H. Rept. 112-575 - 112th Congress (2011-2012)

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 112-575 - THIRD SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES of the COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES for the ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

[House Report 112-575]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                 Union Calendar No. 415

112th Congress, 2d Session - - - - - - - - - - - - House Report 112-575
 
                        THIRD 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 29, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                               ----------
                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

19-006 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2012 




                   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            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               HANK JOHNSON, Georgia
CHRIS GIBSON, New York               BETTY SUTTON, Ohio
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri             COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii
JOE HECK, Nevada                     KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York
BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois            JACKIE SPEIER, California
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey               RON BARBER, Arizona
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 29, 2012.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk of the 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 
third 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............     4
Committee Rules..................................................     5
Composition of the Committee on Armed Services...................    17
    Full Committee...............................................    17
    Subcommittees of the Committee on Armed Services.............    18
    Panels of the Committee on Armed Services....................    21
Committee Staff..................................................    22
Committee Meetings and Hearings..................................    24
Legislative Activities...........................................    25
    Legislation Enacted into Law.................................    25
    Legislation Passed in the House of Representatives...........    29
    Legislation Reported by the Committee on Armed Services......    32
    Legislation Not Reported but Managed by the Committee on 
      Armed Services on the Floor of the House of Representatives    33
Oversight Activities.............................................    36
    Policy Issues................................................    36
    Fiscal Responsibility and Efficiency.........................    51
    Other Policy Issues..........................................    59
    Readiness....................................................    60
    Total Force, Personnel, and Health Care Issues...............    71
    Modernization and Investment Issues..........................    78
    Emerging Threats and Capabilities............................    98
    Additional Oversight Activities of the Full Committee........   100
    Additional Oversight Activities of the Subcommittees and the 
      Panels.....................................................   103
Publications.....................................................   120
    House Reports................................................   120
    Conference Reports...........................................   120
    Committee Prints.............................................   120
    Published Proceedings........................................   120
    Press Releases...............................................   129



                                                 Union Calendar No. 415

112th Congress  }                                            {   Report
  2d Session    }       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES             {  112-575

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

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

                                _______
                                

 June 29, 2012.--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.
    On January 5, 2012, the House adopted H. Res. 5, rules for 
the 112th Congress, which clarified the Committee on Armed 
Services jurisdiction over Department of Defense administered 
cemeteries.

                    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;
          To provide and maintain a Navy;
          To make rules for the Government and Regulation of 
        the land and naval Forces;
          To provide for calling forth the Militia;
          To 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;
          To exercise exclusive Legislation . . . over all 
        Places purchased . . . for the Erection of Forts, 
        Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful 
        Buildings; and
          To 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 the education of military dependents in 
schools.

           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

                             FULL COMMITTEE

    Pursuant to H. Res. 6 (agreed to January 5, 2011), H. Res. 
7 (agreed to January 5, 2011), H. Res. 33 (agreed to January 
12, 2011), H. Res. 39 (agreed to January 19, 2011), H. Res. 377 
(agreed to July 28, 2011), and H. Res. 553 (agreed to February 
16, 2012), the following Members have served on the Committee 
on Armed Services in the 112th Congress:

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

ADAM SMITH, Washington               ROSCOE 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\1\       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\2\             JOE HECK, Nevada
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii             JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\3\      AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
JACKIE SPEIER, California\4\         TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
                                     STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
                                     ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
                                     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
                                     MO BROOKS, Alabama
                                     TODD YOUNG, Indiana

----------
\1\Ms. Giffords resigned from the House of Representatives on January 
25, 2012.
\2\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\3\Ms. Hochul was elected to the committee on July 28, 2011.
\4\Ms. Speier was elected to the committee on February 16, 2012.

            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.

  MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      JEFF MILLER, Florida
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
TIM RYAN, Ohio                       CHRIS GIBSON, New York
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland   BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
KATHY CASTOR, Florida\5\             TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\6\      DUNCAN HUNTER, California

----------
\5\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\6\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the subcommittee on August 2, 2011.

                   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.

   JOE WILSON, South Carolina, 
             Chairman

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania        MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          TOM ROONEY, Florida
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa                  JOE HECK, Nevada
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          ALLEN B. WEST, Florida
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
                                     VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri

                       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.

    J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia, 
             Chairman

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam          MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               JOE HECK, Nevada
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa                  FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona\7\       CHRIS GIBSON, New York
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina        VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
BILL OWENS, New York                 BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
TIM RYAN, Ohio                       JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii             TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
JACKIE SPEIER, California\8\         STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
                                     MARTHA ROBY, Alabama

----------
\7\Ms. Giffords resigned from the House of Representatives on January 
25, 2012.
\8\Ms. Speier was assigned to the subcommittee on February 17, 2012.

             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.

 W. TODD AKIN, Missouri, Chairman 

MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        DUNCAN HUNTER, California
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
RICK LARSEN, Washington              TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania          ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   ROB WITTMAN, Virginia
                                     TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

                    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).

  MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California          TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
RICK LARSEN, Washington              MO BROOKS, Alabama
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California        MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland   JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
                                     AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia

              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.

  ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland, 
             Chairman 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas               FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina        JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                TOM ROONEY, Florida
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona\9\       TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts          VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina        JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
BILL OWENS, New York                 WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California        W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania          JOE WILSON, South Carolina
KATHY CASTOR, Florida\10\            MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio
KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York\11\     BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JACKIE SPEIER, California\12\        DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado

----------
\9\Ms. Giffords resigned from the House Representatives on January 25, 
2012.
\10\Mrs. Castor resigned from the committee on June 22, 2011.
\11\Ms. Hochul was assigned to the subcommittee on August 2, 2011.
\12\Ms. Speier was assigned to the subcommittee on February 17, 2012.

              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.

  ROB WITTMAN, Virginia, Chairman

JIM COOPER, Tennessee                K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           MO BROOKS, Alabama
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California\13\      TODD YOUNG, Indiana
MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania\14\      TOM ROONEY, Florida
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii             MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado

----------
\13\Ms. Sanchez resigned from the subcommittee on December 21, 2011.
\14\Mr. Critz was appointed to the subcommittee on December 21, 2011.

               PANELS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability 
Reform was appointed on July 13, 2011, and reappointed on 
November 17, 2011. The Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry was appointed on September 12, 2011.

     Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel was 
asked to examine the Department of Defense's financial 
management system and possible ways to improve its financial 
management and audit readiness effort.

    K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas, 
             Chairman

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey           SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi
TIM RYAN, Ohio                       TODD YOUNG, Indiana

        Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry

    Jurisdiction pursuant to Committee Rule 5--The panel was 
asked to examine: (1) contracting or regulatory issues facing 
the defense industry; (2) the use of incentives and mandates to 
meet goals; (3) structural challenges facing various sectors 
within the industrial base, including universities and research 
institutes; (4) impact of the current fiscal environment on the 
defense industry, at both the prime and subcontractor levels; 
and (5) opportunities to reduce barriers to entry.

   BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, 
             Chairman

RICK LARSEN, Washington              BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois
BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   JON RUNYAN, New Jersey
COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii             ALLEN B. WEST, Florida

                            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, Communications 
 Director (resigned June 12, 2011)
  John Wason, Professional Staff 
              Member
Jenness Simler, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Alex Kugajevsky, Professional 
 Staff Member (resigned February 
             15, 2012)
 Kari Bingen, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned September 7, 
               2011)
  Cyndi Howard, Security Manager
 Douglas Bush, Professional Staff 
              Member
 Lara Battles, Professional Staff 
 Member (resigned March 25, 2011)
 Cathy Garman, Professional Staff 
Member (resigned February 3, 2012)
  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
 Craig Greene, Professional Staff 
              Member
   Mary Kate Cunningham, Staff 
  Assistant (resigned January 2, 
               2012)
  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
   Alejandra Villarreal, Staff 
 Assistant (resigned January 31, 
               2012)
  Megan Howard, Staff Assistant 
    (resigned October 21, 2011)
Peter Villano, Professional Staff 
              Member
        Paul Lewis, Counsel
    Jim Weiss, Staff Assistant
   Jeff Cullen, Staff Assistant
      Leonor Tomero, Counsel
Jamie R. Lynch, Professional Staff 
              Member
Christine Wagner, Staff Assistant 
   (resigned September 14, 2011)
      Michele Pearce, Counsel
   Famid Sinha, Staff Assistant 
      (resigned May 9, 2011)
 Katie Sendak, Research Assistant
  Ben Runkle, Professional Staff 
  Member (resigned April 4, 2012)
 Melissa Tuttle, Staff Assistant 
     (resigned July 27, 2011)
   Catherine A. McElroy, Counsel
   Robert J. McAlister, Deputy 
             Spokesman
Michael Amato, Professional Staff 
              Member
  Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed 
 January 3, 2011, resigned May 5, 
               2011)
     Jonathan Shepard, Intern 
   (appointed January 4, 2011, 
    resigned February 18, 2011)
      Christopher J. Bright, 
    Professional Staff Member 
   (appointed February 1, 2011)
  Dustin Walker, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed February 7, 2011, 
      resigned June 15, 2012)
  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, resigned May 31, 2012)
Brian Garrett, Professional Staff 
 Member (appointed April 1, 2011)
 Arthur Milikh, Intern (appointed 
 April 1, 2011, resigned July 15, 
               2011)
  Elizabeth Nathan, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed April 8, 
               2011)
  Elizabeth McWhorter, Executive 
  Assistant (appointed April 18, 
               2011)
 Nicholas Rodman, Staff Assistant 
      (appointed May 2, 2011)
 Stephen Bosco, Intern (appointed 
 May 17, 2011, resigned July 29, 
               2011)
Aaron Applbaum, Intern (appointed 
  May 23, 2011, resigned July 8, 
               2011)
 Kelly McRaven, Intern (appointed 
 June 1, 2011, resigned August 4, 
               2011)
  Andrew T. Walter, Professional 
 Staff Member (appointed June 2, 
               2011)
Ken Orvick, Intern (appointed June 
  16, 2011, resigned August 12, 
               2011)
  Claude Chafin, Communications 
Director (appointed July 12, 2011)
   Aaron Falk, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed August 1, 2011)
  Arthur Milikh, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed August 1, 2011)
 Tim Morrison, Counsel (appointed 
          August 1, 2011)
    Jonathan D. Roger, Intern 
   (appointed August 29, 2011, 
    resigned December 8, 2011)
Kimberly Shaw, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed September 1, 
               2011)
  Ryan Jacobs, Intern (appointed 
   September 8, 2011, resigned 
        December 15, 2011)
 Stephen Bosco, Intern (appointed 
   September 9, 2011, resigned 
        December 16, 2011)
 Martin Hussey, Intern (appointed 
   September 9, 2011, resigned 
        December 16, 2011)
Stephen Kitay, Professional Staff 
  Member (appointed October 11, 
               2011)
   James Mazol, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed December 5, 2011)
  Lucy Shafer, Intern (appointed 
January 5, 2012, resigned January 
             20, 2012)
     Nathaniel Madden, Intern 
   (appointed January 15, 2012, 
     resigned April 27, 2012)
  Elee Wakim, Intern (appointed 
January 17, 2012, resigned May 9, 
               2012)
  Anna Hagler, Intern (appointed 
January 19, 2012, resigned May 11, 
               2012)
Emily Waterlander, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed February 1, 2012)
    Gabriel G. Surratt, Intern 
  (appointed February 13, 2012, 
      resigned June 1, 2012)
Kathryn Thompson, Staff Assistant 
   (appointed February 21, 2012)
  Alexander Gallo, Professional 
Staff Member (appointed March 14, 
               2012)
  Eric L. Smith, Staff Assistant 
    (appointed March 21, 2012)
 Ben Fox, Intern (appointed April 
             19, 2012)
 Kelly McRaven, Intern (appointed 
           June 4, 2012)
    Nevada C. Schadler, Intern 
     (appointed June 4, 2012)
Matthew Schorr, Intern (appointed 
           June 4, 2012)

                    COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HEARINGS

    A total of 218 meetings and hearings have been held by the 
Committee on Armed Services and its subcommittees and panels 
during the 112th Congress. A breakdown of the meetings and 
hearings follows:

Full Committee                                                        71
Subcommittees:
    Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.............    22
    Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................    29
    Subcommittee on Readiness.....................................    20
    Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces................    10
    Subcommittee on Strategic Forces..............................    21
    Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces..................    15
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations..................    12
Panels:
    Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform.     9
    Panel on Business Challenges Within the Defense Industry......     9

                         LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES

                      Legislation Enacted Into Law

                     PUBLIC LAW 112-81 (H.R. 1540)

        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012

    On April 14, 2011, H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was introduced by 
Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and referred to the 
Committee on Armed Services. On May 11, 2011, the Committee on 
Armed Services held a markup 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 recorded vote, 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. On December 1, 2011, 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services was discharged and the 
measure was laid before the Senate by unanimous consent. The 
Senate then struck all after the enacting clause, substituted 
the language of S. 1867, as amended, and then passed H.R. 1540 
with an amendment by unanimous consent. On December 7, 2011, 
Chairman McKeon moved that the House disagree to the Senate 
amendment, and agree to a conference by unanimous consent. On 
December 12, 2011, the conference report to accompany H.R. 1540 
(H. Rept. 112-329) was filed. On December 14, 2011, the 
conference report was agreed to in the House by recorded vote, 
283-136 (Roll no. 932). The next day, December 15, 2011, the 
conference report was agreed to in Senate, 86-13 (Record Vote 
Number: 230). On December 31, 2011, H.R. 1540 was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 112-81.
    Public Law 112-81 does the following: (1) Authorizes 
appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for procurement and for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) 
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for operation 
and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) 
Authorizes 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) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal 
year 2012 for military construction and family housing; (6) 
Authorizes appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations; 
(7) Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the 
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modifies 
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) 
Authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for the Maritime 
Administration.
    Public Law 112-81 is a key mechanism through which Congress 
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in 
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, 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. Public Law 112-81 includes the large majority 
of the findings and recommendations resulting from its 
oversight activities in the previous year, as informed by the 
experience gained over the previous decades of the committee's 
existence.
    Public Law 112-81 authorizes $662.4 billion for national 
defense discretionary programs and includes $530.0 billion for 
the base budget of the Department of Defense, $115.5 billion 
for Overseas Contingency Operations, and $16.9 billion for 
national security programs in the Department of Energy and the 
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
Division A
    Division A of Public Law 112-81 authorizes funds for fiscal 
year 2012 for the Department of Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I authorizes $103.6 billion 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 establish additional program requirements, 
restrictions, and limitations for specified programs for the 
Armed Forces.
    Subtitle A of title II authorizes $ 71.6 billion for 
research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed 
Forces and the defense agencies, including amounts for basic 
research and development-related matters. Subtitle B of title 
II establishes certain program requirements, restrictions, and 
limitations on separate research and development-related 
matters. Subtitles C through E of title II address missile 
defense programs, reports and miscellaneous matters.
    Subtitle A of title III authorizes $ 162.2 billion for 
operation and maintenance. Subtitles B through G of title III 
address 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 provides military personnel authorizations for the 
Active and Reserve Forces for fiscal year 2012 and authorizes 
appropriations of $142.0 billion for military personnel for 
fiscal year 2012.
    The end strengths for Active Duty personnel for fiscal year 
2012 are 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 are 
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 are as follows:
    (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060.
    (2) The Army Reserve, 16,261.
    (3) The Navy Reserve, 10,337.
    (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 establishes 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; 
defense dependents' education and military family readiness 
matters; improved sexual assault prevention and response in the 
Armed Forces; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; 
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 reports and other matters.
    Title VIII addresses acquisition policy and management, 
amendments to general contracting authorities, procedures, and 
limitations; provisions relating to major defense acquisition 
programs; provisions relating to contracts in support of 
contingency operations in the Republic of Iraq or the Islamic 
Republic of 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 
matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; counter-drug activities; naval vessels and shipyards; 
counterterrorism; nuclear forces; financial management; repeal 
and modification of reporting requirements; 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 the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; and reports 
and other matters.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
    Title XIV authorizes miscellaneous authorizations totaling 
$37.6 billion and also includes provisions addressing the 
National Defense stockpile and other matters.
    Title XV includes authorization of $115.5 billion for 
Overseas Contingency Operations.

Division B

    Division B authorizes appropriations in the amount of $13.1 
billion 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 authorizes appropriations in the amount of $16.9 
billion for Department of Energy national security programs for 
fiscal year 2012. Division C also includes authorization for 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board; Naval Petroleum 
Reserves; and the Maritime Administration.

Division D

    Division D provides 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 that a decision to 
commit, obligate, or expend funds with or to a specific entity 
on the basis of a dollar amount 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.

Division E

    Division E reauthorizes the Small Business Innovation 
Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer programs 
for 6 years. It also expands the allowance of venture capital 
firms to include participation by firms that are majority owned 
by multiple hedge funds or private equity firms.
    (H. Rept. 112-78, H. Rept. 112-78 Part 2; H. Rept. 112-329)

                     PUBLIC LAW 112-120 (H.R. 4045)


 TO MODIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM GUIDANCE RELATING TO THE 
 AWARD OF POST-DEPLOYMENT/MOBILIZATION RESPITE ABSENCE ADMINISTRATIVE 
ABSENCE DAYS TO MEMBERS OF THE RESERVE COMPONENTS TO EXEMPT ANY MEMBER 
  WHOSE QUALIFIED MOBILIZATION COMMENCED BEFORE OCTOBER 1, 2011, AND 
   CONTINUED ON OR AFTER THAT DATE, FROM THE CHANGES TO THE PROGRAM 
                 GUIDANCE THAT TOOK EFFECT ON THAT DATE

    H.R. 4045 was introduced by Representative John Kline on 
February 15, 2012, and was referred to the House Committee on 
Armed Services. On May 15, 2012, Representative Kline moved to 
consider H.R. 4045, as amended, under suspension of the rules. 
The bill passed the House, as amended, by voice vote. On May 
17, 2012, H.R. 4045 passed the Senate without amendment by 
unanimous consent. On May 25, 2012, H.R. 4045 was signed by the 
President and became Public Law 112-120.
    H.R. 4045 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to determine 
that the changes made to the program guidance relating to the 
award of Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence 
administrative absence days or other authorized benefits 
included in the legislation, to members and former members of 
the Reserves under a specified Department of Defense 
instruction shall not apply to current or former Reservists 
whose qualified mobilization commenced before October 1, 2011, 
and continued until the termination of the mobilization.

           Legislation Passed in the House of Representatives


                               H.R. 4310


        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013

    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, was introduced by Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' 
McKeon on March 29, 2012, and referred to the Committee on 
Armed Services. On May 9, 2012, the Committee on Armed Services 
held a markup session to consider H.R. 4310. The committee, a 
quorum being present, ordered reported H.R. 4310, as amended, 
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 56-5. 
The bill passed the House, as amended, on May 18, 2012, by 
recorded vote, 299-120 (Roll no. 291). On June 19, 2012, H.R. 
4310 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. 4310.
    H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, would: (1) Authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for procurement and for 
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) 
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for operation and 
maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize 
for fiscal year 2013: (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 2013 for military construction and family housing; (6) 
Authorize appropriations for Overseas Contingency Operations; 
(7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for the 
Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify 
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) 
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for the Maritime 
Administration.
    H.R. 4310 is a key mechanism through which Congress 
fulfills one of its primary responsibilities as mandated in 
Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution, which 
grants Congress the power to raise and support an Army; to 
provide and maintain a Navy; and to make rules for the 
government and regulation of the land and naval forces. Rule X 
of the House of Representatives provides jurisdiction over the 
Department of Defense generally, and over the military 
application of nuclear energy, to the House Committee on Armed 
Services. The bill includes the large majority of the findings 
and recommendations resulting from the oversight activities of 
Committee on Armed Services in the current year, as informed by 
the experience gained over the previous decades of the 
committee's existence.
    H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, would authorize $635.3 
billion for national defense discretionary programs and 
includes $528.6 billion for the base budget of the Department 
of Defense, $88.5 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. 4310 would authorize funds for fiscal 
year 2013 for the Department of Defense.
    Subtitle A of title I would authorize funds at the levels 
identified in division D for procurement for the Army, the Navy 
and the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and Defense-wide 
activities. Subtitles B through E of title I would establish 
additional program requirements, restrictions, and limitations 
for specified programs of the Armed Forces.
    Subtitle A of title II would authorize funds at the levels 
identified in division D 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 
other matters.
    Subtitle A of title III would authorize funds at the levels 
identified in division D for operation and maintenance. 
Subtitles B through G of title III addresses energy and 
environmental issues, logistics and sustainment issues, 
readiness, 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 2013 and 
would authorize appropriations at the levels identified in 
division D for military personnel for fiscal year 2013.
    The end strengths for Active Duty personnel for fiscal year 
2013 would be as follows:
    (1) The Army, 552,100.
    (2) The Navy, 322,700.
    (3) The Marine Corps, 197,300.
    (4) The Air Force, 330,383.
    The Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2013 
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, 62,500.
    (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 39,600.
    (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 106,005.
    (6) The Air Force Reserve, 72,428.
    (7) The Coast Guard Reserve, 9,000.
    The end strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in support of 
the Reserve Components for fiscal year 2013 would be as 
follows:
    (1) The Army National Guard of the United States, 32,060.
    (2) The Army Reserve, 16,277.
    (3) The Navy Reserve, 10,114.
    (4) The Marine Corps Reserve, 2,261.
    (5) The Air National Guard of the United States, 14,952.
    (6) The Air Force Reserve, 2,888.
    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; 
decorations and awards; defense dependents' education and 
military family readiness matters; improved sexual assault 
prevention and response in the Armed Forces; and other matters.
    Title VI addresses compensation and other personnel 
benefits, including pay and allowances; bonuses and special and 
incentive pays; travel and transportation allowances; benefits 
and services for members being separated or recently separated; 
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 reports 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; and other matters.
    Title IX contains Department of Defense organization and 
management provisions, including space activities; 
intelligence-related matters; total force management; 
cyberspace-related matters; and other miscellaneous matters.
    Title X addresses general provisions relating to financial 
matters; counter-drug 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; matters relating to the Islamic 
Republic of Iran; and reports and other matters.
    Title XIII addresses Cooperative Threat Reduction.
    Title XIV would authorize miscellaneous authorizations at 
the levels identified in division D, and also includes 
provisions addressing the National Defense stockpile and other 
matters.
    Title XV includes authorization of appropriations at the 
levels identified in division D for Overseas Contingency 
Operations; provisions relating to financial matters; and 
limitations and other matters.
    Title XVI contains provisions regarding industrial base 
matters.
    Title XVII contains provisions that address trafficking in 
Government contracting.

Division B

    Division B would authorize appropriations at the levels 
identified in division D for military construction and military 
family housing in support of the Active Forces, the Reserve 
Components, the NATO security investment program for fiscal 
year 2013, and base realignment and closure activities. In 
addition, division B contains military construction and family 
housing program changes; real property and facilities 
administration; provisions related to Guam realignment; and 
provisions concerning land conveyances, energy security, and 
other matters.

Division C

    Division C would authorize appropriations at the levels 
identified in division D for Department of Energy national 
security programs for fiscal year 2013. Division C also 
includes authorization for and/or addresses the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board; Naval Petroleum Reserves; and the 
Maritime Administration.

Division D

    Division D 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. 112-479; H. Rept. 112-479 Part 2)

        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

    H. Res. 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 
markup session to consider H. Res. 208. The committee, a quorum 
being present, ordered to be reported H. Res. 208, as amended, 
to the House with a favorable recommendation by a voice vote. 
H. Res. 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 H. Res. 208 was 
amended. On May 12, 2011, H. Res. 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 Representatives


                               H.R. 1246


 TO REDUCE THE AMOUNTS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED TO BE APPROPRIATED TO THE 
          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR PRINTING AND REPRODUCTION

    H.R. 1246 was introduced on March 29, 2011, by 
Representative Allen B. West and was referred to the House 
Committee on Armed Services. Within the committee, the bill was 
referred to the Subcommittee on Readiness. Chairman J. Randy 
Forbes of the Subcommittee on Readiness waived subcommittee 
consideration of H.R. 1246, and Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' 
McKeon waived full committee consideration of the bill. On 
April 4, 2011, Representative West moved to consider H.R. 1246, 
as introduced, under suspension of the rules. The bill passed 
the House by recorded vote, 393-0 (Roll no. 225). On April 5, 
2011, H.R. 1246 was received in the Senate, read twice, and 
referred to the Committee on Armed Services. No further action 
has been taken.
    H.R. 1246 would reduce by 10 percent the amount authorized 
to be appropriated for fiscal year 2012 to the Department of 
Defense for printing and reproduction.

