H. Rept. 112-123 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)
June 24, 2011, As Reported by the Armed Services Committee

Report text available as:

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




House Report 112-123 - FIRST SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES of the COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES for the ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS




[House Report 112-123]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                  Union Calendar No. 73

112th Congress, 1st Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-123


                        FIRST SEMIANNUAL REPORT

                           ON THE ACTIVITIES

                                 of the

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                                for the

                      ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS


<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>



 June 24, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


                             ________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE    
99-006                        WASHINGTON : 2011









                   HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

            HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland         ADAM SMITH, Washington
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas                SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri               MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia            ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JEFF MILLER, Florida                 ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio                 RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota                JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama                 MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania           DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas            GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
ROB WITTMAN, Virginia                CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DUNCAN HUNTER, California            LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina
JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana     MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               BILL OWENS, New York
TOM ROONEY, Florida                  JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania
SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia               TIM RYAN, Ohio
CHRIS GIBSON, New York               C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
JOE HECK, Nevada                     KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois            BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey               COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MO BROOKS, Alabama
TODD YOUNG, Indiana
                  Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
             Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative Operations
                         LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

                              ----------                              --
--------

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                                     Washington, DC, June 24, 2011.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, I present herewith the 
first semiannual report on the activities of the Committee on 
Armed Services for the 112th Congress.
            Sincerely,
                               Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman.
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              --
--------
                                                                   Page
Powers and Duties................................................     1
    Background...................................................     1
    Constitutional Powers and Duties.............................     2
    House Rules on Jurisdiction..................................     3
    Investigative Authority and Legislative Oversight............     3
Committee Rules..................................................     5
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services...................    17
Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services.................    18
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............    18
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel...........................    19
    Subcommittee on Readiness....................................    20
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces...............    21
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................    22
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................    23
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................    24
Committee Staff..................................................    25
Committee Meetings...............................................    27
Legislative Activities...........................................    28
    Legislation Passed in the House of Representatives...........    28
    Legislation Reported by the Committee on Armed Services......    31
    Legislation Not Reported but Managed by the Committee on 
      Armed Services on the Floor of the House of Representatives    32
Budget Activity..................................................    33
Oversight Activities.............................................    35
    Summary of Oversight Plan....................................    35
    Policy Issues................................................    36
    Fiscal Responsibility and Efficiency.........................    43
    Other Policy Issues..........................................    47
    Readiness....................................................    48
    Energy and Environment.......................................    51
    Military Construction and Infrastructure.....................    52
    Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues...............    54
    Modernization and Investment Issues..........................    58
    Emerging Threats and Capabilities............................    71
Additional Oversight Activities of the Full Committee............    73
Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees ............    76
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities............    76
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel...........................    77
    Subcommittee on Readiness....................................    78
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces...............    79
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.............................    79
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.................    80
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.................    80
Publications.....................................................    82
    Committee Prints.............................................    82
    Published Proceedings........................................    82
    House Reports................................................    85
Press Releases...................................................    86
    First Session................................................    86



                                                  Union Calendar No. 73
112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-123

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



 
  FIRST SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED 
                    SERVICES FOR THE 112TH CONGRESS

                                _______
                                

 June 24, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                           POWERS AND DUTIES


                               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 
Service over intelligence matters was changed.
    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 United 
States Constitution, which provides, among other things that 
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.
    (16) Cemeteries administered by the Department of 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. 147 was approved by the House on March 17, 2011, 
and provided funds for, among other things, committee oversight 
responsibilities to be conducted in the 112th 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 
20, 2011, and adopted the following rules governing rules and 
procedure for oversight hearings conducted by the full 
committee and its subcommittees.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-1; Committee Print No. 1)

                       RULE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS

    (a) 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.
    (b) Pursuant to clause 2(a)(2) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee's rules shall be 
publicly available in electronic form and published in the 
Congressional Record not later than 30 days after the chair of 
the committee is elected in each odd-numbered year.

                  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, intelligence policy, 
force protection 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 Tactical Air and Land Forces: All Army, Air 
Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except Marine 
Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs, strategic missiles, 
space, lift programs, special operations, science and 
technology programs, and information technology accounts). In 
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and 
Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army, Air 
Force and Marine Corps 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, 
depot policy, civilian personnel policy, environmental policy, 
installations and family housing issues, including the base 
closure process, and energy policy and programs of the 
Department of Defense.
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces: Navy 
acquisition programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and Marine Corps 
amphibious assault vehicle programs (except strategic weapons, 
space, special operations, science and technology programs, and 
information technology programs), deep strike bombers and 
related systems, lift programs, and seaborne unmanned aerial 
systems. 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, national intelligence programs, and 
Department of Energy national security programs (except non-
proliferation programs).
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities: Defense-
wide and joint enabling activities and programs to include: 
Special Operations Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-
terrorism programs and initiatives; science and technology 
policy and programs; information technology programs; homeland 
defense and Department of Defense related consequence 
management programs; related intelligence support; and other 
enabling programs and activities to include cyber operations, 
strategic communications, and information operations.
    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 conference and the Minority party's caucus, 
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 conference 
and the Minority party's caucus, 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 AND MEETINGS

    (a) 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 a public 
announcement of the date, place, and subject matter of any 
hearing or meeting before that body at least one week before 
the commencement of a hearing and at least three days before 
the commencement of a meeting. 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 or 
meeting 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 made publicly available in electronic form.
    (b) At least 24 hours prior to the commencement of a 
meeting for the markup of legislation, or at the time of an 
announcement under paragraph (a) made within 24 hours before 
such meeting, the Chairman of the Committee, or of any 
subcommittee, panel, or task force shall cause the text of such 
measure or matter to be made publicly available in electronic 
form as provided in clause 2(g)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

        RULE 8. BROADCASTING OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND MEETINGS

    (a) Pursuant to clause 2(e)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee shall, to the 
maximum extent practicable, provide audio and video coverage of 
each hearing or meeting for the transaction of business in a 
manner that allows the public to easily listen to and view the 
proceedings. The Committee shall maintain the recordings of 
such coverage in a manner that is easily accessible to the 
public.
    (b) 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, one member of that member's personal 
staff, and an alternate, 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.
    (c) Pursuant to clause 2(g)(5) of rule XI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, written witness statements, with 
appropriate redactions to protect the privacy of the witness, 
shall be made publicly available in electronic form not later 
than one day after the witness appears.

               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 substantially 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.
    (c) Not later than 24 hours after the adoption of any 
amendment to a measure or matter considered by the Committee, 
the Chairman shall cause the text of each such amendment to be 
made publicly available in electronic form as provided in 
clause 2(e)(6) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

           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 and also made publicly available in electronic 
form within 48 hours of such record vote pursuant to clause 
2(e)(1)(B)(i) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives. Information so available 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.

                  RULE 24. COMMITTEE ACTIVITY REPORTS

    Not later than the 30th day after June 1 and December 1, 
the Committee shall submit to the House a semiannual report on 
its activities, pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives.

             COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    Pursuant to H. Res. 6, election of the Chairman (adopted 
January 5, 2011), H. Res. 7, election of the Ranking Member 
(adopted January 5, 2011), H. Res. 33, election of majority 
members (adopted January 12, 2011), and H. Res. 39, election of 
minority members (adopted January 19, 2011), the following 
members serve on the Committee on Armed Services in the 112th 
Congress:

    HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, 
       California, Chairman

ADAM SMITH, Washington, Ranking MemberOSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           JEFF MILLER, Florida
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
RICK LARSEN, Washington              MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa                  BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona          K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina        DUNCAN HUNTER, California
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
BILL OWENS, New York                 MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California        TOM ROONEY, Florida
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania          TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM RYAN, Ohio                       SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland   CHRIS GIBSON, New York
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                JOE HECK, Nevada
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii             JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
                                     AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
                                     TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
                                     STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
                                     ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
                                     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
                                     MO BROOKS, Alabama
                                     TODD YOUNG, Indiana

            SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The following subcommittees were established at the 
committee's organizational meeting on January 20, 2011.

           Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Defense-wide and 
joint enabling activities and programs to include: Special 
Operations Forces; counter-proliferation and counter-terrorism 
programs and initiatives; science and technology policy and 
programs; information technology programs; homeland defense and 
Department of Defense related consequence management programs; 
related intelligence support; and other enabling programs and 
activities to include cyber operations, strategic 
communications, and information operations.

     Mr. THORNBERRY, Chairman

Mr. LANGEVIN, Ranking Member         Mr. MILLER
Ms. SANCHEZ                          Mr. KLINE
Mr. ANDREWS                          Mr. SHUSTER
Mrs. DAVIS                           Mr. CONAWAY
Mr. RYAN                             Mr. GIBSON
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER                    Mr. SCHILLING
Mr. JOHNSON                          Mr. WEST
Mrs. CASTOR                          Mr. FRANKS
                                     Mr. HUNTER
                   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.

       Mr. WILSON, Chairman

Mrs. DAVIS, Ranking Member           Mr. JONES
Mr. BRADY                            Mr. COFFMAN
Ms. BORDALLO                         Mr. ROONEY
Mr. LOEBSACK                         Dr. HECK
Ms. TSONGAS                          Mr. WEST
Ms. PINGREE                          Mr. SCOTT
                                     Mrs. HARTZLER
                       Subcommittee on Readiness

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Military 
readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues and 
programs. In addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for 
all military construction, depot policy, civilian personnel 
policy, environmental policy, installations and family housing 
issues, including the base closure process, and energy policy 
and programs of the Department of Defense.

       Mr. FORBES, Chairman

Ms. BORDALLO, Ranking Member         Mr. ROGERS
Mr. REYES                            Dr. HECK
Mr. COURTNEY                         Mr. SCOTT
Mr. LOEBSACK                         Mr. LoBIONDO
Ms. GIFFORDS                         Mr. GIBSON
Mr. KISSELL                          Mrs. HARTZLER
Mr. OWENS                            Mr. SCHILLING
Mr. RYAN                             Mr. RUNYAN
Mrs. HANABUSA                        Mr. GRIFFIN
                                     Mr. PALAZZO
                                     Mrs. ROBY
             Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--Navy acquisition 
programs, Naval Reserve equipment, and Marine Corps amphibious 
assault vehicle programs (except strategic weapons, space, 
special operations, science and technology programs, and 
information technology programs), deep strike bombers and 
related systems, lift programs, and seaborne unmanned aerial 
systems. 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. AKIN, Chairman

Mr. McINTYRE, Ranking Member         Mr. HUNTER
Mrs. DAVIS                           Mr. COFFMAN
Mr. LANGEVIN                         Mr. RIGELL
Mr. LARSEN                           Mr. GRIFFIN
Mr. COURTNEY                         Mr. PALAZZO
Ms. PINGREE                          Mr. YOUNG
Mr. CRITZ                            Mr. BARTLETT
Mr. JOHNSON                          Mr. FORBES
Ms. SUTTON                           Mr. WITTMAN
                                     Mr. PLATTS
                    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces

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

       Mr. TURNER, Chairman

Ms. SANCHEZ, Ranking Member          Mr. FRANKS
Mr. LANGEVIN                         Mr. LAMBORN
Mr. LARSEN                           Mr. BROOKS
Mr. HEINRICH                         Mr. THORNBERRY
Mr. GARAMENDI                        Mr. ROGERS
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER                    DR. FLEMING
Ms. SUTTON                           Mr. RIGELL
                                     Mr. SCOTT
              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 4--All Army, Air 
Force and Marine Corps acquisition programs (except Marine 
Corps amphibious assault vehicle programs, strategic missiles, 
space, lift programs, special operations, science and 
technology programs, and information technology accounts). In 
addition, the subcommittee will be responsible for Navy and 
Marine Corps aviation programs, National Guard and Army, Air 
Force and Marine Corps Reserve modernization, and ammunition 
programs.

      Mr. BARTLETT, Chairman

Mr. REYES, Ranking Member            Mr. LoBIONDO
Mr. McINTYRE                         Dr. FLEMING
Mr. COOPER                           Mr. ROONEY
Ms. GIFFORDS                         Mr. PLATTS
Ms. TSONGAS                          Mrs. HARTZLER
Mr. KISSELL                          Mr. RUNYAN
Mr. HEINRICH                         Mrs. ROBY
Mr. OWENS                            Mr. JONES
Mr. GARAMENDI                        Mr. AKIN
Mr. CRITZ                            Mr. WILSON
Mrs. CASTOR                          Mr. TURNER
                                     Mr. SHUSTER
                                     Mr. LAMBORN
              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.

       Mr. WITTMAN, Chairman

Mr. COOPER, Ranking Member           Mr. CONAWAY
Mr. ANDREWS                          Mr. BROOKS
Ms. SANCHEZ                          Mr. YOUNG
Mrs. HANABUSA                        Mr. ROONEY
                                     Mr. COFFMAN

                            COMMITTEE STAFF

    By committee resolution adopted at the organizational 
meeting on January 20, 2011, or by authority of the chairman, 
the following persons have been appointed to the staff of the 
committee during the 112th Congress:

    Bob Simmons, Staff Director
   Roger Zakheim, Deputy Staff 
     Director/General Counsel
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
     Jesse D. Tolleson, Jr., 
     Professional Staff Member
Debra S. Wada, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Douglas C. Roach, Professional 
           Staff Member
Mark R. Lewis, Professional Staff 
              Member
Paul Arcangeli, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Jeanette S. James, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Rebecca A. Ross, Professional 
           Staff Member
Andrew Hunter, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned February 26, 
               2011)
Heath R. Bope, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Lynn M. Williams, Professional 
           Staff Member
   Joshua C. Holly, Director of 
Communications (resigned June 12, 
               2011)
  John Wason, Professional Staff 
              Member
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Alex Kugajevsky, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Cyndi Howard, Security Manager
 Douglas Bush, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Lara Battles, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned March 25, 2011)
 Cathy Garman, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Vickie Plunkett, Professional 
           Staff Member
  Timothy McClees, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Kevin Gates, Professional Staff 
              Member
Michael Casey, Professional Staff 
              Member
David Sienicki, Professional Staff 
              Member
Zach Steacy, Director, Legislative 
            Operations
  Everett Coleman, Professional 
           Staff Member
   Mary Kate Cunningham, Staff 
             Assistant
 Craig Greene, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Phil MacNaughton, Professional 
           Staff Member
 Jack Schuler, Professional Staff 
              Member
   Scott Bousum, Staff Assistant
Ryan Crumpler, Professional Staff 
              Member
 John N. Johnson, Staff Assistant
    William S. Johnson, Counsel
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff 
 Member and Senior Advisor to the 
             Chairman
    Jim Weiss, Staff Assistant
   Alejandra Villarreal, Staff 
             Assistant
   Megan Howard, Staff Assistant
 Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant
Peter Villano, Professional Staff 
              Member
        Paul Lewis, Counsel
   Jeff Cullen, Staff Assistant
      Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff 
              Member
      Michele Pearce, Counsel
   Famid Sinha, Staff Assistant 
      (resigned May 9, 2011)
 Katie Sendak, Executive Assistant
  Ben Runkle, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Melissa Tuttle, Staff Assistant
   Catherine A. McElroy, Counsel
Michael Amato, Professional Staff 
              Member
       Robert J. McAlister, 
     Communications Assistant
  Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed 
 January 3, 2011, resigned May 5, 
               2011)
     Jonathan Shepard, Intern 
   (appointed January 4, 2011, 
    resigned February 18, 2011)
  Dustin Walker, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed February 7, 2011)
  Thomas MacKenzie, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed March 7, 
               2011)
 Lauren Hauhn, Research Assistant 
     (appointed March 8, 2011)
John Noonan, Deputy Communications 
  Director (appointed March 21, 
               2011)
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed April 1, 2011)
 Arthur Milikh, Intern (appointed 
          April 1, 2011)
  Elizabeth Nathan, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed April 8, 
               2011)
    Elizabeth McWhorter, Staff 
  Assistant (appointed April 18, 
               2011)
 Nicholas Rodman, Staff Assistant 
      (appointed May 2, 2011)
 Stephen Bosco, Intern (appointed 
           May 17, 2011)
Aaron Applbaum, Intern (appointed 
           May 23, 2011)
 Kelly McRaven, Intern (appointed 
           June 1, 2011)
  Andrew T. Walter, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed June 2, 
               2011)
Ken Orvick, Intern (appointed June 
             16, 2011)

                           COMMITTEE MEETINGS

    A total of 54 meetings and markups have been held by the 
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees during the 
112th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings follows:

Full Committee....................................................    17
Subcommittees:
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.............     6
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................     7
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................     7
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................     3
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................     5
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces..................     6
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................     3

