, including: an examination of 
how the Department of Defense measures performance in defense 
acquisition; a look at a range of specific issues in defense 
acquisition ranging from acquisition of weapon systems to 
contracted services to information technology to identify 
common problems and solutions; and an effort to get feedback on 
the committee's initial findings from outside experts and the 
Department of Defense. The panel took a year to perform its 
review, holding 14 hearings and several other briefings and 
meetings. It delivered its final findings and recommendations 
to the full committee on March 23, 2010. These findings served 
as the basis for committee, and subsequent House of 
Representatives, approval of H.R. 5013, Implementing Management 
for Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every 
Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010). The 
IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 was included as subtitle F of 
title VIII of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523).

                        Contingency Contracting

    Since September 11, 2001, contingency contracting has been 
a major area of focus of the committee's oversight. During the 
111th Congress, much of this work was carried out by the 
Subcommittee on Readiness, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations, and the Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform. 
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing 
examining the progress made by the Department of Defense and 
the Army in implementing the recommendations of the Commission 
on Army Acquisition and Program Management in Expeditionary 
Operations (known as the ``Gansler Commission''). The Gansler 
Commission found substantial workforce, organizational, and 
doctrinal problems with the Army's contingency contracting 
capabilities. The commission made a series of recommendations 
to ensure that contracting in future contingency operations has 
greater effectiveness, efficiency, and transparency to reduce 
waste, fraud, and abuse. In section 849 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-18), the 
committee required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
evaluating the commission's recommendations and detailing any 
plans for implementing them. The report supported several 
provisions related to contingency contracting in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84), the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), and the IMPROVE Acquisition Act 
of 2010 (H.R. 5013).
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations also held 
two hearings examining interagency coordination of contracts in 
contingency environments. These hearings assessed progress made 
by the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the 
United States Agency for International Development (USAID) 
regarding coordination of their contracting in the Republic of 
Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. As a result of 
these hearings, several actions were taken both by the 
committee and by the Administration. Section 813 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84) clarified that the requirements of section 861 of 
Public Law 110-18 applies to ``grants'' and ``cooperative 
agreements'' as well as contracts to improve coordination of 
all such activities and amended thresholds applicable to 
covered contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. The 
committee also addressed concerns expressed by several major 
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in Iraq and 
Afghanistan under U.S. grants and cooperative agreements about 
the collection of detailed personal information on their 
employees. In title VIII of the committee report (H. Rept. 111-
491) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011, the committee included an item of special of 
interest, ``Matters Relating to the Common Database for 
Tracking Contracts and Contractor Personnel in Iraq and 
Afghanistan,'' which clarified that the statute does not 
require the collection of detailed personal information on such 
employees unless they are performing private security 
functions, require access to U.S. facilities or support, or 
desire consideration for refugee or special immigrant status 
under the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act of 2007 (subtitle C of 
title XII of Public Law 110-181).
    Other provisions of law were adopted as a direct result of 
the committee's extensive oversight of contingency contracting. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) extended the term of the Commission on 
Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to enable the 
commission sufficient time to complete its review of policy 
issues associated with contingency contracting. The committee 
also examined the issue of unsafe conditions at facilities used 
in contingency operations that were maintained by contractors. 
Public Law 111-84 authorized the Secretary of Defense to deny 
or reclaim award fees paid to contractors when a determination 
is made that a contractor's performance resulted in serious 
bodily injury or death for Department of Defense personnel. As 
detailed elsewhere in this report, the committee also acted on 
several matters relating to the use of private security 
contractors in both contingency and non-contingency operations.

                         Acquisition Workforce

    Recognizing that improving quality and performance of the 
Department's acquisition workforce are as important as 
improvements to acquisition processes and structures, the 
committee continued its efforts to ensure that the Department's 
acquisition workforce is adequately staffed, skilled and 
trained. As the committee noted in the report of the Panel on 
Defense Acquisition Reform, the Department is probably the 
largest buying enterprise in the world. From fiscal year 2001 
to fiscal year 2008, the Department's annual purchase of goods 
and services more than doubled to $388 billion. The number of 
contract actions also increased significantly and grew in 
dollar value and complexity. Yet, the size of the acquisition 
workforce within the Department remained relatively steady over 
that timeframe, between 126,000 and 129,000 civilian personnel. 
For fiscal year 2010, the Department announced that it would 
increase in-house civilian and military personnel by 4,765 
authorizations for positions, with the intent to grow the 
acquisition workforce to 147,000 total personnel by 2015. The 
Department also undertook a comprehensive review of its 
acquisition workforce capabilities.
    To support these efforts, the committee recommended 
provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to enhance the expedited hiring 
authority for defense acquisition workforce positions and make 
further improvements to the defense acquisition workforce 
development fund. Furthermore, the committee's Panel on Defense 
Acquisition Reform focused significant attention on defense 
acquisition workforce issues, and held a hearing on July 21, 
2009, entitled ``shaping a workforce for today's acquisition 
environment that can meet DOD's needs.'' In its final report, 
the Panel made several recommendations related to the 
acquisition workforce. These recommendations included: 
establishing a career path for civilian and military personnel 
in the acquisition field, implementing the performance 
management and hiring reforms authorized in Public Law 111-84, 
extending the Acquisition Workforce Demonstration Program, 
expanding workforce incentive and internship programs, and 
enhancing the education, training and recertification 
requirements of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement 
Act (Public Law 101-510). These recommendations were 
incorporated into the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 (H.R. 
5013), which passed the House on April 28, 2010. This measure 
subsequently was included as subtitle F of title VIII of the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (H.R. 6523).

                        Contracting for Services

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Defense's contracts for services. As the committee previously 
has noted, while weapon systems remain the prime focus for 
defense acquisition, the money is actually shifting to 
services, with the acquisition of services now representing a 
majority of the DOD budget. Building on efforts to improve 
accountability of service contracting, the committee 
recommended provisions in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that required an 
independent assessment of improvements and oversight in service 
contracting, and clarified requirements related to the annual 
service contracting inventory and the fiscal year budget 
displays for the acquisition of services.
    Furthermore, the committee's Panel on Defense Acquisition 
Reform focused significant attention on service contracting and 
supply chain management issues. As noted in its final report, 
the panel believes that service contracts require at least the 
same level of discipline as weapon systems acquisition. Such 
discipline is critical for planning, requirements definition, 
market research, price reasonableness determinations, and 
project management and oversight. The panel held two hearings 
related to service contracting. In its final report, the panel 
recommended that each military service develop specific 
processes for identifying, assessing and approving requirements 
for the acquisition of services, and recommended regulatory 
changes to better address service contracting acquisition and 
accountability. These recommendations were incorporated into 
the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 (H.R. 5013), which passed 
the House on April 28, 2010. This measure subsequently was 
included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523).

                   Major Defense Acquisition Programs

    The committee continued its traditional work on acquisition 
policy relating to major defense acquisition programs and the 
acquisition of major weapon systems. In the 111th Congress, its 
most notable acquisition oversight activities were in support 
of its consideration of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform 
Act of 2009 (H.R. 2101), which dealt exclusively with major 
defense acquisition programs, and the IMPROVE Acquisition Act 
of 2010 (H.R. 5013), which dealt with issues relating to major 
defense acquisition programs as well as the acquisition of 
services and information technology. The section of this report 
regarding the committee's legislative actions more fully 
describes the details of this legislation.
    The committee held two major hearings on acquisition reform 
prior to considering the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2009. The Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform held 14 
hearings and several meetings and briefings in support of 
committee consideration of the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010. 
The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) set a deadline for the Department of 
Defense to incorporate consideration of manufacturing risk into 
its evaluation of major defense acquisition programs and 
clarified the manner in which cost estimates are to be used for 
contract negotiations.

                   Government-wide Acquisition Policy

    The committee also continued its tradition of working 
closely with other committees, and especially with the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to enact 
legislation making improvements to government-wide acquisition 
policy and contracting authorities. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
clarified the application of the government-wide suspension and 
debarment process to ensure that the suspension and debarment 
of contractors extends to the award of subcontracts with only 
limited exceptions. It also extended the authority for the use 
of simplified acquisition procedures for commercial items under 
the federal acquisition regulation and required public written 
justification and approval documentation for the award of sole-
source contracts over $20.0 million to certain native 
corporations. In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), the committee required a 
review of the usage of the national security exception to 
competition under the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984 
(10 U.S.C. 2304 and 41 U.S.C. 253).

            Defense Industrial Base and Technology Controls

    As part of the committee's longstanding interest in the 
defense industrial base, particularly the need to ensure the 
supply of strategic materials critical for defense, the 
committee conducted active oversight of these issues during the 
111th Congress. Title IV of the IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010 
(subtitle F of title VIII of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011) requires the Department 
of Defense to expand and strengthen the defense industrial 
base, including through the establishment of a Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base 
Policy and an Industrial Base Fund.
    In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2010 (Public Law 111-84), the committee directed the 
Comptroller General of the United States to study the domestic 
and worldwide availability of rare earth elements for use in 
defense systems and conduct an analysis of actions or events 
that could restrict Department of Defense access to such 
elements. The provision also required the Comptroller General 
to assess which defense systems are dependent upon rare earth 
elements and identify any actions the Department has taken or 
is planning to take to address rare earth element supply chain 
risks. On April 1, 2010, the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) submitted the report resulting from this study to 
Congress. The GAO report highlighted a number of issues and 
concerns, particularly the People's Republic of China's near-
monopoly in many steps of the rare earth element supply chain, 
the long lead-time associated with rebuilding a domestic supply 
chain, the widespread usage of rare earth elements in diverse 
defense applications, the current lack of substitutes for rare 
earth elements in many applications, and the Department of 
Defense's lack of hard data on its demand for and usage of rare 
earth elements.
    As a result of the GAO report, in April 2010 the committee 
directed the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations to 
conduct an investigation of rare earth elements, their 
prevalence in the defense supply chain, and any potential 
national security vulnerabilities resulting from their usage in 
defense applications. The subcommittee met with a variety of 
experts from across the government and military, independent 
think-tanks and universities, and the rare earth element 
industry. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) also addressed rare earth 
elements. It would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct 
an assessment of the supply chain for rare earth elements and 
determine which, if any, rare earth elements are strategic or 
critical to national security. In the event the Secretary 
determines that a rare earth element is strategic or critical 
to national security, the provision would require the Secretary 
to develop a plan to ensure the long-term availability of the 
materials.
    The committee also acted to ensure the continued supply of 
beryllium for certain defense uses by raising the threshold 
applicable to an industrial support project for beryllium being 
carried out by the Department of Defense under the Defense 
Production Act. After committee oversight determined that the 
Department was utilizing several important definitions relating 
to strategic and critical materials that were inconsistent with 
title 10, United States Code, the committee included two 
provisions in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) that would clarify these 
definitions to ensure that more strategic and critical 
materials are subject to review by the Department.
    The committee also acted to increase the Department's focus 
on industrial security by requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
review whether to extend the current requirement for government 
security committees on corporate boards to all contractors 
required to maintain a facility clearance, not just those 
subject to foreign ownership, control, and influence.
    In the area of technology controls, the committee engaged 
in regular oversight of the Administration's activities 
relating to the reform of export controls, working with the 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The committee's oversight 
informed certain aspects of the executive branch's 
deliberations over export control reforms, and the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
included a requirement for the Department of Defense to report 
on its implementation of these reforms in 2011.

                           MILITARY READINESS


                      Readiness of Military Forces

    The committee expanded its oversight of the readiness of 
the armed services in the 111th Congress through hearings, 
briefings, and site visits focused on personnel and equipment 
readiness and training. These activities showed that after nine 
years of continuous combat, overall readiness remained tenuous. 
Repeated deployments with limited dwell time reduced the 
ability of U.S. military forces to train across the full 
spectrum of conflict, increasing risk to national security if 
the military had to respond quickly to emergent contingencies 
because of the gap in the Department of Defense's ability to 
source sufficient ground forces. Because units were focused on 
deployment to the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan ahead of all other missions, skills not required 
for the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan atrophied and will need 
time to restore once sufficient dwell time at home station is 
available. Briefings conducted by the military services for the 
committee and work done on the committee's behalf by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) revealed that the 
readiness levels of most non-deployed units remained low, due 
to a combination of equipment shortfalls, personnel shortfalls, 
and a lack of time to train.
    To address these shortfalls, the committee increased 
training funding for all the active-duty forces. To reduce 
budgetary risk to readiness in areas where the services 
identified unfunded requirements, the committee provided 
funding above the levels contained in the budget request. These 
areas included Navy ship and aviation depot maintenance to 
eliminate deferred maintenance requirements for active and 
reserve forces, which were identified by the Chief of Naval 
Operations as the Navy's top unfunded priorities. Additionally, 
the committee increased funding for Army reserve depot 
maintenance and Air Force weapon system sustainment and support 
equipment. For military installations, the committee increased 
funding for sustainment of facilities, including Department of 
Defense schools, and added funding to improve the quality of 
trainee barracks in the Army and to support Reserve Component 
military construction.
    The committee continued to work with GAO in reviewing the 
Department of Defense's approach to managing the deployment of 
forces to meet operational needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, as 
well as the implications of these commitments for overall force 
readiness. This review evaluated the Department's efforts to 
establish processes and responsibilities for analyzing and 
responding to requests for force capabilities from operational 
commanders; the Department's ability to provide ground forces, 
combat support, and other specialized capabilities, such as 
transition teams to train Iraqi and Afghan security forces; and 
factors affecting the Department's ability to meet demands for 
both operations as well as to maintain sufficient forces and 
capabilities to meet other commitments; and any challenges the 
Department faces in adjusting training capacity and scope to 
support larger deployments to Afghanistan.
    In addition, the committee tasked GAO to conduct a number 
of reviews: to review the Army's plans for augmenting its 
brigade combat teams to perform the advisory and assistance 
mission, and the use of the teams to support ongoing 
operations; to review the Air Force's ability to train on core 
mission capabilities; to evaluate the availability of full-time 
trainers in the Army; to review the Army's and Marine Corps' 
ability to complete home-station training requirements; and to 
review Army and Marine Corps readiness reporting so that the 
committee can better understand the extent to which changes in 
the unit readiness reporting system will help the services to 
capture data more accurately on the readiness of their forces.

                             Army Readiness

    Throughout the 111th Congress, the Army faced historic 
levels of stress on the force. As a hedge against the 
uncertainties facing the Army in these challenging 
circumstances, the committee focused its oversight efforts on 
Army readiness funding accounts and understanding the Army's 
new rotational readiness model. To set the stage for future 
oversight work, the committee closely examined the reasons for 
the persistent readiness shortfalls facing the Army and plans 
to improve readiness. To conduct this oversight, the committee 
closely reviewed annual budget requests and conducted a series 
of hearings, meetings with Army leaders, classified readiness 
briefings, and staff oversight visits.
    The committee's oversight of Army readiness revealed that 
the Army was able to support Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and 
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) requirements, but that to 
generate these forces almost all other Army ground combat 
capability suffered significant readiness shortfalls, 
particularly in equipment and training. In essence, the two 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continued to consume as many ready 
forces as the Army was able to generate, leaving very little 
reserve capacity for another contingency. While the drawdown in 
Iraq took some pressure off Army readiness, the simultaneous 
2010 buildup in Afghanistan resulted in very slow progress 
toward rebuilding the readiness of non-deployed forces.
    Although the Army was able to respond to some emergent 
requirements, including the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, 
the committee determined that this shortfall left the nation 
without an adequate ground force strategic reserve. Had another 
large-scale land conflict arisen, the Army likely would not 
have been able to meet expected deployment timelines, resulting 
in possible mission failure. Army leaders at all levels 
expressed significant concerns about this lack of reserve 
capacity in hearings and briefings throughout the 111th 
Congress. These same Army leaders expressed confidence that 
completion of the drawdown in Iraq to approximately 50,000 
troops, in combination with the Army's new rotational readiness 
model, would provide some units with additional time to restore 
readiness through training and receipt of needed equipment.
    In addition to the quantitative shortfall in fully ready 
Army forces, the committee also sought to understand a major 
qualitative change in the forces the Army was providing to meet 
ongoing and emergent requirements. Specifically, the committee 
found that Army forces deploying to OIF or OEF often deployed 
to conduct a different mission than their core combat mission. 
As a result, units were often extensively reconfigured in terms 
of equipment and personnel during their training and deployment 
periods. While these non-core missions were deemed appropriate 
for OIF and OEF, the committee found that over time many Army 
units lost core combat skills simply due to a lack of time to 
train on them. For example, many artillery units were found to 
have almost no recent artillery training because they were 
being deployed to do a myriad of other tasks, such as motorized 
infantry, detainee operations, and convoy security. In addition 
to unit readiness challenges, the committee found that repeated 
deployments to conduct non-core combat tasks also may have a 
long-term negative impact on the core skill levels of Army 
leaders at all levels, some of whom have not trained on core 
combat tasks for years.
    Overall, the committee found that while Army leaders still 
claim the Army is capable of full-spectrum operations, it is in 
fact today a force that is almost entirely tailored to conduct 
counterinsurgency missions. Given the ongoing mission in Iraq 
and the increased force levels in Afghanistan planned for 2010-
2011, the amount of time and resources required to reconstitute 
the Army's capability for high-intensity, full-spectrum combat 
operations remained unclear.
    In trying to understand the reasons for these readiness 
shortfalls, the committee spent significant time examining the 
Army's new readiness model, the ``Army Force Generation,'' or 
ARFORGEN, system. This new rotational readiness system allows, 
by design, one-third of Army forces to be at the lowest levels 
of combat readiness, with another one-third in a state of 
partial readiness. The remaining third, roughly equal to 20 
brigade combat teams and associated support assets, is intended 
to be fully ready for any possible contingency. In addition, 
the committee closely examined and tracked the Army's 
complementary new readiness tracking system, the ``Defense 
Readiness Reporting System,'' which allows units to report two 
separate measures of readiness: one for traditional combat 
missions and one for ``assigned'' missions, where there is a 
significant difference. For example, an Army artillery 
battalion may now simultaneously report it is at a C-4 
readiness level for its core artillery mission, but C-1 for its 
assigned mission of convoy security. Taken together, this new 
rotational readiness system and readiness reporting system 
marked a dramatic change in how the Army postures and resources 
itself for contingency operations and could have significant 
impact on the Army's resource needs in the future.
    A final element of Army readiness examined by the committee 
was that of the reserve component. The committee found that the 
Army National Guard and Army Reserve have achieved 
unprecedented levels of readiness due to the constant demand 
for their forces to support OIF, OEF, and other operations. The 
committee also discovered, however, that the Army has no clear 
plan to provide the resources necessary to maintain these 
improved reserve component readiness levels. Given this 
uncertainty, the committee sought to preserve these high 
readiness levels by increasing funding for Army Reserve and 
Army National Guard readiness accounts during the 111th 
Congress.

                            Naval Readiness

    Through hearings, briefings and site visits, the committee 
learned that the Navy's next-to-deploy forces, like the Army's, 
reported high levels of readiness but this also came at the 
expense of the non-deployed forces who experienced fewer 
training opportunities as resources were prioritized toward 
meeting Global Force Management demands. Navy requirements to 
support non-standard mission and requests for individual 
augmentees continued to grow, reducing opportunities for Navy 
sailors and officers to train for core missions with a full 
complement of personnel. Marine Corps leadership reported to 
the committee that the Marine Corps experienced equipment usage 
rates as much as seven times greater than peacetime rates, 
reducing the expected lifespan of gear. The pace and nature of 
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan adversely affected 
Marine Corps readiness, as evidenced in the Marine Corps' 
overall readiness assessment, the reported readiness of next-
to-deploy and non-deployed Marine units, and in the service's 
assessed ability to perform key warfighting functions. Non-
deployed units were used to satisfy equipment needs for 
deployed and next-to-deploy units.
    The committee focused attention on the readiness of the 
Navy's non-nuclear surface fleet following reports that some 
ships remained in degraded material condition and that crews 
were experiencing shortages of parts and tools, addressing this 
issue in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and 
in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491). In preparation for 
hearings, committee staff conducted a site visit to the Great 
Lakes Naval Training Center and toured public and private ship 
repair facilities of the Pacific and Atlantic fleets and in the 
Central Command area of operation.
    On March 25, 2009, the Subcommittee on Readiness received 
testimony on readiness and sustainment of the Navy's surface 
fleet. The Navy reported at that hearing that it had begun 
taking steps to address gaps in ship maintenance funding and to 
assess ship material conditions through a pilot program of 
technical inspections. Both are aimed at ensuring the Navy's 
surface combatant ships achieve their intended service life, 
which is a key underpinning of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding 
plan.
    In a related session, the Readiness Subcommittee on March 
23, 2010, met with the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces 
Subcommittee to receive a briefing from Department of Navy 
officials regarding the Navy's proposed decommissioning of 
Oliver Hazard Perry Class frigates. The briefing highlighted 
the operation and maintenance challenges of extending the 
ships' service life beyond their intended timeline.
    A second hearing on July 28, 2010, by the Readiness and 
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittees examined 
readiness of the Navy's non-nuclear surface fleet. The hearing 
came on the heels of a Fleet Review Panel report that surface 
force readiness had degraded to a point that it was well below 
acceptable levels to support reliable, sustained operations at 
sea. This report and other incidents brought to the committee's 
attention once again raised the issue of whether the Navy can 
achieve, let alone extend, the design service life of its 
surface force ships and questioned the ability of the surface 
fleet to accomplish assigned missions. The hearing focused on 
contributing factors such as manpower and manning, training, 
equipment, command and control, and material readiness.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-174)

                          Air Force Readiness

    The committee continued to monitor the significant 
readiness challenges facing the Air Force through the annual 
budget posture hearings and site visits to all the Air Force 
logistics centers and several individual Air Force bases in the 
Continental United States, as well as in the Pacific, European 
and Central Command areas of operation. Maintenance challenges 
have reduced overall mission capability to rates below levels 
seen in prior years and are particularly alarming given that 
procurement programs for new aircraft will not fill capability 
gaps until the years beyond the Future Years Defense Plan. 
Furthermore, weapons systems sustainment not only was funded at 
only 71 percent in the Air Force base budget request for fiscal 
year 2010 but topped the unfunded requirements list for fiscal 
year 2011.
    In addition, like the Navy, the Air Force requirements to 
support non-standard mission and requests for individual joint 
expeditionary taskings (JET) continued to grow, reducing 
opportunities for airmen to train for core missions with a full 
complement of personnel. In addition, the committee found that 
airmen often deployed to a different JET mission than 
originally tasked and for which they had been trained to 
perform. This left them ill-prepared to undertake the new 
tasking, with training being conducted on the ground in 
theater.
    The committee expressed concern about the potential 
capability gap that could result from the Air Force's May 2009 
announcement of its combat air forces restructuring plan. In 
the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the 
committee addressed several troubling factors regarding the Air 
Force's restructuring plan. These included the fact that the 
Air Force already had projected shortfalls in its required 
2,200-aircraft fighter inventory beginning in fiscal year 2017 
with the expectation that this shortage would reach 
approximately 800 aircraft by fiscal year 2024; replacement 
aircraft were still being tested and were not yet available for 
fielding; and the Air Force had not identified, for all of the 
affected bases, the follow-on missions that would serve to fill 
force structure and capability gaps. As a result of the 
committee's concern, a provision was included in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) that prohibited the retirement of additional combat 
aircraft, with the exception of the five already slated for 
retirement, until 30 days after the Air Force submitted a 
report to the congressional defense committees; a classified 
version of the report was provided on March 4, 2010. The report 
stated that, though the risk to achieving its national defense 
strategy objectives in the 2010 to 2020 timeframe is slightly 
increased, the Air Force through the restructuring plan sought 
to build a smaller, but more capable, force while at the same 
time maintaining a bridge to an increasingly fifth-generation 
fighter force structure.

                          Prepositioned Stocks

    Prepositioned stocks are critical warfighting stocks 
located in strategic land- and ship-based worldwide locations. 
Prepositioned stocks are important in reducing strategic lift 
requirements and improving force closure times. Because both 
the Army and Marine Corps have depleted their prepositioned 
stocks over the past nine years to support overseas operations 
and Grow-the-Force efforts, the reconstitution of these stocks 
are an important piece of equipment reset. As such, the 
committee examined these issues during the July 9, 2009, and 
December 10, 2009, hearings on reset held jointly by the 
Readiness, Air and Land Forces, and Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces Subcommittees. The committee expressed particular 
concern that the Army's plan to reconstitute its prepositioned 
stocks was extended from a completion date of 2013 to 2015.
    Additionally, committee staff during the 111th Congress 
conducted site visits to the Pacific, European and Central 
Command areas of operation to view first-hand Army 
Prepositioned Stocks consisting of pre-positioned unit sets of 
combat equipment, operational projects, sustainment stocks, and 
war reserve secondary items such as rations, tents, chemical 
defense equipment, packaged petroleum products, barbed wire and 
other barrier materiel, medical supplies, and repair parts. 
Staff also visited the Marine Corps Prepositioning Program--
Norway which was used to source equipment in support of 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide humanitarian 
assistance in the nation of Georgia.

                            Equipment Reset

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the services' reset strategies to repair, 
recapitalize, and replace equipment damaged or worn out through 
nine years of continuous combat operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan in OEF and in OIF. This oversight 
expanded in 2010 to include the retrograde of equipment from 
the Republic of Iraq back to the United States as combat 
operations there declined and for redeployment to Afghanistan 
to support the surge in combat operations in that country.
    The Readiness, Air and Land Forces, and Seapower and 
Expeditionary Subcommittees convened a joint hearing on July 9, 
2009, and again on December 10, 2009, to receive testimony on 
Army and Marine Corps reset requirements. The hearing informed 
members about reset funding history, current-year funding and 
execution, the eventual movement of reset dollars into the 
Army's and Marine Corps' base budgets; how well Army and Marine 
Corps depots and the industrial base were meeting the demand 
for reset equipment in terms of workload, production of major 
end items, long-lead items, and spare parts; and the reset 
equipment requirement for drawdown in Iraq and buildup in 
Afghanistan. Additionally, committee staff received periodic 
briefings on Army and Marine Corps reset efforts, monitored 
monthly reset reports provided by the Department of the Army, 
and participated in Workload Production Updates hosted by Army 
Materiel Command throughout 2009 and 2010.
    The committee continued to monitor the balance of funding 
for ground forces' depot maintenance in support of reset and 
voiced concern that the amount of the Army's depot maintenance 
request funded in the base budget remained alarmingly low (at 
11.4 percent). The committee had the same concern for Marine 
Corps depot maintenance, where 86 percent of the fiscal year 
2011 budget was in the Overseas Contingency Operations accounts

                      Depot and Arsenal Capability

    With the nation's military depots functioning at peak 
capacity in support of ongoing operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the committee in the 111th Congress continued its 
oversight of policies affecting the Nation's government-owned 
arsenals, depots, air logistics centers, and shipyards, as well 
as the private-sector support provided through the annual 
operation and maintenance budget.
    The committee took action in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to 
clarify depot-maintenance policy in regard to the installation 
of major modifications and upgrades. The sense of Congress 
included in that Act states that such installation is 
considered a part of the definition of depot-level maintenance 
under section 2466 of title 10, United States Code.
    Also in Public Law 111-84, the committee required the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan for 
improving its inventory management systems. The action followed 
a series of examinations by GAO performed on the committee's 
behalf on the services' and the Defense Logistics Agency's 
inventory management systems that showed the Department of 
Defense needs to improve its demand forecasting procedures and 
provide better information to item managers.
    The committee, through Public Law 111-84 and again through 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) extended authorization of the Arsenal 
Support Program Initiative (ASPI).
    In December 2010, the committee received the report of an 
independent, 22-month assessment of post-reset depot capability 
required to provide life-cycle sustainment of military systems 
and equipment. The report was mandated by the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417), and will be used by the committee in the 112th 
Congress to examine the statutory framework that underpins 
depot and arsenal capability. The report will inform the 
committee on future depot policy and operations in the context 
of reduced depot-maintenance funding following the cessation of 
combat operations in Iraq.
    Also in the 111th Congress, the committee took action 
toward better management and more expanded use of the working 
capital funds. A provision in the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) would 
require an independent review of each Department of Defense 
working capital fund to determine the appropriate cash corpus 
required to maintain good financial management of the fund. The 
committee reported that it believes the current cash minimum 
balances are arbitrary and outdated. The Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) also 
allows supply parts developed through continuous technology 
refreshment to be purchased with working capital funds, 
enabling the military departments to make vital progress in 
resolving critical supply problems affecting military 
readiness.