                               H.R. 1339


TO DESIGNATE THE CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS, AS THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE 
                  NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES

    H.R. 1339 was introduced on April 1, 2011, by 
Representative John F. Tierney and was referred to the House 
Committee on Armed Services. On March 28, 2012, Representative 
Todd Russell Platts moved to consider H.R. 1339, as amended, 
under suspension of the rules. The bill passed the House, as 
amended, by recorded vote, 413-6, 4 present (Roll no. 141). On 
March 29, 2012, H.R. 1339 was received in the Senate, read 
twice, and referred to the Senate Committee on Armed Services. 
No further action has been taken.
    H.R. 1339, as passed in the House, would designate Salem, 
Massachusetts, as the birthplace of the National Guard. In 
addition, it would direct the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau to provide military ceremonial support at the dedication 
of any monument, plaque, or other official recognition 
celebrating such designation, and would prohibit Federal funds 
from being used in connection with such recognition.

                               H.R. 2278


TO LIMIT THE USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR 
    UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN SUPPORT OF NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY 
ORGANIZATION OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR WITH RESPECT TO LIBYA, UNLESS 
                OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW

    H.R. 2278 was introduced on June 22, 2011, by 
Representative Thomas J. Rooney and was referred to the House 
Committee on Armed Services. Pursuant to the provisions of H. 
Res. 328, H.R. 2278 was considered in the House under a closed 
rule on June 24, 2011. H. Res. 328 provided 1 hour of debate on 
H.R. 2278 equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. The 
resolution waived all points of order against consideration of 
H.R. 2278 as well as provisions in H.R. 2278, and provided that 
H.R. 2278 shall be considered as read. On June 24, 2011, 
passage of H.R. 2278 failed in the House by recorded vote, 180-
238 (Roll no. 494).
    H.R. 2278 would prohibit, unless otherwise specifically 
authorized by law, funds appropriated or otherwise available to 
the Department of Defense from being obligated or expended for 
U.S. Armed Forces in support of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization Operation Unified Protector with respect to Libya, 
except for: (1) search and rescue; (2) intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance; (3) aerial refueling; and (4) 
operational planning.

                              H.J. RES. 68


   AUTHORIZING THE LIMITED USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES IN 
                  SUPPORT OF THE NATO MISSION IN LIBYA

    H.J. Res. 68, Authorizing the limited use of the United 
States Armed Forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya, 
was introduced on June 22, 2011, by Representative Alcee L. 
Hastings 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 H. Res. 328, H.J. Res. 68 was 
considered in the House under a closed rule on June 24, 2011. 
The resolution provided for 1 hour of debate on H.J. Res. 68 
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. The 
resolution waived all points of order against consideration of 
H.J. Res. 68 as well as all provisions in H.J. Res. 68. On June 
24, 2011, passage of H.J. Res. 68 failed in the House by 
recorded vote, 123-295 (Roll no. 493).

                              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

    H. Res. 292 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 H. Res. 294, H. Res. 292 was considered under a 
closed rule by the House on June 3, 2011. H. Res. 294 waived 
all points of order against consideration of H. Res. 292, and 
provided for 1 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, H. Res. 292 was 
agreed to in the House by recorded vote, 268-145-1 (Roll no. 
441).

                          OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

    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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, is a key 
mechanism through which Congress fulfills one of its primary 
responsibilities as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. H.R. 
4310 includes the large majority of the findings and 
recommendations resulting from the committee's oversight 
activities in the current year, as informed by the experience 
gained over the previous decades of the committee's existence.
    H.R. 4310 reflects the committee's steadfast support of the 
courageous, professional, and dedicated men and women of the 
U.S. Armed Forces and the committee's appreciation for the 
sacrifices they make to accomplish their required missions. 
Events of the last year, ranging f 2(n) from on-going 
operations in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, to support 
for Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, robust counter-terrorism 
efforts around the globe, and time-sensitive disaster and 
humanitarian responses, serve to highlight the U.S. military's 
flexibility and responsiveness in defending the Nation's 
interests and addressing security challenges, wherever and 
whenever they may arise. The committee understands that the 
capabilities of the Armed Forces are underpinned by the 
dedicated civilian employees of the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security 
Administration, as well as the defense industrial base. Each of 
these elements is required to enable the U.S. military to be 
the guarantor of peace and economic security that it has been 
for generations.
    The committee is committed to providing full authorization 
for the funding required for the readiness of our military; to 
enhance the quality of life of military service members and 
their families; to sustain and improve the Armed Forces; and to 
properly safeguard the national security of the United States. 
H.R. 4310 ensures our troops deployed in Afghanistan and around 
the world have the equipment, resources, authorities, training, 
and time needed to successfully complete their missions and 
return home; provides warfighters and their families with the 
resources and support they need, deserve, and have earned; 
invests in the capabilities and force structure needed to 
protect the United States from current and future threats; and 
mandates fiscal responsibility, transparency and accountability 
within the Department of Defense.
    In January 2012, the President and the Secretary of Defense 
released new strategic guidance for the Department of Defense. 
The new guidance is intended to be consistent with the 
anticipated funding available for national defense during the 
next 10 years. The committee held a series of staff briefings 
and member-level briefings to further explore the evolution of 
U.S. defense strategies and budgets, including a closed 
briefing on February 2, 2012, on ``New Strategic Guidance for 
the Department of Defense.'' The committee sought to ensure 
that H.R. 4310 was fully informed by the new defense strategy 
and that appropriate resources were applied to fulfill such a 
strategy.
    Furthermore, the committee continued its oversight of the 
application of defense sequestration in accordance with the 
terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25). 
Unless resolved by a subsequent act of Congress, sequestration 
would result in automatic cuts to the budget of the Department 
of Defense, beginning in January 2013, and would obviate the 
new defense strategic guidance. As the committee explored the 
potential impacts of sequestration to national defense and the 
defense industrial base over the last year, the committee 
focused its most recent oversight efforts on understanding the 
mechanics of sequestration. To that end, on March 27, 2012, the 
committee held a closed briefing on ``Mechanisms of 
Sequestration and its Effect on Defense Operations.''

  Equipment, Resources, Authorities, Training, and Time To Accomplish 
                                Missions

    The committee considers it critical that the capabilities 
and capacity of the Armed Forces continue to improve so they 
can accomplish the full range of diverse missions in the 21st 
century, minimize risks associated with such challenges, and 
effectively engage in hostilities, when necessary, as far from 
American shores as possible. Thus, a top priority remains 
ensuring that military personnel receive the best equipment, 
weapons systems, and training possible. H.R. 4310 provides for 
both near- and longer-term military personnel and force 
structure requirements.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81) reaffirmed the military's authority to 
detain terrorists who are part of or substantially supporting 
Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces. H.R. 4310, through 
the incorporation of the Right to Habeas Corpus Act, affirms 
that any person detained in the United States pursuant to the 
Authorization for Use of Military Force has the right to 
challenge the legality of their detention. The measure also 
includes several additional provisions to strengthen detention 
policies and procedures.
    Additionally, the committee remains concerned about the 
actions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The committee is 
discouraged by Iran's continuing commitment to its nuclear 
weapon program in spite of increasing international pressure 
and sanctions. Therefore, H.R. 4310 seeks to clarify that the 
United States should use all elements of national power, 
including military force if necessary, to prevent Iran from 
threatening the United States, its allies, or its neighbors 
with a nuclear weapon. Moreover, H.R. 4310 would require the 
President to develop a plan to enhance the credibility of U.S. 
military capabilities to counter Iranian military aggression 
and its nuclear weapon program, including military exercises 
and the prepositioning of supplies. The committee is also 
increasingly concerned about instability on the Korean 
peninsula, particularly given anticipated leadership changes 
within the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Therefore, 
the committee seeks to extend the requirement for a detailed 
report on the military and security developments involving 
North Korea in order to more accurately assess U.S. 
capabilities required in the western Pacific. Also included in 
H.R. 4310 is a requirement for the Commander, U.S. Pacific 
Command to provide an annex to this report that identifies any 
gaps in intelligence, capabilities, capacity, or authority to 
address threats from North Korea. As in previous years, the 
committee continues to address the Department of Defense's 
global train and equip authorities, to ensure that the United 
States has willing and capable partners in the war against 
terrorism and radical extremism.
    With the Nation at war, but still preparing for an 
uncertain future security environment, the committee further 
addresses adversarial use of the Internet as a new battle 
space. The committee included a provision in H.R. 4310 that 
would affirm the Department's authority to use cyberspace to 
confront certain threats. The committee also maintains a focus 
on increasing oversight of cyberspace operations, as well as 
fostering a better understanding of the challenges facing the 
Department when operating in cyberspace by also calling for 
quarterly operational briefings, an assessment of the legal 
authorities and policy challenges in conducting full spectrum 
cyber operations, and a briefing on the National Guard's role 
in providing cyber defense capabilities.
    Additionally, the committee is aware that the ballistic 
missile threat continues to increase both qualitatively and 
quantitatively. Therefore, H.R. 4310 would provide additional 
resources for development, testing, and fielding of missile 
defenses to protect the U.S. homeland, including a new East 
Coast site for missile defense, and support the implementation 
of the Administration's European phased adaptive approach for 
missile defense, with increased focus on equitable distribution 
of the costs of the system with our allies who would benefit 
from its defense capability. The committee believes that a 
credible and reliable nuclear deterrent has been fundamental to 
U.S. security for decades and will continue to be for the 
foreseeable future. As such, the committee recommends 
additional funding beyond the President's request to meet the 
promised level of funding for nuclear modernization activities, 
including nuclear warhead life extension programs, consistent 
with the Administration's pledge during the 2009-10 
consultations with the U.S. Senate in preparation for the 
ratification of the New START Treaty (Treaty Doc. 111-5). In 
addition, H.R. 4310 would provide funding for the next 
generation ballistic missile submarine, require the next 
generation bomber to be nuclear-capable, and require that the 
Administration ensure the next generation cruise missile be 
nuclear-capable. Moreover, H.R. 4310 would make significant 
changes to governance, management, and oversight of the 
Nation's nuclear security enterprise.

                            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; family of mine resistant ambush 
protected (MRAP) vehicle production and fielding to include 
underbody improvement kits; 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.
    During the 112th Congress, the committee, through formal 
activity to include hearings, classified briefings, and 
interaction with Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
auditors, continued to maintain rigorous oversight of the Joint 
IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO), the Department of Defense's 
(DOD's) focal point for the battle against IEDs, during the 
112th Congress. To date, Congress has provided approximately 
$25.0 billion to JIEDDO to address the IED threat through 
JIEDDO's three main objectives: attacking the network, 
defeating the device, and training the force. 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 (C-IED) 
technologies to the military services, and why JIEDDO is not 
actively leading all DOD C-IED efforts. The committee continued 
to work with JIEDDO and the GAO to require DOD development of a 
comprehensive counter-IED program database that would 
effectively track and manage all DOD counter-IED efforts. 
Further, the committee continued to receive monthly updates on 
JIEDDO's financial management and funding rates of obligation 
and execution. Committee staff also visited the JIEDDO Counter-
IED Operations/Intelligence Center to continue oversight 
activities and review potential duplication of effort.
    The committee continued to have concerns regarding the 
Department's ability to effectively combat and counter the IED 
threat, specifically in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. 
During the 112th Congress, the committee 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, the committee indicated 
that the number of dismounted operations conducted by U.S. and 
coalition forces continued to rise in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan. The committee noted that although overall enemy 
IED effectiveness 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 cited DOD efforts to mitigate the IED 
threat to dismounted forces as a top priority. The committee 
continued to receive monthly updates on the Department of 
Defense's efforts to mitigate the IED threat to dismounted 
operations. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) authorized $2.5 billion for 
JIEDDO and continued to require the Director of JIEDDO to 
report to the congressional defense committees on monthly 
obligation rates. H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, would 
authorize $1.9 billion, the full amount requested for JIEDDO. 
H.R. 4310 would also broaden the scope of monthly reporting 
requirements to improve the committee's ability to conduct 
oversight.
    The committee continued to devote substantial attention to 
the oversight of individual body armor and personnel protection 
programs through: legislation; informal and formal discussions 
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army and Marine 
Corps senior leadership; briefings and hearings; coordination 
with GAO audit teams; and other formal and informal activities. 
The committee continued to maintain interest in: significant 
ergonomic and ballistic improvements to current body armor 
systems to include body armor specifically designed for female 
service-members, pelvic protection and ballistic undergarments, 
combat helmet technology and ballistic protection for the face; 
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 standardization, fidelity, and 
transparency in body armor test and evaluation procedures and 
encouraged the validation of operationally realistic 
performance specification requirements. In the committee report 
(H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directed 
the Department of Defense to adequately plan, program, and 
budget for body armor and personnel protection programs as a 
specific area of research and development. In H. Rept. 112-479, 
the committee also noted that the total body armor program has 
evolved from a $40.0 million program in 1999, to over $6.0 
billion through 2012. The committee noted that maintaining a 
cost-effective body armor industrial base sufficient to meet 
strategic objectives, should continue to be an important 
consideration when developing current and future acquisition 
strategies for all body armor components. H.R. 4310 would 
authorize $227.0 million for fiscal year 2013, the full amount 
requested for body armor.

              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. The committee held related hearings 
including on June 22, 2011, on the evolution of the terrorist 
threat since 9/11, and on March 27, 2012, on understanding 
future irregular warfare challenges. Members received testimony 
on Special Operations Forces and emerging threats from Admiral 
Eric Olson, Commander, U.S. Special Operations Command 
(USSOCOM) during the fiscal year 2012 USSOCOM posture hearing 
on March 3, 2011, and from Admiral William McRaven, Commander, 
U.S. Special Operations Command during the fiscal year 2013 
SOCOM posture hearing on March 7, 2012.
    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; 
a classified briefing on Al Qaeda on October 4, 2011; a 
classified briefing on counter-terrorism Policy and initiatives 
in Yemen, Somalia, and the region on November 17, 2011; a 
classified briefing on global counter-terrorism operations on 
March 4, 2012; and a classified briefing on global counter-
terrorism operations on June 7, 2012.
    H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House, contained several 
provisions related to terrorism, emerging threats, building 
partnership capabilities, and counter-proliferation 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 1233 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; a provision requiring the Department 
of State to determine if Boko Haram qualifies for Foreign 
Terrorist Organization status; a provision authorizing an 
increase in the number of National Guard Civil Support Teams; 
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.
    Public Law 112-81 affirmed the authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to conduct military activities in cyberspace; and 
extended the authority for the Department of Defense to make 
rewards to persons providing information and non-lethal aid to 
U.S. personnel through September 30, 2013.
    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 
elsewhere in this report.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-14; H.A.S.C. 112-123; H.A.S.C. 112-112)

       Detainee Policy, Military Commissions, and Related Matters

    The committee continued to conduct extensive oversight over 
detainee policy, military commissions, and related matters. In 
particular, the committee conducted numerous member and staff 
level briefings. While much of the committee's oversight of 
detainee issues was conducted in classified form, committee 
members and staff generally focused on issues relating to the 
legal authorities under which detention operations are 
undertaken, policies regarding future captures, reengagement 
amongst former detainees, resources devoted to the Office of 
Military Commissions, and detention operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan.
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, contained numerous 
legislative provisions relating to detainee policy. 
Specifically, H.R. 4310 includes provisions that would affirm 
the availability of the writ of habeas corpus for any person 
detained in the United States pursuant to the Authorization for 
Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); prohibit travel to 
the United States by Guantanamo detainees repatriated to the 
Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands; prohibit the use of funds to 
construct or modify facilities in the United States to house 
detainees held at U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; 
prohibit transfers or releases of Guantanamo and certain other 
detainees to the United States; require rigorous certification 
requirements for certain transfers or releases of Guantanamo 
detainees elsewhere overseas; require reports on recidivism of 
Guantanamo detainees; require notice and a report on the use of 
naval vessels for detention of individuals captured outside 
Afghanistan pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force; require notice to transfer of certain individuals 
detained at the Detention Facility at Parwan, Afghanistan; and 
require a report on recidivism of individuals formerly detained 
at the Detention Facility at Parwan.

                                  Asia

    The Department of Defense's new strategic guidance 
recognizes the importance of the Asia-Pacific region to the 
economic and security interests of the United States. Two of 
the world's four largest economies are in the region and 
approximately 40 percent of the world's trade passes through 
the Strait of Malacca. Regional stability and open sea lanes of 
communication are vital to the global and U.S. economies. The 
committee supports the renewed focus on the Asia-Pacific 
region, but continues to request further specific details on 
the strategy, including how each of the services will support 
the strategy and ensure the needs of the combatant commander to 
respond to crises are fulfilled.
    The committee focused its oversight on the rebalancing 
effort through several hearings, as discussed elsewhere in this 
report, a classified briefing on current operations and 
intelligence in the Asia-Pacific region, and numerous staff-
level briefings on current and future U.S. force posture in the 
region, the U.S. Marine Corps rotational deployment to 
Australia, the future forward deployment of the Littoral Combat 
Ship (LCS) to Singapore, and other regional developments 
affecting U.S. national security interests. The committee 
believes the new rotational deployments of the Marines and the 
forward deployment of the LCS are steps towards building, 
strengthening, and deepening the military-to-military 
relationship with regional allies and partners.
    The committee addressed oversight mechanisms in H.R. 4310, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
passed by the House. Section 1231 of H.R. 4310 would modify the 
requirements for the ``Annual Report on Military and Security 
Developments Involving the People's Republic of China,'' adding 
assessments of space and cyber strategies, goals, and 
capabilities of the People's Liberation Army. The provision 
would also require the Commander, U.S. Pacific Command to 
provide an assessment of gaps in intelligence, capabilities, 
capacity, and authorities to address challenges from the 
People's Republic of China. Section 1232 of H.R. 4310 would 
require the Secretary of Defense to submit a second report on 
the military and security developments involving the Democratic 
People's Republic of Korea, which would be due on November 1, 
2013. The section would also require the Commander, U.S. 
Pacific Command to provide an assessment of gaps in 
intelligence, capabilities, capacity, and authorities to 
counter North Korean threats to U.S. Armed Forces and interests 
in the region.

     Security Assistance and Partnerships in the Middle East Region

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee noted the challenges with respect to military-to-
military and security force assistance efforts. The committee 
acknowledged the significant improvements that have resulted 
from U.S. investments in the capacity of partner nations to 
conduct counter-terrorism, stability, counter-narcotics, and 
related operations. The committee further noted that 
partnership building activities are instrumental to the ability 
of the United States military to defend the homeland and to 
conserve its fiscal resources. Nevertheless, as the investment 
in these programs has increased, the committee wanted to ensure 
that the Department of Defense fully addressed the challenges 
to military-to-military and security-related assistance. Among 
these challenges is the potential of creating negative 
incentive structures for nations seeking such assistance, which 
may adversely affect their internal political environment. In 
particular, the committee desired to ensure these military-to-
military and security force assistance efforts are not causing 
certain parties, who become insulated from risk, to behave 
differently from how they would behave if they were fully 
exposed to the risk. Therefore, the committee directed the 
Comptroller General of the United States to provide a briefing 
to the House Committee on Armed Services on the procedures the 
Department of Defense has in place to control for the 
challenges inherent to the provision of assistance and 
associated efforts to foreign partners.
    Additionally, the committee supported the longstanding 
partnership between the United States and the Kingdom of 
Bahrain and noted that Naval Support Activity-Bahrain is a 
valuable strategic asset for the United States and a key 
component of continued mutually beneficial United States-
Bahrain strategic cooperation. While reaffirming its commitment 
to the United States-Bahrain partnership, the committee called 
upon Bahrain to continue to support protections of human rights 
and reduce sectarian divisions in all facets of society. The 
committee also commended Bahrain for establishing the Bahrain 
Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI). The committee further 
commended Bahrain for establishing a National Commission to 
implement the BICI's recommendations to expand political rights 
and reduce sectarian divisions in Bahrain. The committee 
asserted that peaceful resolution of domestic political 
disputes and the implementation of meaningful political reforms 
that uphold the rights of all Bahraini citizens will facilitate 
further strengthening of the United States-Bahrain strategic 
partnership.
    Finally, the committee expressed support for the U.S. Armed 
Forces security cooperation efforts with the Hashemite Kingdom 
of Jordan, including the development of interoperability, 
augmentation self-defense capability, and support of their 
deployment capability.

                          Continent of Africa

    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee noted the efforts of the Department of Defense and 
U.S. Africa Command, consistent with the Lord's Resistance Army 
Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act of 2009 (Public 
Law 111-172), to assist the Ugandan People's Defense Force as 
they combat the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and attempt to 
bring Joseph Kony to justice. The committee viewed the 
deployment of approximately 100 U.S. Special Operations Forces 
personnel in support of this mission as a step in addressing a 
2 decade reign of terror that has killed and brutalized 
thousands while destabilizing the region. The committee noted 
that Congress has provided the authority in section 1206 of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81) to support this effort and commended it to the 
attention of the Secretary of Defense. Additionally, the 
committee also cautioned that special operations forces should 
be employed judiciously and within circumstances that fully 
leverage the unique skill sets that these highly trained units 
possess, in keeping with important U.S. national security 
interests.
    The committee further noted that stability in Africa is in 
the United States' national interest. Supporting justice, human 
rights, and poverty reduction, as well as facilitating access 
of African goods and services to world markets, brings 
stability to the region that could have a positive impact upon 
the United States and our global partners. Therefore, the 
committee encouraged the Administration to continue its 
interagency approach to stabilization efforts and security 
sector reform programs across the region, including the 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, 
and South Sudan, among others. The committee encouraged the 
Administration to use the authorities granted by the Global 
Security Contingency Fund, which was crafted for this sort of 
multi-faceted security challenge. The committee noted that the 
Administration has used the Global Train and Equip authority 
(i.e. ``1206'') for this purpose, but cautioned that this was a 
special case use of that authority.
    Additionally, the committee focused oversight efforts 
towards the positioning of the U.S. Africa Command 
headquarters. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an analysis of the placement of the headquarters of the 
U.S. Africa Command and to report the findings to the 
congressional defense committees by April 1, 2012. The 
committee was disappointed that the report was not completed by 
that deadline, but has granted the Secretary of Defense an 
extension through July 1, 2012. In H. Rept. 112-479, the 
committee expressed that the establishment of U.S. Africa 
Command as a geographic combatant command was an appropriate 
response to meet the national security challenges originating 
in, and transiting through, the African region. The committee 
also believes that the physical location of the command's 
headquarters must balance operational requirements with 
resource constraints to enable the command to function both 
effectively and efficiently. Therefore, the committee directed 
the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
comprehensive analysis of options for the permanent placement 
of the U.S. Africa Command headquarters. The committee 
requested that the study consider locations both in the United 
States and overseas, or a combination thereof.
    Finally, the committee noted that the execution of 
Operation Unified Protector led to the ousting of Muammar 
Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi, former leader of Libya. While 
the committee celebrated the ousting of Gaddafi, it expressed 
concern that this multi-lateral operation, which was conducted 
in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
(NATO), was unable to be initiated, executed, or sustained 
without robust operational and logistical support from the 
United States. The committee asserted that the President and 
the Secretary of Defense must rigorously consider when to join 
future operations with NATO and expressed that these operations 
will continue to require a significant resource contribution 
from the United States. Moreover, the committee expressed 
concern for the democratic transition and future in Libya.

