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 

88–453 2015

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–108] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES 

FROM MEMBERS FOR THE 

FISCAL YEAR 2015 NATIONAL 

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 9, 2014 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California, Chairman 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

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 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

RON BARBER, Arizona 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

JAIME CHESHIRE, Professional Staff Member 

AARON FALK, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2014 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, April 9, 2014, National Defense Priorities from Members for 

the Fiscal Year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act ............................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 ....................................................................................... 39 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2014 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Barr, Hon. Andy, a Representative from Kentucky .............................................. 27 

Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a Representative from Tennessee ............................... 18 

Broun, Hon. Paul C., a Representative from Georgia .......................................... 16 

Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative from California .............................................. 21 

Collins, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Georgia ............................................. 5 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick,’’ a Representative from Arkansas ........................ 33 

DeSantis, Hon. Ron, a Representative from Florida ............................................ 10 

Ellmers, Hon. Renee L., a Representative from North Carolina ......................... 3 

Graves, Hon. Sam, a Representative from Missouri ............................................. 13 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L., a Representative from New York ................................ 15 

Heck, Hon. Denny, a Representative from Washington ....................................... 19 

Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative from North Carolina ........................... 34 

Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative from California ................................ 25 

Meng, Hon. Grace, a Representative from New York ........................................... 24 

Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative from California ......................................... 36 

O’Rourke, Hon. Beto, a Representative from Texas ............................................. 2 

Perry, Hon. Scott, a Representative from Pennsylvania ...................................... 29 

Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R., Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico ................... 8 

Posey, Hon. Bill, a Representative from Florida ................................................... 6 

Ribble, Hon. Reid J., a Representative from Wisconsin ....................................... 23 

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

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

Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative from Texas, Committee on Armed 

Services ................................................................................................................. 1 

Tonko, Hon. Paul, a Representative from New York ............................................ 11 

Wagner, Hon. Ann, a Representative from Missouri ............................................ 32 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Barr, Hon. Andy ............................................................................................... 43 

Blackburn, Hon. Marsha .................................................................................. 45 

Broun, Hon. Paul C. ......................................................................................... 49 

Bustos, Hon. Cheri, a Representative from Illinois ....................................... 51 

Chabot, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Ohio .......................................... 54 
Page

IV 

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued 

Chu, Hon. Judy ................................................................................................. 56 

Collins, Hon. Chris, a Representative from New York .................................. 59 

Collins, Hon. Doug ............................................................................................ 60 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ ......................................................................... 65 

Cuellar, Hon. Henry, a Representative from Texas ...................................... 70 

DeSantis, Hon. Ron .......................................................................................... 72 

Ellmers, Hon. Renee L. .................................................................................... 75 

Fincher, Hon. Stephen Lee, a Representative from Tennessee .................... 78 

Gardner, Hon. Cory, a Representative from Colorado .................................. 79 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative from Arizona .................................... 80 

Graves, Hon. Sam ............................................................................................. 82 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L. ................................................................................... 86 

Heck, Hon. Denny ............................................................................................. 88 

Hudson, Hon. Richard ...................................................................................... 90 

Johnson, Hon. Sam, a Representative from Texas ........................................ 94 

Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S. .................................................................................. 98 

Lummis, Hon. Cynthia M., a Representative from Wyoming ....................... 100 

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative from Washington .......... 105 

Meng, Hon. Grace ............................................................................................. 107 

Nunes, Hon. Devin ........................................................................................... 110 

O’Rourke, Hon. Beto ......................................................................................... 112 

Pascrell, Hon. Bill, Jr., a Representative from New Jersey .......................... 117 

Perry, Hon. Scott .............................................................................................. 119 

Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R. ................................................................................... 121 

Posey, Hon. Bill ................................................................................................ 125 

Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative from West Virginia .................... 127 

Ribble, Hon. Reid J. .......................................................................................... 129 

Roby, Hon. Martha, a Representative from Alabama ................................... 133 

Roskam, Hon. Peter J., a Representative from Illinois ................................. 135 

Ross, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative from Florida ................................... 137 

Rothfus, Hon. Keith, a Representative from Pennsylvania .......................... 139 

Sablan, Hon. Gregorio Kilili Camacho, Delegate from Northern Mariana 

Islands ............................................................................................................ 148 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn ‘‘GT,’’ a Representative from Pennsylvania ............ 151 

Tonko, Hon. Paul .............................................................................................. 153 

Wagner, Hon. Ann ............................................................................................ 155 

Williams, Hon. Roger, a Representative from Texas ..................................... 157 

Young, Hon. Todd C., a Representative from Indiana .................................. 159 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

GAO report, ‘‘Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Reassess Options 

for Permanent Location of U.S. Africa Command’’ .................................... 165 

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) 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2015 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 9, 2014. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mac Thornberry presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM TEXAS, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Committee will come to order. Good morning. 

