[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, [email protected].
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]