                         Life-Cycle Sustainment

    With operation and support (O&S;) costs constituting up to 
70 percent of the lifecycle cost to the government for a weapon 
system, the committee in the 111th Congress continued its 
oversight of how effectively the Department of Defense is 
developing and procuring weapons systems and equipment with 
consideration of life-cycle sustainment and support costs in 
mind. Particularly, the committee voiced concern that the 
military services may not be planning sufficiently for the O&S; 
costs that will be incurred when non-standard items fielded 
under rapid fielding initiatives in response to Joint Urgent 
Operational Needs migrate to programs of record. First among 
these are the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected (M-RAP) vehicle 
and its Afghanistan variant, the Military All Terrain Vehicle, 
or MATV, whose O&S; costs are expected to average at least $2.0 
billion per year.
    Furthermore, the committee examined the extent to which the 
acquisition community and the logistics community collaborate 
during system design and development. As noted, decisions made 
during this critical phase can unnecessarily create sustainment 
problems that drive millions of dollars in depot-level 
maintenance once the system is fielded. As a result of this 
oversight, the committee included provisions addressing life-
cycle sustainment in the Weapon Systems Reform Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-23) and the Implementing Management for 
Performance and Related Reforms to Obtain Value in Every 
Acquisition Act of 2010 (H.R. 5013). In addition, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) included a provision that required the development of 
product support strategies for major weapon systems and 
mandated that each system be supported by a properly qualified 
military or civilian product support manager; these 
requirements could apply to other acquisition programs as well.
    The committee also addressed the cost to avoid, control, 
and mitigate corrosion in the context of life-cycle O&S.; 
Despite the validated 50-to-1 return on investment from the 169 
projects implemented through the Department of Defense's 
corrosion office, the committee expressed disappointment that 
the Department's budget request for corrosion control and 
mitigation continues to fall far short of the known total 
requirement. In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010, the committee mandated the Director of Corrosion 
Policy and Oversight to evaluate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter 
programs' corrosion efforts, which draw extensively from the 
lessons learned from the F-22 program. The evaluation concluded 
that the corrosion problems observed on the F-22 were 
inevitable and could have been anticipated, and that neither 
program has a life-cycle cost requirement to motivate attention 
to long-term sustainment considerations, such as corrosion.

              Civilian Personnel and Workforce Management

    The committee continued to explore initiatives that would 
provide the Department with the necessary tools to hire, 
retain, and train a qualified federal civilian workforce with 
the right skills to effectively contribute to the success of 
the Department's mission. The National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) included 
provisions to clarify hiring authorities for participants in 
the national security education program as well as the science, 
mathematics and research, and information technology 
scholarship programs; and enhance special personnel authorities 
within the DOD science and technology reinvention laboratories. 
In addition, Public Law 111-84 codified a congressionally 
mandated requirement for the Department to develop an annual 
human capital plan to shape its workforce to achieve the proper 
balance between military, civilian and contractor personnel. 
Furthermore, Public Law 111-84 addressed comprehensive changes 
to the re-employment of annuitants and to retirement benefits 
for all Federal civilian employees.

                    Benefits for Deployed Civilians

    The committee continued its efforts to provide special 
incentives and benefits for federal civilian employees serving 
in active combat zones, especially in light of the Department 
of Defense's civilian expeditionary workforce initiative. Both 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) and the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) contained 
initiatives to expand such incentives. These included an 
extension of authority to waive limitations on premium pay, and 
extending benefits to federal civilian employees on official 
duty in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. However, as noted in 
the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee had been anticipating that the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), in coordination with the Departments of 
Defense, State and Labor, would be proposing a broader package 
of pay, leave, workman's compensation, health benefits, and 
other incentives for all Federal agencies that send personnel 
to hazardous duty areas. While the committee was disappointed 
that this proposal was not provided by OPM in time for the 
committee to take action on it in fiscal year 2011, the 
committee expects to address these issues in the 112th 
Congress.

                   National Security Personnel System

    During the 111th Congress, the committee conducted 
extensive oversight of the Department's civilian personnel 
system. This effort began with the committee's request to 
Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging the 
Department to discontinue converting DOD employees to the 
National Security Personnel System (NSPS) until the executive 
branch and Congress could properly address the future of the 
Department's personnel system. Consistent with this request, 
President Barack Obama directed the Department to undertake a 
comprehensive review of NSPS, which was conducted by the 
Defense Business Board (DBB) and completed in August 2009. On 
April 1, 2009, the Subcommittee on Readiness met to receive 
testimony on NSPS and the ongoing DBB review. As a result of 
the hearing and the recommendations in the DBB report, the 
committee included a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to 
repeal the authority for NSPS and require the transition of 
NSPS employees to previously existing civilian personnel 
systems by January 1, 2012. The provision also provided the 
Secretary of Defense with new personnel flexibilities which 
would apply across the civilian workforce of the Department of 
Defense. In particular, the provision authorized the Secretary, 
in coordination with the Director of OPM, to develop new 
methods for hiring and assigning personnel, and for appraising 
employee performance. In addition, the provision directed the 
Secretary to develop special training programs for managers to 
implement the personnel authorities granted, and to establish 
an incentive fund to reward individual or team performance.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491), the committee 
applauded the Department's actions to move forward with the 
conversions before the January 1, 2012, deadline. However, the 
committee expressed concern that certain issues have arisen as 
a result of the rapid conversion, such as personnel being 
placed in a retained pay status, and requested a briefing on 
the Department's plans for the January 2011 nationwide 
adjustment along with any other salary increases, including for 
individuals in a pay-retention status. Furthermore, the 
committee staff monitored progress on compliance with the 
authorities provided in Public Law 111-84 through regular 
meetings with the Department's NSPS transition team.

                               Insourcing

    Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced on April 6, 
2009, his decision to scale back significantly the role of 
contractors in support services and bring appropriate 
contracted-out functions back in-house. This announcement 
aligned with the President's March 4, 2009, memo on government 
contracting that was intended to ensure that ``inherently 
governmental'' functions and those closely associated with 
inherently governmental functions, as well as certain personal 
services contracts, are performed by federal government 
personnel and not by contractor personnel. The committee noted 
that section 2463 of Title 10, United States Code already 
required managers within the Department of Defense and the 
military services to consider using federal civilian employees 
for work that is new or currently being performed by 
contractors in certain circumstances.
    While generally supportive of the Department's announced 
insourcing initiative, the committee noted in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 that it should not be 
driven by random goals or arbitrary budget reductions, rather 
it should be considered as part of an overall strategic plan 
that looks at the total workforce (military, federal civilian, 
and contractor) required to accomplish the Department's 
mission. As a result of these concerns, the committee directed 
the Secretary of Defense to provide a report on its insourcing 
implementation plan, including how it intended to address the 
impacts of insourcing on contractor employees, and to comply 
with other relevant laws (i.e., section 2463 as well as the 
establishment of service contract inventories); that report was 
submitted in December 2009.
    As a follow-up to the Department's December report, the 
Subcommittee on Readiness held a briefing on March 12, 2010, 
with representatives from the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy, the Department of Defense, and the Departments of the 
Army, Air Force, and Navy. The briefers focused on their 
agency's insourcing initiatives, implementing guidance, and the 
criteria by which they determined which functions should be 
brought back in-house. As a result of the briefing, a provision 
was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) to prohibit the 
establishment of arbitrary goals or targets to convert work 
from performance by private sector contractors to performance 
by federal civilian employees; the provision also required an 
insourcing review by the Secretary of Defense and GAO.

                        Private Security Guards

    The committee continued to question the use of private 
security contractors both at domestic military installations 
and in areas of combat or contingency operations. The committee 
particularly was concerned with the harmful impact to military 
missions and foreign relations that can be caused by the 
misconduct of private security contractors. To address this 
concern, the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
called for the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility 
of a third-party certification process that would screen out 
companies not being able to conform to specific operational, 
business and training standards. The Department's report, 
issued in April 2010, supported a mandatory third-party 
certification as a prerequisite for contract award. The Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(H.R. 6523) included a provision to implement this 
recommendation by requiring a Department of Defense review of 
operational and business standards applicable to private 
security contractors. It also allows the Department to consider 
a third-party certification for all contractors who provide 
security services to the Department to ensure the quality and 
experience of private security contractors.
    Furthermore, the committee addressed the mandate to reduce 
reliance on private security guards at domestic and overseas 
military installations, pursuant to the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-314). In 
the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the 
committee directed the Department to review, and provide a 
written letter of compliance, on its guidance related to 
conversion of private security positions and include 
prioritization for use of federal civilian employees to fill 
those positions

                       Public-Private Competition

    Following up on several initiatives taken during the 110th 
Congress, the committee in the 111th Congress continued its 
review of public-private competitions conducted under Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-76. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
included provisions that eliminated the de minimis standard and 
imposed time limitations for the conduct of public-private 
competitions as well as established a debriefing requirement 
for federal employee representatives similar to that provided 
to all contract offerors, and made technical amendments to the 
bid protest process for Federal civilian employees. In 
addition, Public Law 111-84 temporarily suspended DOD public-
private competitions until the Secretary of Defense certified 
that the Department was in compliance with certain statutory 
requirements and conducted a review of the adequacy of DOD 
guidance to undertake public-private competitions. The 
committee is awaiting the final report and may take additional 
action, as necessary, in the 112th Congress.

                       Security Clearance Reform

    An effective and efficient process for administering 
security clearances is critical to military readiness, and both 
the executive branch and Congress have focused attention on 
improving the security clearance process. During the 111th 
Congress, the committee continued to monitor progress toward 
developing a revamped security clearance system. In the 
committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, the committee 
directed the Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team (which 
includes DOD representatives as well as representatives from 
the Office of Management and Budget and OPM) to provide a 
report on the status of implementing all elements of the 
security clearance reform plan, rationale for any delays, and 
any obstacles that have been encountered. Responding to the 
report, which was submitted in February 2010, the committee 
noted in H. Rept. 111-491 that while significant progress has 
been made as a result of increased resources and improved 
information technology system, the executive branch should 
continue to demonstrate its commitment to sustaining that 
progress and identifying areas for further improvement.

                MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE


          Real Property Acquisition, Maintenance and Disposal

    The real property management process requires extensive 
oversight to maintain more than $650.0 billion in 
infrastructure at an annual cost of over $50.0 billion, or 
nearly 11 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. The 
Subcommittee on Readiness in the 111th Congress reviewed issues 
pertaining to military construction, family housing, and Base 
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) activities of the Department of 
Defense. The Readiness Subcommittee held a budget hearing on 
June 3, 2009, on the fiscal year 2010 budget request and a 
hearing on March 18, 2010, on the fiscal year 2011 budget 
request to review military construction, family housing, BRAC 
activities, and facility operations and maintenance. The 
Readiness Subcommittee also conducted a hearing on February 24, 
2009, on the Acquisition and Disposal of Military Lands. As a 
result of this oversight, additional real property conveyance 
authorities were included in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to provide 
authority to the Department of Defense to expedite conveyance 
of excess property at or below fair market value. This 
authority also allows the property recipient to enter into an 
agreement with the Department of Defense to provide Department 
of Defense compensation after property conveyance. The 
committee also reviewed the Army Base Operating Services 
account and found that significant shortfalls needed to be 
addressed to manage basic services. The committee supported 
various reprogramming requests in fiscal year 2010 to address 
critical shortfalls in the Army Base Operating Services 
account.
    During the 111th Congress, committee staff conducted 
numerous site visits throughout the United States to assess the 
state of infrastructure and quality of life provided to the 
forces. The committee supported the expansion of Army and 
Marine Corps force structure and the subsequent infrastructure 
expansion that is being constructed to support the military 
expansion.

                                 Basing

    The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant 
change in force structure both in the United States and 
overseas. These force-structure changes are being performed by 
two infrastructure programs including the 2005 BRAC decisions 
and the Global Defense Posture Review. These rebasing movements 
affect not only U.S. global posture but they also have 
significant repercussions on readiness, surge capability, 
military construction, and quality of life for military members 
and their families.
    After concluding a briefing on Army and Marine Corps Grow 
the Force initiatives on March 10, 2009, the Subcommittee on 
Readiness included a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that 
directed an assessment of the global defense posture 
realignment and interagency review to better assess the impacts 
of varying overseas basing proposals. The subcommittee also 
conducted a specific review of the Department of Defense's 
intent to realign 8,000 Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam. 
Public Law 111-84 and the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) each 
included a legislative subsection that would support the 
realignment of Marine Corps assets to Guam that includes the 
following provisions: clarifying the use of Japanese 
contributions; defining the appropriate use of H2B visa workers 
required to support the construction effort; placing conditions 
of acceptance on new U.S. airfields in Japan; and assessing 
community assistance to Guam.
    Additionally, the committee continued to provide oversight 
on the significant rebasing efforts that are occurring 
throughout the world. Rebasing efforts to support U.S. troop 
movements in Japan and Korea are expected to exceed $50 
billion. In Europe, the Department of Defense continues to 
consolidate the force structure and evaluate the required force 
mix and realign assets to better support the strategic posture 
of the United States. The committee staff during the 111th 
Congress conducted site visits to the Pacific, European and 
Central Command areas of operation to view the myriad of basing 
agreements with international partners and assess the long term 
viability of these cooperative agreements.
    The committee completed a comprehensive review of the BRAC 
implementation process and as a result several legislative 
provisions were enacted. The Readiness and Military Personnel 
Subcommittees held a joint hearing on December 2, 2009, on the 
implementation of the Walter Reed Army Medical Command 
realignment that was included in BRAC 2005. The Readiness and 
Military Personnel Subcommittees also held a joint hearing on 
March 18, 2009, on Medical Infrastructure and the proper use of 
medical facilities funding for new construction and renovation 
projects. As a result of this oversight hearing, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) included a provision that detailed the requirements related 
to providing a world-class military medical facility in the 
National Capital Region.

                        Facilities Privatization

    The Department of Defense has made extensive use of 
privatization of military assets including family housing, 
bachelor quarters, and utility-related infrastructure. The 
Department has leveraged available capital in Department of 
Defense infrastructure and entered into long-term contracts 
with private property managers. The Subcommittee on Readiness 
in the 111th Congress reviewed this privatization initiative 
and included a provision in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) to modify the 
utility systems conveyance authority to eliminate duplicative 
reviews and provide thresholds for utility conveyance to 
private partners.

                   Military Construction Programming

    There is increasing evidence that sufficient infrastructure 
in the United States may not be available to support a rapid 
reduction in overseas forces and concurrently sustain the 
Army's and Marine Corps' Grow-the-Force initiatives. The 
committee completed a detailed review of the Department's 
military construction program to manage the overall capacity of 
the Department's infrastructure and ensure prudent long-term 
military construction investments are provided. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) concluded that the Department had overpriced the military 
construction program and that significant savings were being 
realized in construction projects. Public Law 111-84 reduced 
the overall account by $529 million. A similar savings review 
was conducted in the context of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523).
    As an additional issue for construction programming, the 
committee continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders 
limited authority to rapidly implement contingency construction 
to address emerging construction requirements. Both Public Law 
111-84 and the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) contained provisions that 
authorized the use of Operations and Maintenance funds for 
contingency construction.

                         ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT


  Energy Security and National Security Implications of Climate Change

    During the 111th Congress, the committee conducted vigorous 
oversight of the Department's energy activities and closely 
examined the strategies and policies for both installations 
energy and operational energy. In order to reduce the 
dependence on fossil fuel and reliance on foreign oil, the 
committee believes it is necessary for the Department to reduce 
its consumption and achieve efficiencies both on installations 
and in the operational theater. Additionally, the committee 
continued to remain concerned about national security 
implications and potential consequences of global climate 
change. Committee staff conducted site visits across 
installations in the continental United States and outside the 
United States to determine how policies were being implemented, 
to ensure necessary action was being taken, and to identify 
areas where potential legislation would help facilitate action 
across the Department of Defense.
    The committee believes that Department of Defense 
installations provide significant opportunity for advancing 
renewable energy technologies, pursuing energy security, and 
reducing overall demand. Congressional mandates, executive 
orders, federal and state legislation all have a role in 
directing the Department to advance the renewable energy 
market, reduce energy consumption, and achieve energy security 
in the event of a compromise to the public grid. The 
Subcommittee on Readiness took action in this area in both the 
National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84) and the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) to direct energy efficiencies, 
facilitate energy security, and fund investments in renewable 
energy technologies. It also directed the development of a 
comprehensive Energy Performance Master Plan in order to 
organize its activities in the context of the energy security 
laws, mandates and goals.
    On February 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Readiness 
received testimony from the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
and each of the military services on defense energy management 
and initiatives on military installations. This hearing 
highlighted the Department's initiatives and also highlighted 
additional areas of increased oversight for inclusion in the 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 (H.R. 6523). In addition, committee staff visited 
installations such as Fort Bliss, Nellis Air Force Base, Naval 
Air Weapon Station China Lake and Marine Corps Air Ground 
Combat Center 29 Palms where the Services are undertaking 
large-scale renewable energy projects in response to mandates 
and goals.
    As Department of Defense installations respond to 
overarching directives for renewable energy on installations, 
they also compete with readiness demands impacted by increased 
encroachment of renewable energy projects in proximity to 
installations. The committee closely examined the impact on 
military readiness as renewable energy continued to proliferate 
throughout the country due to increased subsidies and funding 
provided by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public 
Law 111-5). On June 29, 2010, the Subcommittee on Readiness 
received testimony from Department of Defense officials, the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and an industry 
representative on the impact of wind farms on military 
installations, their missions, and radar interference that 
might adversely impact military readiness. Accordingly, the 
subcommittee in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) included a provision 
directing the Department to better organize its internal review 
of applications, encourage early engagement with industry, and 
establish a coherent review process jointly with the FAA for 
renewable energy applications.
    With a continued presence of U.S. forces in the Republic of 
Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the Subcommittee 
on Readiness in the 111th Congress continued its oversight and 
emphasis of reducing demand for operational energy at forward-
deployed locations to relieve the significant logistical burden 
and force protection requirements, and decrease operational 
vulnerabilities. The Subcommittee on Readiness received 
testimony on March 3, 2009, regarding Department of Defense 
Fuel Demand Management at Forward-Deployed Locations and 
Operational Energy Initiatives. The hearing informed members 
about the Department's establishment of the Power Surety Task 
Force to address the need to reduce military dependence on fuel 
for power generation, the three-year Net-Zero Plus Joint 
Concept Technology Demonstration to assess technologies for 
tactical bases, and investments in research and development for 
biofuels and renewable energy technologies.
    Additionally in the 111th Congress, the committee pursued 
several provisions and report requirements to facilitate 
increased oversight and coordinated policies for operational 
energy. Specifically, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) authorized funding for 
the Office of the Director of Operational Energy Plans and 
Programs and directed a report on implementation of fuel demand 
management initiatives at forward-deployed locations. The 
committee continues to encourage the Department to seek 
efficiencies, cost savings, and decreased demand for fuel in 
theater.
    The Department addressed the criticality of climate change 
and its impact on defense in the February 2010 Quadrennial 
Defense Review for shaping the operating environment, roles, 
and missions that the Department undertakes. In light of the 
committee's continued concerns about the implications and 
potential consequences of global climate change on the 
Department's facilities, capabilities, and missions, the 
committee report (H. Rept. 111-491), directed the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report capturing an assessment of the 
strategic national security objectives and restrictions in the 
Arctic Region, and an assessment on mission capabilities 
required to support the strategic national security objectives.

                              Environment

    The committee conducted oversight of environmental issues 
resulting from Department of Defense activities on military 
installations, training ranges, and operational activities to 
include the military services' environmental restoration 
program and adherence to federal, state and local cleanup, 
compliance, and pollution prevention requirements. An area of 
sustained interest to the committee is exposure to and cleanup 
of contaminants on Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). In the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84), the committee included a provision that directed 
the Department to prescribe regulations prohibiting the 
disposal of waste in burn pits during contingency operations, 
with limited exceptions. Additionally, the committee report (H. 
Rept. 111-166) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 included language regarding continued 
oversight and study of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North 
Carolina, drinking water and potential impacts to affected 
populations. In the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011, the committee took further action 
regarding Camp Lejeune, requiring the Department of the Navy to 
make all information available to the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry to facilitate their continuing 
review, and it also limits the Department of the Navy's use of 
funds for adjudication of claims subject to Congressional 
notification. Additionally, the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) directed the 
Comptroller General to assess various issues associated with 
environmental exposures on military installations, including 
impacts to current and former members of the Armed Forces, 
their dependents, and civilian employees. In the committee 
report (H. Rept. 111-491), the committee directed the Secretary 
of Defense to conduct an Exposure Registry Feasibility Study 
capturing each incidence of exposure of occupational and 
environmental chemical hazards during conflicts, to monitor 
possible health risks and provide necessary treatment to those 
exposed
    In addition to the continued scrutiny and oversight, Public 
Law 111-84 also reauthorized title 1 of the Sikes Act through 
fiscal year 2014 to promote effectual planning, development, 
maintenance and coordination of wildlife, fish, and game 
conservation and rehabilitation in military reservations. 
Committee staff made site visits across installations to ensure 
the Department is providing necessary protections for 
endangered species, and taking appropriate precautions to 
prevent and mitigate any preexisting environmental issues.

                 MILITARY PERSONNEL AND FAMILY MATTERS


                              End Strength

    During fiscal year 2011, the committee continued its 
initiatives from the previous Congress to increase the size of 
both the active Army and active Marine Corps. The committee 
also supported the Department of Defense request to increase 
the Air Force and Navy end strengths to support growth in 
specific career fields and fill wartime manpower requirements. 
Due to the flexibility provided to the Department of Defense 
during the 110th Congress to accelerate increases in service 
end strength levels, both the Army and Marine Corps achieved 
their end strength goals early during fiscal year 2010 and 
Congress supported maintaining these elevated strength levels. 
During the second session of the 111th Congress, the committee 
again supported an increase in Army end strength to 569,400 to 
assist the Army with managing of the force, maintaining 
readiness, and increasing dwell time for soldiers.
    The committee also continued to recognize the need to 
increase requirements for fulltime support of the reserve 
components. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of Defense to assess 
the requirements of the National Guard for non-dual status 
technicians. Although the report was not submitted in a timely 
manner the committee still supported the administration request 
for an increase in the number of non-dual status technicians in 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 
year 2011 (H.R. 6523).

                        Recruiting and Retention

    The committee continued to monitor recruiting and retention 
trends closely throughout the 111th Congress to ensure that 
programs remained effective notwithstanding the relatively 
large number of youth that are ineligible for enlistment, the 
increasing college attendance rate, and the growing awareness 
of the hardships and risks of war among potential recruits and 
their influencers. Largely due to the decline in economic 
conditions, the recruiting and retention environment has 
changed to drastically favor the military. All of the active 
services and their reserve components have met their goals for 
recruiting numbers and quality benchmarks for the past two 
years. This is a significant change from previous years. The 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel remains concerned that the 
services will not be able to sustain their recruiting and 
retention programs should economic conditions improve and the 
Nation remains engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. The 
subcommittee held two hearings during the 111th Congress to 
review the current status of the recruiting and retention 
programs and to understand the future challenges the Department 
of Defense faces with respect to these programs. The committee 
responded to Department of Defense legislative requests to 
bolster existing programs and launch new programs, and worked 
to anticipate active duty and reserve recruiting and retention 
program requirements for both officer and enlisted members.

                         Military Compensation

    The committee continued to closely monitor compensation 
programs during the 111th Congress to ensure an adequate 
quality of life for service members and their families and to 
ensure that pay and benefits met the needs of the wartime 
military and kept pace with private sector standards. The 
committee's active oversight of these issues resulted in 
legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that authorized a 3.4 
percent raise in basic pay during fiscal year 2010. This 
military pay raise was one-half of one percent above the 
Employment Cost Index (ECI) and extended to 11 the number of 
consecutive years where Congress authorized pay raises above 
the ECI level. Although the House version of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) 
included a pay raise that was one-half of one percent above the 
ECI level, a pay raise of 1.4 percent, equaling the ECI level, 
was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The committee also 
extended the authorities to pay bonuses and special pays during 
fiscal years 2010 and 2011 and monitored the value of those 
bonuses and special pays to ensure they were sufficient to 
achieve the recruiting and retention objectives for which they 
were developed to address. The committee also continued to 
review pay issues related to wartime operations. To that end, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) included legislation that:
          (1) Provided for special compensation for military 
        members with catastrophic injuries or illnesses;
          (2) Provided travel and transportation allowances for 
        survivors of deceased military members to attend 
        memorial services; and
          (3) Provided travel and transportation allowances for 
        designated individuals of wounded, ill, or injured 
        members of the uniformed services for the duration of 
        inpatient treatment.

                      Military Health Care System

    During the 111th Congress, the committee provided extensive 
oversight of the military health system. The committee 
continued its work to avoid the potential adverse impact of 
uncontrolled cost growth within the military health care system 
on the Department of Defense. The committee worked to improve 
the health status of beneficiaries and control cost growth 
within the military health care system by holding hearings on a 
number of discrete problem areas within the Defense Health 
Program, to include: medical military construction, health 
information technology, health budgeting, and Department of 
Defense Health Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity 
organization. These hearings resulted in legislative provisions 
to develop a plan to improve military health care, limit the 
obligation of fund on health information technology until 
certain reviews were conducted, explore new approaches for 
preventing suicides, energize Department of Defense efforts to 
find new solutions to improve access to and quality of mental 
health care, enhance Department of Defense research efforts to 
improve identification and treatment of post-traumatic stress 
disorder and traumatic brain injury, and impose a temporary 
limitation on inpatient fee increases. The committee also 
examined alternatives to the current system of providing 
Reserve Component medical and dental readiness, which led to 
the expansion of TRICARE benefits for members of the reserve 
components from 90 days before mobilization to 180 days and the 
enhancement of transitional dental care following 
demobilization, both contained in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). To 
ensure that the medical care interests of service members and 
families are protected, the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) included 
provisions that authorized TRICARE beneficiaries to extend 
health coverage to their adult dependent children up to age 26 
like other Americans under health care reform, continued to bar 
medical care premium increases, and expanded medical officer 
accession benefits and eligibility criteria. It should also be 
noted that that the House version of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136) also 
included a provision that would have authorized the 
establishment of a Unified Medical Command designed to enhance 
access to quality medical care and achieve efficiencies in 
medical management and structure to save critical medical 
appropriations. The provision was not included in the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(H.R. 6523).

                          Wounded Warrior Care

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
efforts to ensure that wounded and disabled service members and 
their families are afforded the support they need. Significant 
improvements to the programs and policies that support wounded 
and disabled service members have been made over the past 
several years. For example, a Department of Defense Task Force 
on the Care, Management, and Transition of Recovering Wounded, 
Ill, and Injured Members of the Armed Forces was mandated by 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) to ensure that independent evaluations of 
the Department of Defense's wounded warrior programs continue 
to evolve to address issues that are raised by service members 
and their families, and that the circumstances that led to the 
scandal at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center are not allowed 
to happen again. The committee also continued its work to 
assess, improve, and expand programs for mental health and 
traumatic brain injuries, holding multiple hearings and 
oversight visits that resulted in legislative provisions to 
increase the mental health capabilities of the Department of 
Defense, study the management of medications for members of the 
Armed Forces, conduct clinical trials on cognitive 
rehabilitative therapy, and conduct an independent study on 
post-traumatic stress disorder efforts. Finally, the committee 
continued its vigorous oversight of the merger of Walter Reed 
Army Medical Center and the National Naval Medical Center 
mandated by the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission to ensure that the resulting military treatment 
facilities in the National Capital Region provide world class 
medical care. The committee held a hearing to consider the 
findings and recommendations of the National Capital Region 
Base Realignment and Closure Health Systems Subcommittee of the 
Defense Health Board, which led to the committee codifying many 
of the recommendations into law in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).

