U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

25–824 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 115–38] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

MEMBER DAY—NATIONAL DEFENSE 

PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 27, 2017 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

TRENT KELLY, Mississippi 

MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

DON BACON, Nebraska 

JIM BANKS, Indiana 

LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

CAROL SHEA–PORTER, New Hampshire 

JACKY ROSEN, Nevada 

A. DONALD MCEACHIN, Virginia 

SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California 

ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland 

STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida 

RO KHANNA, California 

TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

(Vacancy) 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

ARI ZIMMERMAN, Professional Staff Member 

WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, Counsel 

BRITTON BURKETT, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 1 

Thornberry, Hon. William M. ‘‘Mac,’’ a Representative from Texas, Chairman, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Carter, Hon. John R., a Representative from Texas ............................................. 6 

Chabot, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Ohio ................................................. 2 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick,’’ a Representative from Arkansas ........................ 9 

Dunn, Hon. Neal P., a Representative from Florida ............................................ 11 

Johnson, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Louisiana ........................................ 13 

Loebsack, Hon. David, a Representative from Iowa ............................................. 7 

Walz, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative from Minnesota .................................. 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Carter, Hon. John R. ........................................................................................ 28 

Chabot, Hon. Steve ........................................................................................... 21 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ ......................................................................... 30 

Dunn, Hon. Neal P. .......................................................................................... 32 

Johnson, Hon. Mike .......................................................................................... 33 

Loebsack, Hon. David ....................................................................................... 29 

Walz, Hon. Timothy J. ..................................................................................... 25 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Arrington, Hon. Jodey C., a Representative from Texas ............................... 41 

Barr, Hon. Andy, a Representative from Kentucky ....................................... 43 

Bustos, Hon. Cheri, a Representative from Illinois ....................................... 45 

DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative from Washington ...................... 47 

Gottheimer, Hon. Josh, a Representative from New Jersey ......................... 48 

Lieu, Hon. Ted, a Representative from California ......................................... 50 

Panetta, Hon. Jimmy, a Representative from California .............................. 52 

Thompson, Hon. Mike, a Representative from California ............................. 54 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative from New York ...................... 56 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska .......................................... 62 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 

(1) 

MEMBER DAY—NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM 

MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Thursday, April 27, 2017. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 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 committee meets today to receive testimony and input from 

our distinguished colleagues. And let me just say, we are very 

grateful to the Members who will testify today, as well as the 

Members who have submitted written testimony, for their interest, 

for their input, advice and guidance, which always assists our annual defense authorization bill. 

Let me ask unanimous consent that the written testimony of 

those members who are not able to appear in person be included 

in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The documents referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 41.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And before turning to our distinguished witnesses, let me yield to the ranking member for any comments he 

would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing. 

This is a very big bill that covers a lot of different subjects, and 

just because you are not on the committee doesn’t mean it isn’t important to you. So I think it is always important to hear from other 

Members throughout the body. I thank the chairman for his leadership in doing his best and our best to include those thoughts and 

ideas as best we can in our bill. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

And first up we have the distinguished chair of the Small Business Committee, the committee that has made a number of contributions to our bill over the years. We appreciate the working re-
2 

lationship we have had. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 

any comments he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OHIO 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Smith. We appreciate the cooperation that we have had 

with this committee for years. 

I would note that our ranking member, who we have a very good 

working relationship with, Nydia Vela ́zquez of New York, had 

hoped to be here but, unfortunately, she is tied up on the floor 

right now, so won’t be able to attend personally. But she is here 

in spirit. 

We thank you for the opportunity to share a few thoughts about 

the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA. 

Let me begin by thanking your committee, all the committee members, for its longstanding collaboration with the House Small Business Committee. The successful passage of previous years’ NDAAs 

were victories for our national security, for our men and women in 

uniform, and for our small-business industrial base, which is very 

critical and something obviously our committee cares about a lot. 

I look forward to continuing that relationship with this year’s bill. 

We recognize that this committee has been working with the Department of Defense [DOD] to pursue acquisition reform. Our Nation needs a robust small-business industrial base capable of equipping our military efficiently and at a reasonable cost. 

Improving defense procurement is vital to the health of our economy and directly benefits our Armed Forces. Small defense contractors have consistently proven that they are capable, agile, and innovative, providing better quality products and services to our military, often faster and cheaper than their non-small competitors. 

