[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 114-34]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
MEMBER DAY--NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 14, 2015
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-745 WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Fourteenth Congress
WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina ADAM SMITH, Washington
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
ROB BISHOP, Utah RICK LARSEN, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JOHN GARAMENDI, California
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado Georgia
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia JACKIE SPEIER, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
MO BROOKS, Alabama DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
PAUL COOK, California MARK TAKAI, Hawaii
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma GWEN GRAHAM, Florida
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama PETE AGUILAR, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
MARTHA McSALLY, Arizona
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California
THOMAS MacARTHUR, New Jersey
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Kari Bingen, Professional Staff Member
Spencer Johnson, Counsel
Britton Burkett, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Thornberry, Hon. William M. ``Mac,'' a Representative from Texas,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.......................... 1
WITNESSES
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a Representative from Tennessee.......... 1
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative from Oregon.............. 19
Bost, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Illinois.................. 12
Chabot, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Ohio................... 9
Curbelo, Hon. Carlos, a Representative from Florida.............. 15
Ellmers, Hon. Renee L., a Representative from North Carolina..... 22
Fitzpatrick, Hon. Michael G., a Representative from Pennsylvania. 13
Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative from Texas................. 21
Hardy, Hon. Cresent, a Representative from Nevada................ 4
Hurd, Hon. Will, a Representative from Texas..................... 25
Lawrence, Hon. Brenda L., a Representative from Michigan......... 16
Ross, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative from Florida.............. 18
Rothfus, Hon. Keith J., a Representative from Pennsylvania....... 8
Wagner, Hon. Ann, a Representative from Missouri................. 3
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska.................... 6
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha....................................... 47
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl........................................ 35
Bost, Hon. Mike.............................................. 79
Chabot, Hon. Steve........................................... 39
Curbelo, Hon. Carlos......................................... 81
Ellmers, Hon. Renee L........................................ 54
Fitzpatrick, Hon. Michael G.................................. 52
Gohmert, Hon. Louie.......................................... 49
Hanna, Hon. Richard L., a Representative from New York....... 58
Hardy, Hon. Cresent.......................................... 83
Hurd, Hon. Will.............................................. 87
Katko, Hon. John, a Representative from New York............. 91
Lawrence, Hon. Brenda L...................................... 93
Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine, a Representative from Missouri..... 51
McKinley, Hon. David B., a Representative from West Virginia. 70
Ross, Hon. Dennis A.......................................... 72
Rothfus, Hon. Keith J........................................ 74
Sarbanes, Hon. John P., a Representative from Maryland....... 50
Wagner, Hon. Ann............................................. 77
Young, Hon. Don.............................................. 31
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Hon. David B. McKinley Supplemental Documents................ 99
MEMBER DAY--NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 2016 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 14, 2015.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room
2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William M. ``Mac''
Thornberry (chairman of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY, A
REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED
SERVICES
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
The distinguished acting ranking member, Mrs. Davis, is on
her way, but I understand it's fine for us to go ahead.
The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive
testimony from Members of Congress on their national security
priorities for the fiscal year 2016 National Defense
Authorization Act.
Just a quick note about format today. In consultation with
the ranking member, we will depart from our regular questioning
process. Each witness will have 4 minutes to testify.
Members of the committee who then want to ask clarifying
questions will raise their hand or make their interest known to
the staff and they will be yielded 2 minutes each, for a
maximum of 4 minutes for each witness. This will ensure that we
can get through all of our witnesses today. And as this hearing
is intended to be primarily a listening session, it is not my
intent to engage in extended debate on various issues.
We look forward to today's testimony and certainly thank
our distinguished colleagues for their advocacy on behalf of
our troops and our national security.
First up today is the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs.
Blackburn, who is recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I want to thank all of you for allowing Members of
the House to come and testify on these issues of importance.
As many of you know, I represent the Seventh Congressional
District of Tennessee, which is home to the brave men and women
of Fort Campbell. Yes. And Ms. Wagner is going to cheer because
her son is one of those brave men. Fort Campbell is home to the
storied 101st Airborne, the 5th Division and the Army's 160th
Special Ops Aviation Regiment. Nearly 1,900 officers and 26,500
enlisted personnel call Fort Campbell home.
Like many installations across the country, Fort Campbell
is facing reductions that will have an impact on military
readiness programs. I was pleased to work with this committee
last year in support of the Army Flying Hours Program.
This vital program provides aviation training resources for
individual crew members and units according to approved
aviation training strategies. In addition, it also provides
individual and collective proficiency in support of ongoing
combat and non-combat air operations.
For aviation units like the 101st, this training is not
only vital to mission success, but to the safety of our
personnel. Due to Army budget restraints, Army aviators will
only be provided with 9.3 hours of training per crew per month.
This is below the recommended increase to 11.3 hours of
training per crew per month.
Currently, the Active Army combat aviation brigades have a
$55 million shortfall in meeting 100 percent of their critical
requirements. Without the necessary funding, home station
training opportunities will not be available to achieve optimal
combat readiness.
I ask the members of this committee to once again pay close
attention to restoring the Army Flying Hours Program to its
full capacity in fiscal year 2016.
I would also like to bring to this committee's attention
the further reduction of our Armed Forces and how this will
hamstring our ability to meet the challenges and the threats
that we see in an increasingly destabilized world.
As America withdraws from the international community,
countries like Russia are becoming increasingly brazen. We see
it in the annexation of Crimea by Russian-backed separatists,
civil war in Yemen and Syria, and China's military buildup.
As the discord continues to grow around the world, the U.S.
must have the personnel and the capabilities to respond. If
Fort Campbell is required to reduce its Active Duty personnel
from 26,500 to 16,000, I worry about our ability to defend
ourselves from threats and to project power internationally.
Fort Campbell is already one of the most heavily deployed
bases in the country. If it suffers a troop reduction, it is
going to be felt, and it will matter to our Nation. When Ebola
was spreading through West African countries, it was 700
soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division at Campbell that were
deployed to build medical facilities and contain the outbreak.
In the spring, 700 more soldiers from the 101st will be
deployed to Afghanistan. Soldiers from Fort Campbell are always
tapped with response to threats made against our security
around the globe.
Thank you for allowing me to testify this morning. I stand
ready to work with this committee on strengthening programs and
reviewing processes that are vital to our Nation's defense.
I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn can be found in
the Appendix on page 47.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
Are there any questions of Ms. Blackburn?
If not, thank you. Appreciate your comments and appreciate
your input.
Next we will have the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms. Wagner,
to testify.
Thank you for being with us this morning. The gentlelady is
recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI
Mrs. Wagner. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Members of the committee, I want to first extend my
appreciation for the work that you do. As a proud mother of a
son who is a West Point graduate and does presently serve in
the United States Army [inaudible--mike not on] 101st
Airborne's captain's bars this month, I should say proudly. And
I represent thousands of constituents that wear the uniform.
I know firsthand the importance of this committee's work
for our national security as you begin to debate our defense
priorities for the coming fiscal year. Thank you for the
opportunity to talk about a key defense priority for the United
States Navy and our Nation, the F/A-18 Super Hornet.