                                 Syria

    The committee conducted regular oversight of the evolving 
security situation in the Syrian Arab Republic, including staff 
level briefings and a full committee hearing, described 
elsewhere in this report.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee noted with grave concern that the conflict in the 
Syrian Arab Republic has now entered its second year. President 
Assad's crackdown has been ruthless, including flagrant human 
rights violations; extrajudicial killings; use of force against 
noncombatant civilians, including children; and interference 
with the provision of medical aid and humanitarian assistance. 
Although a tenuous ceasefire has been put in place, instances 
of violence continue. The committee is concerned that the 
situation remains both uncertain and dire.
    The committee also expressed concern about the implications 
for regional conflict. Assad-backed military units have shot 
across the border into Syrian refugee camps located in the 
Republic of Turkey, killing five individuals. Violence spilled 
into the Lebanese Republic as well. Moreover, the committee 
expressed that the situation in Syria could present a strategic 
opportunity to deal a blow to known supporters of terrorism in 
the region, as the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to back 
the Assad Government, and groups such as Hezbollah have enjoyed 
support and residence in Syria.
    The President has stated that the violence in Syria must 
end and that Assad must go. However, the committee remains 
concerned that the means available to achieve such goal may be 
insufficient. The committee noted that much remains unknown 
about the opposition and that Syria maintains robust air 
defenses that limit military options. Given these factors and 
the significant budget constraints facing the military, the 
committee acknowledged that United States military intervention 
is not a viable option at this time. The committee further 
asserted that such a decision should only be taken in the event 
U.S. vital national security interests are at stake. In the 
interim, the committee encouraged the Secretary of Defense and 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to conduct robust 
planning to provide the President an array of options, should 
such U.S. interests be threatened.

                                  Iran

    The committee continued to conduct oversight of the growing 
threat of the Islamic Republic of Iran to United States 
interests, U.S. allies, and Iran's neighbors posed by Iran's 
pursuit of a nuclear weapon. A number of staff-level and 
member-level briefings were held, including a classified 
briefing on security and economic developments concerning Iran 
on January 18, 2012. Further, on January 25, 2012, the 
committee held a briefing in closed session regarding ongoing 
Middle East Intelligence and Operations. As described elsewhere 
in this report, additional hearings were held in relation to 
Iran, including the testimony of the commander of U.S. Central 
Command.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee noted that Iran has long sought to foment instability 
and promote extremism throughout the Middle East and may soon 
attain a nuclear weapons capability. Section 1221 of H.R. 4310 
would state that it is the policy of the United States to take 
all necessary measures, including military action if necessary, 
to prevent Iran from threatening the United States, its allies, 
and the Middle East with a nuclear weapon. Section 1222 of H.R. 
4310 would direct the Secretary of Defense to prepare and 
submit a plan to Congress to enhance the presence of the U.S. 
5th Fleet in the Middle East and conduct military deployments, 
exercises, or other visible, concrete military readiness 
activities as a demonstration of U.S. policy. Additional 
provisions would require the development of plans to support 
the capabilities of the State of Israel, other regional allies, 
and the development of strategic partnerships to expand the 
geographic approaches to Iran. Moreover, section 1223 of H.R. 
4310 would modify the annual report on military power of Iran 
by requiring the Commander, U.S. Central Command to include a 
classified or unclassified annex with an identification and 
assessment of critical gaps in intelligence, capabilities, 
capacity, and authorities, needed to counter threats from Iran 
to the United States, its allies, and its interests in the 
region.

                        Afghanistan and Pakistan

    The committee maintained its focus on efforts to disrupt, 
dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in the Islamic Republic of 
Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as well as 
the transition of security responsibilities from international 
forces to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). The 
committee's oversight activities included staff and member-
level briefings, including a briefing in closed session on 
February 16, 2012, concerning Afghanistan and Pakistan 
Intelligence and Operations. As well, a number of hearings were 
held to conduct further oversight on current operations, 
described elsewhere in this report.
    In addition, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, contains a 
number of authorities and mechanisms that further congressional 
oversight of our operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. H.R. 
4310 would reauthorize the Commanders' Emergency Response 
Program (CERP), reintegration activities in Afghanistan, and 
support to coalition forces. The committee supported the 
International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF) mission and 
directed the Secretary of Defense to conduct an analysis of 
corruption within Afghanistan related to the stewardship of 
U.S. provided funds. The committee applauds the Department of 
Defense and ISAF for efforts to develop the ANSF, the Afghan 
National Army (ANA), and Afghan National Police (ANP) and 
required the development of additional metrics to further 
assess progress as coalition forces redeploy. Likewise, the 
committee noted that the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan 
will evolve over the next several years as the ANSF takes more 
responsibility for security and U.S. forces become more limited 
in size and mission after 2014. Therefore, the committee 
directed the Comptroller General of the United States to study 
the nature and extent of Department planning for the U.S. role 
in Afghanistan post-2014.
    The committee expressed concern over Afghanistan's control 
of its border areas with Pakistan. The committee encouraged the 
United States and Pakistan to continue to improve partnership, 
but also required the Secretary of Defense to certify key 
aspects of the partnership with Pakistan before providing 
reimbursements to Pakistan through the Coalition Support Fund. 
The committee expressed concern about Pakistan's closure of the 
Ground Lines of Communication (GLOC) and encouraged the 
Government of Pakistan to reconsider its closure of the supply 
routes into Afghanistan. Section 1217 of H.R. 4310 also would 
extend the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund (PCF) through fiscal 
year 2013 and limit the authority of the Secretary of Defense 
to obligate or expend funds made available to the PCF during 
fiscal year 2013 to not more than 10 percent of the amount 
available, until such time as an updated report is submitted to 
Congress that includes the strategy and metrics used to 
determine progress with respect to the fund.
    Section 1533 of H.R. 4310 would extend the existing 
limitations on Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) through 
fiscal year 2013. Additionally, section 1533 would impose a 
limitation on the use of ASFF for the Afghan Public Protection 
Force (APPF). Section 1214 would prohibit the obligation or 
expenditure of funds appropriated to the Department of Defense 
for the purpose of contracting for security-guard functions at 
a military installation or facility in Afghanistan at which 
members of the armed forces deployed to Afghanistan are 
garrisoned or housed; are otherwise employing private security 
contractors to provide security for members of the Armed Forces 
deployed to Afghanistan; or are employing the Afghan Public 
Protection Force to provide security for such members or to 
perform security-guard functions at a military installation or 
facility. This section would further require the U.S. Armed 
Forces to provide such functions organically and for the 
President to provide sufficient members of the Armed Forces to 
ensure that such duties do not detract from other missions in 
Afghanistan. The section would also authorize the President to 
waive the requirements of this section if the President 
certifies that private security contractors or the APPF can 
provide at least equivalent security force protection as 
members of the Armed Forces and that such contractors or APPF 
are independently screened and vetted by the Armed Forces.
    Additionally, H.R. 4310 would extend the authority for Task 
Force Business Stability Operations (TFBSO) but narrowed the 
scope of authorized projects to those associated with 
Afghanistan's mining and natural resource industries. The 
measure would also reduce the amount of funds authorized for 
TFBSO to $50.0 million for fiscal year 2013. TFBSO funds are 
restricted from being obligated or expended until such time as 
the Secretary notifies the appropriate congressional committees 
that the activities of the Task Force will be transitioned to 
the Department of State by September 30, 2013.

                                  Iraq

    Although U.S. forces deployed to the Republic of Iraq are 
limited to those associated with the Office of Security 
Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I), the committee continues to conduct 
oversight of the security environment in the Republic of Iraq 
and the activities of OSC-I. A number of staff-level briefings 
were conducted on this subject, as well as additional oversight 
at the hearing with the Commander of U.S. Central Command, 
described elsewhere in this report.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee expressed concern regarding the Islamic Republic of 
Iran's influence within Iraq. Iran projects political and 
social influence as well as covert support for militant groups 
that undermine U.S. policy goals in the region. Likewise, the 
committee noted the importance of the stability and security of 
the Republic of Iraq and expressed concerns about ``essential 
gaps'' in Iraqi Security Forces capabilities. Section 1212 of 
H.R. 4310 would specify that the Secretary of Defense, with the 
concurrence of the Secretary of State, may use funds provided 
to OSC-I to provide training and assistance to Iraqi Ministry 
of Defense personnel. The section would also limit the total 
funding authorized for OSC-I to $508.0 million for fiscal year 
2013. The committee encouraged OSC-I to minimize unnecessary 
staffing or overhead, to provide adequate force protection, and 
to address the Iraqi Security Forces capability gaps.

        Organization and Management of the Department of Defense

    The committee continued to undertake a 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. The 
committee examined the need for changes to the organization and 
management of the Department in light of the new defense 
strategic guidance issued in January 2012. In particular, the 
committee remains 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. In light of enacted budget cuts to 
the Department of Defense and the new defense strategic 
guidance, the committee believes it is more important than ever 
to ensure any reductions to military or civilian end strength 
are made only following a thorough review of the total force. 
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. 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.

                         Total Force Management

    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81) directed the Department of Defense to shift 
its focus from solely managing to budgetary targets and take a 
holistic approach to its manpower requirements. The Secretary 
of Defense was required to develop a total force management 
plan to establish the balance of manpower to complete the 
Department's mission in consideration of the distinct role of 
each component of the plan depending on if military, civilian, 
or contractor personnel are involved. The budget request for 
fiscal year 2013, however, did not reflect this holistic 
approach. As a result, the committee has tasked the Comptroller 
General of the United States to review and report on the 
measures the Department is taking to balance its workforce 
structure, the process the Department uses to identify its 
civilian workforce requirements, the analysis the Department 
conducted in order to identify core or critical functions and 
which personnel should carry them out, the role of the Under 
Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) in determining workforce 
levels, and how the defense agencies and military departments 
used the inventory of contracted services in inform their 
fiscal year 2013 and 2014 budget submissions.
    In addition, the committee included a provision in H.R. 
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013, as passed by the House, that would limit funding for 
certain other contracts or other services until the Secretary 
of Defense certifies that the collection of data for the 
purpose of developing an inventory of contract services 
required by section 2330a of title 10, United States Code, has 
begun. In addition, the committee included two provisions in 
H.R. 4310 which would require the Secretaries of the military 
departments or head of a defense agency to ensure that 
sufficient levels of government management, control and 
oversight are in place in cases where contractor personnel are 
performing functions that are closely associated with 
inherently governmental functions.

                    Defense Supply Chain Management

    The committee remains concerned that the authority for 
critical materials policy is diffused throughout the Department 
of Defense into offices that inadequately oversee this policy. 
For example, section 187 of title 10, United States Code, 
establishes a Strategic Materials Protection Board and charges 
the Board with identifying and proposing risk mitigation steps 
for such materials, but the Board has not met in accordance 
with statutory requirements and, in its tenure, has only 
labeled one material as critical, despite the reality of a 
complex global supply chain for many materials upon which the 
Department of Defense relies. Likewise, the Defense Logistics 
Agency has done little to respond to the recommendations from 
the Department's April 2009 report ``Reconfiguration of the 
National Defense Stockpile Report to Congress''. The committee 
also notes that the focus of the Office of Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy 
continues to be on the capability and viability of original 
equipment manufacturers and prime contractors, to the exclusion 
of the raw materials suppliers and other critical segments of 
the supply chain that support the defense industrial base. The 
committee believes that centralizing and focusing policy for 
supply of critical materials within the greater industrial base 
strategy of the Department should aid in mitigating some of the 
risk of supply chain interruption. Therefore, the committee 
included a provision in H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
that would expand the role and responsibility of the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Industrial Base 
Policy and to restructure the Strategic Materials Protection 
Board in order to create a balanced approach that looks at the 
supply chain issues from the bottom up, and gives a top-down 
view from prime contractors.

               Requirements Development and Certification

    The committee remains concerned that the Department of 
Defense lacks discipline and accountability in developing 
requirements for equipping the force. The committee is aware 
that this weakness has led to cost and schedule overruns on 
many programs and believes that requirements development is 
paramount to successful acquisition outcomes. Therefore, the 
committee included a provision in H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by 
the House, that would amend section 153 of title 10, United 
States Code, to clarify the role of the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff in identifying, assessing, and approving 
military requirements to meet the national military strategy, 
and in ensuring that life-cycle cost, schedule, and performance 
objectives are achieved in the acquisition of material 
solutions to meet such requirements. The provision would also 
amend section 181 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify 
the role of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in 
assisting the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in these 
matters. Additionally, the provision would amend section 2547 
of title 10, United States Code, to clarify the role of the 
Chiefs of the Armed Forces in the development and certification 
of requirements for equipping the Armed Force concerned.

                    National Security Space Programs

    The committee has continued close oversight of national 
security space programs and is concerned that space and ground 
segments of multiple major defense acquisition programs are not 
sufficiently synchronized. To place greater management focus on 
this issue, the committee included a provision in H.R. 4310, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
passed by the House, that would require the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to submit an 
annual assessment of the synchronization of satellite, ground, 
and user terminal segments of space major defense acquisition 
programs.

                  FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EFFICIENCY


        Fiscal Responsibility, Transparency, and Accountability

    The committee scrutinized the Department of Defense's 
budget and identified inefficiencies to capture and reinvest 
savings into higher national security priorities. H.R. 4310, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
passed by the House, reflects the fact that the Nation must 
examine every aspect of the defense enterprise to find ways to 
accomplish the mission of providing for the common defense more 
effectively. Over the past year, in order to enhance the 
committee's oversight of fiscal responsibility within the 
Department of Defense and to identify opportunities to prevent 
waste, fraud, and abuse, the committee established both the 
Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform 
and the Panel on Business Challenges Within the Defense 
Industry, which examined the role of defense regulations and 
the defense auditing agencies. The findings of both panels have 
guided the committee's consideration of legislation included in 
H.R. 4310.

                          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. The 
Department's inability to produce auditable financial 
statements undermines its efforts to reform defense acquisition 
processes and to realize efficiencies. 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, including 
its efforts to meet the Secretary of Defense's goal of 
achieving audit readiness on the Statement of Budgetary 
Resources by 2014, 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. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) contained several provisions to 
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. Public Law 112-81 
also included a provision that directed the Comptroller General 
to assess the extent to which the Department is tracking and 
realizing savings proposed pursuant to the Secretary's 
efficiencies initiatives through fiscal year 2016. In addition, 
the committee organized the Panel on Defense Financial 
Management and Auditability Reform pursuant to Committee rule 
5(a) to carry out a comprehensive review of the Department's 
financial management system. The review was initiated to 
oversee the Department's financial management system's capacity 
for providing timely, reliable, and useful information for 
decision making and reporting. The panel performed a 6-month 
review, holding eight hearings and two briefings covering a 
broad range of issues in defense financial management. It 
delivered its final findings and recommendations to the full 
committee on January 24, 2012. The panel's recommendations 
served as the basis for provisions included in H.R. 4310, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
passed by the House.

                           Acquisition Issues


Acquisition System and Acquisition Policy

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Defense'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. The committee continues to 
believe that competition in procurement actions can reduce 
costs, improve contractor performance, and result in a better 
product being delivered to our warfighters. However, the 
committee has been provided little evidence that the Department 
of Defense is introducing more competition in procurement and 
sustainment activities as required by Weapon Systems 
Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-23). In H.R. 
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013, as passed by the House on May 18, 2012, the committee 
includes a provision that would prohibit the Secretary of 
Defense from obligating or expending more than 80 percent of 
the funds authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense for fiscal year 2013, until such time as 
the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees 
that the Department is implementing the requirements of section 
202(d) of Public Law 111-23, as amended. The committee also 
seeks to enhance the role of product support managers for major 
weapon systems and includes a provision in H.R. 4310 that 
requires the use advanced predictive analysis technologies to 
improve material availability and reliability, increase 
operational availability rates, and reduce operation and 
sustainment costs of major weapon systems.
    Additionally, the committee continues to remain concerned 
about the risk of counterfeit parts in the defense supply chain 
and, in particular, the risk posed by growing obsolescence of 
parts required by many of our aging weapon systems. Section 818 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81) took steps to reduce the presence, and 
associated risks, of counterfeit electronic parts in the supply 
chain. The committee built on this effort in H.R. 4310 by 
including a provision that would further assist the Department 
of Defense in holding accountable those who fail to implement 
avoidance and detection systems, obtain counterfeit parts from 
untrustworthy sources without implementing additional detection 
strategies, or fail to notify the government of counterfeits 
once they have knowledge.

Rapid Acquisition Authority and Joint Urgent Operational Needs Process

    The committee continued its oversight of the urgent 
operational needs (UONS) and rapid acquisition processes across 
the Department of Defense and the military services. The 
committee continued to engage the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense and the military services with formal requests for 
information regarding the processes used to address UONS 
through official correspondence and classified briefings. At 
the request of the committee, the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) has completed a number of reviews of Department of 
Defense rapid acquisition, quick reaction, and counter-
improvised explosive device (C-IED) programs. In each review, 
GAO concluded that the Department does not have a comprehensive 
policy or process to oversee the variety of programs and 
projects established to respond to urgently needed capabilities 
requested by the warfighter in overseas contingency operations.
    Section 902 of H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior 
official to be the focal point within Department to lead its 
urgent operational needs and rapid acquisition efforts. This 
official would ensure that all tools and mechanisms are being 
used to track, monitor, and manage the status of urgent 
operational needs, from validation through the transition, 
including a formal feedback mechanism or channel for the 
military services to provide feedback on how well fielded 
solutions met urgent operational needs. Section 831 expanded 
the scope of the ongoing comprehensive bottom-up review 
required by section 804 of the Ike Skelton National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383) of 
the Department's rapid acquisition processes used for 
fulfilling urgent operational needs.
    Furthermore, in the report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying 
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, the committee recommended consolidating programs and 
processes established to rapidly develop and field solutions 
for units in combat and combatant commands. The committee noted 
that given the escalating budgetary challenges, the committee 
believes 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 needs requests from the warfighter. 
H.R. 4310 would authorize $50.0 million for a joint urgent 
operational needs fund, a reduction of $150.0 million from the 
fiscal year 2013 budget 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 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.

Defense Industrial Base Matters

    The committee is aware that the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy is 
undertaking an effort to conduct a comprehensive, repeatable, 
and fact based approach to mapping the defense industrial base. 
The ``Sector-by-Sector, Tier-by-Tier'' (S2T2) review is aimed 
at creating a common taxonomy across multiple sectors of the 
industrial base to better identify and quantify the defense 
industrial base. The committee is encouraged by this effort and 
believes that both the Department of Defense and the industrial 
base would benefit from the identification of early-warning 
indicators of risk, single points of failure, and areas where 
the Department has an over-reliance on foreign sourcing. The 
committee is aware that the drawdown of operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan has caused, and will continue to cause, 
manufacturing workload to diminish. The committee believes this 
diminished workload and workforce reductions ultimately could 
lead to the loss of critical industrial base capabilities. 
Furthermore, the committee believes the Secretary of Defense 
should expand efforts to identify and consider critical 
manufacturing capabilities across the various components of the 
industrial base in the public and private sectors and to 
evaluate workload requirements for sustaining critical 
activities across the industrial base to support military 
operations. Therefore, the committee included a provision in 
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, as passed by the House, which would amend section 
2501 of title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary 
of Defense to develop a national security strategy for the 
technology and industrial base. The provision would require 
that the strategy ensure the national technology and industrial 
base is capable of supplying, equipping, and supporting the 
force structure necessary to achieve the objectives set forth 
in the national security strategy. The provision would also 
codify the requirements of section 852(c) of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81), relating to a strategy for securing the defense supply 
chain and industrial base, within section 2504 of title 10, 
United States Code. Finally, the provision would amend section 
2440 of title 10, United States Code, to clarify that the 
national technology and industrial base strategy developed 
pursuant to section 2501 of such title be considered in the 
development and implementation of acquisition plans for each 
major defense acquisition program
    Furthermore, based on the findings and recommendations of 
the committee's Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense 
Industry, the committee includes several provisions in H.R. 
4310 regarding the defense industrial base and the activities 
of the Department of Defense related to small businesses. One 
such provision would require the establishment of a pilot 
program within the Department of Defense to assist in the 
growth and development of advanced small business concerns. 
Under the pilot program, competition for contract awards could 
be restricted to advanced small business concerns under certain 
conditions. Additionally, the committee included a provision 
that would require the Secretary of Defense to designate an 
official in each defense audit agency to advise the director of 
the respective agency on all issues related to small business 
concerns and to develop and implement processes and procedures 
to improve the performance of the agency related to the 
timeliness of audits of small businesses. In addition, the 
committee directed the Inspector General of the Department of 
Defense to conduct a review of the Department's compliance with 
current laws and regulations related to intellectual property 
rights and to provide recommendations to committee based on the 
findings of the review.

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.
    Public Law 112-81 included a provision directing the 
Comptroller General of the United States to report on the major 
automated information system programs of the Department of 
Defense, and a provision extending the Defense mentor-protege 
program through September 30, 2018; a provision updating and 
clarifying the management of Department of Defense business 
systems; and clarifying language for key milestones and 
definitions for business information technology systems.
    The committee included several legislative provisions 
related to information technology in H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by 
the House, to include: a provision that would direct a report 
on three-dimensional integrated circuit manufacturing 
capabilities; a provision that would direct the designation of 
a senior Department of Defense official for enterprise resource 
planning system data conversion; a provision that would require 
a report on providing telecommunications services to uniformed 
personnel transiting through foreign airports; and a 
modification to the existing requirement on data center 
consolidation.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee also included several directives related to 
information technology, including a briefing on design research 
to improve safety of health information technology, a report on 
risk mitigation for enterprise planning systems; and a report 
on testing of information system controls for enterprise 
resource planning systems.

Incentivizing Competition

    The committee remains steadfast in its belief that 
competition reduces costs, increases quality, and improves 
vendor performance. For this reason, the committee recommends a 
provision that would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from 
obligating or expending more than 80 percent of the funds 
authorized to be appropriated for the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense for fiscal year 2013, until such time as the 
Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees 
that the Department of Defense is implementing the requirements 
of section 202(d) of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 
of 2009 (Public Law 111-23), as amended. This section would 
also require that the certification be accompanied by a 
briefing to the congressional defense committees on the 
processes and procedures that have been implemented across the 
military departments and defense agencies to maximize 
competition throughout the life-cycle of major defense 
acquisition programs.
    Similarly, the committee believes that assured access to 
space remains critical to national security and the Air Force's 
launch plan should maintain mission assurance, stabilize the 
industrial base, reduce costs, and provide opportunities for 
competition. Furthermore, the Panel on Business Challenges 
Within the Defense Industry specifically examined barriers to 
entry, contracting and regulatory burdens, and opportunities to 
strengthen the defense industrial base. As a result of the 
panel's efforts, H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, includes 
several provisions that are specifically aimed at fostering the 
defense industrial base and increasing opportunities for small 
and midsized businesses in order to increase competition.

Operational Contract Support

    Since engaging in military operations in the Islamic 
Republic of Afghanistan and the Republic of Iraq over the past 
decade, the Department of Defense has utilized a variety of 
contractors, contract vehicles, authorities, and funds for 
operational contract support to execute a variety of small- and 
large-scale services and reconstruction projects in support of 
military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The committee 
continues its longstanding oversight efforts regarding 
operational contract support and believes that operational 
contract support capabilities are critical to the success of 
current and potential future contingency operations. The 
committee acknowledges that the Department of Defense had 
undertaken a variety of efforts to improve these activities in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, and is undertaking planning for contract 
support for future operations.
    In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the 
committee noted that operational contract support and 
reconstruction activities of the Department of Defense have 
faced substantial challenges. These challenges, as noted by 
many observers, including the Commission on Wartime 
Contracting, the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction, the Government Accountability Office, and the 
Department of Defense itself, occurred along the full spectrum 
of operational contract support and, at times, included the 
failure to properly understand the operating environment and 
actors in that environment, a lack of transparency in the 
contracting network, and inchoate or improperly defined 
requirements. In turn, the committee noted that, at times, 
these challenges led to results that undermined the desired 
effects of U.S. military operations, such as the diversion of 
funds to enemy forces or corrupt actors and the creation of 
perverse incentives for local actors to maintain instability.
    In H. Rept. 112-479, the committee supported a vigorous 
effort to capture lessons learned related to the full breadth 
of operational contract support. The committee further noted 
that past efforts to capture lessons learned were slowed by a 
lack of resources and insufficient institutional support. The 
committee believed that a joint force, commander-centric, 
multi-disciplinary, holistic process is needed to capture and 
ultimately codify effective solutions. Therefore, the committee 
directed the Secretary of Defense to undertake an effort, 
utilizing the National Defense University or another such 
educational institution of the Department of Defense, to 
capture lessons learned related to Department contract 
activities, such as operational contract support, resource and 
financial management, Commanders' Emergency Response Program, 
and reconstruction programs. The committee believes this effort 
should build upon already documented insights and observations, 
including but not limited to those challenges noted above, as 
well as successes of operational contract support efforts in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
    The committee also included a provision in H.R. 4310 that 
would extend authority to acquire products and services 
produced in countries along a major route of supply to 
Afghanistan through December 31, 2014. This provision would 
also expand the authority to acquire products or services to be 
used by U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, subject to a 
determination by the Secretary of Defense that such products or 
services will be acquired from a country that has agreed to 
allow the retrograde of coalition personnel, equipment, and 
supplies from Afghanistan. The provision would also prohibit 
the preferential procurement of goods or services from the 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan until such time as the Government 
of Pakistan re-opens the ground lines of communication through 
Pakistan in support of coalition operations in Afghanistan. The 
committee believes these changes are necessitated by the 
continued reliance on the Northern Distribution Network (NDN) 
and encouraged the Secretary of Defense to use the expanded 
authority to increase the capacity of the NDN. The committee 
also included a provision in H.R. 4310 that would require the 
Secretary of Defense to make a determination that the 
Government of Afghanistan is not taxing assistance provided by 
the United States to Afghanistan in violation of any bilateral 
or other agreement with the United States before providing 
preferential treatment for the acquisition of a product or 
service produced in Afghanistan.