                         LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

           Legislation Passed in the House of Representatives

    H.R. 1540--TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012 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 14, 2011, H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced by 
Chairman McKeon and referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services held 
a mark-up session to consider H.R. 1540. The committee, a 
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 1540, as amended, 
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 60-1. 
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 26, 2011, by a 
recorded vote of 322--96 (Roll no. 375). On June 6, 2011, the 
bill was received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the 
Senate Committee on Armed Services. No further action has been 
taken on H.R. 1540.
    H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, would: 
(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for 
procurement and for research, development, test, and evaluation 
(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for 
operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; 
(3) Authorize for fiscal year 2012: (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 2012 for military construction and family housing; 
(6) Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency 
Operations; (7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 
for the Department of Energy national security programs; (8) 
Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; 
and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the 
Maritime Administration.
    H.R. 1540 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 Rules 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 bill 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.
    H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, would authorize $689.7 
billion for national defense discretionary programs and 
includes $552.7 billion for the base budget of the Department 
of Defense, $118.9 billion for Overseas Contingency Operations, 
and $18.1 billion for national security programs in the 
Department of Energy.
Division A
    Division A of H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, would 
authorize funds for fiscal year 2012 for the Department of 
Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I would authorize $111,331,833,000 for 
procurement for the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps, the 
Air Force, and Defense-wide activities. Subtitles B and C of 
title I would establish additional program requirements, 
restrictions, and limitations for specified programs for the 
Armed Forces.
    Subtitle A of title II would authorize $75,558,979,000 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 would establish certain program requirements, restrictions, 
and limitations on separate research and development-related 
matters. Subtitles C through E of title II addresses missile 
defense programs, reports and miscellaneous matters.
    Subtitle A of title III would authorize $171,137,669,000 
for operation and maintenance. Subtitles B through F of title 
III addresses energy and environmental issues, logistics and 
sustainment issues, studies and reports relating to military 
readiness, limitations and extensions of authority, and other 
miscellaneous matters.
    Title IV would provide military personnel authorizations 
for the active and reserve forces for fiscal year 2012 and 
would authorize appropriations of $142,174,158,000 for military 
personnel for fiscal year 2012.
    The end strengths for active duty personnel for fiscal year 
2012 would be as follows:
    (1) The Army, 562,000.
    (2) The Navy, 325,739.
    (3) The Marine Corps, 202,100.
    (4) The Air Force, 332,800.
    The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2012 
would be as follows:
    (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 358,200.
    (2) The Army Reserve, 205,000.
    (3) The Navy Reserve, 66,200.
    (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
    (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,700.
    (6) The Air Force Reserve, 71,400.
    (7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 10,000.
    The end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of 
the Reserve Components for fiscal year 2012 would be as 
follows:
    (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060.
    (2) The Army Reserve, 16,261.
    (3) The Navy Reserve, 10,337.
    (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
    (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 14,833.
    (6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,662.
    Title V would establish military personnel policy, 
including provisions addressing officer personnel policy; 
Reserve Component management; general service authorities; 
military justice and legal matters; education and training; 
Army National Military Cemeteries; Armed Forces Retirement 
Home; military families; improved sexual assault prevention and 
response in the Armed Forces; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title VI would address compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; 
consolidation and reform of travel and transportation 
authorities; commissary and nonappropriated fund 
instrumentality benefits and operations; disability, retired 
pay and survivor benefits; and other matters.
    Title VII contains military health care provisions, such as 
improvements to military health benefits; health care 
administration; and other matters.
    Title VIII addresses acquisition policy, acquisition 
management and related matters, including amendments to general 
contracting authorities, procedures, and limitations; 
provisions relating to contracts in support of contingency 
operations in Iraq or Afghanistan; defense industrial base 
matters; and other matters.
    Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and 
management provisions, including space activities; 
intelligence-related matters; total force management; 
quadrennial roles and missions and related matters; and other 
miscellaneous matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; counter-drug activities and counter transnational 
criminal activities; naval vessels and shipyards; 
counterterrorism; nuclear forces; financial management; studies 
and reports; miscellaneous authorities and limitations; and 
other matters.
    Title XI addresses Department of Defense civilian personnel 
matters.
    Title XII concerns matters relating to foreign nations, 
including assistance and training; matters relating to Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and reports and other matters.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
    Title XIV would authorize miscellaneous authorizations 
totaling $37,692,377,000 and also includes provisions 
addressing the National Defense stockpile, Chemical 
Demilitarization Matters; and other matters.
    Title XV includes authorization of $118,939,693,000 for 
Overseas Contingency Operations.
    Title XVI contains provisions regarding additional budget 
items.

Division B

    Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$14,766,026,000 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 2012. In addition, Division B contains military 
construction and family housing program changes; real property 
and facilities administration; provisions related to Guam 
realignment; provisions concerning land conveyances; energy 
security; and other matters.

Division C

    Division C would authorize appropriations in the amount of 
$18,075,850,000 for Department of Energy national security 
programs for fiscal year 2012. Division C also includes 
authorization for and addresses the Defense Nuclear Facilities 
Safety Board; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the Maritime 
Administration.

Division D

    Division D would provide for the allocation of funds among 
programs, projects, and activities in accordance with the 
tables in division D, subject to reprogramming guidance in 
accordance with established procedures, and would also require 
that a decision by an Agency Head to commit, obligate, or 
expend funds to a specific entity on the basis of such funding 
tables be based on merit-based selection procedures in 
accordance with the requirements of section 2304(k) and 2374 of 
title 10, United States Code, and other applicable provisions 
of law.
    (H. Rept. 112-78, Parts I & II)

        Legislation Reported by the Committee on Armed Services


H. RES. 208--RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO TRANSMIT 
   TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COPIES OF ANY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT, 
RECORD, MEMO, CORRESPONDENCE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT 
OF DEFENSE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THAT REFERS OR 
 RELATES TO ANY CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REGARDING OPERATION ODYSSEY 
                DAWN OR NATO OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR

    House Resolution 208 was introduced by Representative Tom 
Cole on April 7, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Armed 
Services. The resolution, as introduced, would direct 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 any consultation with Congress regarding Operation 
Odyssey Dawn or military actions in or against Libya.
    On May 11, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services held a 
mark-up session to consider House Resolution 208, as 
introduced. The committee, a quorum being present, ordered to 
be reported House Resolution 208, as amended, to the House with 
a favorable recommendation by a voice vote. House Resolution 
208 was amended to direct the Secretary of Defense to transmit 
to the House of Representatives, not later than 14 days after 
the date of the adoption of such resolution, copies of any 
official document, record, memo, correspondence, or other 
communication of the Department of Defense in the possession of 
the Secretary of Defense that was created on or after February 
15, 2011, and refers or relates to any of the following: (1) 
consultation or communication with Congress regarding the 
employment or deployment of the United States Armed Forces for 
Operation Odyssey Dawn or North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
Operation Unified Protector; and (2) the War Powers Resolution 
and Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation Unified Protector. 
Additionally, the title of House Resolution 208 was amended.
    On May 12, 2011, House Resolution 208 was placed on the 
House Calendar, Calendar No. 38. No further action has been 
taken.
    (H. Rept. 112-77)

Legislation not Reported but Managed by the Committee on Armed Services 
              on the Floor of the House of Represenatives


      H.R. 1246--TO REDUCE THE AMOUNTS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO BE 
APPROPRIATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR PRINTING AND REPRODUCTION

    H.R. 1246, ``To reduce the amounts otherwise authorized to 
be appropriated to the Department of Defense for printing and 
reproduction'' was introduced on March 29, 2011, by 
Represenative Allen B. West and was referred to the House Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman Forbes of the 
Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee consideration of 
H.R. 1246, and Chairman McKeon waived full committee 
consideration of the bill. On April 4, 2011, Mr. West moved to 
consider H.R. 1246, as introdcued, under suspension of the 
rules of the House, and the motion to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill was agreed to by the yeas and nays, 393-0 (Roll 
no. 225). On April 5, 2011, H.R. 1246 was received in the 
Senate and read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on 
Armed Services. No further action has been taken.

H. RES. 292--DECLARING THAT THE PRESIDENT SHALL NOT DEPLOY, ESTABLISH, 
  OR MAINTAIN THE PRESENCE OF UNITS AND MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES 
      ARMED FORCES ON THE GROUND IN LIBYA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

    House Resolution 292, ``Declaring that the President shall 
not deploy, establish, or maintain the presence of units and 
members of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in 
Libya, and for other purposes'' was introduced on June 2, 2011, 
by Speaker John Boehner, and was referred to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 
Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 
Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 294, House 
Resolution 292 was considered under a closed rule by the House 
on June 3, 2011. House Resolution 294 waived all points of 
order against consideration of House Resolution 292, and 
provided one hour of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs and 20 minutes equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Armed Services. On June 3, 2011, House Resolution 
292 was agreed to in the House by the yeas and nays, 268-145-1 
(Roll no. 441).

                            BUDGET ACTIVITY

    On March 18, 2011, the Chairman of the Committee on Armed 
Services forwarded his views and estimates regarding the budget 
request for National Defense Budget Function (050) for fiscal 
year 2012 to the Committee on the Budget.
    The committee noted that the President's fiscal year 2012 
budget request totaled $578.2 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for national defense. Of this total, $553.1 billion 
was for the Department of Defense, $18.1 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 $6.8 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 2012 included a 
separate request of $117.8 billion for war-related expenditures 
in support of ongoing military operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq, presented as 
Overseas Contingency Operations.
    Given the spectrum of threats to our national security, the 
diverse missions performed by our military, and the funding 
required for reset from current contingency operations, the 
Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services considered the 
budget request to be below the minimum level necessary to 
support our national security requirements, and recommended an 
increase in funding for national defense by $7 billion for 
fiscal year 2012 and $44 billion across fiscal years 2012-16 
above the budget request. The Chairman believed that an 
increase would ensure a smooth transition from one fiscal year 
to the next, move toward resolution of certain programmatic and 
economic concerns, ease the Department of Defense's concerns on 
pricing fluctuations such as fuel, and provide service members 
with a larger funding stream.
    In review of the budget request, the Chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services highlighted several concerns to the 
Committee on the Budget. First, with respect to proposed 
reductions by the Department of Defense, they were not 
performed from a strategic perspective. The reduction of $13 
billion in fiscal year 2012 was directed by the Office of 
Management and Budget. Second, the Chairman noted that the 
reductions in Army and Marine Corps manpower, totaling 47,000 
persons as programmed in the Future Year's Defense Program, 
were premature, both from a national security strategy 
standpoint and for the potential impact on the time between 
deployments, dwell time, experienced by members of the Armed 
Forces. Third, the Chairman suggested that high-profile 
programs such as the Air Force's new bomber program and the 
Navy's Ohio class ballistic missile submarine replacement may 
not be realized within currently planned cost and schedule 
constraints. Finally, the Chairman argued that the President's 
budget request may have adverse implications on the readiness 
of the Armed Forces due to funding shortfalls and inaccurate 
economic assumptions.
    The Ranking Member of the Committee on Armed Services did 
not join the Chairman in making these assertions, nor did he 
join the Chairman in recommending budgetary increases over the 
President's budget request. Instead, the Ranking Member 
expressed to the Committee on the Budget his support for the 
President's budget request as a balanced platform for military 
effectiveness from which justifiable savings may be realized.

                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

                       Summary of Oversight Plan

    On January 20, 2011, the committee held its organizational 
meeting and adopted its oversight plan for the 112th Congress. 
The following is a summary of the committee's oversight agenda 
printed in the oversight plan.
    The oversight plan for the 112th Congress states the 
committee will continue its oversight and assessment of threats 
to U.S. national security as it considers the fiscal year 2012 
and fiscal year 2013 defense budget requests. This effort will 
involve appropriate oversight hearings with the Secretary of 
Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the 
individual service secretaries and chiefs of staff, combatant 
commanders, other officials of the Department of Defense and 
the military departments, officials from the Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency 
and other defense-related intelligence agencies, and the 
Secretary of Energy, the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security 
and other officials of the Department of Energy. In addition, 
the committee will invite the views and perspectives of outside 
experts in academia, industry, associations and advocacy 
organizations, and those in private life on these matters. 
Finally, the committee will continue its aggressive outreach 
program to seek the views and perspectives of service members 
and their families to include Active Duty, National Guard, and 
Reserve members across the United States and at deployed 
locations overseas.
    The oversight plan explains that the committee carries out 
its oversight of the Department of Defense and its subordinate 
departments and agencies as well as portions of the Department 
of Energy through activities involving the full committee and 
its standing subcommittees. Each subcommittee conducts 
oversight of the programs within its jurisdiction as specified 
in the committee's rules, with the Subcommittee on Oversight 
and Investigations pursuing coordinated and constructive 
oversight that will identify best practices, areas of potential 
savings, as well as those areas in need of correction and 
reform within the Department of Defense.
    The oversight agenda is designed to support the 
consideration by the committee and, ultimately, the House of 
Representatives of the annual defense authorization bill, as 
well as the committee's broader oversight responsibilities. The 
issues identified will be ongoing areas of oversight activity 
throughout the 112th Congress. In addition, the committee will 
continue to pay particular attention to the mandates placed on 
executive departments and agencies by the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-62). The 
committee will examine closely the progress of the Department 
of Defense, the military departments, and the Department of 
Energy in implementing Public Law 103-62 to include the use of 
performance-based budgeting techniques and five-year strategic 
planning documents, for programs within its jurisdiction. In 
this context, pursuant to clause 2(d)(1) of rule X of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the committee will place 
renewed emphasis on examining relevant rules, regulations, 
statutes, and court decisions affecting the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Energy for their effects on 
efficiency and good management practices.
    The committee has a long tradition of translating oversight 
activities into prescriptive legislative action as reflected in 
past comprehensive efforts such as: providing for concurrent 
receipt of retirement and disability benefits for veterans with 
qualifying combat-related disabilities; reforming the military 
retirement system; the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 
Reorganization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-433); the Defense 
Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act of 1991 (Public Law 101-
510); the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public 
Law 103-355); the Federal Acquisition Reform Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-106); the establishment of the National Nuclear 
Security Administration and related reform of the management of 
the national security programs of the Department of Energy; 
reform of the military health care system; and the Military 
Commissions Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-366). More recently, in 
the 110th Congress, the committee played a lead role in the 
passage of the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act of 2007 and the 
Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 2007 as 
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), the Reconstruction and 
Stabilization Civilian Management Act of 2008, the Clean 
Contracting Act of 2008 as included in the Duncan Hunter 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417). In the 111th Congress, the committee played a 
lead role in the passage of the Weapon System Acquisition 
Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) and H.R. 5013, 
Implementing Management for Performance and Related Reforms to 
Obtain Value in Every Acquisition Act of 2010 (IMPROVE 
Acquisition Act of 2010), as included in the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383), and will continue to oversee these legislative 
provisions in the 112th Congress. In general, the committee 
will continue to maintain a strong linkage between formal 
oversight efforts and legislative initiatives.
    Pursuant to clause 1(d) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, described below are actions taken and 
recommendations made with respect to specific areas and 
subjects that were identified in the oversight plan for special 
attention during the 112th Congress, as well as additional 
oversight activities not explicitly enumerated by the oversight 
plan.

                             Policy Issues

  NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY, NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY, AND RELATED 
                         DEFENSE POLICY ISSUES

    During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued its 
traditional interest in the broad spectrum of national security 
challenges facing the United States and how the Nation might 
best prepare itself to face such challenges in the near- and 
long-term. The committee particularly focused on conducting 
oversight of issues pertaining to the wars in the Republic of 
Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, military 
operations in Libya, and the popular uprisings throughout the 
Middle East calling for political reforms. Throughout the first 
half of the first session of the 112th Congress, the committee 
received numerous briefings from representatives of the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense, the military services, the joint 
staff, academics, and other experts.
    The committee also explored certain strategic issues that 
are becoming a prominent part of recent discussions of defense 
strategy, such as Department of Defense efficiencies 
initiatives and potential effects of the U.S. debt crisis on 
the defense budget. The committee convened a hearing on 
proposed Department of Defense budget reductions and 
efficiencies initiatives in order to gain a better 
understanding of the Department's efforts to create real growth 
within force structure and modernization accounts, without 
commensurate increases to the defense budget top-line. The 
committee continues to believe that in its efforts to seek 
efficiencies, the Department would be well served to conduct 
comprehensive review of the roles and missions of the Armed 
Forces every 4 years. Although such a review is required by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public 
Law 110-181), the Department's first such review, and the 
associated report which was delivered in January 2009, failed 
to comply with congressional intent. Therefore, the committee 
urged the Secretary of Defense to take a more comprehensive 
approach to the 2011 Quarterly Roles and Missions Review (QRMR) 
and also took action in H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House 
of Representatives on May 26, 2011, to strengthen the 
requirements in the QRMR and to clarify congressional intent 
regarding such a review. The committee also included a 
provision in H.R. 1540 that would reinforce the strong belief 
that the Quadrennial Defense Review is a critical strategic 
document and should be based upon a process unconstrained by 
budgetary influences so that such influences to do not limit or 
otherwise determine the outcome of the review.
    In H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, the 
committee included several provisions relating to defense 
policy, such as improving interagency coordination in matters 
of national security, additional reporting on the military 
capabilities of certain potential aggressors, such as the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and assessing the 
national security risk posed by U.S. Federal debt. The 
committee also added provisions related to the Department of 
Defense efficiencies initiatives, including a required 
assessment from the Comptroller General of the Department of 
Defense's implementation of the initiative and an assessment of 
the extent to which business case analyses informed such 
decisions.
    Much of the committee's oversight on overarching defense 
policy resulted from numerous posture and budget hearings which 
were held in reaction to the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2012. The detailed list of these hearings is 
included elsewhere in this report.