When there are fewer offers, competitiveness would decrease and 

choices would become more limited and it would become more expensive. 

Unfortunately, the declining number of companies competing for 

Federal contracts threatens competition and harms readiness. The 

Small Business Committee has held over a dozen hearings examining these roadblocks. As Chairman Thornberry frequently says, 

we need to focus on getting more defense for the dollar. Small businesses are part of that solution. 

To this end, nine members of the Small Business Committee introduced bipartisan contracting and entrepreneurship bills this 

year. It is truly impressive to see both parties working towards a 

common goal. 

I would like to take a moment and thank the ranking member 

again for her dedication and support. As I mentioned, we work in 

a very bipartisan manner. We have collected these commonsense 

reforms into two bills, H.R. 1773, the Clarity for America’s Small 

Contractors Act of 2017, and H.R. 1774, the Developing the Next 

Generation of Small Businesses Act. These bipartisan provisions 

were marked up and approved unanimously by the Small Business 

Committee last year. I provided more detail in my written statement. I would like to share with you how these two bills help small 

contractors. 
3 

First, they modernize the Small Business Act to ensure clear and 

consistent language across Federal procurement programs. It 

should be easy for the DOD contracting officers to work with small 

businesses, not more difficult. 

Second, they strengthen our government’s small-business advocates to promote competition and make sure the laws on the books, 

including the NDAA, are followed. 

Third, they increase transparency within our Federal procurement system, allowing Congress to understand which procurement 

programs are successful and which need a closer look. This will 

also make it easier to catch fraud and abuse within the programs. 

Finally, H.R. 1774 reauthorizes the SBA’s [Small Business Administration’s] entrepreneur development programs to further the 

important work being done by your committee. This ensures the 

SBA is effectively introducing the next generation of entrepreneurs 

to Federal contracts. By strengthening our small businesses, we are 

in turn strengthening our industrial base. 

I respectfully ask the committee to incorporate these provisions 

into this year’s NDAA, and we look forward to continuing to work 

with this committee, and we are happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. Chairman, I think I stopped right on time there, too. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chabot can be found in the Appendix on page 21.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it. And without objection, the written testimony of all of our witnesses will be made part of the record 

as well. 

Are there any questions or comments for the chairman? 

The gentleman from California. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to thank Chairman Chabot and the ranking 

member for all their hard work. I am honored to be a member of 

both the House Armed Services Committee and the Committee on 

Small Business, and I have seen firsthand how important small 

businesses are to giving warfighters the tools they need in a costeffective manner. 

Our small-business industrial base has a unique ability to 

strengthen our contracting process by driving innovation and competition in the marketplace. And just as the chairman said, they 

are very agile so that they can move quickly in times of need. 

Small businesses tend to be more nimble and can often respond to 

market needs. A healthy small-business industrial base benefits 

the taxpayer from increased competition, innovation, and job creation. 

I support the work being done by Chairman Chabot and Ranking 

Member Vela ́zquez to increase contracting opportunities for small 

businesses and strengthen entrepreneurial development programs 

that help eliminate barriers of entry and diversify our industrial 

base. 

Part of that diversification must also come from the people who 

enter the industrial base in the first place and subsequently make 

it thrive. That is why I offered H.R. 1680, the Women’s Business 

Centers [WBC] Improvement Act of 2017, for which I have advocated for the inclusion of FY18 [fiscal year 2018] NDAA. This bill 

would make changes to the WBC program, a Federal network of 
4 

educational centers that provide resources and counseling to female 

entrepreneurs. 

Currently, the program requires clarification in the areas of oversight and a clearer accreditation process, and this legislation aims 

to address these problems and increase funding for the program so 

it can expand and improve service quality. 

I look forward to working with the chairman, ranking member, 

and my colleagues on measures like this and others to increases 

opportunities for our small-business community. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions or comments? 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. We look forward to working with you 

again this year as we have before on a bipartisan basis. And we 

certainly appreciate those Members who are on both committees 

that will take a particular interest in our work. 

So thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Next, we turn to the distinguished ranking member on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, a Member who used to be a member of 

this committee, and I was a little sad to see him go, I have to say. 

But I appreciate the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota coming back today, and the gentleman is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to Ranking Member Smith, and members of the committee. I, too, am saddened that 

I am not on this committee, and I would like to extend a thank you 

to you and your professional staff. There are no stronger public 

servants, and their willingness to work with everyone in the caucus, whether they are on this committee or not, to strengthen our 

national defense is truly admirable. 

