    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 114-102]

                                      HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                             FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                       ON

                          MEMBER DAY--NATIONAL DEFENSE

                        PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE

              FISCAL YEAR 2017 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 MARCH 1, 2016

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    			      __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    99-646                       WASHINGTON : 2017
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          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
                          William S. 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..........    20
    Bost, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Illinois..................    23
    Chabot, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Ohio...................     2
    Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative from California.................    10
    Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick,'' a Representative from Arkansas..     6
    Hanna, Hon. Richard L., a Representative from New York...........     7
    Hardy, Hon. Cresent, a Representative from Nevada................    18
    Meehan, Hon. Patrick, a Representative from Pennsylvania.........     9
    Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative from Texas..............    21
    Perry, Hon. Scott, a Representative from Pennsylvania............    12
    Poliquin, Hon. Bruce, a Representative from Maine................    14
    Radewagen, Hon. Aumua Amata Coleman, a Delegate from American
      Samoa..........................................................    16
    Rothfus, Hon. Keith J., a Representative from Pennsylvania.......     5
    Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative from New York.........     3
    Wagner, Hon. Ann, a Representative from Missouri.................    15
    Yoho, Hon. Ted S., a Representative from Florida.................    24

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Blackburn, Hon. Marsha.......................................    73
        Bost, Hon. Mike..............................................    78
        Chabot, Hon. Steve, joint with Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez.......    31
        Chu, Hon. Judy...............................................    60
        Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick''..............................    44
        Hanna, Hon. Richard L........................................    57
        Hardy, Hon. Cresent..........................................    69
        Meehan, Hon. Patrick.........................................    59
        Neugebauer, Hon. Randy.......................................    75
        Perry, Hon. Scott............................................    62
        Poliquin, Hon. Bruce.........................................    63
        Radewagen, Hon. Aumua Amata Coleman..........................    67
        Rothfus, Hon. Keith J........................................    41
        Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., joint with Hon. Steve Chabot.......    31
        Wagner, Hon. Ann.............................................    65
        Yoho, Hon. Ted S.............................................    80

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        Blum, Hon. Rod, a Representative from Iowa...................    85
        Costello, Hon. Ryan A., a Representative from Pennsylvania...    87
        DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative from Washington.....    89
        DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, a Representative from California,
          joint with Hon. Barbara Lee................................    90
        Duncan, Hon. Jeff, a Representative from South Carolina......    92
        Eshoo, Hon. Anna G., a Representative from California........    94
        Huizenga, Hon. Bill, a Representative from Michigan..........    95
        Hurd, Hon. Will, a Representative from Texas.................    96
        Johnson, Hon. Sam, a Representative from Texas...............   100
        Keating, Hon. William R., a Representative from Massachusetts   103
        Kinzinger, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Illinois.........   104
        Lee, Hon. Barbara, a Representative from California, joint
          with Hon. Mark DeSaulnier..................................    90
        Loebsack, Hon. David, a Representative from Iowa.............   106
        McKinley, Hon. David B., a Representative from West Virginia.   113
        Posey, Hon Bill, a Representative from Florida...............   116
        Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, a Delegate from
          Northern Mariana Islands...................................   122
        Sarbanes, Hon. John P., a Representative from Maryland.......   137
        Schweikert, Hon. David, a Representative from Arizona........   139
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska................   162

      MEMBER DAY--NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL
                  YEAR 2017 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 1, 2016.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
    2118, 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 House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive
    testimony from Members of Congress on their national security
    priorities for fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization
    Act.
        A quick note on the 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 may seek recognition by raising their hand or letting
    the staff know and each would then be granted 2 minutes.
        As this hearing is intended to be a listening session, it
    is not my intention to engage in extended debate, rather to
    hear from our colleagues.
        We certainly look forward to today's testimony and I will
    yield to the distinguished acting ranking member for any
    comments she would like to make.
        Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy to join with you
    today and I will be listening as well to the presentations that
    we have.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady for being here. Our
    first witnesses are the distinguished chair and distinguished
    ranking member of the House Small Business Committee. And I
    will say I am particularly pleased with the cooperation between
    our two committees over the past several years in getting a lot
    of things done for small businesses engaged in national
    security.
        Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Velazquez, thank you for
    being here.
        Chairman, you are recognized for 4 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OHIO

        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we really do
    appreciate the cooperation that we have had with this
    committee. You have been great and on a bipartisan basis, we
    appreciate it. And we look forward to working with this
    committee to ensure that small businesses continue to provide
    the Department of Defense and the Federal Government with
    solutions and foster innovation and competition that provide
    value to the taxpayer and strength and agility to the
    warfighter.
        Mr. Chairman and ranking member, we appreciate your help.
    We really do. And thank you for the opportunity to share a few
    thoughts about the fiscal year 2017 National Defense
    Authorization Act [NDAA].
        Let me begin by thanking the committee for its
    collaboration, as I say, and in my 20 years on the committee I
    have enjoyed seeing this relationship blossom. And the hard-
    fought passage of last year's NDAA was a success for our
    national security, for our men and women in uniform, and for
    our small business industrial base.
        We look forward to continuing that relationship with this
    year's bill, and I want to congratulate you on passing last
    year's bill and for your commitment to ensuring that the NDAA
    remains a vital national security policy bill.
        As you well know, improving acquisition and procurement at
    the Pentagon is critical to national security because it
    delivers real benefits to our warfighters. Very often small
    companies can provide better products and services to our
    military in shorter periods of time and importantly at lower
    cost. When the Defense Department has fewer offers there is
    less competition, costs go up and choices are limited.
        Unfortunately, we continue to see that the number of
    companies competing for Federal contracts declining, which
    threatens competition and harms readiness. Within the last 3
    years we have lost over 25 percent of the small firms
    registered to do business with the Federal Government.
        Within the Department of Defense, the number of small
    business contract actions fell 47 percent from 2011, but the
    size of the average individual small business contract action
    more than doubled. Not surprisingly, during the same period the
    percentage of taxpayer dollars spent without competition has
    increased.
        As Chairman Thornberry frequently says, we need to focus on
    getting more defense for the dollar. And competition by small
    business is a major part of that solution.
        With this thought in mind, 15 members of the Small Business
    Committee introduced contracting bills this year. Working
    closely with our colleagues, Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez,
    here with me today, I collected these commonsense reforms plus
    many other solid reforms and put them into one bill, H.R. 4341,
    the Defending America's Small Contractors Act of 2016.
        We were able to approve H.R. 4341 unanimously earlier this
    year. This bill not only reflects our priorities but also the
    members of the committee in a bipartisan manner as well on the
    Small Business Committee. While I provided more detail in my
    written statement, I would like to share with you the five ways
    H.R. 4341 helps small contractors compete.
        First, it modernizes the Small Business Act to ensure that
    the language used is clear and consistent across Federal
    procurement programs.
        Second, it strengthens the small business advocates within
    SBA [Small Business Administration], Department of Defense, and
    other Federal agencies to promote competition and make sure the
    laws on the books, including the NDAA, are followed.
        Third, it improves opportunities for small businesses to
    compete for subcontracts and then to build on that experience
    to compete as prime contractors.
        Fourth, it improves coordination between the SBA and
    Department of Defense Mentor-Protege programs, which helps
    small businesses better serve our military.
        And finally, the bill implements commonsense reforms to
    ensure integrity and accountability in small business programs
    such as size standards, veterans' contracting programs, and
    contracting officer training programs.
        In the coming weeks I also expect our committee to approve
    additional legislation that reauthorizes and strengthens the
    Small Business Innovation Research program, the SBIR. I
    respectfully ask the committee to incorporate all these
    provisions into this year's NDAA. Our Nation needs a robust
    small business industrial base. It is vital to both the health
    of our economy and our national security.
        We appreciate your time here this morning, Mr. Chairman.
        [The joint prepared statement of Mr. Chabot and Ms.
    Velazquez can be found in the Appendix on page 31.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. The Ranking
    Member Velazquez. Sorry. We should have had more than one
    microphone out there.
        Mr. Chabot. We will switch places.

    STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
                                  YORK

        Ms. Velazquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and acting ranking
    member for giving us this opportunity to come before you. And I
    just want to take this opportunity for our continuing
    collaboration between these two committees.
        For several decades now, the Federal Government has looked
    to the private sector to provide services and supplies for its
    day-to-day operations. And the Department of Defense is at the
    heart of this buying power, accounting for over half of all
    contracting dollars. As such, a vibrant industrial base has
    become essential, not only to the U.S. economy but most
    importantly to our national security.
        The defense industrial base relies on a supply chain that
    is diverse and agile, so it should come as no surprise to those
    in this room that small businesses are at the heart of this
    chain. With a strong presence in a variety of different
    industries from construction to manufacturing, small businesses
    continue to play a vital role in providing our government with
    goods and services.
        Yet in order to continue the resurgence of the industrial
    base, we need to ensure that small businesses are able to
    compete both globally and here in America. Competition is good,
    Mr. Chairman, for both taxpayers and for small businesses.
        Here at home this means opening up the nearly half a
    trillion Federal marketplace to small firms. Numerous policies
    and protections have been put in place to allow for their
    continued participation in this arena, thereby securing our
    country's industrial base. However, it appears that we have
    stalled in removing barriers to the marketplace.
        Chairman Chabot and I have been longtime members of the
    House Small Business Committee, and we can both tell you that
    it is getting harder for small businesses, not easier. And that
    is why we are here today. From the difficulty firms face in
    accessing the entrepreneurial development needed to help
    getting a contract, to the uncertainty of programs like SBIR,
    changes are needed that would allow small businesses to compete
    in the marketplace.
        Over the years we have seen the value of small businesses'
    contracts go up, enabling agencies to meet their goals, but at
    the same time the number of contractors has dwindled. In the
    last 4 years the number of contractors registered to do
    business with the Federal Government has decreased by
    approximately 100,000 firms.
        I think we can all agree that the disappearance of 100,000
    firms is a problem for our country's national security. That is
    why Chairman Chabot and I, along with the other members of the
    House Small Business Committee, came together to author H.R.
    4341, the Defending America's Small Contractors Act of 2016.
        This bipartisan bill addresses just some of the many issues
    that small businesses have indicated they face when competing
    for contracts. As the chairman indicated, our joint written
    statement will provide you with further details regarding H.R.
    4341.
        However, this bill increases transparency, provides clarity
    on uniformity, strengthens competition, and eliminates barriers
    to the marketplace. The landscape of Federal contracting is
    evolving with agencies moving to larger procurement vehicles.
    We must secure our industrial base and ensure that small
    businesses are not left at the wayside. And that is exactly
    what H.R. 4341 does.
        Therefore, I join the chairman in strongly advocating for
    the complete bill's inclusion in the fiscal year 2017 National
    Defense Authorization Act. I thank you again for allowing us to
    testify here today.
        Thank you.
        [The joint prepared statement of Ms. Velazquez and Mr.
    Chabot can be found in the Appendix on page 31.]
        The Chairman. Well, let me thank you both again for your
    contribution. I think the sense we have is just as both of you
    have testified, it is getting harder and harder, especially for
    small business, to do business with the Department of Defense.
        And that is why our committee on a bipartisan basis is so
    focused on trying to improve the way the Department of Defense
    does acquire goods and services. And the bill that you all have
    introduced and passed out of committee is certainly something
    that we want to take a serious look at in that effort.
        Are there any questions for these witnesses? If not, thank
    you both again for being here, and I appreciate it.
        Let me ask unanimous consent that the complete written
    statement of these and all witnesses be made part of the
    record. Without objection. In addition, the chair has received
    some written statements from members who are not able to be
    here to testify and I ask unanimous consent that they also be
    made part of our record.
        [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
    beginning on page 31.]
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Next, pleased to welcome the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Rothfus, for his testimony. The gentleman is recognized for
    4 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH J. ROTHFUS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                              PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, Acting Ranking
    Member Davis, and members of the committee. Thank you for
    receiving my testimony on the National Defense Authorization
    Act for fiscal year 2017.
        In an increasingly dangerous world there is no greater
    constitutional responsibility of Congress than providing for
    the common defense of our Nation. Yet meeting this obligation
    has become increasingly difficult in recent years due to
    avoidable and unnecessary fiscal constraints.
        It is as a result of these constraints that our military
    has been forced to implement policies like the Army's Aviation
    Restructure Initiative [ARI], which I have long opposed.
        As you may recall, I have appeared before this committee
    each year since ARI to raise the alarm that the plan is
    dangerous, shortsighted, and will significantly harm our
    national security. Specifically, ARI will have devastating
    impacts on the National Guard, stripping it of its Apaches and
    ensuring that it 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. Post-9/11 the National Guard
    has become a highly experienced and capable combat force, yet
    ARI represents a fundamental shift in the nature and role of
    the National Guard and runs counter to the wisdom and
    preference of many Members of Congress and their constituents.
    This conclusion is bolstered by the recent report and
    recommendations offered by the National Commission on the
    Future of the Army [NCFA].
        I joined my colleagues in urging this committee to create
    the NCFA to offer a deliberate assessment of the ARI. After
    extensive discussion and analysis, the commission soundly
    rejected the Army's plan. Instead, the commission proposed an
    alternative plan to maintain 4 National Guard Apache battalions
    equipped with 18 aircraft each. The plan also proposes to add
    two Black Hawk battalions to the National Guard.
        In the commission's opinion, this offers ``significant
    advantages'' relative to ARI by providing greater wartime
    capacity, improved operating tempo, higher wartime surge
    capacity, and contributing to a key goal of achieving one Army
    that works and trains together in peacetime and if necessary
    fights together in war.
        Last year I fought to ensure that the Army could not move
    forward with the ARI until the commission had completed its
    work. The time has come. We must put an end to ARI, implement
    the NCFA's recommendation and retain a minimum of four Apache
    battalions in the National Guard.
        Of course the question remains how these aviation assets
    will be distributed. And there are some who argue that the
    battalions should be located in single States. I would caution
    against this approach and instead point to the many positive
    benefits that come from multistate units, such as the agreement
    that was reached between my home State of Pennsylvania and
    South Carolina.
        Under the terms of these agreements, one State would retain
    a battalion headquarters and two companies of Apaches. The
    other State would retain the remaining company. By expanding
    the footprint of the Apache battalions, the National Guard will
    maximize its ability to recruit and retain talented pilots and
    crew from different regions of the United States.
        Multistate units will also ensure that National Guard
    companies can regularly participate in collective training and
    maintenance with the regular Army thereby advancing the Army's
    objective for total force integration. Finally, multistate
    units will provide strategic ``grow-back'' depth in the
    National Guard should the need arise in the future to re-
    establish additional Apache battalions, such as the 1st 104th,
    that have been disbanded.
        While addressing current fiscal constraints is important,
    we must proceed in such a way that will maximize our readiness
    and ability to surge in times of war. Time and again the brave
    members of the National Guard have risen to the occasion and
    heeded the call to defend our Nation, both at home and abroad.
    By taking the steps that I have identified here today, Congress
    can ensure that they may continue to do so for years to come.
        I thank the chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rothfus can be found in the
    Appendix on page 41.]
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Any questions for the
    gentleman from Pennsylvania? If not, I appreciate the gentleman
    being here.
        I agree that I think there is a lot of support for the Army
    commission. They did what we asked them to do. And we will
    definitely consider those recommendations carefully. I
    appreciate the gentleman for being here.
        Next we have the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford.
    Appreciate the gentleman being here. Your full written
    statement will be made part of the record. The gentleman is
    recognized for 4 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE
                             FROM ARKANSAS

        Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking
    Member Smith. I would like to thank Mrs. Davis as well, my co-
    chair of the Congressional Explosive Ordinance Disposal [EOD]
    Caucus. And I want to present to you several priorities for
    fiscal year 2017 NDAA.
        I applaud the chairman and ranking member's personal
    interest in streamlining DOD [Department of Defense] processes
    for research, development, and acquisition [RD&A].
        In that spirit I request enacting the EOD Caucus' proposed
    language that would establish a fully joint EOD program with
    the Navy as executive agent for DOD to coordinate and integrate
    RD&A for EOD defense programs. Currently, the Secretary of
    Defense has designated the Secretary of the Navy as the single
    service manager for common EOD technology and training.
        This approach creates a nightmare of logistics and
    paperwork that results in years of delays in fielding crucial
    EOD technology. Second, we have concerns that the Army has been
    quietly duplicating roles, responsibilities, and mission sets
    of its EOD force into that of the Chemical force.
        Briefly, the Army Chemical Corps has taken credit to senior
    Army leadership for the EOD force's accomplishments over the
    last 15 years. All of this at the same time that the Chemical
    Corps has experienced regular mission failure and has not
    deployed to any theater in the last 15 years to conduct their
    primary mission.
        The EOD formations are the ones who provide scalable and
    tailorable mission command. Tactical EOD units conduct weapons
    defeat, weapons disablement, and weapons disposal activities.
        In that spirit, please also consider enacting EOD Caucus'
    proposed language on Title 10, United States Code, chapter 307,
    section 3063 which strikes ``Chemical Corps'' and inserts
    ``Explosive Ordinance Disposal Corps'' as a basic branch of the
    Army.
        Third, I urge the publishing of directive report language
    using the EOD Caucus' proposed language for the Secretary of
    the Army to provide a brief and report on the Army EOD Branch
    Proponent no later than December 1, 2016, to the committee.
        Finally, our national security is our biggest priority and
    when restructuring the end strengths of the Armed Forces we
    need to slow down the process. It is especially important to
    maintain a strong and agile military in the face of emerging
    threats.
        I recommend incorporating the end strength numbers from the
    POSTURE Act within the NDAA for fiscal year 2017.
        And with that, I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford can be found in the
    Appendix on page 44.]
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his
    recommendations. Are there any questions for the gentleman from
    Arkansas? Again, because of your personal experience we really
    appreciate your expertise. And I know that Mrs. Davis will be
    bringing those issues forward and so we can consider them that
    you mentioned. So thank you, sir.
        Next we have the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr.
    Hanna. Thank you for being here. The gentleman is recognized
    for 4 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. HANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
                                  YORK

        Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking
    Member Davis. I am here today to respectfully request that the
    committee take action on two important issues, contracting
    reform and cybersecurity.
        The Small Business Committee recently marked up the
    Defending America's Small Business Contractors Act which seeks
    to assist small businesses in competing for Federal contracts.
    I want to speak briefly in support of section 302 of this bill.
        This provision would create a voluntary pilot program at
    the SBA that would provide first-tier subcontracting small
    businesses with performance ratings based on their previously
    completed work. One challenge facing many small businesses
    competing for larger Federal contracting opportunities is that
    it is difficult for them to gain recognition for their past
    first-tier work as subcontractors. This prevents them from
    bidding, from using their track record they need to compete for
    larger prime contracts.
        As a contractor myself and the chairman of the Subcommittee
    on Contracting and Workforce, I am confident that these changes
    will lead to more competition in the marketplace, which will
    lead to lower costs.
        This committee has taken the lead on contracting and
    acquisition reform. I respectfully urge you to include section
    302 in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year
    2017. It is a sensible change that creates more opportunity for
    small business contractors and brings greater competition to
    the marketplace.
        The second issue I want to bring to the committee's
    attention is very important to my district. I have the
    privilege of representing the Air Force Research Lab in Rome,
    New York, which is home to some of the most advanced
    cybersecurity research in the world.
        Our country faces unprecedented challenges in cyberspace
    which demand robust solutions that tap into the total force of
    our country's military, including the Guard and Reserve
    personnel. At this committee's urging, the Army recently
    conducted an analysis of its cyber capacities. It found that
    the Guard is well-placed to contribute to defensive cyber
    operations but has yet to effectively bring them into the fold.
        While the National Guard Bureau has named 10 Army cyber
    protection teams to be based in each of the 10 Federal
    Emergency Management Response Regions, the Army has not
    allocated any funds to sustain them. Neither has it provided a
    long-term plan for integrating them into the cyber mission
    force. No approach to secure cyber domain is complete unless it
    utilizes the broad range of skills and assets possessed by the
    Guard personnel.
        Anyone familiar with Guard capacities knows how well-suited
    its citizens are to take on an expanded cyber mission. These
    men and women of the Guard develop unique expertise in their
    private lives and can be ground-ready within a moment's notice.
    I respectfully request that the members of this committee work
    with the Army to provide a long-term strategic plan for
    integrating the Army Guard personnel into cyber mission force
    for fiscal year 2017. In addition, I ask that you support the
    entire bill H.R. 4341.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna can be found in the
    Appendix on page 57.]
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Are there any questions?
    Again, I appreciate the gentleman on both issues. I know from
    our conversations last year because of the gentleman's personal
    background and also your leadership position on small business
    that we want to continue to work closely with you on improving
    contracting and acquisition, especially as it affects small
    business. So I appreciate the gentleman's input.
        Next we are pleased to welcome the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Meehan, who is recognized for 4 minutes.

        STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK MEEHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                              PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
    the ranking member and each of the members of this committee
    and my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey as well. And I
    want to express my deep appreciation, not just for your holding
    this hearing, but for taking the time to consider the real
    matters of priority-setting with regard to our national
    defense. And I very much appreciate the opportunity to weigh in
    what I believe is really pressing national security issue.
        The Marine Corps V-22 Osprey program has been involved in
    some of the most sophisticated combat operations since it
    became operational in 2009. And that is including among them
    the mission to eliminate Osama Bin Laden.
        With the kind of flexibility it has, of course, you know it
    flies like a helicopter, lands like a helicopter, flies like a
    plane, and it gives unmatched flexibility to the warfighter in
    the theater. Now, Marine commanders will tell you that the
    Osprey gives them the unprecedented ability to move troops and
    material around the battlefield faster than ever before. It has
    also been one of America's best examples of its outreach to
    nations who are struggling with natural disasters.
        The Osprey is constructed at Boeing's facility in Ridley
    Park, Delaware County and by Bell Helicopter in your own
    district, Amarillo, Texas, Mr. Chairman. But fundamentally it
    has been purchased under a 5-year contract that Congress
    authorized in fiscal year 2013, and at that time all four
    congressional defense committees, including this committee,
    supported that contract.
        For good reason. The contract saved nearly $1 billion over
    a single-year contract and it gave predictability to the
    industry to even drive further efficiencies and capabilities
    into the aircraft. But unfortunately, the President's fiscal
    year 2017 budget request unexpectedly reduced the procurement
    of the Osprey aircraft by two airframes. It increased the cost
    in termination liability that could ultimately lead to
    additional and unnecessary cost for the taxpayers.
        It has got the potential to jeopardize the workforce at the
    Boeing facility in Ridley, and I would suspect similarly in
    Amarillo, Texas. And it will take vital tools out of the hands
    of our battlefield commanders. The only reason for the
    reduction is a budget from the White House that doesn't meet
    the needs of our warfighters.
        And it is why the Marine Corps itself actually requested
    that the two aircraft be replaced in its annual unfunded
    priorities list, which was submitted to the committee after
    this budget release. The V-22 Osprey has proven itself to be
    one of the most versatile aircraft in the Pentagon's inventory.
    Its success in action is a tribute to the men and women who fly
    the Osprey and to the skills of the workforce in both Ridley
    Park and in Amarillo that produce it.
        Congress and your respective committees in particular have
    reliably demonstrated strong support for the V-22 program, and
    I ask that your committee continue the steadfast approach by
    restoring two MV-22 airframes in the fiscal year 2017 budget.
    They are a good deal for our taxpayers. They support good-
    paying jobs, and most importantly, they are a vital tool for
    the men and women in the field.
        And I thank you for your consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Meehan can be found in the
    Appendix on page 59.]
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey is
    recognized for 2 minutes.
        Mr. Norcross. Thank you. It is good to see that you came in
    and brought this to light. Certainly we have been watching it
    from the days that we went over and saw this. It is about
    predictability. Most importantly it is that V-22, who we hear
    as early as last week from the Commandant of the Marine Corps,
    how important it is for those two additional airframes. So we
    hear you loud and clear and certainly we will be pressing that
    matter.
        Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Meehan. I want to thank the gentleman. It was so
    critical. We watched the workers on this program and their
    ability to create the efficiencies with the multiyear
    contracting, which has produced a better and more effective war
    machine and also saved money simultaneously, but we are working
    against ourselves if we allow this to go forward as directed by
    the administration.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Norcross. Thank you, and we yield back.
        The Chairman. Other questions? I appreciate the gentleman's
    testimony. I think he makes the case very well.
        Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Appreciate it. Let us see. Next we welcome
    the gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu, before the committee.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Chu. Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Davis, next
    month will recognize the fifth anniversary of the death of my
    nephew, Harry Lew. Harry was determined to serve his country in
    any way he could. He enlisted in the Marine Corps and deployed
    to Afghanistan in 2011. My family beamed with pride. We never
    could have imagined the tragedy that would ensue.
        While in Afghanistan, he was the victim of military hazing.
    In the middle of the night his fellow Marines took it upon
    themselves to administer so-called corrective training for
    almost 4 hours. They tormented, abused, and degraded him. They
    forced him to carry a 25-pound sandbag and perform useless,
    unnecessary exercise while he was clad in his full-body armor.
    After they kicked, punched, and stomped on his back, they
    nearly smothered him with the contents of a sandbag.
        Twenty-two minutes after this torture, Harry took his own
    life, and my family was forever changed. Yet Harry was not the
    only one. Over the years I have heard stories of other service
    members who also experienced hazing so arduous it led to their
    deaths.
        Private Danny Chen also served in Afghanistan in 2011. He
    was also a victim of racially based hazing and like Harry,
    Danny took his own life. I have made it my mission to end
    hazing in our armed services because it is unacceptable and
    indefensible.
        I worked to secure reports from the military branches in
    the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The reports reveal
    the overall lack of reliable information and data on hazing,
    including serious deficiencies in the tracking and treatment of
    hazing by the Department of Defense.
        Therefore, I urged the committee to include language for a
    Government Accountability Office [GAO] report on the current
    status of hazing in the military in the 2015 National Defense
    Authorization Act. With your assistance, this language was
    indeed included and I thank all of you for doing that.
        Congress received this report this last month. Today, we
    have an independent analysis that found that DOD anti-hazing
    policies are not being implemented, training is unclear, and
    tracking systems are highly divergent and underdeveloped. More
    specifically we learn that DOD is not aware of the extent to
    which the Department's hazing policies have been implemented.
        In December 2015, DOD released an updated policy memorandum
    on hazing, but as the GAO indicates it does not go far enough
    to ensure that the policies are being implemented consistently
    and thoroughly.
        GAO underscored the need to better define hazing in order
    to teach service members how to identify it. It emphasized the
    need to vastly improve the military services' tracking
    mechanisms, which are incomplete and inconsistent, preventing
    us from having the reliable data that would help determine root
    causes and propose real solutions.
        Lastly, the GAO indicates that the DOD has not evaluated
    the prevalence of hazing in a meaningful way. Given these
    objective findings, I request that as the House Armed Services
    Committee prepares the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act,
    language is included to, number one, require DOD to submit an
    annual report to Congress to ensure that anti-hazing policies
    are implemented consistently.
        Secondly, require DOD to improve existing training to help
    service members better identify and respond to hazing at all
    command levels.
        Third, mandate that DOD issue a Department-wide guidance on
    a comprehensive and consistent data collection system that
    includes information on protected classes such as race and
    religion.
        And fourth, evaluate the prevalence through Department-wide
    surveys. Only when we have these changes in place can we truly
    begin to eliminate hazing in the military.
        Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Davis,
    for allowing me to discuss my legislative priorities for the
    2017 National Defense Authorization Act. I urge Congress to
    take action to eradicate hazing in the military.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Chu can be found in the
    Appendix on page 60.]
        The Chairman. Well, let me just thank you, Ms. Chu, not
    only for being here but for your commitment to this issue and
    following through on it. It is something that I not only
    appreciate but admire. As you mention, we have had provisions
    related to this issue in each, I think, of the four last House-
    passed NDAAs. One year it didn't make it. We couldn't persuade
    our colleagues in the Senate.
        But also as you mention we just received the report from
    the fiscal year 2015 bill. We want to look at that carefully
    and we will absolutely consider your suggestions on how to
    further get better information so that we can see what may be
    appropriate.
        Are there other questions for the gentlelady from
    California? Great.
        Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Appreciate you being here. The gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is welcomed and recognized for 4
    minutes.

         STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                              PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and
    members of the committee for this opportunity. Appreciate the
    ability to have some input.
        Today I focus my remarks on one decision of particular
    concern with many of our fellow Members of the House, the armed
    services--or the Army's proposed Aviation Restructure
    Initiative or ARI and its negative impacts on our Reserve
    Component, which are highlighted by the report and
    recommendations offered by the National Commission on the
    Future of the Army.
        Mr. Chairman, at the height of the wars in Iraq and in
    Afghanistan nearly 50 percent of the Army's total force was
    Reserve Component. As a matter of fact, I am proud of my own
    State, Pennsylvania. The Guard alone there contributed more
    than 21,000 individual deployments to these theaters, including
    one of my own where I was privileged to command a task force of
    Army aviators across the full spectrum of operations from
    attack to reconnaissance to heavy lift to general support.
        Now, according to cost savings calculations provided by the
    Army, none of the projected $12 billion in cost savings is
    derived from moving Apaches, the 864, from the National Guard
    to the regular Army. ARI would leave the National Guard less
    combat ready at most, and most importantly, less able to
    provide operational depth.
        You see, Mr. Chairman, the experience in the attack
    community, as you know, is in the Guard. It is because of
    multiple deployments and the complexity of flying the Apache.
    You can learn to fly the Apache in several months, but to
    become a true Apache pilot takes years and years of dedication.
        Folks simply get tired of being deployed all the time and
    working at that tempo, but they still want to serve so they
    come to the Guard. And so where you have an 800-hour cockpit in
    the Active Component downrange, you will have a 4,500-hour
    cockpit in the Guard. It is not meant to disparage one or the
    other. It is just where the operational depth is located.
        ARI would further reduce the connective tissue that bind
    the Army and the National Guard since Apaches would then
    constitute an area where the two cannot work together.
        Mr. Chairman, at all the times where those of us that
    served in the military say we are an Army of one. How can we be
    an Army of one when one has and one does not? When one goes to
    replace and doesn't have the components or the training to
    replace? I mean, you can't say it but not do it. This
    represents a fundamental shift in the nature and role of the
    National Guard and runs counter to the years and billions of
    dollars invested by the taxpayers.
        We used to be a strategic reserve. I was in the Guard back
    then when we went to summer camp. That has been over for years
    and years and years and the taxpayers have paid dearly, dearly
    for an operational reserve, which is what the Guard and the
    Reserve has become as evidenced by how many times we deploy.
        The National Commission on the Future of the Army rejected
    the ARI, the Aviation Restructure Initiative, after comparing
    it to a number of alternatives. Other significant advantages
    over the ARI include allowing for greater wartime capacity. You
    can reach back to the Guard when Active Components have
    deployed over and over and over again. Improved operational
    tempo because you can schedule that stuff. Higher wartime surge
    capacity, otherwise there is none.
        If you do everything you have got with the Active Component
    and you are tapped out, there is not going to be anybody to
    reach back to under the ARI. And it balances the force. It
    creates like components so we can be an Army of one so we can
    replace one another when we need to. And it achieves the goal
    of an Army that works together, trains together in peacetime,
    and if and when necessary, can deploy together and fight in a
    war.
        And finally, Mr. Chairman, in the remaining few seconds I
    have, if as the commission says there should be two more ARBs
    [Army Reserve battalions], those two should be located in the
    Guard based on cost and quite honestly nearly every single
    other metric including arms inspections results, safety and
    success in combat.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Perry can be found in the
    Appendix on page 62.]
        The Chairman. So just to be clear, the gentleman supports
    the commission recommendations, correct?
        Mr. Perry. Indeed I do, sir.
        The Chairman. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Great. Thank
    you, sir. Appreciate you being here.
        Next we have the distinguished gentleman from the State of
    Maine, Mr. Poliquin. Welcome, sir, and you are recognized for 4
    minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE POLIQUIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MAINE