                         THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN

    The committee held several full committee briefings and 
hearings on the war in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 
during the first session of the 112th Congress. On February 10, 
2011, the committee held an operations and intelligence 
briefing on Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. 
Witnesses included Michele Flournoy, Under Secretary of Defense 
for Policy; Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby, Director for 
Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Staff J5; Brigadier General 
(P) Frederick ``Ben'' Hodges, Director of the Pakistan 
Afghanistan Coordination Cell, Joint Staff; and Rear Admiral 
Paul Becker, Vice Director for Intelligence, Joint Staff, J2. 
On March 3, 2011, the committee received testimony on 
Afghanistan and Pakistan from General James Mattis, Commander 
of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), during the CENTCOM posture 
hearing. Two weeks later, the committee held a hearing on 
developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Witnesses included 
Under Secretary Flournoy and General David Petraeus, Commander, 
International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan. Committee members and professional staff also 
participated in numerous delegations to Afghanistan to meet 
with U.S. diplomats, U.S. military officers, and Afghan 
government officials in order to gain a better understanding of 
military operations and policy issues related to Afghanistan.
    The committee included a number of legislative provisions 
as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, 
that would extend the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 
established under section 1217 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383), and recommended increasing the amount authorized under 
this provision to $475.0 million. H.R. 1540 also extended the 
Commanders' Emergency Response Program (CERP), and extended 
section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), authorizing the 
Secretary of Defense to reimburse any key cooperating nation 
for logistical, military, and other support provided by that 
nation to or in connection with U.S. military operations in 
Afghanistan. H.R. 1540 also extended the ``Report on Progress 
Toward Stability and Security in Afghanistan,'' as required by 
section 1230(a) of Public Law 110-181, thereby continuing its 
oversight role in the war in Afghanistan.

                                PAKISTAN

    The committee held numerous full committee briefings and 
hearings on the effort to combat against Al Qaeda and other 
militant extremists in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as 
noted above. Committee members and professional staff also 
participated in numerous delegations to Pakistan to meet with 
U.S. diplomats, U.S. military officers, and Pakistani 
government officials in order to gain a better understanding of 
Pakistan-related policy issues.
    The committee included several legislative provisions as 
part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011. H.R. 
1540 would extend section 1232 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), 
authorizing the Secretary of Defense to reimburse Pakistan for 
logistical support provided in connection with U.S. military 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and for 
logistical and military support provided to confront the threat 
posed by Al Qaeda and other militant extremists in Pakistan. 
The committee extended the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund 
(PCF) to provide assistance to Pakistan's security forces to 
build and maintain their counterinsurgency capability. However, 
acknowledging concerns regarding Pakistan's political will to 
combat militant extremists, this provision would withhold 
authority to obligate more than 25 percent of the funds 
authorized to be appropriated for PCF until the Secretary of 
Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, 
submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report on 
the strategy to utilize the fund, a discussion of the terrorist 
or extremist groups that the United States encourages Pakistan 
to combat, the gaps in capabilities of Pakistani security 
units, how assistance provided utilizing the fund will address 
these capability gaps, and metrics of progress. This provision 
also would direct that future updates of the report be 
submitted concurrently with the President's budget request, and 
would require quarterly reporting on progress in achieving U.S. 
strategic objectives in Pakistan and progress made by programs 
supported by PCF. Thus, the committee has continued a critical 
program for training and equipping the Pakistani security 
forces to be able to conduct counterinsurgency operations in 
the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, while 
strengthening its oversight of these programs.

                            THE WAR IN IRAQ

    In the 112th Congress, the committee has continued its 
vigorous oversight of the war in the Republic of Iraq. The 
committee held several hearings regarding the war, including an 
operations and intelligence briefing on Iraq on February 11, 
2011. Witnesses included Dr. Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Defense for the Middle East; Brigadier General 
John W. Charlton, Deputy Director, Middle East, Joint Staff J5; 
and Mr. Amir Asmar, Defense Intelligence Agency officer for 
Middle East and North Africa. The committee also received 
testimony on Iraq from General James Mattis, Commander of U.S. 
Central Command (CENTCOM) during the CENTCOM posture hearing on 
March 3, 2011. Committee members and professional staff also 
participated in numerous delegations to Iraq to meet with U.S. 
diplomats, U.S. military officers, and Iraqi government 
officials in order to gain a better understanding of the U.S. 
military's role in Iraq and related policy issues.
    In addition to these hearings, the committee included 
several provisions and reporting requirements relating to Iraq 
as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011. 
H.R. 1540 would authorize the Secretary of Defense to utilize 
funds available for operations and maintenance by the Air Force 
to support operations and activities of the Office of Security 
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). The House version of the NDAA also 
included a section that would require the Secretary of Defense 
to provide the congressional defense committees with formal 
notification if the U.S. Government and the Government of the 
Iraq complete an agreement permitting the United States to 
maintain a force presence in Iraq above that envisioned for the 
OSC-I. The provision would require that in the absence of such 
an agreement in place by December 31, 2011, the Secretary of 
Defense shall submit a report outlining how Department of 
Defense participation in OSC-I programs will address capability 
gaps of the Iraqi Security Forces, should the Government of 
Iraq request such assistance. The committee also urged the 
Department of Defense to consider methods to strengthen the 
U.S. military-to-military relationship with Iraq, including the 
value of conducting joint exercises with the Iraqi military 
similar to the Bright Star exercises carried out with the Arab 
Republic of Egypt. These provisions would establish committee 
oversight over the OSC-I, and support our vital interest in 
maintaining Iraqi stability and security.

                            FORCE PROTECTION

    The committee continued to emphasize force protection as a 
high priority issue for special oversight, focusing on areas 
having direct impact on the safety of 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 the fielding 
of technology and equipment to prevent and/or reduce combat 
casualties. In Iraq and Afghanistan, focus areas included but 
were not limited to: effective requirements generation and test 
and evaluation procedures; mine resistant ambush protected 
(MRAP) vehicle production and fielding; adequate, effective, 
and properly resourced quantities of body and vehicle armor; 
effective counter improvised explosive device (IED) equipment 
throughout the force; persistent surveillance in support of 
ground operations, particularly prevention of IED emplacement; 
solutions to counter the IED threat to dismounted forces; 
capabilities to counter indirect fires; and personal equipment 
that mitigates traumatic brain injury.
    The committee continued to have concerns regarding the 
Department's ability to effectively combat and counter the IED 
threat, specifically in Afghanistan. During the 112th Congress, 
the committee has focused on activities and solutions being 
developed, procured, and fielded to address the IED threat in 
dismounted operations. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, 
the committee indicated that the number of dismounted 
operations conducted by U.S. and coalition forces continue to 
rise in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The committee 
noted that although overall enemy IED efficacy has decreased 
since October 2010, primarily due to early detection from 
dismounted forces, the severity of casualties increased when a 
dismounted IED effective attack occurred. The committee stated 
that efforts to mitigate the IED threat to dismounted forces 
should be a top priority for the Department of Defense.
    The committee, through formal activity, to include open 
hearings and classified briefings has also continued to 
maintain close oversight of the Joint IED Defeat Organization 
(JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's focal point for the 
battle against IEDs, during the 112th Congress. To date, 
Congress has provided approximately $21.0 billion to JIEDDO to 
address the IED threat through JIEDDO's three lines of 
operation: attacking the network, defeating the device, and 
training the force. The nearly 3,100-person strong JIEDDO 
obligates and executes approximately $3.0 billion annually and 
JIEDDO reports significant progress in the Counter-IED (C-IED) 
fight. The committee continued to examine and provide oversight 
on JIEDDO's current roles and missions, operational functions, 
organizational and force structure requirements, and current 
metrics for measuring success against countering the IED 
threat. The committee paid particular attention to whether 
JIEDDO has rectified previously identified deficiencies to 
include a lack of rigor in internal management and reporting, 
questions surrounding their reporting structure to the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, and JIEDDO's overall effectiveness in 
transferring counter-IED technologies to the military services, 
and why JIEDDO is not actively leading all DOD C-IED efforts.
    The committee also continued its intensive oversight of 
individual body armor and personnel protection programs through 
hearings and other formal activities. The committee continued 
to maintain strong interest in: significant ergonomic and 
ballistic improvements in body armor; advances in light-weight 
and flexible solutions; and improvements in non-ballistic, 
blast and blunt-impact protection against traumatic brain 
injury. The committee continued to encourage fidelity and 
transparency in body armor test and evaluation procedures; 
monitored the development and validation of operationally 
realistic performance specification requirements; and provide 
oversight on current body armor policy for Operation New Dawn 
and Operation Enduring Freedom. The committee continued to 
direct the Department of Defense to adequately plan, program, 
and budget for body armor and personnel protection programs.

              GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM AND EMERGING THREATS

    The committee conducted extensive oversight, often in 
classified form, over terrorism issues and emerging threats, 
with particular attention given to special operations 
capabilities, the changing nature of Al Qaeda's organization 
and operations, and efforts to build partner nation counter-
terrorism capability. At the full committee level, members 
received testimony on special operations forces and emerging 
threats from Admiral Eric Olson, Commander of U.S. Special 
Operations Command (SOCOM) during the SOCOM posture hearing on 
March 3, 2011.
    Committee members and staff made numerous trips to 
countries impacted by terrorism, to include areas where U.S. 
forces are engaged in combat operations to understand the 
resources leveraged against terrorism and other emerging 
threats, the authorities applied in these efforts, and the 
Department of Defense's interaction with its interagency and 
international partners. Additionally, the committee received a 
classified briefing on the Osama Bin Laden raid on May 4, 2011.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, 
contained several provisions related to terrorism, emerging 
threats, and building partnership capabilities, to include: a 
provision to modify and extend authority provided under section 
1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2006 (Public Law 109-163) to build the capacity of foreign 
military forces; a provision to extend authority provided under 
section 1232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181) to reimburse certain 
coalition nations for support provided to U.S. military 
operations; and several provisions directing reports on 
military capabilities of nations such as the People's Republic 
of China and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and on 
the national security risk posed by U.S. federal debt held by 
China. Additionally, recognizing terrorist use of cyberspace to 
conduct terrorist operations against U.S. forces, the committee 
included a provision that would affirm the authority for the 
Secretary of Defense to conduct military activities in 
cyberspace.
    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
conducted detailed oversight of specific issues related to 
special operations capabilities, counter-proliferation efforts, 
and counter-insurgency and unconventional warfare operations. 
Further details on these subcommittee activities are provided 
in the ``Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees'' 
section.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-14)

       DETAINEE POLICY, MILITARY COMMISSIONS, AND RELATED MATTERS

    The committee conducted extensive oversight over detainee 
policy, military commissions, and related matters. On March 17, 
2011, the committee held a full committee hearing to discuss 
``Law of War Detention and the President's Executive Order 
Establishing Periodic Review Boards for Guantanamo Detainees''. 
Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn and Department of 
Defense General Counsel Jeh Johnson testified at the hearing. 
In addition to the full committee hearing, the committee 
conducted numerous member and staff level briefings.
    While much of the committee's oversight of detainee issues 
was conducted in classified form and cannot be addressed in 
this report, committee members and staff generally focused on 
issues relating to the legal authorities under which detention 
operations are undertaken, policies regarding future captures, 
recidivism amongst former detainees, administrative review 
procedures for current detainees, detainee-related intelligence 
gathering, the Department's role in the High Value 
Interrogation Group, resources devoted to the Office of 
Military Commissions, and transfers and releases of third 
country national detainees from facilities in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan.
    Committee members and staff also made several trips to U.S. 
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan during which detention operations were carefully 
evaluated. Committee staff also traveled to Saudi Arabia and 
the United Kingdom specifically to further study 
counterterrorism and issues relating to detention as well.
    There were numerous legislative provisions relating to 
detainee policy in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 
2011. Specifically, H.R. 1540 includes provisions that would 
clarify the right to plead guilty in a trial of a capital 
offense by military commission; affirm the ongoing armed 
conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces; 
require national security protocols regarding detainee 
communications; establish a comprehensive administrative review 
procedure for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay; prohibit the 
use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United 
States to house Guantanamo detainees; prohibit family visits to 
Guantanamo detainees; prohibit transfers or releases of 
Guantanamo and certain other detainees to the United States; 
and prohibit certain transfers or releases of Guantanamo 
detainees elsewhere overseas.

                                  IRAN

    The committee has received three briefings on the status of 
the threat the Islamic Republic of Iran poses to the national 
security of the United States and its allies, including an 
operations and intelligence briefing on February 11, 2011. 
Briefers included Dr. Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Defense for the Middle East; Brigadier General John W. 
Charlton, Deputy Director, Middle East, Joint Staff J-5; and 
Mr. Amir Asmar, Defense Intelligence Agency officer for Middle 
East and North Africa. The committee also received testimony on 
Iran from General James Mattis, Commander of U.S. Central 
Command (CENTCOM) during the CENTCOM posture hearing on March 
3, 2011. Finally, the committee received a second operations 
and intelligence report on the Middle East that included 
discussion of Iran on June 15, 2011. Briefers included Dr. 
Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the 
Middle East, OSD-Policy; Mr. James Q. Roberts, Principal 
Director, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for Special Operations and Combating Terrorism, OSD-Policy; 
Rear Admiral Scott Moore, Deputy Director for Special 
Operations, Counterterrorism, J3; Brigadier General John 
Charlton, Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs-Middle 
East, J5; and Mr. Alan Pino, National Intelligence Officer for 
Near East.

                  Fiscal Responsibility and Efficiency

    As previously discussed, the committee has taken seriously 
its role in ensuring that the Department of Defense is a good 
steward of the taxpayer's dollars. It is essential, 
particularly in the current economic environment that the 
Department brings fiscal discipline to the management of its 
financial resources and that priorities be set to fund much 
needed modernization and operations. To that end, the committee 
scrutinized defense programs to ensure we are concentrating our 
limited resources on the highest priority programs. The 
committee supported initiatives focused on reducing waste, 
streamlining operations, and eliminating redundancies across 
all enterprises.
    However, the committee notes that it is essential that 
efficiencies initiatives are grounded by sound analysis and 
will not leave our military less capable and less ready to 
fight. The committee will continue to evaluate the impacts of 
the proposed $78 billion reduction from the Department's 
funding top line during fiscal years 2012-16, particularly in 
light of proposals to trim an additional $400 billion from the 
Department of Defense through fiscal year 2023.

        ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    The committee undertook an extensive review of the 
organization and management of the Department of Defense in 
order to ensure that it is properly postured to meet the 
complex and evolving security threats of the 21st century. 
Specifically, the committee was concerned that the Department 
of Defense's recent focus on efficiencies without a thorough 
business case analysis and risk assessment potentially 
undermines the Department's ability to appropriately plan and 
budget for its total manpower requirements. The committee 
believes that the Department of Defense should aggressively 
undertake a more holistic look at its manpower requirements in 
order to achieve the appropriate balance in its total 
workforce, rather than managing simply to an arbitrary civilian 
authorization level. The committee notes that total force 
management would improve manpower requirements determination 
and planning to facilitate decisions on which sector is most 
appropriate to perform the requirement with consideration of 
the distinct value of each component, whether military, 
civilian, or contractor personnel. To achieve that end, the 
committee included a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to develop a total force management plan that would 
provide the means to establish the appropriate mix of manpower 
(military, civilian, and contractor personnel) to perform the 
mission of the Department of Defense. The committee also 
included provisions that would make changes to requirements for 
manpower reporting and civilian strategic human capital plans.