I submit testimony today in my strong support of several efforts 

within the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. 

These efforts will serve better the lives of our constituents, and 

also those serving in the Armed Forces. It will also strengthen our 

national security as a whole. 

Currently we find our military actively engaged in two unconventional wars and preparing for the possibilities of a third or even 

fourth simultaneous and potentially conventional focused fight. The 

requirements we as a Nation continue to place upon our military 

are ever increasing, which for the last almost two decades has necessitated continuous call-up of the Reserve Component. The contemporary National Guard and Reserve Components have increasingly become operationally vital to the conduct of ongoing operations and contingency plans. 

To this end, I must insist upon the fair treatment of our Reserve 

Components and the proper attention and planning for their continued operational tempo. The Reserve Component Benefits Parity 

Act, introduced by Representatives Palazzo, Franks, Shea-Porter, 

and myself, is an important step towards ensuring fairness for our 

Reserve Component troops who are involuntarily mobilized to serve 

this Nation under Title 10 U.S. Code 12304b. Many Members of 
5 

Congress have requested its inclusion as a legislative proposal 

within this NDAA, and the bill has garnered broad bipartisan support, with over 60 Members committing to cosponsor the measure. 

This legislation supports previous Department of Defense efforts 

to provide parity and benefits under section 12304b, via amendments to title 5, 10, 37, and 38 of the Army Transition Plan, dated 

November of 2016. It also identifies the rectification of this issue 

as vitally important to Reserve Component and the military as a 

whole. Inclusion of this legislation will correct the health, education, leave, pay, and retirement benefits applicable to Reserve 

Components service members who do mobilize under 12304b. 

Increases in readiness must also accompany the increased operational tempo of the Reserve Component. To do so requires more 

training days annually than have been required in the past, for 

which this committee has thoughtfully provided authorization and 

appropriate increases to funding, which I am incredibly grateful 

for. 

This fundamental shift towards an operational reserve force, 

though resulting in enhanced readiness, comes at a cost to this Nation’s employers. Employers are decreasingly likely to hire traditional National Guard and Reserve Component members given 

their increased utilization over the last several years, which is projected to continue indefinitely. I encourage that the strategic implications of this shift be comprehensively researched by DOD and 

communicated and worked with our employers across this Nation. 

And finally, during the 1990 and 1991 Persian Gulf war, nearly 

700,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines deployed to Iraq and 

the surrounding area answering this Nation’s call to arms. Following the war, many veterans began to experience multiple complex and persistent symptoms that have not to date been explained 

by traditional medical diagnosis. Gulf war illness has become that 

generation’s Agent Orange. This illness could possibly affect as 

many as 250,000 of these veterans. 

It is imperative that DOD coordinate with the Veterans Affairs 

Administration and the Gulf War Illness Research Program Consortium, part of the congressionally directed medical research program, to declassify specific information necessary to enable the diagnosis and treatment of Gulf war illness veterans. It has been 

over 26 years since the war ended, and the necessary classified 

record should be reasonably expected to be declassified in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 

I want to thank the committee again for the work you do. Thank 

you for allowing me to testify in front of you. And thank you for 

the care that you give to our Nation’s veterans. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walz can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it and appreciate certainly the care 

and interest the gentlemen shows and works on for veterans and 

for Guard and Reserve. 

Any questions or comments for the gentleman? 

Again, thank you for being with us. 
6 

Next, we turn to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, member of the Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, as well as various 

other hats he wears. 

Judge Carter, we appreciate you being with us. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN R. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM TEXAS 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Thornberry, 

Ranking Member Smith, thank you for allowing me to testify here 

today on what I believe is a major problem facing the United 

States Army. 

I am the proud representative of Fort Hood, Texas, as well the 

co-chairman of the Congressional Army Caucus. I work every day 

to ensure the soldiers I represent and all our men and women in 

uniform have the resources they need to do their job as safely and 

as effectively as possible. 

I believe the work of this committee is critical to the well-being 

of our service members and their families. So thank you both for 

what you do each and every day to serve those who serve us. 

Today, the revisionist powers are annexing territory, challenging 

and probing the post-World War II political world order, and using 

anti-access and area denial technology to thwart our ability to 

project power. These nations have also modernized their ground 

forces and the tactical overmatch that the U.S. ground forces have 

enjoyed for decades is now gone. As U.S. Army Vice Chief of Staff 

General Allyn recently stated, we are ‘‘out-ranged, outgunned, and 

outdated.’’ 