Transfer of Technology and Export Control Reform

    The committee is aware that many U.S. companies that 
participate in the defense industrial base are seeking to 
expand their business in the global market. However, some of 
these transactions and joint ventures may result in the 
transfer of U.S. defense technologies, such as fighter aircraft 
engine technologies, to foreign Governments and foreign 
militaries. While the legal framework to address such 
technology transfers rests within current export control law 
and regulations, current law does not prevent the Secretary of 
Defense from exercising due diligence to protect U.S. defense 
technologies. Therefore, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-
479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, the committee directs the Director, Defense 
Security Service, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base 
Policy, to conduct an assessment of the impact of joint 
ventures related to the cleared U.S. defense contractor 
community, and the potential for transference of U.S. 
technologies to another nation as a result of such ventures and 
to provide findings from the assessment, along with 
recommendations to reduce risk of transference of sensitive 
U.S. technologies to foreign governments or foreign militaries.
    Furthermore, the committee is aware of ongoing efforts to 
reform the current U.S. export control system. While the 
committee supports efforts to reduce the complexity of the 
export control system by improving efficiency, increasing 
transparency, and improving inter-agency coordination, the 
committee remains steadfast in its belief that any efforts at 
reform must be predicated on a full assessment of the potential 
impact of the proposed reforms. In an effort to improve current 
export control processes for satellites and related 
technologies, the committee included several provisions in H.R. 
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013, as passed by the House on May 18, 2012. These provisions 
would provide the President authority to remove commercial 
satellites and related components from the United Stated 
Munitions List, consistent with the procedures in section 38(f) 
of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(f)), provided 
the President determines that the transfer of such technology 
does not pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of 
the United States. Furthermore, these provisions would 
expressly prohibit the transfer, retransfer or re-export of any 
commercial satellite or related component to any person or 
entity of the People's Republic of China, Cuba, Iran, North 
Korea, Sudan, Syria or any other country that would be denied 
export of defense articles under section 126.1 of the 
International Trafficking of Arms Regulations.

                          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 trips to areas of 
ongoing hostilities during which intelligence activities were 
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 newly 
established Defense Clandestine Service and continued an 
examination of how Department of Defense intelligence programs 
are designated as part of either the Military Intelligence 
Program or the National Intelligence Program and efforts to 
reform guidelines related to these designations.

                      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.
    The committee conducted a hearing on July 27, 2011, to 
examine the Reserve Components as an operational force and 
review potential legislative and policy changes to enhance the 
flexibility of the services for continued use of the reserves. 
The committee remains supportive of the operational reserve 
concept and will work to ensure that legislative and policy 
changes are broad enough to ensure access and flexibility; but 
does not create the ability for the services to over rely on 
the Reserves. The committee is also concerned with the ability 
to properly resource an operational reserves so it remains a 
viable and ready force.
    An initiative to make the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and providing a 
Vice Chief of Staff in the leadership of the Bureau was 
included in Public Law 112-81.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-57)

                               READINESS


                           Military Readiness

    The Subcommittee on Readiness provided oversight of 
Department of Defense military readiness, training, logistics, 
maintenance, military construction, installations, family 
housing, and the base closure and realignment process. The 
subcommittee also provided oversight on civilian personnel, 
energy security, and environmental issues that affect the 
Department of Defense.
    The committee visited numerous overseas bases to assess the 
skills of assigned forces, the material condition of equipment, 
the readiness of capabilities provided, and the appropriate 
application of military construction in an overseas and 
sometimes contingency environment. Specifically, the committee 
has extensively visited the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and 
examined U.S. Central Command's plans to sustain operations in 
theater. The committee also has continued to assess the 
logistics and readiness challenges facing the Department of 
Defense as it withdraws forces from the Republic of Iraq and 
the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and its ability to maintain 
a capable force structure in theater to respond to emerging 
threats. Finally, the committee continues to assess Department 
of Defense force generation capabilities and certification 
authorities.

                            Force Readiness

    The committee focused on the challenges facing the military 
services to provide trained and ready forces for ongoing 
operations, while maintaining capabilities to meet other 
commitments and to posture the force for the long-term. 
Specifically, the committee held hearings on the financial 
implications of another round of base closure and realignment 
actions, the Navy's readiness posture, Army and Marine Corps 
reset, and the price of energy security. The committee also 
examined the impact of large proposed budget cuts to the 
Department of Defense and the resulting challenges in 
maintaining readiness. The committee found that overall 
readiness trends saw improvements in non-deployed unit 
readiness, including equipment availability and condition, 
personnel, and training in fiscal year 2012. However, it 
continued to find areas of concern regarding the overall 
readiness of the total force. The committee found that these 
shortfalls continue to present an increased risk to national 
security if the military had to respond quickly to emergent 
contingencies. Specifically, the committee found that these 
personnel challenges are especially acute in key categories 
such as warrant officers and certain enlisted specialties which 
have experienced shortages as the number of medically non-
deployable personnel has increased. The committee directed the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review readiness 
trends and identify key areas of concern.
    With the conclusion of operations in the Republic of Iraq 
and the ongoing drawdown of operations in the Islamic Republic 
of Afghanistan, the committee anticipates a continuing 
realignment of funds from the Department's Overseas Contingency 
Operations request to the operation and maintenance base 
budgets to better represent normalized budget requirements, to 
accommodate training across the full spectrum of conflict, and 
to reset war-torn equipment. However, the committee found 
reason to remain concerned about the pace at which this 
transition is taking place and the risk associated with the 
continued funding of enduring requirements outside of the base 
budget. To address these issues, H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by 
the House, would require the Department of Defense to provide 
strategic guidance for non-standard, enduring equipment such as 
mine resistant, ambush protected vehicles (MRAPs) and a 
strategic training plan for operation and sustainment of 
unmanned systems.
    The committee found that while readiness has increased, 
specifically within the Army, deployed readiness of ground 
forces has continued to be at the expense non-deployed ground-
force 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 on how additional force structure changes 
or budget cuts would further exacerbate force readiness levels. 
While the Army's overseas contingency budget decreased, the 
base budget increased to support the reset of equipment that 
has been damaged or worn out through 10 years of demand, and 
also to support increased home-station training for full 
spectrum operations as the Army commits fewer units to combat 
operations. Restoring equipment readiness is a key element of 
the Army reset process. However, the committee remains 
concerned about the Army's ability to accurately forecast its 
total reset liability and the amount of synchronization of 
reset needed for current operations and those likely to be 
undertaken in the future.
    The committee also found through several briefings and 
hearings that despite improvements in non-deployed unit 
readiness, several shortfalls, especially within the National 
Guard and Reserve Components remain. These shortfalls are 
expected to begin seeing improvement now that combat forces 
have withdrawn from Iraq and with initial reductions in the 
number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan. To accelerate this trend, 
the committee addressed this issue in H.R. 4310 by providing 
robust funding for some of the most serious shortfalls and by 
increasing funds for both the National Guard and Reserve 
Components. To address key training shortfalls, the committee 
included a provision in H.R. 4310 that would require Army 
medical evacuation crews be certified as paramedics within the 
next 2 years and provided an additional $17 million. To address 
equipment shortfall concerns, the committee included a 
provision in H.R. 4310 that would clarify guidance for the 
sustainment of key weapon systems and equipment reset and 
retrograde, as well as a provision that would direct the 
Secretary of Defense to examine key factors driving increased 
levels of depot maintenance carryover to ensure that this key 
function remains appropriately resourced.
    The committee found that the Air Force continues to 
experience a high operational 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. 
The committee also has found that challenges are expected to 
persist as operational tempo is anticipated to remain at high 
levels following redeployment from Operation New Dawn in Iraq 
and the drawdown of U.S. forces supporting Operation Enduring 
Freedom in Afghanistan, such as what occurred with Operation 
Northern Watch following Operation Desert Storm, or even more 
recently with the simultaneous operations in Libya. This will 
be particularly problematic for the Air Guard and Reserve as 
they also continue to provide support for U.S. domestic 
operations, which was highlighted during the Subcommittee on 
Readiness hearing on the Army and Air Reserve Components. 
Despite this sustained operational tempo, the budget request 
for fiscal year 2013 proposed significant reductions in Air 
Force force structure and a disproportionate reduction in the 
Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. To ensure that 
the U.S. Air Force has the requisite force structure to support 
ongoing operations, H.R. 4310 would retain the Air Force force 
structure that existed as of May 31, 2012. An additional 
provision was included in H.R. 4310 that would retain the 
existing aerospace control alert locations.
    Despite the drawdown in Iraq, naval operational 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 operational tempo, the 
committee requested GAO to review the Navy's initiatives to 
improve amphibious and surface combatant ship material 
readiness. Additionally, in H.R. 1540, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House, 
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. Additional funding to 
address ship depot maintenance was also included in Public Law 
112-81. To garner a greater appreciation for organic and 
private-sector depot capabilities, in September 2011, the 
chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Readiness 
led a visit to Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Electric Boat 
Shipbuilding. Due to the increase in demand for naval assets, 
H.R. 4310 would reinstate the requisite funding to operate and 
maintain, modernize and upgrade three cruisers that the Navy 
proposed to retire before the end of its expected service life. 
Additionally, the Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on 
March 22, 2012, regarding the Navy's Readiness Posture and the 
fecal year 2013 budget request.
    The committee has also monitored the impacts of force 
structure reductions in the Marine Corps and its impacts on 
``rebalancing'' the Corps which includes investments in special 
skill sets needed to move the Marine Corps toward a force more 
fully attuned to the lessons learned during 10 years of combat. 
The committee has also been closely monitoring the Marine 
Corps' reset operation to replace and refurbish equipment and 
vehicles damaged in wartime operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
specifically combat vehicles, the Armored Amphibious Vehicle, 
rotary-wing aircraft, and the repair and refurbishment of 
communications equipment and crew-served weapons.
    However, through hearings and site visits, the committee 
expressed concern about the Marine Corps' ability to reset its 
force in a budget-constrained environment as well as its 
ability to meet the current one major contingency operation 
construct with end strength well below the 186,800 Marines 
recommended by the Force Posture Review.
    (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. 112-55; H.A.S.C.-67; 
H.A.S.C. 112-84; H.A.S.C. 112-115; H.A.S.C. 112-126)

                         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 these 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. The Government 
Accountability Office recently 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.
    In H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, there was an increase 
of $10.3 million for advanced coating technologies for 
corrosion mitigation. In the report accompanying the bill, the 
committee addressed the importance of maximizing corrosion 
information sharing tools as well as addressing the importance 
of testing and evaluation of material degradation. As a result 
of the Government Accountability Office's annual budget 
submission review, the committee directed further review of the 
payback associated with the funds being invested in corrosion 
projects in addition to analyzing greater details regarding the 
Department of Defense's Technical Corrosion Collaboration pilot 
program.

                      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 of 2011, 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 
also participated in an extensive series of exchanges, in 
coordination with the National Defense University's Center for 
Joint and Strategic Logistics, with Department of Defense, 
industry and union representatives and other interested 
stakeholders on the recommendations detailed in the report 
required by section 322 of Public Law 110-417. As a result, 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. Many of these provisions were 
included in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
    To fully assess the impacts of these changes included in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81), the committee participated in several 
sessions with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to discuss 
implementation guidance and the Department's interpretation of 
the law. Further, the committee hosted several briefing 
opportunities for Member office staff to learn more about 
recent and anticipated changes. These included committee staff 
briefings and a formal briefing with each of the military 
departments. To address these issues, H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by 
the House, included a provision to modify the depot statute and 
clarify depot responsibilities.
    In addition to these steps, the committee continues to 
closely monitor the location and types of maintenance performed 
at the depots and in forward-deployed locations. The committee 
has also provided oversight of the implementation of a new, 
consolidated command structure within the new Marine Corps' 
depot enterprise and is closely monitoring the changes and 
challenges associated with the reduction in workload. 
Furthermore, the committee will continue oversight of the 
planned reorganization of the Air Force Materiel Command's air 
logistics centers and the potential impacts on manpower and 
workload.

                           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 Act 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. These provisions were included in the conference 
report on H.R. 1540.
    The committee also included provisions in the House-passed 
version of H.R. 1540 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. Elements of these provisions 
were also included in the conference report on H.R. 1540.
    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 
House-passed version of H.R. 1540 to further facilitate the 
Department's ability to implement a fair and transparent 
performance management system. The conference report on H.R. 
1540 included these provisions. The committee also focused on 
the Department's process for recruiting, selecting and hiring 
qualified individuals. The committee subsequently has met on a 
regular basis with the New Beginnings design teams (comprised 
of both Department of Defense management and employee union 
representatives). In November 2011, the committee was made 
aware that the work of the New Beginnings design teams has been 
completed and is awaiting the results of their recommendations 
and the Department's proposals for moving forward with a 
performance management system.
    The committee has also continued to closely monitor the 
implementation of the each military department's efficiencies 
initiatives that are being levied on the civilian workforce. 
These initiatives have led to a civilian hiring freeze for all 
the military departments as well as significant personnel 
reductions in 2012, with the Air Force planning to reduce its 
civilian workforce by 16,500 and the Army to reduce its force 
by 8,700.
    In H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, several provisions 
were included regarding civilian personnel, including a section 
that would direct the Government Accountability Office to 
assess the Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program 
workforce requirements and report its findings to the 
committee. Additionally, H.R. 4310 included provisions 
regarding inherently governmental functions, expedited hiring 
authority for individuals completing the National Security 
Education Program, a 1-year extension of premium pay for 
Federal civilian employees working overseas, interagency 
personnel rotations, and the proposed development of a national 
language service corps in the Department of Defense.

                         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 installation 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 
carried through in the conference report on H.R. 1540, to 
include 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 also 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. Public Law 112-81 contains 
several legislative provisions that seek to advance operational 
energy security by streamlining alternative fuels investments 
through the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational 
Energy, and designate a Department of Defense policy for energy 
efficient technologies in logistics support contracts for 
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.
    As directed by committee report (H. Rept. 111-491) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2011, the committee received a briefing from the 
Departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security regarding 
the domestic petroleum refining industry and its significance 
to national security. On March 29, 2012, the Subcommittee on 
Readiness received testimony from the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense and each of the military services regarding Energy 
Security: From Battlefields to Bases. The hearing highlighted 
the investments the Department of Defense is making in energy 
programs and what initiatives it is undertaking to reduce its 
overall energy consumption.
    In H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, several provisions 
regarding energy focused on alternative fuel and energy 
security specifically. (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, and carried forward 
in the conference report on H.R. 1540 the committee had several 
environmental provisions including one which codified Navy 
requirements for the 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 language regarding requirements relating 
to ongoing investigations and studies of exposure to 
contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal 
Year 2013, as passed by the House, included a provision that 
would require a plan on how the Department of Defense will 
address environmental exposures to members of the Armed Forces. 
The measure also highlighted the importance of the impact of 
encroachment on DOD facilities, and included funding above the 
Department of Defense's request to purchase additional land 
through the Readiness and Environmental Protection Initiative 
in order to create additional buffer zones. H.R. 4310 also 
would require an extension to the annual training range 
sustainment plans report.

                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. In the 
conference report on H.R. 1540, the conferees determined that 
the Department of Defense should not continue additional 
construction efforts to support the realignment of Marine Corps 
assets to Guam until several reports were submitted to the 
congressional defense committees. Furthermore, the conference 
report on H.R. 1540 struck the military construction funds 
requested by the executive branch in the budget request for 
fiscal year 2012 to support this realignment.
    In the conference report on H.R. 1540, the conferees 
determined that significant changes in the overseas force 
structure were expected in the short term while the overseas 
basing structure should be reexamined. Therefore, the conferees 
requested two independent assessments of the overseas base 
structure to include a comprehensive review of the entire 
overseas basing structure and a specific base structure 
assessment of the U.S. Pacific Command area of responsibility.
    The Subcommittee on Readiness held a hearing on March 8, 
2012, to assess the administration's request for two additional 
rounds of Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC). After 
contemplating the information provided by the administration 
supporting two additional rounds of BRAC, the committee 
included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act 
of Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, that 
would prohibit the Department of Defense from proposing, 
planning for, or executing another round of BRAC.
    The committee also included several provisions in H.R. 4310 
regarding the realignment of forces from Okinawa, Japan, to 
Guam. The committee noted that the Department of Defense de-
linked an international agreement provision requiring tangible 
progress at the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma Replacement 
Facility before proceeding with the realignment of Marines to 
Guam. The committee also noted that the Department of Defense 
proposed an alternative Marine Corps preferred laydown in the 
Pacific which reduced the number of Marines being realigned to 
Guam. Considering these events, the committee included a 
provision in H.R. 4310 that proposed to strike a requirement to 
obtain tangible progress at the Futenma Replacement Facility 
before moving forward with the Guam realignment. An additional 
provision was included that would also strike a requirement to 
receive a coordinated federal agency plan before proceeding on 
the Guam realignment.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-21, H.A.S.C. 112-115)

                   Military Construction Programming

    The Department of Defense programs construction projects at 
25 to 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. In the committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2012, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to 
submit a report that assesses these program increases and 
provides a plan to reduce these costs.
    With regards to construction programming, the committee 
continued its efforts to provide combatant commanders limited 
authority to rapidly implement contingency construction to 
address emerging construction requirements. The conference 
report on H.R. 1540 contained a provision that authorized the 
use of operations and maintenance funds for contingency 
construction.
    In the budget request for fiscal year 2013, the 
administration requested several military construction project 
authorizations without an accompanying appropriations request. 
The Subcommittee on Readiness included these project 
authorizations in the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, and 
believes that this method will allow the Department of Defense 
to provide prior year appropriations toward these requirements 
through a future reprogramming request.

          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 reviewed issues pertaining to 
military construction, family housing, and Base Closure and 
Realignment (BRAC) activities of the Department of Defense. The 
Subcommittee on Readiness 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. The Subcommittee on Readiness also 
provided additional oversight as the Department of Defense 
completed almost all of the BRAC 2005 recommendations on 
September 15, 2011.
    As a result of this oversight, the committee determined 
that the Department of Defense needed additional authorities to 
manage those BRAC recommendations that were having difficulty 
in timely completion. 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. 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 conference 
report on H.R. 1540 broadened the BRAC authority and requested 
that the Secretary of Defense expeditiously complete remaining 
BRAC recommendations and specifically extended a conditional 
BRAC recommendation for the Umatilla Chemical Depot. 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 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. The 
conference report on H.R. 1540 did not include the increased 
maintenance funding. The committee also proposed to increase 
the facility sustainment accounts in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by 
the House, to partially support systemic facility sustainment 
deficits.
    (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. In the 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee 
included language that that would provide additional oversight 
and accountability for military housing privatization projects 
to include an assessment of the financial viability of the 
long-term project, a resident satisfaction assessment, and an 
assessment of the backlog of maintenance and repair.

             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 continued to closely monitor compensation 
programs during the first session of 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. These pay and travel 
benefit matters were also included in the conference report on 
H.R. 1540.
    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel met in a closed 
session on September 15, 2011, to receive a classified brief in 
order to better understand the capability of the Army's 
currently planned force reduction to 520,000 and its ability to 
meet the range of Army mission requirements, especially those 
most stressful wartime requirements, based on the combatant 
commander requirements. The briefing gave members a better 
understanding of the current level of risk associated with the 
Army's 520,000 force and to begin to assess the levels of risk 
when funding levels drop below those associated with a 520,000 
force.
    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel met in a closed 
session on October 5, 2011, to receive a classified brief in 
order to better understand the capability of the Marine Corps' 
currently planned force reduction to 186,800 and its ability to 
meet the range of Marine Corps mission requirements, especially 
those most stressful wartime requirements, based on the 
combatant commander requirements. The briefing provided the 
committee with a better understanding of the current level of 
risk associated with the Marine Corps' 186,800 force and to 
begin to assess the levels of risk when funding levels drop 
below those associated with an 186,800 force.
    The budget request for Fiscal Year 2013 reduced the end 
strengths of the Active and Reserve Components by 31,300 
service members, with further reductions of 92,600 service 
members over the following 4 years. The committee supported the 
end strengths of the services by including the Department of 
Defense request in H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
of with the exception of an increase to the Air Force request 
to reflect the required corresponding manpower to maintain 18 
Air Force Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawks and the committee's 
limitation on retiring, divesting, or transferring any aircraft 
assigned to the Air Force. Although the committee supported the 
President's request for the Army and Marine Corps for Fiscal 
Year 2013, it remains concerned with the Department's 
determination that the current force structure and size of the 
Armed Forces can be reduced to meet the defense strategic 
guidance. This guidance, coupled with the proposed cuts in the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-25), has led the 
military services to alter their force structure and reduce end 
strengths. The committee is also concerned with the pace of the 
proposed reductions and the impact it will have on national 
security, while the United States is engaged in ongoing 
contingency operations in Afghanistan. The Army and the Marine 
Corps will make the largest reductions over the next 5 years of 
72,000 and 20,000 respectively from their fiscal year 2012 
authorization levels. These issues were addressed in full 
committee and subcommittee hearings as well as in H.R. 4310 
which limits the end strength reductions for the Regular 
Component of the Army and Marine Corps to no more than 15,000 
and 5,000 members per year respectively.
    In an effort to provide the services additional tools to 
facilitate the drawdown of forces over the next 3 to 5 years, 
the conference report for H.R. 1540 included authorities to 
provide service members an early retirement for service 
concluding with less than 20 years of service but more than 15 
years of service and a voluntary early retirement incentive 
payment for service members with between 20 and 29 years of 
service. In addition to the two new authorities that were 
authorized through December 31, 2018, the conference report for 
H.R. 1540 extended the authority to pay voluntary separation 
pay through December 31, 2018.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House and the accompanying 
report continued the effort to provide the services additional 
authorities in connection with the drawdown of forces. H.R. 
4310 includes provisions that would: extend the authority to 
reduce from 10 to 8 years the minimum length of commissioned 
service to qualify for retirement as an officer; increase the 
percentages of officers in grades 0-5 through 0-8 who may be 
retired with less than 3 years' service-in-grade; make Reserve 
Component service members eligible to participate in the Career 
Intermission Pilot Program; and afford involuntarily separated 
service members and their families continued access to 
commissaries, exchanges, and Government-provided family 
housing.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-28; H.A.S.C. 112-105, H.A.S.C. 112-110)

 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 first 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. 
Of these initiatives, the conference report on H.R. 1540 
included the authorization for the Secretary of the Navy to 
select categories of merchandise to sell in ship stores and the 
authorization for military retail stores to borrow funding for 
business operations from the Federal Financing Bank.
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, and the committee 
report that accompany the Act (H. Rept. 112-479) also included 
a series of initiatives to sustain morale, welfare, and 
recreation and military resale activities. H.R. 4310 included 
provisions that would: address the concern that nonappropriated 
funds activities are restricted from service contracts that 
involve multiple installations and extend over several years; 
establish new guidelines for clearing charitable food banks, 
food pantries, and soup kitchens to receive donations of 
unusable food; simplify record keeping and reporting 
requirements for overseas commissaries and exchanges; and 
require the governing bodies giving management direction to 
commissaries and exchanges to establish guidelines for 
identifying food and other products that are produced using 
sustainable methods.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-3; H.A.S.C. 112-4; H.A.S.C. 112-133)

         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 conference report on H.R. 1540 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.
    On September 9, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel conducted a hearing to receive testimony from the 
military services on the current status of suicide prevention 
programs in the military. The hearing provided members with the 
opportunity to examine the implementation of suicide prevention 
programs in each of the military services.
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, provided the services 
greater flexibility to address mental health issues by 
including a provision that would allow clinical social workers 
and psychiatric nurse practitioners to conduct pre-
administrative separation medical examinations.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23; H.A.S.C. 112-62; 
H.A.S.C. 112-120)

                     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. 
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 conference report on H.R. 1540 
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. In addition, access to legal assistance counsel and 
victim advocates was expanded to include dependents of active 
duty service members who live on or in the vicinity of a 
military post.
    Committee actions contained in H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, passed by the 
House, continued to address sexual assault matters. 
Specifically, with regard to cases involving rape, sexual 
assault, and forcible sodomy prosecuted under the Uniform Code 
of Military Justice, the disposition authority would be no 
lower than the special court-martial convening authority, who 
holds the grade of colonel, or in the case of the Navy, the 
grade of captain, who has a legal advisor and is in the chain 
of command of the person accused of committing the offense. 
Furthermore, H.R. 4310 mandated the establishment of Special 
Victims Teams in connection with child abuse, serious domestic 
violence, or sexual offenses under the Uniform Code of Military 
Justice.
    In addition, H.R. 4310 would further improve the Department 
of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program by 
requiring sexual assault training during pre-command and 
command courses; prominently posted information on sexual 
assault prevention and response throughout the Department of 
Defense; additional detailed information on sexual assault 
cases and information on sexual harassment in the annual report 
on sexual assaults; increased frequency of the Armed Forces 
Workplace and Gender Relations Survey, including sexual assault 
items in annual organizational climate assessments and tracking 
compliance of commanders conducting organizational climate 
assessments; allowing members of the Reserve Components to 
remain on Active Duty or be recalled to Active Duty for up to 
180 days to complete a line of duty determination in cases of 
sexual assault and the inclusion of substantiated reports of 
sexual harassment made against a member of the military 
services in the service record of the member.