                          FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    The Comptroller General of the United States has 
consistently identified the Department of Defense's financial 
management as a high-risk area since 1995. The Department's 
inability to track and account for billions of dollars annually 
in funding and tangible assets continues to undermine its 
management approach. It also creates a lack of transparency 
that significantly limits congressional oversight. Any attempt 
by the Department to reform defense acquisition or to find 
efficiencies within the Department lack credibility if it is 
unable to produce auditable financial statements. Without these 
objective tools, neither the Department nor Congress can verify 
that greater value is being created. As a result, the committee 
continues to monitor the Department's efforts to implement the 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) plan to 
correct the weaknesses in its financial statements and monitor 
closely the interdependencies between FIAR and the hundreds of 
millions of dollars being spent on business systems 
modernization programs that the Department has proposed to 
address its financial management problems. Subtitle F of title 
X of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, 
contains several provisions that would strengthen the 
Department's financial management, improve the reliability of 
defense financial statements, increase the competency of the 
financial management workforce, and add additional requirements 
to the FIAR plan. As previously discussed, the committee also 
directed the Comptroller General to assess the extent to which 
the Department is tracking and realizing savings proposed 
pursuant the Secretary of Defense's efficiencies initiatives 
through fiscal year 2016.

                           ACQUISITION ISSUES

The acquisition system and acquisition policy
    The committee continued its long-standing work on 
Department of Defense acquisition policy. The committee 
conducted oversight of the implementation of the Weapon System 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-181) and the 
IMPROVE Acquisition Act of 2010, as included in the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383), and specifically examined the impact of these 
reforms on individual acquisition programs such as the Joint 
Strike Fighter, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, and the 
Common Vertical Lift Support Program. The committee continued 
its oversight of the Department's process for reviewing and 
certifying requirements for major defense acquisition programs, 
development of the acquisition workforce, protection of 
strategic materials, and management of services contracting.
    In conjunction with its review of the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2012, the committee examined the 
military requirements determination processes. The committee 
continues to believe that validation of a military requirement 
is foundational to any acquisition effort. However, the 
Department's processes for requirements determination continue 
to produce outcomes which do not reflect the jointness that the 
military has achieved at the operating level. For this reason, 
the committee included a provision in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, which prohibited funding for 
procurement or fielding of light attack armed reconnaissance 
aircraft until such time as the Joint Requirements Oversight 
Council validates the requirement for such capability.
    The committee recognizes that a fundamental component in 
addressing most of the problems in the acquisition process is 
improving the composition and quality of the acquisition 
workforce. The committee continued its oversight of efforts to 
enhance career paths for military personnel working in 
acquisition, implementation of the Department of Defense 
Acquisition Workforce Development Fund, and other efforts by 
the Department to expand and improve the acquisition workforce 
and the financial management community.
    The committee maintains that competition reduces costs, 
increases quality, and improves vendor performance. For this 
reason, the committee included several provisions in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to foster 
competition in defense acquisitions and weapon systems 
sustainment. Department of Defense acquisition officials often 
find that they are locked into sole-source acquisition 
strategies because the government does not own sufficient 
technical data rights to enable competition. The committee 
examined the findings and recommendations of the May 2011 
review by the Government Accountability Office of the 
Department's acquisition and procurement policies regarding 
technical data rights and will continue oversight of this 
matter.
    Service contracting represents an increasingly large 
proportion of the acquisition expenditures of the Department. 
The committee continued to work with the Department's Panel on 
Contracting Integrity to eliminate contracting vulnerabilities 
and monitored the Department's phase out of the use of 
contractors to perform inherently governmental functions.
    While the committee has done a significant amount of work 
to improve the ability of the workforce to contract in a 
contingency environment, the committee took additional steps to 
ensure that contingency contracting can be used as an effective 
tool of counter-insurgency operations. The committee reviewed 
the findings and recommendations of the Commission on Wartime 
Contracting. Based on the commission's findings, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011, contained several 
provisions aimed at addressing shortfalls in Operational 
Contract Support, increasing competition in contingency 
contracting, and enhancing contract management. Furthermore, 
the committee continued to monitor the progress of the 
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the United 
States Agency for International Development in implementing the 
memorandum of understanding among those agencies on oversight 
of contracting in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan.
Defense industrial base and technology transfers
    The committee continued its close examination of the health 
of the defense industrial base. The industrial base for complex 
major weapons systems has shrunk dramatically in the last 
decade, limiting the ability of the Department of Defense (DOD) 
to control costs and encourage innovation through the use of 
competition. Industry also has struggled in many cases to make 
the long-term investments that are vital to the health of the 
defense industrial base, notably in the shipbuilding industry. 
The committee examined the policies and funding tools available 
to the Department to ensure the health of the defense 
industrial base and, as a result, included provisions in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, for enhancing DOD's 
ability to monitor and manage supplier risk, and to address 
supplier-base vulnerabilities.
    Section 1248 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84) required the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment 
of the national security risks of removing satellites and 
related components from the U.S. Munitions List. The committee 
received an interim risk assessment report in May 2011 and 
awaits delivery of the final report. The committee plans to 
hold an oversight hearing in the latter half of 2011 to review 
space export control policy. The consolidation of the defense 
industry and its increasingly global nature will increasingly 
challenge the capabilities of current systems for industrial 
security.
Rapid acquisition authority and joint urgent operational needs process
    The conflicts in the Republic of Iraq and the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan, and particularly the evolution of the 
improvised explosive device (IED) as a highly effective weapon 
of strategic influence, have illustrated the ability of an 
enemy to adapt within a normal defense acquisition cycle. The 
committee continued its oversight of the joint urgent 
operational needs (JUONS) process and urged the Secretary of 
Defense to leverage previous efforts of the committee to take 
advantage of the rapid acquisition authority provided to the 
Department of Defense as part of section 811 of the Ronald W. 
Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 
(Public Law 108-375), wherever necessary, in order to guarantee 
that military personnel receive required equipment in a timely 
manner.
Information technology
    The committee continued its oversight of information 
technology acquisition issues, to include implementation of 
section 804 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The committee scrutinized 
the Department of Defense's plan for budget reductions and 
efficiencies initiatives, and the impacts those changes would 
have on information technology programs. As the military 
services are the primary acquirers of information technology 
systems, particular attention was given to service information 
technology programs during the service posture hearings and 
during other committee oversight activities.
    The committee remains concerned about the projected 
dissolution of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense 
(Networks & Information Integration) and other information 
technology-related realignment within the Department, and will 
continue to monitor Department of Defense efforts to achieve 
efficiencies and leverage information technology.
    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
conducted detailed oversight of specific programmatic issues 
related to information technology. Further details on these 
subcommittee activities are provided in the ``Additional 
Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees'' section of this 
report.

                          Other Policy Issues

                              INTELLIGENCE

    The committee focused on several areas of oversight related 
to intelligence activities of the Department of Defense. The 
committee held numerous classified briefings to discuss 
intelligence activities, with a particular emphasis on 
activities in support of ongoing hostilities and the division 
of responsibilities and authorities between the military and 
other components of the intelligence community. Committee 
members and staff also made several trips to areas of ongoing 
hostilities during which intelligence activities were carefully 
evaluated. The committee continued its efforts to ensure that 
the Department of Defense has the resources and legal 
authorities needed to provide effective and efficient 
intelligence support to military operations.
    While much of the committee's oversight of intelligence 
issues was conducted in classified form and cannot be addressed 
in this report, the committee specifically evaluated the 
Department of Defense's security practices, audit capabilities, 
and information-sharing policies following recent extensive 
unauthorized disclosures of classified information. These 
efforts resulted in a legislative provision that would require 
a comprehensive insider threat detection program being included 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011.

                      NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES

    The committee continued its efforts to review the 
requirements for full time support of the Reserve Component. 
Oversight visits were made to National Guard state headquarters 
to discuss the military technicians program. The committee is 
committed to working with the Administration to ensure the 
proper structure is resourced to support an operational reserve 
force.

                               READINESS

    The Subcommittee on Readiness provided oversight of 
Department of Defense military readiness, training, logistics, 
maintenance, military construction, installations, family 
housing, and the base realignment and closure process. The 
subcommittee also provided oversight on civilian personnel, 
energy security, and environmental issues that affect the 
Department of Defense. The subcommittee considered and reported 
legislation on May 4, 2011, that was included in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011.

                            FORCE READINESS

    The committee held several hearings focused on the 
challenges facing the military services to provide trained and 
ready forces for ongoing operations while maintaining the 
capability to meet other commitments and to posture the force 
for long-term required readiness to respond to future real-
world contingencies. The committee found that while deployed 
Army forces have, in most cases, the equipment, personnel, and 
training they require for their missions, this deployed 
readiness has come at the continued expense of non-deployed 
Army units. The committee remains concerned about the number of 
non-deployed units reporting that they are not ready for combat 
operations, or would need additional time, personnel, and 
equipment to prepare for deployment, and intends to hold 
additional hearings to conduct further oversight on force 
readiness levels. In addition, the committee found that these 
personnel challenges are especially acute in key personnel 
categories such as warrant officers and certain enlisted 
specialties which have experienced shortages as the number of 
medically non-deployable personnel has increased. Therefore, 
the committee tasked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
to conduct a review of Army personnel readiness.
    Restoring equipment readiness also is a key element of the 
Army reset process. The fiscal year 2012 budget request moves 
an increasing share of the enduring depot maintenance 
requirements back to the base budget, providing funds for the 
restoration of equipment, damaged or worn out through nearly 10 
years of constant operations. The committee also tasked the 
Secretary of Defense to annually certify prepositioned stocks 
as meeting operation plans requirements and report in greater 
detail on the condition, composition, and status of such stocks 
in an effort to increase materiel readiness.
    The Army also has increased funding for home-station full 
spectrum training, reflecting anticipated increases in training 
tempo as the Army commits fewer units to combat operations. 
Because of concerns that full-spectrum training may not 
adequately measure training tempo, the committee directed GAO 
to review the Army's transition to full-spectrum training as a 
readiness metric. In addition, the committee remains concerned 
that while the Army has made targeted investments in the 
Reserve's critical combat service support capabilities, the 
Guard and Reserve may not have the level of access to training 
resources necessary for a return to full spectrum operations 
training. The committee also requested GAO to conduct a review 
of the Department's mix of live versus simulated training for 
all the military services, including the Reserve Components.
    The committee found that the Air Force continues to 
experience a high operations tempo, which has resulted in 
detrimental effects on equipment such as engine and structural 
fatigue, deterioration, corrosion, and increased rates of 
component failures. The increased tempo also delays routine 
maintenance. As a result, the committee intends to continue its 
review of the significant shortfalls experienced by the Air 
Force in depot maintenance, particularly in its baseline 
program for Active and Reserve forces which the Air Force has 
made up only through Overseas Contingency Operations funding.
    Despite the drawdown in the Republic of Iraq, naval 
operations tempo is expected to remain high, as demand for the 
Navy's services is up, including anti-piracy and ballistic 
missile defense operations as well as operations in support of 
U.S. Africa Command and U.S. Pacific Command. Because of 
concerns over the impact on the Navy's non-nuclear surface 
fleet material readiness as a result of its increased 
operations tempo, the committee requested GAO to review the 
Navy's initiatives to improve amphibious and surface combatant 
ship material readiness. Additionally, in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, the committee included additional 
funds for ship and aircraft depot maintenance to address the 
backlog of requirements and to prevent further degradation to 
the fleet. Furthermore, the Marine Corps recently concluded a 
Force Posture Review that emphasized ``rebalancing'' the Marine 
Corps to better ``focus on future contingencies.'' As such, the 
fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects some initial 
investments in special skill sets needed to move the Marine 
Corps toward a force more fully attuned to the lessons learned 
during nine years of combat. Despite this positive trend, the 
Marine Corps faces significant challenges in migrating its core 
maintenance and logistical requirements into the base budget.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-13; H.A.S.C. 112-17; H.A.S.C. 112-21; 
H.A.S.C. 112-33; H.A.S.C. 112-40)

                         LIFE-CYCLE SUSTAINMENT

    Without appropriate and timely input from the logistics 
community, decisions made during weapon systems design can 
create unnecessary sustainment problems that increase depot-
level maintenance once the system is fielded. To address this, 
the committee amended the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23) to include subsystems and 
components of a major weapon system in the requirement for 
consideration of competition throughout the operation and 
sustainment of major weapon systems. The committee also 
directed improved sustainment planning using predictive 
modeling tools to assure that the proper source of repair is 
being considered.
    Despite a 38-to-1 return on investment from corrosion 
mitigation and control projects, the Department of Defense 
consistently underfunds corrosion efforts. Specifically, the 
Government Accountability Office determined that the Department 
of Defense requested $11.1 million of its total projected 
funding requirements of $43.2 million. Therefore, the committee 
included several provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, that address corrosion. 
Specifically, the committee increased funding for corrosion 
mitigation by an additional $33 million, directed the 
Department of Defense to take corrective action regarding the 
F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, and 
directed the Department of Defense to evaluate corrosion for 
facilities and infrastructure and report the findings.

                      DEPOT AND ARSENAL CAPABILITY

    A critical piece of equipment sustainment is the capability 
provided by the nation's organic arsenals and depots, including 
air logistics centers and shipyards. In February, the committee 
received a study on the future capability of the Department of 
Defense maintenance depots directed by section 322 of the 
Duncan Hunter Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public 
Law 110-417). The study assessed organic depot maintenance 
capabilities and made several recommendations to address the 
challenges facing the organic depots. The committee included 
several of the study's recommendations in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, including revising the statutory 
definitional framework for depot maintenance, strengthening the 
core determination process, expanding the designation for 
Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence, and improving 
depot maintenance reporting.

                           CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

    The Department of Defense has long relied on the Federal 
civilian workforce to support its missions around the world, 
often requiring civilians to serve in active combat zones, and 
it is clear that the Department's civilian workforce plays a 
critical role in the readiness of U.S. military forces. The 
committee included provisions in the National Defense 
Authorization for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the 
House on May 26, 2011, to extend authorities for premium pay 
and to expand death gratuity benefits for deployed civilians.
    The committee also included provisions in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011, that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to develop a total force management plan 
that would provide the means to establish the appropriate mix 
of manpower, military, civilian, and contractor personnel, to 
perform the mission of the Department of Defense, and to make 
changes to requirements for manpower reporting and civilian 
strategic human capital plans.
    In addition, the committee continued its oversight of the 
Department's transition from the National Security Personnel 
System (NSPS) and implementation of the authorities provided to 
the Department for performance management and hiring 
flexibilities which would apply across the Department's 
civilian workforce, within the context of the existing General 
Schedule system. The committee is aware that the NSPS 
transition office has been moving forward in its efforts to 
develop the new authorities, starting with a ``New Beginnings'' 
conference and establishing design teams to begin the 
development of a plan for implementing the performance 
management and hiring flexibilities. Recognizing that 
additional legislative authorities may be necessary as the 
process moves forward, the committee included provisions in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to further 
facilitate the Department's ability to implement a fair and 
transparent performance management system. The committee also 
specifically focused on the Department's process for 
recruiting, selecting and hiring qualified individuals.

                         Energy and Environment

                            ENERGY SECURITY

    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 to reduce consumption and dependence on 
foreign oil. The committee believes that Department of Defense 
installations provide significant opportunity for advancing 
renewable energy technologies, pursuing energy security, and 
reducing overall demand through demonstrated return on 
investment. The Subcommittee on Readiness took action in this 
area in the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, and 
increased funding for the Installation Energy Test Bed, Navy 
metering of piers, as well as other activities that will help 
advance energy efficient technologies and reduce overall demand 
for energy. There were several legislative provisions that 
sought to enhance installation energy security, to include a 
requirement to establish a core curriculum and certification 
for Department of Defense energy managers, metering of navy 
piers, and consideration for energy security when contracting 
for renewable energy projects through third-party financing.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness 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. Specifically, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, increased funding for operational 
energy capability improvement and the U.S. Marine Corps' 
Experimental Forward Operating Base. In addition to this, there 
were several legislative provisions that sought to advance 
operational energy security by streamlining alternative fuels 
investments through the designation of an executive agent, 
requiring the Department of Defense to give favorable 
consideration to energy efficient technologies in logistics 
support contracts for contingency operations, and requiring the 
Department of Defense to report on the distribution and use of 
bottled water in contingency operations.
    On April 13, 2011, the Subcommittee on Readiness received 
testimony from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and each 
of the military services regarding military construction and 
installation energy. Each of the witnesses highlighted the 
importance of energy efficiency and the impact of a vulnerable 
electric power grid and the potential to jeopardize the 
security of military installations and mission capabilities. 
The witnesses also highlighted the importance of innovative, 
cost-effective solutions as critical to their success, 
operationally necessary, fiscally prudent, and mission 
essential.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-43)

                              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. In the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, the committee had 
several environmental provisions including one which codified 
Navy requirements for discharge of waste at sea to ensure 
minimum impact on the environment, preserving Navy operational 
readiness, and averting $2.0 billion of expenses for Navy fleet 
modifications. The committee also included provisions that 
would limit the use of property in airfield clear zone areas to 
mitigate encroachment on military installations. Additionally, 
the committee directed reports regarding Department of Defense 
unexploded ordnance cleanup activities and a Comptroller 
General assessment of the Department of Defense's report on the 
Arctic.