The past 2 years I have become very familiar with the
Navy's tactical aviation capabilities. Last year this committee
responded to the Navy's requirement for more electronic attack
capabilities by providing five EA-18G Growlers in the fiscal
year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA].
Congress then added 10 additional Growlers on top of that
during the appropriations process, and those aircraft will
provide a warfighting capability that no adversary can match.
Growlers will keep our Navy equipped to overcome enemies today
and in the future in all threat environments. For that, I would
like to say once again, thank you very much.
Today I am here to support adding F/A-18 Super Hornet
aircraft to the fiscal year 2016 NDAA. As you know, the Navy
submitted an unfunded requirement for 12 F/A-18F model
aircraft. In testimony, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral
Jonathan Greenert, stated that the Navy has a ``Super Hornet
shortfall,'' in his words, of at least 2 or 3 squadrons,
equivalent of some 24 to 36 aircraft.
As you all are well aware, an aging fleet of legacy
aircraft, the delayed operational deployment of the F-35
program, and the higher-than-anticipated utilization of Super
Hornets in combat are contributing to this shortfall. To this
last point, the Super Hornet is truly the workhorse of naval
combat operations against the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant.
By some estimates, the Super Hornets today are flying at
four times the anticipated rate. It is an absolutely critically
in demand weapon against our enemies. To exacerbate the
shortfall challenge, the Navy has lost 15 Super Hornets and
Hornets over the past 5 years to battle or training losses,
aircraft that have not been replaced by the Navy or Congress.
The strike fighter shortfall identified in the unfunded
requirement request is not a new issue to the Navy. We all wish
that the President's budget request included additional F/A-18
Super Hornets, and we all expect the Navy to address the total
extent of the shortfall in subsequent budgets.
However, without aircraft in fiscal year 2016, the F/A-18
program faces a line closure decision. The F/A-18 manufacturing
line is the only aircraft production with the ability to build
operational strike fighters for the Navy today and AEA
[airborne electronic attack] aircraft for the entire Department
of Defense. Without it, the Navy could not address its
shortfall, nor could it add Growlers in the future.
Recall that there is likely a larger, joint requirement for
more EA-18G Growlers that is pending further analysis. I would
not be in front of you today if funding additional aircraft
were not so vital to our warfighting capabilities. Adding
aircraft and keeping the F/A-18 line alive is the right thing
to do to keep our military personnel safe and to keep our
country and allies safe.
I have provided a copy of the House letter signed by myself
and my colleagues requesting additional aircraft. These are
Members who have stood by the committee to support defense
authorization. I have also added a copy of the unfunded
requirement, highlighting the Navy's request for 12 aircraft. I
ask that both of these documents, Mr. Chairman, be submitted as
part of my written testimony.
[The information referred to was not available at the time
of printing.]
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mrs. Wagner. In closing, I urge you to add 12 F/A-18
aircraft to ensure the Navy can protect our Nation now and in
decades to come. I look forward to working with this committee
and supporting the final NDAA legislation as it moves through
the House of Representatives. I stand at your service and thank
you so very much for yours.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Wagner can be found in the
Appendix on page 77.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Are there any questions for Ms. Wagner?
If not, thank you. We appreciate you being with us this
morning.
Next we turn to the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Hardy.
Thank you for joining us. And you are recognized for 4
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRESENT HARDY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA
Mr. Hardy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here. I would like to thank Ranking Member
Smith and, also, the members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you on the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
There are 627 companies in Nevada's Fourth Congressional
District registered to do business with the government, and 459
of those are small businesses. Although they received over $200
million in Federal contracts last year and the options of the
contract are in the billions, on behalf of those businesses and
the businesses not yet pursuing Federal work, I want to thank
you for your work on this permanent reform--or procurement
reform.
I especially want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for including much-needed reforms on the non-
manufacturer rule, H.R. 1597, the Agile Acquisition to Retain
Technological Edge Act of 2015. I also introduced legislation
on this issue because the issue could cripple the participation
of small service contractors in the Federal marketplace.
As a former small-business owner, I know the importance of
clarification while trying to procure a contract by meeting the
provisions required, which is why this legislation is very
important to small contractors.
Let me first explain what the non-manufacturer rule is,
since it's perhaps the most poorly named rule there is out
there. The NMR exists to prevent fraud when the government is
trying to buy manufactured goods like ball bearings or
furniture.
If a contract for office chairs is set aside so that only
small businesses can compete, the last thing the government
wants is a winning small business buying chairs from a large
business, marking them up and then delivering them.
That's why the NMR says that, in the case of contract for
goods that is restricted to small businesses, the winning
company must either make the goods itself or buy them from
another small manufacturer. Where there are some expectations
in the cases, there are no small manufacturers. This really is
the truth in advertising provisions that works pretty well.
Unfortunately, the Federal courts have started applying the
NMR to contracts for services so that a small builder would now
need to either manufacture all the building supplies or buy
them from another small business. Likewise, a small company
customizing software would now be required to manufacture the
underlying software.
This application makes no sense. We already have separate
rules for service contractors that make sure that they aren't
subcontracting all the work to large businesses. The government
gets no benefit from putting additional supply chain burdens on
small service contractors.
But this restriction will limit the amount of competition
for the $267 billion in services the government purchased last
year. Therefore, the Small Business Administration agrees that
we need to fix the statute to make it clear that the NMR only
applies to contracts for goods.
For these reasons, I strongly encourage the committee to
include section 504, H.R. 1597, in the fiscal year 2016
National Defense Authorization Act.
I would also like to lend my support to the testimony of
Chairman Chabot and encourage you to include the other small-
business contracting provisions in H.R. 1597 and H.R. 1481, the
Small Contractors Improve Competition Act of 2016.
Thank you. And I stand ready for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy can be found in the
Appendix on page 83.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Are there any questions of Mr. Hardy?
Thank you. We appreciate you being with us and appreciate
your input.
Next, Chairman Young.
Thank you for being with us this morning. The gentleman is
recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will tell you I am
not a happy individual right now. I was in traffic an hour and
a half. I am going to try to smile right now, I will tell you
that right now.
Mr. Chairman and ranking member and my distinguished
colleagues, I am here to talk about the State of Alaska and the
mission. According to Air Force ``Billy'' Mitchell way back,
many, many years ago, he said, ``He who holds Alaska holds the
world. I think Alaska is the most important strategic place in
the world.''
It is true what General Mitchell said in 1933. That was the
year I was born, by the way. Alaska offers unparalleled
training areas, including Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex.
While ranges in the Lower 48 are parts of States, JPARC's
training areas are the size of the States.
To give you an idea, 65,000 square miles of unencumbered
airspace, that's the size of Florida; 2,490 square miles of
land space, the size of Delaware; 42,000 square nautical miles
of surface, subsurface, and overlaying airspace over the Gulf
of Alaska, the size of Virginia.
More than that, support for our service members, their
families, and veterans runs deep in Alaska. Alaska's Active
Duty military personnel, combined with our Vietnam population,
our veteran population, equates to more than 15 percent of the
State's entire population.
We, as Alaskans, pride ourselves in the strong mutually
beneficial relationship we have with our Alaska-based military
members. Many of those who have been going overseas actually
deployed from Alaska.