On our present course, the U.S. Army will not be sufficiently 

modernized to deter and defeat potential enemies. The Army’s current fleet of ground combat vehicles was conceived in the 1970s 

and built in the 1980s. While multiple upgrades of these vehicles 

have occurred, they were not designed for the requirements of today’s and tomorrow’s wars. 

In 8 years, the Army will make a decision whether or not to keep 

the current 35-year-old Bradley Fighting Vehicle. They would keep 

it for the next 50 to 70 years. The scheduled upgrades for the 

Abrams tank will take 26 years to complete and completely outfit 

for the entire Army, while not solving many of the problems of 

being outgunned anyway. And for many reasons, like having to 

fund current readiness requirements at higher than expected levels, the Army has no program in place to procure the next-generation ground combat vehicles. 

The risk an overmatched Army presents to the joint force fight 

is untenable. It is almost indefensible to us as Members of Congress to sit idly by and not give our soldiers the capabilities they 

will need to dominate the battlefield in future wars. 

I have introduced H. Res. 238 to support the U.S. Army and encourage them to expedite their efforts to procure and field the next 

generation of ground combat vehicles, as well as their current modernization strategy. Our ground combat vehicles are overmatched 

today, and the longer we wait, the longer our soldiers cannot provide the adequate deterrence or win if deterrence fails without high 
7 

cost in blood and treasure, and this is one of the most threatening 

national security environments our Nation has ever faced. 

As you begin your process of drafting the FY 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, I respectfully request that the committee 

include the report language contained within my resolution in the 

National Defense Authorization Act. 

Thank you both for your staunch support for our military service 

members and their families. I look forward to continuing to work 

with you on this important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter can be found in the Appendix on page 28.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate the gentleman highlighting 

this issue for the Army. There is no question that we have vehicles 

that are way past their design life and the Army is in need of updates, as are other services. So certainly between our two committees, I think we can certainly make progress. So I appreciate the 

gentleman highlighting this. 

Are there other questions or comments for the gentleman from 

Texas? 

We appreciate the gentleman being with us. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Next, we turn to another former member of this committee, but 

are grateful that he has returned with us today. The gentleman 

from Iowa, Mr. Loebsack, is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID LOEBSACK, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM IOWA 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank 

both you and Ranking Member Smith for allowing me this opportunity to testify today. But before I get into the particular topic 

here, I do want to thank both of you for your leadership. I know 

that, having served on this committee for 8 years, I have every confidence that you folks know what it takes to keep America safe. 

And on behalf of my two Marine children in particular, I want to 

thank you for doing what you can to provide for our troops in all 

of our services. So thank you for your leadership, and you, Mr. 

Smith, as well. 

Today, I am very happy to have the opportunity to discuss a defense issue of importance, not just to my district in Iowa, but to 

the warfighter, to the U.S. Army, indeed to the taxpayer. The interests of all are well served by this initiative. And what I am talking 

about is the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant [IAAAP]. It is one of the 

Army’s six government-owned contractor-operated, the GOCO ammunition plants around the country. Built in 1942, it is a vital part 

of our munitions industrial base with the production of high-velocity 40 millimeter grenades, C4 blocks, tank and artillery rounds, 

and missile warheads. And I have visited this particular plant on 

a number of occasions. 

Today the IAAAP—that is a mouthful—employs over 650 skilled 

professionals and is located in my district near the banks of the 

Mississippi River by Burlington, Iowa. Historically, however, the 

IAAAP has not received sufficient modernization funding to upgrade critical manufacturing processes. 
8 

An example of this is one of the production lines, Line 3A, which 

is the Nation’s primary large caliber ammunition melt pour facility. 

Line 3A is a large spread-out manufacturing line, requiring manual 

touch labor and lacking the adaptability needed for implementing 

new manufacturing technologies. Its modernization is long overdue. 

Modernization of this Army-owned line would yield more precise 

process controls, automation, environmental controls, and a greatly 

reduced footprint. My understanding is that the proposed plan to 

modernize this line would reduce costs, increase efficiencies, and 

pay for itself in less than 5 years. It seems like a pretty good deal 

to me. 

I hope the HASC [House Armed Services Committee] will find 

merit in this initiative and will support the modernization of Line 

3A at IAAAP that will provide so many benefits to so many stakeholders. 