                Military Construction and Infrastructure

                                 BASING

    The Department of Defense is undergoing a significant 
change in force structure both in the United States and 
overseas as a result of the 2005 BRAC decisions and the Global 
Defense Posture Review. These rebasing movements affect not 
only U.S. global presence, but they also have significant 
repercussions for readiness, surge capability, military 
construction, and quality of life for military members and 
their families.
    After concluding a hearing on Long-Term Readiness 
Challenges in the Pacific on March 15, 2011, the Subcommittee 
on Readiness supported the proposed realignment of 8,000 
Marines from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam and supported the budget 
request for $155 million for the fiscal year 2012 effort. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, also included a 
legislative subsection that would support the realignment of 
Marine Corps assets to Guam that includes the following 
provisions: use of operations and maintenance funding to 
support community adjustment; requirements to support H2B visa 
workers that support the construction effort; and, 
modifications to utility conveyance authority. The Subcommittee 
on Readiness also supported the requisite BRAC funding to 
continue required environmental remediation at impacted 
installations.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-21)

                   MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMMING

    The Department of Defense programs construction projects at 
25-40 percent above market pricing to account for several 
programmatic initiatives to include Federal contracting 
requirements (including Davis-Bacon wages, Federal 
subcontracting and small business goals, and bonding 
requirements), Federal design requirements (including Anti-
Terrorism, Force Protection standards) and energy efficiency 
objectives. The committee included a provision in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, that would require the Secretary of 
Defense to submit a report that assesses these program 
increases and provides a plan to reduce these costs.
    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. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011, contained a provision that 
authorized the use of Operations and Maintenance funds for 
contingency construction.

          REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, AND DISPOSAL

    The real property management process requires extensive 
oversight to maintain more than $810.0 billion in 
infrastructure at an annual cost of almost $50.0 billion, or 
nearly 11 percent, of the Department of Defense's budget. The 
Subcommittee on Readiness in the 112th 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 hearing on April 13, 
2011, to examine the fiscal year 2012 budget request to review 
military construction, family housing, BRAC activities, and 
facility operations and maintenance.
    As a result of this oversight, additional BRAC authorities 
were included in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 
2011, to extend the completion date of up to seven BRAC 2005 
recommendations to September 15, 2012. This extension would 
provide additional latitude to the Secretary of Defense to 
ensure continuity of mission and services for those activities 
impacted by BRAC 2005. The committee also included requirements 
for the Department of Defense to include transportation impact 
assessments at local communities significantly impacted by 
Department of Defense realignment actions.
    The committee also reviewed the Department of Defense 
facility sustainment accounts and the Army Base Operating 
Services account and found that significant shortfalls needed 
to be addressed to manage basic services. The committee 
proposed increased funding to these accounts in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011, to address critical 
shortfalls in facility maintenance and operations.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-43)

                 MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE 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 112th Congress reviewed this privatization initiative 
and included a provision in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
78) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 
2011, that would encourage the Department of Defense to more 
aggressively and effectively implement utilities privatization 
as part of an asset management strategy to allow each military 
service to focus on core defense missions and functions.

             Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues

 MANPOWER SUFFICIENT IN QUANTITY AND QUALITY TO MEET GLOBAL COMMITMENTS

    The committee continued its support for the end strengths 
of the services by including the Department of Defense request 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. The committee 
has concerns about the future size of the force and whether 
proposed reductions in end strength will provide the services 
with sufficient manpower to meet global commitments. The 
committee is equally concerned with dwell time of service 
members and the impact this will have on readiness. Both of 
these issues were addressed in full committee and subcommittee 
hearings. The committee will continue close oversight of these 
issues during the remainder of the 1st session of the 112th 
Congress.
    The committee continued to closely monitor compensation 
programs during the 112th 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 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 
2011, that authorized a 1.6 percent raise in basic pay during 
fiscal year 2012. This military pay raise matches the rate of 
compensation increases in the private sector as measured by the 
Employment Cost Index and thus ensures that military pay 
increases are keeping pace with private sector contemporaries. 
The committee extended the authorities to pay bonuses and 
special pays during fiscal year 2012 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. The committee also included legislation 
that reforms, consolidates, and simplifies travel and 
transportation authorities to enhance the utility, flexibility, 
efficiency, and relevancy of the law in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-28)

 SUSTAINING COST EFFICIENT OPERATION OF MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION 
  PROGRAMS, MILITARY RESALE PROGRAMS AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOL 
                                 SYSTEM

    During the 112th 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 two hearings during the 1st session of the 112th 
Congress that explored policy issues and the fiscal status of 
the commissary and military exchange stores and the service-
operated MWR programs. 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 committee 
included legislative initiatives in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, 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. These issues included: expansion of the authority 
for nonappropriated fund activities to employ a uniform funding 
concept to include permanent change of station and temporary 
duty billeting facilities; clarification of the multi-year 
contracting authority by nonappropriated funding activities; 
authorization for the Secretary of the Navy to select 
categories of merchandise to sell in ship stores; authorization 
for military retail stores to borrow funding for business 
operations from the Federal Financing Bank; and authorization 
for the Defense Commissary Service to conduct a pilot program 
to test the cost effectiveness of enhanced commissary stores.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-3; H.A.S.C. 112-4)

         MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

    The committee continued its efforts to ensure that service 
members and their families have access to quality mental health 
services. Some members of the Armed Forces, particularly in the 
Reserve Components, continue to struggle with mental health 
issues that ultimately result in suicide. Members of the 
Reserve Components are often in rural communities and may not 
have sufficient access to mental health care, as there is a 
nationwide shortage of qualified mental health professionals. 
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011, included 
legislation to expand the capacity of the military health 
system to provide mental health care to members of the Reserve 
Components at the location of the unit during scheduled unit 
training and provided training on suicide prevention and 
response. In addition, the Department is required to undertake 
several projects that would further advance the knowledge and 
understanding of traumatic brain injury and combat related 
mental health issues to enhance the care provided to members of 
the Armed Forces.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23)

                     SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY

    The committee remained vigilant on ensuring that the 
efforts to prevent sexual assault and sexual harassment in the 
military continue as a priority for the Department of Defense 
(DOD). The committee was concerned that the Department of 
Defense and the military service sexual assault and prevention 
programs were not consistent or coordinated resulting in 
unnecessary confusion for military service members. To address 
these concerns legislation in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011, improved sexual assault prevention 
and response in the Armed Forces by requiring standardized 
training for sexual assault response coordinators and victim 
advocates and requiring at least one full time sexual assault 
response coordinator and victim advocate be assigned to each 
brigade equivalent military unit. Privileged communications for 
the victim was expanded to include access to legal assistance 
for sexual assault victims.

                      MILITARY HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

    Since the start of the 112th Congress, the committee 
exercised vigorous oversight on the military health system. The 
committee focused substantial attention on the cost of military 
health care to the Department of Defense (DOD) and to military 
beneficiaries and the long term viability of the military 
health system for future generations of military beneficiaries. 
The committee is aware of the rising cost of providing health 
care to military beneficiaries and the potential negative 
impact of health care costs on other critical readiness 
programs. The committee received detailed input from DOD health 
affairs and comptroller personnel on the five cost saving 
initiatives proposed by the department. One Military Personnel 
Subcommittee hearing was devoted to understanding the views of 
various beneficiary organizations impacted by the Department of 
Defense proposed changes. The committee also heard the views of 
health care organizations and retail drug store chains impacted 
by the proposals. The Congressional Budget Office assisted the 
committee to fully understand estimates of costs and savings 
inherent in the DOD proposals. As a result, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011, included a provision that 
caps TRICARE Prime enrollment fee increases, beginning in 
fiscal year 2013, to the percentage of a COLA increase in 
military retired pay. Additional health care legislation 
required beneficiaries who are enrolled in the U.S. Family 
Health Plans to transition to TRICARE for Life when they reach 
age 65.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23)

 WOUNDED WARRIOR CARE (WOUNDED AND DISABLED SERVICE MEMBERS AND THEIR 
                               FAMILIES)

    The committee continued to provide oversight of the 
disability evaluation system to ensure that service members 
receive disability rating that accurately and fairly reflect 
their illnesses and injuries. These activities included 
monitoring of the implementation of the integrated disability 
evaluation system (IDES) and the deployment of IDES to 
locations throughout the world by September 2011.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-28)

                            MILITARY VOTING

    The committee continued oversight of the military and 
overseas voting program to ensure all members of the Armed 
Forces and their families have the opportunity to exercise 
their right to vote in each election. In February 2012, the 
committee provided assistance to the House Administration 
Committee in preparation for a hearing they conducted on the 
Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act. The hearing 
explored the implementation of the Military and Overseas Voter 
Empowerment (``MOVE'') Act during this past election cycle. 
Chairman Wilson and Ranking Member Davis were invited and 
attended the hearing.

                 PRISONER OF WAR AND MISSING IN ACTION

    The committee continued its efforts to monitor efforts by 
the Department of Defense to meet the mandate in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-
84) requiring the Secretary of Defense to institute a plan to 
increase the number of identifications to a rate of 200 per 
year by 2015. The committee solicited the views of Mr. Peter 
Verga, Chief of Staff for the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy regarding the status of key decisions 
pending in the Secretariat on command and control and 
integration of functions in the POW/MIA accounting community. 
Although decisions have not been formally made, the resources 
to increase manpower and to create a satellite laboratory for 
identifications were requested in the fiscal year 2012 
President's budget request. The committee also received an 
update from the Commander of Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command 
(JPAC) on the organization's plans to meet the 2010 mandate. 
The committee also received information from the Defense 
Prisoner of War and Missing Office (DPMO) to receive updates on 
potential changes to staff requirements for the Joint U.S.-
Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIA. The committee will continue 
its efforts on both of these topics during the remainder of the 
first session of the 112th Congress.

                  Modernization and Investment Issues

    During the 112th Congress, particular attention has been 
given by the committee to examination of military equipment 
modernization with respect to military capability. The 
committee is concerned with the future of the size, health, 
age, and supporting industrial base of the air, sea, and land 
force structure available to U.S. forces to support the 
National Military Strategy.
    Major weapons system development and acquisition programs 
continue to experience cost growth and schedule delays. The 
committee assessed the need for legislative action by examining 
causes of these problems including: late determination of 
requirements, requirements growth, and failure to properly 
control requirements changes; inadequate analyses of 
alternatives, military services proceeding prematurely with 
development with immature technology; poor cost estimating; 
improper funding profiles; over estimating potential production 
rates; and program instability.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, included the 
following legislative provisions to, in part, address the 
committee's concern with the force structure and supporting 
industrial base available to U.S. forces to support the 
National Military Strategy: a report, including a fleet 
viability assessment, on intra-theater airlift that 
incorporates a comprehensive review of intra-theater airlift 
requirements for both title 10, United States Code, and title 
32, United States Code, operations; a limitation of up to 6 B-1 
bomber aircraft that could be retired; the authorization of an 
additional $272.0 million for sustainment of the Abrams Tank 
industrial base; and the authorization of an additional $153.0 
million for Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle industrial base.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, also 
included the following legislative provisions to, in part, 
address acquisition-related cost, schedule, and performance 
issues with programs: multiyear procurement authority for 
airframes, mission avionics, and common cockpits for Army UH-
60M/HH-60M helicopters and Navy MH-60R/MH-60S helicopters; an 
additional third year of multiyear procurement authority to 
fully fund LHA-7; multiyear procurement authority for the Navy 
for Arleigh-Burke class destroyers; a requirement for a life-
cycle cost-benefit analysis comparing alternate maintenance and 
sustainability plans for the Littoral Combat Ship program; 
authority for the Air Force to enter into a fixed price 
contract to procure Advanced Extremely High Frequency 
satellites to reduce costs and improve the stability of the 
satellite industrial base; a limitation on obligation of funds 
for the Ground Combat Vehicle program until the Army provides 
an update analysis of alternatives; a requirement for 
submission of an analysis of alternatives for the individual 
carbine program; a limitation on the obligation of funds for 
the Ohio class ballistic missile submarine replacement program 
until submission of a report summarizing the analysis that 
supported the decision to reduce the planned number of missile 
tubes per submarine to 16; a limitation on the obligation of 
funds for amphibious programs in the Department of the Navy 
until submission of a report and an analysis of alternatives; a 
limitation on the obligation of funds for performance 
improvements to the F-35 aircraft propulsion system unless the 
Secretary of Defense ensures the competitive development and 
production of such a propulsion system; a limitation on the 
obligation of funds for the Joint Replacement Fuze program 
until submission of a report on the feasibility of such a 
program; a limitation on the obligation of funds for release 
one of the Joint Space Operations Center management system 
until provision of an acquisition strategy for such a 
management system; a limitation on the obligation of funds for 
the wireless innovation fund program until 30 days after the 
submission of a report on the program; authority for the 
establishment of a program for flight research and development 
of advanced rotorcraft technology; a requirement for the 
establishment of the main propulsion system of the next-
generation long-range strike bomber as a major subprogram and 
development of an acquisition strategy for such propulsion 
system; a requirement for the establishment of the 
electromagnetic aircraft launch system as a major subprogram of 
the CVN-78 Ford-class aircraft carrier program; and a 
limitation on the obligation of funds for the future unmanned 
carrier-based strike system until 60 days after specified 
certification and a report is provided on the program.

                   ARMY ARMORED VEHICLE MODERNIZATION

    The committee focused closely on the Army's plans for 
upgrading current combat vehicles and starting new replacement 
programs. With regard to existing armored vehicles, the 
committee sought to protect and strengthen vehicle upgrade 
programs, for which the Army showed varying levels of support. 
The committee placed 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. In particular, the committee took necessary 
initial actions to prevent a production break of the Abrams 
tank and Bradley fighting vehicle programs. These oversight 
efforts included hearings, site visits, close coordination with 
Army leadership, and careful scrutiny of reprogramming 
requests.

                     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. 
The committee included a legislative provision in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would restrict 
procurement funds for the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) 
until the Secretary of the Army submits written certification 
that the acquisition strategy for full rate production includes 
full and open competition.

                         ARMY AVIATION PROGRAMS

    The Army sustained limited operations in the Republic of 
Iraq in the first half of 2011 and continued the drawdown of 
forces while Army operations maintained at surge levels in the 
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Large numbers of legacy 
rotorcraft deployed to the Central Command area of operations 
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 may not be fully utilizing the UH-72A Lakota 
helicopter in all operational situations, the committee 
requested in the report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that the Army define 
``permissive'' versus ``non-permissive'' environments. In 
addition, the committee requested additional information on 
what the associated survivability modifications would be 
required and if such modifications would be feasible given, 
size, weight, and power limitations, if the mission envelope of 
the UH-72A was expanded beyond ``permissive'' environments.

                   COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE PROGRAMS

    The committee continues to remain concerned about the Air 
Force combat search and rescue (CSAR) programs since the Combat 
Search and Rescue-X (CSAR-X) program was canceled by the 
Department of Defense in 2009. Currently, the Air Force has 99 
HH-60G CSAR helicopters which is 13 short of its program of 
record requirement for 112 HH-60Gs, and over 50 percent of the 
HH-60G fleet has major structural cracks. At a hearing on March 
15, 2011 before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, the Air Force witnesses testified that on-going HH-60G 
modification programs are attempting to keep the HH-60G as a 
viable asset until the Air Force's replacement programs are 
complete. The Air Force is procuring replacement rotary wing 
aircraft based upon currently fielded CSAR capabilities with 
the HH-60 Operational Loss Replacement (OLR) program and the 
HH-60 recapitalization program. The OLR program is designed to 
bring the fleet back to the program of record of 112 
helicopters and is procuring UH-60M aircraft that will be 
modified with CSAR equipment to create an airframe comparable 
to the HH-60G, and will be designated the HH-60M. The HH-60G 
recapitalization program is designed to recapitalize the entire 
CSAR fleet and the Air Force is currently examining acquisition 
strategies to determine how to ensure the warfighter receives 
the best product, on schedule and within budget. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House May 26, 2011, authorized $34.8 million for 
one HH-60M which was two fewer than the budget request since 
those two helicopters were provided for in the Department of 
Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 
(Public Law 112-10). The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, 
also authorized the Overseas Contingency Operations request for 
$39.3 million for two additional HH-60M helicopters, and the 
$34.3 million budget request for H-60 modifications.

                         F-22 AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

    During the 112th Congress, the committee has continued 
oversight of the Air Force F-22 aircraft procurement program. 
Fiscal Year 2009 was the final year of a 3 year, 60-aircraft F-
22 aircraft multiyear procurement program that will result in a 
force structure of 187 F-22 aircraft, including the 4 
additional F-22s appropriated in the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32). The final F-22 
aircraft will be delivered in 2012. The National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011, authorized the F-22 modification budget 
request for $232.0 million and the F-22 research, development, 
test, and evaluation budget request for $718.4 million.