        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very
    much; and thank you very much, Ranking Member Davis, for the
    opportunity to be here today.
        There are three topics I would like to talk to you about if
    I may, first deals with the Berry Amendment. The Berry
    Amendment law requires, as we all know, that standard issuance
    equipment be Berry compliant. And the only piece of equipment
    to my knowledge that recruits today in all branches of the
    military are not issued are athletic shoes. And that is because
    a period of time there were no athletic shoe manufacturers in
    America that were, in fact, Berry compliant.
        However, that has changed. The New Balance Shoe Company
    that has three plants in Maine, my district. This is really
    important, Mr. Chairman, to my district. Nine hundred employees
    in Skowhegan, Norridgewock, and in Naples, Maine make the best
    athletic shoes in the world. In fact, right now I am wearing a
    pair. You just can't see them, but they are on my feet right
    now and they are terrific.
        All I am asking, sir, is that the Department of Defense
    obey the law and make a standard issuance piece of equipment,
    athletic shoes, that are fully Berry compliant. The New Balance
    Shoe Company has retooled their manufacturing process, invested
    millions in doing this, and as I said, they are now completely
    Berry Amendment compliant.
        Now, Congresswoman Tsongas has language that she has
    submitted to be included in the NDAA. And we please ask you to
    support that language which would solve this problem and
    require the Department of Defense to issue Berry compliant,
    Berry Amendment compliant athletic shoes for all of our
    recruits. That is the first thing, sir.
        The second one, Mr. Chair, is that I am very grateful that
    in last year's NDAA authorization there was an additional DDG-
    151 destroyer that was put in that authorization. And also the
    Navy has committed to make sure the incremental funding for the
    complete procurement of that destroyer be included in the
    process.
        All I am asking you folks to do, please, is make sure you
    support the full funding of that additional DDG-151. These are
    the best battleships in the world, sir. They are made in Bath,
    Maine. They have a front-line multi-mission purpose, including
    a ballistic defense missile defense. So it is really important
    for national security.
        There are 6,000 Mainers that are employed at Bath Ironworks
    that manufactures, creates, and builds these best destroyers in
    the world. And please I ask you to support the full funding of
    this additional DDG-151.
        Thirdly, I am introducing a bill, Mr. Thornberry, called
    the Fair Treatment of Our National Guard and Reservists Act.
    Now, this is something that is so commonsense to so many
    Mainers that they rely on common sense to get through the long
    winters up there.
        Right now if you are a Federal employee and you travel
    beyond 50 miles to do your work and you are not reimbursed for
    travel expenses, let us say, gas, food, and lodging, then those
    expenses are tax deductible. But if you are a guardsman or
    woman or you are in a Reserve, the law requires you to travel
    over 100 miles to receive the same treatment.
        So now that is just not fair. I mean, these are folks that
    are being trained to make sure they can protect our country, as
    Mr. Perry just testified with respect to the Guard. All we are
    asking is that the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] treat our
    guardsmen and reservists the same way as they treat every other
    Federal employee, making sure that if they travel beyond 50
    miles--not 100 miles--they can use those travel expenses as a
    tax deduction.
        Now, my request, Mr. Thornberry, if I may, is simply that
    the Secretary of Defense conduct a study such that we know what
    the cost is to our guardsmen and our reservists for this travel
    beyond 50 miles so we can see what the fiscal note will be.
        So the three things I am asking for today, Mr. Chairman, if
    I may, in summary, number one, please include Chairwoman
    Tsongas' language into the appropriate parts of the law that
    requires the Department of Defense to obey the Berry Amendment
    law and issue athletic shoes, Berry Amendment athletic shoes
    for our recruits.
        Secondly, please make sure you support the fully funding of
    our additional DDG-151 destroyer made up in Bath, Maine.
        And thirdly, support my bill that asks the Secretary of
    Defense to create a study such that we know what the cost is to
    our guardsmen and our reservists with respect to reimbursement
    deductions, travel deductions beyond 50 miles.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Poliquin can be found in the
    Appendix on page 63.]
        The Chairman. Great. I think the gentleman makes the case
    on each of the three points very well. Are there any questions?
    If not, I appreciate the gentleman being here.
        Mr. Poliquin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate
    it.
        The Chairman. Next we are pleased to welcome the gentlelady
    from the State of Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, before the committee.
    The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MISSOURI

        Mrs. Wagner. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it
    is a joy to be in front of you again this year, and I thank you
    for your time. I want to begin by thanking you for your
    steadfast commitment to our Nation's most pressing national
    security matters. In that vein, I want to highlight the growing
    stresses on the demands for United States naval tactical
    aviation.
        As you know, the ongoing wartime operations against the
    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant have greatly increased
    operational tempo of our tactical aircraft. The carrier-based
    aircraft F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets have been the
    backbone of the force projection and engagement.
        Last year, the Chief of Naval Operations testified that his
    Navy faces a shortage of operational aircraft. This is commonly
    referred to as the tactical aviation shortfall. Congress and
    your committee, sir, led the way, addressing part of this
    challenge with added aircraft in fiscal year 2016.
        However, the President has not budgeted to take on the
    challenge more robustly in this year's budget. Only two Super
    Hornet aircraft were added in the OCO [Overseas Contingency
    Operations] in response to training and operational losses. The
    fiscal year 2018 budget shows a demand for 14 more aircraft but
    there still is a potential gap this year. These actions taken
    to address the tactical aviation shortfall are not enough. That
    is why the Chief of Naval Operations will provide Congress with
    a unfunded requirement request for 12 additional Super Hornets
    above the President's budget. There remains a shortfall of at
    least 36 Super Hornet aircraft in total.
        Given the critical capability that the Super Hornet
    provides for ongoing wartime operations, any shortfall is
    dangerous to the Navy's ability to project force throughout the
    world. This unfunded requirement request helps mitigate that
    shortfall, anticipating that the Navy will follow through on
    its promise to add aircraft in the next year's budget
    deliberation.
        In years past your committee has been incredibly responsive
    to the warfighters' most pressing needs. The budget is unfunded
    requirement request demonstrates how important tactical
    aviation is to the Navy's mission. The Super Hornet is
    providing that critical capability today at the most affordable
    cost.
        I ask that you urgently consider the Navy's unfunded
    request and add 12 F/A-18 Super Hornets to the President's
    budget to address the tactical aviation shortfall and, more
    importantly, the warfighters' needs.
        I look forward to working with you throughout the year on
    this issue, and I thank you for the consideration of this
    request. We ask that you take into consideration the recent
    demands placed on naval tactical aviation as you consider the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2017.
        I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Wagner can be found in the
    Appendix on page 65.]
        The Chairman. Great. Any questions of the gentlelady? Thank
    you, ma'am. I appreciate you continuing to be such a strong
    advocate on this issue. The budget presents a number of
    challenges for us, but we will certainly be looking at the
    unfunded requirements list of all the services as we are able
    to meet additional needs.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Wagner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the
    consideration, and we will stand ready at your service to
    provide any additional information for support.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you much. Next we are pleased to
    welcome the gentlelady delegate from American Samoa, Ms.
    Radewagen, before the committee.
        Thank you for being here, ma'am, and you are recognized for
    4 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF HON. AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, A DELEGATE
                          FROM AMERICAN SAMOA