And I thank the chairman again and the ranking member for 

your time and your consideration. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Loebsack can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the gentleman raising this issue. It 

is certainly something we need to look into further, and we will. 

And I appreciate the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Yes, gentleman, I appreciate you raising this 

issue because I have, just outside of my district, I am very supportive of the Lake City Ammunition Facility. Same thing, built in 

1940s, and severely in need of modernization. And so I did have an amendment in NDAA to add $20 million 

more for our ammunition in this particular plant. We produce all 

of the small caliber ammunition for the entire Army. It is right 

there. And I see you do the large caliber. 

But as I have looked into this issue, it is very clear all of these 

plants need modernization and it is imperative that we take these 

steps. So I appreciate you raising this issue there. Maybe we can 

work together on this and try to ensure that we get the modernization that is needed so that we are not vulnerable. 

Just FYI [for your information], 2 weeks ago there was an accident at Lake City. I don’t think I have had a chance to share with 

the chairman about this. In the primer facility there was an explosion and, sadly, we lost a man that had worked there for over 30 

years. So they are currently shut down, which I have been in contact with the commander there, and as well as Orbital ATK, that 

supervises that to make sure that it won’t impact our warfighters 

right now. They are going through an inspection process and hope 

to get that back up and running very shortly. 

But it just shows the vulnerability. And I don’t believe—well, 

they are doing an inspection, we don’t know yet the cause of that 

tragedy. But it is imperative that these facilities have the safety 

provisions and the modernization they need so that we don’t have 

any accidents or any potential stoppage of production. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you for raising this awareness. I look forward to working with you. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
9 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, I did know about that accident; the staff had emailed me right away, because these plants 

are so significant for the country’s security. And like Judge Carter 

was talking about with the Army vehicles, we have deferred updating them all way too long. So I appreciate both the gentlelady and 

the gentleman from Iowa and will work with them on this. 

Are there any other questions or comments on the gentleman 

from Iowa? If not, we thank the gentleman for being here and for 

raising the points. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next, we turn to the distinguished gentleman 

from Arkansas, who is, I believe, chairman of the EOD [Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal] Caucus. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. We always appreciate the gentleman and the 

caucus’ input on this vital part of our national defense efforts. The 

gentleman is recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking 

Member Smith and distinguished members of the committee. Once 

again, I am here to testify before the committee regarding explosive 

ordnance disposal, or EOD, priorities for the 2018 NDAA. 

The first priority for the caucus is to reengage last year’s EOD 

acquisition reform. Last year, Representative Davis submitted an 

amendment that would have established a permanent joint EOD 

research, development, and acquisition [RDA] program under the 

supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics, or AT&L. During conference with the 

Senate, this reform measure was changed to enable DOD to examine the current program and provide recommendations. 

The Department’s findings were to leave the current program as 

it is. This means DOD’s oversight of the EOD technology and training program is performed by the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Policy, not the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L. This is 

troublesome because the oversight officer’s position is scheduled to 

be eliminated. 

Additionally, the current system of acquisition causes the services to coordinate on their equipment needs, but then they each 

have to compete separately through the four service requirement 

systems in order to field what is called joint common equipment. 

This duplication of efforts results in inefficiency and increased costs 

to the taxpayer. 

More importantly, the current acquisition system has completely 

failed to deliver critical equipment, such as X-rays, robots, and 

electronic jammers to the field. Instead, each service is buying commercial off-the-shelf items to meet its needs. The Radiographic Imaging System for EOD program is fielding systems that are not 

compatible with Windows 10 software, are routinely delivered with 

50 percent of the systems broken or unusable, and are so poorly 

thought-out that the Joint EOD Technology Center issued a safety 

of use message saying that using the system could under certain 
10 

threats cause injury to the user. The Army needs an additional 

$37.5 million to purchase these commercial systems. 

This failure to deliver essential equipment that meets the requirements on schedule has created a reliance on various commercial solutions that are not joint and will create a logistics nightmare for the joint force commander when deployed. 

We on the caucus urge the committee to work with your Senate 

colleagues to develop a real joint EOD RDA program under the appropriate supervision of the Under Secretary of Defense for AT&L 

with a funding line managed by the Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency in order to ensure proper accounting and funding of a small 

but critical capability and appropriate budget justification documentation to ensure proper oversight. 