The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense priorities for the fiscal year 2015 National Defense Authorization Act 

[NDAA]. Chairman McKeon has been called to handle other committee responsibilities this morning and will hopefully be joining us 

once we are underway. Without objection, we will enter his prepared opening statement at this point in the record. 

[There was no prepared statement submitted by Mr. McKeon.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. One quick note for our 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 notifying the staff and will be granted 2 minutes 

each up to the 4-minute limit. This will ensure we can hear from 

all our witnesses in a timely fashion. 

As this hearing is intended to be a listening session, it is not our 

intent to engage in extended debate or colloquy with our witnesses. 

But we do appreciate all our colleagues coming today and hearing 

their priorities. 

With that, I will yield to the distinguished ranking member. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have any opening 

comments except to say that I look forward to the comments from 

the Members from outside of the committee. We strive on this committee to represent the entire Congress, obviously, so we want to 

hear what you are interested in. And as we get ready to produce 

the national defense authorizing act, those opinions and issues that 

you raise will be very important as we consider what the final 

product should look like and debate amendments and the bill on, 
2 

I believe it is May 7. So timely hearing. Look forward to the testimony. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman. 

And with that, we will start, appropriately, from the great State 

of Texas. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. O’Rourke, is recognized for 

4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BETO O’ROURKE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM TEXAS 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Mr. Chair, Ranking Member Smith, members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. I have the distinct honor of representing El Paso, Texas, 

which is home to Fort Bliss and the Army’s 1st Armored Division; 

29,000 soldiers and their families call Fort Bliss and El Paso home. 

Fort Bliss also has a unique relationship with White Sands Missile Range and Holloman Air Force Base, making the region one of 

the most important for our military. The three installations encompass more than 3.3 million acres and nearly 10,000 square miles 

of air space. Together they provide an unrivalled strategic advantage to our military for its training and testing and evaluation 

needs, an advantage that cannot be replicated elsewhere. 

Today, I will testify on four issues that are important to our region and important to our country’s security. The first is on the 

issue of the budget, and in these uncertain times I believe that 

Fort Bliss offers the Army opportunities to adapt, innovate, and 

achieve its near-term readiness priorities. 

Fort Bliss, in partnership with the community, has built the 

largest inland water desalination facility in North America. Building on that commitment to sustainability, the installation has committed itself to achieve net-zero waste, water, and energy by December 31, 2018. These innovations will not only save the Army 

money, they will also make the post fully sustainable long into the 

future. 

Fort Bliss is capable of training virtually any type of unit in the 

Army force structure. Along with the restationing of the 1st Armored Division in 2005, the post also seamlessly received several 

brigade combat teams and numerous supporting units. This committee can be confident that Fort Bliss, along with White Sands 

Missile Range and Holloman Air Force Base, will continue to play 

a critical role in our country’s national defense for decades to come 

no matter what the budget situation. 

The second issue is Fillmore Canyon and a requested land transfer. The Department of the Army has identified the Fillmore Canyon land transfer as a high priority for the NDAA. The proposal 

will ensure that Fort Bliss and White Sands are protected from encroachment and have the buffer necessary to continue their training missions in the area. This proposal would transfer the Fillmore 

Canyon to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management 

[BLM] and withdraw BLM land on the south and west boundaries 

of the Fort Bliss Dona Ana training areas and firing range complex 

from disposal to a third party, such as a private development company. I urge the support of this committee for the inclusion of this 

land transfer authority in the NDAA. 
3 

Next issue is Beaumont Hospital. Thanks to the past work of this 

committee, the new William Beaumont Army Medical Center is 

under construction and on schedule to start serving service members in 2017 as a new state-of-the-art facility. The hospital has 

three remaining phases of construction, and the timely completion 

of the new hospital is dependent on the funding of future increments through fiscal year 2016. I ask this committee to continue 

your strong support for this project and the remaining funding 

increments. 