As you continue in the fiscal year 2016 NDAA process, I
would like to highlight several specific funding and language
requests that are important to Alaska and the United States
mission.
First, I would like to request the committee include a
sense of Congress regarding the Air Force's F-35 basing in the
Pacific. In August of 2014, Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska
was named as the preferred alternative for Pacific F-35 basing.
Regardless, it is important to continue to highlight Congress's
desire to see the Air Force consider Alaska's military value as
part of a strategic basing process.
Pacific F-35s would be based at a location that has the
ability to host fighter-based bilateral and multilateral
training opportunities, has significant airspace and ranges to
meet its air training requirements, has existing facilities to
support personnel, operations, and logistical needs, has
limited encroachment from outside, and minimize the overall
construction [and] operational cost. Eielson offers the Air
Force these capabilities.
Second, I would like to speak for a moment on the Alaskan--
Native American/Hawaiian Small Business Administration 8(a)
program. Mr. Chairman, we talked about this last year. This is
a new section.
Section 811 has a large negative effect on Native Americans
and the Hawaiian community-based contracting organizations
participating in SBA 8(a) programs. And I will say personally I
believe this program has worked well for the government, for
the military, and the taxpayer.
I also would support a no-cost land--this is a very small
thing, Mr. Chairman--a no-cost land transfer from the Air Force
to the City of Galena, Alaska. The western Alaskan town of
Galena was hit by a devastating flood in the spring of 2013. It
was really a bad, bad flood. Federal and State disasters were
declared and more than $75 million--$56 million Federal and $19
million State--has been spent to recover this city.
While Galena has made great strides to recover from this
terrible disaster, the residents are still vulnerable to the
catastrophic floods due to the location of the Yukon River
flood plain. To eliminate the flood threat, the City of Galena
would like to move to higher ground.
They have done surveys and have found there is an optional
area above the flood plain in the former home of the Campion
Air Force Radar Station. This area has been actually abandoned.
It is still maintained by the Air Force. But, very frankly,
they don't have any objection if we could transfer the City of
Galena. It costs nothing to the taxpayers. It will save the
city and actually take land out of the Air Force's hands.
I also request funding authorizing $10 million for State
Sponsored Aerospace Facilities, which have been funded before;
a missile defense agency and ground-based missile defense and
sensors--that's a PB-16--an F-35 procurement RDT&E [research,
development, test, and evaluation]; Alaska military
construction, including projects at Fort Greely and Eielson Air
Force Base; the Civil Military including the National Guard
Youth ChalleNGe and Innovative Readiness Training programs;
language for report of efforts to reduce high energy costs of
military installations; language to expand space-available
travel for gray area retirees. Remember, we have a lot of
veterans and surviving spouses and airplanes are available.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member and
the members of the committee. I would like to suggest, Mr.
Chairman--and I ask you this personally and the committee--to
come to Alaska. This is a fine military area. Has been. Always
has been. Will continue to be.
It is the key to our strategic mission as far as military
goes. Many of the bases we have today in the Lower 48 have
really no contributing factor other than just being political.
I say this respectfully. If want to solve a mission, you
can get anywhere in the world quicker from Alaska than any
other base in the United States. Now, you might not say that
about Guam or the Philippines, but it is an area.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I thank you. And I will answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young can be found in the
Appendix at page 31.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
I know that there is a group of our members who are
planning on going to Alaska before too long on one of their
specific trips.
So any member have questions of Mr. Young?
Thank you, sir. Appreciate you being here.
Mr. Young. On time, by the way.
The Chairman. Just don't hold this committee responsible
for traffic.
The committee is pleased to welcome the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, who is recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH J. ROTHFUS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
members of the committee, for holding this hearing today and
for receiving my testimony on the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
This morning I would like to focus my remarks on the Army's
Aviation Restructuring Initiative [ARI]. As you know, this
policy will result in the transfer of the National Guard Apache
helicopters to their Active Component. Army officials have
stated that this restructuring is necessary to generate savings
and make the remaining aviation fleet more affordable. I have
long opposed this plan and for the second year in a row asked,
Mr. Chairman: Savings at what cost?
Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard has repeatedly
risen to the occasion. They have answered the call and fought
bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the height of these wars,
nearly 50 percent of the Army's total force was a mix of
reservists and members of the National Guard.
The Pennsylvania National Guard alone contributed more than
42,000 individual deployments. They have fought side by side
with the Active Component, all while continuing to achieve
their important mission here at home.
ARI will have devastating impacts on all that the National
Guard has achieved. By stripping the National Guard of its
Apache helicopters, the Army is ensuring that the National
Guard will be less combat-ready and less able to provide
operational depth.
It will also deprive our Nation of an operational reserve
for these aircraft, which is essential to the retention and
management of talented air crews. This represents a fundamental
shift in the nature and the role of the National Guard. It runs
counter to the wisdom and preference of many Members of
Congress and their constituents.
This issue is important in Pennsylvania and to the 1-104th
Attack Reconnaissance Battalion in Johnstown. These highly
trained airmen and crew played an invaluable aerial support
role in Afghanistan, where they flew their Apache helicopters
and fought alongside the Active Component.
The Army now proposes to replace these Apaches with a
smaller number of Black Hawks. This reduction will deprive the
National Guard of both highly trained personal and equipment.
It will result in the National Guard being less effective, less
combat-capable, and less able to heed the call to defend this
Nation both at home and abroad.
I offered similar criticism of AIR last year and joined my
colleagues in urging this committee to create the National
Commission on the Future of the Army. I also advocated that
there should be no transfers or divestment of any Army
aircraft, including Apaches, until after the Commission has had
sufficient opportunity to examine ARI.
I applauded the committee for including those important
provisions in the fiscal year 2015 NDAA, but I was disappointed
to see that, at the insistence of the Senate, the legislation
also contained a glaring exception that allowed the Army to
transfer up to 48 Apaches prior to the Commission releasing its
finding and recommendations.
The Commission was established to offer a deliberate
approach to addressing force structure issues like ARI. So how
does it make any sense to permit the Army to transfer these
Apaches before the Commission has done its work? The answer is
simple: It doesn't. And we need to put a stop to this before it
is too late.
Even National Guard Bureau Chief General Frank Grass admits
that, once these transfers begin, it will be all but impossible
to reverse them. For that reason, I respectfully request that
the committee include a simple provision in this year's NDAA
that prohibits the transfer of any Apaches until the end of
fiscal year 2016.
This will provide sufficient time for the Commission to
release its report, for the Army and the National Guard to
respond, and for the Congress to make a reasoned and well-
informed decision.
I recognize that this committee will be forced to make many
difficult decisions over the next month, but this isn't one of
them. Providing a temporary freeze on the transfer of Apaches
just makes sense and will ensure that irreparable harm is not
done to our National Guard without due deliberation.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.
And I am happy to answer any questions that you may I have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothfus can be found in the
Appendix on page 74.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Are there any questions?
Thank you. We appreciate your being here. Obviously, there
are a number of members who have expressed interest in this,
and we appreciate your input.
Mr. Rothfus. Thank you.