The caucus also continues to be concerned with the capacity of 

the Army’s EOD program. Over the past fiscal year, roughly onethird of the Army’s EOD force has been cut. Current military deployments to the Middle East have decreased in the past years, but 

the threat of IEDs [improvised explosive devices] is not going away 

at home or abroad. IEDs remain a cheap, easy-to-assemble, and effective weapon that can have a strategic effect. Many briefings talk 

about the elimination of chemical or biological weapons, but virtually no mention is made of the EOD men and women who are 

qualified to disable, defuse, and dismantle these weapons. 

While working with HASC staff we noticed very little EOD capacity identified in specific operational plans. We are concerned 

that the EOD capability is being overlooked in various plans which 

will result in a lack of capacity when needed. We recommend limiting the further reduction of the Army’s EOD forces to match that 

of other sustainment capabilities. 

The capacity cuts and lack of EOD planning is caused by a lack 

of appropriate EOD senior leaders within the Army. Many of the 

Army’s higher headquarters, such as Corps and Army level, have 

no EOD officer to conduct planning. Additionally, the lack of an 

EOD general officer continues to hamstring the further development of this important capability within the Army. 

Therefore, the caucus urges HASC to consider establishing an 

EOD branch within the Army sustainment community with a brigadier general as the chief of that branch. We fully understand the 

difficulty of creating a new general officer position and recommend, 

as Congress did with other newly created branches, giving the 

Army a limited exclusion to the general officer cap for the purposes 

of manning a new branch. 

Finally, the National Guard’s Civil Support Teams are the first 

line of defense for individual States in the instance of a chemical, 

biological, radiological, or nuclear threat. However, EOD technicians are a missing and much-needed element. The caucus recommends a National Guard EOD program which will authorize 

full-time national EOD positions, enabling the National Guard to 

provide 24/7 EOD support to protect our Nation. This will allow 

EOD techs transitioning out of the Active Components, who currently have limited options, to transition into the National Guard. 

Apparently, my time has expired, so I will yield for any questions 

that you might have. 
11 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford can be found in the Appendix on page 30.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate the gentleman raising these 

points. And obviously your full written statement will be made a 

part of the record. 

The only thing I would mention to the gentlemen is we are in 

the process of reorganizing the AT&L functions, and so we will 

want to keep in communication with you on that point. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. But I understand the gentleman’s point about 

emphasis in the Army and having the appropriate attention on 

this, because IEDs are not going away. There is no question about 

that. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Correct. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so we have to have that capability with the 

proper priority. 

Any other questions, comments to the gentleman from Arkansas? 

If not, we appreciate again the gentleman being here and his input 

into our process. 

Next, we will turn to one of the newer Members of Congress. We 

appreciate the gentleman from Florida being with us today. We 

have already had unanimous consent that your full written statements will be made part of the record. And we would be pleased 

to hear any comments the gentleman from Florida would like to 

make. 

Mr. Dunn. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL P. DUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM FLORIDA 

Dr. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, and other distinguished members of the committee. It 

is my honor to testify today. 

I am here to express support for incorporating House Rule 1968, 

the Military Assets Protection Act, into the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018. I recently introduced this legislation with Representative Hanabusa of Hawaii, Representative 

Rosen, and also Generals Bergman and Bacon, both high-hour military combat pilots. 

The emerging threat of unmanned aircraft systems piloted by our 

enemies was brought to my attention by military leaders at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida’s Second Congressional District, as 

well as by General Mike Holmes, the commander of all Air Combat 

Command, and Lieutenant General Scott Williams, the commander 

of the First Air Force, who is responsible for protecting the airspace 

of all North America. 

This committee has also received testimony regarding the seriousness of this threat. On March 8 of this year, General John 

Hyten, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, stated his 

concern about ‘‘unauthorized flights of unmanned aerial systems 

over Navy and Air Force installations. These intrusions represent 

a growing threat to the safety and security of nuclear weapons and 

personnel.’’ 

This is not a theoretical threat. Terrorist groups, including the 

Islamic State, have increasingly used armed drones against our al-
12 

lies overseas. As the tactics and technology of weaponized drones 

are proven on battlefields abroad, they will be exported to our 

shores for attacks and espionage against U.S. military installations 

here at home. Our Armed Forces face a new threat from drones 

and the law needs to catch up. 

As you may know, the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] recently regulated drone flights at 133 different military facilities in 

the form of airspace restrictions. Although this is a good first step, 

we cannot expect terrorists to follow the FAA’s notices to airmen. 