        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, for the
    opportunity to testify today before the House Armed Services
    Committee in regards to H.R. 4341, the Defending America's
    Small Contractors Act. Particularly I will be addressing
    section 505 of title V of the bill, which I introduced on its
    own and has been included in H.R. 4341.
        As you may know, over the past decade numerous reports
    issued by SBA's Office of the Inspector General and the
    Government Accountability Office have identified structural
    weaknesses in the SBA's Office of Government Contracts and
    Business Developments [OGCBD] oversight of personnel and
    program management and control.
        Since fiscal year 2014, 39 percent of all Federal contract
    dollars have been awarded to small businesses, and in
    fulfilling its jurisdictional role, the House Small Business
    Committee is conducting oversight of the contracting programs
    run by the GCBD.
        However, because of the responsibility for implementing
    many of the programs rests outside of GCBD, and GCBD having
    limited influence over those responsible for the day-to-day
    operations of the program, the opportunity for waste, fraud,
    and abuse is prevalent. Meanwhile, regulation implementing
    statutory changes intended to help small businesses are taking
    three or more years to implement.
        Furthermore, many of the organizations within GCBD conduct
    duplicative activities leaving open the possibility of greater
    inefficiencies and more bureaucracy for small businesses
    seeking to compete in the Federal marketplace.
        Due to their importance, these issues were recently the
    topic of a hearing conducted by the House Small Business
    Committee's Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce. As a
    result of the hearing and subsequent data, I introduced the
    Small Business Contracting and Acquisition Programs Efficiency
    Act or SB CAPE Act, which has become section 505 of title V of
    H.R. 4341, the Defending America's Small Contractors Act.
        Specifically section 505 requires GAO to examine the extent
    to which SBA personnel who carry out certain procurement and
    business development programs report to the OGCBD; determine
    whether greater efficiency and consistency in the certification
    process of the procurement and business development programs
    could be achieved by creating a single organizational unit of
    employees to process all certifications required by such
    programs; determine whether greater efficiency and efficiency
    in the performance of such programs could be achieved by
    improving the alignment of the field personnel assigned to
    them; assess how the OGCBD could improve its staffing of
    regulatory drafting functions and its coordination with the
    Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, to ensure timely
    rulemaking by the SBA and report on any other areas in which
    the GAO determines that SBA could improve its performance with
    respect to procurement and business development programs.
        The report will prove to be a valuable tool in helping
    Congress to ensure that those offices and programs within SBA,
    which are created to help small businesses compete, are
    fulfilling their statutory mission. The importance of this
    legislation plays in my home district of American Samoa. It
    cannot be overstated as nearly all of the island's businesses
    qualify as a small business.
        Also, with proper organization, SBA will be a better
    partner to DOD as it seeks to strengthen the small business
    industrial base, one of the Department's current objectives.
        I respectfully encourage the House Armed Services Committee
    to adopt H.R. 4341, the Defending America's Small Contractors
    Act, and include it in this year's National Defense
    Authorization Act.
        Thank you again for the important work this committee does
    and for allowing me this opportunity to testify before you
    today. With your assistance I look forward to seeing this
    important legislation become law. I yield back the balance of
    my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Radewagen can be found in
    the Appendix on page 67.]
        The Chairman. Thank the gentlelady. Are there questions for
    the gentlelady? Gentleman from California, Mr. Knight.
        Mr. Knight. No question, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add my
    support to H.R. 4341. Part of this bill was an issue that we
    authored, the DOD's Mentor-Protege program; and this bill will
    streamline the Mentor-Protege program by utilizing SBA to help
    the DOD simplify the process for DOD's execution in their
    program.
        It goes back to exactly what you have been saying. We need
    to get more defense for the dollar and I highly support this.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I appreciate the gentlelady giving us further
    background and explanation of that particular section. So I
    appreciate very much you being here and discussing the small
    business package, which the committee will definitely consider.
        Mrs. Radewagen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Next we are pleased to welcome the gentleman
    from Nevada, Mr. Hardy, before the committee. The gentleman is
    recognized for 4 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. CRESENT HARDY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEVADA

        Mr. Hardy. Good morning, Chairman Thornberry and ranking
    member and members of the committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify before you on National Defense
    Authorization Act for 2017. I want to first thank you for
    keeping small business and the procurement reform on top of
    mind when you crafted last year's NDAA. The small business
    community appreciates your efforts.
        To continue the conversation, I want to speak briefly
    concerning the Small Business Contracting Initiative that often
    gets less attention than it deserves. Many times in contracting
    all of the efforts are concentrated on whether or not the fair
    competition is being observed. While this is absolutely
    paramount in our society, the person that wins the contract is
    often immediately thrown into a firestorm of compliance issues
    and burdens.
        Therefore, while we observe the pre-contract interactions,
    we also need to enhance the post-award compliance. With that
    said, I have introduced H.R. 4331, the Small Business Easy
    Contract Compliance Enhancement [and] List Act of 2016 to
    rectify this issue. This is straightforward legislation that
    requires small business advocates of the SBA, along with other
    agencies that participate in the Mentor-Protege programs, to
    offer a list of resources to the contract awardees.
        To help reduce compliance burdens, Chairman Chabot included
    post-award compliance language in his larger bill that offers
    important reforms for contractors and subcontractors. I
    encourage you to take a serious look at Chairman Chabot's large
    contracting bill, H.R. 4341, the Defending America's Small
    Contractors Act of 2016. These reforms will truly impact small
    businesses, one of our country's truest economic drivers.
        I would also like to draw quickly to your attention an
    ongoing issue in my district that has national security
    implications as well, you have got the word.
        My district in Nevada is the proud home of the Nevada Test
    and Training Range [NTTR], which is the largest continuous air
    and ground space available in the military training operation
    in the free world. It consists of 2.9 million acres of public
    land underneath approximately 12,000 square nautical miles of
    restricted airspace in the military operations area.
        The Air Force uses the NTTR to perform advanced exercises
    and tactics development in a multidimensional training
    environment unlike any other. Yet despite the critical
    importance of the NTTR to our national security, multiple
    layers of duplicative regulations are preventing the Air Force
    from meeting defense test and training objectives due to the
    lack of ready access to the withdrawn land.
        This inability to fully utilize the withdrawn lands also
    denies full use of the restricted airspace overlaying the area,
    further restricting operational flexibility.
        Mr. Chairman, the Air Force has been conducting bombing and
    gunnery practice, tactics development, and electronic testing
    and training on these lands since 1940, a full 40 years before
    the Fish and Wildlife [Service] nominated the area for
    wilderness designation. And it is a flawed wilderness
    designation to begin with that refused to account for the
    existing military impacts on the land.
        What this all boils down to is the military should not be
    saddled with multiple layers of duplicative regulations that
    hinder their ability to adequately train for the mission that
    will keep America's people safe.
        While the Department of Defense and the Department of
    Interior have inherently different missions, there is no reason
    why they cannot better partner to arrive at the commonsense
    solutions for the land they co-manage.
        Mr. Chairman, my home State of Nevada is more than 85
    percent federally controlled. While Nevadans may have their
    disagreements with the Federal land management agencies, we are
    proud to welcome the military personnel who call our State
    home. We feel a sense of duty and patriotism to have these
    vital training activities take place in Nevada, and we would
    like nothing more than to allow our service men and women the
    freedom to train for their missions.
        And again, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking
    member for the opportunity to speak to you today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy can be found in the
    Appendix on page 69.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir. As I think you know, I was
    just out at the Nevada test site last November, and I agree
    completely. It is an incredible national asset, as our
    colleague from Nevada knows. And we want to make sure the
    country can benefit from the full use of it. So I think the
    value of that area is just unquestioned.
        Are there questions for the gentleman from Nevada? Not?
    Appreciate you being here and raising those issues. I thank
    you, sir.
        Next we have the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn,
    Thanks for being back with us, one of the strong advocates for
    our military. The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. Is--
    --

       STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               TENNESSEE

        Mrs. Blackburn. I am pleased to be back with you again and
    always I appreciate your patience. As you all are aware, I
    represent Tennessee's Seventh Congressional District and it
    encompasses Montgomery County, Tennessee, which is Clarksville,
    and there you have located Fort Campbell. And Fort Campbell is
    home to the storied 101st Airborne, the most deployed unit in
    the U.S. military, the 5th Special Forces Group, and the Army's
    160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.
        Approximately 1,900 officers and 26,000 enlisted personnel
    call Fort Campbell home. Like many installations across the
    country, Fort Campbell was facing troop cuts. I was pleased to
    see that Fort Campbell was spared major troop reductions. We
    are grateful for that.
        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
    operation. For aviation units like the 101st this training is
    not only vital to mission success, but to the safety of our
    personnel. 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 the restoring of the Flying Hours Program to its
    full capacity in fiscal year 2017. I would also like to bring
    to this committee's attention that further reducing our
    Nation's Armed Forces will hamstring our ability to meet the
    challenges and threats of 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 discord continues to grow around the world, the
    U.S. must have the personnel and capabilities to respond and
    protect our national interests.
        Soldiers from Fort Campbell are always tasked with
    responding to threats to our national security around the
    globe. We would be putting their lives in increased danger by
    reducing their numerical strength and not providing them with
    the training that they need.
        That is why I support H.R. 4534, the Protecting Our
    Security Through Utilizing Right-Sized End-Strength or POSTURE
    Act. H.R. 4534 would reverse the current drawdown of the end
    strength levels for the U.S. land forces, specifically, the
    Army and Marines. It will freeze the current down draw on
    Marine personnel levels and increase Army end strength levels.
        General Ham recently testified that it takes 3 years to
    stand back up a fully ready brigade combat team. And this
    legislation would make sure that we need to address this issue
    in a destabilized world.
        Thank you for allowing me to come before you with the
    testimony. I appreciate your attention to the details of the
    issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn can be found in
    the Appendix on page 73.]
        The Chairman. I appreciate it, gentlelady. I think there is
    a lot of support on this committee for the proposal that she
    was just talking about. Our challenge of course is going to be
    budgetary depending on how the budget and allocations work out.
    Are there any questions of the gentlelady? Thank you, ma'am.
    Appreciate----
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes.
        The Chairman. I appreciate you being with us and raising
    those issues. Next we have the distinguished gentleman from the
    State of Texas, neighbor to Mr. Conaway and to me, Mr.
    Neugebauer, recognized for 4 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS

        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, and for
    holding this important hearing. I would like to take this
    opportunity to testify before this committee today on my
    national defense priorities.
        My district, Texas 19th Congressional District, is home of
    5,100 military and civilian personnel stationed at Dyess Air
    Force Base. Located on the outskirts of the city of Abilene,
    Dyess houses among the other missions, the 7th Bomb Wing, home
    to 33 of the 62 B-1 Lancers strategic bombers.
        As a part of the fiscal year 2017 budget, the Air Force has
    proposed a $5.8 million in research, development, and test and
    evaluation funding for the B-1 and $116.3 million in
    procurement funding. Throughout its proposed 2017 budget, the
    Air Force includes funding in other accounts for various
    improvements to the B-1s as well as funding for the B-1
    maintenance and funding for the new B-1 Classic Associate
    Reserve Unit at Dyess Air Force Base.
        Mr. Chairman and ranking member, I request the committee's
    support for these essential B-1 programs as it considers the
    fiscal year 2017 NDAA. Since 2001, the B-1 bomber has played a
    vital role in Afghanistan and Iraq and is now a major force in
    our battle against ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant].
        In its budget documents, the Air Force highlights the B-1's
    critical importance to our national defense stating that ``The
    B-1B Lancer,'' and I quote: ``is a swing-wing, supersonic,
    long-range conventional bomber. It carries the largest payload
    of both guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory.
    The multi-mission B-1B is the backbone of America's long-range
    bomber force and can rapidly deliver massive quantities of
    precision and non-precision weapons against any adversary,
    anywhere in the world, at any time.'' The current service life
    for the B-1 is beyond 2040.
        As further evidence of the B-1's importance, it was the
    first aircraft to be fitted for the Joint Air-to-Surface
    Standoff Missile-Extended Range, and along with the F/A-18,
    will be the initial aircraft to carry the Navy's Long-Range
    Anti-Ship Missile.
        In its request for the 2017 overseas contingency operations
    funding, the Air Force stated: ``As a force provider to the
    U.S. Central Command area of responsibility, the primary combat
    forces are the Air Force's front-line fighters and bombers, the
    A-10, the B-1, F-15 and F-16, representing the `tip of the
    global power projection spear.' These assets provide a strong
    capability to counter a wide range of threats to the U.S. and
    its allies, as well as help assure a viable deterrent posture
    in the region.''
        As the backbone of the long-range bomber force, as the
    ``tip of the global power projection spear,'' and with a
    service life of beyond 2040, it makes sense for our national
    defense standpoint and for a physical standpoint to ensure that
    the B-1 continues to receive the funding it needs in order to
    remain effective and efficient and viable today and in the
    future.
        I request that the committee continue to support funding
    for 2017 and beyond. I would also like to request the
    committee's continued support for the new Long-Range Strike
    Bomber which the Air Force has designated as the B-21. This new
    bomber has been under development for several years and it is
    essential that the Air Force complete the necessary research
    work and begin the production of this aircraft in order to meet
    the goal of having it operational by the mid-2020s.
        As the Air Force and Congress move forward with the new
    bomber, we support the selection of Dyess Air Force Base to
    host the B-21. Dyess has been a bomber base since its inception
    more than 50 years ago, initially hosting B-47s and then B-52s.
    And then for the past 30 years, Dyess has been the Air Force's
    primary B-1 base. Dyess has also successfully served as the B-1
    formal training unit, and now has the B-1 Classic Associate
    Reserve Unit.
        With a strong track record of meeting long-range strike
    mission requirements, Dyess would be an excellent base for the
    B-21.
        I thank you again, Chairman, for holding these hearings.
    And I appreciate this committee's important work as keeping
    America safe, and would be glad to take any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer can be found in
    the Appendix on page 75.]
        The Chairman. Any questions for the gentleman from Texas?
    The gentleman may be interested to know that just yesterday the
    committee held a meeting where the importance of the B-1 in the
    current fight was absolutely confirmed. So I appreciate the
    points the gentleman raises on both programs, and we certainly
    appreciate his testimony here today.
        Next we have the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Bost. Appreciate you being with us, sir. You are recognized for
    4 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE BOST, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and ranking
    member, for having me here today and for allowing me to give my
    comments and those comments will be brief. I intend to discuss
    two items I hope will be included in the NDAA: legislation
    included in H.R. 4341 to modernize small business
    administration size standards for agricultural producers, and
    the Navy's anticipated need for additional F/A-18 strike
    fighters.
        You know, President Eisenhower once said: ``Farming looks
    pretty easy as long as you do it with a pencil and you are
    about a thousand miles from a cornfield.'' Unfortunately, this
    quote is accurate and when describing the statutory
    establishment size standards for agricultural producers.
        Agricultural producers are an important contribution to the
    American economy. According to the USDA [U.S. Department of
    Agriculture], the total value of farm products exceeds $390
    billion, and the agricultural industry supports 16 million
    domestic jobs. Family-owned farms still account for a majority
    of farms and ranches in the United States.
        However, farming and ranching are low-margin industries.
    This has led to a consolidation of many single family-owned
    operations into larger multi-family-owned operations. But by
    any reasonable definition, these operations remain small
    business.
        Unfortunately, the current small business size standards
    for agriculture have been set by statute and are outdated. The
    standard is too low for the vast majority of farms and ranches
    to participate in potential government contracting and
    subcontracting opportunities.
        In addition, the statutory standard has no reasonable basis
    for why it is set at that. It appears that the Congress at one
    time just decided to pick a number out of the air and the
    previous Congress just set that number. And it was 30 years
    since its enactment of the size standard, but the Small
    Business Administration has significantly improved its process
    to determine small business size standards. This should address
    whatever issue previous Congresses had when it would establish
    the statutory size standard.
        I believe that the importance that Congress and Federal
    agencies promote consistency in policymaking. Now, the language
    in H.R. 4341 will help ensure consistency and I encourage its
    adoption by the committee.
        But lastly I would like to also discuss the Navy's need for
    additional F-18 strike fighters. The F-18 is currently the only
    operational strike fighter line for the United States Navy, and
    it is a significant and national security asset that should be
    enacted to protect.
        The fiscal year 2016 NDAA and the fiscal year 2016
    Department of Defense Appropriations Act included funding for
    the procurement of 12 F/A-18s. However, this number may still
    be short of what the U.S. Navy needs, as the service has
    previously testified to a potential shortfall of 24 to 36
    aircraft.
        The procurement of additional F/A-18 Super Hornets is
    critical to meeting the anticipated needs of the United States
    Navy and to keeping the production line open for the United
    States prepares anticipated aircraft sales to allied nations.
    It is important to preserve the value of the St. Louis region
    defense industry base as well.
        Therefore, I request the authorization of any aircraft
    requests by the United States Navy. And once again, I thank you
    for allowing me the opportunity to appear here today and I
    would be glad to answer any questions of the committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bost can be found in the
    Appendix on page 78.]
        The Chairman. Thank the gentleman. Are there any questions?
    I know the chair of the Agriculture Committee is paying
    particular attention to the testimony of the gentleman on that
    part of the small business package, but I appreciate the
    gentleman being here and sharing his thoughts with us.
        Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry.
        The Chairman. Thank you. Pleased to welcome the gentleman
    from Florida, Mr. Yoho, before the committee. The gentleman is
    recognized for 4 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF HON. TED S. YOHO, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA

        Mr. Yoho. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Smith,
    for the opportunity to come and speak before this committee.
    This is a great chance you are affording Members of Congress
    who do not sit on Armed Services.
        Today I would like to speak to you about a transfer of
    property and detainees from Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. As
    you know, it is currently illegal for the President to transfer
    detainees from the base to the United States, but the actual
    base itself can be transferred back to the Castro government
    without the consent of the U.S. Congress.
        Recently, the Castro government demanded that in order for
    normalization to continue between Cuba and the United States,
    the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base must be transferred back to Cuba.
    The 1903 lease agreement between the governments of Cuba and
    the United States are controlled by the language of the 1934
    treaty stipulating that the lease can only be modified or
    abrogated pursuant to an agreement between the United States
    and Cuba.
        The territorial limits of the naval station remain as they
    were in 1934 unless the United States abandons Guantanamo Bay
    or the two governments reach an agreement to modify its
    boundaries. While there appears to be no consensus on whether
    the President can modify the agreement alone, Congress is
    empowered to alter that statute by the statute the effect of
    the underlying 1934 treaty.
        A statute passed later than a treaty is recognized to
    supersede the terms of the treaty, at least as far as domestic
    law is concerned. Although not firmly established, it seems
    likely that Congress could override any implications that might
    be drawn from the 1934 treaty with respect to Presidential
    authority to modify the Guantanamo lease by enacting
    legislation specifying that any such modification must be
    accomplished with the advice and consent of the Senate or the
    concurrence of Congress.
        In fact, Congress has passed legislation establishing
    policy with respect to Guantanamo leases. As part of the Cuban
    Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act known as Libertad,
    Congress established that the policy of the United States is to
    be prepared to enter into negotiations with a democratic
    elected government in Cuba either to return the United States
    Naval Base at Guantanamo to Cuba or to renegotiate the present
    agreement under mutual agreeable terms.
        The provision appears to approve negotiations by the
    President with a democratic Cuban government and in that
    Libertad agreement it says that the freedoms and the liberty of
    the Cuban people must be enhanced with that agreement.
        Let us see. The provision appears to approve negotiations
    by the President with a democratic Cuban government over the
    possible return of Guantanamo Bay, but it does not explicitly
    approve the entry into such an agreement as a congressional-
    executive agreement. Moreover, it does not expressly prohibit
    the negotiations of lease modifications with the existing Cuban
    government.
        It can be argued that an executive agreement with Cuba to
    close the base would in effect amount to an executive agreement
    pursuant to the 1934 treaty and would thus not require the
    advice and consent of the Senate.
        In order to protect this potential unilateral action by the
    President, I introduced H.R. 4126, the Guantanamo Transfer
    Prevention Act, which among other things would prevent the
    President from unilaterally ceding the base back to the Cuban
    government without the advice and consent of Congress. It has
    68 co-sponsors on it at this time.
        While I work to move my standalone bill, I want to take
    this time to urge the Armed Services Committee to take similar
    actions in protecting against this potential for executive
    action and to ensure that the President must come to Congress
    first via the authorization process that no authorization be
    given to transfer the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.
        I thank you for this opportunity and the time here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Yoho can be found in the
    Appendix on page 80.]
        The Chairman. Any questions for the gentleman? I appreciate
    the gentleman's suggestions.
        We did have a provision in last year's NDAA to prevent the
    transfer of the naval base back to Cuba, but I think the
    gentleman raises a number of interesting questions about how to
    strengthen that or make it more permanent because certainly it
    is only what we have in law is only for the fiscal year.
        Mr. Yoho. Right, and it is such a strategic place in the
    Caribbean and a national security interest.
        The Chairman. Yes. If there are no questions, appreciate
    the gentleman being here.
        Mr. Yoho. Thank you for your time.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much for your suggestions. And
    if no other members seeking recognition, the committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

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

                              A P P E N D I X

                                 March 1, 2016

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

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 1, 2016

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

       [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 March 1, 2016

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

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    [all]