Last issue is the issue of transitioning service members. As a 

member of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I understand the numerous issues transitioning service members face. Of critical importance is ensuring that they have access to health care through 

the VA [Veterans Administration]. I hope that this committee will 

consider the Healthy Transitions for Veterans Act, H.R. 3045, 

which I introduced last year. The proposal would require the Department of Defense to perform two simple, commonsense tasks. 

The first, provide a comprehensive physical examination to all 

service members of the Active, Guard, and Reserve components 

who are separating from military service; and secondly, provide 

separating service members with a copy of their complete medical 

records electronically. These changes will improve the transition for 

our soldiers, and it has been endorsed by over 14 veterans service 

organizations and is cosponsored by 6 members of the committee, 

4 of them Republican and 2 Democrat. I look forward to working 

with you on this proposal. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. And in his 

absence, I would also like to thank Chairman McKeon for his decades of service both in Congress and on the committee. And should 

you have any questions, I am here to answer them. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Rourke can be found in the Appendix on page 112.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentleman for his testimony. 

Are there any questions? 

If not, thank you, sir. Appreciate you being here. 

Let’s see, next we have the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. 

Ellmers. And I should have said at the beginning, without objection, all of the written statements that our witnesses provide will 

be made part of our record. 

Ms. Ellmers, thanks for being here. You are recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RENEE L. ELLMERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Smith, for allowing me to testify today in the House Armed Services Committee. I truly appreciate this opportunity. Since I have 

numerous issues I wish to draw attention to, I will keep my remarks brief on each issue. My staff will be happy to follow up on 

any of these issues and provide necessary information. 

I am a proud Representative of the Second District North Carolina, which is home to Fort Bragg. I am very honored to be representing Fort Bragg. Fort Bragg is home to the Airborne and Special Operation Forces. 
4 

The first issue I would like to address is the President’s proposal 

to inactivate the 440th Airlift Wing located at Pope Field. I have 

serious concerns with this proposal and the negative impacts it 

would have on training. The 440th Airlift Wing provides 33 percent 

of crucial joint airborne and air transportability training to the 

forces stationed at Fort Bragg. 

This joint commission was formed over the last 7 years to provide Airborne and Special Operation Forces with the accessible, 

flexible, and quality training they need to continue to be ready for 

whatever mission they are asked to carry out. Eliminating the ability to rapidly mobilize to train and deploy with local commanders, 

aircrews and aircraft that have an established relationship with 

our most in-demand forces increases risk at an unacceptable rate. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request you maintain the mission 

of the 440th Airlift Wing and its C–130s. 

My next issue that I would like to speak about has to do with 

TRICARE. I would like to discuss the issue and the lack of timely 

and consistent notification from TRICARE regarding changes made 

to beneficiaries’ insurance coverage. While sitting down with one of 

my military spouses, Susan Reynolds, I was stunned to learn that 

her family was not notified about TRICARE’s decision to end coverage for compounded pharmaceuticals. Her son Ian is allergic to 

red dye and relies on compounded pharmaceuticals for his medications. 

Mrs. Reynolds’ husband Jeremy was deployed in less than a 

month and was blindsided by the changes made to his family’s 

TRICARE coverage. The Reynolds family was left with the struggles of deployment and unnecessary burdens of wondering if their 

son’s medication would be covered and how they would be able to 

replace it. This was an unnecessary hardship placed on the backs 

of the deployed family simply because there is no standard notification system in place to changes of TRICARE coverage. 

After speaking with numerous military families like the Reynolds, I introduced H.R. 4101, the TIME [Timely Information Management Enforcement] Act. This legislation would reconstruct 

TRICARE’s notification process and require TRICARE to notify 

beneficiaries and providers no less than 90 days before a change to 

their coverage is made. It is imperative that military families have 

the appropriate time they need to find suitable alternatives for the 

coverage lost. Instead, they were left to see their insurance coverage pulled out from underneath them. 

Mr. Chairman, I request that this problem be addressed in this 

year’s NDAA and that the TIME Act be a part of that discussion. 