The Chairman. Next we will turn to chairman of the Small
Business Committee, Mr. Chabot.
Thanks for being here, Mr. Chairman. And you are recognized
for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO
Mr. Chabot. Good morning, Chairman Thornberry and the
ranking member and other members of the committee. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you this morning on the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
Let me begin by thanking the committee for its
collaboration with the Small Business Committee. In my 19 years
on the Small Business Committee, I have seen the relationship
between our two committees grow, and we certainly intend to
continue that tradition. And so thank you for cooperation of
all the members of this committee with the Small Business
Committee.
I also want to compliment the chairman and the ranking
member on H.R. 1597, the Agile Acquisition to Retain
Technological Edge Act. The bill has many provisions that will
help small businesses, which I discuss in my written testimony.
But I will be brief in my oral testimony this morning. And
I actually have a hearing in Judiciary that I have to get back
to on immigration, and we all know that that is a very
important issue facing our Nation today. I hope to see those
provisions incorporated in this year's NDAA.
I am here because I know there are several commonsense
reforms that we can work together on to see that small
businesses can compete fairly for Federal contracts. The Small
Business Committee has held three hearings on this subject over
the past few months, and I would like to share with you some of
the findings of those hearings.
First, the good news. The government has met its goals
regarding contract dollars going to small businesses. Early
indications are that we met the goal again last year as well.
So that is good news. The percentage of dollars awarded to
small businesses is a good measure of success, but it is not
the only measure.
Here is the bad news. Within the last 2 years, we have lost
over 25 percent of the small business firms registered to do
business with the Federal Government. Within the Department of
Defense, the number of small-business contract actions fell by
almost 70 percent, but the size of the average individual
small-business contract increased by nearly 290 percent.
We have a declining small-business participation rate,
which could threaten the core principle of competition. And, as
we all know, it is basic supply and demand. The more
competition you have, the better chance you have for
restraining prices from going up.
To address these problems, we have in the committee
introduced H.R. 1481, the Small Contractors Improve Competition
Act. This bill would require that the Small Business
Administration place a greater emphasis on small-business
subcontracting and participation rates.
It would also make it easier for small businesses to joint-
venture and team up and crack down on several contracting
abuses. It is a good first step to helping our industrial base.
And I have provided more detail in my written statement.
I'd ask the committee to incorporate these provisions, plus
provisions in H.R. 838 and H.R. 1666, into this year's NDAA.
Again, the details of these provisions are in my written
testimony, but I won't go into great detail at this time
because I know the committee has time restraints here.
Our Nation demands a vital small-business industrial base.
It is fundamental to the health of our Nation as whole. I look
forward to working with this committee to ensure that small
businesses continue to provide the Department of Defense and
the Federal Government with innovative and competitive
solutions to support critical programs.
And I want to again thank you for hearing our testimony
this morning.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
Without objection, your full written statement will be made
part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chabot can be found in the
Appendix on page 39.]
The Chairman. And let me just say I, too, appreciate the
strong collaborative relationship we have between our two
committees on so many issues.
Mr. Knight, you are recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. Knight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank Chairman Chabot for his testimony and
add my support to his request that these provisions be included
in this year's NDAA.
H.R. 1481 includes language I introduced, H.R. 1390, the
Small Business Joint Venturing Act of 2015, which he referred
to.
We all know how important competition is in the Federal
procurement system. Therefore, we should be encouraging
qualified small-business teams and joint venture to compete for
Federal contracts, not allowing agencies to put roadblocks in
their way.
I look forward to working with both committees to push this
package of commonsense reforms as we move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment.
Mr. Knight, I know, has been an extremely valuable member
of the Small Business Committee already, and I know he has done
great things on this committee. We are glad to see both
committees have such a tremendous member.
The Chairman. Appreciate that.
Mr. Ashford, did you want to be recognized? Two minutes.
Mr. Ashford. I don't need 2 minutes. But could you just for
my edification--because I am relatively new here. I think this
is a super idea. Could you just go over what were the two bills
now. And I could find them out myself, but ----
Mr. Chabot. Yeah. Well, briefly, what they deal with is,
for example, bundling a lot of the contracts which may, at
first, appear to be--you know, small businesses involved are
bundled and they are actually much larger company-involved, and
you have consolidation issues.
Those are some of the issues that we are facing, and these
deal with the details in all the written testimony which we,
because of time constraints ----
Mr. Ashford. Right. I don't need to go any further.
I think this is especially important, at least in our area
of the country where we have a large military participation. So
thank you very much.
Mr. Chabot. Absolutely.
And, as we know, about 70 percent of the jobs nowadays
created in the American economy are small businesses. By
definition, small businesses are companies generally under 500
employees. So they are not all that small sometimes. But those
are the jobs of the future.
Mr. Ashford. And I know we are lacking in time.
But it was interesting. A couple of weeks ago the New York
Times had an article about out how startups have decreased
substantially since 2009 from prior to that. Many of those
startups are technological types of enterprises that could be
candidates for this kind of work.
Mr. Chabot. And that's particularly disturbing. And that's
one of the things that we had--I don't recall now if our
committee resulted in the article or the article had something
to do with our hearing.
But I know that that is a fact. And it is disturbing.
Because, historically, we have had more startups than
businesses that died. And now that's reversed, and we have more
businesses going out of business than businesses being created.
And that's dangerous.
Mr. Ashford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for being here. We will let
you get to your other hearing, but we appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Next we have the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Bost.
Thank you for being here. The gentleman is recognized for 4
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE BOST, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, and ranking
member. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee.
First off, allow me to summarize my written testimony, if I
may, for the need for additional F/A-18 strike fighters.
Mr. Chairman, the Navy is facing a critical shortage of the
operational strike fighters. The F/A-18 is the Navy's only
operational strike aircraft. The Super Hornet and its sister
aircraft, the EA-18G Growler, provide critical strike and
electronic warfare support in a mission against ISIS [Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria] and terrorist organizations.
Increased operational tempos in the war on terror, combined
with the Navy's other commitments to ensure safe and free
navigation of the seas, is resulting in an aircraft utilization
rate that is four times the expected rate of use.
As a consequence, strike fighters are rapidly approaching
the end of their active use. In recent testimony, Chief of
Naval Operations Admiral Greenert stated that the Navy is
experiencing a serious shortfall of between 24 to 36 Super
Hornet aircraft. The primary cause of these shortfalls are the
above-mentioned rate of utilization and issues with the speed
of repairs to the legacy Hornets at the depots.
The Navy's inclusion of 12 F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft in
their unfunded priority acknowledges these shortfalls.
Unfortunately, the aircraft production line is at a critical
juncture. Without congressional action, it may close.
The inclusion of 12 additional strike fighters in the
Defense Authorization Act will ensure that the Navy has the
assets it needs to protect our Nation. It will also protect the
national security value provided by the St. Louis air defense
industrial base.
The F/A-18 Super Hornet and the EA-18G Growler program line
represents more than 60,000 U.S. jobs, with 800 supplier
partners in 44 States.