                     F-35 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

    During the 112th Congress, the committee has 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 
beginning in 1996, but the Department of Defense has not 
included funding for the competitive propulsion system program 
in its budget requests since 2006. At the Tactical Air and Land 
Forces Subcommittee hearing on March 15, 2011, the Air Force 
Acquisition Executive and the F-35 Program Executive Officer 
testified that the Department of Defense believes that 
maintaining a single engine supplier provides the best balance 
of cost and risk. The Department of Defense terminated the F136 
development program on April 25, 2011. However, the F136 
contractor offered to continue F136 development at its expense, 
and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, included a 
provision that would ensure that the Secretary of Defense, at 
no cost to the Federal Government, provides support and allows 
for the use of F136 property by the contractor under a contract 
to conduct research, development, test, and evaluation of the 
F136 engine, if such activities are self-funded by the 
contractor. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, also 
included a provision that would limit the obligation or 
expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-35 
Lightning II propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense 
ensures the competitive development and production of such 
propulsion system.

               FIGHTER AIRCRAFT FORCE STRUCTURE ADEQUACY

    During the 112th Congress, the committee investigated the 
adequacy of fighter force structure in both the Navy and the 
Air Force. The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces 
held a hearing on March 15, 2011. 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, and noted that the Department of the Navy's 
strike fighter shortfall would reach a manageable level of 65 
aircraft in 2018. The committee later learned that Department 
of the Navy's estimated strike fighter shortfall is further, 
projected to be reduced to 52 aircraft in 2018 with the 
increase of nine additional F/A-18E/F aircraft for fiscal year 
2011. Also at the hearing on March 15, 2011, the Air Force 
witness testified to an a Air Force requirement for 2,000 
fighter aircraft, and noted that a comprehensive review of 
current and projected force structure revealed a shortfall of 
approximately 3 to 5 percent in the future years defense 
program. The Air Force officials also noted that shortfall 
mitigation will include executing funded sustainment and fleet 
management actions for older F-16 Block 25, 30 and 32 aircraft, 
newer block 40 and 50 service life extension, and targeted 
modernization and examination of the overall force structure to 
ensure viable warfighting capabilities are maintained. The 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, authorized the budget 
request for 40 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the Navy, 
other Navy and Air Force requests for the modification of 
existing fighter aircraft, and the budget request for 32 F-35s 
for the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

                     GROUND COMBAT VEHICLE PROGRAM

    The committee devoted considerable oversight efforts to the 
Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program. The committee included a 
legislative provision in the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 
2011, that restricts the use of funds until the Secretary of 
the Army provides and updated analysis of alternatives to the 
congressional defense committees that includes a quantitative 
comparison of upgraded existing systems against the revised GCV 
design concept. In addition, the committee encouraged the Army 
to establish another red team prior to the milestone B review 
to assess the cost, schedule, and technical risks of the GCV 
acquisition strategy.

        INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, AND RECONNAISSANCE PROGRAMS

    The Department of Defense employs a large inventory of 
manned and unmanned vehicles to perform tactical, non-space-
based, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR). 
For fiscal year 2012, the budget request included over $3.6 
billion for new tactical ISR aircraft and unmanned aerial 
vehicles (UAV) for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. 
Nearly 20 different ISR acquisition programs were requested by 
the Army, Air Force, and Department of the Navy. The committee 
has consistently sought to avoid the unnecessary proliferation 
and duplication of ISR capabilities among the services. The 
committee has also acted to facilitate the operation in U.S. 
air space of UAVs in support of training and operational 
requirements and to provide support to civil emergencies. In 
the 112th Congress, the committee continued to provide close 
oversight over myriad ISR projects and programs operated 
throughout the Department of Defense. The committee report (H. 
Rept. 112-78) included specific mention of the Enhanced Medium 
Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System program, 
airborne reconnaissance low, and Global Hawk unmanned aerial 
vehicle programs.

 RAPID ACQUISITION AUTHORITY AND JOINT URGENT OPERATIONAL NEEDS PROCESS

    The conflicts in the Republic of Iraq and Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan, and particularly the evolution of the 
improvised explosive device (IED) as a highly effective weapon 
of strategic influence, have illustrated the ability of an 
adaptive enemy to work to advantage inside a normal defense 
acquisition cycle. The committee continued its oversight of the 
urgent operational needs (UONS) process across the Department 
of Defense and the military services and continued to leverage 
and evaluate recommendations put forth by the congressionally 
mandated Defense Science Board commission report required by 
the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), as well as recent reports 
issued by the Government Accountability Office in April 2010 
and March 2011. These reports noted there were significant 
shortcomings in existing Department of Defense processes for 
meeting urgent operational needs for the warfighter in a 
timely, expeditious manner.
    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces fully 
engaged the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military 
services with formal requests for information regarding the 
processes used to address urgent operational needs through 
official correspondence, classified briefings, and open 
hearings. Further, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, the 
committee noted the Department of Defense lacks complete 
visibility to readily identify the total cost of its urgent 
operational needs and lacks the internal controls necessary to 
manage these efforts. For instance, the Department has no 
comprehensive database for which to track, monitor, and 
evaluate urgent operational requests and no set of universal 
metrics used to effectively evaluate their performance once the 
system is fielded. The committee highlighted that the Secretary 
of Defense has not issued a Department-wide policy guidance 
that provided for a unified approach for managing quick 
reaction programs and urgent need efforts to include managing 
funding requirements. Given the escalating budgetary 
challenges, the committee believed that it was and continues to 
be critical for the Department to reevaluate the current 
processes of how it fulfills its urgent needs and whether there 
is potential to reduce duplication, fragmentation, and overlap 
to achieve increased efficiencies or cost savings, or both. The 
committee will continue to work with the Department and the 
military services to improve upon the rapid acquisition process 
used to address urgent operational need requests from the 
warfighter. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, 
authorized $50.0 million, for a joint urgent operational needs 
fund, a reduction of $150.0 million from the President's 
request because of the concerns noted by the committee in the 
current process.
    The committee also continued to urge the Secretary of 
Defense to leverage previous efforts of the committee to take 
advantage of the rapid acquisition authority provided to the 
Department of Defense as part of Section 806(c) of the Bob 
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 
(Public Law 107-314), as amended by Section 811 of the Ronald 
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2005 (Public Law 108-375) and section 803 of the Ike Skelton 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public 
Law 111-383) wherever necessary, in order to guarantee that 
military personnel receive required equipment in a timely 
manner. This authority provided the Secretary of Defense with 
$200.0 million in authority, per fiscal year, to waive any 
necessary statutes for quick response to immediate warfighter 
capability requirements in response to combat fatalities.

                       TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES

    From 2003 to 2011, Congress has provided $43.0 billion 
towards the procurement and recapitalization of tactical 
wheeled vehicles (TWVs), averaging approximately $6.0 billion 
per year. The Army's TWV fleet alone currently consists of 
260,000 light, medium and heavy vehicles and represents an 
investment of over $70.0 billion; the sheer magnitude of the 
TWV fleet will present many challenges and warrants intensive 
oversight and management by the committee. The committee 
continued to monitor and examine the Department's attempt to 
develop a comprehensive, joint tactical wheeled vehicle 
strategy that would limit the potential risk of unplanned 
overlap in capabilities throughout the military services, takes 
into consideration the development of realistic and affordable 
joint requirements, and incorporates sustainment costs. The 
committee continued to focus on the Joint Light Tactical 
Vehicle (JLTV) program, the integration of the family of mine 
resistant ambush protected vehicles into the current fleet, and 
other TWV modernization efforts, most notably the Up-Armor High 
Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (UAH) recapitalization 
program.
    The committee devoted particular attention towards the JLTV 
program and the UAH Recapitalization program in the committee 
report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011. The committee noted that the Army and 
the Marine Corps both plan to competitively recapitalize their 
respective UAH fleets with improvements to automotive 
performance and survivability in order to improve overall 
capability and extend life cycles. The committee supported this 
competitive approach to improving the Army and the Marine Corps 
UAH fleets and noted this strategy should be based on a best 
value, full and open competition among public, private, and/or 
public-private partnerships. The committee encouraged the Army 
and the Marine Corps to accelerate this program as a means to 
stabilize the industrial base and provide a bridge to the JLTV 
program.
    The JLTV program is the largest new procurement of tactical 
wheeled vehicles planned for DOD. 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. The 
committee expressed concerns over the JLTV program's projected 
costs of at least $9.7 billion for fiscal years 2011-2015. The 
committee noted that initial test results indicate that the 
JLTV program faces many operational and technical challenges. 
Because of the ambitious schedule which has resulted in several 
delays, projected cost estimates, and lack of stable 
requirements, the committee recommended a reduction of $50.0 
million for the JLTV program in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011. Also, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House May 26, 2011, authorized the President's request of 
$2.4 billion for tactical wheeled vehicle acquisition.

  DEPARTMENT PROJECTION AVIATION (BOMBERS, MOBILITY, UAV AND TANKER) 
                                PROGRAMS

    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized 
the Air Force planned to retire six B-1 bomber aircraft and 
reduce the current combat-coded force structure from 36 B-1 
bomber aircraft down to 30 in fiscal year 2012. The committee 
supported the Air Force's plan to retire six B-1 bomber 
aircraft but did not support the plan to reduce the combat-
coded force structure of B-1 bomber aircraft. In the report 
``2007 Long-Range Strike White Paper'' required by the 
committee report (S. Rept. 109-254) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, the Air Force 
stated that 96 combat-coded bomber aircraft total (36 B-1s, 16 
B-2s, and 44 B-52s) were required to meet combatant commander 
requirements until a next-generation long-range strike aircraft 
is fielded. Furthermore, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review 
validated the requirement to maintain up to 96 combat-coded 
bomber aircraft. The committee will continue to emphasize that 
retirement of any bomber aircraft that reduces the combat-coded 
force structure below 96 total bombers is premature prior to a 
replacement long-range strike bomber aircraft reaching initial 
operational capability status.
    The committee supported the decision to restart the 
development of a new bomber aircraft and acknowledges that the 
current fleet of bomber aircraft are still effective and 
relevant in meeting the combatant commanders' warfighting 
requirements, but believes that the long-range strike 
requirements have been sufficiently analyzed on numerous 
occasions over the last 18 years against forecasted threats and 
that a recapitalization program must begin.
    The committee remained concerned with the workload being 
levied on the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (AFRCO) and 
will monitor the acquisition governance structure to ensure 
that AFRCO is staffed with acquisition officials that represent 
an appropriate and sufficient cross-section of recent 
operational experience, major defense acquisition program 
management, requirements development, technology integration, 
and cost estimation to effectively execute the bomber program. 
The committee also remained concerned that the Secretary of the 
Air Force has not performed a comprehensive life-cycle cost 
analysis comparing the development of one bomber platform, 
integrating all long-range strike capabilities, to a ``family 
of long-range strike systems'' to determine the affordability 
of the Department of Defense's long-range strike portfolio 
strategy.
    Through its oversight activities, the subcommittee 
recognized that the Secretary of the Air Force requested to 
repeal section 8062(g) of title 10, United States Code, which 
provides that the Secretary of the Air Force maintain a minimum 
inventory of 316 strategic inter-theater airlift aircraft. The 
committee did not support repeal and believes that a minimum 
inventory of 316 airlift aircraft provides a prudent balance of 
operational risk, affordability and sufficient organic 
capabilities in meeting the ever-increasing mobility 
requirements in support of the National Military Strategy and 
combat operations. The committee's actions stemmed from 
concerns regarding the questionable viability of the Civil 
Reserve Airlift Fleet, the reliance of transporting oversize 
and outsize cargo using foreign aircraft leasing arrangements, 
the unforeseen over-utilization rates of the current fleet of 
inter-theater airlift aircraft, the consistent under-estimation 
of deploying units Time-Phased Force and Deployment Data 
regarding the amount of equipment to support combat operations, 
and the Mobility Capability and Requirements Study of 2016 did 
not address or characterize the operational risk in meeting 
combatant commander warfighting requirements or timelines.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized 
that the Department of Defense continues to struggle with 
sufficiently, and comprehensively, analyzing and defining 
intra-theater airlift mobility requirements for active and 
reserve components, as well as National Guard units supporting 
both title 10 and title 32, United States Code, airlift 
mobility operations. The committee recognized that a reduction 
in the C-130H/J inventory from 395 to 335 aircraft, a reduction 
in the inventory of C-27J aircraft from 78 to 38, and a 
wholesale inventory reduction by the Army of 42 C-23 aircraft 
was unjustified, premature and based on insufficient analytics, 
and moreover, likely executed for budgetary reasons. 
Furthermore, the subcommittee recognized that neither the 
``2006 Mobility Capability Study'' or the ``2010 Mobility 
Capability and Requirements Study'' did not comprehensively 
analyze all aspects of intra-theater airlift requirements in 
the mission areas of time sensitive-direct support, homeland 
security, Air Force and Army National Guard domestic airlift 
operations in support of contingencies resulting from natural 
disasters, humanitarian crises, emergencies, and combatant 
commander warfighting requirements. The committee will continue 
to emphasize that without a comprehensive analysis of the 
aforementioned mission areas, it is impossible to justify such 
a decrease in intra-theater airlift capabilities.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee supported 
the Chief of Naval Operations' stated desire to investigate the 
feasibility of sea-basing unmanned, low-observable aircraft on 
aircraft carriers to potentially provide intelligence, 
surveillance, reconnaissance and limited strike capabilities. 
However, the committee remained concerned with the Navy's 
execution strategy for developing systems in this mission area.
    The committee's concerns include: the Navy plans not to 
accomplish a thorough future unmanned carrier-based strike 
system analysis of alternatives; the desired aircraft fielding 
date of fiscal year 2018 was randomly selected and was not 
derived through a threat-based analysis for the system; the 
current engineering and technology development strategy is 
considered high-risk by Navy officials to meet the fiscal year 
2018 date; the Navy has been unable to articulate to the 
committee the required capabilities and performance 
characteristics of the system; and the lessons learned from the 
technology demonstrator known as the unmanned combat air 
system, which is a precursor to the future unmanned carrier-
based strike system, is not sufficiently integrated into the 
acquisition strategy.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee supported 
the attributes and benefits regarding the KC-46A competition 
and acknowledged that the source-selection process was 
conducted fairly amongst all competitors. The committee 
discovered, according to Department of Defense acquisition 
officials, that the competition resulted in at least a 20 
percent savings for the unit cost of the aircraft and a savings 
of $3.0 to $4.0 billion as compared to the source-selection 
competition held for the tanker in 2008.
    The committee plans to closely monitor the KC-46A 
engineering, manufacturing and development program to ensure 
that the taxpayer dollars are wisely invested and that the 
platform will result in a capability that enhances the 
warfighter's global reach capabilities. The committee requested 
that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology 
and Logistics provide the committee quarterly reviews of the 
Air Force's KC-46A program to maintain sufficient and effective 
oversight and the committee also requested that the Comptroller 
General of the United States provide the committee with an 
annual review of the development program.

                         SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department's 
shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments are made 
to ensure the Navy achieves the force structure, with 
appropriate capabilities, needed to meet requirements. 
Protection of the sea lanes of communication, projection of 
credible combat power, global presence, and humanitarian 
assistance are all core missions of the Navy that the committee 
remains focused on.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee was pleased 
that the Navy has apparently reversed the downward spiral in 
battle force ship quantities, and believes the plan to achieve 
the floor of 313 ships is achievable. To obtain the required 
capability and to provide the required stability to the fragile 
shipbuilding industrial base, the committee focused on the 
major shipbuilding programs.
    CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford-class of aircraft 
carriers. The subcommittee was critical when the Navy changed 
construction starts of these carriers from 4-year to 5-year 
centers. The committee has encouraged the Navy to keep these 
aircraft carriers on 5-year centers at the most, with fiscal 
year 2013 being the first year of detail design and 
construction funding for CVN-79. The committee has also 
expressed that it is essential to minimize changes from ship to 
ship in the class.
    The committee was impressed with the progress of the 
Virginia-class submarine program, which has proven to be a 
model shipbuilding program. Cost reduction efforts and ever-
decreasing span time for construction and delivery have allowed 
the Navy to fund two ships a year starting in fiscal year 2011, 
a year earlier than previously contemplated
    The committee is most concerned about how the Navy will 
fund and maintain the current shipbuilding plan once the Navy 
begins to acquire replacements for the Ohio-class ballistic 
missile submarine fleet.
    The committee, in reviewing the budget request, and knowing 
that the Navy has re-started the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class of 
destroyers, included authorization of a multi-year procurement 
program. These ships are vital for their traditional roles, as 
well as modifications that make them a key component for 
ballistic missile defense.
    The committee received testimony that the Marine Corps' 
requirement for amphibious ships is 38 ships, but that the 
number of ships that are absolutely necessary with acceptable 
risk is 33. The committee encouraged the Navy to continue 
pursuing a minimum of 33 amphibious ships.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee examined 
the schedule for the Littoral Combat Ship, both the sea frame 
and the mission modules. The committee included two provisions 
in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would 
increase the transparency and allow for adequate oversight of 
this program.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee delved into 
the Department's rationale for cancelling the Expeditionary 
Fighting Vehicle program. The committee included a provision in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, that would not 
allow expenditure of funds on a replacement for this vital 
capability until adequate analyses are completed.