I would like to work with the House Armed Services Committee to 

fix this problem. 

In closing, I believe it is more important than ever that the 

United States maintain its military superiority and continue to be 

the dominant force of freedom in the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity, and Ranking 

Member Smith, for allowing me to speak before this distinguished 

committee and for all of your hard work and support of our armed 

services and military families. I look forward to working with the 

committee on the challenges facing our military. Thank you. 
5 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Ellmers can be found in the Appendix on page 75.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. Appreciate the testimony of the 

gentlelady. 

Are there any questions? None. 

Thank you. Appreciate you being here. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Next, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins. Appreciate the gentleman being here. You are recognized for 

4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG COLLINS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM GEORGIA 

Mr. COLLINS OF GEORGIA. It is good to be here. And as a member 

of the still active Air Force Reserve, this committee is special to 

me, and I appreciate all the work that you, Mr. Thornberry and 

Ranking Member Smith, would give. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning before your 

committee. Words cannot express how proud I am of having in my 

district one-third of the famed U.S. Army Ranger School. The 5th 

Ranger Training Battalion is located in the beautiful mountains of 

Dahlonega, Georgia, home also to America’s first gold rush, but I 

am not here the discuss that. 

Camp Frank D. Merrill, located on 282 acres of land, houses the 

Mountain Phase of Ranger School. The camp is comprised of 200 

Active Duty soldiers, a dining facility, PX [Post Exchange], commissary, chapel, and mountaineering equipment. Most importantly, 

Camp Merrill houses over 200 soon-to-be Rangers who are deprived 

of food, sleep, and comforting amenities in order to best serve our 

country and offer themselves as a fighting force. 

After World War II, the U.S. Army leased the 282-acre tract of 

land from the U.S. Forest Service [USFS] in order to construct the 

second phase of Ranger School. In 1951, Army-USFS Special Use 

Permit was drafted and the Army has operated on the land under 

the supervision of the Forest Service since then. 

The Special Use Permit has enacted two layers of business rules 

and operating procedures for Camp Merrill, one Army layer and 

one Forest Service layer. The duplicative nature of management 

causes delays on critical infrastructure projects and unnecessarily 

complicates day-to-day operations. 

Ranger School’s operational tempo and mission at Camp Merrill 

is an understandably unique one. The Army’s mission at Camp 

Merrill requires very specific building and maintenance standards 

calling for exemptions to regulatory guidance, guidance for which 

the Army already has standing operating procedures in place for. 

Once approvals for exemptions are processed through the military channels, the Forest Service then vets any changes to Camp 

Merrill’s structure. This has happened at increased cost to U.S. 

taxpayers. The goal in acquiring Camp Merrill for the Army is to 

increase efficiency and to save taxpayer money. Wholly owning 

Camp Merrill allows any needed structural improvements and 

Ranger training facilities upgrades to occur cheaper than operating 

under two levels of bureaucracy. 
6 

One example of bureaucratic senselessness is when a group of 

trees surrounding a landing zone for helicopters started to cause a 

safety hazard and needed trimming. Due to the two-level approval 

process of structural and environmental changes required by dual 

management of Camp Merrill, 2 years went by before approval was 

granted to trim the trees within an acre-and-a-half area. In addition to the protracted time to accomplish this simple task, the cost 

for trimming the trees was nearly doubled. 

While we are on cost, the bureaucratic redundancy is occurring 

at a period when DOD [Department of Defense] is looking to capitalize on savings. The last nine projects the Army built at Camp 

Merrill cost $674,980 more—catch that, more—due to repeated and 

unnecessary oversight by the United States Forest Service. While 

this may appear a minuscule amount of money, remember a redundant approval process can be traced back for over 50 years. 

My legislation reverses decades of redundant oversight and enacts a land exchange between the Department of Army and the 

Forest Service. This exchange will allow the Army to gain administrative control of Camp Merrill and Forest Service gets new lake 

property on Lake Lanier. 

For over 20 years, two agencies engaged in several rounds of negotiation to enact the land transfer, and as recent as 2012, language was inserted into NDAA to bring the long-needed change. At 

the last moment the language was stripped out because the Department of Agriculture reneged on the deal by asking for $10 million in addition to the land on Lake Lanier. The Army was not able 

to provide the money, and shouldn’t have, by the way, as it was 

not part of the originally mutually decided upon agreement. 