                      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. The Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel held a hearing 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 conference report on H.R. 1540 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.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, and the committee 
report that accompanied the bill (H. Rept. 112-479), also 
included a provision that for the first time sets the co-
payments for prescription medications under the TRICARE 
Pharmacy Program as $5 for generic medications, $17 for 
formulary medications and $44 for non-formulary medications 
obtained through retail pharmacies, and $0 for generic 
medications, $13 for formulary medications and $43 for non-
formulary medications obtained through the TRICARE mail order 
pharmacy. Furthermore, any increase in cost-sharing rates under 
the TRICARE pharmacy program are limited to the amount equal to 
the percentage increase by which retiree pay is increased 
beginning October 1, 2013.
    H.R. 4310 also establishes a 5-year pilot program that 
would require TRICARE for Life eligible beneficiaries to obtain 
refill prescriptions for maintenance medication from the 
TRICARE mail order pharmacy. Beneficiaries are allowed to opt 
out of the mail order program after 1 year.
    Additionally, in response to the military services' plans 
to draw down the force, H.R. 4310 would authorize TRICARE 
Reserve Select and TRICARE dental insurance coverage for 180 
days for involuntarily separated members of the Selected 
Reserve.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-19; H.A.S.C. 112-23, H.A.S.C. 112-120)

 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.
    Following the completion of the expansion of the IDES to 
all world-wide locations, the services have begun to access 
weaknesses within the system. The committee has noted that the 
time required for wounded warriors to move through the 
disability system has increased to over 400 days, 39 percent 
above the 295 day goal. The Army has highlighted the growing 
concern about the increase in wounded warriors with the force 
that has reached 20,000 and is having an impact on combat 
readiness. The Army has also noted that the wounded warrior 
program is undermanned by 700 personnel. The committee is 
monitoring the Army's effort to increase manning to appropriate 
levels and shorten the time required for wounded warriors to 
receive a disability assessment and be processed for separation 
or retirement.
    The committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, 
required a report on the effectiveness of Physical Evaluation 
Board Liaison Officers (PEBLOs) to examine the adequacy 
manning, training, and experience within the PEBLO force.
    H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, also includes a 
provision that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct pilot programs to provide transitional assistance to 
members of the Armed Forces with a focus on science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-28; H.A.S.C. 112-120)

                            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 2011, the 
committee provided assistance to the House Committee on 
Administration 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. The 
chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel were invited and attended the hearing.
    On July 15, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
conducted a hearing on military voting to receive testimony 
from a variety of officials involved in the military voting 
process including the director of the Federal Voting Assistance 
Program, local, county voting directors, and a voting 
assistance officer in the military. The hearing provided an 
opportunity for Members to examine the implementation of the 
MOVE Act and its effects on the Federal Voting Assistance 
Program at all levels from the director to individual service 
members overseas.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-52)

                 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 met with an official from 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 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.
    Committee staff traveled to the People's Republic of China 
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in November 2011 to 
observe MIA Field Recovery Operations conducted by JPAC. This 
oversight visit provided valuable insight into how recovery 
operations are conducted and the challenges associated with the 
recovery of remains.
    The committee remains concerned with the Secretary of 
Defense's efforts to increase the effectiveness, integration, 
capability, and capacity to account for missing persons has not 
complied with section 541 of the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84). The committee 
believes that a lack of oversight by the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff is a contributing 
factor to the current situation and must be improved upon in 
the future. Therefore, the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, directed the Comptroller General of the United 
States to conduct a review of the Secretary of Defense's 
efforts to significantly increase the capability and capacity 
of the Department of Defense to account for missing persons in 
accordance with section 1509 of title 10, United States Code.

                     Innovative Readiness Training

    The committee continued to provide oversight of the 
Innovative Readiness Training program by visiting a road 
improvement project at the Bechtel Family Preserve, New River 
Gorge, West Virginia. This is a multi-service project executed 
from March thru September during the units annual training 
period; with the potential to extend for the next 5 years. This 
oversight effort related directly to the legislation adopted by 
the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, but not included in 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, H.R. 
1540, passed by the House on May 26, 2011. The heavy reliance 
on the Reserve Component over the past 10 years has reduced the 
need for some of sustainment training requirements of the 
Reserve Component.

                  MODERNIZATION AND INVESTMENT ISSUES

    During the 112th Congress, particular attention has been 
given by the committee to examine military equipment 
modernization with respect to military capability. How Congress 
chooses to fund Department of Defense (DOD) future acquisition 
programs will dramatically affect 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 and the Nation's vital interests. The new 
National Military Strategy announced by the Department in 2012 
and current annual budget projections could result in a 
significant reduction in ground vehicles, ships, space systems 
and aircraft.
    The committee remains concerned by continued cost growth 
and schedule delays among acquisition programs. The committee 
continued to assess 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; 
inadequate funding profiles; over estimating potential 
production rates; and program instability.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, (Public Law 112-81) included funding and legislation 
described elsewhere in this report 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. H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
also addresses these concerns.

                   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 maintained its high priority on upgrades to the 
M1 Abrams tank, M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Stryker Vehicles, 
and Paladin Artillery Vehicles 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. In 
the conference report (H. Rept. 112-329) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, the 
conferees authorized an additional $255.0 million for upgrades 
to the M1 Abrams tank.
    The committee held numerous briefings and hearings in 
second session of the 112th Congress and remains concerned 
about the Army's proposal to let the Heavy Brigade Combat Team 
(HBCT) vehicle production lines go ``cold'' for 3 to 4 years 
and the associated impact this decision would have on the 
industrial base at both the prime contractor and vendor level. 
The HBCT industrial base is not dependent upon one platform. 
The committee believes insufficient information is available to 
the Army and Congress to make an informed decision on what the 
potential risks would be of closing HBCT production lines. The 
committee needs to understand the ramifications to the future 
HBCT industrial base capabilities regarding the Abrams tank, 
Bradley fighting vehicle, Paladin howitzer, Hercules recovery 
vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, and the Ground Combat 
Vehicle. The committee needs to be informed of the Army's 
projected requirements in fiscal year 2017 to maintain a public 
and private workforce to sustain the current level of HBCTs, 
and what capabilities the Army will need in the future to 
produce new platforms. The committee also believes that Foreign 
Military Sales (FMS) may help to mitigate some of the risk to 
the industrial base, but believes FMS alone will not be enough 
to ensure that the HBCT industrial base is maintained at viable 
levels in the near term. In the absence of a force mix Brigade 
Combat Team (BCT) analysis, and a detailed quantitative 
analysis of the impacts to the HBCT industrial base, the 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, recommends an 
additional $181.0 million to Abrams tank upgrades; an 
additional $140.0 million to the Bradley fighting vehicle 
program; and an additional $62.0 million for the Improved 
Recovery Vehicle above the budget request. H. Rept. 112-479 
also directs the Army to consider opportunities to accelerate 
the Paladin integrated management program and the Armored-
Multi-Purpose Vehicle.
    H. Rept. 112-479 also includes a directive for the Army to 
brief the congressional defense committees on the results of 
the on-going force mix analysis. At a minimum, the briefing 
should include the assumptions and scenarios used to determine 
the type and mix of Brigade Combat Teams, the rationale for the 
force mix, and the risks involved with the recommended force 
mix. In H. Rept. 112-479, the committee also included a 
directive for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or a 
designee, to brief the congressional defense committees on how 
the Army's recent force structure and BCT mix analysis meet the 
needs of the combatant commanders, and what the Joint Staff 
believes are the potential risks regarding the adequacy of the 
force mix, if the assumptions behind the scenarios used do not 
materialize.

                     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 (Public Law 112-
81) that restricted 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.
    The committee held hearings and multiple briefings 
regarding the Army's tactical network strategy as it pertains 
to the fiscal year 2013 budget request. The committee continued 
to believe that in the interest of increased competition, it is 
imperative that subsequent full-rate production procurements 
for tactical networks include a strategy for including any non-
program of record vendors that meet appropriate qualification 
standards in accordance with section 141 of Public Law 112-81. 
The committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, 
directed the Secretary of the Army to ensure that all 
qualification standards are documented and approved by the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
Technology and available to vendors prior to any additional 
full-rate procurements. In addition, the committee directed the 
Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional 
defense committees by July 31, 2012, on the Army's plan for 
production competition for each element of the JTRS program, 
including potential acquisition strategies for JTRS-tested 
capabilities that allow JTRS-tested products from non-program 
of record suppliers to be contracted through full and open 
competition with the Government in a streamlined manner.

                         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 report 
(H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 requested that the Army 
define ``permissive'' versus ``non-permissive'' environments. 
In addition, the committee requested additional information on 
what 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 continued 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 are 13 short of its program of 
record requirement for 112 HH-60Gs. At a hearing on March 27, 
2012, before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, 
the Air Force witnesses testified that only 93 of the 99 HH-
60Gs are currently flyable due to unscheduled depot 
maintenance, that major structural cracks have been found on 66 
of the 99 aircraft, and that 47 have sustained battle damage in 
the last two years. 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 Combat Rescue Helicopter 
(CRH) 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 CRH program, formerly known 
as the HH-60G recapitalization program, will be a full and open 
competition intended to replace the entire CSAR fleet. Contract 
award for the CRH program is planned in the third quarter of 
fiscal year 2013. The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) authorized the budget 
request of $104.7 million for three HH-60Ms. Public Law 112-81 
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. H.R. 4310, 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
passed by the House, would authorize the budget request of 
$60.6 million for the OLR program, $26.2 million for HH-60G 
modifications, and $123.2 million for the CRH program.

                         F-22 Aircraft Program

    During the 112th Congress, the committee 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 resulting in a total 
procurement of 187 F-22 aircraft, including the 4 additional F-
22s appropriated in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 
(Public Law 111-32). The current F-22 fleet inventory is 185 
aircraft since 2 aircraft have been destroyed in mishaps. The 
final F-22 aircraft was delivered on May 2, 2012. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81) authorized the F-22 modification budget request for $232.0 
million, but decreased the F-22 research, development, test, 
and evaluation budget request of $718.4 million by $147.0 
million due to program cost growth. H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by 
the House, would authorize the budget request of $283.9 million 
for F-22 modifications and $511.8 million for F-22 research, 
development, test and evaluation.

                     F-35 Fighter Aircraft Program

    During the 112th Congress, the committee continued 
oversight of the F-35 program, including the F-35 competitive 
propulsion system program. The F-35 competitive propulsion 
system program was developing the F136 engine, which was 
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 originally 
supported the competitive engine initiative, beginning in 1996, 
but the Department has not included funding for the competitive 
propulsion system program in its budget requests since 2006. 
The Department terminated the F136 development program on April 
25, 2011. As a result, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) included a provision 
that would have required that the Secretary of Defense develop 
a plan that would provide for the long-term sustainment and 
repair of F136 property pending a determination of whether such 
property: (1) can be used within the F-35 Lightning II aircraft 
program, in other Government development programs, or in other 
contractor-funded development activities; (2) should be stored 
for use in future Government development programs; or (3) 
should be disposed. The provision also required the Secretary 
to identify how he intended to obtain maximum benefit to the 
U.S. Government from the investment already made in developing 
the F136. Public Law 112-81 also included a provision that 
prevented the obligation of more than 80 percent of the 
research and development funding for the F-35 program until the 
Secretary of Defense certified to the congressional defense 
committees that the acquisition strategy for the F-35 program 
included a plan for achieving competition throughout operation 
and sustainment, in accordance with section 202(d) of the 
Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
23). Additionally, Public Law 112-81 authorized $5.8 billion 
for the procurement of 31 F-35s, a reduction of 1 F-35A for the 
Air Force from the budget request, and $2.7 billion for F-35 
research, development, test and evaluation, a reduction of 
$38.0 million requested for development of Navy and Marine 
Corps software capabilities.
    Since the F-35 production program began, in fiscal year 
2006 with the first request for advance procurement, the 
committee has been concerned about the excessive overlap of 
development and production, also known as concurrency. At a 
hearing on March 20, 2012, before the Subcommittee on Tactical 
Air and Land Forces, the Government Accountability Office 
Director of Acquisition and Sourcing testified that most of the 
instability in the program has been and continues to be the 
result of highly concurrent development, testing, and 
production. The Director also noted that in February 2012, the 
Department of Defense reduced planned procurement quantities by 
179 aircraft through 2017, marking the third time in three 
years that F-35 procurement has been deferred to years beyond 
2017. Also, at the March 20, 2012, hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, the acting Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
testified that earlier development and production plans had 
unfounded optimism in time and resource requirements, driven by 
assumptions about design stability, throughout the conduct of 
test program and that the development program has been taking 
longer and costing more to overcome technical issues that have 
been discovered. The Department has restructured the F-35 
program to account for the development and production delays, 
resulting in less program concurrency. H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by 
the House, would authorize the budget request of $5.5 billion 
for procurement of 29 F-35s, and $2.7 billion for F-35 
research, development, test and evaluation.

               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 20, 2012 at which 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. Navy witnesses further noted 
that the Department of the Navy's strike fighter shortfall 
would reach a manageable level of 65 aircraft in the 2020s. 
Also, at the hearing on March 20, 2012, the Air Force witness 
testified to an Air Force requirement for 1,900 fighter 
aircraft, a decrease of 100 aircraft since last year based on 
the new National Military Strategy, and noted that a 
comprehensive review of current and projected force structure 
does not now reveal a strike fighter shortfall through 2030. 
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 (Public 
Law 112-81) authorized 40 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G aircraft for the 
Navy, but decreased the budget request by a total of $211.3 
million for cost growth in certain procurement components. For 
the Air Force, Public Law 112-81 decreased the A-10 wing 
replacement modification request by $140.0 million. Public Law 
112-81 also decreased the Air Force F-35A budget request by 
$151.0 million and one F-35A aircraft, resulting in the 
authorization of a total of 31 F-35 aircraft for the Navy, 
Marine Corps and Air Force. H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
would authorize the budget request of 38 F/A-18E/F and EA-18G 
aircraft for the Navy and the requested procurement to extend 
the life of the legacy F/A-18 and AV-8B fleets, and included an 
increase of $45.0 million for advance procurement of additional 
EA-18G aircraft in fiscal year 2014. H.R. 4310 would also 
authorize the entire Air Force request for modifications to its 
A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22A, and F-35 fleets. Additionally, H.R. 
4310 would authorize the budget request of $5.5 billion for 29 
F-35 aircraft and $2.7 billion for F-35 development.
    The Air Force budget request for fiscal year 2013 also 
included a plan to retire 123 fighter aircraft, many of which 
are assigned to Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units. 
Concerned about the adequacy of Air Force fighter force 
structure, the committee included a provision in H.R. 4310 that 
would prohibit the use of any fiscal year 2013 funds to retire, 
divest or transfer any aircraft of the Air Force and C-23 
Sherpa aircraft of the Army.

                     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 (Public Law 112-81) that restricted the 
use of funds until the Secretary of the Army provided and 
updated analysis of alternatives (AOA) to the congressional 
defense committees that included 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. In the conference report (H. Rept. 112-
329) accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, the conferees withheld 20 percent of funds 
for the GCV program until the Army provided additional 
information in regard to the dynamic AOA and alternative 
assessment.
    The committee continued to closely observe the Army's 
progress in regards to the GCV program. The committee remains 
interested in the results of the Army's dynamic AOA update and 
alternative assessments. The results of these efforts will 
influence to what extent the committee supports the GCV program 
in the future.

        Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Programs

    In the 112th Congress, the committee continued to provide 
close oversight over myriad Intelligence, Surveillance, and 
Reconnaissance (ISR) projects and programs operated throughout 
the Department of Defense (DOD).
    The Department employs a large inventory of manned and 
unmanned vehicles to perform intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance in support of the military services. The fiscal 
year 2012 budget request contained over $3.6 billion and the 
fiscal year 2013 budget request contained $3.5 billion, for 
tactical ISR aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) for 
the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force. 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 of UAVs in 
U.S. airspace in support of training and operational 
requirements and to provide support to civil authorities to 
support crisis response.
    The committee report (H. Rept. 112-78) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81) included specific mention of the Enhanced Medium 
Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System program, 
airborne reconnaissance low, and Global Hawk unmanned aerial 
vehicle programs.
    In the conference report (H. Rept. 112-329) accompanying 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
the conferees included ISR-related provisions limiting DOD 
retirement of U-2 aircraft (sec. 133); limiting the 
availability of funds for the unmanned carrier-launched 
surveillance and strike system (sec. 213); requiring a report 
on the implementation of recommendations by the Comptroller 
General on intelligence information sharing (sec. 921); 
requiring a report on integration of unmanned aircraft systems 
into the national airspace system (sec. 1074); and requiring 
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to 
establish a plan to integrate unmanned aircraft systems into 
the national airspace system at six test ranges (sec. 1097).
    During the second session of the 112th Congress, the 
Department's budget request for fiscal year 2013 for ISR 
acquisition programs included proposed actions that were of 
concern to the committee, including terminating the Global Hawk 
Block 30 Unmanned Aircraft Vehicle (UAV) program and reducing 
procurement of the Reaper UAV. Both programs have played a 
critical role in meeting the ISR requirements of the combatant 
commanders. The Department of Defense certified in June 2011, 
just 8 months prior to the submission of the fiscal year 2013 
budget request, that the Global Hawk UAV was essential to the 
national security. The committee included a provision (sec. 
152) in H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, which would require 
the Department of Defense to continue to operate its Global 
Hawk Block 30 aircraft through December 31, 2014. H.R. 4310 
also included legislative provisions that would facilitate 
competition in the acquisition of common data links (sec. 153); 
facilitate competition in the acquisition of the unmanned 
carrier-launched surveillance and strike system (sec. 213); 
limit expenditure of funds until certification of the 
requirement for the MQ-18 UAV (sec. 215); and restore funding 
for the Reaper UAV (sec. 1502)
    The committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 
addressed several issues relating to ISR programs, including 
establishment by the Department of Defense of common metrics 
for evaluating the utility of ISR programs and projects; 
establishment of service-common acquisition of cargo-carrying-
capable unmanned aircraft systems; integration and coordination 
of acquisition programs furthering operation of unmanned 
aircraft system operation in the national airspace system; 
review of life-cycle costs and the effect on operations of 
transferring the MC-12W from the Active Component of the Air 
Force to the Air National Guard; the completion of a strategic 
plan for training for unmanned aircraft systems; a strategic 
portfolio review of airborne ISR systems to eliminate 
redundancies and lower priority systems; use of a cost-benefit 
analysis tool to enable cost benefit analysis and effective 
allocation of ISR assets; examination of the future role of the 
ISR Task Force; and Government Accountability Office 
examination of DOD processes, management, communications 
architecture, training, and investment for improving ISR 
processing, exploitation, and dissemination within the 
Department of Defense.

 Rapid Acquisition Authority and Joint Urgent Operational Needs Process

    The committee continued its oversight of the urgent 
operational needs (UONS) and rapid acquisition process across 
the Department of Defense and the military services. The 
Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces continued to 
engage the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military 
services with formal requests for information regarding the 
processes used to address UONS through official correspondence 
and classified briefings. At the request of the committee, the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has completed a number 
of reviews of DOD rapid acquisition, quick reaction, and 
counter-improvised explosive device programs. In each review, 
GAO concluded that the Department does not have a comprehensive 
policy or process to oversee the variety of programs and 
projects established to respond to urgently needed capabilities 
requested by the warfighter in overseas contingency operations.
    Section 902 of H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
would require the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior 
official to be the focal point within the Department of Defense 
to lead the Department's urgent operational needs and rapid 
acquisition efforts. This official would ensure that all tools 
and mechanisms are being used to track, monitor, and manage the 
status of urgent operational needs, from validation through the 
transition, including a formal feedback mechanism or channel 
for the military services to provide feedback on how well 
fielded solutions met urgent operational needs. Section 831 
expanded the scope of the ongoing comprehensive bottom-up 
review required by section 804 of the Ike Skelton National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-
383) of the Department's rapid acquisition processes used for 
fulfilling urgent operational needs.
    Further, in the committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) 
accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, the committee recommended consolidating programs and 
processes established to rapidly develop and field solutions 
for units in combat and combatant commands. The committee noted 
that 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. 
H.R. 4310, would authorize $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 Public Law 111-383 
wherever necessary, in order to guarantee that military 
personnel receive required equipment in a timely manner. This 
rapid acquisition authority provided the Secretary of Defense 
with $200.0 million, 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 provided $43.0 billion for the 
procurement and recapitalization of tactical wheeled vehicles 
(TWV), 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 magnitude of the TWV fleet continued to 
present many challenges and required intensive oversight by the 
committee. The committee continued to monitor and focus on the 
Department's attempts at generating a joint tactical wheeled 
vehicle acquisition strategy that would limit the potential 
risk of unplanned overlap in capabilities throughout the 
military services in the tactical wheeled vehicle fleets, takes 
into consideration the development of realistic and affordable 
joint requirements, and incorporates sustainment costs. 
Specifically, the committee continued to focus on and support 
the Department's revised acquisition strategy for the Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program; continued to support and 
monitor the integration of the family of mine resistant ambush 
protected vehicles into the current fleet, as well as monitored 
other TWV modernization efforts to help sustain the industrial 
base.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 
(Public Law 112-81) authorized $2.4 billion for tactical 
wheeled vehicle procurement, to include $155.0 million for the 
JLTV program. Public Law 112-81 authorized $2.6 billion for the 
continued procurement and sustainment of MRAP vehicles. H.R. 
4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013, as passed by the House, would authorize $116.8 million, 
full funding for the JLTV program. H.R. 4310 would also 
authorize full funding, $2.6 billion, for MRAP sustainment.