                        DIRECTED ENERGY PROGRAMS

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Defense's directed energy programs, to specifically include 
directed energy technologies with missile defense applications. 
During the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces' March 31, 2011, 
hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization 
Budget Request for Missile Defense Programs, subcommittee 
members inquired about the status of directed energy research 
and development efforts, testing, and resources. Concerns about 
the sufficiency of funds to maintain the Airborne Laser Test-
bed platform and conduct further testing, continue technology 
development, and retain a uniquely skilled workforce led the 
committee to recommend additional resources for the directed 
energy research programs of the Missile Defense Agency in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, as passed by the House.

                           NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

    The committee continued its oversight of the atomic energy 
defense activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) and 
nuclear policies and programs of the Department of Defense 
(DOD) to ensure the safety, security, reliability, and 
credibility of the U.S. nuclear deterrent. On April 5, 2011, 
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on the 
fiscal year 2012 Budget Request for Department of Energy Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities and Department of Defense Nuclear 
Forces Programs. For the first time in recent years, this 
annual nuclear posture and budget hearing included witnesses 
from the Department of Defense, who testified on the 
Department's nuclear programs and budgets, and linkages with 
the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). At the 
hearing, members inquired about DOE and DOD nuclear weapons and 
infrastructure modernization plans, implementation of the New 
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), defense 
environmental cleanup, defense nuclear nonproliferation, safety 
at defense nuclear facilities, and resources.
    In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held a classified briefing on March 10, 2011, 
on the status of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile with the 
NNSA Administrator and the directors of the nation's three 
nuclear weapons laboratories. The subcommittee also held a 
classified briefing on June 15, 2011 on the nuclear fuel cycle 
and countries of proliferation concern.
    The committee included several legislative provisions and 
reporting requirements related to the nuclear enterprise in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, as passed by the House. These include reporting 
requirements on U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, nuclear 
modernization plans, New START implementation plans, NNSA 
construction project management, nuclear employment strategy, 
limitations on nuclear force reductions, security at nuclear 
facilities, and efficiencies at nuclear complex sites.

                            MISSILE DEFENSE

    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held several missile 
defense sessions in support of its oversight of the Department 
of Defense's efforts to develop, test and field layered missile 
defense capabilities to protect the United States, its deployed 
forces, and its friends and allies against the full range of 
ballistic missile threats. On March 31, 2011, the Subcommittee 
on Strategic Forces conducted a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile 
Defense Programs. Members' oversight questions addressed a 
range of missile defense programs and issues, including Ground-
based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense 
(BMD), Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS), and directed 
energy research, as well as U.S. homeland missile defense 
capabilities, implementation of the European Phased Adaptive 
Approach (EPAA), testing, force structure and inventory 
requirements, cooperative international missile defense 
activities, and workforce issues.
    On February 5, 2011, and March 30, 2011, the subcommittee 
held classified briefings on the status of the GMD program 
after recent flight test failures and the Missile Defense 
Agency's plans for fixing the program. On April 6, 2011, the 
subcommittee received a classified briefing from the 
intelligence community on ballistic missile threats. Lastly, on 
April 14, 2011, the subcommittee received a classified briefing 
from the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization 
on the results of the Joint Capabilities Mix-3 study, which 
examined the role and capabilities of U.S. missile defenses in 
various military engagement scenarios to identify inventory 
requirements and needed capabilities.
    Members of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also 
participated in a congressional delegation visit to Europe, May 
16-23, 2011, to see firsthand how the EPAA is being 
implemented. Members received missile defense briefings from 
experts at U.S. European Command; toured the Aegis BMD cruiser 
USS Monterey, which deployed to the European theater in March 
2011 in support of the EPAA; and discussed missile defense with 
senior government leaders in the Republic of Poland and 
Romania.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, contains several 
missile defense-related legislative provisions and funding 
recommendations, to include: reporting requirements on 
acquisition accountability, the Department's homeland defense 
hedging strategy, a plan for addressing GMD flight-test 
failures, and study on space-based interceptor technology. It 
also included a limitation on funds for the MEADS program and a 
limitation on providing the Russian Federation with access to 
sensitive U.S. missile defense technology.

                        NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department's 
national security space programs. On March 15, 2011, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on the Fiscal 
Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request for 
National Security Space Activities. Members' oversight 
questions addressed a range of topics, including: space policy; 
a new space acquisition approach, Evolutionary Acquisition for 
Space Efficiency; space launch; space industrial base; 
Operationally Responsive Space, space situational awareness; 
space intelligence analysis; and concerns about potential 
interference with the Global Positioning System (GPS). 
Additionally, on April 6, 2011, the subcommittee received a 
classified briefing from the intelligence community on threats 
to U.S. space capabilities.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, contains several 
national security space-related legislative provisions, funding 
recommendations and reporting requirements, to include: 
authorization for the Air Force to use incremental funding to 
procure Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellites, a 
limitation on funds for the Joint Space Operations Center 
Management System until an acquisition strategy is submitted to 
the committee, a requirement that the Federal Communications 
Commission resolve concerns of widespread harmful interference 
to GPS devices used by the Department of Defense prior to 
permitting certain commercial terrestrial communications 
operations, and reports on a rocket propulsion strategy and 
hosted payloads.

                   Emerging Threats and Capabilities

    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
provided oversight of Department of Defense science and 
technology, cyber, and counter-terrorism programs and other 
activities under the subcommittee's jurisdictional 
responsibility. The subcommittee considered and reported 
legislation on May 4, 2011, that was included in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, 
passed by the House on May 26, 2011.

        INVESTMENT IN FUTURE CAPABILITIES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Defense's science and technology policies and programs to 
ensure balanced investments are made in developing capabilities 
to meet emerging challenges to national security. Related 
hearings included: March 1, 2011, Fiscal Year 2012 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Department of Defense 
Science and Technology Programs. In addition to formal 
hearings, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
held a briefing on April 5, 2011, on Defense Advanced Research 
Project Agency's Directed Energy, Cyber and Stealth Programs.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized 
critical shortcomings in capabilities for special operations 
forces and accordingly authorized in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, an 
additional $60.0 million for special operations combatant craft 
systems and an additional $87.8 million for special operations 
communications capabilities. Further, due to concerns regarding 
the management and performance of several procurement and 
research programs, the subcommittee included legislative 
provisions to limit the availability of funds for commercial 
satellite procurement and for Special Operations Command's 
aviation foreign internal defense program, which also received 
a reduction in authorized funding level by $50 million.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-9)

                  CYBERSECURITY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

    The committee devoted substantial attention to cyber 
operations and information technology to ensure the Department 
appropriately defends its networks and has needed capability to 
conduct its mission across the operational spectrum. Related 
hearings included: February 11, 2011, What Should the 
Department of Defense's Role in Cyber Be?; and March 16, 2011, 
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
for U.S. Cyber Command.
    In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a total of four 
briefings which included: February 9, 2011, Classified Cyber 
Threat Briefing; April 15, 2011, Classified Briefing on 
Security of Classified Networks; June 2, 2011, Sandia National 
Lab Overview and Capabilities Briefing; and June 3, 2011, 
Briefing on Recent Cyber Attacks on Lockheed Martin.
    The committee included several legislative provisions 
related to cybersecurity information technology in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to 
include: a provision to establish a cybersecurity fellowship 
program within the Department of Defense that would extend the 
partnership and educational opportunities between the 
Department of Defense and foreign militaries. Further, the 
committee directed an independent review and assessment of the 
cryptographic modernization program and an assessment of the 
defense industrial base pilot program.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-5; H.A.S.C. 112-26)

           STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION OPERATIONS

    The committee continued its review of the Department of 
Defense's strategic communications and information operations 
programs. The subcommittee directed several reviews in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, to include: an assessment of counter adversarial 
narrative efforts; an assessment of countering network-based 
threats, and a report on Military Information Support 
Operations.

         ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE

                        Full Committee Hearings

    The committee held a series of budget and posture hearings 
in preparation for the fiscal year 2012 budget. 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.
    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 in this report. On 
January 26, 2011, the committee convened a hearing to receive 
testimony on proposed Department of Defense budget reductions 
and efficiencies initiatives. Witnesses included William J. 
Lynn, III, Deputy Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of 
Defense; General Peter W. Chiarelli, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. 
Army; Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, Vice Chief of Naval 
Operations, U.S. Navy; General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr., Vice 
Chief of Staff, U.S. Marine Corps; and General Philip M. 
Breedlove, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.
    On February 16, 2011, 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 
2012.
    In addition to these hearings, the committee held posture 
hearings in which it received testimony from each of the 
military departments. On February 17, 2011, Michael B. Donley, 
Secretary of the Air Force, and the Chief of Staff of the Air 
Force, General Norton A. Schwartz, appeared before the 
committee to discuss their service's portion of the fiscal year 
2012 budget request. On March 1, 2011, the committee convened a 
hearing to receive testimony from Ray Mabus, Secretary of the 
Navy; Admiral Gary Roughead, the Chief of Naval Operations; and 
General James F. Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who 
appeared before the committee to testify on the Department of 
the Navy's portion of the fiscal year 2012 budget request. The 
following day, on March 2, 2011, John McHugh, Secretary of the 
Army; and General George W. Casey, Jr., the Chief of Staff of 
the Army, testified on the budget as it related to their 
service.
    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, as well as relevant budget 
requests, programs and authorities. These hearings began with 
testimony from General James Mattis, Commander of U.S. Central 
Command and Admiral Eric Olson, Commander of U.S. Special 
Operations Command, on March 3, 2011. This hearing was followed 
by Admiral James G. Stavridis, Commander of U.S. European 
Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe; General 
Douglas M. Fraser, Commander of U.S. Southern Command; and 
Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., Commander of U.S. Northern 
Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command on March 
30, 2011. On April 5, 2011 the committee received testimony 
from General Duncan McNabb, Commander of U.S. Transportation 
Command and General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. Africa 
Command, who testified on their combatant commands' fiscal year 
2012 budget requests. The following day, on April 6, 2011, the 
committee heard 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 Combined Forces 
Command.
    This year the committee also convened a hearing to receive 
testimony from members of Congress on their national defense 
priorities for the fiscal year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Act, which took place on April 14, 2011.
    Additionally, the committee held a series of hearings in 
accordance with its legislative and oversight roles which 
focused on the United States' ongoing military operations and 
related strategies. The committee convened a hearing on March 
16, 2011 in which it sought and received information on 
developments in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan pertaining 
to progress of U.S. operations. General David Petraeus, 
Commander of International Security Assistance Force and U.S. 
Forces-Afghanistan and Michele Flournoy, Under Secretary of 
Defense for Policy appeared before the committee to testify on 
this important matter. On March 17, 2011 the committee convened 
a hearing to address detainee policies in response to the 
President's issuance of Executive Order 13567 which established 
a new periodic review process for detainees held at U.S. Naval 
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The committee received testimony 
from William J. Lynn, III, Deputy Secretary of the U.S. 
Department of Defense and Jeh Johnson, General Counsel of the 
U.S. Department of Defense. On March 31, 2011, the committee 
received testimony from Robert M. Gates, Secretary of Defense 
and Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff on Operation Odyssey Dawn and U.S. military operations in 
Libya.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-2; H.A.S.C. 112-6; H.A.S.C. 112-7; H.A.S.C. 
112-8; H.A.S.C. 112-11; H.A.S.C. 112-14; H.A.S.C. 112-24; 
H.A.S.C. 112-29; H.A.S.C. 112-30; H.A.S.C. 112-31; H.A.S.C. 
112-37; H.A.S.C. 112-38; H.A.S.C. 112-41; H.A.S.C. 112-44)

                                 Libya

    During the 112th Congress, the committee has maintained its 
commitment to conduct rigorous oversight of the Executive 
Branch and uphold the constitutional duties of Congress in 
matters relating to military operations abroad. Following the 
Administration's decision to enter the United States into 
military operations with Libya, the committee convened a 
hearing to seek clarification on the nature of U.S. military 
operations in Libya, including projected costs and concrete 
objectives. Prior to the expiration of the President's 
authority to keep U.S. forces entered into military operations 
without congressional authorization under the War Powers Act, 
the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services wrote a letter 
to the President which stressed the significance of 
congressional oversight of Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation 
Unified Protector. The committee also actively partook in 
member engagement on the Floor of the House of Representatives 
concerning several pieces of introduced legislation relating to 
the role of the U.S. in military operations in Libya. On June 
2, 2011, the committee held a classified briefing from the 
Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Office 
of the Director of National Intelligence on operations in 
Libya.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-31)

          ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES

           Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
continued its oversight of the Department's counter-terrorism, 
counter-insurgency, and counter-weapons of mass destruction 
proliferation activities to ensure the Department is prepared 
to address terrorism and other emerging threats. Related 
hearings included: March 11, 2011, Counterproliferation 
Strategy and the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reduction 
Agency and the Chemical Biological Defense Program.
    The subcommittee continued to examine the Department's 
investment and management of information technology systems. 
Related hearings included: April 6, 2011, Improving Management 
and Acquisition of Information Technology Systems in the 
Department of Defense.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
4, 2011, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011. The legislative provisions covered a 
range of issues, to include: cybersecurity, counter terrorism, 
and funding for procurement and research and development 
programs. The subcommittee included several legislative 
provisions related to terrorism authorities and special 
operations in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to include: a provision to extend the 
authority for the Secretary of Defense to make combating 
terrorism rewards; a provision to enhance section 1208 
authority by increasing the amount authorized from $45.0 
million to $50.0 million and extending the authority through 
fiscal year 2014; a provision directing quarterly briefings on 
counterterrorism operations; and a provision extending the 
authorization for the Department of Defense to develop Non-
Conventional Assisted Recovery capabilities through fiscal year 
2016. The subcommittee also included several legislative 
provisions related to information technology in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, to 
include: a provision revising the structure and process of the 
defense business systems investment review boards; and a 
provision to amend reporting of critical changes to Major 
Automated Information Systems.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee hosted an 
introduction to U.S. Special Operations Forces display and 
presentation on February 11, 2011, held a classified briefing 
on April 1, 2011, covering U.S. Special Operations Command 
Fiscal Year 2012 Request and Future Challenges for U.S. Special 
Operations Forces, and a briefing on June 15, 2011, on counter-
proliferation research and development programs for the Defense 
Threat Reduction Agency, Defense Advanced Research Projects 
Agency, and U.S. Special Operations Command.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-18; H.A.S.C. 112-39)

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals in the military
    During the 112th Congress, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel continued the process of examining the law and policy 
surrounding the repeal of the law limiting the military service 
of gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals known as ``Don't Ask, Don't 
Tell.'' The subcommittee held a hearing to determine if the 
Department of Defense (DOD) is prepared to implement repeal of 
Don't Ask, Don't Tell without jeopardizing morale, unit 
cohesion, good order, discipline, and combat readiness. 
Committee members had particular concerns about the 
effectiveness of training programs, the impact of repeal on 
recruiting and retention programs, and the adequacy of service 
policies for dealing with billeting issues, public displays of 
affection, and the religious freedom rights of service members 
with strong beliefs opposed to gay and lesbian lifestyles, to 
include military chaplains. During consideration of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, as passed by the House on May 26, 2011, amendments were 
adopted to: include the views of the service chiefs concerning 
readiness of the force in the formal repeal certification 
process; preclude the use of DOD facilities and resources and 
the participation of DOD personnel in same sex marriage 
ceremonies; and reaffirm that the provisions of the Defense of 
Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. 7) regarding the definition of marriage 
as being between a man and woman shall apply to the process for 
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress or any ruling, 
regulation, or interpretation within the Department of Defense 
applicable to military personnel or DOD civilian employees.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-34)
Armed Forces Retirement Home
    The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
visited the Armed Forces Retirement Home, District of Columbia, 
on May 2, 2011. During the visit the chairman received an 
update on the facilities operations, construction and personnel 
issues. This oversight effort related directly to the 
legislation adopted by the subcommittee and included in 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011.
Casualties inflicted on U.S. personnel by Afghan nationals working as 
        contractors, police, or security forces
    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel investigated several 
reports of Afghan nationals serving as contract personnel, 
national police, and military personnel who, without warning, 
attacked and killed U.S. military personnel. As a result of the 
investigation, the committee requested that the Secretary of 
Defense, General Petraeus, the Commander of International 
Security Assistance Force & Commander of U.S. Forces 
Afghanistan, and the Secretary of the Army review current 
screening and evaluations of Afghans hired to work closely with 
U.S. forces and to take disciplinary action, if merited, 
against the Afghan security guard contractor whose employee 
attacked U.S. personnel.
Hiring of a highly qualified expert for the Defense health program
    The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
hired former Maine governor John Baldacci as a highly qualified 
expert to review military health care and propose reforms to 
it. The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, out 
of concern that such a hiring was duplicative of capabilities 
and personnel already available to the undersecretary and 
wasteful of funding and resources, sought a fuller explanation 
of the rationale for the hiring. In addition, the chairman 
sought an explanation of how the hiring and individual hired 
met the Department of Defense criteria for highly qualified 
experts. The inquiry will be continued.