And importantly, military personnel currently lack the authority 

and requisite shield against liability to interdict drones that compromise the security of our assets, installations, classified information, and personnel. 

For this reason, we drafted the Military Assets Protection Act in 

consultation with the DOD and the Air Force Office of the Judge 

Advocate General. In the National Defense [Authorization] Act for 

2017 this committee made critical progress on this same issue. The 

Military Assets Protection Act will further clarify and strengthen 

the Defense Department’s legal authority to interdict drones that 

threaten homeland assets and installations. 

I respectfully request that the committee consider House Rule 

1968 as it develops the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018, and I want to thank you all for your time and for 

the opportunity to speak to you on this important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Dunn can be found in the Appendix on page 32.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate the gentleman’s work on this. 

There is no question within the last year we have seen enemies 

using armed drones against us, against our allies, as the gentleman points out. And we have issues here at home. And we need 

to have the laws keep up with the change in tactics and technology, 

as the gentleman said. So I think that is exactly right. 

The gentleman from Louisiana. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Doc, I will just certainly agree with you. Even the FAA doesn’t 

know really what to do with all the drones. There are more drones 

on the civilian side now than there are aircraft flying. And certainly they can be militarized, weaponized, and they are getting 

bigger, better, and faster. The optics are impressive. 

So good for you guys for highlighting this. I know the chairman 

has highlighted it in a previous committee meeting. But it is a 

threat that is going to become more and more critical as time 

moves on quickly here. Thank you for your input. 

Dr. DUNN. Thank you, Dr. Abraham. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Dr. Dunn, thank you for being with us, 

and we will certainly take a look at your legislation and continue 

to work together on this issue. 

Dr. DUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Next, we turn to another distinguished gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, also a new Member of Congress. We are grateful that you would be with us today. Your written statement is part 

of the record, and you are recognized for any comments you would 

like to make. 
13 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM LOUISIANA 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Smith and members of the committee, including my good friend Dr. 

Abraham from the neighboring district. I really appreciate the opportunity to provide input during this committee’s hearing today as 

we determine the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization 

Act. I am going to read fast because we have some important information I would love to get into the record today. 

I have the honor of representing a congressional district that is 

home to both Fort Polk and the Barksdale Air Force Base, which 

are two, as you know, vital military installations for our Nation 

and our national security interests around the world. As I am sure 

you know, Fort Polk is home to the Army Joint Readiness Training 

Center [JRTC] and Barksdale is home to our Air Force Global 

Strike Command. 

As is evident with the actions of North Korea, we know we live 

in a highly uncertain and incredibly complex time, and it further 

highlights the importance of our bases. 

Due to today’s time constraints I will try to focus primarily on 

just three areas that I think are in essential need of attention by 

the committee and the Congress: our U.S. nuclear enterprise, our 

U.S. Army forces, and ensuring appropriate missile defense needs 

are met for homeland defense and U.S. strategic alliances. 

Now, I am new to Washington, but one of the first things I did 

was meet with the generals based in my district given the importance of the roles they play in our daily global national security 

and the training of our Army soldiers. From those meetings and 

continued discussions over the past months engaging with these 

men and women who are working to ensure our Nation’s security, 

I am even more convinced than ever that America needs these robust strategic deterrent capabilities and we have to continue to invest more in missile defense and ensure our Army has the appropriate levels of funding and readiness to adequately respond when 

called to fight. 

The U.S. should not only invest more in missile defense, given 

recent missile testing by North Korea and Iran, for our own immediate national security needs, but we should also continue to adequately invest in missile defense cooperation with Israel. 

Based on developing hostilities around the world, it is clear we 

have to step up our level of investment into our U.S. missile defenses, developing leading-edge conventional and non-kinetic capabilities, modernizing our nuclear forces, a surety in our command 

and control, effective intelligence collection and support, and ensuring our Army force posture is adequately maintained with the right 

balance of highly trained, well-equipped soldiers to quickly respond 

when called into action. 

Without adequate investment in these platforms and people, 

America will struggle to provide the necessary levels of U.S. national security at home and to assure the security of our allies and 

partners around the world. 

I would like to briefly speak to the nuclear weapons as they continue to play an integral role in the strategies of Russia, North 

Korea, Pakistan, India and China, as you know. In fact, according 
14 

to many reports and as evidenced from recent aggressive actions, 

these countries are increasing their reliance upon and modernizing 

their capabilities, whether it be in their land, air, or sea-based 

forces. It is also very clear Iran has not given up its nuclear ambitions. 