  Department Projection Aviation (Bombers, Mobility, UAV and Tanker) 
                                Programs

    Through its oversight activities, the committee was made 
aware of the Air Force proposal to reduce the mobility 
capacity. The Air Force indicated that the new strategic 
guidance and the parallel reductions in land forces, retiring 
all 27 C-5As, retiring or canceling procurement of all 38 
planned C-27Js, and retiring the 65 oldest C-130s. The Air 
Force points to greater savings and efficiency with the 
proposed changes.
    In reaction to the large number of aircraft listed for 
retirement or cancellation the committee took action to restore 
a proper balance of efficiency and risk. The committee passed 
legislation in the H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
that would prevent the Secretary of the Air Force from 
divesting or retiring C-27J aircraft from the Air Force's 
inventory during fiscal year 2013 and until the Congressional 
Budget Office submits to the congressional defense committees a 
life-cycle cost analysis of C-27J aircraft, C-130H aircraft, 
and C-130J aircraft. H.R. 4310 also would require the Secretary 
of the Air Force to maintain 36 combat-coded B-1 bomber 
aircraft beyond fiscal year 2013 and prevents the Secretary 
from terminating the C-130 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) 
until 180 days after the Institute for Defense Analyses submits 
to the congressional defense committees a cost-benefit analysis 
of modernizing the legacy C-130 airlift fleet with a C-130 AMP 
as compared to only modernizing the legacy C-130 airlift fleet 
with reduced scope program for avionics and mission planning 
systems.
    The committee supports continued 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 in the near and 
mid-terms. H.R. 4310 would require the Secretary of the Air 
Force to make certain that the new long-range strike bomber 
will be certified to use strategic weapons within two years of 
declaration of initial operation capability. The committee 
maintained oversight through staff-level briefings and is 
encouraged by the development effort completed thus far and 
looks forward to engaging with the Air Force in future 
briefings once firm key performance parameters are documented.
    Through its oversight activities and the passage of H.R. 
4310, the committee did not support the Secretary's request for 
temporary relief from maintaining a minimum floor of 301 inter-
theater aircraft. 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 that the Mobility Capability and Requirements Study of 2016 
did not address or characterize the operational risk in meeting 
combatant commander warfighting requirements or timelines. The 
committee also understands that the force planning constructs 
used to justify the most recent mobility study were not the 
same force planning constructs used to develop the most recent 
Quadrennial Defense Review which sets the military strategy for 
the Department of Defense.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee recognized 
that the Department 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 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. The committee is also concerned 
that the Army has begun divestment of the C-23 aircraft despite 
congressional concerns with that current action. The committee 
included a provision that requires an annual report from the 
Secretary of the Army describing time-sensitive, mission-
critical airlift requirements of the Army and which airlift 
missions are supported by the Department of the Air Force.
    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 remains concerned with the Navy's 
execution strategy for developing systems in this mission area 
and will continue to engage with officials from the Navy.
    The committee remains concerned that despite a 2-year delay 
in the operational fielding date, the Unmanned Carrier-Launched 
Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system's milestone 
activities associated with technology development for UCLASS 
and the high-level of concurrency with the Unmanned Combat Air 
System (UCAS) program remain essentially the same. The 
committee is also concerned with the Secretary of the Navy's 
plan to down-select to one contractor during the phase of 
preliminary design review. Additionally, the committee believes 
there are further risk reduction activities that would benefit 
the UCLASS program that could be performed in the UCAS program 
were it properly resourced to do so. The committee recommended 
a transfer of $75.0 million from the UCLASS program to the UCAS 
program for risk-reduction activities.
    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 KC-46A program 
office has complied with the committee request 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. Through an oversight hearing 
regarding KC-46, the committee gained a further understanding 
of the KC-46 program and was provided a thorough update of the 
KC-46 Integrated Baseline Review completed in August 2011. The 
committee will continue oversight of the KC-46 program through 
staff level briefings and future hearings.
    The committee continued its oversight of the KC-46A program 
and the entire Air Mobility Fleet through a March 7, 2012 
hearing on Assessing Mobility Airlift Capabilities and 
Operational Risks under the Revised 2012 Defense Strategy.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-77; H.A.S.C. 112-113)

                         Shipbuilding Programs

    The committee continued its oversight of the Department of 
Defense's shipbuilding programs to ensure balanced investments 
are made and 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 during this time of economic constraints.
    Through its oversight activities, the committee faced the 
challenge, along with Navy and Marine Corps, to balance current 
demands on an aging fleet within the current economic 
constraints. The Navy's budget request was for 10 new-
construction battle-force ships, this was a decrease of three 
ships from the fiscal year 2012 Future Years Defense Plan 
(FDYP). A decrease of 16 ships from the fiscal year 2012 FDYP. 
This combined with the proposed early decommissioning of seven 
cruisers concerned the committee. As the Department moves its 
strategy to a more focused theater in the pacific the committee 
seeks to obtain the required capability and to provide 
stability to the fragile shipbuilding industrial base.
    CVN-78 is the lead ship of the Ford class of aircraft 
carriers. The committee amended the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) by 
extending the incremental funding of the Ford class aircraft 
carriers from a 5-year period to a 6-year period. The committee 
also expressed the importance of minimizing changes from ship 
to ship, not only for continuity in training but also to 
maintain a lower procurement cost.
    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 an ever-
decreasing time span for construction and delivery have given 
the committee the ability to authorize multiyear contracts for 
the procurement of up to 10 Virginia class submarines beginning 
in fiscal year 2014 using incremental funding.
    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 multiyear 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 Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces received 
testimony at the March 29, 2012, Oversight of U.S. Naval Vessel 
Acquisition Programs and Force Structure hearing 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 30 operational ships. The concern of the 
subcommittee is that the U.S. Navy is taking an unnecessary 
risk. The subcommittee will continue to oversee Naval 
Construction and the force structure of the Armed Forces.
    Additional oversight activities included briefings to 
committee staff on the Maritime Administration's program for 
scrapping and recycling ships; the Navy's electromagnetic rail-
gun program; the Navy's electromagnetic aircraft launching 
system, and; the new construct known as the Air-Sea Battle. 
These briefings involved travel to Dahlgren, Virginia, and 
Lakehurst, New Jersey.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-16; H.A.S.C. 112-127)

                        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 (MDA) in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, 
H.R. 1540, as passed by the House. Division A of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112-74) 
ultimately cut the MDA directed energy program to $50 million; 
MDA has had to take steps to severely curtail the program as a 
result.
    The committee also took action regarding the Department's 
directed energy programs in the second session of the 112th 
Congress. During the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces' March 6, 
2012, hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 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 continue 
technology development, and retain a uniquely skilled workforce 
led the committee to recommend additional resources for the 
directed energy research programs of the MDA in H.R. 4310, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
passed by the House.

  Nuclear Deterrence and Governance of the Nuclear Security Enterprise

    In the 112th Congress, 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.
    In the first session of the 112th Congress, 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 their 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.
    The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on July 
27, 2011, on sustaining nuclear deterrence after New START in 
order to examine the United States' post-New START nuclear 
policy and posture. A follow-up hearing with officials from the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the 
Department of State was held on November 2, 2011, to assess the 
current status and future direction for U.S. nuclear weapons 
policy and posture. The subcommittee also held a hearing on 
October 14, 2011, on understanding the impacts of nuclear 
weapons modernization in Russia and China on the United States.
    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, a classified briefing 
on July 13, 2011, on foreign nuclear weapons programs, and a 
joint classified briefing with the Subcommittee on Seapower and 
Projection Forces on September 21, 2011, on the SSBN(X) program 
and the future of sea-based strategic deterrence.
    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. The 
conference report on H.R. 1540 included several modified 
versions of the House provisions.
    In the second session of the 112th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing on April 17, 
2012, on the fiscal year 2013 Budget Request for DOE Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities and DOD Nuclear Forces Programs. 
Continuing in the tradition of its successful joint DOD-NNSA 
hearing during the previous session, this annual nuclear 
posture and budget hearing included witnesses from both DOD and 
NNSA. The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces also held a hearing 
on February 16, 2012, on governance, management, and oversight 
of the nation's nuclear security enterprise. The hearing 
focused on recent independent reports, including by the 
National Academies of Science, that have highlighted 
significant problems in NNSA and DOE's management of the 
laboratories and plants responsible for the sustaining the U.S. 
nuclear weapons stockpile. The hearing featured witnesses from 
the National Academies of Science and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), as well as a witness panel 
comprised of former NNSA laboratory directors.
    In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Strategic Forces held numerous classified and closed oversight 
briefings on nuclear deterrence topics during the second 
session. On March 7, 2012, the subcommittee held a classified 
briefing on U.S. nuclear targeting policy and process with 
former senior government and military officials. In addition, 
the subcommittee held a closed briefing on the nuclear triad 
with nongovernmental experts on March 21, 2012. On February 2, 
2012, and March 27, 2012, the subcommittee conducted closed 
briefings with former laboratory, Government, and military 
officials to discuss governance and management at NNSA and the 
Department of Energy.
    The committee included a number of legislative provisions 
related to nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons policy in 
H.R. 4310, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2013, as passed by the House. Among others, these include 
provisions related to congressional oversight of changes to 
U.S. nuclear weapons employment strategy; require reports from 
the President, and various other officials, if certain funding 
levels are not met; create limitations on nuclear forces 
reductions if certain conditions are not met; require continued 
construction of a key nuclear enterprise infrastructure 
modernization project; require analysis of requirements and 
alternatives; and make improvements to the joint DOD-DOE 
Nuclear Weapons Council.
    In addition, based upon its extensive oversight activities 
during the second session of the 112th Congress, the committee 
included several legislative provisions in H.R. 4310 that would 
improve the governance and management of the nuclear security 
enterprise. These include provisions to strengthen the semi-
autonomy of NNSA from the Department of Energy; require NNSA to 
eliminate transaction-based oversight wherever possible; cap 
the number of employees in NNSA's Office of the Administrator 
and reduce the number of employees; clarify that the NNSA 
Administrator has full authority for setting and overseeing 
policies and regulations regarding health, safety, and security 
for NNSA; and require NNSA and the Department of Energy to 
streamline the myriad rules, regulations, directives, orders, 
and policies that govern the nuclear security enterprise.

                            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. 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 from 
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.
    H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012, as passed by the House, contained 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. The conference 
report to H.R. 1540 included a modified version of this 
provision that would require that no classified U.S. ballistic 
missile defense information may be provided to Russia unless, 
60 days prior to any instance in which the U.S. Government 
plans to provide such information to the Russian Federation, 
the President provides notification (which must include 
specific terms spelled out in the provision) to the appropriate 
congressional committees.
    On November 16, 2011, the subcommittee held a classified 
briefing with the National Air and Space Intelligence Center 
concerning developments in ballistic missile threats to the 
United States. On March 6, 2012, the Subcommittee on Strategic 
Forces conducted a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request for Missile Defense 
Programs. On March 22, 2012, the subcommittee held a classified 
briefing with the Institute for Defense Analyses on its recent 
report, ``Independent Review and Assessment of the Ground-Based 
Midcourse Defense System'', conducted pursuant to section 228 
of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383). On April 18, 2012, the 
subcommittee held a classified briefing with the National 
Academies on its report, ``U.S. Boost-Phase Missile Defense in 
Comparison to Other Alternatives'', conducted pursuant to 
section 232 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417).
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, contains several 
missile defense-related legislative provisions and funding 
recommendations, to include: A requirement for an analysis of 
alternatives for the Precision Tracking Surveillance System; a 
requirement for allied funding of the European Phased Adaptive 
Approach to missile defense; a requirement that the SM3-IIB 
missile be capable of deployment in both a land- and sea-based 
configuration; a prohibition on the use of funds for the MEADS 
program; a limitation on providing the Russian Federation with 
access to classified U.S. missile defense technology; 
additional testing of the ground-based midcourse defense 
system; and funding and policy recommendations for U.S.-Israel 
missile defense programs, including the Iron Dome short-range 
rocket defense system. The committee, mindful of the 
Administration's failure to provide Congress with a ``hedging 
strategy'' for homeland missile defense, as required by section 
233 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012 (Public Law 112-81), also recommended a provision for the 
development of a plan for, and authorization of funding for, 
the deployment of a homeland missile defense site on the East 
Coast of the United States.

                        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 Subcommittee on Strategic Forces conducted oversight of 
the potential effects of the LightSquared commercial wireless 
broadband network on Department of Defense GPS receivers. On 
September 8, 2011, the committee received a classified briefing 
on LightSquared's Interference with GPS, and subsequently held 
a hearing on September 21, 2011, to receive testimony on 
Sustaining GPS for National Security.
    Additionally, the subcommittee received a classified 
briefing on October 25, 2011, on the U.S. Air Force and 
National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) New Entrant Strategy on 
Space Launch; a classified briefing on November 16, 2011, on 
Counter Space and Ballistic Missile Threats; and a classified 
briefing on November 18, 2011, on United States Space Systems, 
including an overview of NRO systems and capabilities, the 
recent launch campaign, and a program status update.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2012, H.R. 1540, as passed by the House, contained 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 (FCC) 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.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision 
concerning the GPS-LightSquared issue that would maintain the 
requirement that the FCC resolve concerns of widespread harmful 
interference to GPS and it would add the reporting requirements 
contained in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1540. The Senate 
provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to review and 
assess the ability of national security GPS receivers to 
receive the signals of the GPS satellites without interruption 
or interference and determine if commercial communications 
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful 
interference with national security GPS receivers. In the event 
that the review determines that commercial communications 
services are causing or will cause widespread or harmful 
interference with national security GPS receivers, the 
Secretary would be required to promptly notify the 
congressional defense committees.
    On March 8, 2012, the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held 
a hearing on the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for National Security Space 
Activities. Members' oversight questions addressed a range of 
topics, including: space policy, Space Test Program, space 
situational awareness, export control of commercial satellites 
and related components, international agreements for space 
activities, Operationally Responsive Space (ORS), space launch, 
and concerns about potential interference with the Global 
Positioning System.
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, 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 Space Based Infrared Systems; a limitation of funds for 
the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program until details of 
the Air Force acquisition approach are provided to the 
committee; a requirement for the development of a strategic 
plan and increased funding for the ORS program; prohibition of 
funds for use to limit the activities of the Department of 
Defense or the intelligence community in outer space to 
implement or comply with an international agreement concerning 
outer space activities unless such agreement is ratified by the 
Senate or authorized by statute; and a report regarding 
sharing, fusion, coordination, and exploitation of overhead 
persistent infrared sensor data.

             National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment

    The committee devoted substantial attention during the 
112th Congress to assessing the adequacy of modernized 
equipment for the National Guard and Reserve Components. In the 
committee report (H. Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee 
noted that the specific amount of resources, including 
equipment, needed to adequately sustain the National Guard and 
Reserve Component's new operational reserve status remains a 
concern because of the fiscal environment, especially given the 
dual mission responsibility of the National Guard and Reserve 
Components, in particular the National Guard. The committee 
noted the National Guard and Reserve Components still have 
significant equipment shortages in modernized equipment, 
specifically in rotorcraft and the tactical wheeled vehicle 
fleet. Over the past 8 years, National Guard and Reserve 
Component equipment procurement averaged $7.0 billion annually. 
The committee noted that across the Future Years Defense 
Program, procurement is expected to average $3.8 billion 
annually, a significant reduction from previous years' 
requests. The committee also noted with concern that National 
Guard and Reserve Component equipment modernization is not 
funded to 100 percent of what the National Guard and Reserve 
Components believe its requirements to be. For example, the 
Army National Guard will require additional funding over the 
next 10 years for tactical wheeled vehicles and aviation 
systems of $500.0 million and $1.3 billion, respectively. The 
Air National Guard equipment modernization shortfall is $1.4 
billion over the next 10 years.
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, would authorize an 
additional $500.0 million for National Guard and Reserve 
Component equipment. The National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) authorized an additional 
$325.0 million for National Guard and Reserve Component 
equipment.

                   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.

        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; July 26, 2011, Department of 
Defense Investment in Technology and Capability to Meet 
Emerging Security Threats; and February 29, 2012 on Department 
of Defense Fiscal Year 2013 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, and a briefing on July 14, 2011, on 
Department of Defense Laboratories.
    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.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included several 
provisions related to science and technology efforts, 
including: a provision extending hiring authorities for defense 
laboratories through September 30, 2016; a provision expanding 
developmental test and evaluation management for major defense 
acquisition programs; a provision expanding an acquisition 
pilot program to integrate technology protection features 
during research and development to include contractor cost-
sharing; a provision directing an assessment of mechanisms to 
employ non-U.S. citizens with critical scientific and technical 
skills; and provides $200 million to the Rapid Innovation 
Program.
    The subcommittee included several legislative provisions 
related to future capabilities, and science and technology in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, 
H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, to include: a provision 
regarding eligibility for Department of Defense laboratories to 
enter into educational partnerships with educational 
institutions in territories and possessions of the United 
States; a provision directing a National Research Council 
review of defense science and technical graduate education 
needs; a provision directing a report on efforts to field new 
directed energy weapons; a provision allowing the Department of 
Defense to support regional advanced technology clusters; a 
provision amending the responsibilities for the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental Test and 
Evaluation; a provision directing a report on defense forensic 
data; and a provision directing a report and assessment of 
Department use of electromagnetic spectrum.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-9; H.A.S.C. 112-107)

                  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?; March 16, 2011, 
Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization Budget Request 
for U.S. Cyber Command; February 29, 2012 on Department of 
Defense Fiscal Year 2013 Science and Technology Programs; and 
March 20, 2012 on Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Budget Request for Information Technology and 
Cyber Operations Programs.
    In addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a total of five 
briefings and roundtable discussions 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; 
June 3, 2011, Briefing on Recent Cyber Attacks on Lockheed 
Martin; September 8, 2011, Classified Roundtable Discussion on 
the Defense Industrial Base Program; and March 22, 2012 on U.S. 
Cyber Operations Policy.
    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.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included a provision 
requiring the Department of Defense develop a strategy to 
acquire capabilities to detect previously unknown cyber-
attacks; a provision to assess the defense industrial pilot 
program; a provision to implement a program for insider threat 
protection; and a provision directing increased collaboration 
between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland 
Security on cybersecurity.
    The subcommittee included several legislative provisions 
related to information technology and cybersecurity in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 
4310, as passed by the House, to include: a provision directing 
quarterly cyber operations briefings; a provision directing a 
report on three-dimensional integrated circuit manufacturing 
capabilities; a provision directing the designation of a senior 
Department of Defense official for enterprise resource planning 
system data conversion; a provision directing a report on 
providing telecommunications services to uniformed personnel 
transiting through foreign airports; a modification to the 
existing requirement on data center consolidation; a provision 
requiring a report on Air Force cyber operations; and a 
provision to improve organization for computer network 
operations.
    In the committee report accompanying H.R. 4310, as passed 
by the House, the subcommittee also included several items of 
directive report language related to cybersecurity, including a 
report on the role of National Guard cyber defense units, and 
an assessment of legal authorities for cyberspace operations.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-5; H.A.S.C. 112-26; H.A.S.C. 112-107; 
H.A.S.C. 112-118)

           Strategic Communication and Information Operations

    The committee continued its review of the Department of 
Defense's strategic communications and information operations 
programs. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
held a hearing on July 12, 2011, Ten Years On: The Evolution of 
Strategic Communications and Information Operations Since 9/11. 
Additionally, 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.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 included several 
provisions related to strategic communication and information 
operations, including: a provision re-designating psychological 
operations as military information support operations in title 
10, including a required report on strategy and implementation; 
and a provision limiting the availability of funds for the 
Trans Regional Web Initiative.
    The committee included a legislative provision related to 
strategic communication in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, to 
modify and update the statutory limitation on the Department of 
State for the dissemination abroad of information about the 
United States.

         ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE FULL COMMITTEE


                        Full Committee Hearings

    During the second session of the 112th Congress in 2012, 
the committee held a series of budget and posture hearings in 
preparation for the fiscal year 2013 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 clauses 2(n) and (o) rule XI of the House of 
Representatives, the committee met several times to conduct 
oversight over Department of Defense activities, as noted in 
this report.
    On February 15, 2012, the committee received testimony from 
Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense; and General Martin E. 
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to review the 
budget request for funding and authorities during fiscal year 
2013.
    In addition to these hearings, the committee held posture 
hearings in which it sought and received testimony from each of 
the military departments. On February 16, 2012, Ray Mabus, 
Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Jonathan W. Greenert, the Chief 
of Staff of the Navy; and General James F. Amos, the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps, appeared before the committee to discuss 
the United States Navy and Marine Corps' portion of the fiscal 
year 2013 budget request. On February 17, 2012, the committee 
convened a hearing to receive testimony from John McHugh, 
Secretary of the Army; and General Raymond T. Odierno, Chief of 
Staff of the Army, on the United States Army's portion of the 
fiscal year 2013 budget request. On February 28, 2012, Michael 
B. Donley, Secretary of the Air Force; and General Norton A. 
Schwartz, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified on the 
budget as it related to the United States Air Force.
    In addition to the uniformed services, which are primarily 
responsible for training and equipping their respective forces, 
commanders of the unified combatant commands appeared before 
the committee to discuss the security situation in their 
respective areas of responsibility. These hearings began with 
testimony from Admiral James G. Stavridis, Commander of U.S. 
European Command; and General Carter F. Ham, Commander of U.S. 
Africa Command, on February 29, 2012. This hearing was followed 
by Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific 
Command, on March 1, 2012, who testified on his command's 
budget request for fiscal year 2013. On March 6, 2012, the 
committee received testimony from General Douglas M. Fraser, 
Commander of U.S. Southern Command; and General Charles H. 
Jacoby, Jr., Commander of U.S. Northern Command, who testified 
on their combatant commands' fiscal year 2013 budget requests. 
The following day, on March 7, 2012, the committee heard 
testimony from General James N. Mattis, Commander of U.S. 
Central Command; Admiral William H. McRaven, Commander of U.S. 
Special Operations Command; and General William M. Fraser III, 
Commander of U.S. Transportation 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 2013 National Defense 
Authorization Act, which took place on April 17, 2012.
    In addition, the committee closed out its Panel on Defense 
Financial Management and Auditability Reform with a full 
committee hearing on January 24, 2012, in which members 
received testimony from Robert F. Hale, Under Secretary of 
Defense (Comptroller); and Elizabeth A. McGrath, Deputy Chief 
Management Officer, on Department of Defense Perspectives on 
Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness Efforts.
    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 
20, 2012, in which it sought and received information on 
developments in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan pertaining 
to progress of U.S. operations. General John Allen, Commander 
of the International Security Assistance Force and U.S. Forces-
Afghanistan; and Dr. James Miller, Acting Undersecretary of 
Defense for Policy, appeared before the committee to testify on 
this important matter. On March 28, 2012, the committee met to 
receive testimony from Dr. Peter Lavoy, Acting Assistant 
Secretary of Defense (Policy) for Asia and Pacific Security 
Affairs; and General James D. Thurman, Commander of United 
Nations Command, Republic of Korea--United States Combined 
Forces Command, and United States Forces Korea, on the Security 
Situation on the Korean Peninsula. On April 19, 2012, the 
committee received testimony from Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of 
Defense; and General Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, on the Security Situation in the Syrian Arab 
Republic. (H.A.S.C. 112-96; H.A.S.C. 112-100; H.A.S.C. 112-101; 
H.A.S.C. 112-103; H.A.S.C. 112-104; H.A.S.C. 112-106; H.A.S.C. 
112-108; H.A.S.C. 112-109; H.A.S.C. 112-112; H.A.S.C. 112-117; 
H.A.S.C. 112-125; H.A.S.C. 112-129; H.A.S.C. 112-132)

                            Budget Oversight

    On March 9, 2012, 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 2013 to the Committee on the Budget.
    The committee noted that the President's fiscal year 2013 
budget request totaled $550.6 billion in discretionary budget 
authority for national defense. Of this total, $525.4 billion 
was for the Department of Defense, $17.8 billion was for the 
Department of Energy's defense activities, and $7.4 billion was 
for other defense-related activities. The President's budget 
also included $8.3 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 request for fiscal year 2013 included a 
separate request of $88.5 billion for war-related expenditures 
in support of ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, presented as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
    The committee discussed that the 050 budget category 
required an increase to the current budget request to support 
critical shortfalls and underestimated economic assumptions 
within the President's request. The committee argued that a 
significant number of program reductions could be restored and 
readiness risks mitigated if the National Defense Budget 
Function received an increase in budget authority above the 
current President's Budget submission levels within the Budget 
Resolution.
    In review of the budget request, the committee chairman 
highlighted several concerns to the budget committee. First, of 
particular concern to the committee was the Administration's 
request to fund additional end strength (personnel levels above 
the fiscal year 2017 end state) for the Army (49,700) and 
Marine Corps (15,200) in the OCO beginning in fiscal year 2013. 
The committee strongly supported that funding for the Army and 
Marine Corps end strength above the fiscal year 2017 end state 
levels be included in the base budget, regardless of the 
Administration's view that it is non-enduring and war-related. 
Second, the committee was concerned with the significant 
increases in TRICARE fees proposed by the Administration. 
Secretary Panetta testified to the Committee on the Budget 
regarding Tricare . . . ``[W]hat we've done in Tricare is 
basically provided fee increases for those that are covered by 
Tricare''. . . I've got to do something to try to control those 
costs and this was one of the ways we thought made sense. The 
committee's position is that increasing fees merely funds the 
increased costs, not controls them. Third, the Navy announced 
with the request that it intended to retire seven cruisers and 
two amphibious ships within the FYDP before the end of their 
service lives. The committee noted that the Navy currently had 
285 ships, and with fewer new construction starts than planned 
and early retirements, the Navy would still be at 285 ships at 
the end of the FYDP, lower than the floor of 313 established to 
meet its assigned tasking. The shortfall was of particular 
concern to the committee with the shift in strategy to the 
Pacific region, an area where the Navy is particularly 
necessary. Finally, the committee noted that the current 
missile defense policy should be reevaluated, and national 
missile defense should be adequately funded.
    The committee's ranking member 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 request, citing 
it as the appropriate starting point for making a national 
defense budget function allocation for fiscal year 2013 that is 
consistent with the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public Law 112-
25) and stating that it provided a balanced platform for 
maintaining military effectiveness from which justifiable 
savings may be garnered.