In closing, prudence requires we keep and maintain the F/A-
18 Super Hornet and the EA-18 Growler production lines. I
strongly urge the committee to authorize the Navy's request for
an additional 12 F/A-18 aircraft for the coming fiscal year.
And, once again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to
address this matter.
On a side note, as a U.S. marine who was actually around
when we first were testing the F-18, I look forward to working
with any of you to find out and make sure of the importance of
this and make sure we can put it in.
Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bost can be found in the
Appendix on page 79.]
The Chairman. Great. Thank you, sir.
Are there any questions for the gentleman from Illinois?
Thank you. We appreciate your time this morning and
appreciate your input.
Next, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Thanks for being with us. The gentleman is recognized for 4
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I thank the chairman and the ranking
member for this opportunity.
With the continued threat of terrorism to the homeland,
each of us only has to remember back to the attacks of
September 11 to comprehend the devastation caused when our
Nation's airliners were turned into weapons.
That is why I am asking for the committee's help in
protecting our skies from terror hijackings by requiring any
aircraft that participates in the Department of Defense Civil
Reserve Air Fleet program to secure their cockpits by
installing secondary barrier doors.
These secondary barriers are light, inexpensive wire gates
that protect the flight deck while the cockpit door is open.
While it is true the cockpit doors have been strengthened in
light of the terrorist attacks, the preventative measure only
works when it is closed. What happens when a pilot needs to
open the door for any reason during the course of a flight?
This lapse in security can provide an attacker just enough
time to strike and take control of the plane. In fact, a video
has surfaced online that shows it takes only 2 seconds for a
terrorist to breach the cockpit once the door is opened under
current protocol.
The recent Germanwings tragedy shows us the danger when
someone with bad intentions is able to lock themselves behind a
reinforced door. Unlike the heroic efforts of the passengers of
United Flight 93 that crashed in my home State of Pennsylvania,
there is almost nothing the passengers can do to retake the
aircraft in this very real scenario.
As a Congress, we are tasked with many responsibilities.
Chief among them, the protection of our constituents and our
country. We can no longer ignore this obvious hole in our anti-
terror measures. This Congress must act now to address the
shortcoming.
If there is one thing Al Qaeda and ISIS seeks, it is a
high-profile attack that is cheap for them to execute. Right
now, for the cost of one trained extremist and a first-class
ticket, Al Qaeda or ISIS can turn our aircraft into a weapon
once again. This is our reality.
Earlier this year ISIS sympathizers were arrested by law
enforcement in New York City and found to have had plans to
hijack an aircraft. Last month a passenger on a United Airlines
flight rushed the cockpit. Three weeks ago the whole world was
tragically shown the heartwrenching consequences of this danger
when someone locked the pilot out of the cockpit and
deliberately crashed Germanwings Flight 5925.
As pilots will tell you, this is not hard to fix. A 2013
study found that secondary barriers are very cost-effective,
require little maintenance, and reduce risk at a modest cost.
Pilots, flight attendants, and Federal law enforcement have
been making the case to have these doors on every aircraft.
Last Congress, 60 Members of the House and 10 Senators
joined our effort, understanding that the mandate of the 9/11
Commission to protect the cockpit will only be realized when
every passenger aircraft in the country is secured with these
cost-effective barriers.
Nearly one-third of the 38 cosponsors of my bill, H.R. 911,
that adds secondary barriers to every single aircraft in the
country, are members of the Armed Services Committee. My ask
today, Mr. Chairman, is much more tailored.
The NDAA is one way Congress can work to at least eliminate
the glaring vulnerability of putting our troops at risk. We
must guarantee that any aircraft that transports our brave men
and women in uniform is never turned into a weapon and our
troops into helpless victims.
So here is how we can fix this. As you know, the Department
of Defense, in partnership with the U.S. airline industry,
operates the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. In exchange for the air
carriers committing a limited number of aircraft to this
program, the airlines receive the opportunity to do business
with the Department of Defense.
In fact, the GAO [Government Accountability Office] study
shows that the airline industry has received over $30 billion
in business since 2001 through that program. Only about 350
aircraft would be affected by this requirement, but those are
the 350 aircraft that transports some of our most precious
cargo, our troops.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee.
I would like to recognize that my constituent, Ellen
Saracini, who is the widow of United Airlines Flight 175 pilot
Victor Saracini, is here today.
Victor's flight was highjacked by Al Qaeda terrorists on
September 11 and flown into the World Trade Center just after 9
o'clock in the morning. Victor was a naval aviator, a veteran
of the United States Navy.
So with Victor in mind, the 3,000 victims of 9/11, and our
troops today, I offer these remarks. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzpatrick can be found in
the Appendix on page 52.]
The Chairman. Thank you, sir. And I appreciate you bringing
this issue to my attention, at least, because the secondary
barriers is not something that I really had thought about or
been aware of before.
Any other questions for the gentleman?
Thank you. Appreciate you being with us and appreciate you
raising them.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Next we invite the gentleman from Florida,
Mr. Curbelo, to provide testimony.
The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS CURBELO, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Curbelo. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very
much for this opportunity. Good morning to all the members,
especially a special greeting for my distinguished colleague
from Florida, Mr. Nugent.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016. Like
my colleagues, I would like to thank the chairman and the
ranking member for their leadership on procurement reform and
suggest an additional area that requires the committee's
attention, in my opinion.
Within Florida's 26th Congressional District--that is the
southernmost district in the country--there are 649 companies
registered as Federal contractors, including 448 small
businesses.
Those small businesses won over $61 million in Federal
prime contracts last year out of the $440 billion spent on
Federal contracts. That is why I believe that those 448
companies and the 289,000 small contractors nationwide could be
doing more if we only took subcontracting more seriously.
Subcontracting is incredibly important for small
businesses. Any large business receiving a contract for more
than $650,000 must tell the Federal Government how it will use
small businesses as subcontractors. This ensures that we have a
healthy industrial base at all levels.
Additionally, since about 80 percent of the Federal
contracts are awarded to large businesses, this is where the
money is. In fiscal year 2013, small businesses received $86.7
billion in subcontracts, which is just about $5 billion less
than they received in prime contracts.
As part of the fiscal year 2013 NDAA, this committee
enacted legislation to hold agency officials accountable for
small-business utilization. Specifically, when agencies were
considering whether senior agency executives deserved bonuses,
it required that the agencies consider whether the contracting
goals were being met and the role of said executives in meeting
those goals.
Even though the importance of subcontracting was again
acknowledged by this committee as part of the fiscal year 2014
NDAA when it included language drafted by Congressman Graves to
count lower-tier subcontractors towards subcontracting goals,
agencies are disregarding congressional intent. When agencies
implemented the fiscal year 2013 language on goaling, they took
the term ``goals'' to mean prime contract goals, ignoring the
role of subcontracting.
As a consequence, prime contracting dollars have increased,
but the percentage of subcontract dollars awarded to small
businesses has been falling and is down 2.5 percent since 2010.
Likewise, agencies have not even started implementing the
fiscal year 2014 language. This means fewer small suppliers,
manufacturers, and innovators. Subcontracting is an important
entry point for new Federal contractors. So if we have fewer
subcontractors today, we will have fewer prime contractors
tomorrow.