                      National Guard and Reserves

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued to 
provide flexible authorities to support the transformation of 
the National Guard and Reserves to an operational Reserve and 
to maintain Reserve Component end strengths at levels that 
promote readiness and stability. Although the committee 
included portions of the National Guard Empowerment Act of 2007 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181) and other initiatives during the 111th 
Congress, there are still many issues to be resolved as the 
Reserve Components transition to an operational Reserve. The 
committee is waiting on several reports from the Department of 
Defense that could establish the foundation for the future of 
the Reserve Components that will be a focus during the 112th 
Congress.

                        Family Support Programs

    The high operational tempo has not only taken a toll on 
service members, but their families as well, particularly 
military children. During the 111th Congress, the committee 
held two hearings specifically on family support programs for 
the first time in decades. The hearings examined the strength, 
vitality, and sustainability of family support programs and the 
resiliency of military children confronted with multiple 
deployments of parents. The committee continued its efforts to 
oversee these programs and to ensure that families are provided 
adequate support as they cope with unprecedented numbers of 
deployments and operational stress. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
required a number of important studies in this area including a 
report on domestic violence in military families, an assessment 
of the impact of repeated deployments on military children, and 
a report on financial assistance for childcare for members of 
the Armed Forces.

          Uniform Code of Military Justice and Investigations

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the military justice system to ensure that its 
processes are transparent and just. The committee focused on 
prevention and response initiatives related to sexual assault. 
The committee also continued to monitor investigations into 
misconduct in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan which may indicate recruiting, screening, and 
training deficiencies, and issues pertaining to command 
responsibility.

             Prisoner of War and Missing in Action Affairs

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
increased oversight of Prisoner of War (POW) and Missing in 
Action (MIA) programs and policies which fall under the 
jurisdiction of the committee. During the first session of the 
111th Congress, the committee held a hearing to receive an 
update on the activities and programs under the purview of the 
Defense Prisoner of War and Missing Personnel Office (DPMO), 
and understand the status and challenges of the programs 
operated by the Joint Prisoner of War and Missing in Action 
Accounting Command (JPAC). The hearing also provided testimony 
from nongovernmental organizations involved in the POW/MIA 
community. The hearing led to legislation in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) requiring the Secretary of Defense institute a plan to 
increase the number of identifications dramatically to a rate 
of 200 per year by 2015. This requirement will increase synergy 
within the POW/MIA accounting community through increased 
collaboration required to achieve the mandate. During the 
second session of the 111th Congress, the committee made visits 
to several organizations in the POW/MIA accounting community to 
include recovery sites in Asia in order to assess progress in 
building capacity for the increased identification mandate.

                  General and Flag Officer Management

    During the 111th Congress, the committee, as it has for 
many years, sought to closely manage general and flag officers 
because of the importance of their leadership to mission 
readiness and operational success. In a continuing effort to 
provide oversight and assist the Department of Defense to 
retain management flexibility, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
directed the Secretary of Defense to provide assessments of the 
propriety of title 10 provisions that exclude general and flag 
officers from authorized strength levels and the sufficiency of 
the number of general and flag officers in an active status in 
the reserve components. Although the review was completed in 
late July 2010, its transmission to Congress was delayed due to 
the cost efficiency review being conducted by the Secretary of 
Defense to determine whether a decrease of general and flag 
officers would increase the cost effectiveness of the force. 
The committee expects the report to be transmitted in order to 
continue its oversight efforts on the management of general and 
flag officers.

                  Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program through 
site visits to ensure such programs are properly structured and 
funded. As a result, the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) authorized 
travel and transportation allowances for yellow ribbon events 
for persons who are significant to the reintegration of service 
members, but who are not family members and promoted more 
robust program outreach to service members and families.

                  Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
ongoing efforts to prevent and resolve sexual assault offenses 
by or against military members. Congress required the creation 
of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military 
Services (DTFSAMS) as an extension of the Defense Task Force on 
Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service 
Academies. Once the DTFSAMS final report was received during 
the 111th Congress, the committee noted its depth, breadth, 
thoughtfulness, in addition to the quality of the 
recommendations during a hearing on the subject. The committee 
acted on many of the DTFSAMS recommendations when it included 
10 sections on sexual assault in the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) to 
improve sexual assault prevention and response by the 
Department of Defense in the following areas: strategic 
direction; prevention and training; response to victims; and 
accountability. The committee remained strongly committed to 
ensuring that comprehensive measures are implemented to improve 
sexual assault prevention and response (SAPR) programs within 
the Department of Defense. Oversight activities included 
monitoring budgeting and funding for SAPR programs, evaluating 
program effectiveness, and reviewing the effectiveness of 
Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions on sexual assault.

                      Arlington National Cemetery

    On June 10, 2010, the Secretary of the Army announced 
sweeping changes in the management and oversight of Arlington 
National Cemetery (ANC) following the completion of a series of 
investigations and inspections conducted by the Military 
District of Washington and Inspector General of the Army as a 
result of allegations of lost accountability of gravesites and 
mishandling of remains. The committee conducted a full 
committee investigative hearing, numerous staff briefings, and 
one on-site examination to understand the failures of ANC 
management authorities and the Army's supporting activities. 
The committee was committed to seeing honor and dignity 
restored to this National shrine and closely monitored the 
Army's initiatives to establish management controls, revise 
regulations, complete a 100 percent audit of the cemetery grave 
sites, finalize criminal or administrative action against 
former employees, resolve the budget and manpower questions, 
and correct the acquisition and contracting processes. The 
committee remains committed in its oversight responsibilities 
of this most hallowed ground.

   Military Resale and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) Programs

    During the 111th Congress, the committee acted to improve 
the effectiveness and quality of military exchanges and 
commissaries and morale, welfare, and recreation (MWR) programs 
and to protect these critical programs for future generations 
of service members. The Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
conducted a hearing during the 111th Congress and received 
numerous staff briefings that fully explored policy issues and 
the fiscal status of the commissary and military exchange 
stores and the service MWR programs. These issues included 
adequacy of appropriated funding for MWR programs, adequacy of 
funding for recapitalization of military resale and MWR 
facilities, propriety of exchange consolidation, continuation 
of appropriated second destination transportation funding for 
military resale goods shipped overseas, continuation of 
unofficial personal information services, protection of 
commissary appropriated funding levels, adequacy of access to 
quality child care services, continuation of military resale 
activities at base closure sites, and approval of new business 
concepts such as exchange lifestyle centers. The Department of 
Defense consulted the committee on a wide range of management 
proposals regarding new construction or facility renovation, 
store expansions or closures, public-private ventures, business 
practices, and new business opportunities and models. In each 
case, the committee provided guidance and decisions, as 
requested. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) 
included legislative initiatives to address the concerns that 
had been brought to the attention of the committee and to 
improve the policies and processes used to manage military 
resale and MWR programs.

                     Major Personnel System Reforms

    During the 111th Congress, the committee examined various 
proposals to reduce the cost of military personnel programs and 
reform major elements of the military personnel system to 
include compensation, recruiting, retention, promotion, 
disability evaluation, separation, and retirement policies and 
programs. The committee has explored and researched the 
proposals during hearings and staff briefings throughout the 
111th Congress. When incremental elements of reform could be 
identified they were included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (H.R. 6523).

            Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals in the Military

    During the 110th and the 111th Congress, the committee 
continued the process of examining the law and policy 
surrounding the issue of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals 
serving in the military by conducting hearings within the 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel that examined the various 
divergent perspectives on the issue to include advocates for 
both retaining and repealing the current law and the process by 
which the Department of Defense intended to assess the actions 
that would be required to successfully repeal current law. The 
committee also received a briefing on the results of a DOD 
comprehensive review of the issues associated with the repeal 
of the current law. Ultimately, repeal of current law was 
included in the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 (H.R. 
6523) which establishes a process leading to repeal of the 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' code following the certification of 
the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff that a review of the requirements to 
support repeal of the law has been completed, that all policies 
and regulations to support repeal has been prepared, and that 
the policies and regulations supporting repeal are consistent 
with the standards and requirements to maintain military 
readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and 
recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. This same 
provision had been previously adopted in the House version of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(H.R. 5136).

                    Professional Military Education

    During the 111th Congress, the Oversight and Investigations 
examined officer in-resident professional military education 
(PME) in March 2009. The committee released a bipartisan 
report, ``Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education 
Two Decades After the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton 
Panel'' (Committee Print 4, 111th Congress), in April 2010. The 
subcommittee undertook this project with the view that 
professional military education (PME) is a critical investment 
in the most important element of our military, its people. At 
the same time, the examination was conducted recognizing that 
PME is but one component of officer development, with training, 
experience, and self-study also contributing. In the current 
period of high operational tempo, however, the subcommittee was 
concerned that the services may be tempted to shortchange 
educational opportunities. The subcommittee held six hearings 
and conducted numerous member briefings and fact-finding trips 
in support of this effort.
    The subcommittee found that the current PME system, 
although basically sound, could be improved to meet the 
country's needs of today and tomorrow. The findings of the 
investigation concentrated on two broad areas: the overall PME 
system and issues related to individual schools, and their 
leaders, faculty members, and students. Additionally, joint and 
service efforts at cultivating military strategists were 
assessed.
    The subcommittee recommended specific areas for 
departmental action and for further congressional oversight to 
promote continuing improvement of the system.

                   MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS


                            Force Protection

    The committee selected force protection for special 
oversight, focusing on areas having direct impact on the safety 
of U.S. military personnel engaged in operations in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The 
objective of committee activity was to expedite the 
promulgation of policies and equipment programs to prevent or 
reduce combat casualties. The committee continued to emphasize 
and support capabilities to protect personnel and equipment 
against both symmetrical and asymmetrical threats from an 
offensive as well as defensive perspective.
    The Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces and the 
Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces both held 
separate and joint hearings and briefings throughout the 111th 
Congress on specific force protection issues in Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Focus areas included: 
effective and realistic requirements generation, standardizing 
test and evaluation procedures for vehicles and personal 
equipment across the military services; production, fielding, 
and modernization of the family of mine resistant ambush 
protected (MRAP) vehicles; properly resourced and adequate 
quantities of body and improved add-on vehicle armor to counter 
any new emerging threats; promoting effective and non-
duplicative counter-improvised explosive device (IED) equipment 
throughout the military services; tactical persistent 
surveillance in support of ground operations, particularly 
prevention of IED emplacement; capabilities to counter indirect 
fires at forward operating bases; and individual warfighter 
equipment that could help mitigate traumatic brain injury.
    Consistent with the areas of inquiry in furtherance of 
force protection of past Congresses, the committee also 
continued its in-depth oversight activities, including: visits 
to contractor and government production sites and assembly 
lines; assessing manufacturing processes and schedules; active 
oversight of various aspects of testing, including 
developmental testing, field testing and source selection 
testing; and identification and referral to the Department of 
Defense of sources and vendors with capability and capacity to 
meet critical requirements and deployment timelines.
    Finally, the committee maintained close oversight of the 
Joint IED Defeat Organization and other Department of Defense 
task forces to ensure appropriate intra-departmental 
coordination and communication for fielding effective and 
affordable force protection measures.

          Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle Acquisition

    The committee has long been concerned whether the immediate 
force protection needs of the warfighter were being met by the 
Department of Defense (DOD) in a timely and urgent manner, to 
include vehicle armor and protection. During the 111th 
Congress, the committee continued its intensive oversight of 
the family of mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle, 
to include the production and fielding of a lighter, smaller, 
more maneuverable variant, the MRAP All-Terrain Vehicle (MATV), 
which was intended for and is used exclusively in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan.
    The committee ensured that DOD was placing the highest 
possible priority on MATV production and fielding by delegating 
subcommittee staff oversight teams to: visit the sole source 
MATV contractor, where teams observed and analyzed production 
capability and met with senior company officials; visited 
suppliers for low density/high demand items for the MATV, such 
as radio-controlled electronic counter measures; traveled to 
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland to observe test and 
evaluation procedures, analyze lessons learned regarding the 
performance of current MRAP vehicles in Operation Iraqi Freedom 
and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well as development, 
testing, and fielding of add-on armor kits for MRAP vehicles to 
protect against explosively formed penetrators (EFP) and rocket 
propelled grenades; completed multiple oversight visits to the 
primary facility being used for all government furnished 
equipment integration and installation on MATVs, in order to 
observe the facility's capability to meet demand and determine 
whether possible chokepoints existed for MATV production; meet 
with officials from United States Transportation Command to 
assess airlift and sealift capacity for transporting MATVs to 
the combat theater in the most expeditious manner; meet with 
officials from the DOD Office of Industrial Policy and the 
Defense Contract Management Agency to review on-going 
Industrial Capabilities Assessments for the MRAP vehicle 
program; and meet with officials from the Office of the 
Director for Operational Test and Evaluation to assess MRAP and 
MATV performance against evolving threats.
    The committee also continued to cite the importance of 
having an adequate supply of vehicles to meet home station 
training requirements and encouraged the use of vehicle 
simulators for next-to-deploy units if the actual vehicles were 
unavailable for training.
    In order to assist in detailed oversight of this program, 
the committee also requested the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to monitor and observe the MRAP vehicle and MATV 
programs. The committee received quarterly updates on the GAO's 
observations and findings. Additionally, the committee 
continues to receive weekly status updates from the MRAP joint 
program office on MRAP and MATV production and fielding; 
operation and support status; product improvement efforts, and 
supply chain management.
    Because of direct congressional involvement and the 
willingness of the Secretary of Defense to make this program a 
top priority, over 25,000 MRAP vehicles will have been produced 
by December 2010. Since the start of the MRAP family of 
vehicles program in 2007, Congress, largely a result of 
committee activity, has authorized and appropriated full 
funding for the program totaling over $40.0 billion, to 
accelerate production, fielding, and mobilization of the 
industrial base. It has been estimated by United States Central 
Command that the use of MRAPs have helped reduce casualties 
from improvised explosive devices by almost 80 percent. 
Department of Defense officials have stated that the casualty 
rate for MRAPs is 6 percent of that experienced by the other 
vehicles, making it ``the most survivable vehicle we have in 
our arsenal, by a multitude.''

                          Body Armor Programs

    The committee continued its extensive oversight of 
individual body armor programs throughout the 111th Congress 
through hearings, briefings, and other activities. The 
committee maintained strong interest and support for any new 
technology developments that could provide significant 
improvements in body armor, and in particular, advancements in 
lighter-weight solutions.
    To ensure fairness to competing contractors; transparency 
of the testing and selection process; and improve 
standardization within the testing process, the committee 
required the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation as well 
as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to provide 
procedural and technical oversight over the body armor test and 
evaluation procedures and processes used for Department of 
Defense body armor programs. As a result of this effort, the 
DOD's body armor program will have a standardized set of test 
procedures and protocols that will improve confidence and 
statistical knowledge regarding the overall performance of body 
armor systems. This should allow for higher-confidence 
procurement decisions, ensuring that the best possible 
individual body armor capability is qualified, produced, 
procured, and issued to the warfighter in a timely manner. The 
Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces, in correspondence to the 
Department of Defense, strongly encouraged the Secretary of 
Defense to apply these standardized processes and implement 
recommendations reported by the GAO regarding improvements to 
body armor test procedures.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) required individual procurement and 
research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E;) line items 
be established for body armor beginning in fiscal year 2011 in 
order to provide increased visibility and oversight within the 
Department of Defense and Congress. The committee noted the 
total body armor program has evolved from a $40.0 million 
program in 1999, to over a $6.0 billion program through 2010. 
This represents significant investment by the military services 
for individual personnel protection. The establishment of RDT&E; 
program elements would provide better visibility within the DOD 
acquisition accounts for body armor programs, increasing the 
likelihood that: the warfighter is equipped with the most 
current personal protection equipment; technology funding is 
forthcoming and sufficient to pursue ways to reduce weight with 
current technologies; and increased investment is provided for 
promising technologies that would eventually achieve reduced 
weight and increased protection together, as well as maximize 
flexibility and modularity. The establishment of an individual 
procurement line item would generate better accountability and 
transparency in long-term planning, programming, and investment 
by the military services for the acquisition of body armor.
    The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) directs the Secretary of Defense 
to identify a federally funded research and development center 
to examine the requirements for lighter weight body armor 
systems as well as to provide recommendations in how the 
Secretary and the secretary of each military department may 
more effectively address the research, development, and 
procurement requirements regarding reducing the weight of body 
armor.
    Largely as a result of committee leadership, Congress 
authorized and appropriated over $1.0 billion for individual 
body armor and associated components in the 111th Congress.

         Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization

    To date, Congress has provided approximately $19.0 billion 
[2006-2010] to JIEDDO to address the IED threat through 
JIEDDO's three lines of operation: attacking the network, 
defeating the device, and training the force.
    In the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's focal point 
for the counter- improvised explosive devices (C-IED) mission. 
In October 2009, the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations continued to conduct hearings on JIEDDO to 
follow up on prior hearings and determine whether shortcomings 
identified previously had been rectified. Previously identified 
deficiencies included a lack of rigor within JIEDDO management 
and reporting; concerns regarding JIEDDO's line of authority 
under the Deputy Secretary of Defense; and JIEDDO's 
effectiveness in transferring counter-IED technologies to the 
services.
    The subcommittee continued to find that although the nearly 
3,100-person strong JIEDDO obligates over $2.0 billion 
annually, and it reports significant progress in the counter-
IED mission, it is not clear how well the organization is 
accomplishing its mission. In particular, the subcommittee 
found that JIEDDO does not actively lead all DOD C-IED efforts, 
as its charter calls for. In fact, in November 2009, Secretary 
Gates chartered a task force to combat IEDs, the Counter-IED 
Senior Integration Group (C-SIG) that was co-led by the Under 
Secretary of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the 
Director of Operations of the Joint Staff. C-SIG was originally 
chartered to report monthly and complete its tasking by June 
2010. The subcommittee held two classified member briefings 
with the C-SIG members. The C-SIG appears to have been very 
effective in facilitating C-IED initiatives in support of the 
troop surge in Afghanistan. However, it remains unclear whether 
the C-SIG will replace the integrating function originally 
envisioned for JIEDDO or evolve into something else. It also 
remains unclear whether JIEDDO's charter to lead all C-IED 
efforts remains valid.
    The subcommittee made various recommendations to the 
Department, subcommittee findings identified in the follow-on 
report contributed to the committee's oversight of JIEDDO, and 
force protection, more generally. In addition, the subcommittee 
continues to follow the progress of other DOD C-IED 
initiatives, in particular the C-SIG.
    In addition to the subcommittee's persistent work and 
detailed analysis, the committee also required JIEDDO to 
provide monthly updates on all obligations and expenditures. 
The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) requires the Secretary of Defense to 
direct the Director of JIEDDO to work with the military 
services and to develop a comprehensive Department of Defense-
wide database for all C-IED initiatives. This database would 
help to improve visibility, knowledge, transparency, and 
accountability across the Department in managing C-IED programs 
as well as prevent duplication of effort.

        Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs

    The Department of Defense procurement budget request for 
non-space-based or tactical intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance (ISR) systems for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal 
year 2011 was approximately $4.0 billion and $5.0 billion, 
respectively. Funding for ISR is requested in all four service 
budgets and the Special Operations Command. In many cases, this 
funding is for very similar capabilities. Throughout the 111th 
Congress, because of the integral role ISR assets contribute to 
force protection, the committee continued to provide close 
oversight over myriad projects operated throughout the 
Department of Defense. As currently configured, many ISR 
programs not only provide ISR, but have a collateral on-board 
kinetic capability that allows for immediate targeting of 
threats posed to U.S. and coalition forces. This capability 
makes ISR assets all the more critical to U.S. force protection 
capability. Longstanding concerns of the committee regarding 
DOD policy, roles and missions and acquisition of ISR assets 
include: lack of an adequate long-term ISR architecture and 
acquisition strategy; lack of oversight and management by the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense of the military services' 
programs; failure of the Joint Capabilities Integration and 
Development System to fulfill its role in screening proposed 
programs from the services and commands; lack of supporting 
analysis for programmatic decisions; failure to balance 
collection programs data output with adequate resources to 
process, exploit, and disseminate data and analysis; 
unnecessary proliferation of unmanned and manned vehicles, 
sensors, and ground stations; and a fundamental failure to 
establish roles and missions of the military services for such 
ISR assets as unmanned aerial systems.
    The committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) expressed the 
committee's concern that DOD was not balancing its collection 
assets with the required analytical capabilities and directed 
the Secretary of Defense to provide the GAO required 
information and data to meet the committee's request to support 
oversight requirements. Also, due to committee concern that ISR 
assets were not being effectively allocated to the force 
protection mission, the committee directed that a study be 
conducted of the effectiveness of aerial ISR systems in the 
Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, with 
the particular emphasis on the allocation and tasking of these 
systems, and the relative benefits and trade-offs of providing 
control of a dedicated system or platform to ground force 
commanders versus centrally controlling individual assets 
across the theater of operations.

              Military Modernization and Investment Issues

    Throughout the 111th Congress, particular attention was 
again given to continuing examination of military equipment 
modernization with respect to military capability. In many 
cases, major weapons system development and acquisition 
programs have experienced cost growth and schedule delays. The 
committee assessed the need for legislative action by examining 
causes of these problems including: mil poor cost estimating; 
improper funding profiles; over-capacitization for achieved 
production rates; labor and material cost increases; poor 
program execution; and program instability.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) included the following legislative 
provisions to address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and 
performance issues with programs: limitation on low-rate 
initial production quantities for the Future Combat Systems 
Spin-Out Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team equipment; 
limitation on costs of littoral combat ships; designation of 
the Littoral Combat Ship program as a major defense acquisition 
program; limitation on the availability of funds pending 
reports regarding surface combatant shipbuilding programs; 
conditional authorization of multi-year procurement for F/A-
18E, F/A-18E/F or EA-18G aircraft; limitation on reduction of 
the pace of execution of the E-8C Joint Surveillance and Target 
Attack Radar Systems re-engining program; establishment of 
dedicated line items for body armor procurement and research 
and development programs; limitation on obligation of 
procurement funding until certification of approved joint and 
common requirement for unmanned cargo-carrying-capable aerial 
vehicles; limitation on the expenditure of research and 
development funding for the joint submersible program pending 
an assessment of cost-sharing; establishment of dedicated 
procurement and research and development line items for the F-
35B and F-35C aircraft programs; limitation of funding for the 
Army Tactical Ground Network program pending a report; 
assessment of technology maturity and integration risk of 
specified Army modernization programs; assessment of research 
and development activities for modernization of the combat 
vehicle fleet and the armored tactical vehicle fleet; 
assessment of the coordination of energy storage device 
requirements purchases and investments; requirement for the 
conduct of an annual review of the F-35 aircraft program; 
limitation of funding until completion of a report on the 
integration of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
capabilities; report on the future research and development of 
man-portable and vehicle-mounted guided missile systems; and 
report on command and control systems.
    The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) included the following legislative 
provisions to address acquisition-related issues: multiyear 
funding for detail design and construction of LHA Replacement 
ship designated LHA-7; requirement to maintain Navy airborne 
signals intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
capabilities; reports on service-life extension of F/A-18 
aircraft by the Department of the Navy; limitations on 
biometric system funds; system management plan and matrix for 
the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program; study of 
lightweight body armor solutions; integration of solid state 
laser systems into certain aircraft; contracts for commercial 
imaging satellite capacities; program for research, 
development, and deployment of advanced ground vehicles, ground 
vehicle systems, and components; demonstration and pilot 
projects on cybersecurity; acquisition accountability reports 
on the ballistic missile defense system; report on analysis of 
alternatives and program requirements for the Ground Combat 
Vehicle program; cost benefit analysis of future tank-fired 
munitions; annual Comptroller General report on the VH-(XX) 
presidential helicopter acquisition program; sense of congress 
affirming the importance of Department of Defense participation 
in development of next generation semiconductor technologies; 
pilot program on collaborative energy security; and pilot 
program to include technology protection features during 
research and development of defense systems.

                         Army Aviation Programs

    During the 111th Congress, the Army sustained operations in 
the Republic of Iraq in 2009 and the first half of 2010, 
initiating the drawdown of forces in mid-2010, while Army 
operations surged in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 
2010. Large numbers of legacy rotorcraft deployed to the 
Central Command area of operations continued, continued to be 
operated at high tempos. Aircraft deployed included the CH-47, 
UH-60, AH-64, and OH-58. The committee fully supported funding 
requirements for these aircraft, including research and 
development and procurement of significant aircraft 
survivability equipment upgrades to provide warning and 
protection against the insurgent surface-to-air missile threat. 
Further, due to committee concerns that the Army was not fully 
addressing the significant effort required to fully address 
sustainment of the fleet of OH-58 aircraft, the committee 
directed in the report accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (H. Rept. 111-166), that 
a report be provided detailing the requirements for upgrading 
the power train for the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior aircraft.

                     Future Combat Systems Program

    The committee devoted considerable oversight efforts to the 
long-troubled Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. These 
efforts focused on ensuring adequate testing of all FCS 
elements and reducing risk to the program by encouraging the 
Army to take a more measured, cautious path to beginning large-
scale production. Although the Army terminated the FCS program 
in June 2009, the committee's efforts ensured that the residual 
program elements were not rushed to production before they were 
ready, saving substantial sums that were available to meet 
other Army priorities. In addition to adjusting program 
funding, the committee included two legislative provisions in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) that restricted the Army's ability to move 
beyond production rates otherwise established by Department of 
Defense standards for low-rate initial production and ensured 
that post-FCS research and development efforts met other 
Department of Defense requirements for technology maturity.

                     Army Tactical Missile Programs

    The committee increased its oversight activities regarding 
Army missile programs due to the very high production rates 
proposed in budget requests and concerns about the long-term 
health of the tactical missile industrial base. While 
supporting warfighter needs, the committee was able to identify 
significant savings in both fiscal years 2010 and 2011 based on 
production efficiencies and increasing foreign military sales 
for Army tactical missile systems. Oversight efforts focused on 
ensuring upgrades or replacement programs were in place for the 
Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided (TOW), Javelin, 
and Stinger missile systems. In addition, the committee 
included legislation in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that required the Army 
to further clarify its plans for future missile production.

                   Army Armored Vehicle Modernization

    The committee focused closely on the Army's plans for 
upgrading current combat vehicles and starting new replacement 
programs. These oversight efforts included the committee's 
continued efforts to reshape and reduce funding for the eight 
manned ground vehicles (MGV) that the Army originally planned 
to procure through the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, 
based on concerns regarding vehicle survivability, cost, and 
complexity. After years of cost growth and schedule delays, the 
Army terminated all eight variants of the MGV in June 2009, 
largely justifying the committee's long-standing concerns about 
the requirements and acquisition strategy the Army was using 
for this troubled program. In the aftermath of this 
termination, the committee focused on ensuring the Army's plans 
for the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) did not repeat the errors 
of previous programs.
    With regard to existing armored vehicles, the committee's 
sought to protect and strengthen vehicle upgrade programs, for 
which the Army showed varying levels of support. In particular, 
the committee attempted to place continued upgrades to the M1 
Abrams tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles, 
and Paladin Artillery Vehicles on a firm footing for the future 
by ensuring the Army carried through with upgrade plans and 
used authorized funds as directed. These oversight efforts 
included hearings, site visits, close coordination with Army 
leadership, and careful scrutiny of reprogramming requests.