2014 is the year the saga should come to an end. With the passage of this language, the Army is empowered to build the structures needed to train one of the Army’s most elite fighting forces. 

In addition, taxpayer moneys are relieved of duplicative agency 

oversight and the Forest Service gains land it previously didn’t 

own. 

It is time, Mr. Chairman, for this to end, and it is time for two 

government agencies to settle a 20-plus-year-old dispute and save 

money at the same time. 

And Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins of Georgia can be found 

in the Appendix on page 60.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. 

Are there any questions? 

Thank you, Mr. Collins. Appreciate you being here. 

Next, the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey. 

Thanks for being here. You are recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL POSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

FLORIDA 

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

and committee members. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you this morning. I appreciate the work you do in crafting the 

National Defense Authorization Act. In addition to this testimony, 

I will also submit a letter outlining priorities I believe are worthy 
7 

of your consideration, and hope you will allow me just to highlight 

a few of them for you here this morning. 

First, I would like to thank the committee for recognizing the national importance of having a safe, secure, reliable, and modern 

space launch range infrastructure to support the national security 

space mission in the fiscal year 2014 NDAA. Last year, I testified 

on the importance of urging the Air Force to take steps to ensure 

that the Range Communications Building—also known as the XY 

Building—at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is in sufficient 

shape to support our Nation’s space launches. 

The deplorable condition of this building, with its structural 

problems, flooding issues, outdated vacuum tube technology, believe it or not, must be addressed. I understand the Air Force rates 

this as their number one current mission MILCON [military construction] priority for 2013 to 2016. Please continue, I hope, to urge 

the Air Force to prioritize resources as appropriate to modernize 

this vital launch infrastructure. 

Second, I would ask the committee to include in the NDAA a 

commonsense provision that passed the House last year on a voice 

vote as part of an en bloc amendment relating to Space Available 

military transport. Unfortunately, this provision did not make it 

through the Senate or the conference process. It simply allows nonprofit organizations to ship items to U.S. service members serving 

overseas on a space available basis. A similar policy is in place for 

sending cargo to foreigners under the Denton Program. This provision, previously adopted by the House, gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to do this for our own troops. 

Next, I understand that there may be requests to the committee 

that would require the Army to execute the fiscal year 2014 appropriated funds for an additional noncompetitive procurement for the 

Army’s Joint Tactical Radio Handheld, Manpack, and Small Form 

Fit Program, JTRS. Without getting too technical, I would the urge 

the committee to instead continue the successful approach of last 

year and years before and promote competition in the procurement 

process. Competition saves money, and in this case it also drives 

competition. Sole source does neither. 

In closing, I would ask the committee to support the Army’s network modernization with the Small Airborne Networking Radio 

program; the continuation of a successful J–STARS [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System] fleet with the T–3 test aircraft; 

and the proper utilization of the Kiowa Warrior in its last year of 

availability for the warfighter. It includes upgrades to ensure that 

if called into action our troops would have the best equipment possible. 

I appreciate very much your consideration of these requests. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Posey can be found in the Appendix on page 125.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentleman for testimony. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Nugent, is recognized for 2 

minutes. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Posey. You bring up some very important 

issues, particularly to the State of Florida on your first as it relates 

to the space launch ability at our facility there. I mean, we have 
8 

two decades worth of experience in space launch. And I just want 

to thank you for bringing this forward. But beyond a Range Communication Building, what other programs need new authorization 

to preserve and improve our space launch in Florida, particularly 

since we are so dependent today on Russia, which has not turned 

out to be all that dependable? 

Mr. POSEY. Well, I thank the gentleman for that question. You 

know, all space launches are matters of national security, not just 

perceived in the traditional manner that we look at national security, but as economic national security. I mean, take a few satellites out and you no longer get your weather report, you no longer 

can use your GPS, you no longer can use the cell phone, you not 

longer can use a credit card, you no longer can process a check. I 

mean, these are significant economic dangers to our economy and 

to our society. 