  ADDITIONAL OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES OF THE SUBCOMMITTEES AND THE PANELS


           Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

    The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
continued its oversight of the Department of Defense'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; the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization 
Budget Request for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the 
Chemical Biological Defense Program; September 22, 2011, The 
Future of U.S. Special Operations Forces: Ten Years After 9/11 
and Twenty-Five Years After Goldwater Nichols; November 3, 
2011, Institutionalizing Irregular Warfare Capabilities; and on 
March 27, 2012, on Understanding Future Irregular Warfare 
Challenges.
    The subcommittee continued to examine the Department's 
investment and management of information technology systems and 
science and technology. Related hearings included: April 6, 
2011 on Improving Management and Acquisition of Information 
Technology Systems in the Department of Defense; February 29, 
2012 on Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2013 Science and 
Technology Programs; and March 20, 2012 on Fiscal Year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request for Information 
Operations 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.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 (Public Law 112-
81) 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.
    Public Law 112-81 extended the authority provided under 
section 1208 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108-375) through fiscal year 2015 
and increased the authorized amount from $45 million to $50 
million. It also included provisions that: establish increased 
oversight mechanisms on U.S. Special Operations Command 
undersea mobility and non-standard aviation programs; directed 
U.S. Special Operations Command to develop memoranda of 
agreement with the military services regarding enabling 
capabilities to support special operations forces; directed 
quarterly briefings on counterterrorism operations; and 
extended the authorization for the Department of Defense to 
develop Non-Conventional Assisted Recovery capabilities through 
fiscal year 2013.
    In addition to formal hearings, the subcommittee held 
various briefings and events to conduct oversight including: an 
introduction to U.S. Special Operations Forces display and 
presentation on February 11, 2011; 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; 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; a classified 
briefing on April 22, 2011, covering the future of U.S. Special 
Operations Forces; a classified briefing on March 7, 2012, on 
U.S. Special Operations Forces and counterterrorism operations; 
and a briefing on March 22, 2012 on U.S. cyber operations 
policy.
    The subcommittee considered and reported on legislation on 
April 26, 2012, that was included in the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by 
the House on May 18, 2012. The legislative provisions covered a 
range of issues to include: cybersecurity, counter-terrorism, 
and funding for procurement, research and development, and 
operations and maintenance. The subcommittee included several 
legislative provisions related to terrorism authorities and 
special operations forces in the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, as passed by the House, to 
include: a provision to extend the authority for the Secretary 
of Defense to make combating terrorism rewards; a provision 
requiring a report on counter-proliferation capabilities and 
limitations for special operations forces; a provision 
requiring the Department of State to determine if Boko Haram 
qualifies as a Foreign Terrorist Organization; and a provision 
increasing the authorized number of National Guard Civil 
Support Teams. The subcommittee included several legislative 
provisions related to information technology, cybersecurity, 
and research and development in H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, 
to include: a provision directing quarterly cyber operations 
briefings; a provision regarding eligibility for Department of 
Defense laboratories to enter into educational partnerships 
with educational institutions in territories and possessions of 
the United States; a provision regarding regional advanced 
technology clusters; a provision directing a national research 
council review of defense science and technical graduate 
education needs; a provision directing a report on three-
dimensional integrated circuit manufacturing capabilities; a 
provision directing a report on efforts to field new directed 
energy weapons; a provision directing the designation of a 
senior Department of Defense official for enterprise resource 
planning system data conversion; a provision amending 
additional responsibilities for the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
of Defense for Developmental Test and Evaluation; a provision 
making technical and clarifying changes to a separate provision 
requiring a report on the transitioning away from live tissue 
use in medical training; and a provision directing a report and 
assessment of Department use of electromagnetic spectrum.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-18; H.A.S.C. 112-39; H.A.S.C. 112-123; 
H.A.S.C. 112-107; H.A.S.C. 112-118)

                   Subcommittee on Military Personnel


Religious Freedom and Defense of Marriage

    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.
    On July 22, 2011, President Obama transmitted to Congress 
his certification along with the certifications of Secretary of 
Defense Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
Mullen that they had:
    (1) Considered the Report of the Comprehensive Review 
Working Group and the Report's proposed plan of action.
    (2) Prepared the necessary policies and regulations to 
implement repeal.
    (3) Agreed that implementation of the necessary policies 
and regulations pursuant to repeal are consistent with the 
standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit 
cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.
    On July 28, 2011, the Committee on Armed Services received 
a briefing regarding the decision to certify preparedness to 
implement repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Member questioning 
focused on the need to provide clear policy guidelines 
regarding the protection of religious freedom of speech and 
action for those service members with strong moral and 
religious beliefs opposing gay and lesbian lifestyles. 
Additional oversight will be required to review the policy 
regulations and other documents needed to implement repeal.
    The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was effective on 
September 20, 2011, 60 days after the certification by the 
President, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, as required by current law. The committee 
continued to provide oversight to the Department of Defense 
actions to review and modify policies, programs, and benefits 
to accommodate the open service of gays and lesbians and the 
presence of their family members.
    On November 30, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel held a briefing for Members of the committee to 
examine the legal and policy rationale leading to the 
Department of Defense approval of same-sex ceremonies conducted 
by DOD personnel on military installations. The briefing 
highlighted the need for the subcommittee to provide additional 
oversight of these issues in the future.
    The conference report on H.R. 1540 does not contravene or 
amend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), nor is the Department 
of Defense relieved from the prohibition on federal recognition 
of same sex marriage therein. The conference report does 
include a conscience clause provision to protect chaplains' 
rights to not perform same sex marriages on the basis of their 
conscience or moral principles. The conference report on H.R. 
1540 does retain the current UCMJ Article 125 prohibition on 
sodomy.
    H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House, includes section 536, 
which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate the moral 
principles and religious beliefs of service members concerning 
appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality and 
that such beliefs may not be used as a basis for any adverse 
personnel actions. This section would also prohibit any member 
of the Armed Forces from: (1) requiring a chaplain to perform 
any duty or religious ceremony that is contrary to the tenets 
of the chaplain's moral principles or religious faith; or (2) 
discriminating or taking any adverse personnel action against a 
chaplain because of refusal to comply with a direction to 
perform a duty or religious ceremony that is contrary to the 
tenets of the chaplain's moral principles or religious faith. 
In addition, section 537 of H.R. 4310 would preclude marriage 
and marriage-like ceremonies from being conducted on military 
installations or other property under the control of the 
Department of Defense, unless the ceremony involves the union 
of one man with one woman.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-34, H.A.S.C. 112-41)

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 David H. Petraeus, then Commander of 
International Security Assistance Force and 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.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-97)

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.

Military Retirement

    On October 25, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
Subcommittee conducted a hearing entitled ``Military Retirement 
Reform'' to examine the current status of initiatives to reform 
military retirement. The subcommittee received testimony from 
Department of Defense and military association officials that 
allowed Members to examine reform proposals and understand the 
advantages and disadvantages associated with each. The 
subcommittee will continue to consider military retirement 
reform options in the future.
    The budget request for fiscal year 2013 included a 
provision that would establish a Military Retirement 
Modernization Commission to examine options for reforming 
military retirement and to acquire the concurrence of Congress 
using a Base Realignment and Closure process calling for a vote 
on the Commission recommendations without the opportunity for 
Congress to amend the proposal. In the committee report (H. 
Rept. 112-479) accompanying the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2013, the committee expressed concern that 
the proposal includes provisions that would unnecessarily limit 
the legislative authority of the House of Representatives by 
imposing a legislative process that eliminates the ability of 
the House of Representatives to amend the legislation proposed 
by the President. The committee noted that the Secretary of 
Defense should submit the retirement modernization proposal 
that he and the uniformed leaders of the military departments 
consider necessary to the President for submission to Congress. 
The committee contended that Congress, with the benefit of a 
retirement modernization proposal that reflects the best 
judgment of the civilian and military leaders of the Department 
of Defense, can debate and, if judged appropriate, improve and 
finalize a reform proposal.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-80; H.A.S.C. 112-105, H.A.S.C. 112-110)

Treatment of Service Member Remain at the Dover Port Mortuary

    On November 17, 2011, the Subcommittee on Military 
Personnel held a briefing in which all committee members were 
invited to attend to hear from the Air Force and the Office of 
Special Counsel about the investigation into allegations of 
improper handling, processing and transport of human remains of 
military personnel and family members by the Air Force Mortuary 
Affairs Operations, Port Mortuary Division, Dover Air Force 
Base, Delaware, and the Office of Special Counsel analysis of 
the Air Force Investigation.
    The briefing highlighted concerns by the Special Counsel 
about the findings and conclusions in the Air Force 
investigation report. The Air Force focused on the way ahead 
and the plan to address the findings by the Air Force Inspector 
General. The committee examined how the Air Force will support 
the Secretary of Defense directed independent review of the 
corrective actions taken at Dover Mortuary and the 
appropriateness of the disciplinary action taken by the Air 
Force. The briefing highlighted the need for the subcommittee 
to provide additional oversight of these issues in the future.

Hazing in the Military

    The Subcommittee on Military Personnel conducted a hearing 
entitled ``Hazing in the Military'' on Thursday, March 22, 
2012, to provide members an opportunity to hear testimony from 
the service senior enlisted advisors concerning the services 
policies, training and enforcement with respect to hazing. The 
hearing resulted in a provision included in H.R. 4310, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as 
passed by the House that would require the Secretary of Defense 
to execute a plan to establish the Department of Defense effort 
to prevent hazing in the Armed Forces, and to respond to and 
resolve alleged hazing incidents. This section would also 
require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit 
a report on the policies to prevent hazing and systems 
initiated to track incidents in each of the Armed Forces.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-122)

                       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.
    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 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 and conducting a hearing on March 31, 
2011, ``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 
departments, 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 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. 
Additionally, the subcommittee met on July 12, 2011, to receive 
testimony on ``How Does the Navy Get Ready and Where Are We 
Today.'' The subcommittee met on July 26, 2011, to receive 
testimony on ``Total Force Readiness.'' The subcommittee also 
met in open session on September 21, 2011 to receive testimony 
on the Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and Air National 
Guard training and operations. The subcommittee met in open 
session on October 27, 2011 to receive testimony on ``Readiness 
in the Age of Austerity.''
    On March 8, 2012, the subcommittee met to receive testimony 
on ``The Request for Authorization of Another BRAC Round and 
Additional Reductions in Overseas Bases,'' in light of the 
Administration request for two additional rounds of BRAC. The 
subcommittee met on March 22, 2012, to receive testimony on the 
Navy's readiness posture which addressed the Navy's overall 
readiness with regards to fleet size, ship and aircraft 
operation and maintenance, and combatant command requirements. 
On March 28, 2012, the subcommittee met to receive testimony on 
Army and Marine Corps reset, in light of the recent drawdown of 
U.S. forces in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and the 
status of equipment from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation 
New Dawn. The subcommittee also met on March 29, 2012, to 
receive testimony on Department of Defense energy security 
entitled: ``What is the Price of Energy Security: from 
Battlefields to Bases.'' The witnesses provided testimony on 
the Department's efforts to promote energy security in light of 
a tightening budget environment.
    (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; H.A.S.C. 
112-50; H.A.S.C. 112-55; H.A.S.C. 112-67, H.A.S.C. 112-84, 
H.A.S.C. 112-90, H.A.S.C. 112-115, H.A.S.C. 112-121, H.A.S.C. 
112-126, H.A.S.C. 112-128)

             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 2013, including the Fiscal Year 2013 National 
Defense Authorization Budget Request from the Department of the 
Navy on February 16, 2012.
    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; October 13, 2011, Update on KC-46A and 
Legacy Aerial Refueling Aircraft Programs; March 7, 2012, 
Assessing Mobility Airlift Capabilities and Operational Risks 
Under the Revised 2012 Defense Strategy; March 29, 2012, 
Oversight of U.S. Naval Vessel Acquisition Programs and Force 
Structure of the Department of the Navy in the Fiscal Year 2013 
National Defense Authorization Budget Request.
    The Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces also 
held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Readiness on 
November 3, 2011, A Day without Seapower and Projection Forces.
    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; July 28, 2011, 
KC-46A and Legacy Tankers; March 28, 2012, Fiscal Year 2013 
Shipbuilding Plan.
    The subcommittee also held a joint briefing with the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on the SSBN(X) Program and the 
Future of Sea-Based Strategic Deterrence on September 21, 2011.
    The subcommittee considered and reported legislation on 
April 26, 2012, that was included in H.R. 4310, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. 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; H.A.S.C. 112-77; 
H.A.S.C. 112-90; H.A.S.C. 112-113; H.A.S.C. 112-127)

                    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 U.S. 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, the 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. In addition, the subcommittee considered and reported 
legislation on May 4, 2011, that was included in the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81).
    During the second session of the 112th Congress, the 
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces addressed the programs in its 
area of oversight responsibility by conducting hearings during 
its consideration of the fiscal year 2013 budget request, 
including: March 6, 2012, missile defense programs; March 8, 
national security space activities; and, April 18, 2012, 
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 February 16, 2012, on the report of the National 
Academies Phase I Study on Managing for High Quality Science 
and Engineering at the NNSA National Security Laboratories.
    The subcommittee also held several briefings on the 
following oversight topics: March 7, 2012, on the history and 
practice of U.S. nuclear weapons planning and targeting by Mr. 
Franklin Miller and General Larry Welch (USAF Ret); March 7, 
2012 with the National Air and Space Intelligence Center and 
the Defense Security Service on the diversion of U.S. export 
controlled technology; March 21, 2012, on the history and 
practice of U.S. nuclear weapons planning and targeting by 
Admiral Rich Mies (USN Ret) and Mr. Bruce Blair; and, March 27, 
2012, on reform of the National Nuclear Security Administration 
with Ambassador Linton Brooks and General James Cartwright 
(USMC Ret). In addition, the subcommittee considered and 
reported legislation on April 26, 2012, that was included in 
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-12; H.A.S.C. 112-22; H.A.S.C. 112-32; 
H.A.S.C. 112-36; H.A.S.C. 112-58; H.A.S.C. 112-65, H.A.S.C. 
112-78; H.A.S.C. 112-88)

              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 National Guard and Reserve equipment programs.
    The Subcommittee conducted five oversight hearings during 
its consideration of the fiscal year 2012 Department of Defense 
(DOD) budget request prior to the markup of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-
81). Subcommittee 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; April 1, 2011: and Army and Air 
Force National Guard and Reserve Component Equipment Posture. 
The Subcommittee conducted an additional four oversight 
hearings subsequent to the passage of Public Law 112-81 by the 
House: October 12, 2011: Army and Air Force National Guard and 
Reserve Component Acquisition Programs; October 26, 2011: Army 
Acquisition and Modernization; November 2, 2011: Fiscal Year 
2012 Combat Aviation Programs Update; and, November 16, 2011: 
United States Marine Corps Acquisition and Modernization. In 
addition to formal hearings, the Subcommittee received a 
briefing from representatives of DOD 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 conducted three oversight hearings during 
its consideration of the fiscal year 2013 Department of Defense 
budget request prior to the markup of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, H.R. 4310, passed by 
the House May 18, 2012. Hearings included: March 8, 2012: Army 
and Marine Corps Ground System Modernization Programs; March 
20, 2012: Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Tactical Aviation 
Programs; and March 27, 2012: Fiscal Year 2013 DOD Rotorcraft 
Modernization Programs.
    (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; H.A.S.C. 112-75; H.A.S.C. 
112-82; H.A.S.C. 112-87; H.A.S.C. 112-91; H.A.S.C. 112-114; 
H.A.S.C. 112-119; H.A.S.C. 112-124)

              Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

    The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations was 
reestablished by the 112th Congress to conduct studies and 
investigations as 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 conducts comprehensive, 
in-depth oversight of major issues and makes recommendations to 
the committee for consideration and potential legislative 
action.

Transfer and Release of Guantanamo Bay Detainees and Reengagement

    In March 2011, Chairman Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon and 
Ranking Minority Member Adam Smith directed the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations to undertake an in-depth, 
comprehensive bipartisan investigation of procedures to 
dispatch detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility 
(GTMO) over the past decade. This necessarily included an 
examination of mechanisms intended to prevent former detainees 
from reengaging in terror-related activities.
    In conducting this study, committee staff traveled to 11 
countries, interviewed nearly every senior official directly 
involved in these matters in both the Bush and Obama 
Administrations, received briefings from the Department of 
Defense and Department of State, consulted with 18 subject 
matter experts, met with 2 former detainees, and reviewed 
thousands of pages of classified and unclassified documents. 
Subcommittee members convened a hearing, three Member briefings 
(including one that was classified), and traveled to several 
relevant locations.
    At the conclusion of the investigation, the subcommittee 
issued a report which found that the Bush and Obama 
administrations, in reaction to domestic political pressures, a 
desire to earn goodwill abroad, and in an attempt to advance 
strategic national security goals, sought to ``release'' or 
``transfer'' GTMO detainees elsewhere (Committee Print No. 4). 
Those ``released'' were judged a sufficiently low threat that 
they were sent to countries with no expectation of follow up. 
``Transferred'' detainees, because they were assessed as 
relatively more dangerous, were conveyed with the expectation 
that some process would be applied in the receiving nation to 
mitigate the threat they potentially posed.
    The report stated that despite earnest and well-meaning 
efforts by officials in both administrations, properly 
evaluating detainees and ensuring that their cases were handled 
appropriately by receiving countries was, and remains, a 
challenge. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Office of 
the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) estimated in 
September 2011 that 27 percent of the 600 former detainees who 
have left GTMO were confirmed or suspected to be presently or 
previously reengaged in terrorist activities.
    The report noted that this total percentage has 
consistently increased. Furthermore, the Office of the Director 
of National Intelligence noted in 2010 that the intelligence 
community ``assesses that if additional detainees are 
transferred from GTMO, some of them will reengage in terrorist 
or insurgent activities.'' Five of 66 detainees who left GTMO 
in the 20 months between February 2009 and October 2010 are 
confirmed (2) or suspected (3) by ODNI of involvement in 
terrorist or insurgent activities. Although two of the five 
were released pursuant to court orders, this nonetheless yields 
a 7.5 percent reengagement rate. Although it is difficult to 
compare two disparate groups of former detainees (a smaller 
pool which left GTMO relatively recently and a much larger pool 
which has been gone for a much longer period), the reengagement 
rate indicates that challenges remain.
    The report posited four findings:
    Finding 1. Mechanisms to reduce the GTMO population were 
first contemplated when the facility was established in 2002. 
However, procedures to accomplish this took about eight months 
to finalize, and were spurred by persistent concerns that some 
detainees should not be held.
    Finding 2. After the first review process began, political 
and diplomatic pressures to reduce the GTMO population arose, 
resulting in releases and transfers.
    Finding 3. Pressures to reduce the GTMO population 
accelerated in the second Bush term, before reengagement 
dangers became fully apparent.
    Finding 4. While changes in the GTMO transfer and release 
process instituted by the Obama administration differed in some 
important respects from the Bush administration, there are 
sufficient continuities so that the threat of reengagement may 
not be lessened in the long term.
    In addition to chapters discussing each finding in depth, 
the report included several companion articles illustrating 
specific issues. A classified section set forth additional 
information and findings.
    The report offered the following recommendations, which led 
to legislative provisions in H.R. 4310, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, as passed by the House: 
(1) The Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, 
the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director 
of National Intelligence collaborate produce a report (in 
classified and unclassified versions) to congressional 
committees of jurisdiction assessing factors causing or 
contributing to reengagement; including a discussion of trends, 
by country and region, where reengagement has occurred; (2) The 
Department of Defense and the Department of State produce a 
report (in classified and unclassified versions) to 
congressional committees of jurisdiction assessing the 
effectiveness of agreements in each country where transfers 
have occurred; (3) Congress continue the certification 
requirements on GTMO transfers which are contained in the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public 
Law 112-81), at least until receiving and reviewing the 
specified reports; and (4) Additional action as outlined in the 
classified annex.
    The report was not signed by the minority members of the 
subcommittee. The four minority members of the subcommittee 
collectively signed Dissenting Views in which they concluded 
they believed the report was incomplete and indicated 
disagreement with several of the key findings and 
recommendations. In particular, the minority members disagreed 
with recommendation no. 3. In addition, the ranking minority 
member submitted an additional statement, which was signed by 
the other minority members.

Afghan National Security Forces Sizing and Transition to Security Lead 
        Decisions

    In June 2012, the chairman of the committee directed the 
subcommittee to convene a series of hearings and briefings 
about the projected growth of the Afghan National Security 
Forces, the conditions and timetable in which those forces will 
assume security responsibility from United States and 
International Security Assistance Forces, and the related 
schedule for the drawdown of these forces.
    The first hearing was held on June 20, 2012, and was 
titled, ``Afghan National Security Forces: Resources, Strategy, 
and Timetable for Security Lead Transition.'' In connection 
with this work, subcommittee members participated in an 
oversight delegation to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and 
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Members and staff met with 
military commanders, U.S. embassy officials and foreign 
government officials from relevant ministries, including a 
governor and chief minister from Peshawar.