             Tactical Wheeled Vehicle Acquisition Strategy

    Throughout the 111th Congress, the committee paid 
particular attention to the Department's attempt to develop a 
comprehensive, joint tactical wheeled vehicle (TWV) strategy. 
From 2003 to 2010, Congress provided $43.0 billion for the 
procurement and recapitalization of TWVs, which consists of 
260,000 light, medium and heavy vehicles; the sheer magnitude 
of which presents many challenges.
    Despite strong support from Congress through legislation 
and authorization of appropriations, the committee through 
hearings, briefings, and legislation observed that DOD still 
does not have a comprehensive long-term TWV acquisition 
strategy that takes into consideration joint requirements and 
sustainment. The committee repeatedly noted that a potential 
risk exists of unplanned overlap in capabilities throughout the 
military services in TWV procurement and this particular risk 
needs to be better managed by the Department of Defense. Since 
2004, a major portion of TWV modernization procurement funding 
has been provided through Overseas Contingency Operations 
(OCO), supplemental appropriations, through annual 
requirements-based contracts, which the committee believes to 
be inefficient and preclude the Department from benefiting from 
potential cost savings.
    During the 111th Congress, the committee requested GAO to 
continue its work in the area of TWV acquisition and fleet 
management and the committee continues to receive quarterly 
updates from GAO. The committee requested GAO to conduct a 
performance audit of the Army and Marine Corps's tactical 
wheeled vehicle investment strategies as well as the Mine 
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) all-terrain vehicle (MATV) 
program and Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. The 
committee specifically required GAO to assess the current 
status of acquiring and fielding MATVs, including estimated 
acquisition cost and demonstrated performance; JLTVs expected 
features and cost compared to that of other TWV such as the 
MATV; and the extent to which current plans for MATV and JLTV 
are consistent with the broad objectives and strategies that 
the Army and Marine Corps have stated in their TWV investment 
strategies.
    The JLTV program is the largest new procurement of tactical 
wheeled vehicles planned for the Department of Defense. No firm 
quantities have been determined for the JLTV, but the current 
estimate is that the Army alone would like to have one-third of 
the light tactical vehicle fleet be JLTVs, approximately 50,000 
vehicles. Accordingly, the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) required the 
establishment of separate research, development, test, and 
evaluation program elements for the JLTV program in order to 
improve oversight of the JLTV program.

                     Army Tactical Network Programs

    Due to a significant increase in Army funding for tactical 
communications equipment, the committee pursued aggressive 
oversight efforts to shape the Army's plans for future 
battlefield networking equipment. These efforts stemmed from 
the committee's concern that the Army was procuring an 
incompatible combination of commercial and military 
communications equipment based on redundant programs, unclear 
requirements, and uncoordinated acquisition plans. In response, 
the committee pursued a combination of legislative 
restrictions, funding adjustments to select programs, hearings, 
reprogramming decisions, and outside expert reports to help 
guide the Army to a more suitable and affordable path forward. 
Due in large part to the committee's efforts, senior Army 
leaders in 2010 began taking the necessary actions to address 
and correct the numerous challenges facing the Army in this 
critical area.

               Fighter Aircraft Force Structure Adequacy

    During the 111th Congress, the committee investigated the 
adequacy of fighter force structure in both the Navy and the 
Air Force. The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces held a hearing on May 19, 2009. The Navy witness 
testified that F/A-18A/B/C/D aircraft are reaching their 
projected service-life and will require replacement or 
modifications to further extend their service-life to eventual 
deployment of the F-35 aircraft. The committee later learned 
that the Department of the Navy estimated its strike fighter 
shortfall to be 146 aircraft. The Subcommittee on Air and Land 
Forces held a hearing on May 20, 2009, on Air Force 
modernization programs, at which the Air Force witness 
testified to the planned retirement of 254 fighter aircraft in 
fiscal year 2010. Air Force officials briefed the committee 
that the proposed fighter aircraft retirements were an 
acceleration of retirements already planned in the near term, 
and would not worsen fighter shortfalls projected between 
fiscal years 2017 and 2024. The National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) authorized an 
increase of nine F/A-18E/F aircraft for the Navy and also 
authorized other Navy and Air Force requests for the 
procurement of new fighter aircraft, including F-35s for both 
the Navy and the Air Force.
    On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land 
Forces held a joint hearing on fiscal year 2011 Navy and Air 
Force combat aviation programs. At this hearing, Navy witnesses 
noted that, with the changes in the fiscal year 2011 budget 
request, the strike fighter shortfall analysis was updated and 
the peak Department of the Navy shortfall rose from 146 to 177 
aircraft, primarily due to an F-35 delivery ramp reduction of 
55 aircraft and removing the assumption of aircraft reaching 
10,000 flight hours. The Navy witnesses also testified that the 
peak shortfall can be managed to about 100 aircraft in 2018. 
Also at this hearing, Air Force witnesses testified that in 
April 2008 the Air Force informed Congress of a projected 
fighter gap of over 800 aircraft in 2024, and that since that 
testimony, three key fighter force structure assumptions have 
changed. First, during the Department's fiscal year 2010 budget 
cycle, the Air Force elected to accept increased short to mid-
term war fighting risk and a subsequent smaller fighter force 
in exchange for modernization. Second, the Air Force F-35 
procurement rate used for planning was increased from 48 to 80 
per year. Third, the approach to fighter service life 
computations was refined. The combination of these changes 
significantly reduced the fighter gap. Consequently, the Air 
Force witness testified that the Air Force did not see a 
fighter inventory shortfall at that time. The Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 
6523), authorized an increase of eight F/A-18E/F aircraft for 
the Navy and also authorized other Navy and Air Force requests 
for the procurement of new fighter aircraft, including F-35s 
for both the Navy and the Air Force. However, it also decreased 
the Air Force Overseas Contingency Operations budget request by 
one F-35, justified as a replacement for an operational loss of 
a F-15E aircraft, because the committee believed that the Air 
Force could alternatively choose to retire one less aircraft 
than planned, immediately meeting its requirement. 
Additionally, Public Law 111-238, which was initiated by the 
House Armed Services Committee and signed into law by the 
President on September 27, 2010, provided the Navy with the 
authority to procure additional F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft 
under a multiyear procurement contract, and is expected to 
reduce the procurement unit cost of these future aircraft.

                     F-35 Fighter Aircraft Program

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued 
oversight of the F-35 program, particularly the competitive 
propulsion system, the F136 alternate engine, program. The F-35 
competitive propulsion system program is developing the F136 
engine, which is intended to eventually provide F-35 equipped 
forces a competitive choice between the primary F135 engine and 
the F136 engine. Congress and the Department of Defense had 
originally supported the competitive engine initiative since 
1995, but the Department of Defense has not included funding 
for the competitive propulsion system program in its budget 
requests since 2006. The Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
held a hearing on May 20, 2009. At that hearing, the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense witness testified that the F-35 
acquisition strategy contains provisions for a competitive 
engine program, provided funds are available to execute that 
strategy, and that the Department continues to execute 
appropriated F136 development funding to ensure that a 
competitive engine program remains viable while there is 
funding is available. The Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) witness testified that the GAO's prior analysis indicated 
that competitive pressures could yield enough savings to offset 
the costs of engine competition over the F-35 program's life. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) authorized $430.0 million for continued 
development and $130.0 million for procurement of the F-35 
competitive propulsion system.
    On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittees on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces and Air and Land Forces held a joint 
hearing on fiscal year 2011 Navy and Air Force aviation 
programs. The Secretary of Defense witness testified that $2.9 
billion remains to be invested to fund the competitive engine 
program to provide for an engine competition in fiscal year 
2017. Further a 2010 update of the 2007 Department of Defense 
business case for the F-35 alternate engine, which accounts for 
the additional funding provided by Congress since fiscal year 
2007 and more recent engine program actual cost performance, 
concludes that the second engine is at the break-even point in 
net present value. The GAO witness testified that under certain 
assumptions, the additional costs of continuing the F136 
alternate engine program could be recouped if competition were 
to generate approximately 10.1 to 12.6 percent savings over the 
life of the program. Additionally, the GAO witness testified 
that Air Force data on the first four years of competition for 
engines on the F-16 aircraft projected they would recoup at 
least that much and that competition could also provide non-
quantifiable benefits with respect to better contractor 
responsiveness, technical innovation and improved operational 
readiness. The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), authorized the amounts 
necessary for the Department of the Navy requests for F-35, F/
A-18E/F, and EA-18G fighter aircraft, and for the Department of 
the Air Force request for F-35 fighter aircraft. Additionally, 
Public Law 111-238, which was sponsored by a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services and signed into law by the 
President on September 27, 2010, provided the Navy with the 
authority to procure additional F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft 
under a multiyear procurement contract, and is expected to 
reduce the procurement unit cost of these future aircraft.

                         F-22A Aircraft Program

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued 
oversight of the Air Force F-22 aircraft procurement program. 
Fiscal year 2009 was the final year of a three-year, 60-
aircraft F-22 aircraft multiyear procurement program that will 
result in a force structure of 187 F-22 aircraft, including the 
four additional F-22s appropriated in the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32). During committee 
deliberations on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) members expressed concern 
about the disposition of tooling used to produce F-22 aircraft, 
and recommended that the Department of the Air Force submit a 
report on the preservation and storage of unique tooling for F-
22 aircraft. Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the 
Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report on the plan to 
preserve and store unique F-22 tooling related to the 
production of hardware and end-items for F-22 aircraft.

                   Long-Range Strike Aircraft Program

    During the 111th Congress, the committee maintained close 
oversight of the Department's long-range strike bomber 
programs. The Nation maintains a legacy fleet of 163 long range 
strike aircraft.
    The fiscal year 2010 budget request contained approximately 
$1.1 billion for modernization of 20 B-2 bomber ($699.4 
million), 76 B-52 bomber ($172.7 million), and 67 B-1 bomber 
($276.1 million) aircraft.
    The fiscal year 2011 budget request contains $817.3 million 
for modernization of 20 B-2 bomber, 76 B-52 bomber, and 67 B-1 
bomber aircraft. The budget request also contains $200.0 
million for sustainment of the industrial base bomber 
workforce, and in total, $1.7 billion is included in fiscal 
years 2011 through 2015 for development of a long-range strike 
platform. According to Air Force budget officials, the $1.7 
billion is divided into the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP): 
$200 million in each of fiscal years 2011 and 2012; $300 
million in fiscal year 2013; $400 million in fiscal year 2014; 
and, $600 million in fiscal year 2015.
    Prior to the release of the fiscal year 2010 budget 
request, the Secretary of Defense announced on April 6, 2009, 
that the Department ``will not pursue a development program for 
a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better 
understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology. 
We will examine all of our strategic requirements during the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, and in 
light of post-Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) arms 
control negotiations.''
    Out of concern for the imperative of sustaining the 
industrial base for long range strike aircraft capability, the 
engineering and manufacturing workforce related to highly 
specialized and unique work involved with the Next Generation 
Bomber (NGB) program, the committee authorized $140.0 million 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) to continue key technology development 
efforts associated with long-range strike aircraft 
requirements.
    In testimony on the fiscal year 2011 DOD budget request the 
Secretary of Defense stated that a new Air Force bomber ``would 
probably not appear into the force until the late '20s'' and 
that the Department is ``still wrestling'' with the type of 
bomber platform to pursue (e.g., stand-off, penetrating, 
manned, unmanned, nuclear, non-nuclear, or some combination of 
those attributes).
    In accordance with Section 231a of the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for FY09, the Secretary of 
Defense submitted the Departments of the Navy and Air Force 30-
year Aircraft Investment Plan with the fiscal year 2011 
President's Budget. In this report, the Department categorized 
its aircraft capabilities into four principal investment 
objectives, with the following highlights for the long-range 
strike category: ``Modernize long-range strike capabilities . . 
. the current fleet of Air Force bombers continues to be 
modernized since much of the inventory has a planned service-
life through FY 40. A study is currently underway to identify 
the ``right mix'' of manned and unmanned technologies that will 
provide future long-range strike capabilities and to determine 
the right balance between range, payload, speed, stealth, and 
on-board sensors. A result of that study should be the 
identification of a replacement aircraft for the legacy bomber 
fleet with an associated timing and funding profile required to 
support recapitalization of long-range strike bombers.''
    The report states that the FY11-FY40 aviation plan is 
consistent with the tenets of the Quadrennial Defense Review 
(QDR) and meets the national security requirements of the 
United States, and that the future years defense plan (FYDP) 
provides the funding needed to implement the aviation plan 
through FY 15. However, for the years beyond the FYDP, the 
funding projections presented in the plan assume three percent 
real growth, on average, in annual investments, which is 
acknowledged as optimistic. The report also states that the 
aviation plan incorporates realistic projections of program 
costs within the FYDP. According to the bomber inventory plan 
in the report, the Air Force plans to maintain a total of 162 
bomber aircraft in fiscal years 2011 through 2020. 
Additionally, the QDR states that the Air Force plans to 
maintain a force structure of 5 bomber wings and a total of 96 
primary mission aircraft.
    Over the past 18 years, the Air Force has conducted 
numerous studies and analyses with the assistance of the 
Institute for Defense Analyses and the Defense Science Board to 
determine options for a new bomber platform. The committee 
understands that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council 
approved an Initial Capabilities Document and that the Next 
Generation Bomber acquisition strategy formulated by the Air 
Force, was approved by the Undersecretary of Defense for 
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics in late 2008. The 
committee also understands that efforts were underway in early 
2009 for the Air Force to seek approval by the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council of the Capabilities Development 
Document. Because of committee concerns of continued delays in 
the long range strike aircraft program, the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 
6523) included a provision, which would require the Secretary 
of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees outlining the plan for current bomber 
modernization and sustainment, as well as a comparative cost 
and requirements analysis of developing a single long-range 
strike platform as compared to a ``family of systems.''

           KC-X Aerial Refueling Aircraft Acquisition Program

    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued to 
support the Air Force's number one acquisition program of 
tanker recapitalization, believing that the ability for aerial 
refueling during military operations is a critical enabling 
capability in meeting National Military Strategy objectives. 
The committee noted that recapitalization of the KC-135 fleet 
of 415 aircraft, currently delayed 9 years because of failures 
internal to the Pentagon's acquisition system, once initiated, 
would take over 30 years to complete, based on current budget 
constraints and other Department of Defense priorities that 
require significant funding.
    Subsequent to the Secretary of Defense's direction to 
suspend the KC-X competition on September 10, 2008, he 
announced on April 6, 2009, that the program would be restarted 
and a 179-aircraft KC-X contract would be awarded in March or 
April 2010. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 authorized the Department's budget request of $439.6 
million for this purpose. Since the Secretary's announcement on 
April 6, 2009, further delays have resulted in an estimated 
contract award date of January 2011. The Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) 
authorized an amount necessary in the appropriation for Air 
Force research, development, test and evaluation to provide for 
the Air Force KC-X development program in fiscal year 2011.

             Inter/Intra-Theater Airlift Aircraft Programs

    The 111th Congress continued to closely oversee the 
modernization and sustainment of its inter/intra theater 
airlift aircraft. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Air 
and Land Forces and the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces on February 25, 2009, the Commander of the 
United States Transportation Command testified that a force 
structure of 205 C-17s, 52 C-5Ms, and 59 C-5As modified with 
the avionics modernization program, a total of 316 strategic 
airlift aircraft, meets the requirement to transport 33.95 
million ton-miles per day. Additionally, the committee noted 
that the previous Commander of the United States Transportation 
Command and the current Air Force Chief of Staff identified 316 
strategic airlift aircraft as the global mobility inter-theater 
aircraft requirement. Accordingly, the committee recommended a 
provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that would require the Department 
of Defense to maintain a minimum strategic airlift force 
structure of 316 aircraft. Committee concerns on C-5 basing 
resulting from projected C-5 aircraft retirements also resulted 
in a legislative provision that would require the Department of 
Defense to submit a report at least 120 days before such 
retirements would occur on how C-5 retirements would affect 
installations, which was also included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). 
Finally, committee members' concern regarding legislative 
restrictions on the Air Force's ability to fully retire C-130E 
aircraft due to previous congressional restrictions, resulted 
in a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that repealed the 
requirement to maintain certain C-130E aircraft.
    On April 28, 2010, the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
held a hearing on Air Mobility Programs at which the primary 
focus was on a recently released Department of Defense Mobility 
Capabilities Study (MCS) 2016 and the KC-X aerial refueling 
tanker acquisition program. Members expressed concern about 
whether the Department of Defense met its stated objectives in 
the MCS 2016, and, as a result, directed the GAO to conduct a 
study on the Department of Defense's methodology for MCS 2016 
and to determine whether MCS 2016 met the Department's stated 
objectives. The GAO report is planned to be submitted in 
November 2010. Committee members also expressed concern at this 
hearing about the effect of foreign subsidies impacting the 
competition in the KC-X aerial refueling tanker acquisition 
program. The House passed a bill, H.R. 6540, to require the 
removal of any unfair competitive advantage in the pending 
competition for KC-X.

    Combat Search and Rescue-X (CSAR-X) Aircraft Acquisition Program

    In the 111th Congress, the committee continued to remain 
concerned about the Air Force CSAR-X acquisition program which 
had been intended to procure 141 helicopters to replace the 
existing HH-60G fleet with a helicopter capable of greater 
range, increased payload, and improved engine performance 
compared to the HH-60G. In 2007, following a series of protests 
by the CSAR-X offerors and new proposals in 2008, the Secretary 
of Defense announced on April 6, 2009, that the Department had 
canceled the Air Force CSAR-X program and that the Department 
would review the requirement for a specialized Air Force 
search-and-rescue aircraft and determine whether it should be a 
joint capability. For fiscal year 2010, the budget request 
included $90.0 million in Air Force research, development, test 
and evaluation (RDT&E;) for the CSAR-X program, of which the Air 
Force budgeted $75.0 million for the procurement of two HH-60M 
helicopters to replace HH-60G operational losses. The committee 
recommended a reduction of $75.0 million based on the absence 
of justification for the request for two HH-60M helicopters. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
(Public Law 111-84) did not authorize any funds for Air Force 
CSAR-X RDT&E.;
    On March 24, 2010, the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces and the Subcommittee on Air and Land 
Forces held a joint hearing on fiscal year 2011 Navy and Air 
Force combat aviation programs. At this hearing, Air Force 
witnesses testified that the budget request included funding 
for six HH-60G Operational Loss Replacement aircraft, including 
three from Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, and 
that those aircraft would continue to restore the legacy HH-60G 
fleet to the 112-aircraft program of record. The Air Force 
witness also testified that the Air Force is working with the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff to finalize 
the requirements and acquisition strategy for a full fleet 
recapitalization of the legacy HH-60G fleet. The Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 
6523) authorized an amount necessary in the Air Force research, 
development, test, and evaluation appropriation for the budget 
request for development of HH-60 recapitalization. The Act also 
authorized an amount required in the Air Force aircraft 
procurement appropriation for the budget request for 
operational loss replacement aircraft.

                             Space Programs

    Concerns about the vulnerability of space-based national 
security capabilities were underscored by two events during the 
111th Congress: the collision of a defunct Russian Cosmos 
satellite with an Iridium communications satellite on February 
10, 2009 and the Chinese test of a missile defense interceptor 
on January 11, 2010 that was similar to the anti-satellite 
system tested in February 2007. On March 18, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held an open hearing that 
explored three key issues related to space and U.S. security: 
First, do we have the right national policy to ensure the 
security of our space assets, particularly those supporting the 
warfighter and national intelligence collection? Second, do we 
have the right investment strategy for protecting and defending 
critical space assets and capabilities? Finally, what role can 
diplomacy play in ensuring the security of our space assets? 
Subsequently, the committee proposed legislation, ultimately 
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), making permanent the pilot 
program for sharing space surveillance data with state 
governments, U.S. and foreign commercial entities, and foreign 
governments in an effort to reduce potential satellite 
collisions. On July 21, 2009, the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces received a classified briefing on the space protection 
program from the joint sponsors, Air Force Space Command and 
the National Reconnaissance Office. On November 17, 2009, the 
subcommittee was briefed on cyber threats to strategic systems, 
including the implications for key satellite capabilities.
    With a number of military space programs behind schedule 
and over cost, the committee continued its oversight of 
national security space acquisitions. On April 30, 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on space system 
acquisitions and the industrial base focused on the following 
questions: What are the root causes of cost growth and schedule 
delays in the acquisition of national security space systems? 
Are plans for national security space acquisitions properly 
balanced with the industry's capacity to deliver? And finally, 
what recommendations should the Congress and the executive 
branch consider for addressing these problems? One 
recommendation that emerged from the hearing was the need for a 
research and development strategy, coordinated across the 
Department of Defense and the intelligence community, to 
provide an overall plan for maintaining and improving our space 
capabilities. A requirement for such a strategy was included as 
section 911 of the National Defense Authorization Act or Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84).
    The committee continued tracking the performance of several 
high profile space programs including the Advanced Extremely 
High Frequency communications satellite, the National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS), 
and the Space-Based Infrared System-High missile warning 
program. In the case of NPOESS program, the committee included 
significant directive language in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). 
Given the cost and schedule problems encountered by the NPOESS 
program, and recognizing that military commanders must have 
access to accurate and timely weather information in order to 
prepare for operations, the committee supported legislation 
directing the President to develop a strategy for the 
management and funding of the tri-agency (Department of 
Defense, Department of Commerce, and the National Aviation and 
Space Administration) program, and an implementation plan for 
that strategy. Subsequently, the President recommended a major 
restructuring of the nation's weather observation program.
    In addition, particular attention was given to efforts that 
increase the responsiveness of space capabilities to meet the 
evolving needs of the warfighter. The committee has long been 
at the forefront of encouraging the Department to develop low-
cost, rapid reaction, operationally responsive space (ORS) 
satellite and launch capabilities that can provide prompt, 
focused space support to warfighters in their theaters of 
operations and more rapidly fill the void that exists between 
space science, technology efforts, and operational space 
requirements development. In that regard, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces recommended an increase of $23.0 million to 
support the launch of the first ORS imaging satellite in its 
markup of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010. This satellite program was triggered by an urgent 
need from United States Central Command to address a gap in 
surveillance coverage and should be launched by the end of 
2010.
    The committee coordinated its oversight of space activities 
with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
through joint briefings on issues of mutual concern. 
Specifically, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held joint 
briefings with the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical 
Intelligence on the way ahead on overhead commercial imagery on 
November 17, 2009, and the state of the U.S. space launch 
enterprise on January 13, 2010.
    Committee delegations visited the United States Strategic 
Command and several military installations to gain insight into 
warfighter needs and the integration of space in military 
operations, as well as service laboratories and industry sites 
to assess technology development in tactical satellites, 
responsive launch vehicles, and progress on major space 
acquisition programs.

                        Missile Defense Programs

    In addition to the annual Missile Defense Agency oversight 
hearings carried out by the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, 
the committee focused significant attention on evaluating the 
President's decision, announced on September 17, 2009, to adopt 
a new strategy for defending our European allies, forward-
deployed troops, and the United States homeland from the threat 
of an Iranian ballistic missile attack. Based on a full 
committee hearing on the matter held on October 1, 2009, House 
conferees agreed to provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
that: (1) authorized of up to $309.0 million for the 
President's European missile defense plan, known as the Phased 
Adaptive Approach, if the Secretary of Defense certified that 
the system is operationally effective and cost-effective in 
providing protection for Europe and the United States; (2) 
permanently extended the prohibition on deployment of long-
range missile defense interceptors in Europe until the 
Secretary of Defense certifies these interceptors will be 
operationally effective and have the ability to accomplish the 
mission; and (3) required an independent assessment of the 
Phased Adaptive Approach.
    The committee also focused on encouraging effective 
integration of operational testing into the missile defense 
procurement process. On February 25, 2009, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held a hearing to ascertain the current status 
of the missile defense testing program; Missile Defense Agency 
(MDA) plans to restructure the testing program to collect data 
necessary to validate, verify, accredit models and simulations; 
and the specific steps needed to ensure a high level of 
confidence that the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) 
will work in an operationally effective, suitable, and 
survivable manner. The committee's concern about BMDS testing 
was reflected in section 236 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) 
which required the Secretary of Defense to establish a 
comprehensive plan for the developmental and operational 
testing and evaluation of the ballistic missile defense system 
and its various elements. On April 14, 2010, the Strategic 
Forces Subcommittee held a classified briefing on the efforts 
of the MDA and the Operational Test and Evaluation community to 
develop an integrated testing plan.
    Finally, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces took a 
special interest in the transition of the Airborne Laser (ABL) 
program from an acquisition effort to a test bed. The 
subcommittee received a briefing on April 15, 2010 from the 
Director of Defense Research and Engineering and the Director 
of the MDA on potential uses of the ABL platform for testing 
and the roadmap for research on directed energy weapons for 
strategic purposes.

                    U.S. Nuclear Forces and Posture

    United States nuclear forces received significant oversight 
attention during the course of the 111th Congress. On May 6, 
2009, the committee received the final report of the 
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 
States, which the committee had initiated through section 1062 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181). The bipartisan Commission, chaired by 
William Perry and James Schlesinger concluded that it was a 
``moment of opportunity to revise and renew U.S. nuclear 
strategy, but also a moment of urgency.'' It recommended 
additional investment in the scientific, technical, and 
physical infrastructure that supports the stockpile; the 
maintenance of safe, secure, and reliable nuclear arsenal; the 
development and, where appropriate, the deployment of missile 
defenses against regional nuclear aggressors; and a renewal of 
arms control with the Russian Federation.
    On April 6, 2010, the Administration submitted to the 
committee its Nuclear Posture Review required by section 1070 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 
(Public Law 110-181). This new nuclear strategy review, the 
first since the 2001 nuclear posture review, reaffirmed the 
importance of a strong deterrent and offered a plan for 
focusing nuclear policy on the gravest threats to our security: 
nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation. On April 14, 2010, 
the committee held an oversight hearing on the Nuclear Posture 
Review that assessed the role of nuclear weapons and missile 
defenses, nuclear deterrence, force structure requirements, and 
nuclear complex plans.
    The committee continues to oversee and assess the safety 
and surety of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. On January 21, 2010, 
the Strategic Forces Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on 
status of the Air Force Nuclear Security Roadmap to follow up 
on changes made in the Air Force to improve the management and 
culture related to maintaining and deploying nuclear weapons. 
The committee took a leadership role in seeking the remediation 
of significant shortcomings that had resulted in the mistaken 
shipment of missile nosecones to Taiwan in lieu of helicopter 
batteries, and the unauthorized transfer of nuclear weapons 
from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air 
Force Base in Louisiana on August 30, 2007.

                Military Applications of Nuclear Energy

    As the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal continues to age, 
the committee took action to assure the continued safety, 
security, and reliability of our nuclear deterrent forces. 
Building on the findings of the Congressional Strategic Posture 
Commission, the committee recommended a provision creating a 
``stockpile management program'' to provide better guidance to 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for 
extending the effective life of our nuclear weapons. That 
provision, which was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), 
established three fundamental objectives for managing the 
stockpile: to increase its reliability, safety, and security; 
to further reduce the likelihood of a return to nuclear weapons 
testing; and to achieve reductions in the future size of the 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The Administration embraced the 
Stockpile Management Program in its Nuclear Posture Review, 
which was released on April 6, 2010, along with the 
recommendation of the commission to substantially increase 
investments that support the stockpile. On July 1, 2010, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces received a briefing on the 
NNSA's first Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan.
    The subcommittee also continued its intensive oversight of 
the NNSA, the organization within the Department of Energy 
(DOE) responsible for the safety, security, and reliability of 
United States nuclear weapons. The subcommittee was briefed 
regularly on the status of the weapons stockpile, life 
extension programs, infrastructure needs, and scientific 
progress in understanding weapons performance. Subcommittee 
members and staff visited every laboratory and site within the 
NNSA nuclear weapons complex. In late 2009, the NNSA released 
an independent report by the JASON scientific panel which the 
subcommittee had requested in 2008 in an effort to better 
understand options for stockpile life extension. The 
subcommittee explored the findings of the JASON panel in a 
classified briefing on July 14, 2010. Issues identified during 
these briefings and visits led the committee to recommend 
increased funding for experimentation and stockpile support at 
selected weapons production facilities, and to require the NNSA 
Administrator to submit a revised plan for stockpile 
surveillance in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011.
    The subcommittee also conducted oversight of the Department 
of Energy's management of defense nuclear waste and defense 
environmental management activities, including critical cleanup 
activities at the Hanford Site in Washington State and the 
Savannah River Site in South Carolina, as well as the 
Miamisburg Mound Closure Project in Ohio. Oversight of these 
waste management efforts was intensified in light of the 
substantial increase in funding provided by the President's 
economic stimulus plan. In addition, the subcommittee regularly 
reviewed the DOE's efforts to consolidate and dispose of 
special nuclear materials.