For these reasons, I introduce H.R. 1386, the Small
Entrepreneur Subcontracting Opportunities Act of 2015, or the
SESO Act, with Mr. Chabot, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bost. SESO
requires that agencies look at subcontracting accomplishments
as well as prime contracting accomplishments when evaluating
performance of senior executives. SESO is included in H.R.
1481, the Small Contractors Improve Competition Act of 2015,
and passed committee on March 25th with bipartisan support.
In Spanish, the word ``seso'' means ``brains.'' And I hope
you will agree with me that including the SESO Act and other
provisions in H.R. 1481 in the fiscal year 2016 NDAA is the
smart thing to do.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I'd be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Curbelo can be found in the
Appendix on page 81.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Any member of the committee have questions?
Thank you for being here and for bringing it to our
attention.
Next, the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence.
Thanks for being with us this morning. The gentlelady is
recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MICHIGAN
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me here
this morning. I would like to thank all the members of the
committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak on this
important matter.
Mr. Chairman, warfare is changing. We are in a time of
fighting on multiple fronts using weapons we cannot have even
imagined during the Vietnam era. Most of these weapons require
knowledge of cyber warfare, the ability to use missiles and
drones to fight from a distance.
The fast-paced advance of technology is producing changes
in the threats we face. How can we keep up? The answer is to be
just as innovative with our human resources strategy as we are
with our weapons and tactics.
The Department of Defense has adopted new and powerful
technologies that makes the military more effective and
efficient. Despite the power and speed of these technologies,
we still have some major cyber vulnerability.
Whether through Internet-based attacks or malicious cyber
hardware, we are the primary target of cyberattacks,
jeopardizing or seriously impairing our military operations. We
must do more to prevent enemies from using our cyber
vulnerabilities against us.
I believe we have to provide for private development of
cybersecurity supply chain ratings and accreditation. While the
Department of Defense is the most reliable government protector
of the cyber supply chain, more work is required to be done.
Our business community is ready to accept this challenge.
In Michigan, we are ready to meet the challenge. We have supply
chains that feed such large defense contracts. Our connection
to the defense industry is a long and well-established one.
Each part of the military has a need for defensive cyber
capabilities, and many also have the need for offensive
capabilities. U.S. Cyber Command is critical for ensuring
leadership in a centralized command for cyber operations.
While Cyber Command set a goal for 133 operational cyber
teams by the end of 2016, as of February 2014 only 17 were
fully operational. We need to properly support the development,
training, and deployment of these teams.
Implementing these policies together with expanding
existing policies such as cyber information-sharing between the
public and private sectors will better prepare the Department
of Defense to face serious cybersecurity challenges.
Finally, as you address cyber operations squadrons for Air
National Guard, I would like to express my strong support for
the 110th Attack Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard in
Battle Creek, Michigan, to host a cyber squadron. Battle Creek
Air National Guard Base's existing cyber missions mean that
much of the infrastructure required for this new mission is
already in place.
Projections show that a cyber operation squadron at Battle
Creek, Michigan, would save $2.2 million, compared to a
location without such capabilities. Michigan's current
workforce and universities provide a strong foundation for
current and future recruiting efforts.
Michigan has a network of highly skilled IT [information
technology] professionals and qualified defense personnel.
Michigan has 22 colleges and universities that offer degrees in
cybersecurity, including 5 colleges that have earned the NSA
[National Security Agency] Center of Excellence distinction.
Cybersecurity is also a gender-neutral occupation, allowing
both men and women to serve our country and protect our Nation
as equals. I hope that we will continue to see this growing
area of concern addressed through effective human resources and
adequate funding for advanced technology.
I am aware of how difficult the job is in these tough,
complex times. You serve to address the needs of our military
service members, their families, and their civilian
counterparts at a time when we are facing security issues on
multiple fronts. This is an awesome power and, as such, it
comes with a high responsibility.
As you consider national security provisions that focus on
cyber warfare, I respectfully ask that you consider the great
State of Michigan and its ability to support our national cyber
missions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will take any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Lawrence can be found in
the Appendix on page 93.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. Certainly cyber is
one of the most important and most challenging issues we face
anywhere in national security. And so I appreciate very much
the gentlelady's comments.
Are there any questions?
Thank you. I appreciate you being with us today.
Next we will go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross.
Thanks for joining us. The gentleman is recognized for 4
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Ross. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, members of the
committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to speak regarding
the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act.
This year I introduced House Resolution 1337, legislation
to waive the time limits for the award of the Distinguished
Service Cross to Edward Grady Halcomb for acts of extraordinary
heroism during the Korean War. I want to offer my thanks to my
good friend, Representative Nugent, and to the rest of the
members of the committee for including this legislation in the
fiscal year 2016 NDAA.
The Distinguished Service Cross is the second highest
military decoration that can be awarded to a member of the
United States Army, and for years my staff has worked with
long-time Mulberry, Florida, resident Grady Halcomb, who
proudly served during the Korean War, to be awarded a
Distinguished Service Cross.
Recently I received confirmation from the Secretary of the
Army, John McHugh, who personally affirmed that Grady Halcomb
should be awarded with the Distinguished Service Cross for his
valor in the service. However, there is a time limitation in
the U.S. Code currently preventing this award from being
presented to Mr. Halcomb.
To address this, I introduced legislation to ensure this
American hero will receive the award he earned in service to
his country and his efforts to save the lives of fellow service
members so many years ago.
On July 27, 1950, Private Halcomb fought in the Battle of
Anui as a member of Company B, 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry
Regiment. This battle resulted in the worst single-unit
American fatality rate of the Korean War, with only 24 of 235,
which is 10.2 percent, of the soldiers surviving.
Enemy forces captured Private Halcomb after he was wounded
and most of his unit was killed. Now, Mr. Halcomb is a very
humble and private man. His time as a POW [prisoner of war] was
rather enduring, and what I want to just relate to you now is
some of what he experienced, but it is greater than what we say
here.
After capture, Grady Halcomb endured a 150-mile march from
Anui to Seoul with little food or water. In the Seoul prison,
Private Halcomb assumed by his competence and inexplicable
stamina the role of chief medic. At age 19, Grady Halcomb
supervised 9 other medics and cared for up to 376 American
prisoners.
At great personal risk, Grady Halcomb exposed himself daily
to disease and infections while depleting his own strength by
virtually never leaving his patients' side for over a 2-month
period in garrison or on the 120-mile death march from Seoul to
Pyongyang.
Although aware that sick soldiers were being routinely
murdered by North Koreans, Grady Halcomb volunteered to remain
in Seoul with the sick and wounded, who were separated from the
main prisoner column marching to Pyongyang after the Inchon
landing.
When forced to leave Seoul to begin the death march, he
rallied the feeble soldiers and escorted them until they caught
up with the main POW column. Lastly, Private Halcomb then
successfully helped plan and execute a daring escape with four
other prisoners in Pyongyang despite the presence of
overwhelming enemy forces.
Awarding the Distinguished Service Cross to Edward Grady
Halcomb is a long overdue honor for a man who risked his own
health and safety as a POW during his times in Seoul, on the
death march, and at the death camp in Pyongyang to care for and
defend his fellow prisoners.