Arlington National Cemetery Accountability and Reform

    In February 2012, the subcommittee held a joint hearing 
with the Subcommittee on Military Personnel to receive an 
update on the actions taken by the Army to improve its 
accountability of the Arlington National Cemetery, with 
particular emphasis on the Gravesite Accountability Task Force 
responsible for validating gravesite records. The hearing was 
part of a long-term effort aimed at overseeing accountability 
and reform efforts to ensure past contractual and 
administrative mismanagement issues had been addressed. Hearing 
witnesses were: Lieutenant General Peter M. Vangjel, the 
Inspector General of the U.S. Army, Ms. Belva Martin, Director, 
Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, U.S. Government 
Accountability Office; Mr. Brian J. Lepore, Director of Defense 
Capabilities and Management, U.S. Government Accountability 
Office; and Ms. Kathryn Condon, the Executive Director of the 
Army's National Cemeteries Program.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-98)

U.S. Navy 30 Year Shipbuilding Plan--Assumptions and Associated Risks 
        to National Security

    In connection with a series of hearings focused on the 
efficacy of the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, the 
subcommittee conducted oversight visits to Electric Boat 
Shipbuilding in Groton, Connecticut, and Quonset Point, Rhode 
Island; Bath Iron Works in Maine; and General Dynamics NASSCO 
in San Diego, California. The purpose of the visits was to meet 
with shipyard leaders, inspect facilities, and learn about 
industry concerns and challenges.
    In April 2012, the subcommittee conducted a hearing titled, 
``The Navy's 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan: Assumptions and 
Associated Risks to National Security.'' Witnesses were: Mr. 
Ronald O'Rourke, Defense Policy and Arms Control Section, 
Congressional Research Service, Dr. Seth Cropsey, Senior 
Fellow, Hudson Institute; and Ms. Mackenzie Eaglen, Resident 
Fellow at the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies, 
American Enterprise Institute.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-131)

        Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry

    On September 20, 2011, the committee formally established 
the Panel on Business Challenges within the Defense Industry. 
This seven-member panel was initiated by the chairman and 
ranking member of the committee to examine the challenges for 
the private sector in doing business with the Department of 
Defense. The panel was commissioned for 6 months and tasked 
with examining the defense business environment and developing 
an understanding of how the Department of Defense could spur 
innovation, competition, and cost savings by encouraging new 
entrants into the industrial base and fostering the transition 
of technology. Although it was not provided legislative 
jurisdiction, the panel reported its findings, including 
recommendations for possible legislation, to the full committee 
on March 19, 2012.
    The panel examined a variety of issues and topics covering 
the broad scope of contracting, industrial base security, small 
business programs, and efforts to increase innovation and 
transition technology for the warfighter. The panel held three 
hearings and five industry roundtable sessions between January 
and March of 2012.
    The panel's first hearing of 2012 was held on January 17, 
2012, entitled `Unique Challenges Faced by Small and Mid-Sized 
Businesses.' The focus of the hearing was to gain a better 
understanding of the challenges of small and mid-sized 
businesses in receiving opportunities to work with the 
Department of Defense, and the challenges they had once that 
work had begun. The witnesses included Mr. A. John Shoraka, 
Acting Associate Administrator for Government Contracting and 
Business Administration, United States Small Business 
Administration; Ms. Linda Hillmer, Chair, Small Business 
Division of the National Defense Industrial Association; and 
Ms. Lynn M. Schubert, President, The Surety and Fidelity 
Association of America.
    The panel's next hearing was held on January 23, 2012, 
entitled `Doing Business with DOD: Getting Innovative Solutions 
from Concept to the Hands of the Warfighter.' This hearing 
focused on the role of universities, non-profit research 
institutions and federally funded research and development 
centers (FFRDCs) in the development and research activities in 
order to get innovative tools and technologies from the 
academia to the warfighter. The hearing's witnesses were Dr. 
Stephen E. Cross, Executive Vice President for Research, 
Georgia Institute of Technology; Dr. Norman Winarsky, Vice 
President, SRI Ventures, Stanford Research Institute (SRI); and 
Dr. Stephen Huffman, Vice President and Chief Technology 
Officer, the MITRE Corporation.
    On February 6, 2012, the panel held its final hearing 
addressing `Doing Business with DOD: Contracting and Regulatory 
Challenges.' This hearing examined contracting and regulatory 
issues that may be creating barriers to entry, reduce 
competition, stifling innovation, or otherwise negatively 
impacting the defense industrial base. The witnesses were Dr. 
Allan V. Burman, President, Jefferson Solutions; Mr. Raj 
Sharma, President and Co-Chair of the Board of Directors for 
the FAIR Institute; and Mr. Joel L. Johnson, former Vice 
President, International at the Aerospace Industries 
Association of America, Inc.
    In addition to the hearings, the panel conducted five 
industry roundtables. The purpose of these events was to 
directly solicit industry views on challenges they face and to 
ensure such views were collected from a cross-section of 
industries and businesses, operating in a variety of 
congressional districts that have a strong defense industry 
presence. These events included a roundtable with 15 to 20 
industry participants and were an opportunity for panel Members 
and industry to connect and discuss in an open dialogue about 
strengths and weaknesses of the defense acquisition system. In 
addition, the panel also used the events to meet with 
representatives from local colleges and universities who 
conduct research and provide analysis for the Department of 
Defense on a myriad of issues.
    The panel's first roundtable event of 2012 was held at 
Santa Clarita City Hall in Santa Clarita, California on January 
8, 2012. At this field roundtable, there were several points of 
discussion. These included concerns about the backlogs at the 
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and challenges in 
transitioning technology to production from the Small Business 
Innovation Research (SBIR) program. In addition, the roundtable 
discussed the need for increased flexibility in cost and 
pricing. There was also discussion about the International 
Trafficking of Arms Regulations (ITARs) and the frustration 
associated with current export licensing requirements.
    The panel's next roundtable event was held at the State 
Capitol building in Honolulu, Hawaii, on January 9, 2012. The 
industry roundtable included 10 industry participants. Points 
of discussion included the SBIR program with recommendations to 
restructure the program and improve transition assistance. In 
addition, several participants commented on the acquisition 
system and processes including the levels of bureaucracy and 
sole-source contracting.
    The panel's third roundtable event of 2012 was held in San 
Diego, California at the Admiral Kidd Club, Naval Base Point 
Loma. In addition to the panel Members, two additional Members 
of the Committee on Armed Services, Congressman Duncan Hunter 
and Congresswoman Susan Davis, joined the roundtable. There 
were 18 industry participants in attendance. Among the issues 
discussed were the benefits to small business regarding 
congressionally-directed funding in increasing the market for 
technologies that DOD may not know is available. In addition, 
the roundtable touched on the issues pertaining to intellectual 
property rights of small businesses, the risk-averse culture of 
DOD acquisition officials and the lack of flexibility in the 
acquisition process. Once again, issues and challenges 
surrounding ITARs and the SBIR program were presented to the 
panel.
    The following industry roundtable was held on January 21, 
2012 at the Florida Atlantic University's MacArthur Campus in 
Jupiter, Florida. The Small Business Committee Chairman, 
Congressman Sam Graves, also attended the event. There were 21 
industry participants in this roundtable. During the 
roundtable, the issue of consistency in work loading the 
industrial base was discussed. Several participants suggested 
that the Department of Defense needs to work with industry to 
provide a level workload to prevent inconsistencies and 
inefficiencies such as laying off and rehiring workers and 
short-term contracts. Challenges with the Defense Logistics 
Agency (DLA) and DCAA once again resurfaced at this event.
    The final roundtable event of the panel was held on 
February 27, 2012. The roundtable had 16 industry participants. 
During the event industry participants pointed out challenges 
with the DLA regarding accountability within the Agency as well 
as their `reverse auctions' program. Another item which several 
participants discussed was the need for incentive programs 
within the system to receive a better product and a more 
efficient acquisition and procurement process. In addition, 
Government Services Administration schedules, challenges 
gaining direct access to the customer, and the prime 
contractor-sub contractor relationship challenges were all 
discussed at the event.
    The committee included several provisions in title XVI of 
H.R. 4310, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013, as passed by the House, addressing many of the 
panel's recommendations.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-94; H.A.S.C. 112-95; H.A.S.C. 112-99)

     Panel on Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform

    On July 13, 2011, the committee organized a Panel on 
Defense Financial Management and Auditability Reform pursuant 
to Committee Rule 5(a) to carry out a comprehensive review of 
the Department of Defense's financial management system. The 
review was initiated to oversee the Department's financial 
management system's capacity for providing timely, reliable, 
and useful information for decision making and reporting. The 
panel was established for an initial period of 6 months with 
the appointment set to expire on January 13, 2012, but was 
extended to January 31, 2012.
    During the 6-month period, the Panel on Defense Financial 
Management and Auditability Reform held eight hearings and two 
briefings in support of its mandate to examine the Department 
of Defense's financial management system. The panel focused its 
examination on the Department of Defense's Financial 
Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) strategy and 
methodology; the challenges facing the Department in achieving 
financial management reform and auditability; financial 
management workforce competency; and the Department's 
enterprise resource planning (ERP) system implementation 
efforts.
    On January 24, 2012, the panel concluded its work with the 
chairman of the panel presenting the panel's findings and 
recommendations to the full committee. Immediately following 
the chairman's briefing, the committee received testimony on 
the Department's views of the panel's report, to offer more 
detail on the Department's revised FIAR Plan for achieving an 
auditable Statement of Budgetary Resources by 2014 and to 
report on the status of the Department's efforts to achieve 
audit readiness on all financial statements by 2017.
    (H.A.S.C. 112-96)

                              PUBLICATIONS

                             HOUSE REPORTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Report Number          Date Filed        Bill Number        Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
112-77...........  May 12, 2011.........  H. Res. 208..  Directing the
                                                          Secretary of
                                                          Defense to
                                                          transmit to
                                                          the House of
                                                          Representative
                                                          s 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
112-78...........  May 17, 2011.........  H.R. 1540....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2012
112-78 Part 2....  May 23, 2011.........  H.R. 1540....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2012
112-123..........  June 24, 2011........  N/A..........  First
                                                          Semiannual
                                                          Report on the
                                                          Activities of
                                                          the Committee
                                                          on Armed
                                                          Services for
                                                          the 112th
                                                          Congress
112-329..........  December 30, 2011....  N/A..........  Second
                                                          Semiannual
                                                          Report on the
                                                          Activities of
                                                          the Committee
                                                          on Armed
                                                          Services for
                                                          the 112th
                                                          Congress
112-479..........  May 11, 2012.........  H.R. 4310....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2013
112-479 Part 2...  May 15, 2012.........  H.R. 4310....  National
                                                          Defense
                                                          Authorization
                                                          Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           CONFERENCE REPORTS

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Report Number          Date Filed        Bill Number        Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
112-329..........  December 12, 2011....  Conference     National
                                           Report To      Defense
                                           Accompany      Authorization
                                           H.R. 1540.     Act for Fiscal
                                                          Year 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            COMMITTEE PRINTS

    Committee Print No. 1--Committee Rules of the Committee on 
Armed Services, House of Representatives, adopted January 20, 
2011.
    Committee Print No. 2a--Title 10, United States Code Armed 
Forces, Volume I, amended December 31, 2010.
    Committee Print No. 2b--Title 10, United States Code Armed 
Forces, Volume II, amended December 31, 2010.
    Committee Print No. 2c--Title 10, United States Code Armed 
Forces, Volume III, amended December 31, 2010.
    Committee Print No. 3--The Future of the U.S. Military Ten 
Years after 9/11 and the Consequences of Defense Sequestration. 
November 2011.
    Committee Print No. 4--Leaving Guantanamo--Policies, 
Pressures, and Detainees Returning to the Fight. January 2012.

                         PUBLISHED PROCEEDINGS

    H.A.S.C. 112-1--Full 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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Morale, Welfare, 
and Recreation Programs Overview. February 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-4--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--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 National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. February 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-7--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. February 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-8--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--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 National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs-- 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 National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. March 2, 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 U.S. Forces. March 3, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-14--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--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 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs Budget Request 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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request for 
National Security Space Activities. March 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-23--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--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 National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Budget Request for U.S. Cyber Command. March 16, 
2011.
    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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--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 National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for U.S. 
European Command, U.S. Southern Command, and U.S. Northern 
Command, and U.S. 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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--Review of the 
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 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--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 National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for the U.S. 
Transportation Command and U.S. Africa Command. April 5, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-38--Full Committee hearing on National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests for 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 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and 
Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs--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.
    H.A.S.C. 112-47--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Ten Years On: The Evolution of the 
Terrorist Threat. June 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-48--Full Committee hearing on Recent 
Developments in Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S. 
Forces. June 23, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-49--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Ten Years On: The Evolution of 
Strategic Communication and Information Operations Since 9/11. 
July 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-50--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on How 
Does the Navy Get Ready, and Where Are We Today? July 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-51--Full Committee hearing on Human Capital 
Management: A High Risk Area for the Department of Defense. 
July 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-52--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Voting. July 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-53--Full Committee hearing on Ten Years After 
the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force: Current 
Status of Legal Authorities, Detention, and Prosecution in the 
War on Terror. July 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-54--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Department of Defense Investment in 
Technology and Capability to Meet Emerging Security Threats. 
July 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-55--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Total 
Force Readiness. July 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-56--Full Committee hearing on The Way Forward 
in Afghanistan. July 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-57--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on the Reserve Components as an Operational Force: Potential 
Legislative and Policy Changes. July 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-58--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Sustaining Nuclear Deterrence after New START. July 27, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-59--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Plans for Financial 
Management Improvement and Achieving Audit Readiness. July 28, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-60--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on Department of Defense Component 
Audit Efforts. September 8, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-61--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives from Former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
September 8, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-62--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on The Current Status of Suicide Prevention Programs in the 
Military. September 9, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-63--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives from Outside Experts. September 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-64--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on Organizational Challenges in 
Achieving Sound Financial Management and Audit Readiness. 
September 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-65--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Sustaining GPS for National Security. September 15, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-66--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on Challenges to Doing Business with 
the Department of Defense. September 20, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-67--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Army 
Reserve, Army National Guard and Air National Guard Readiness, 
Training and Operations. September 21, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-68--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Efforts to Improve Payment 
and Funds Control. September 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-69--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on The Future of U.S. Special Operations 
Forces: Ten Years After 9/11 and Twenty-Five Years after 
Goldwater-Nichols. September 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-70--Full Committee hearing on Afghan National 
Security Forces. September 22, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-71--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on An Update on Arlington Cemetery Reforms (joint with the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations). September 23, 
2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-72--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives from Former Service Chiefs and Vice Chiefs. 
October 4, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-73--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on is the Financial Management 
Workforce Positioned to Achieve DOD's Financial Improvement 
Goals? October 6, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-74--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives of Former Chairmen of the Committee on Armed 
Services. October 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-75--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on National Guard and Reserve Component 
Acquisition and Modernization. October 12, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-76--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years After 9/11: 
Perspectives of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey. October 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-77--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on An Update on KC-46A and Legacy Aerial 
Refueling Aircraft Programs. October 13, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-78-- Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Nuclear Weapons Modernization in Russia and China: 
Understanding Impacts to the United States. October 14, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-79--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on The Defense Industrial Base: A 
National Security Imperative. October 24, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-80--Subcommittee on Military Personnel hearing 
on Military Retirement Reform. October 25, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-81--Full Committee hearing on Economic 
Consequences of Defense Sequestration. October 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-82--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Army Acquisition and Modernization Programs. 
October 26, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-83--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Auditability Reform hearing on DOD's Enterprise Resource 
Planning (ERP) System Implementation Efforts. October 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-84--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Readiness in the Age of Austerity. October 27, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-85--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on The Defense Industrial Base: The 
Role of the Department of Defense. November 1, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-86--Full Committee hearing on The Future of 
the Military Services and Consequences of Defense 
Sequestration. November 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-87--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Fiscal Year 2012 Combat Aviation Programs 
Update. November 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-88--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on The Current Status and Future Direction for U.S. Nuclear 
Weapons Policy and Posture. November 2, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-89--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Institutionalizing Irregular Warfare 
Capabilities. November 3, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-90--Subcommittees on Seapower and Projection 
Forces and Readiness hearing on A Day without Seapower and 
Projection Forces. November 3, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-91--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on United States Marine Corps Acquisition and 
Modernization. November 16, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-92--Panel on Defense Financial Management and 
Audibility Reform hearing on Industry Perspectives on Achieving 
Audit Readiness. November 17, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-93--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on creating a 21st Century Defense 
Industry. November 18, 2011.
    H.A.S.C. 112-94--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on Doing Business with DOD: Unique 
Challenges Faced by Small and Mid-Sized Businesses. January 17, 
2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-95--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on Doing Business with DOD: Getting 
Innovative Solutions from Concept to the Hands of the 
Warfighter. January 23, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-96--Full Committee hearing on Department of 
Defense Perspectives on Financial Improvement and Audit 
Readiness Efforts. January 24, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-97--Full Committee hearing on Use of Afghan 
Nationals to Provide Security to U.S. Forces in Light of 
Attacks on U.S. Personnel at FOB Frontenac, Afghanistan, in 
March 2011. February 1, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-98--Subcommittees on Military Personnel and 
Oversight and Investigations joint hearing on Update on 
Accountability at Arlington National Cemetery. February 3, 
2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-99--Panel on Business Challenges within the 
Defense Industry hearing on Doing Business with DOD: 
Contracting and Regulatory Issues. February 6, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-100--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of Defense. February 15, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-101--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Navy. February 16, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-102--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Governance, Oversight, and Management of the Nuclear 
Security Enterprise to Ensure High Quality Science, 
Engineering, and Mission Effectiveness in an Age of Austerity. 
February 16, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-103--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Army. February 17, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-104--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from the 
Department of the Air Force. February 28, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-105--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Military Personnel Budget Overview--Office of the 
Secretary of Defense Perspective. February 28, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-106--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from U.S. 
European Command and U.S. Africa Command. February 29, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-107--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2013 
Science and Technology Programs. February 29, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-108--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Request from U.S. 
Pacific Command. March 1, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-109--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from U.S. 
Southern Command and U.S. Northern Command. March 6, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-110--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Military Personnel Budget Overview--Service 
Personnel Chiefs' Perspectives. March 6, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-111--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Budget Request for Missile Defense. March 6, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-112--Full Committee hearing on National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of 
Previously Authorized Programs--Budget Requests from U.S. 
Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. 
Transportation Command. March 7, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-113--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces hearing on Assessing Mobility Airlift Capabilities and 
Operational Risks Under the Revised 2012 Defense Strategy. 
March 7, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-114--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Army and Marine Corps Ground System 
Modernization Programs. March 8, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-115--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on 
Request for Authorization of Another BRAC Round and Additional 
Reductions in Overseas Bases. March 8, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-116--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget 
Request for National Security Space Activities. March 8, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-117--Full Committee hearing on Recent 
Developments in Afghanistan. March 20, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-118--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2013 and Oversight of Previously Authorized 
Programs--Budget Request for Information Technology and Cyber 
Operations Programs. March 20, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-119--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Fiscal Year 2013 Navy, Marine Corps and Air 
Force Tactical Aviation Programs. March 20, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-120--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Defense Health Program Budget Overview. March 21, 
2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-121--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on The 
Navy's Readiness Posture. March 22, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-122--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Hazing in the Military. March 22, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-123--Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities hearing on Understanding Future Irregular Warfare 
Challenges. March 27, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-124--Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces hearing on Fiscal Year 2013 DOD Rotorcraft Modernization 
Programs. March 27, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-125-- Full Committee hearing on The Security 
Situation on the Korean Peninsula. March 27, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-126--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on Army 
and Marine Corps Materiel Reset. March 28, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-127--Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection 
Forces Oversight of U.S. Naval Vessel Acquisition Programs and 
Force Structure of the Department of the Navy in the Fiscal 
Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Budget Request. March 
29, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-128--Subcommittee on Readiness hearing on What 
is the Price of Energy Security: from Battlefields to Bases. 
March 29, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-129--Full Committee hearing on Testimony from 
Members on their national defense priorities for the fiscal 
year 2013 national defense authorization bill. April 17, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-130--Subcommittee on Strategic Forces hearing 
on Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Budget Request for Atomic 
Energy Defense Activities and Nuclear Forces Programs. April 
17, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-131--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on The Navy's 30-Year Shipbuilding Plan: 
Assumptions and Associated Risks to National Security. April 
18, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-132--Full Committee hearing on Recent 
Developments in the Middle East: The Security Situation in the 
Syrian Arab Republic. April 19, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-133--Subcommittee on Military Personnel 
hearing on Military Resale Programs Overview. June 6, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-134--Full Committee hearing on Addressing the 
Iranian Nuclear Challenge: Understanding the Military Options. 
June 20, 2012.
    H.A.S.C. 112-135--Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations hearing on Afghan National Security Forces: 
Resources, Strategy, and Timetable for Security Lead 
Transition. June 20, 2012.

                             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 US 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
    June 21, 2011--McKeon: Don't Reverse Progress in 
Afghanistan
    June 21, 2011--McKeon Congratulates Director Panetta on 
Confirmation
    June 23, 2011--Armed Services Chairman Expresses Concern 
over Afghanistan Drawdown
    June 23, 2011--McKeon Statement on Recent Developments in 
Afghanistan and the Proposed Drawdown of U.S. Forces
    June 24, 2011--McKeon Releases Committee Activities Report 
and Highlights Transparency Efforts
    July 7, 2011--McKeon on 9th Circuit Don't Ask Don't Tell 
Ruling
    July 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leadership 
Announces Bipartisan Fiscal Management Panel
    July 19, 2011--Republican National Security Leadership 
Calls On Obama To Define Detainee Policy
    July 30, 2011--McKeon Statement on Reid Plan and Defense 
Cuts
    August 1, 2011--McKeon Statement on the Debt Ceiling 
Compromise
    August 24, 2011--China's Increasing Assertiveness and 
Military Capabilities a Growing Concern
    September 12, 2011--Armed Services Committee Leadership 
Announces Bipartisan Defense Business Panel
    September 13, 2011--McKeon Statement for hearing on ``The 
Future of National Defense and the U.S. Military Ten Years 
After 9/11: Perspectives from Outside Experts''
    September 30, 2011--McKeon Statement on Death of Anwar al-
Awlaki Death
    October 21, 2011--McKeon Statement on Withdrawal of U.S. 
Combat Forces from Iraq
    October 19, 2011--McKeon Hails Reid Pledge To Pass Defense 
Bill
    October 21, 2011--McKeon Statement on Withdrawal of U.S. 
Combat Forces from Iraq
    November 10, 2011--McKeon Thanks America's Veterans
    November 21, 2011--Chairman McKeon on the Joint Select 
Committee and Sequestration
    December 2, 2011--McKeon Statement on the Discontinuation 
of Self-funded Development of F-35 Engine
    December 12, 2011--Chairman McKeon Files NDAA's Conference 
Report
    December 14, 2011--McKeon hails passage of 50th National 
Defense Authorization Act
    December 15, 2011--McKeon Statement on the End of American 
Military Presence in Iraq

                             Second Session

    January 2, 2012--McKeon Warns President's New Defense 
Strategy is ``Lead From Behind''
    January 24, 2012--Members Make Appeal to President to 
Reverse Damaging Sequestration Cuts to Our Military
    January 26, 2012--McKeon Warns President's Military Cuts 
are Real and Dramatic
    February 10, 2012--House Armed Services Committee Releases 
Report on Risk Levels in the Release of Detainees from 
Guantanamo Bay
    February 13, 2012--McKeon Statement on President's 2013 
Budget Submission
    February 17, 2012--Thirty Four Members of Congress Express 
Concern to President over Nuclear Reductions
    February 17, 2012--McKeon Welcomes Congresswoman Speier to 
Committee
    February 21, 2012--Business Panel Meets to Discuss 
Challenges Within the Defense Industry
    March 20, 2012--Panel on Business Challenges Within the 
Defense Industry Releases Final Report on Doing Business with 
DOD
    March 20, 2012--McKeon Comments on Republican Budget 
Proposal
    March 27, 2012--McKeon Comments on Israeli Missile Defense
    March 29, 2012--McKeon, Smith Introduce Department of 
Defense Legislative Proposals for the FY13 National Defense 
Authorization Act
    April 4, 2012--McKeon Comments on Referral of Charges For 
KSM and other 9/11 Conspirators
    April 13, 2012--McKeon Reacts to North Korean Missile 
Launch
    April 18, 2012--Subcommittee Markup Schedule for FY 2013 
NDAA
    April 25, 2012--Strategic Forces Subcommittee Mark Released
    April 25, 2012--Emerging Threats and Capabilities 
Subcommittee Mark Released
    April 25, 2012--Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee 
Mark Released
    April 25, 2012--Military Personnel Subcommittee Chairman 
Releases Mark for FY13 NDAA
    April 26, 2012--Readiness Mark Released
    April 26, 2012--Tactical Air and Land Forces Mark Released
    May 1, 2012--McKeon Statement on the President's Visit to 
Afghanistan
    May 3, 2012--Full Committee Markup Schedule
    May 7, 2012--McKeon Releases Details about National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013
    May 9, 2012--Fact Sheet: Small Business and the FY13 NDAA
    May 10, 2012--McKeon Addresses Sequestration
    May 10, 2012--Committee Overwhelmingly Passes the FY13 
National Defense Authorization Act
    May 11, 2012--McKeon Responds To Secretary Panetta's 
Criticism of Defense Bill
    May 16, 2012--McKeon Floor Statement for General Debate on 
H.R. 4310-FY13 NDAA
    May 18, 2012--Chairman McKeon Statement on Final Passage of 
H.R. 4310 the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2013
    June 1, 2012--McKeon Accepts Prestigious Eisenhower Award
    June 19, 2012--McKeon, Turner Joint Statement Regarding 
Reports of Unilateral Reductions to U.S. Nuclear Weapons