                             Other Reports

    During the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations examined the Department's efforts to improve 
language skills, cultural awareness, and regional expertise. 
The committee released a bipartisan report, ``Building Language 
Skills and Cultural Competencies in the Military: Bridging the 
Gap'' (Committee Print 11, 110th Congress), in November 2008. 
The interest in this area was prompted to a large degree by the 
profound implications that these capabilities have for the 
nation's success in irregular warfare. At the time the 
subcommittee initiated this investigation, the Department was 
in the process of completing the implementation of the tasks in 
its 2004 ``Defense Language Transformation Roadmap.'' The 
subcommittee undertook the initial study to determine the 
extent to which the tasks had been fully implemented, and what 
additional progress was necessary to provide the capabilities 
needed by the combatant commands. The subcommittee recommended 
specific areas for departmental action and for further 
congressional oversight to promote continuing improvement 
building these competencies. In addition, section 529 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84) directed the Secretary of Defense to establish 
language training centers at universities and the senior 
military colleges to accelerate the development of expertise in 
critical and strategic languages. In a continuing oversight 
capacity, the subcommittee held a hearing in June 2010 along 
with briefings, interviews, and fact-finding trips to ascertain 
the progress in implementing the subcommittee's 
recommendations. This follow-on oversight effort is to result 
in a report update titled, ``Building Language Skills and 
Cultural Competencies in the Military: Bridging the Gap,'' in 
December 2010 which finds that, although the Department has 
largely addressed the recommendations in the November 2008 
report, there are still shortcomings which merit further 
oversight. The subcommittee's follow-on oversight effort 
prompted two items of legislation, in part, addressing these 
deficiencies. In the committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011, the committee instructs the Government 
Accountability Office to review the services' language, 
regional expertise, and cultural awareness training of the 
general purpose forces, particularly for ground components. In 
H. Rept. 111-491, the committee also encourages the services to 
provide the Foreign Language Proficiency Bonus Pay for special 
operations personnel testing at the lower, but still required, 
proficiency levels.
    The subcommittee continued its oversight of the Defense 
Travel System (DTS) during the 111th Congress. In 2009, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations conducted a 
follow-on study of the DTS to determine whether shortcomings 
identified in 2008 by the subcommittee and the Government 
Accountability Office had been rectified. This study resulted 
in an ISI in the committee report (H. Rept. 111-166) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 that in part directed the Department to enforce the 
order that DTS serve as the only online travel system. The 
subcommittee, in coordination with the Readiness Subcommittee, 
conducted a follow-up effort in 2010 to review the Department's 
efforts to streamline and simplify all travel conducted under 
its purview. This project attempted to assess the extent to 
which the Defense Travel Management Office, which has 
jurisdiction over Defense travel, implemented the 
recommendations in the committee's report (H. Rept. 111-166). 
In addition, Congress required the Department to produce a 
report on Defense Travel Simplification on or before December 
31, 2009. This report was delivered on May 24, 2010, and 
discusses a ``multi-pronged, incremental approach over multiple 
years'' but does not give a specific time-frame for the 
implementation of this plan. The subcommittee published follow-
up reports on DTS in 2009 and 2010. The latter found that 
several of the recommendations had not been implemented and 
that detailed plans for defense simplification were lacking. 
The subcommittee made various recommendations to the Department 
in support of the Subcommittee on Readiness.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness and the Committee on 
Government Oversight and Reform referred a whistleblower from 
the 275th Military Police Company, a unit of the Washington, 
D.C., Army National Guard, to the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations in 2008. The subcommittee conducted a case study 
of the unit including its readiness status, personnel, 
equipment, and training at home station and under the First 
Army at Camp Shelby, Mississippi in 2007. The subcommittee 
issued an internal committee report in 2009 for the Military 
Personnel and Readiness Subcommittees. The Readiness and the 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee staffs conducted a 
follow-up review of Camp Shelby in 2010. Also in 2010, a 
second, unrelated whistleblower reported similar readiness, 
personnel, training, and equipment pre-deployment issues 
related to the U.S. Army Reserve's 656th Transportation 
Company, which the subcommittees explored.
    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's focal point 
for the battle against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee worked closely with 
the Air and Land Forces and the Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittees to follow up on work in 
the 110th Congress and to determine whether shortcomings 
identified previously had been corrected. Through two hearings, 
two reports, and numerous briefings, the subcommittee continued 
to find that although the nearly 3,100-person strong JIEDDO 
spends over $2.0 billion annually and it reports significant 
progress in the Counter-IED (C-IED) fight, it is not clear how 
well the organization is accomplishing its mission. In November 
2009, Secretary Gates called for a task force to combat IEDs 
that resulted in the Counter-IED Senior Integration Group (C-
SIG) co-led by the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics and Director of Joint Staff for Operations (J-3). 
The subcommittee made various recommendations to the Department 
in its follow-up reports contributing to the committee's and 
other subcommittees' oversight of JIEDDO and of force 
protection, more generally. In addition, the Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee continues to follow the progress of 
other Department of Defense C-IED initiatives, in particular, 
the C-SIG.
    In 2010, the subcommittee also investigated and convened a 
hearing on the problem of outbreaks of multidrug-resistant 
infections in military hospitals, which emerged early on during 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The outbreaks 
created challenges for the military and it took several years 
to bring the infections under control. The subcommittee found 
that the number of infections is now significantly lower 
because the Department and services strengthened infection 
surveillance, control, and prevention in military hospitals, 
particularly those that treat combat-wounded service members. 
However, the infection problem has not been completely solved 
and new outbreaks will be a continuing risk because drug-
resistant infections are a national and global problem in 
civilian and military hospitals. The subcommittee found that 
the Department needs better capabilities to monitor infections 
and enhanced training and expertise in infection control 
practices. In addition, while the Department and services have 
supported a number of research and development studies and 
projects in response to the outbreak of these types of 
infections, there is no coordinated and sustained approach in 
place for continuing to conduct needed research in this area. 
The subcommittee issued a report entitled, ``DOD's Response to 
Multidrug-Resistant Infections in Military Hospitals'' in early 
December 2010.
                 OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

                            Budget Activity

    On March 13, 2009, the Committee on Armed Services 
forwarded its views and estimates regarding the budget outline 
for the National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal year 
2010 to the Committee on the Budget.
    The committee noted that the President's fiscal year 2010 
budget outline requested $533.7 billion for the Department of 
Defense's base budget. The President's budget outline also 
requested $75.5 billion in supplemental funding for 2009 and 
$130.0 billion for 2010 to support the ongoing wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. The committee looked forward to reviewing all the 
programmatic details when they become available.
    In the absence of these details but in review of the 
preliminary submission, the committee believed the budget 
request was the minimum necessary to support both our core 
national security requirements and on-going military 
operations. The committee supported war time supplemental 
funding that provided the resources necessary for American 
servicemembers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. The committee 
noted that the President's request planned to incorporate into 
the base budget many items previously funded in emergency 
supplementals, such as medical services, family support 
initiatives, security assistance to foreign governments, and 
enhancements to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. 
The committee also supported efforts to fold foreseeable war-
time costs into the baseline budget, but identified that these 
war costs were in addition to core national security 
requirements that resided in the base budget. The budget 
outline suggested a balance between ensuring our forces had 
what they would need to protect this nation, as well as a 
commitment both to fiscal responsibility in challenging 
economic times and to weeding out waste wherever possible.
    However, within the Department's base budget funding 
request, the committee highlighted several concerns. First, 
with respect to mandatory funding, the committee respectfully 
requested an increase to the committee's allocation for 
mandatory spending to implement the President's concurrent 
receipt proposal and to continue to protect our beneficiaries 
from exorbitant health care fees. Second, with respect to 
readiness, the committee noted that continuous combat 
operations over the past seven and one-half years, with 
repeated deployments and limited dwell times, have stretched 
our forces and consumed readiness just as quickly as it was 
obtained. As the war in Iraq wound down and our efforts in 
Afghanistan ramped up, the Department would face huge reset 
costs associated with moving troops and materiel, repairing and 
replacing worn out equipment, and re-orienting training 
programs to assure that our troops could function in a full-
spectrum environment. The committee argued that it was critical 
to the nation's security that our readiness levels be improved 
and that sufficient investments be made to ensure this. Third, 
with respect to acquisition programs, very little was known 
regarding the priorities of the new Administration and, with a 
pending Quadrennial Defense Review, an updated National 
Military Strategy, and a Nuclear Posture Review, it was 
difficult to know what the proper funding level should be for 
acquisition programs. The committee understood that the 
Department was attempting to make the best decisions on 
important acquisition programs, and would closely review them 
when the detailed budget request was received. Finally, the 
committee discussed that its efforts would continue to develop 
recommendations for improving government performance and, where 
appropriate, develop legislation. The committee noted the 
establishment of a Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform to 
comprehensively identify the root causes of acquisition 
failures and recommend further changes to improve acquisition 
processes. The committee expected that such efforts, when 
properly implemented, would reduce wasteful spending by the 
agencies within its jurisdiction.
    On March 4, 2010, the Committee on Armed Services forwarded 
its views and estimates regarding the budget request for 
National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal year 2011 to 
the Committee on the Budget.
    The committee noted that the President's fiscal year 2011 
budget request totaled $573.8 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for national defense. Of this total, $548.9 billion 
was for the Department of Defense, $17.8 billion was for the 
Department of Energy's defense activities, and $7.0 billion was 
for other defense-related activities. The President's budget 
also included $5.6 billion in mandatory budget authority.
    In addition to the base budget request, the committee noted 
that as required by Section 1008 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-
364), the President's budget for fiscal year 2011 included a 
separate request of $159.3 billion for war-related expenditures 
in support of ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, presented as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). The 
Department of Defense also submitted an additional request of 
$33.0 billion in OCO funds for fiscal year 2010 in support of 
increased military personnel and operations in Afghanistan. The 
committee was pleased that the focus of the Department of 
Defense's request was to ensure scarce resources received were 
dedicated to the needs of the warfighter. The committee 
supported the progress made by the Department, considering the 
Nation's limited resources.
    The committee supported the complete allocation of funds by 
the Committee on the Budget to the levels requested in the 
President's fiscal year 2011 budget for the National Defense 
Budget Function, to include contingency operations and 
mandatory spending. The committee noted--in light of the 
ongoing military conflicts, significant reset and modernization 
needs of the services, and the substantial investments required 
to recruit and retain highly qualified servicemembers and 
families--that the budget request was the minimum necessary 
level to support our national security requirements.
    However, within the Department's base budget funding 
request, the committee highlighted several concerns. First, 
with respect to mandatory funding, the committee was pleased 
that the President's budget again included a proposal to fully 
fund concurrent receipt for military retirees that were retired 
due to disability, but was disappointed to learn that the 
budget request also failed to identify the $5.1 billion in 
mandatory offsets over ten years necessary to adopt the 
proposal. Second, with respect to readiness, the committee 
noted that in fiscal year 2011 the readiness levels of ground 
forces, both in the aggregate and in terms of full-spectrum 
training, may finally have begun to improve. The committee 
identified that improving readiness levels was critical to the 
Nation's security and that sufficient investments should be 
made to ensure this, requiring sustained funding levels for 
readiness and reset over a period of years. Third, with respect 
to acquisition programs, the committee noted that it will need 
to carefully review investment programs to determine whether 
the Department's investment strategy matched the resources 
needed to meet National Military Strategy requirements. For 
example, the F-35 development program had been delayed due to 
late delivery of test aircraft and the accomplishment of fewer 
than ten percent of the planned test flights in fiscal year 
2009. Delays in the test program led to unexpected and 
unprecedented concurrency of development and production. 
Despite the delay, the Air Force requested to retire 
approximately 250 aircraft in fiscal year 2010. Finally, the 
committee asserted that it undertakes careful and detailed 
analysis of each of the programs within its jurisdiction with 
an eye toward cutting any unjustified expense and reallocating 
funds where appropriate to higher-priority and well-executing 
programs. The committee planned to continue this same level of 
oversight while reviewing the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 
As an example, the committee intended to emphasize the need for 
the Department of Defense and its subordinate entities to put 
in place the necessary financial management systems and 
internal controls to produce auditable financial statements, 
resulting in the eventual receipt of an unqualified audit 
opinion.

                        Full Committee Hearings

    During the 111th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 
held numerous hearings in accordance with its legislative and 
oversight roles. These hearings focused on areas including the 
budget of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the posture of 
the armed services and combatant commands, strategy, the 
Quadrennial Defense Review, the war in the Republic of Iraq, 
the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, combating 
terrorism, Department of Defense management and acquisition 
reform, detainee policy, U.S. policy toward Russia, China, and 
Japan and the Guam realignment, Pakistan, nuclear non-
proliferation, nuclear weapons and missile defense policy, the 
Army's investigation into Arlington National Cemetery, Fort 
Hood, and the stand-up of US Cyber Command. A full account of 
these hearings is below.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-1; H.A.S.C. 111-2; H.A.S.C. 111-3; H.A.S.C. 
111-4; H.A.S.C. 111-5; H.A.S.C. 111-6; H.A.S.C. 111-7; H.A.S.C. 
111-8; H.A.S.C. 111-9; H.A.S.C. 111-10; H.A.S.C. 111-11; 
H.A.S.C. 111-12; H.A.S.C. 111-13; H.A.S.C. 111-14; H.A.S.C. 
111-15; H.A.S.C. 111-16; H.A.S.C. 111-18; H.A.S.C. 111-19; 
H.A.S.C. 111-20; H.A.S.C. 111-21; H.A.S.C. 111-23; H.A.S.C. 
111-24; H.A.S.C. 111-26; H.A.S.C. 111-27; H.A.S.C. 111-28; 
H.A.S.C. 111-29; H.A.S.C. 111-30; H.A.S.C. 111-31; H.A.S.C. 
111-32; H.A.S.C. 111-33; H.A.S.C. 111-34; H.A.S.C. 111-35; 
H.A.S.C. 111-37; H.A.S.C. 111-38; H.A.S.C. 111-39; H.A.S.C. 
111-40; H.A.S.C. 111-41; H.A.S.C. 111-42; H.A.S.C. 111-43; 
H.A.S.C. 111-44; H.A.S.C. 111-45; H.A.S.C. 111-46; H.A.S.C. 
111-47; H.A.S.C. 111-48; H.A.S.C. 111-49; H.A.S.C. 111-50; 
H.A.S.C. 111-52; H.A.S.C. 111-53; H.A.S.C. 111-55; H.A.S.C. 
111-56; H.A.S.C. 111-57; H.A.S.C. 111-58; H.A.S.C. 111-59; 
H.A.S.C. 111-60; H.A.S.C. 111-61)

                           POSTURE AND BUDGET

    During the 111th Congress, the Committee on Armed Services 
held multiple hearings on the posture, financial requirements, 
and status of the U.S. Armed Forces as they continue to fight 
in several theaters of combat. These hearings, combined with 
the committee's responsibility for assembling the annual 
defense authorization bill, are a central element in the 
discharge of the committee's oversight responsibilities.
    During the first session of the 111th Congress, the 
committee held a series of budget and posture hearings. On 
January 27, 2009, the committee convened a hearing with Robert 
M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, to discuss the priorities of 
the Department of Defense in the new administration. On May 13, 
2009, the committee received testimony from Robert M. Gates, 
Secretary of Defense, and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to review the budget request for 
funding and authorities during fiscal year 2010.
    In addition to this hearing, the committee held posture 
hearings in which it sought and received testimony from each of 
the military departments. On May 14, 2009, Peter Geren, 
Secretary of the Army, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, 
General George Casey, appeared before the committee to discuss 
their service's portion of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. 
Later that day, the committee convened a hearing to receive 
testimony from B.J. Penn, the Acting Secretary of the Navy; 
Admiral Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations; and 
General James T. Conway, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, 
who appeared before the committee to testify on the United 
States Navy's portion of the fiscal year 2010 budget request. 
The following week, on May 19, 2009, Michael B. Donley, 
Secretary of the Air Force; and General Norton A. Schwartz, the 
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified on the budget as it 
related to the U.S. Air Force.
    In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily 
responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, 
commanders of the unified combatant commands appeared before 
the committee to discuss the security situation in their 
respective areas of responsibility. These hearings began with 
testimony from Admiral James G. Stavridis, the Commander of 
U.S. Southern Command; General Victor Eugene ``Gene'' Renuart, 
the Commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American 
Aerospace Defense Command; General James N. Mattis, the 
Commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command and Supreme Allied 
Commander Transformation for NATO; and General William E. 
``Kip'' Ward, the Commander of U.S. Africa Command, on March 
18, 2009. This hearing was followed one week later by Admiral 
Timothy J. Keating, the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command; 
General Bantz J. Craddock, the Commander of U.S. European 
Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe; and General 
Walter L. ``Skip'' Sharp, the Commander of United Nations 
Command, the Republic of Korea-United States Combined Forces 
Command, and the United States Forces Korea, on March 24, 2009. 
On April 2, 2009, the committee received testimony from the 
Honorable Michele Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy; General David H. Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. 
Central Command; and Admiral Eric Olson, the Commander of U.S. 
Special Operations Command.
    During the second session of the 111th Congress in 2010, 
the committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in 
preparation for the fiscal year 2011 budget. On February 3, 
2010, the committee received testimony on the fiscal year 2011 
budget request from the Department of Defense. It heard 
testimony from Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense, and 
Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. On February 23, 2010, the committee convened on the 
fiscal year 2011 budget request from the Department of the Air 
Force, receiving testimony from Michael B. Donley, Secretary of 
the Air Force; and General Norton A. Schwartz, the Chief of 
Staff of the Air Force. The following day, on February 24, 
2010, Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Gary Roughead, 
the Chief of Naval Operations; and General James T. Conway, the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps, testified on the Navy's portion 
of the fiscal year 2011 budget request. On February 25, 2010, 
the committee concluded its service posture hearings by 
receiving testimony from John McHugh, Secretary of the Army, 
and General George Casey, Jr., the Chief of Staff of the Army, 
on the Army's budget request.
    The committee also received testimony from the unified 
combatant commanders on the posture of their commands in 2010. 
On March 10, 2010, Admiral James G. Stavridis, the Commander of 
U.S. European Command; General William E. ``Kip'' Ward, the 
Commander of U.S. Africa Command; and General James N. Mattis, 
the Commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command. The following week, 
on March 17, 2010, the committee convened to hear testimony 
from General David H. Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. Central 
Command; Admiral Eric Olson, Commander of U.S. Special 
Operations Command; and General Duncan McNabb, the Commander of 
U.S. Transportation Command on the status of their commands. 
The committee received testimony on March 18, 2010 from General 
Douglas Fraser, the Commander of U.S. Southern Command; and 
General Victor E. Renuart, Jr., Commander of the U.S. Northern 
Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command. One week 
later, on March 25, 2010, the committee met to receive 
testimony from Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of U.S. 
Pacific Command; and General Walter L. ``Skip'' Sharp, 
Commander of U.S. Forces Korea, United Nations Command, and 
Republic of Korea-United States Command Forces Command.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-3; H.A.S.C. 111-8; H.A.S.C. 111-9; H.A.S.C. 
111-11; H.A.S.C. 111-18; H.A.S.C. 111-19; H.A.S.C. 111-20; 
H.A.S.C. 111-21; H.A.S.C. 111-40; H.A.S.C. 111-42; H.A.S.C. 
111-43; H.A.S.C. 111-44; H.A.S.C. 111-45; H.A.S.C. 111-46; 
H.A.S.C. 111-47; H.A.S.C. 111-48)

                                STRATEGY

    The committee views the role of strategy as a critical 
component of Department of Defense decision-making. During the 
first session of the 111th Congress, the committee met to 
discuss emerging concerns regarding Department of Defense 
strategy. On March 5, 2009, the committee heard testimony on 
``Combating Piracy on the High Seas.'' The following week, on 
March 11, 2009, the committee met to receive testimony on 
``Security Challenges Arising from the Global Financial 
Crisis.'' On November 18, 2009, the committee met again to 
discuss another key strategy issue, receiving testimony on 
``Resourcing the National Defense Strategy: Implications of 
Long Term Defense Budget Trends.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-5; H.A.S.C. 111-6; H.A.S.C. 111-32)

                     THE QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW

    The committee dedicated significant oversight resources on 
the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review process 
and the findings of the final report. On February 4, 2010, the 
committee met to receive testimony on ``The 2010 Quadrennial 
Defense Review.'' The committee also met to receive testimony 
from the Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel. On April 
15, 2010, the committee received testimony on the independent 
panel's assessment of the Quadrennial Defense Review. Later, on 
July 29, 2010, the committee reconvened to receive testimony on 
the ``Final Report of the Independent Panel's Assessment of the 
Quadrennial Defense Review.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-41; H.A.S.C. 111-50; H.A.S.C. 111-59)

                              WAR IN IRAQ

    The committee devoted significant oversight resources to 
the war in the Republic of Iraq and the effect of that war on 
the Department of Defense and the broader national security 
interests of the United States. On February 12, 2009, the 
committee convened a hearing on ``Addressing U.S. Strategy in 
Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and Resources.'' The 
following month, on March 25, 2009, the committee received 
testimony on ``Effective Counterinsurgency: How the Use and 
Misuse of Reconstruction Funding Affects the War Effort in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.'' On September 30, 2009, the committee held a 
hearing on the ``Status of Ongoing U.S. Efforts in Iraq.'' On 
October 21, 2009, the committee heard testimony on ``U.S. 
Military Redeployment from Iraq: Issues and Challenges.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-4; H.A.S.C. 111-10; H.A.S.C. 111-28; H.A.S.C. 
111-31)

                           WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

    In the 111th Congress, the committee renewed its commitment 
to provide focused oversight to the war in the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan. The committee held a hearing on February 12, 
2009 on ``Addressing U.S. Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: 
Balancing Interests and Resources.'' It followed up with 
another hearing the next month on ``Effective 
Counterinsurgency: How the Use and Misuse of Reconstruction 
Funding Affect the War Efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan'' on 
March 25, 2009. On April 2, 2009, the committee convened a 
hearing to receive testimony on the ``New Strategy for 
Afghanistan and Pakistan and Developments in the U.S. Central 
Command and Special Operations Command.'' On October 30, 2009, 
the committee met to receive testimony on ``Afghanistan: 
Getting the Strategy Right.'' The committee continued its 
vigorous oversight over the war in Afghanistan, holding two 
back-to-back hearings in December 2009. On December 3, 2009, 
the committee held the first of two hearings on ``Afghanistan: 
The Results of the Strategic Review, Part I.'' The following 
week, the committee convened to hold the second hearing of the 
series, ``Afghanistan: The Results of the Strategic Review, 
Part II.''
    In the second session of the 111th Congress, the committee 
held a hearing on May 5, 2010 on ``Developments in Security and 
Stability in Afghanistan.'' On June 16, 2010, the committee 
held another follow-up hearing on ``Developments in 
Afghanistan.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-4; H.A.S.C. 111-10; H.A.S.C. 111-11; H.A.S.C. 
111-30; H.A.S.C. 111-34; H.A.S.C. 111-35; H.A.S.C. 111-53; 
H.A.S.C. 111-55)

                          COMBATING TERRORISM

    The committee conducted oversight over the ongoing threat 
of terrorism. On January 27, the committee met to receive 
testimony on ``Al Qa'ida in 2010: How Should the U.S. 
Respond?''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-39)

                            DETAINEE POLICY

    Over the course of the 111th Congress, the committee held 
hearings on issues related to the treatment of detainees in 
U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On July 16, 2009, the 
committee received testimony on ``Prosecuting Law of War 
Violations: Reforming the Military Commissions Act of 2006.'' 
On July 24, 2009, the committee met again to discuss 
``Reforming the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Detainee 
Policy.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-24; H.A.S.C. 111-26)

  DOD MANAGEMENT AND ACQUISITION REFORM: MITIGATING WASTE, FRAUD, AND 
                                 ABUSE

    In upholding its responsibilities to mitigate waste, fraud, 
abuse, or mismanagement in federal government programs, and 
pursuant to House Rule XI, clauses 2(n), (o), and (p), the 
committee met several times to conduct oversight over 
Department of Defense activities, as noted above in this 
report. On March 12, 2009, the committee held a hearing on the 
``Department of Defense at High Risk: Recommendations of the 
Comptroller General for Improving Departmental Management.'' 
The following month, on April 30, 2009, the committee met to 
receive testimony on the ``Reform of Major Weapons System 
Acquisition and Related High Risk Areas.'' On May 6, 2009, the 
committee reconvened to receive testimony on the ``Department 
of Defense at High Risk: The Chief Management Officer's 
Recommendations for Acquisition Reform and Related High Risk 
Areas.''
    During the second session of the 111th Congress, the 
committee continued its oversight activities on Department of 
Defense management. On July 22, 2010, the committee held a 
hearing on ``Managing the Department of Defense in a Time of 
Tight Budgets.'' On September 29, 2010, the committee convened 
to receive testimony on ``The Department of Defense's 
Efficiency Initiative.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-7; H.A.S.C. 111-14; H.A.S.C. 111-15; H.A.S.C. 
111-57; H.A.S.C. 111-61)

             NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION AND THREAT REDUCTION

    The committee continued its efforts to monitor and address 
the security threats related to the proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction. On January 22, 2009, the committee met to 
hear testimony on the December 2, 2008 report of the Commission 
on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation 
and Terrorism, entitled ``World at Risk''.
    On July 15, 2009, the committee met to hear testimony on 
U.S. efforts to address a new generation of security threats 
from weapons of mass destruction, including through Department 
of Energy nonproliferation programs and the Department of 
Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-2; H.A.S.C. 111-23)

                  NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND MISSILE DEFENSE

    The committee continued its oversight over U.S. policy on 
nuclear weapons and missile defense. During the first session 
of the 111th Congress, on May 6, 2009, the committee met to 
receive testimony on the ``Report of the Congressional 
Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.'' On 
October 1, 2009, the committee convened a hearing to receive 
testimony on ``President Obama's New Plan for Missile Defense 
in Europe and Implications for International Security.''
    During the second session of the 111th Congress, on April 
14, 2010, the committee met to receive testimony on ``United 
States Nuclear Weapons Policy and Force Structure.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-16; H.A.S.C. 111-29; H.A.S.C. 111-49)

                                 RUSSIA

    On July 30, 2009, the committee met to receive testimony on 
the ``U.S. Security Relationship with Russia and Its Impact on 
Transatlantic Security.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-27)

                                 CHINA

    The committee continued its effort to remain cognizant of 
longer-term security issues beyond those relating to current 
operations. On January 13, 2010, the committee met to hear 
testimony on security developments involving China.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-37)

                             JAPAN AND GUAM

    The committee continued its oversight issues related to the 
U.S.-Japan security relationship and issues pertaining to Guam, 
including the realignment of 8,000 Marines from Japan to Guam. 
On December 2, 2009, the committee held a hearing on 
``Assessing the Guam War Claims Process.'' On July 27, 2010, 
the committee received testimony on ``Recent Security 
Developments Involving Japan.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-33; H.A.S.C. 111-58)

                                PAKISTAN

    On April 23, 2009, the committee met for the first of two 
hearings on effective counterinsurgency in Pakistan and the 
future of the U.S.-Pakistan military partnership. On April 29, 
2009, the committee met to hear testimony on the 
Administration's perspective on effective counterinsurgency in 
Pakistan and the future of the U.S.-Pakistan military 
partnership.
    During the second session of the 111th Congress, the 
committee convened on April 29, 2010, to hear testimony on 
security and stability in Pakistan and developments in U.S. 
policy and funding.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-12; H.A.S.C. 111-13; H.A.S.C. 111-52)

                      ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

    On June 30, 2010, the committee met to receive testimony on 
a ``Review of Army Investigation of Arlington National 
Cemetery.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-56)

                               FORT HOOD

    On January 20, 2010, the committee convened to receive 
testimony on the ``Department of Defense Independent Review 
Relating to Fort Hood.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-38)

                           U.S. CYBER COMMAND

    The committee has been actively engaged in overseeing the 
stand-up of US Cyber Command. On September 23, 2010, it met to 
receive testimony on ``US Cyber Command: Organizing for 
Cyberspace Operations.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-60)

          OTHER ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THE PANEL

                  Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces

    The Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces provided oversight 
of all Departments of the Army and Air Force acquisition 
programs (with the exception of space programs, strategic 
missile and information technology programs), including Army 
and Air Force Reserve and National Guard equipment programs. 
The subcommittee conducted 13 oversight hearings during its 
consideration of the fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 
Department of Defense (DOD) budget requests, including: 
February 4, 2009, Army and Marine Corps Force Protection 
Programs; February 25, 2009, U.S. Transportation Command's 
Airlift, Sealift, and Surface Lift Programs; March 26, 2009, 
The Status of the Future Combat Systems Program; April 23, 
2009, Army Aircraft Programs; May 5, 2009, Army National Guard 
and Air National Guard Equipment Programs; May, 21, 2009, Army 
acquisition, reset, and modernization programs; July 9, 2009, 
the status of Army and Marine Corps reset requirements, Part I; 
December 10, 2009, the status of Army and Marine Corps reset 
requirements, Part II; March 10, 2010, Army acquisition and 
modernization programs; March 17, 2010, force protection 
equipment programs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; 
March 24, 2010, Department of the Navy and Air Force combat 
aviation programs; April 22, 2010, Army and Air Force National 
Guard and Reserve Component equipment posture; and April 28, 
2010, aircraft mobility programs.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee received 
briefings from representatives of the Department of Defense on 
the following: surface-to-surface munitions and laser threats; 
special access programs; Afghanistan force protection; 
improvised explosive devices; intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance systems; body armor protection for warfighters; 
mine resistant ambush protected vehicle programs; and body 
armor protection equipment.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
June 12, 2009, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), and 
met to consider and report legislation on May 13, 2010, that 
was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The legislation covered a 
range of issues, including the Future Combat Systems Spin Out 
Early-Infantry Brigade Combat Team equipment; 4.5 generation 
fighter aircraft; F-22A aircraft; E-8C Joint Surveillance and 
Target Attack Radar System re-engining; retirement of C-130E 
aircraft; retirement of C-5 aircraft; strategic airlift 
aircraft, body armor procurement and separate program elements 
for body armor; unmanned cargo carrying capable aerial 
vehicles; data links for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles; 
Army tactical ground network program; Army ground combat 
vehicle and self-propelled howitzer capability; operation, 
sustainment, modernization, and personnel of major ranges and 
test facilities; assessment of technological maturity and 
integration risk of Army modernization programs; technology 
modernization of combat vehicle and armored tactical wheeled 
vehicle fleets; annual report of the F-35 aircraft program; 
report on integration of DoD ISR capabilities; man-portable and 
vehicle mounted guided missile systems; command and control 
systems; extended range modular sniper rifle systems; and next 
generation bomber aircraft.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-5; H.A.S.C. 111-9; H.A.S.C. 111-35; H.A.S.C. 
111-45; H.A.S.C. 111-50; H.A.S.C. 111-69; H.A.S.C. 111-78; 
H.A.S.C. 111-133; H.A.S.C. 111-140; H.A.S.C. 111-146; H.A.S.C. 
111-158; and H.A.S.C. 111-162.)