I want to thank Secretary McHugh and his staff at the
Pentagon and all of you here on the Armed Services Committee
for working with my staff to include this important and needed
provision in this year's NDAA. I thank you.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ross can be found in the
Appendix on page 72.]
The Chairman. Any questions?
Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I just want to thank Mr. Ross for bringing this forward.
You know, these guys served, and they don't ask for much.
Mr. Ross. It is amazing.
Mr. Nugent. It really is. And for you to bring this
forward--and I appreciate the chairman for allowing it to be in
the chairman's mark. It is the right thing to do.
Mr. Ross. I agree. And thank you.
Mr. Nugent. And just for a time lapse, some things take a
while to work out. And so I just really want to appreciate what
you did for Mr. Halcomb, and I am sure he and his family would
appreciate it, too. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ross. He definitely earned it. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Further questions?
Definitely a remarkable story. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ross.
The Chairman. Next the gentleman from Oregon, Mr.
Blumenauer.
I appreciate you being with us this morning. The gentleman
is recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
courtesy of the committee being able to share two points with
you.
One, I want to thank the committee for your tireless
efforts on behalf of the foreign nationals who worked with us
in the theater of Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been an honor
working with your colleague, Ms. Gabbard, to be able to move
this forward. It has been kind of a hairspring effort walking
up to the cliff, but thanks to your leadership and others
coming together in a bipartisan fashion, we have been able to
increase the necessary number of visas. We have been able to
accelerate the processing.
But, in fact, we are being penalized a little bit because
of our success. We are running out of visas, and we may have
only 1,600 left. It is going to be soon exhausted. We
desperately need provisions in your underlying bill to help us
continue this progress. It is the least we can do for people
who put their lives on the line for Americans and are now at
risk because there are people with long memories who are
settling scores. These are people who are shot, kidnapped.
Their families are at risk. And we need to keep the supply of
visas available to them. And I have more detail in my written
testimony.
But part of it is to thank you. Second is to keep this
alive through your legislation, which will make it much, much
easier to navigate the difficult legislative shoals that you
have seen in the past.
The other point I wanted to make dealt with investments in
dealing with our nuclear arsenal. We are on a path to invest
far more than is needed and, frankly, what the country can
afford. A recent report from the nonpartisan CBO [Congressional
Budget Office] estimates that the nuclear weapons planning
currently in the pipeline calls for spending more than $350
billion over the next decade, and there are estimates that
suggest that it will far exceed a trillion dollars over the
next 30 years to build a force that will be more than the
administration and security experts have said is needed to
effectively deter our nuclear threat.
Former military officials have acknowledged that the plan
is unaffordable. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, General James Cartwright, said the United States nuclear
weapons modernization plans--the challenge here is we have to
recapitalize all three legs of the nuclear triad. We don't have
the money to do it. A recent defense panel report called these
plans unaffordable and a threat to needed improvements in
conventional forces. And I have more detail in my written
testimony.
But not only are they unaffordable, the scope is
unnecessary. The Pentagon's 2013 report declared that we can
ensure the security of the United States and our allies and
partners and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent
while safely pursuing up to a one-third reduction in deployed
nuclear weapons from the level established in the New START
[Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] Treaties. Other experts,
including a commission chaired by former General Cartwright,
said that America could go even lower without jeopardizing
security.
Our nuclear weapons are not helping us with ISIS, with
other challenges that we face. We have far more than we need to
destroy any country on the planet. And the point is that it is
eating into your ability to be able to deal with the myriad of
other challenges that we face for our conventional forces that
we do need.
I have introduced legislation. We call it the Smarter
Approach to Nuclear Expenditures, the SANE Act, a bill that
would save the United States approximately $100 billion over
the next 10 years by reducing or eliminating unnecessary
nuclear weapons programs.
As you consider the 2016 Defense Authorization, I hope
there will be a hard look at what we really need and what we
really can afford and the impact it is going to have on the
other important things that you are challenged with balancing.
I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to speak today.
I don't envy your hard work. And I hope you will consider these
two suggestions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer can be found in
the Appendix on page 35.]
The Chairman. Well, we definitely appreciate the input.
Are there any questions?
Thank you, sir. I appreciate you being here.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you.
The Chairman. Next we will turn to the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Gohmert.
Thank you for being with us and sharing your testimony. The
gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for
being willing to hear testimony from others, and I appreciate
the other members of the committee and the work you do.
After the attack on our military at Fort Hood November of
2009, we suffered another shooting here at a military
installation at the naval yard followed by the Obama
administration appearing to do nothing effective to prevent
future or such attacks.
Our military members are normally authorized to carry
automatic weapons, fire RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], drop
bombs, shoot tanks and missiles that can kill dozens, thousands
even, of people. Yet, the question remains why shouldn't they
be able to carry a weapon on military installations here in the
United States?
Some commanders, I understand--I have talked to them--have
an issue with some carrying weapons on military installations
here in the U.S. Some have a problem with open carry on a
military installation here in the U.S. Some have a problem with
concealed carry, but would be okay with open carry.
Others I have talked to, including a retired top general,
said maybe the best way would be to have people on duty as duty
officers or enlisted members who were carrying while they were
on duty. Some have said, ``Look, even overseas we have some
that we don't allow to carry weapons overseas.'' Fine. Check
them out.
But it seems like there ought to be a process put in place
just like some States, like Texas has, where you could apply
for a carry permit. Make it open, make it concealed, depending
on what the Army felt was the best needs at that installation.
But, at a minimum, we should at least have military members
in addition to MPs [military police] who are authorized to
carry weapons. And perhaps you could designate like we do in
most States if you are an off-duty or on-duty law officer, MP,
CID [criminal investigation division], or even intelligence or
maybe you are field grade or above or E-8 or above, whatever
the military felt was appropriate--but allow some people around
a military installation to carry a weapon on or off duty.
There was an article by Arthur Bird in The Wall Street
Journal sometime back that said the people that instigate these
events by firing and killing people want to conclude their
attack themselves; so, if they are afraid someone is going to
shoot them and stop them, they won't instigate the attack.
And the best news we could ever get is that, because
something you put in the NDAA was there, we never had another
shooting. There was nothing else to report.
So I would ask that the committee please consider this
issue in the NDAA. I just know we have got military members
killed twice, and to prevent our military members trained with
weapons from defending themselves on their own military
installation really should be unconscionable.
On another note very quickly, I visit with so many friends
in different services of the military, including visiting with
some in the past 2 weeks, including visiting with some at Fort
Hood last Friday during the Purple Heart presentation, who
question how unfair it is for Christians to be told and
Christian chaplains who have said they have been told, ``You
cannot pray in Jesus' name.'' Jesus said, ``If you ask for it
in my name, then it will be given.''
So it is a prohibited act to prohibit somebody from
practicing their religion. And I know we give up many of our
rights when we go into the military. I didn't have freedom of
assembly or freedom of speech at Fort Benning.
One other matter. At Fort Hood--I know that this committee
is concerned about it. Secretary McHugh says he is working on
it. But to see these members that got the Purple Heart and
know, as one said, ``It is like a slap. Here is the medal, but
you really don't deserve it. So you are not getting
benefits''--I hope the committee will address that.