Thankfully, despite ideological differences, Congress has clearly 

expressed support for the long-term commitment we have at Barksdale Air Force Base and for the majority of the nuclear triad. The 

decision to elevate Global Strike Command to a four-star command 

has already started to yield important rewards, but there is still 

work to be done and budgets should fully address specific needs to 

achieve U.S. advancements to upgrade and maintain America’s 

technological edge over our adversaries. 

Critical areas of need include upgrading nuclear command and 

control facilities; addressing the challenges of the B–52 re-engine, 

which are facing catastrophic engine failures; the future of the B– 

21; and essential funding for what President Trump’s own March 

budget deemed, quote, ‘‘critical infrastructure maintenance,’’ unquote, and warhead life extension programs to sufficiently modernize the nuclear security enterprise. As Secretary of Defense 

Mattis recently stated, ‘‘We must ensure a war that can never be 

won will never be fought.’’ 

As members of this committee, you are well aware of the activity 

Global Strike Command oversees and its involvement in a wide 

array of strategic deterrence, global strike, and direct combat, including actions in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Nigeria. The Bomber 

Command, 8th Air Force, in charge of our aging fleet and Missile 

Command, and the 20th Air Force, in charge of the U.S.’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, are critical to deterrence and global 

strategy. 

In our ground capabilities, in the event that maintaining a capable and robust nuclear option doesn’t suffice as a deterrent from 

war, it is also imperative we have capable and ready ground forces. 

Unfortunately, previous budget plans forced the Army to shrink at 

an unrealistic pace to the lowest levels in 50 years, as you know, 

and seriously threatened our Nation’s long-term ability to carry the 

fight forward. These changes not only impacted the top line end 

strength numbers, but also the Army’s ability to accomplish their 

missions and achieve necessary military readiness. 

My district is the proud home of the Fort Polk Army Base and 

it is important today to highlight how the Army has continued to 

solidify Fort Polk’s footprint as a multipurpose military installation 

with state-of-the-art Joint Readiness Training Center. The base 

contains units that provide invaluable training for advise and assist roles and provide soldiers with the training and flexibility necessary to carry out the demands placed on them to secure victory. 

The exercise scenarios learned there replicate many of the 

unique situations and challenges the unit may face while deployed, 

and because of this, Fort Polk is uniquely suited for a number of 

upcoming Army plans, including planned expansion of the Army 

advise and assist missions, as it is the only combat training center 

in the Nation that also trains and deploys combat units. 

The Army recently completed its largest land purchase in an effort to provide even more robust training capabilities for brigade 
15 

combat team rotations, an action that was warmly embraced by the 

local community. 

We have a number of issues that I can highlight, but I see that 

I am far out of time. Mr. Chairman, I will submit the written comments for the record. And I certainly appreciate the opportunity to 

show our support for our men and women in uniform. Thank you 

all for your critical work for the country. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson can be found in the Appendix on page 33.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I appreciate the gentleman highlighting 

three very important issues. This committee has certainly focused 

on the nuclear deterrent, and missile defense, as you mentioned, is 

critically important, and the Army needs I think you have highlighted are very well taken. 

Any comments or questions? 

The gentleman from Louisiana. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just want to say it is an honor for me to serve with the gentleman from Louisiana. Also his knowledge base, his passion, his 

tireless work effort, he is all over not only the district, but his 

State, highlighting the Armed Forces capabilities and certainly the 

deficiencies that he has mentioned with the B–52 engine. 

And he is right, the JRTC at Fort Polk is not only prime, but it 

is ready to take on that AAA [Advise and Assist] battalion and brigade, so we would look forward to working with that. In Belle 

Chasse we have certainly some issues down there with some F–15 

shortages that will occur shortly if we don’t do something about it. 

So again, just a heartfelt thank you to Mike for his unwavering 

support of the Armed Forces, not only in Louisiana, but of the Nation. 

Thanks, Mike. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions or comments? 

I appreciate the gentleman taking time to be with us, as well as 

your input. Obviously, the committee will take all the input we 

have received today in written and oral form into consideration and 

try to come up with the best defense authorization bill we possibly 

can. 

At this point, the hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 27, 2017 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 27, 2017 

(21) 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 27, 2017 

(41) 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 

Æ