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel

    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a series 
of hearings to review and evaluate matters under its 
jurisdiction in the fiscal years 2010 and 2011 budget requests: 
May 15, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization 
Budget Request on the Defense Health Program; May 21, 2009, 
Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
on Military Personnel Overview; February 3, 2010, Report of the 
Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military; March 3, 
2010, Review of the DOD Process for Assessing the Requirements 
to Implement Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; March 9, 2010, 
Reviewing the Studies of the Effects of Deployment on Military 
Children; March 15, 2010, Legislative Priorities in Support of 
Families; March 17, 2010, Military Personnel Legislative 
Priorities; March 23, 2010 Military Associations' Legislative 
Priorities; April 13, 2010, DOD Medical Centers of Excellence; 
April 15, 2010 Supporting the Reserve Component as an 
Operational Reserve and Key Personnel Legislative Initiatives; 
April 20, 2010, Implementation of Requirement to Provide a 
Medical Examination Before Separating Members Diagnosed with 
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury 
(TBI) and the Capacity of DOD to Provide Care to PTSD Cases; 
April 21, 2010; Defense Health Program.
    In addition to its budget request hearings, the 
subcommittee conducted hearings related to the following 
topics: January 28, 2009, Sexual Assault in the Military: 
Victim Support and Advocacy; February 25, 2009, Beneficiary and 
Advocacy Overview; March 3, 2009, Recruiting, Retention, and 
End Strength; March 6, 2009, Sexual Assault in the Military; 
March 12, 2009, Overview of Military Resale and Morale, 
Welfare, and Recreation; March 18, 2009, Joint hearing with the 
Readiness Subcommittee on Prioritization of Health Affairs/
TRICARE Management with the Services Requirements on Medical 
Infrastructure; March 24, 2009, Joint hearing with the 
Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee on Future of the Department of Defense Health 
Information Technology, AHTLA; April 2, 2009, Improving the 
Recovery and Full Accounting of POW/MIA Personnel from all past 
conflicts; April 29, 2009, Future Organization of the Military 
Health Care System and TRICARE Management Activity; July 22, 
2009, Oversight of Family Support Programs; July 29, 2009, 
Psychological Stress in the Military: What Steps are Leaders 
Taking?; December 2, 2009, Joint hearing with the Readiness 
Subcommittee on New Walter Reed: Are We on the Right Track?
    The subcommittee also conducted a briefing on the following 
topic: March 9, 2010, unclassified briefing on the Navy's Plans 
to Assign Women to Submarines; June 17, 2010, unclassified 
briefing on the status of the Comprehensive Review Working 
Group on the Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; June 23, 2010, 
unclassified brief on the Wanat, Afghanistan Battle; July 28, 
2010, unclassified briefing on the Army Study on Suicides.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
June 11, 2009, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and 
met to consider and report legislation on May 12, 2010, that 
was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The legislation covered a 
range of military personnel issues, including the following: 
force structure, end strengths, recruiting, retention, 
decorations, promotion, education, training, separation, 
retirement, personnel policy, compensation systems, benefits, 
and health care.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-4; H.A.S.C. 111-11; H.A.S.C. 111-12; H.A.S.C. 
111-17; H.A.S.C. 111-22; H.A.S.C. 111-26; H.A.S.C. 111-29; 
H.A.S.C. 111-40; H.A.S.C. 111-48; H.A.S.C. 111-60; H.A.S.C. 
111-70; H.A.S.C. 111-85; H.A.S.C. 111-90; H.A.S.C. 111-109; 
H.A.S.C. 111-121; H.A.S.C. 111-130; H.A.S.C. 111-131; H.A.S.C. 
111-135; H.A.S.C. 111-139; H.A.S.C. 111-143; H.A.S.C. 111-149; 
H.A.S.C. 111-154; H.A.S.C. 111-155; H.A.S.C. 111-156)

                       Subcommittee on Readiness

    The Subcommittee on Readiness reviewed the programs within 
the operation and maintenance (O&M;) accounts for fiscal years 
2010 and 2011 to ensure that appropriate funds were available 
to maintain a high level of military readiness. The 
subcommittee held hearings on May 20, 2009, and March 16, 2010, 
to receive testimony on the military services' operation and 
maintenance budget requests for fiscal years 2010 and 2011, 
respectively. As a result, the subcommittee authorized $156.2 
billion in the operation and maintenance accounts in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84), plus $88.3 billion for Overseas Contingency 
Operations (OCO) operation and maintenance. The subcommittee 
recommended $167.6 billion in O&M; for Fiscal Year 2011 and 
$114.0 billion for OCO operation and maintenance.
    To provide context for its actions on the fiscal years 2010 
and 2011 defense authorization acts, the subcommittee on April 
30, 2009, received a briefing on the classified readiness 
status of the Army and Marine Corps, and on July 27, 2010, the 
subcommittee hosted a classified briefing for the full 
committee on the current readiness status of all the military 
services.
    The subcommittee held a hearing on April 22, 2009, to 
review the Department's air sovereignty alert (ASA) operations 
and examine the readiness of the forces tasked with carrying 
out this priority mission. The ASA mission is aimed at 
protecting U.S. airspace. During the Cold War, this mission was 
focused on potential air threats from the Soviet Union. 
Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 
Department initiated Operation Noble Eagle which added the 
protection of U.S. airspace from internal threats to NORAD's 
responsibility, and DOD policy reiterates that protecting the 
U.S. homeland from direct attacks is the Department's highest 
priority. The Air Force provides 100 percent of the mission's 
fighter aircraft at 18 sites throughout the United States; the 
Air National Guard primarily performs this mission.
    Testimony at the April hearing focused on a January 2009 
report issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) that highlighted the current and future challenges 
affecting the units that conduct ASA operations in the 
homeland. In summary, GAO found that: NORAD had not conducted 
routine risk assessments to determine ASA operational 
requirements, including the appropriate levels and types of 
units, personnel, and aircraft for the mission; the readiness 
of the units conducting these operations on a daily basis is 
not fully assessed because their mission document statements do 
not reflect their ASA responsibilities or the personnel, 
training, and equipment necessary to conduct these operations; 
and the Air Force had not developed plans to address challenges 
going forward to ASA operation, specifically, the 
recapitalization of the F-15 and F-16 aircraft that conduct 
these operations. In addition to GAO, witnesses included 
representatives from the Department of Defense, the U.S. Air 
Force and the Air National Guard. While the subcommittee was 
pleased that funding for the ASA mission was included in the 
fiscal year 2011 budget request, pursuant to a requirement in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 
(Public Law 110-417), it remained concerned that most of the 
GAO recommendations remained unimplemented. Accordingly, a 
provision was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) to require a 
report by NORAD, and an independent analysis of such report by 
the National Guard Bureau, on the ASA mission and the actions 
being taken to implement the GAO recommendations to improve 
management of the ASA mission.
    The subcommittee on July 23, 2009, met to receive testimony 
from officials of the Department of Defense and the Institute 
for Defense Analyses on the proposed reconfiguration of the 
national defense stockpile. The subcommittee noted that in 2006 
and 2007 Congress asked the Department of Defense to review its 
current stockpiling strategy. This review included the 
possibility of reconfiguring the Stockpile and proposing 
changes in the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling 
Act of 1979 to allow for stockpile requirements based on 
economic purposes in peacetime. Non war-related stockpiling was 
prohibited under current law. The subcommittee concluded that 
testimony from the witnesses did not effectively address the 
issue from a federal government perspective; rather, the 
discussion was focused on current requirements specifically 
under the Department of Defense. The subcommittee also 
identified that a subsequent President's budget request should 
address its current stockpiling strategy across all pertinent 
departments of the federal government, to include the 
Departments of Commerce and Energy. Subsequently, the 
subcommittee included a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that 
required the Secretary of Defense to submit to the 
congressional defense committees a report on any actions the 
Secretary plans to take in response to the recommendations in 
the April 2009 report entitled ``Reconfiguration of the 
National Defense Stockpile Report to Congress.'' The 
subcommittee is still awaiting the Department's response to the 
requirement in Public Law 111-84.
    The subcommittee continued to assess the performance of the 
Defense Travel System (DTS) during the 111th Congress. After 
several informal staff-level briefings, the subcommittee 
included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) that required the 
Department to address ways to simplify the Defense Travel 
System on or before December 31, 2009. This report was 
delivered on May 24, 2010, and included suggestions which the 
subcommittee is analyzing and could incorporate in future 
legislation. In coordination with the subcommittee, the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation also held two 
hearings on DTS.
    The subcommittee received two classified briefings related 
to the logistical challenges of moving troops and supplies to 
support military operations in the Republic of Iraq and the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The first briefing, held on 
January 21, 2010, focused on the critical role played by the 
U.S. Transportation Command and the Defense Logistics Agency in 
simultaneously supporting the drawdown of forces in the 
Republic of Iraq and fulfilling requirements for the troop 
surge into the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan while continuing 
to carry out their other missions throughout the globe. 
Briefers included representatives from the Joint Staff, the 
U.S. Transportation Command, the Military Surface Deployment 
and Distribution Command, the 618th Tanker Airlift Control 
Center, and the Defense Logistics Agency. The second briefing, 
held on July 28, 2010, focused on the redeployment from and 
disposal of equipment in the Republic of Iraq. Briefers 
included representatives from the U.S. Transportation Command 
and the Defense Logistics Agency.
    The subcommittee on February 24, 2010, met to receive 
testimony from DOD officials on energy management and 
initiatives on military installations. The subcommittee heard 
that the Department of Defense owns vast amounts of property, 
comprising more than 500 permanent installations and more than 
300,000 buildings and 2 billion square feet of space. As such, 
it is a critical asset that requires significant investment and 
deliberate policy oversight to ensure energy security, energy 
reduction, and deliberate pursuit of renewable energy projects. 
The Department provided increased emphasis on energy security 
as a priority from defense leadership and included it in the 
Quadrennial Defense Review in 2010. The Department's strategy 
included reduced demand for energy, increased supply of 
renewable and alternative energy, and continued investment in 
research and development to stimulate new technologies. 
Accordingly, the subcommittee, in both the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and 
the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011 (H.R. 6523), included several provisions specific to 
installation energy, energy security, and demand reduction 
domestically, internationally and in operations.
    On April 27, 2010, the subcommittee met for a hearing on 
Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and Air National Guard 
training, operations, and readiness. The focus of the hearing 
was the resource requirements for maintaining these reserve 
component forces in an operational reserve posture, with the 
witnesses testifying that significant funding had to migrate 
from Overseas Contingency Operations funding to the base 
budget. The Chief of the Army Reserve stated that a ``demand 
signal'' of at least 20,000 Army Reserve soldiers per year, 
along with the necessary training funding, was needed to 
maintain the Army Reserve in an operational reserve status. The 
Acting Director, Army National Guard did not specify a figure, 
but testified that, absent large-scale mobilizations and full 
base budget funding, the Army National Guard would have to go 
back to a strategic reserve status. The Air National Guard 
witness focused his remarks on the need for recapitalization of 
the Air National Guard fighter inventory, which he stated was 
required for maintaining current air sovereignty mission 
capability. As a result of this hearing, the subcommittee 
increased recommended funding levels for operation and 
maintenance accounts for the reserve components in the Ike 
Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
(H.R. 6523).
    On July 20, 2010, the subcommittee met to receive testimony 
from DOD officials and an industry representative on the use of 
modeling and simulation (M&S;) to enhance military readiness. 
The subcommittee heard that the military services have all, to 
some degree, invested in modeling and simulation (M&S;) to 
improve training, reduce costs, and improve fidelity of 
budgetary and material maintenance projections. These efforts 
vary in complexity and are evolving as technological advances 
in M&S; provide improved capability shaped to meet the 
Department's needs. Some of the most notable current uses of 
M&S; in the Department described to the subcommittee included 
tools for modeling readiness levels and maintenance 
requirements, flight simulators for aviation training, and 
immersive training devices for infantry training. When used 
appropriately, the subcommittee believes these tools can 
enhance training, reduce operations and maintenance costs, and 
increase the lifecycle of weapons systems. Accordingly, the 
subcommittee in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) included a provision to 
require a Congressional Budget Office review of M&S; tools used 
by the Department to develop and analyze the annual budget 
submission.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-8; H.A.S.C. 111-13; H.A.S.C. 111-31; H.A.S.C. 
111-38; H.A.S.C. 111-42; H.A.S.C. 111-65; H.A.S.C. 111-73; 
H.A.S.C. 111-78; H.A.S.C. 111-86; H.A.S.C. 111-109; H.A.S.C. 
111-125; H.A.S.C. 111-137; H.A.S.C. 111-142; H.A.S.C. 111-159; 
H.A.S.C. 111-167; H.A.S.C. 111-171; H.A.S.C. 111-174)

           Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces

    The Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces 
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in 
the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget requests for 
fiscal years 2010 and 2011 during the 111th Congress, 
including; February 25, 2009, U.S. Transportation Command 
(USTRANSCOM) airlift, sealift, and surface lift programs (Joint 
with Air and Land Forces Subcommittee); March 10, 2009, 
Littoral Combat Ship Program; May 15, 2009, Fiscal year 2010 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of 
the Navy Shipbuilding acquisition programs; May 19, 2009, 
Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
for Department of the Navy Acquisition Programs; March 3, 2010, 
Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
for Department of the Navy shipbuilding acquisition programs; 
March 24, 2010, Department of the Navy and Department of the 
Air Force combat aviation programs (Joint with Air and Land 
Forces Subcommittee), July 14, 2010, Oversight Hearing on 
Activities of the Maritime Administration.
    In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities 
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted 
oversight hearings on the following: February 4, 2009, Army and 
Marine Corps Force Protection Programs (Joint with Air and Land 
Forces Subcommittee); March 26, 2009, Requirements for the 
Future Capabilities of the United States Maritime Forces; July 
9, 2009, Status of Army and Marine Corps Reset Requirements 
(Joint with Readiness and Air and Land Forces Subcommittees); 
July 16, 2009, Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS); 
July 30, 2009, Efforts to Improve Shipbuilding Effectiveness; 
December 10, 2009, Status of Army and Marine Corps Reset 
Requirements, Part II (Joint with Readiness and Air and Land 
Forces); January 20, 2010, Issues Affecting Naval Force 
Structure; March 17, 2010, Force Protection Equipment Programs 
for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (Joint with Air and Land 
Forces); July 28, 2010, Surface Fleet Readiness (Joint with 
Readiness Subcommittee).
    Furthermore, in addition to formal hearings, the 
subcommittee conducted numerous briefings on the following 
topics: February 4, 2009, Force Protection Programs; February 
12, 2009, Afghanistan Operations-Intelligence; March 3, 2009, 
the Marine Corps' Investigation into the F/A-18 mishap in 
Miramar, California; March 4, 2009, the Intelligence, 
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) Task Force; March 5, 
2009, the Littoral Combat Ship contracts; March 17, 2009, 
Threats to the Future Naval Force; May 5, 2009, VH-71 
Presidential Helicopter Program; September 15, 2009, Force 
Protection Issues in Afghanistan; September 23, 2009, Littoral 
Combat Ship; October 22, 2009, USS Hartford Collision; March 
11, 2010, Future Surface Combat Radar Hull Study; March 23, 
2010, Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates (FFGs); June 10, 2010, 
Force Protection Programs in Afghanistan; and June 23, 2010, 
the Ohio-class Submarine Replacement Program.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
June 12, 2009 that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and 
considered and reported legislation on May 13, 2010 that was 
included in the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The legislation covered a 
range of issues, including (contained in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84)), 
authorization of appropriations for procurement programs and 
research, development, test, and evaluation programs for the 
Department of the Navy, special contract authority for a multi-
ship acquisition strategy for the LCS, authorization to use 
advance procurement funding for production planning and related 
support services and in the case of the vessel designated CVN 
79, use of advance procurement funding for advance construction 
of components, conditional authority for multi-year procurement 
of F/A-18E, F/A-18F, or EA-18G aircraft (this authority was 
subsequently extended by passage of H.R. 6102 (Public Law 111-
238)), granting a temporary reduction in the number of 
operational aircraft carriers in the battle force fleet of the 
Navy, one time authority to transfer certain military hardware 
along with limitations on modification of government furnished 
equipment for developmental programs, authorization of 
appropriations for the National Defense Sealift Fund, 
authorization of appropriations for the activities of the 
Maritime Administration of the Department of Transportation, 
five separate provisions allowing the Maritime Administration 
to correct past financial and management irregularities at the 
United States Merchant Marine Academy, and a requirement for 
self defense protective measures for commercial vessels under 
contract with the United States for the carriage of military 
cargo.
    For fiscal year 2011, the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523) contained: 
authorization of appropriations for procurement programs and 
research, development, test, and evaluation programs for the 
Department of the Navy, incremental funding authority for 
certain large naval vessels, multi-year procurement authority 
for certain naval strike fighter aircraft (note, this authority 
was subsequently granted by passage of H.R. 6102 (Public Law 
111-238), requirements for the content of the long range plans 
for the construction of naval vessels, three separate 
provisions dealing with the retirement of naval vessels, 
authorization of appropriations for the National Defense 
Sealift Fund, authorization of appropriations for the 
activities of the Maritime Administration of the Department of 
Transportation, extension of the authorization for the Maritime 
Security Program, clarification of the nominating official for 
appointment to the United States Merchant Marine Academy for 
residents of the Northern Mariana Islands, technical 
corrections to the Port of Guam Improvement Enterprise Program, 
and revisions in the process for the processing of loans for 
the Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program authorized under chapter 
537 of title 46, United States Code.
    In accordance with the Committee Oversight plan submitted 
for the 111th Congress in accordance with clause 2(d) of rule X 
of the House of Representatives, the Subcommittee on Seapower 
and Expeditionary held numerous hearings and briefings on the 
tactical aircraft force structure for the Department of the 
Navy, the industrial base supporting construction of naval 
vessels, and the maintenance of a viable national defense 
sealift fleet.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
authorized: an increase of nine F/A-18E/F aircraft beyond the 
planned procurement of the Department of the Navy, an increase 
for advanced procurement of economic order quantity items, an 
increase for EA-18G support items, and an increase in funds to 
establish core depot maintenance capability for the ALQ-214 
electronic countermeasures system on Navy and Marine Corps 
tactical aircraft. In addition, the legislation granted multi-
year procurement contract authority for F/A-18E/F and EA-18G to 
the Secretary of the Navy and authorized the budget requests 
for the procurement of new fighter aircraft, including F-35s 
for the Navy, Marine Corps and the Air Force. The Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
authorizes an increase of F/A-18E/F aircraft for the Navy.
    Lastly, Public Law 111-238, signed into law by the 
President on September 27, 2010, renewed the Secretary of the 
Navy's expired multi-year procurement authority provided in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and 
reduced the procurement cost of new F/A-18E/F and EA-18G 
aircraft.
    The committee investigated through briefings, hearings, and 
site visits, the issues associated with rising costs for naval 
ship construction. The committee proposed legislation 
subsequently adopted in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2010 that supports increased efficiency of 
planning and technical support prior to construction of vessels 
by authorizing the use of funding prior to the construction 
contract for those purposes. In addition, the committee 
authorized advance construction of modules and assemblies for 
the vessel designated CVN 79 for the purpose of garnering 
efficiency from the stability of the industrial work force. The 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 continues to expand the committee's desire to improve the 
efficiency of construction by allowing certain large naval 
vessels to be appropriated in multiply fiscal years up to the 
number that is three quarters of the number of years of planned 
ship construction.
    The committee took significant action in the 111th Congress 
to address emergent needs at the United States Merchant Marine 
Academy (USMMA). Poor oversight from the Maritime 
Administration of the Department of Transportation had allowed 
a number of financial and management irregularities to exist at 
the USMMA. The committee, after briefings, hearings, and site 
visits acted to propose legislation subsequently adopted in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public 
Law 111-84) that allowed for the imposition of correct 
financial controls and management structure at the USMMA. The 
Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2011 grants authority to the Administrator of the Maritime 
Administration to continue corrective actions at the USMMA. The 
Act also streamlines the process for commercial ship-owners to 
obtain favorable mortgage terms for the construction of new 
vessels in U.S. utilizing the maritime guarantee loan program 
(46 U.S.C. 537), and extends the Maritime Security Program to 
fiscal year 2025 insuring a robust fleet of U.S. flagged 
commercial vessels capable of serving the on-going or emergent 
needs of the Department of Defense.
    The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 included the following provisions: 
authorization of appropriations for procurement programs and 
research, development, test, and evaluation programs for the 
Department of the Navy; a report on naval force structure and 
missile defense; an annual Comptroller General report on the 
VH-(XX) presidential helicopter acquisition program; 
requirements for the content of the long range plans for the 
construction of naval vessels; expressing the sense of Congress 
regarding the naming of a naval combat vessel after Father 
Vincent Capodanno; authorization of appropriations for the 
National Defense Sealift Fund; authorization of appropriations 
for the activities of the Maritime Administration of the 
Department of Transportation; extension of the authorization 
for the Maritime Security Program; and, clarification of the 
nominating official for appointment to the United States 
Merchant Marine Academy for residents of the Northern Mariana 
Islands.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-5, H.A.S.C. 111-9, H.A.S.C. 111-18, H.A.S.C. 
111-34, H.A.S.C. 111-61, H.A.S.C. 111-64, H.A.S.C. 111-78, 
H.A.S.C. 111-83, H.A.S.C. 111-92, H.A.S.C. 111-117, H.A.S.C. 
111-129, H.A.S.C. 111-140, H.A.S.C. 111-146, H.A.S.C. 111-170. 
H.A.S.C. 111-174)

                    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed strategic 
forces programs (except deep strike systems), space programs, 
ballistic missile defense programs, intelligence policy and 
national programs, as well as Department of Energy national 
security programs (except nuclear non-proliferation programs), 
by conducting hearings during its consideration of the fiscal 
year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budget requests, including: May 
13, 2009, Department of Energy atomic energy defense 
activities; May 21, 2009, national security space and missile 
defense programs; March 16, 2010, United States strategic 
forces; March 25, 2010, Department of Energy atomic energy 
defense activities; April 15 ,2010, report on the Ballistic 
Missile Defense Review and missile defense programs; April 21, 
2010, national security space activities.
    In addition to its oversight responsibilities regarding the 
budget requests, the subcommittee conducted oversight hearings 
on the following: February 25, 2009, the future of missile 
defense testing; March 17, 2009, the status of U.S. strategic 
forces; March 18, 2009, space and U.S. security; March 26, 
2009, future roles and missions of the Missile Defense Agency; 
April 30, 2009, space system acquisitions and the industrial 
base; and January 21, 2010, status of the Air Force Nuclear 
Security Roadmap.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted 
briefings on the following topics: February 24, 2009, Iranian 
space launch and possible missile test by the North Korean 
government; March 4, 2009, military space systems and 
architecture; March 12, results of the Institute for Defense 
Analyses' study on alternative missile defense options in 
Europe; March 31, status of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal; 
April 28, 2009, joint briefing with the Subcommittee on Air and 
Land Forces, the Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces, and the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities on intelligence programs; May 5, 2010, 
nuclear weapons capabilities of Russia and China; July 21, 
2009, space protection program; July 29, 2009, Missile Defense 
Agency special programs; October 7, 2009, Department of 
Energy's Environmental Management program; October 21, 2009, 
status of the Nuclear Posture Review; October 28, joint 
briefing with the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and Tactical 
Intelligence, the way ahead on overhead commercial imagery; 
November 17, 2009, cyber threats to strategic systems; January 
13, 2010, joint briefing with the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence Subcommittee on Technical and 
Tactical Intelligence, state of the U.S. space launch 
enterprise; March 24, 2010, ballistic missile proliferation 
issues in Iran and North Korea; April 14, 2010, Missile Defense 
Agency's Integrated Master Test Plan; April 15, 2010, Missile 
Defense Agency's Airborne Laser Test Bed; July 1, 2010, 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan; July 14, 2010, JASON 
Panel Life Extension Program study and status of U.S. nuclear 
weapons stockpile; September 15, 2010, phased adaptive approach 
to missile defense in Europe.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
June 11, 2009, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). 
Among other initiatives, that legislation: established a 
stockpile management program to assure the continued safety, 
security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile 
consistent with the recommendations of the bipartisan 
commission on the U.S. nuclear posture; required the Secretary 
of Defense to develop a plan for the long-term sustainment and 
modernization of the Ground-based, Midcourse Defense program; 
made permanent the pilot program for sharing space surveillance 
data with state governments, U.S. and foreign commercial 
entities, and foreign governments in an effort to reduce 
potential satellite collisions with space debris; and required 
the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National 
Intelligence to jointly develop and submit a biannual space 
science and technology strategy to ensure coordination in 
maintaining and improving U.S. space capabilities.
    The subcommittee also considered and reported legislation 
on May 12, 2010, that was included in the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (HR 6523). 
Legislation initiated by the subcommittee would: limit the 
deployment of medium- or long-range missile defense until 
basing agreements are ratified by host nations and the 
interceptors are certified as operationally effective based on 
flight testing; repeal the ban on contracting directly with a 
foreign government for missile defense activities to allow more 
direct collaboration with our friends and allies on missile 
defense; fully fund the Administration's request for the NNSA's 
Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programs; and fully 
authorize funding for critical defense environmental cleanup 
activities.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-10; H.A.S.C. 111-23; H.A.S.C. 111-25; 
H.A.S.C. 111-33; H.A.S.C. 111-57; H.A.S.C. 111-71; H.A.S.C. 
111-118; H.A.S.C. 111-136; H.A.S.C. 111-148; H.A.S.C. 111-153; 
H.A.S.C. 111-157)

   Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities

    The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and 
Capabilities provided oversight of the majority of Department 
of Defense counter-terrorism and unconventional warfare 
programs and other activities under the subcommittee's 
jurisdictional responsibility.
    During the 111th Congress the subcommittee devoted 
substantial attention assessing the Department's strategy and 
capabilities to defend against the global terrorist threat. 
Related hearings included: February 12, 2009, Strategies for 
Countering Violent Extremists Ideologies; March 3, 2009, 
Special Operations Forces: Challenges and Opportunities; March 
11, 2009, Tracking and Disrupting Terrorist Financial Networks: 
A potential model for Inter-agency success; April 2, 2009, 
Terrorism and the New Age of Irregular Warfare: Challenges and 
Opportunities; May 7, 2009, Counterinsurgency and Irregular 
Warfare: Issues and Lessons Learned; October 22, 2009, 
Counterterrorism within Afghan Counterinsurgency; and December 
16, 2009, Understanding Cyberspace as a Medium for 
Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization.
    The subcommittee continued its review and oversight of the 
Department's information technology (IT) policies and programs 
to improve efficiencies through better use of IT technologies 
and improve information assurance against the cyber threat. The 
following hearings addressed these areas: March 24, 2009 and 
held jointly with the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, 
Department of Defense Health Information Technology: AHLTA is 
Intolerable, Where Do We Go From Here; and May 5, 2009, 
Cyberspace as a Warfighting Domain: Policy, Management and 
Technical Challenges to Mission Assurance. In addition, the 
subcommittee, on July 28, 2009, received testimony from the 
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Policy, the 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense, the 
Commander, U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace 
Defense Command, and the Director Defense Capabilities and 
Management of the U.S. Government Accountability Office on the 
current state of readiness and coordination in responding to a 
domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-
yield explosives attack.
    Hearings pertaining to a review of the budget request for 
fiscal year 2010 included: May 20, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request--Department of 
Defense Science and Technology Priorities; and June 4, 2009, 
Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Act Budget 
Request--U.S. Special Operations Command.
    Hearings pertaining to the budget request for fiscal year 
2011 included: March 23, 2010, Fiscal Year 2011 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request Department of Defense's 
Science and Technology Programs; and April 14, 2010, Fiscal 
Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for the 
Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense 
Program and Counterproliferation Initiatives.
    The subcommittee continued to address the Departments 
efforts toward countering terrorism, including the cyber threat 
during the second session of the 111th Congress. Related 
hearings included: January 20, 2010, Threat posed by al Qaeda 
in the Arabian Peninsula and other regions; February 25, 2010, 
Private Sector Perspectives on Department of Defense 
Information Technology and Cybersecurity Activities; April 27, 
2010, Closing the Gap: Addressing Critical Rotary Wing 
Shortfalls for U.S. Special Operations Forces in Fiscal Year 
2011 and Beyond; July 28, 2010, Harnessing small business 
innovation for national security cyber needs; and September 23, 
2010, Operating in the Digital Domain: Organizing the Military 
Departments for Cyber Operations. The subcommittee, on 
September 29, 2010, conducted a hearing titled on small 
business' role and opportunities in restoring affordability to 
the Department of Defense. Additionally, the subcommittee on 
November 30, 2010, conducted a hearing on the continued crisis 
in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the implications for 
U.S. national security.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
June 11, 2009, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The 
subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 13, 
2010, that was included in the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523). The 
legislative provisions covered a range of issues, to include: a 
provision to codify the position of the acquisition executive 
at Special Operations Command; provisions to provide an 
extension and expansion of authority for support of special 
operations to combat terrorism; a requirement to improve 
government-wide strategic communication initiatives; and 
greater acquisition authority to improve information technology 
capabilities.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee held a 
total of 17 briefings which included: February 26, 2009, 
Biometrics; March 5, 2009, 1208 Program; March 11, 2009, 
Counter Threat Finance; March 12, 2009, Army Special Operations 
Command; March 17, 2009, Marine Special Operations Command; 
March 19, 2009, Air Force Special Operations Command; March 24, 
2009, Afghanistan and Pakistan; March 26, 2010, Naval Special 
Operations Command; April 29, 2009, Trusted Microelectronics; 
May 7, 2009, Counter-proliferation policy and issues; July 21, 
2009, Global disposition of Special Operations Command; July 
23, 2009, Department of Defense efforts to curb drug cartel 
activity; December 9, 2009, Internet propaganda. Additional 
briefings included: February 24, 2010, Special Operations 
Forces combat medicine; March 24, 2010, Air Force Special 
Operations Forces; May 6, 2010 and joint with the House 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was a briefing on Al 
Qaeda in Iraq leadership; and November 16, 2010 on Yemen and 
the foiled cargo airliner plot.
    The subcommittee sponsored a technology demonstration, 
March 3, 2010, with the U.S. Army Medical Research, Science, 
and Technology Office to highlight advances in military medical 
technologies intended to support the warfighter. On March 18, 
2010, the subcommittee met with visiting Special Forces 
officers from the Republic of Iraq.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-7; H.A.S.C. 111-14; H.A.S.C. 111-20; H.A.S.C. 
111-41; H.A.S.C. 111-51; H.A.S.C. 111-55; H.A.S.C. 111-66; 
H.A.S.C. 111-75; H.A.S.C. 111-88; H.A.S.C. 111-102; H.A.S.C. 
111-113; H.A.S.C. 111-116; H.A.S.C. 111-119; H.A.S.C. 111-128; 
H.A.S.C. 111-145; H.A.S.C. 111-151; H.A.S.C. 111-161; H.A.S.C. 
111-176; H.A.S.C. 111-180; H.A.S.C. 111-183; H.A.S.C. 111-185)

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

    The subcommittee was reestablished by the 110th Congress 
and, pursuant to Committee Rule 4, conducts oversight and 
investigation over any matter within the jurisdiction of the 
committee. The subcommittee's work includes not only its own 
separate subcommittee hearings and reports, but also supports 
the hearings and oversight responsibilities of the other 
subcommittees and the full committee. The subcommittee 
continued work on areas it addressed in the 110th Congress as 
well as exploring new areas. Through its efforts, the 
subcommittee supported efforts of the subcommittees to include 
provisions within the National Defense Authorization Acts for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) and the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 
6523). Furthermore, the subcommittee identified best practices 
and model organizations as well as those in need of improvement 
or reform within the Department of Defense and other related 
areas within the committee's jurisdiction.
    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations examined 
officer in-resident professional military education (PME) in 
March 2009. The committee released a bipartisan report, 
``Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two 
Decades After the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel'' 
(Committee Print 4, 111th Congress), in April 2010. The 
Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
and the service chiefs each provided their views on the report 
as directed in House Report 111-491. In general, they concurred 
with the report's findings and expressed a commitment to 
improve the Department's and service PME systems.
    During the 111th Congress, the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations examined the Department's efforts to improve 
language skills, cultural awareness, and regional expertise. As 
a result, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84), directed the Secretary of 
Defense to establish language training centers at universities 
and the senior military colleges to accelerate the development 
of expertise in critical and strategic languages. In its 
continuing oversight capacity, the subcommittee held a hearing 
in June 2010 along with briefings, interviews, and fact-finding 
trips to ascertain the progress in implementing the 
subcommittee's recommendations. This follow-on oversight effort 
resulted in a report update titled, ``Building Language Skills 
and Cultural Competencies in the Military: Bridging the Gap,'' 
in December 2010 which finds that, although the Department has 
largely addressed the recommendations in the November 2008 
report, there are still shortcomings which merit further 
oversight. The subcommittee's follow-on oversight effort 
prompted two items of legislation, in part, addressing these 
deficiencies. The committee report (H. Rpt. 111-491) instructs 
the GAO to review the services' language, regional expertise, 
and cultural awareness training of the general purpose forces, 
particularly for ground components.
    The subcommittee continued its oversight of the Defense 
Travel System (DTS) during the 111th Congress, in coordination 
with the Readiness Subcommittee. This project attempted to 
assess the extent to which the Defense Travel Management 
Office, which has jurisdiction over Defense travel, implemented 
the recommendations set forth by the review. The subcommittee 
made various recommendations to the Department in support of 
the Readiness Subcommittee.
    During the 111th Congress, the committee continued its 
oversight of the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat 
Organization (JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's focal point 
for the battle against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The 
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee worked closely with 
the Air and Land Forces and the Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities Subcommittees to follow up on work in 
the 110th Congress and to determine whether shortcomings 
identified previously had been corrected. Through two hearings, 
two reports, and numerous briefings, the subcommittee continued 
to find that although the nearly 3,100-person strong JIEDDO 
spends over $2.0 billion annually and it reports significant 
progress in the Counter-IED (C-IED) fight, it is not clear how 
well the organization is accomplishing its mission.
    In 2010, the subcommittee also investigated and convened a 
hearing on the problem of outbreaks of multidrug-resistant 
infections in military hospitals, which emerged early on during 
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The subcommittee 
found that the Department needs better capabilities to monitor 
infections and enhanced training and expertise in infection 
control practices. In addition, while the Department and 
services have supported a number of research and development 
studies and projects in response to the outbreak of these types 
of infections, there is no coordinated and sustained approach 
in place for continuing to conduct needed research in this 
area. The subcommittee plans to issue a report entitled, 
``DOD's Response to Multidrug-Resistant Infections in Military 
Hospitals'' in early December 2010.
    The subcommittee held two hearings on interagency national 
security reform and supported legislation requiring a study on 
the creation of a system for development and management of 
national security professionals. Also of note, the 
subcommittee: (1) held four hearings and a member briefing in 
support of committee acquisition reform efforts; (2) examined 
alternative strategies during three hearings on Iraq and 
Afghanistan; and, (3) investigated and conducted oversight on 
defense requirements for rare earth elements in support of 
committee policy efforts and Readiness Subcommittee stockpile 
responsibilities and supporting several provisions related to 
rare earth elements in the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 6523).
    The subcommittee also conducted a study involving briefings 
and fact-finding trips, and held a hearing on the Department of 
Defense's oversight of the quality of off-duty college 
education programs available to service members using 
government-provided tuition assistance. The subcommittee found 
that while the Department and the services have had policies 
and processes in place to oversee college programs located on 
military installations, there was little focus on distance 
learning programs. The Department and the services now plan to 
increase their oversight of distance learning and for-profit 
schools. The committee will continue to monitor the 
Department's oversight efforts in this area.
    The subcommittee also continued work with the Project on 
Government Reform and the Congressional Research Service on the 
ability of the Department of Defense's audit and inspector 
general organizations to adequately conduct oversight of the 
Department. This work supports oversight of the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency and the Defense Contract Management 
Agency as well as the Department's and the services' IGs.
    (H.A.S.C. 111-16; H.A.S.C. 111-27; H.A.S.C. 111-32; 
H.A.S.C. 111-37; H.A.S.C. 111-46; H.A.S.C. 111-67; H.A.S.C. 
111-74; H.A.S.C. 111-76; H.A.S.C. 111-80; H.A.S.C. 111-89; 
H.A.S.C. 111-93; H.A.S.C. 111-103; H.A.S.C. 111-105; H.A.S.C. 
111-106; H.A.S.C. 111-107; H.A.S.C. 111-144; H.A.S.C. 111-160; 
H.A.S.C. 111-165)

                  Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform

    The Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform held 14 hearings in 
support of its mandate to examine the defense acquisition 
system. These hearings were held in three phases: 1) examining 
how the Department of Defense measures performance in the 
defense acquisition system, 2) examining specific issues in the 
performance of the defense acquisition systems, and 3) 
obtaining feedback on the panel's initial findings and 
recommendations.
    During the first phase of the panel's hearings, the panel 
met on April 1, 2009, to receive testimony on ``Measuring Value 
and Efficiency: How to Assess the Performance of the Defense 
Acquisition System.'' On April 23, 2009, the Panel met to 
receive testimony on ``Measuring Value and Risk in Services 
Contracts.'' On May 19, 2009, the panel met to receive 
testimony on ``Measuring Performance: Developing Good 
Acquisition Metrics.''
    In the second phase of the panel's hearing, the committee 
examined discrete problems in the defense acquisition system 
that had been identified as significant problems that cause the 
Department of Defense to receive less than full value in the 
defense acquisition system. The panel met on June 3, 2009 to 
receive testimony on ``Coordinating Requirements, Budgets, and 
Acquisition: How Does It Affect Costs and Acquisition 
Outcomes?'' On June 9, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony 
on ``Challenges to Effective Acquisition and Management of IT 
Systems.'' On July 16, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony 
on ``Managing Service Contracts: What Works and What Doesn't.'' 
On July 21, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony on 
``Shaping a Workforce for Today's Acquisition Environment That 
Can Meet DOD's Needs.'' On September 17, 2009, the panel met to 
receive testimony on ``The Department of Defense and Industry: 
Does DOD Effectively Manage its Industrial Base and Match its 
Acquisition Strategies to the Marketplace?'' On September 24, 
2009, the panel met to receive testimony on ``DOD Supply Chain 
Management: Can the Department Identify and Meet its Supply 
Needs Efficiently?'' On October 8, 2009, the panel met to 
receive testimony on ``The Department of Defense's Rapid 
Acquisition Process: Is It a Model for Improving Acquisition?'' 
On October 15, 2009, the panel met to receive testimony on 
``Can the Department of Defense Protect Taxpayers When It Pays 
Its Contractors?'' On October 29, 2009, the panel met to 
receive testimony on ``Can DOD Improve Innovation and 
Competition in Acquisition by Better Utilizing Small 
Business?''
    In the third phase of the panel's hearings, the panel 
received feedback from outside experts and Department of 
Defense witnesses on its initial findings and recommendations. 
On February 25, 2010, the panel met to receive testimony on 
``Expert Perspectives on Managing the Defense Acquisition 
System and the Defense Acquisition Workforce.'' On March 11, 
2010, the panel met to receive testimony on ``Administration 
Perspectives on Managing the Defense Acquisition System and the 
Defense Acquisition Workforce.''
    (H.A.S.C. 111-36; H.A.S.C. 111-44; H.A.S.C. 111-63; 
H.A.S.C. 111-72; H.A.S.C. 111-77; H.A.S.C. 111-82; H.A.S.C. 
111-84; H.A.S.C. 111-94; H.A.S.C. 111-95; H.A.S.C. 111-98; 
H.A.S.C. 111-100; H.A.S.C. 111-104; H.A.S.C. 111-127; H.A.S.C. 
111-134)

                              PUBLICATIONS

                            Committee Prints

    111-1--Committee Rules of the Committee on Armed Services, 
House of Representatives, adopted January 4, 2009.
    111-2--A Ceremony Unveiling the Portrait of the Honorable 
Duncan L. Hunter. September 15, 2009.
    111-4--Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 
Report--Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two 
Decades After the Goldwater--Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel. 
April 2010.
    111-5--Ike Skelton National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 
2011--Joint Explanatory Statement to accompany H.R. 6523. 
December, 2010.

                         Published Proceedings

    H.A.S.C. 111-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee 
Organization. January 14, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-2--Full Committee hearing on Preventing 
Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. 
January 22, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-3--Full Committee hearing on Priorities of the 
Department of Defense in the New Administration. January 27, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Sexual Assault in the Military: Victim Support and Advocacy. 
January 28, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-5--Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and 
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on Army and 
Marine Corps Force Protection Programs. February 4, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-6--Full Committee hearing on Addressing U.S. 
Strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan: Balancing Interests and 
Resources. February 12, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-7--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on Strategies for Countering 
Violent Extremist Ideologies. February 12, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-8--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Acquisition and Disposal of Military Lands: Department of 
Defense's Real Property Management Challenges in the 21st 
Century. February 24, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-9--Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and 
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on U.S. 
Transportation Command's (USTRANSCOM) Airlift, Sealift, and 
Surface Lift Programs. February 25, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-10--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Future of Missile Defense Testing. February 25, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-11--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on The Views of Military Advocacy and Beneficiary groups. 
February 25, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-12--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Recruiting, Retention and End Strength Overview. March 3, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-13--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Department of Defense Fuel Demand Management at Forward-
Deployed Locations and Operational Energy Initiatives. March 3, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-14--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on U.S. Special Operations 
Command: Challenges and Opportunities. March 3, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-15--Full Committee hearing on Combating Piracy 
on the High Seas. March 5, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-16--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Can DOD Travelers Book A Trip? 
Defense Travel System Update. March 5, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-17--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Sexual Assault in the Military: Prevention. March 6, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-18--Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces hearing on The Navy Littoral Combat Ship Program. March 
10, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-19--Full Committee hearing on Security 
Challenges Arising from the Global Financial Crisis. March 11, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-20--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on Tracking and Disrupting 
Terrorist Financial Networks: A Potential Model for Interagency 
Success? March 11, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-21--Full Committee hearing on the Department 
of Defense at High Risk: Recommendations of the Comptroller 
General for Improving Departmental Management. March 12, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-22--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Resale and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Overview. 
March 12, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-23--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Status of U.S. Strategic Forces. March 17, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-24--Full Committee hearing on Security 
Developments in the Areas of Responsibility of the U.S. 
Southern Command, Northern Command, Africa Command, and Joint 
Forces Command. March 18, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-25--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Space and U.S. Security. March 18, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-26--Subcommittees on Military Personnel and 
Readiness joint hearing on Medical Infrastructure: Are Health 
Affairs/TRICARE Management Activity Priorities Aligned with 
Service Requirements? March 18, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-27--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on The Project on National Security 
Reform: Commentary and Alternative Views. March 19, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-28--Full Committee hearing on Security 
Developments in the Areas of Responsibility of the U.S. Pacific 
Command, U.S. European Command, and U.S. Forces Korea. March 
24, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-29--Subcommittee on Military Personnel and 
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats, and Capabilities Joint 
Hearing on Department of Defense Health Information Technology: 
AHTLA is ``Intolerable,'' Where Do We Go From Here? March 24, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-30--Full Committee hearing on Effective 
Counterinsurgency: How the Use and Misuse of Reconstruction 
Funding Affect the War Effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. March 
25, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-31--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Readiness and Sustainment of the Navy's Surface Fleet. March 
25, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-32--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Contingency Contracting: Has the Call 
for Urgent Reform Been Answered? March 25, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-33--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Future Roles and Missions of the Missile Defense Agency. 
March 26, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-34--Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces hearing on Future Roles and Missions of the United 
States Navy and Marine Corps. March 26, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-35--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on the Status of the Future Combat Systems Program. 
March 26, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-36--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Measuring Value and Efficiency: How to Assess the 
Performance of the Defense Acquisition System. April 1, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-37--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Coordinating Contract Support on the 
Battlefield: Defense, State and USAID. April 1, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-38--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Department of Defense National Security Personnel System. April 
1, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-39--Full Committee hearing on The New Strategy 
for Afghanistan and Pakistan and Developments in U.S. Central 
Command and Special Operations Command. April 2, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-40--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Improving Recovery and Full Accounting of POW/MIA Personnel 
from All Past Conflicts. April 2, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-41--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee hearing on Terrorism and 
the New Age of Irregular Warfare: Challenges and Opportunities. 
April 2, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-42--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Air 
Sovereignty Alert Operations. April 22, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-43--Full Committee hearing on Effective 
Counterinsurgency: The Future of the U.S.-Pakistan Military 
Partnership. April 23, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-44--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Measuring Value and Risk in Service Contracts. April 
23, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-45--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request on Army Aircraft Programs. April 23, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-46--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on The Acquisition Workforce: Merely a 
Business Expense or a Force Multiplier for the Warfighter? 
April 28, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-47--Full Committee hearing on Effective 
Counterinsurgency: The Administration's Perspective on the 
Future of the U.S.-Pakistan Military Partnership. April 29, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-48--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on The Military Health System: Health Affairs/TRICARE 
Management Activity Organization. April 29, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-49--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Space Systems Acquisition and the Industrial Base. April 30, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-50--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on Army National Guard and Air National Guard Equipment 
Programs. May 5, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-51--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Cyberspace as a Warfighting 
Domain: Policy, Management, and Technical Challenges to Mission 
Assurance. May 5, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-52--Full Committee hearing on The Department 
of Defense at High Risk: The Chief Management Officer's 
Recommendations for Acquisition Reform and Related High Risk 
Areas. May 6, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-53--Full Committee hearing on Report of the 
Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United 
States. May 6, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-54--Full Committee hearing on Reform of Major 
Weapons System Acquisition and Related Legislative Proposals. 
April 30, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-55--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on Counterinsurgency and 
Irregular Warfare: Issues and Lessons Learned. May 7, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-56--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. May 13, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-57--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request 
for Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities. May 
13, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-58--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. March 14, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-59--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. May 14, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-60--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Defense Health 
Program Overview. May 15, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-61--Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Budget Request for Department of the Navy 
Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs. May 15, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-62--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. May 19, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-63--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Measuring Performance: Developing Good Acquisition 
Metrics. May 19, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-64--Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Budget Request for Department of the Navy Aviation 
Programs. May 19, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-65--Subcommittee Readiness hearing on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
the Military Services' Operation and Maintenance Funding. May 
20, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-66--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for Department 
of Defense Science and Technology Programs. May 20, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-67--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Another Crossroads? Professional 
Military Education Twenty Years After the Goldwater-Nichols Act 
and the Skelton Panel. May 20, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-68--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request for Air Force Modernization Programs. May 20, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-69--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2010 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--
Budget Request for Army Acquisition, Reset and Modernization 
Programs. May 21, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-70--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request 
on Military Personnel Overview. May 21, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-71--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 
and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request 
for National Security Space and Missile Defense Programs. May 
21, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-72--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Coordinating Requirements, Budgets, and Acquisition: 
How Does it Affect Costs and Acquisition Outcomes? June 3, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-73--Subcommittee on Readiness on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for Military 
Construction, Family Housing, Base Closure, Facilities 
Operation and Maintenance. June 3, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-74--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Thinkers and Practitioners: Do Senior 
Professional Military Education Schools Produce Strategists? 
June 4, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-75--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats, and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for the U.S. 
Special Operations Command. June 4, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-76--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Raising Thinking from the Tactical to 
the Operational Level: JPME I and JPME II at the Services' and 
Joint Command and Staff Colleges. June 25, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-77--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Challenges to Effective Acquisition and Management 
of Information Technology Systems. July 9, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-78--Subcommittees on Readiness, Air and Land 
Forces, and Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on 
Army and Marine Corps Reset Requirements (Parts I and II). July 
9, 2009 and December 10, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-79--Full Committee hearing on Addressing a New 
Generation of Threats from Weapons of Mass Destruction: 
Department of Energy Nonproliferation Programs and the 
Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. 
July 15, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-80--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Beyond Service Core Competency: Are 
Our Junior Officers Prepared for Today's Security Environment? 
July 15, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-81--Full Committee hearing on Prosecuting Law 
of War Violations: Reforming the Military Commissions Act of 
2006. July 16, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-82--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Managing Service Contracts: What Works and What 
Doesn't. July 16, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-83--Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces hearing on Oversight of the Electromagnetic Aircraft 
Launch System (EMALS). July 16, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-84--Defense Acquisition Reform Panel hearing 
on Shaping A Workforce for Today's Acquisition Environment That 
Can Meet DOD's Needs. July 21, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-85--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Oversight of Family Support Programs. July 22, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-86--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Proposed Reconfiguration of the National Defense Stockpile. 
July 23, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-87--Full Committee hearing on Reforming the 
Military Commissions Act of 2006 and Detainee Policy. July 24, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-88--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Chemical, Biological, 
Radiological, Nuclear, and High-Yield Explosives Consequence 
Management. July 28, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-89--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Investing in Our Military Leaders: 
The Role of Professional Military Education in Officer 
Development. July 28, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-90--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on the Psychological Stress in the Military: What Steps are 
Leaders Taking? July 29, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-91--Full Committee hearing on the U.S. 
Security Relationship with Russia and Its Impact on 
Transatlantic Security. July 30, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-92--Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary 
Forces hearing on Efforts to Improve Shipbuilding 
Effectiveness. July 30, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-93--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Charting the Course for Effective 
Professional Military Education. September 10, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-94--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on The Department of Defense and Industry: Does DOD 
Effectively Manage Its Industrial Base and Match Its 
Acquisition Strategies to the Marketplace? September 17, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-95--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on DOD Supply Chain Management: Can the Department 
Identify and Meet Its Supply Needs Efficiently? September 24, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-96--Full Committee hearing on the Status of 
Ongoing U.S. Efforts in Iraq. September 30, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-97--Full Committee hearing on President 
Obama's New Plan for Missile Defenses in Europe and the 
Implications for International Security. October 1, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-98--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on The Department of Defense's Rapid Acquisition 
Process: Is It a Model for Improving Acquisition? October 8, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-99--Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: 
Getting the Strategy Right. October 14, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-100--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Can the Department of Defense Protect Taxpayers When 
It Pays Its Contractors? October 15, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-101--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Military 
Redeployment from Iraq: Issues and Challenges. October 21, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-102--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Counterterrorism Within the 
Afghanistan Counterinsurgency. October 22, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-103--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on 
U.S. Strategy, Part 1. October 22, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-104--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Can DOD Improve Innovation and Competition in 
Acquisition by Better Utilizing Small Business? October 29, 
2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-105--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Defeating the Improvised Explosive 
Device (IED) and Other Asymmetric Threats: Reviewing the 
Performance and Oversight of the Joint IED Defeat Organization 
(JIEDDO). October 29, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-106--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on 
U.S. Strategy, Part 2. November 5, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-107--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Afghanistan and Iraq: Perspectives on 
U.S. Strategy, Part 3. November 17, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-108--Full Committee hearing on Resourcing the 
National Defense Strategy: Implications of Long Term Defense 
Budget Trends. November 18, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-109--Subcommittees on Readiness and Military 
Personnel joint hearing on The New Walter Reed: Are We On the 
Right Track? December 2, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-110--Full Committee hearing on Assessing the 
Guam War Claims Process. December 2, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-111--Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: 
The Results of the Strategic Review, Part I. December 3, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-112--Full Committee hearing on Afghanistan: 
The Results of the Strategic Review, Part II. December 8, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-113--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Understanding Cyberspace as 
a Medium for Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization. 
December 16, 2009.
    H.A.S.C. 111-114--Full Committee hearing on China: Recent 
Security Developments. January 13, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-115--Full Committee hearing on Findings of the 
Department of Defense Independent Review Relating to Fort Hood. 
January 20, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-116--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on The Threat Posed by al 
Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula and Other Regions. January 20, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-117--Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces hearing on Issues Affecting Naval Force 
Structure. January 20, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-118--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Status of the Air Force Nuclear Security Roadmap. January 
21, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-119--Full Committee hearing on Al Qa'ida in 
2010: How Should the U.S. Respond? January 27, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-120--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. February 3, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-121--Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing 
on the Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in 
the Military Services. February 3, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-122--Full Committee hearing on The 2010 
Quadrennial Defense Review. February 4, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-123--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. February 23, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-124--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. February 24, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-125--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Energy Management and Initiatives on Military Installations. 
February 24, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-126--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. February 25, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-127--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Expert Perspectives on Managing the Defense 
Acquisition System and the Defense Acquisition Workforce. 
February 25, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-128--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Private Sector Perspectives 
on Department of Defense Information Technology and 
Cybersecurity Activities. February 25, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-129--Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for Department 
of the Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs. March 3, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-130--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on A Review of the DOD Process for Assessing the 
Requirements to Implement Repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' 
March 3, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-131--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Recent Studies on the Effects of Deployment on 
Military Children. March 9, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-132--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from the U.S. 
European Command, U.S. Africa Command, and U.S. Joint Forces 
Command. March 10, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-133--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on Army Acquisition and Modernization Programs. March 
10, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-134--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform 
hearing on Administration Perspectives on Managing the Defense 
Acquisition System and the Defense Acquisition Workforce. March 
11, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-135--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Legislative Priorities in Support of Families. March 
15, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-136--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Status of United States Strategic Forces. March 16, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-137--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
the Military Services' Operation and Maintenance Funding. March 
16, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-138--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from the U.S. 
Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, and U.S. 
Transportation Command. March 17, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-139--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Military Personnel Legislative Priorities. March 17, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-140--Subcommittees on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces and Air and Land Forces joint hearing on 
Force Protection Equipment Programs for Operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan. March 17, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-141--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from the U.S. 
Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command. March 18, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-142--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Military Construction, Family Housing, Base Closure, Facilities 
Operation and Maintenance. March 18, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-143--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Military Associations' Legislative Priorities. March 
23, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-144--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Interagency Coordination of Grants 
and Contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan: Progress, Obstacles, and 
Plans. March 23, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-145--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for Department 
of Defense's Science and Technology Programs. March 23, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-146--Subcommittees on Air and Land Forces and 
Seapower and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on Department 
of the Navy and Air Force Combat Aviation Programs. March 24, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-147--Full Committee hearing on the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from the U.S. 
Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. March 25, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-148--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 
and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request 
for Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense Activities. 
March 25, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-149--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Department of Defense Medical Centers of Excellence. 
April 13, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-150--Full Committee hearing on The United 
States Nuclear Weapons Policy and Force Structure. April 14, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-151--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological Defense Program 
and Counterproliferation Initiatives. April 14, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-152--Full Committee hearing on the Independent 
Panel's Assessment of the Quadrennial Defense Review. April 15, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-153--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Report on the Ballistic Missile Defense Review and the 
Fiscal Year 2011 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
for Missile Defense Programs. April 15, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-154--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Supporting the Reserve Components as an Operational 
Reserve and Key Reserve Personnel Legislative Initiatives. 
April 15, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-155--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Implementation of the Requirement to Provide a 
Medical Examination Before Separating Members Diagnosed with 
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury 
(TBI) and the Capacity of the Department of Defense to Provide 
Care to PTSD Cases. April 20, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-156--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Defense Health Program. April 21, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-157--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Space Posture Review and the Fiscal Year 2011 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request for National Security 
Space Activities. April 21, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-158--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve 
Component Equipment Posture. April 22, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-159--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and Air National Guard 
Training and Operations. April 27, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-160--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Simplifying Defense Travel: Reviewing 
Progress on Improving the Defense Travel System for the User. 
April 27, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-161--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Closing the Gap: Addressing 
Critical Rotary Wing Shortfalls for U.S. Special Operations 
Forces in Fiscal Year 2011 and Beyond. April 27, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-162--Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces 
hearing on Air Mobility Programs. April 28, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-163--Full Committee hearing on Security and 
Stability in Pakistan: Developments in U.S. Policy and Funding. 
April 29, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-164--Full Committee hearing on Developments in 
Security and Stability in Afghanistan. May 5, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-165--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Interagency National Security Reform: 
Pragmatic Steps Towards a More Integrated Future. June 9, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-166--Full Committee hearing on Developments in 
Afghanistan. June 16, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-167--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Wind 
Farms: Compatible with Military Readiness? June 29, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-168--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Beyond the Defense Language 
Transformation Roadmap: Bearing the Burden for Today's 
Educational Shortcomings. June 29, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-169--Full Committee hearing on Review of Army 
Investigation of Arlington National Cemetery. June 30, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-170--Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Expeditionary Forces hearing on the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for Oversight of 
the Activities of the Maritime Administration. July 14, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-171--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Modeling and Simulation: Enhancing Military Readiness. July 20, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-172--Full Committee hearing on Managing the 
Department of Defense in a Time of Tight Budgets. July 22, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-173--Full Committee hearing on Japan: Recent 
Security Developments. July 27, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-174--Subcommittees on Readiness and Seapower 
and Expeditionary Forces joint hearing on Surface Fleet 
Subcommittee on Readiness. July 28, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-175--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Transformation in Progress: The 
Services' Enlisted Professional Military Education Programs. 
July 28, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-176--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Harnessing Small Business 
Innovation for National Security Cyber Needs. July 28, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-177--Full Committee hearing on Final Report of 
the Independent Panel's Assessment of the Quadrennial Defense 
Review. July 29, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-178--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on A Question of Quality and Value: 
Department of Defense Oversight of Tuition Assistance Used for 
Distance Learning and For-Profit Colleges. September 22, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-179--Full Committee hearing on U.S. Cyber 
Command: Organizing for Cyberspace Operations. September 23, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-180--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Operating in the Digital 
Domain: Organizing the Military Departments for Cyber 
Operations. September 23, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-181--Full Committee hearing on The Department 
of Defense's Efficiency Initiative. September 29, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-182--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Fighting Superbugs: DOD's Response to 
Multidrug-Resistant Infections in Military Treatment 
Facilities. September 29, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-183--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on Small Business' Role and 
Opportunities in Restoring Affordability to the Department of 
Defense. September 29, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-184--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Continued Engagement: Department of 
Defense Responses to the House Armed Services Committee April 
2010 Report on Professional Military Education. November 30, 
2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-185--Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities hearing on the Crisis in the 
Democratic Republic of Congo: Implications for U.S. National 
Security. November 30, 2010.
    H.A.S.C. 111-186--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
the Status of the Phased Adaptive Approach. December 1, 2010.