I will be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert can be found in the
Appendix on page 49.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for raising three
important issues.
Are there any questions?
Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Now the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Ellmers.
Thank you for being with us this morning. The gentlelady is
recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. RENEE L. ELLMERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
ability to come and testify before you in the House Armed
Services Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I am the proud representative of the Second
District of North Carolina, which is home to Fort Bragg. I
would like to draw attention to an incredibly shortsighted
decision the United States Air Force has made, which is
deactivation of the 440th Air Lift Wing located at Pope Army
Airfield at Fort Bragg.
The 440th Air Lift Wing is the only C-130H model wing in
the country that the Air Force is choosing to close completely,
and this is occurring at the behest of the busiest airfield in
the world for training requiring tactical air lift. The Air
Force wishes to remove all organic air lifts from Pope Army
Airfield and away from the 18th Airborne Corps and the 82nd
Airborne Division Global Response Force as well as Army Special
Forces groups.
This is a decision that essentially takes the ``air'' out
of ``airborne,'' as planes have been located at Pope since
1954. The removal of the 440th Air Lift Wing at Pope Army
Airfield not only lacks strategic merit, but it injects
avoidable and unreasonable risks into the readiness of some of
the most unique and rapid deployment forces our Nation's
military has to offer. To say that this has been an oversight
and is occurring and in regard to this decision a severe
understatement.
This ill-conceived proposal comes at a time when our Nation
is facing growing uncertainty abroad and could require a
military response that only forces at Fort Bragg can provide.
This joint mission was formed over the last 8 years to provide
the Airborne and the Special Forces with easily accessible and
high-quality training so that they can carry out any mission
they are asked without the risks of distance that is often
created by bureaucratic, logistical, and operational delays.
Eliminating the ability to rapidly mobilize, train, and
deploy the local commanders, air crew, and aircraft that has
established relationships with our most in-demand forces
increases risk at an unacceptable rate.
Now, the Air Force has repeatedly assured me that this will
not impact military readiness, but the very client that the Air
Force serves, the 18th Airborne Corps, disagrees. I have spoken
with Lieutenant General Anderson, the commanding general at
Fort Bragg, and there is a true feeling that this decision will
impact his training abilities.
I am pleased to say that my North Carolina colleagues have
rallied around me in both the House and the Senate in a
bipartisan manner in order to prevent the Air Force from making
this poor decision. I brought this fight to the attention of
former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and currently Secretary
Ash Carter.
Just within the last month I have sat down with both North
Carolina Senators and we met with Secretary of the Air Force,
Deborah James, and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General
Welsh. It is my hope this committee sees the vital role that
the 440th provides in maintaining the readiness and operational
standards of the paratroopers and special forces stationed at
Fort Bragg.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that you maintain the
mission of the 440th Air Lift Wing and its C-130s. In
conclusion, I believe it is more important than ever that the
United States maintain the military superiority and continue to
be the dominant force in freedom in the world.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with the
committee on any of the challenges facing our military, and I
welcome any questions. And my staff and I are ready at any time
to provide additional information. And any questions that you
might have, I am happy to answer.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Ellmers can be found in the
Appendix on page 54.]
The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
Well, I know we have worked with you and your office on
this issue in the past, and we will certainly continue to do
so.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Nugent. Mr. Chairman, just a comment from a father of a
couple of guys--or one that was stationed at Fort Bragg for 6
years.
I want to tell you that military air lift capacity is huge.
But the training capacity down at the Green Ramp, where the
soldiers go down to get requalified or to do more jumps to stay
qualified, is so important.
What was the Air Force's--so how are they going to make up
that lost capacity for the 82nd?
Mrs. Ellmers. Well, the Air Force maintains that the
military readiness will continue to be there and that the
training will not be affected because they will be able to
bring in C-130s from other areas. But, at the same time, we all
understand that a schedule and weather and all these different
things that can happen can interfere with that.
So that provides the problem for our paratroopers and their
training and their availability--their ability to be ready,
their availability to complete the mission. I was there at Pope
Airfield monitoring and watching some of their training
missions, and that particular day one of the paratroopers
actually died in the training exercise.
And I understand, the Air Force understands, that this is
very important as well, but at the same time I just believe
that this operation itself is so crucial and it is so unique
that it is hard for me to justify and see the need for them to
dismantle it.
Mr. Nugent. I just worry that--you know, we have had issues
in regards to getting troops to Haiti when there was an
earthquake down there. We had paratroopers sitting on the
tarmac at the 17-hour mark and had to wait 2 days to catch a
lift.
And so I worry that, when you start degrading our capacity
at that air base to provide that lift, it is going to worsen,
not just 2 days. It is going to be a week before we get that
capacity.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the
additional time. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
I appreciate the gentlelady being with us and continuing to
bring this issue to our attention.
Mrs. Ellmers. Thank you, sir. And thank you to the
committee.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Next we have the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd.
Thank you for being here this morning. The gentleman is
recognized for 4 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILL HURD, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Hurd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all
letting me be here today and for having this opportunity.
I was at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, twice over the last
2 weeks. I am proud to report that morale is high. They are
excited to continue doing their mission, and they appreciate
the support that this committee has given to them over the
years, the largest facility in DOD's arsenal. And they are even
more excited about, hopefully, the opportunity for the funding
levels to be where they should be, and they are appreciative of
the work that you and this committee have done.
What I want to do today is talk about three quick points.
One is Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, Texas. Laughlin
produces more pilots than any other facility in the Air Force's
arsenal. And if it rains more than an inch, the entire flight
deck is flooded and they have to stop operations.
And they have proposals in place in order to fix this,
correct this problem in stages, and I hope that this committee
and the authorization process funds that to make sure that we
are training as many pilots as we possibly can.
The other thing I want to talk about is Joint Base San
Antonio and the number of bases in San Antonio. San Antonio is
becoming cyber city, U.S.A. We have the 24th Air Force, the
25th Air Force. We have NSA Texas as well. And not being part
of the National Capital Region, there is resources in San
Antonio, and the continued support of the cyber operations in
San Antonio is something that we are looking forward from this
committee.
And the last point is something I am hoping to work with
this committee on as my role as the chairman of the Information
Technology Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Reform.
When a soldier, airman, or marine leaves DOD or they are
medically discharged, they have to physically carry their
records over to the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] or to
Social Security. It is 2015. That shouldn't happen, and it
creates gaps in coverage oftentimes.
And having 1.5 million veterans in my district, this is
something that I think we can solve. And the technical
solutions are the easy part. I think we need the political will
to solve this not only for the folks currently serving this
mission, but those who have left.
So, with that, I want to thank you again for you all's
support, pending any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurd can be found in the
Appendix on page 87.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for raising all of
those issues. It has been enormous frustration for this
committee, the transition issues out of the military to the VA
or to the other things and the technology delays that the
organizations are having, and we will definitely stay on top of
that.
Are there questions for Mr. Hurd?
Thank you. I appreciate you raising these important issues.
And I believe that is all of our witnesses today. So, with
that, this hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
April 14, 2015
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 14, 2015
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 14, 2015
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]