                       Subcommittee on Readiness

    The Subcommittee on Readiness continued oversight of 
military readiness, training, logistics and maintenance issues; 
military construction, installations, and family housing 
issues; energy policy and programs of the Department of 
Defense; and civilian personnel and service contracting issues. 
The subcommittee conducted six oversight hearings and a markup 
of the National Defense Authorization act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011.
    On March 3, 2011, the Subcommittee met for its first 
oversight hearing to receive testimony on the Required 
Readiness Posture of U.S. Forces from an independent panel. The 
panel explored the frameworks of resourcing decisions, 
including the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, the 
2010 Global Defense Posture (GDP) Report, the QDR Independent 
Panel Review, and the recent National Military Strategy.
    The subcommittee met in a follow-on session on March 10, 
2011, to receive testimony on the President's Fiscal Year 2012 
Budget Request and Global Challenges to Readiness. In this 
hearing, the services provided testimony on the required 
readiness of the U.S. forces to respond to a range of near- and 
far-term global threats.
    On March 15, 2011, the subcommittee met to receive 
testimony on Long-Term Readiness Challenges in the Pacific; 
which addressed the readiness of U.S. forces to respond to 
conflicts in the Pacific region.
    The subcommittee provided oversight of the ongoing 
challenge to jointness in a hearing on March 31, 2011 titled 
``the Status of and Future Plans for Military Jointness and the 
Impact on our Nation's Readiness.'' The witnesses provided 
testimony on the progress the military has made towards 
jointness and interoperability across the military department, 
and its impact on the readiness of our forces. The subcommittee 
also addressed the challenges of sustaining the force in a 
hearing on April 7, 2011.
    The subcommittee met in open session on April 13, 2011, to 
receive testimony on the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for Military Construction, Base 
Closure, Environment, Facilities Operation and Maintenance.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation that 
was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-13; H.A.S.C. 112-17; H.A.S.C. 112-21; 
H.A.S.C. 112-33; H.A.S.C. 112-40; H.A.S.C. 112-43)

             Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces

    The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces 
conducted a series of hearings to review programs included in 
the Department of Defense (DOD) acquisition budget request for 
fiscal year 2012 during the 112th Congress, including; March 9, 
2011, Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs and Budget 
Requirements of the Navy's Shipbuilding and Construction Plan.
    In addition to its traditional oversight responsibilities 
regarding DOD budget requests, the subcommittee conducted 
oversight hearings on the following topics: March 16, 2011, 
Amphibious Operations.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee conducted 
numerous briefings on the following topics: February 11, 2011, 
Necessary Considerations in Challenging Times for Effective 
Projection of Navy and Air Force Forces; March 2, 2011, OHIO-
class Ballistic Missile Submarine Replacement Program 
(SSBN(X)); March 30, 2011, Air Force Long-Range Strike Efforts; 
April 7, 2011, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
5, 2011, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by 
the House on May 26, 2011. The legislation covered a range of 
issues, including authorization of appropriations for 
procurement programs and research, development, test and 
evaluation programs for the Department of the Navy.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-16; H.A.S.C. 112-25)

                    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 2012 budget request, including: March 15, 2011, national 
security space activities; March 31, 2011, missile defense 
programs; and April 5, 2011, Department of Energy atomic energy 
defense activities and Department of Defense nuclear programs.
    In addition to its oversight responsibilities regarding the 
budget requests, the subcommittee conducted an oversight 
hearing on March 2, 2011, on the status of United States 
strategic forces.
    The subcommittee also held several briefings on the 
following oversight topics: February 10, 2011 and March 30, 
2011, status of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program; 
March 10, 2011, status of the United States nuclear weapons 
stockpile; April 14, 2011, Joint Capability Mix-III study; and 
June 15, 2011, nuclear fuel cycle and countries of 
proliferation concern.
    The committee held informal educational briefings on the 
following topics: February 9, 2011, missile defense policy and 
posture; February 15, 2011, history and evolution of nuclear 
policy and posture; March 1, 2011, Administration's nuclear 
policy and posture; March 9, 2011, space fundamentals and space 
policy and strategy; March 30, 2011, missile defense programs; 
April 6, 2011, space and ballistic missile threats; and April 
13, 2011, Department of Energy environmental management 
programs.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on May 
4, 2011, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-12; H.A.S.C. 112-22; H.A.S.C. 112-32; 
H.A.S.C. 112-36)

              Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces

    The Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces provided 
oversight of all Departments of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, 
Air Force and Office of the Secretary of Defense acquisition 
programs providing tactical aircraft and missile; armor and 
ground vehicle; munitions; and associated support equipment, 
including Reserve and National Guard equipment programs. The 
subcommittee conducted five oversight hearings and a markup of 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011, during its 
consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense 
budget request. Hearings included: March 1, 2011: Equipping the 
Warfighter in Afghanistan; March 9, 2011: Army Modernization 
Programs; March 15, 2011: Air Force Tactical Aviation Programs; 
March 17, 2011: Soldier and Marine Equipment for Dismounted 
Operations; and April 1, 2011: Army and Air Force National 
Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Posture.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee received a 
briefing from representatives of the Department of Defense on 
the following: a classified briefing on provision of force 
protection for forces in Afghanistan and a classified briefing 
on special access programs included in the budget request for 
fiscal year 2012.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on, 
that was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 1540, passed by the House May 26, 2011.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-10; H.A.S.C. 112-15; H.A.S.C. 112-20; 
H.A.S.C. 112-27; H.A.S.C. 112-35)

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was 
reestablished by the 112th Congress to conduct oversight and 
investigation over matters directed by the Chairman and Ranking 
Member of the Committee on Armed Services after coordination 
with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations. The subcommittee focused on a 
number of issues, including to U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo 
Bay, Cuba, detainee transfers and release, and reengagement, 
and worked with other subcommittees and the full committee to 
conduct oversight as indicated below.
Transfer and release of Guantanamo Bay detainees and reengagement
    In connection with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
Committee on Armed Services request of March 16, 2011, the 
subcommittee is significantly focused on conducting an in-depth 
investigation on U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
detainee transfers and releases over time. Specifically, the 
subcommittee was directed to review and analyze ``the 
circumstances and mechanisms for post-transfer security 
measures and assurances for humane treatment for those 
transferred from Guantanamo Bay.'' The subcommittee was also 
directed to provide a comprehensive written report, including 
evaluations of past practices and recommendations for the 
future, to the committee by November 30, 2011. To date, the 
subcommittee has:
          (1) Conducted over 100 formal and informal meetings 
        and interviews with witnesses;
          (2) Reviewed 2,000 pages of documentary evidence;
          (3) Organized two classified member briefings;
          (4) Organized three classified staff briefings;
          (5) Organized and conducted three unclassified member 
        briefings;
          (6) Organized and conducted one unclassified hearing;
          (7) Conducted CODELs to the Islamic Republic of 
        Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, U.S. 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and
          (8) Conducted STAFFDELs to the United Kingdom, U.S. 
        Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the Kingdom of 
        Morocco, the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, 
        and the French Republic.
Arlington National Cemetery/Department of Defense 30 Year Aviation and 
        Shipbuilding Plans
    Other areas the subcommittee focused on include 
accountability and management issues at Arlington National 
Cemetery and the Department of Defense's Thirty Year Aviation 
and Shipbuilding Plans. In connection with these matters, and 
in close coordination with the Military Personnel Subcommittee 
and the Subcommittees on Tactical Air and Land Forces and 
Seapower and Projection Forces, the subcommittee has:
          (1) Conducted over 20 formal and informal meetings 
        and interviews with witnesses;
          (2) Reviewed over 500 pages of documentary evidence;
          (3) Conducted a site visit to Arlington National 
        Cemetery;
          (4) Organized and conducted three member briefings; 
        and
          (5) Organized and conducted two hearings.
    As a result of these efforts, the subcommittee believes 
that additional oversight of Arlington National Cemetery and 
study of the thirty year plans is warranted.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-42; H.A.S.C. 112-45; H.A.S.C. 112-46)

                              PUBLICATIONS

                            Committee Prints

    Committee Print No. 1--Committee Rules of the Committee on 
Armed Services, House of Representatives, adopted January 20, 
2011.

                         Published Proceedings

    H.A.S.C. 112-1--Full Committee hearing on Committee 
Organization. January 20, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-2--Full Committee hearing on Proposed 
Department of Defense Budget Reductions and Efficiencies 
Initiatives. January 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-3--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request on Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs Overview. 
February 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Resale Programs Overview. February 10, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-5--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on What Should the Department of Defense's 
Role in Cyber Be? February 11, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-6--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. February 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-7--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. February 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-8--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. March 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-9--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for Department of Defense Science 
and Technology Programs. March 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-10--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Equipping the Warfighter in Afghanistan. 
March 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-11--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. March 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-12--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Status of United States Strategic Forces. March 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-13--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Are 
We Ready? An Independent Look at the Required Readiness Posture 
of the U.S. Forces. March 3, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-14--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Requests from the U.S. 
Central Command and U.S. Special Operations Command. March 3, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-15--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Army Modernization. March 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-16--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Navy Shipbuilding Acquisition Programs and 
Budget Requirements of the Navy's Shipbuilding and Construction 
Plan. March 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-17--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Global Challenges to Readiness and the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget 
Request. March 10, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-18--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Counterproliferation Strategy and the 
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Requests 
for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and Chemical Biological 
Defense Program. March 11, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-19--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Health System Overview and Defense Health Program 
Cost Efficiencies. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-20--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Tactical 
Aviation Programs. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-21--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Long-
term Readiness Challenges in the Pacific. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-22--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for National Security Space Activities. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-23--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Health System Overview and Defense Health Program 
Cost Efficiencies: A Beneficiary Perspective. March 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-24--Full Committee hearing on Developments in 
Afghanistan. March 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-25--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Amphibious Operations. March 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-26--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request from the U.S. Cyber Command.
    H.A.S.C. 112-27--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Soldier and marine equipment for dismounted 
operations. March 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-28--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Personnel Overview. March 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-29--Full Committee hearing on Law of War 
Detention and the President's Executive Order Establishing 
Periodic Review Boards for Guantanamo Detainees. March 17, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-30--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Requests from U.S. 
Southern Command, U.S. Northern Command, and U.S. European 
Command. March 30, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-31--Full Committee hearing on Operation 
Odyssey Dawn and U.S. Military Operations in Libya. March 31, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-32--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for Missile Defense. March 31, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-33--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Improving the Readiness of U.S. Forces through Military 
Jointness. March 31, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-34--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Implementation Plans for the Repeal of Law and Policies 
Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian Service Members. 
April 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-35--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Army and Air Force National Guard and Reserve 
Component Equipment Posture. April 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-36--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for Department of Energy Atomic Energy Defense 
Activities and Department of Defense Nuclear Forces Programs. 
April 5, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-37--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Requests from the U.S. 
Transportation Command and U.S. Africa Command. April 5, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-38--Full Committee hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 
National Defense Authorization Budget Requests from the U.S. 
Pacific Command and U.S. Forces Korea. April 6, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-39--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Improving Management and Acquisition of 
Information Technology Systems in the Department of Defense. 
April 6, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-40--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Sustaining the Force: Challenges to Readiness. April 7, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-41--Full Committee hearing on Repeal of Law 
and Policies Governing Service by Openly Gay and Lesbian 
Service Members. April 7, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-42--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Guantanamo Detainee Transfer Policy 
and recidivism. April 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-43--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
for Military Construction, Base Closure, Environment, 
Facilities Operation and Maintenance. April 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-44--Full Committee hearing on Testimony from 
Members on their National Defense Priorities for the fiscal 
year 2012 National Defense Authorization Bill. April 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-45--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Accountability at Arlington National 
Cemetery. April 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-46--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Efficacy of the Department of 
Defense's Thirty Year Aviation and Shipbuilding Plans. June 1, 
2011.

                                                  HOUSE REPORTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Report number                   Date filed              Bill number                  Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
112-77.............................  May 12, 2011..........  H. Res. 208...........  Resolution directing the
                                                                                      Secretary of Defense to
                                                                                      transmit to the House of
                                                                                      Representatives copies of
                                                                                      any official document,
                                                                                      record, memo,
                                                                                      correspondence, or other
                                                                                      communications of the
                                                                                      Department of Defense in
                                                                                      the possession of the
                                                                                      Secretary of Defense that
                                                                                      relates to any
                                                                                      consultation with Congress
                                                                                      regarding Operation
                                                                                      Odyssey Dawn or NATO
                                                                                      Operation Unified
                                                                                      Protector
112-78 Part 1......................  May 17, 2011..........  H.R. 1540.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2012 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.
112-78 Part 2......................  May 23, 2011..........  H.R. 1540.............  To authorize appropriations
                                                                                      for fiscal year 2012 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             PRESS RELEASES

                             First Session

    January 6, 2011--McKeon: New $78 Billion in Defense Cuts Is 
a Dramatic Shift for a Nation at War
    January 6, 2011--McKeon Supportive of New Troop Deployment 
to Afghanistan
    January 7, 2011--McKeon: Presidential Signing Statement Out 
of Touch with Public Will to Keep Terrorists off American Soil
    January 8, 2011--McKeon Statement on Rep. Gabrielle 
Giffords
    January 20, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leaders Announce 
Subcommittee Membership for the 112th Congress
    January 25, 2011--McKeon Statement on President's State of 
the Union Address
    February 18, 2011--New Report on Maintenance Depots Wins 
Bipartisan Praise
    February 24, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leaders Comment 
on Air Force Aerial Refueling Tanker Award
    March 1, 2011--McKeon Testifies before the Administration 
Committee on Armed Services Committee Budget for the 112th 
Congress
    March 7, 2011--McKeon Criticizes White House Executive Fiat 
on Detainees
    March 8, 2011--McKeon, Armed Services Members Introduce 
Legislation regarding America's Terrorist Prosecution and 
Detention Policies
    March 20, 2011--McKeon Statement on Operation Odyssey Dawn
    March 22, 2011--McKeon Welcomes John Noonan to the House 
Armed Services Committee Staff
    March 24, 2011--McKeon Criticizes Pentagon Decision to 
Issue Stop Work Order on Joint Strike Fighter Competitive 
Engine Program
    March 29, 2011--McKeon Statement on President's Speech on 
Libya Operations
    April 4, 2011--McKeon Statement on Administration Decision 
to Try 9/11 Co-Conspirators through Military Commissions 
Process
    April 4, 2011--McKeon Statement Applauds West YouCut 
Proposal
    April 5, 2011--McKeon Statement Applauds Ryan Budget
    April 13, 2011--McKeon Responds to White House Plan to Cut 
$400 Billion from National Security Spending
    April 15, 2011--McKeon Applauds Passage of Ryan Budget
    April 28, 2011--McKeon on National Security Leadership 
Changes within the Administration; Praises Gates for His 
Service
    May 2, 2011--McKeon Statement on Death of Osama bin Laden
    May 3, 2011--Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman 
Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 
Leadership Release Details of National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman 
Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Bartlett Releases Details of National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee 
Chairman Releases Details of National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 3, 2011--Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Releases 
Details of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012
    May 5, 2011--McKeon Praises GE, Rolls Royce for Funding 
Joint Strike Fighter Engine Without Taxpayer Support
    May 9, 2011--McKeon Releases Details about National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
    May 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Overwhelmingly 
Approves Defense Authorization Bill
    May 20, 2011--Former U.S. Attorney General Lauds 
Affirmation of the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military 
Force
    May 26, 2011--House Approves Defense Authorization Bill 
with Bipartisan Support
    May 30, 2011--McKeon Welcomes New Senior Military Leaders; 
Praises Admiral Mullen for His Service
    June 11, 2011--McKeon Presses Defense Department for 
Details on Libya Operations
    June 16, 2011--McKeon Statement on White House Libya Report