Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), the outgoing chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is set to issue -- as soon as today -- the results of a yearlong review of the U.S. military that began with strong bipartisan support but is now not expected to carry the name of a single Democrat.

Late last week, Hunter sent a memo to committee members soliciting signatures for the 126-page report of the Committee Defense Review, an effort launched by the committee in September 2005 to provide an alternative assessment to the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review.

The result of nearly nine months of work by committee members, their military legislative assistants and committee staff, the report -- which includes a call for significantly increasing the force structure of each of the military services -- will not bear the imprimatur of the full committee, according to Hunter.

“Unfortunately, as we entered the final phase, Ranking Member [Rep. Ike] Skelton [D-MO] informed me the Democrats were no longer interested in publishing this work,” Hunter wrote in the Nov. 30 memo to members of the defense authorization committee. “However, in light of the significant investment of time and effort by members to produce this document, the CDR will be published.”

The idea to conduct an independent assessment of the Pentagon’s QDR was advanced last summer by Skelton and Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX). The two lawmakers introduced an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 defense authorization bill that would have established an independent, bipartisan panel of experts to critique the Pentagon’s review. Instead, Hunter took that idea and suggested that the committee conduct just such an in-house assessment.

During the fall of 2005, 55 of the committee’s 62 members participated on one of the seven panels established to examine a range of regional security challenges and types of threats the U.S. military must prepare to face. These groups convened 40 times for briefings and hearings through last November before turning early this year to the of compiling their findings, according to the report.

At the outset, committee officials said the original goal of the effort was to produce an assessment that would be issued on the heels of the Pentagon’s QDR, which was delivered to lawmakers in early February.

By early summer, however, Democrats questioned the relevance of the effort and began to distance themselves, according to Loren Dealy, a spokeswoman for committee Democrats.

"HASC Democrats went into the Committee Defense Review process with a good-faith effort," Dealy said in a statement. "They were able to agree on many things and are committed to ensuring our military has adequate resources to meet the missions given to them.  Unfortunately, the final draft report was built on assumptions that yielded unrealistic force structure outcomes and perpetuated flawed thinking about the war on terror. Democrats on the committee then turned their focus back to meeting the needs of our troops and our nation."

Josh Holly, a spokesman for committee Republicans, said Hunter is expected to release the final report Tuesday or Wednesday. While the final report will not bear the signatures of any Democrats, the document reflects the work of bipartisan drafts developed in the spring, he said.

“Force structure increases will be necessary to conduct ongoing operations in the global war on terrorism and respond to two nearly-simultaneous major regional conflicts,” the report states. The review recommends a force structure that includes: 78 Army brigade combat teams; 43 marine Corps infantry battalions; four Marine Corps prepositioned squadrons; 55 amphibious ships; 15 Navy carrier strike groups; 15 carrier air wings; 55-68 attack submarines and 15 Air Force expeditionary wings.