                                                  HOUSE REPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Report number                   Date filed              Bill number                  Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111-124............................  May 20, 2009..........  S. 454 Conf. Rept.      To improve the organization
                                                              (H.R. 2101).            and procedures of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense for
                                                                                      the acquisition of major
                                                                                      weapon systems, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
111-166 Parts I and II.............  June 18, 2009.........  H.R. 2647.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2010 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, to
                                                                                      prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths fiscal
                                                                                      year 2010, and for other
                                                                                      purposes.
111-167............................  June 19, 2009.........  H. Res. 477...........  Directing the Secretary of
                                                                                      Defense to transmit to the
                                                                                      House of Representatives
                                                                                      the fiscal year 2010 30-
                                                                                      year shipbuilding plan
                                                                                      relating to the long-term
                                                                                      shipbuilding strategy of
                                                                                      the Department of Defense,
                                                                                      as required by section 231
                                                                                      of title 10, United States
                                                                                      Code.
111-168............................  June 19, 2009.........  H. Res. 478...........  Directing the Secretary of
                                                                                      Defense to transmit to the
                                                                                      House of Representatives
                                                                                      the fiscal year 2010 30-
                                                                                      year aviation plan
                                                                                      relating to the long-term
                                                                                      aviation plans of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, as
                                                                                      required by section 231a
                                                                                      of title 10, United States
                                                                                      Code.
111-221............................  July 23, 2009.........  H. Res. 602...........  Requesting that the
                                                                                      President and directing
                                                                                      that the Secretary of
                                                                                      Defense transmit to the
                                                                                      House of Representatives
                                                                                      all information in their
                                                                                      possession relating to
                                                                                      specific communications
                                                                                      regarding detainees and
                                                                                      foreign persons suspected
                                                                                      of terrorism.
111-383............................  Dec. 17, 2009.........  H. Res. 924...........  Directing the Secretary of
                                                                                      Defense to transmit to the
                                                                                      House of Representatives
                                                                                      copies of any document,
                                                                                      record, memo,
                                                                                      correspondence, or other
                                                                                      communication of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, or
                                                                                      any portion of such
                                                                                      communication, that refers
                                                                                      or relates to the trial or
                                                                                      detention of Khalid Sheikh
                                                                                      Mohammed, Walid Muhammad
                                                                                      Salih Mubarek Bin'Attash,
                                                                                      Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali
                                                                                      Abdul Aziz Ali, or Mustafa
                                                                                      Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi.
111-465............................  Apr. 23, 2010.........  H. R. 5013............  To amend title 10, United
                                                                                      States Code, to provide
                                                                                      for performance management
                                                                                      of the defense acquisition
                                                                                      system, and for other
                                                                                      purposes.
111-491 Parts I and II.............  May 28, 2010..........  H. R. 5136............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2011 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, for
                                                                                      military construction, and
                                                                                      for defense activities of
                                                                                      the Department of Energy,
                                                                                      to prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      such fiscal year, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                   PUBLIC LAWS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Public Law number                Date enacted             Bill number                  Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
111-23.............................  May 22, 2009..........  S. 454 (H.R. 2101)....  To improve the organization
                                                                                      and procedures of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense for
                                                                                      the acquisition of major
                                                                                      weapon systems, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
111-61.............................  August 19, 2009.......  H. J. Res. 44.........  Recognizing the service,
                                                                                      sacrifice, honor, and
                                                                                      professionalism of the
                                                                                      Noncommissioned Officers
                                                                                      of the United States Army.
111-84.............................  October 28, 2009......  H.R. 2647.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2010 for
                                                                                      military activities of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense, for
                                                                                      military construction, and
                                                                                      for defense activities of
                                                                                      the Department of Energy,
                                                                                      to prescribe military
                                                                                      personnel strengths for
                                                                                      such fiscal year, and for
                                                                                      other purposes.
111-238............................  September 27, 2010....  H.R. 6102.............  To amend the National
                                                                                      Defense Authorization Act
                                                                                      for Fiscal Year 2010 to
                                                                                      extend the authority of
                                                                                      the Secretary of the Navy
                                                                                      to enter into multiyear
                                                                                      contracts for F/A-18E, F/A-
                                                                                      18F, and EA-18G aircraft.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             PRESS RELEASES

                             First Session

    January 7, 2009--Skelton Welcomes New Democratic Members to 
House Armed Services Committee
    January 9, 2009--Skelton Statement on H. Res. 34 and the 
Situation in Gaza
    January 9, 2009--Skelton, McHugh Announce House Armed 
Services Committee Membership
    January 14, 2009--House Armed Services Committee Holds 
111th Congress Organizational Meeting
    January 14, 2009--Skelton Announces House Armed Services 
Committee Democratic Subcommittee Assignments
    January 22, 2009--Skelton on Executive Orders Concerning 
Guantanamo and Detainees
    January 29, 2009--Skelton on the Quadrennial Roles and 
Missions Review Report
    January 30, 2009--Skelton Troubled by Inspector General's 
Findings on Reconstruction Efforts in Afghanistan
    February 2, 2009--Skelton Concerned by Disturbing Trends in 
Afghanistan
    February 5, 2009--Taylor Statement on Future of U.S. Naval 
Shipbuilding
    February 6, 2009--Davis ``Deeply Troubled'' Over Increasing 
Numbers of Suicides in the Army
    February 13, 2009--Skelton, Ortiz Call for Halt to NSPS 
Conversions Pending Review
    February 17, 2009--Skelton Praises Announcement to Increase 
U.S. Troop Commitment in Afghanistan
    February 23, 2009--Skelton Leads Congressional Delegation 
to Hawaii, Guam, South Korea, and Japan
    February 24, 2009--Skelton Visits Iwo Jima
    February 25, 2009--Skelton Introduces ``Year of the 
Military Family'' Resolution
    February 26, 2009--Skelton Statement on President's FY2010 
Budget Outline
    February 27, 2009--Skelton Statement on President's Iraq 
Redeployment Plan
    March 3, 2009--Skelton on the Role of the U.S. Navy
    March 6, 2009--Skelton, McHugh Announce Formation of Panel 
on Defense Acquisition Reform
    March 6, 2009--Snyder and Wittman Statement on Defense 
Travel System
    March 9, 2009--Skelton, Snyder Commend President for 
Presidential Memorandum on Signing Statements
    March 16, 2009--Skelton, Ortiz Commend DOD Decision to 
Review NSPS
    March 17, 2009--Skelton on the Security Challenges Arising 
From the Global Economic Crisis
    March 18, 2009--Skelton Praises DOD Announcement to End 
Stop Loss
    March 18, 2009--Skelton on Nomination of Admiral James 
Stavridis to U.S. European Command
    March 18, 2009--Panel on Defense Acquisition Reform Release 
Organizational Plan
    March 19, 2009--Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee 
Hears Recommendations for National Security Reform
    March 25, 2009--Skelton Statement on Annual Report to 
Congress on China's Military Power
    March 27, 2009--Skelton Statement on President's Strategy 
for Afghanistan and Pakistan
    March 27, 2009--Skelton, Ortiz Call for Halt to All DOD A-
76 Competitions
    March 27, 2009--Skelton Meets With President Calderon of 
Mexico and Supports Counter-Drug Fight
    April 1, 2009--Skelton Commends President for Working 
Towards Nuclear Reduction
    April 1, 2009--House Passes Towns-Skelton Bill to Reduce 
``Widow's Tax'' for Surviving Military Spouses
    April 1, 2009--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Hearing on FY08 NDAA Battlefield Contracting Provision
    April 1, 2009--Skelton Statement on U.S.-China Military-to-
Military Relations and Security Cooperation
    April 2, 2009--Skelton Says Budget Resolution Supports 
Defense
    April 5, 2009--Skelton, Tauscher Statement on North Korea 
Missile Launch
    April 8, 2009--Skelton Says Recent Hijacking Highlights 
Need for Increased International Effort Against Piracy
    April 13, 2009--Skelton Praises Rescue of Captain Phillips, 
Calls for International Action to End Pirate Threat
    April 15, 2009--Skelton Urges President to Fight Piracy by 
Denying Safe Haven in Somalia
    April 22, 2009--Skelton Statement on H. Res. 339, Praising 
the Actions of Captain Phillips, the U.S. Navy, and the U.S. 
Navy SEALs
    April 23, 2009--Skelton, McHugh Introduce Weapons 
Acquisition Reform Legislation
    April 28, 2009--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Hearing on NDAA Acquisition Workforce Provisions
    May 7, 2009--Opening Statement of Chairman Ike Skelton (D-
MO) Mark-up of H.R. 2101, the WASTE TKO Act
    May 7, 2009--Skelton Statement on FY10 Defense Budget 
Proposal
    May 13, 2009--Skelton Floor Statement on H.R. 2101, the 
WASTE TKO Act
    May 15, 2009--House Approves WASTE TKO Act, Skelton-McHugh 
Bill Reforms Weapons Acquisition Process
    May 19, 2009--Skelton, McHugh Announce Weapon Systems 
Acquisition Reform Act Conference Agreement
    May 20, 2009--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Hearing on Professional Military Education
    May 21, 2009--Skelton on President Obama's National 
Security Speech
    May 21, 2009--House Unanimously Approves Weapon Systems 
Acquisition Reform Conference Report
    May 22, 2009--President Signs Weapon Systems Acquisition 
Reform Act
    June 2, 2009--Skelton Commends McHugh Nomination as 
Secretary of the Army
    June 2, 2009--Skelton Pays Tribute to D-Day Veterans on 
65th Anniversary
    June 4, 2009--How Well Do Senior Professional Military 
Schools Produce Strategists?
    June 16, 2009--Committee Improves Defense Cybersecurity 
Efforts
    June 16, 2009--Committee Focuses Resources on Effective 
Missile Defense System for Today's Threats, HASC Democrats Lead 
by Passing Legislation that Keeps Americans Safe
    June 16, 2009--Skelton Congratulates Congressman McKeon, 
New HASC Ranking Member
    June 16, 2009--Committee Protects Ability of National 
Security Personnel to Focus on Supporting Commanders during 
Time of War
    June 16, 2009--Committee Strengthens the Stockpile 
Stewardship Program
    June 16, 2009--Democrats Support Veterans with Action, Not 
Lip Service
    June 16, 2009--Committee Restricts Transfer of Detainees 
until President has Plan to Mitigate Risk
    June 16, 2009--Missile Defense Fact Sheet--H.R. 2647, the 
FY10 NDAA
    June 16, 2009--Committee Supports National Security 
Personnel Democrats Lead by Passing Legislation that Prevents 
Increased NSPS Roles Until Task Force Review is Complete
    June 17, 2009--House Armed Services Committee Approves 
Fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill
    June 19, 2009--Skelton Speaks at U.S. Naval War College 
Graduation
    June 23, 2009--Skelton Bill Offers Relief From Disabled 
Veterans Tax
    June 23, 2009--Skelton and Smith Praise Creation of Cyber 
Command
    June 24, 2009--House Approves Disabled Military Retiree 
Relief Act
    June 24, 2009--Skelton Remarks on H.R. 2647, The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
    June 25, 2009--House Approves FY10 Defense Authorization 
Bill
    June 25, 2009--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Third PME Hearing
    July 9, 2009--HASC Democrats Elect New Subcommittee Chair
    July 15, 2009--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Fourth PME Hearing
    July 20, 2009--Skelton Says Larger Army Will Reduce Strain 
on the Force
    July 22, 2009--Skelton: DOD faces Challenges as U.S. Forces 
Redeploy From Iraq
    July 24, 2009--Skelton Says Need for National Guard 
Equipment At Home Should Be Considered During Iraq Redeployment 
Planning
    August 3, 2009--Skelton-Berman-Davis-Harman Express Concern 
About Security of Election Monitors in Afghanistan
     August 7, 2009--Skelton Statement on Reported Death of 
Taliban Leader in Pakistan
    August 10, 2009--Skelton: Fort Leavenworth Not an 
Appropriate Option for Guantanamo Detainees
    August 14, 2009--Skelton Calls on Americans to Honor U.S. 
and NATO Forces in Afghanistan
    August 20, 2009--Skelton Statement on Afghanistan's 
Election
    September 9, 2009--Skelton Speaks on 9/11 Resolution
    September 9, 2009--Video of Skelton's Floor Speech on 9/11
    September 10, 2009--Skelton: Americans Must Not Forget Why 
We Are in Afghanistan
    September 16, 2009--Skelton Statement on Afghanistan
    September 17, 2009--Skelton Says New Strategy Focuses on 
Immediate Threats
    September 22, 2009--Skelton: Best Approach in Afghanistan 
is a Properly Resourced Counter-Insurgency Strategy
    September 25, 2009--Skelton Statement on Iran's Covert 
Nuclear Facility
    October 7, 2009--House-Senate Committee Agreement Reached 
on Fiscal Year 2010 Defense Authorization Bill
    October 8, 2009--House Approves FY 2010 Defense 
Authorization Conference
    October 21, 2009--Opening Statement of Chairman Ike 
Skelton, Hearing on U.S. Military Redeployment from Iraq: 
Issues and Challenges
    October 22, 2009--Skelton Praises Senate Passage of Defense 
Authorization Conference Report
    October 28, 2009--President Signs Defense Authorization 
Bill
    November 2, 2009--Skelton Statement on Afghanistan Election 
Outcome
    November 5, 2009--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Hearing on U.S. Strategy Options for Afghanistan and Iraq
    November 5, 2009--Skelton-McKeon Statement on Fort Hood 
Shooting
    November 6, 2009--Skelton Floor Speech on Resolution on 
Tragic Shooting at Fort Hood
    November 10, 2009--Skelton Statement on Fort Hood 
Investigation
    November 10, 2009--Skelton Praises Nomination of Erin 
Conaton as Under Secretary of the Air Force
    November 17, 2009--Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee Holds Third Hearing on U.S. Strategy Options for 
Afghanistan and Iraq
    November 19, 2009--Langevin-Turner Statement on JASON 
Report
    November 20, 2009--Skelton Concerned About Decision to 
Prosecute Detainees in Federal Criminal Court
    November 20, 2009--Skelton Praises Nomination of Paul 
Oostburg Sanz as General Counsel of the Navy
    November 20, 2009--Skelton Welcomes Congressman Bill Owens 
to House Armed Services Committee
    November 28, 2009--Skelton and McKeon Commend Medical 
Professionals at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
    November 28, 2009--Skelton, McKeon Pay Tribute to World War 
II Veterans at American Cemetery in Luxembourg
    December 8, 2009--Skelton Discusses Afghanistan with Top 
General and Diplomat
    December 14, 2009--Skelton Appoints Members to Independent 
Panel to Assess the Quadrennial Defense Review
    December 16, 2009--Skelton on Oversight Plans Regarding 
Fort Hood Shooting Investigations
    December 31, 2009--Skelton Letter to Obama Regarding Dec. 
25th Attempted Terrorist Attack

                             Second Session

    January 14, 2010--Skelton Statement on President's FY 2011 
Defense Budget
    January 15, 2010--Skelton on DOD's Independent Review 
Relating to Fort Hood
    January 21, 2010--HASC Democrats Elect New Subcommittee 
Chairs
    January 22, 2010--Skelton Praises Navy-USDA Cooperation on 
Renewable Energy
    February 1, 2010--Skelton Statement on President's FY 2011 
Budget
    February 8, 2010--Skelton: Murtha a ``First Class Marine 
and Member of Congress''
    February 16, 2010--Skelton Encouraged by Recent Events in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan
    February 18, 2010--Skelton Statement on Reports of 
Additional Taliban Captures
    February 23, 2010--Skelton Praises U.S. Armed Forces on 
Haiti Earthquake Relief Effort
    February 24, 2010--Skelton Statement on New KC-X Tanker 
Request for Proposal
    February 25, 2010--Skelton Statement on Joint Strike 
Fighter/F-35 Competitive Engine
    March 4, 2010--Skelton Calls for Review of Military Medical 
Officers' Records
    March 5, 2010--Skelton Announces Committee Staff 
Appointments
    March 9, 2010--Skelton Statement on KC-X Tanker Program
    March 10, 2010--Skelton Statement on Earmark Changes
    March 18, 2010--Skelton Statement on Anniversary of Iraq 
Invasion
    March 18, 2010--Skelton to Introduce Legislation to Protect 
TRICARE
    March 20, 2010--Video of Skelton's Floor Speech on TRICARE 
Affirmation Act
    March 20, 2010--Skelton Introduces Legislation to Protect 
TRICARE
    March 20, 2010--House Approves Legislation to Protect 
TRICARE
    March 23, 2010--Defense Acquisition Reform Panel Approves 
Final Report
    March 23, 2010-- Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Hearing on Interagency Coordination of U.S. Contracts and 
Grants in Iraq and Afghanistan
    March 26, 2010--Skelton Statement on New START Treaty
    April 5, 2010--Skelton on Recent Remarks by Afghan 
President Karzai
    April 6, 2010--Skelton-Langevin Statement on Nuclear 
Posture Review
    April 8, 2010--Skelton-Langevin Statement on Signing of the 
New START Treaty
    April 12, 2010--Skelton Statement on the Nuclear Security 
Statement
    April 13, 2010--Skelton Praises Senate Passage of TRICARE 
Affirmation Act
    April 14, 2010--Skelton, McKeon, Andrews, Conaway Introduce 
Bill to Overhaul DOD Acquisition
    April 19, 2010--Skelton: Al Qaeda Capture Signals Continued 
Progress
    April 19, 2010--Skelton on Military Power of Iran Report
    April 20, 2010--Skelton: Export Control Reform Will 
``Better Protect Americans''
    April 21, 2010--HASC Approves DOD Acquisition Reform Bill
    April 26, 2010--Skelton's TRICARE Affirmation Act Signed 
into Law
    April 27, 2010--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Hearing on Simplifying the $10B Defense Travel System
    April 28, 2010--Skelton Floor Statement on H.R. 5013, the 
IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010
    April 28, 2010--House Approves Legislation to Overhaul 
Defense Acquisition Spending
    May 3, 2010--Langevin Applauds Transparency, Leadership 
with Nuclear Weapons Program
    May 5, 2010--Skelton Applauds Success in Afghanistan Under 
Obama
    May 6, 2010--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Releases First Comprehensive Congressional Review of 
Professional Military Education System in 20 Years
    May 6, 2010--Skelton Praises Success in Combating Terrorism
    May 7, 2010--Skelton Welcomes New Democratic Members to 
House Armed Services Committee
    May 19, 2010--Armed Services Committee Democrats Block 
Irresponsible Republican Legislation; Forbes Amendment to NDAA 
Would Have Jeopardized National Security
    May 19, 2010--House Armed Services Committee Approves 
Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Authorization Bill
    May 20, 2010--Skelton on the Sinking of the Republic of 
Korea Navy Ship
    May 25, 2010--Skelton on the FY11 Defense Authorization and 
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
    May 25, 2010--Skelton-McKeon Resolution Honors Armed Forces 
and Veterans
    May 26, 2010--Skelton Welcomes Congressman Mark Critz to 
House Armed Services Committee
    May 27, 2010--Skelton Remarks on H.R. 5136, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011
    May 28, 2010--Skelton Pleased by Progress on U.S.-Japan 
Security Issues
    May 28, 2010--Skelton Praises Bill Providing Relief for 
Disabled Military Retirees
    May 28, 2010--House Approves FY11 Defense Authorization 
Bill
    June 9, 2010--Agency Stovepipes Leading to National 
Security Vulnerabilities: Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Interagency National Security 
Reform
    June 10, 2010--Skelton Says Committee Will Investigate 
Problems at Arlington National Cemetery
    June 17, 2010--Skelton Announces June 30 Hearing on 
Arlington National Cemetery
    June 21, 2010--Langevin and Turner Call for Improved 
Accounting of Total Nuclear Weapons Complex Costs
    June 22, 2010--Skelton Statement on General McChrystal 
Profile
    June 23, 2010--Skelton Statement on President's Decision to 
Change Commanders in Afghanistan
    June 24, 2010--Skelton Supports Iran Sanctions Act 
Conference Report
    June 29, 2010--Skelton on SIGAR Report Identifying Flaws in 
Assessing Capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces
    June 29, 2010--Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 
Holds Hearing on Building Foreign Language and Cultural Skills 
in Our Military: Improving but Still Work To Do
    July 1, 2010--Skelton Calls for Vote to Support Troops in 
Afghanistan and Iraq
    July 21, 2010--Skelton Honors WWII and Current Service 
Members
    July 26, 2010--Skelton Statement on WikiLeaks
    July 27, 2010--Skelton Statement on the Vote on the War 
Supplemental
    July 29, 2010--Skelton on Army Health Promotion, Risk 
Reduction, and Suicide Prevention Report
    July 31, 2010--Skelton Delivers Keynote Address at USS 
Missouri Commissioning Ceremony
    August 9, 2010--Skelton Statement on Gates Announcement to 
Improve Efficiency of DOD
    August 16, 2010--Skelton Statement on Annual China Report
    August 20, 2010--Skelton Statement on Final Ft. Hood Review
    August 31, 2010--Skelton Salutes U.S. Troops As Combat 
Forces Leave Iraq
    September 3, 2010--Langevin and Turner Thank General Kevin 
P. Chilton for his Lifetime of Public Service and Leadership
    September 8, 2010--Skelton and Colleagues Applaud DOD 
Intent to Sign David's Sling Weapon System Project Agreement
    September 9, 2010--Skelton Statement on ROK Sanctions 
Against Iran
    September 10, 2010--Skelton Statement on 9/11 Anniversary
    September 14, 2010--Skelton Urges Colleagues to Pass $600 
Million in Taxpayer Savings
    September 15, 2010--Andrews and Conaway Praise DOD's Plans 
for Acquisition Reform, Call on Senate to Pass IMPROVE 
Acquisition Act
    September 22, 2010--A Quality Education for All: Oversight 
and Investigations Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Military's 
Efforts to Oversee Distance Learning and For-Profit Colleges
    September 30, 2010--Fighting Superbugs: Oversight and 
Investigations Subcommittee Holds hearing on Military's Efforts 
to Prevent Outbreaks of Multidrug-Resistant Infections in 
Military Hospitals
    September 30, 2010--Skelton, Davis Introduce Groundbreaking 
Interagency Reform Legislation
    October 8, 2010--Skelton on National Security Advisor 
General James L. Jones
    October 29, 2010--Skelton Offers Tribute to Heightened 
Vigilance of National Security Community
    November 23, 2010--Skelton on North Korean Shelling of 
South Korean Island
    December 1, 2010--Skelton Delivers Farewell Speech to 
Colleagues
    December 15, 2010--Skelton Reintroduces Defense 
Authorization Bill
    December 16, 2010--Skelton Statement on NSC Af/Pak Review
    December 17, 2010--Skelton Congratulates Congressman Adam 
Smith, new HASC Ranking Member
    December 17, 2010--House Approves FY11 National Defense 
Authorization Act
    December 22, 2010--Skelton Praises House-Senate Approval of 
FY11 Defense Authorization
    December 22, 2010--Langevin Applauds Senate Adoption of New 
START Treaty