There is a lot of discussion in the Space, Science, and Technology 

Committee how to best spend the money on space. But in this particular issue, the XY Building, literally, I would invite any of you 

sometime to visit it. The technology that we are using for tracking, 

and ultimately our systems hinge on it, are truly vacuum tube 

technology. I mean, if you saw it you would not believe that we are 

operating the Kennedy Space Center and the Cape Canaveral Air 

Force Station with this outdated technology or the condition of the 

building. It is truly frightening to me as a matter of national security. 

Mr. NUGENT. I thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing 

that forward. 

I yield back. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Other questions? 

Thank the gentleman for being here. Appreciate it. 

Next we have the gentleman from Puerto Rico. 

Appreciate you being here. Recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, RESIDENT 

COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, 

members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I have two requests which I will summarize. 

First, congressional action is needed to address a significant 

threat to public safety on the island of Culebra, Puerto Rico, which 

was used as a military training range for many decades. DOD argues that a 1974 law precludes it from funding the cleanup of a 

570-acre parcel, much of which was conveyed to the Government of 

Puerto Rico back in 1982. Culebra is the only defense site in the 

Nation that DOD says it is barred by statute from decontaminating. 

In the last several years, DOD and some Members of Congress 

have opposed bicameral efforts to repeal or relax the 1974 law. 

This opposition flies in the face of well-established Federal policy 

that DOD is responsible for funding remedial action on property 

contaminated by its training activities. It is also difficult to understand since CBO [Congressional Budget Office] confirms that effective cleanup could be conducted for $6 million. 
9 

The current state of affairs on Culebra is a disaster waiting to 

happen because the parcel contains popular beaches, pedestrian 

walkways, and campgrounds. Since 1995, there have been over 70 

incidents in which members of the public encountered unexploded 

munitions that could have caused grave harm. Indeed, in January 

local authorities had to close a beach when they discovered a 100- 

pound unexploded bomb underwater close to shore. 

Last week the Corps of Engineers issued a press release warning 

spring break travelers to Culebra to exercise caution during their 

stay and to be on the lookout for any items that could be potential 

munitions, noting that the likelihood of encountering munitions on 

Culebra is relatively high. 

This committee has been actively engaged on the issue of the 

past. The House version of the 2010 NDAA repealed the 1974 law 

to authorize cleanup of the parcel. But the House receded in conference. 

The 2011 NDAA required a comprehensive DOD study on this 

issue which DOD completed in April 2012. In the 2012 NDAA, I 

offered a successful floor amendment expressing the sense of the 

House that the 1974 law should be relaxed or repealed if the parcel 

could be cleaned at a reasonable cost, which it absolutely can. But 

again, the final bill was silent on the issue. 

I respectfully ask the committee to again include language to 

modify the 1974 law and to defend this provision in conference. I 

would like to work with Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member 

Smith, and Chairman Wittman to accomplish this goal. I have been 

trying to resolve this matter for 5 years. I cannot rest until it is 

properly addressed because the stakes are too high. 

My second request relates to the budget line for counterdrug activities. No U.S. jurisdiction is more affected by the drug trade 

than Puerto Rico, which is a major transshipment point for drugs 

destined for the U.S. mainland. The murder rate in Puerto Rico is 

far worse than any State and most of the violence is linked to narcotics. 

The defense title of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act expresses concern about drug-related violence in Puerto Rico and requires DOD to brief Congress on the steps it is taking to support 

law enforcement operations in the U.S. territory. I am concerned 

that DOD has requested only $719 million for interdiction activities 

in 2015 compared to the current funding level of $895 million. DOD 

must request and receive more robust funding in order to adequately perform this vital mission. 

Accordingly, I hope the committee will provide increased funding 

so that SOUTHCOM [Southern Command] has more of the maritime and aviation assets it needs to prevent major shipments of 

narcotics from entering the U.S. and destroying the lives of American citizens. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierluisi can be found in the Appendix on page 121.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman. 

Are there any questions? 

If not, appreciate your testimony. Thanks for being here. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. You are welcome. 
10 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Next we have the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

DeSantis. 

Appreciate you being here. You are recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON DESANTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM FLORIDA 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, 

and members of the committee. I appreciate your time. I know it 

is a busy time for the committee. 

I am here to talk about the E–2D Advanced Hawkeye, the Navy’s 

carrier-based Airborne Early Warning and Battle Management 

Command and Control system. This particular E–2 platform has 

been serving our military well since the 1960s, and as you consider 

the fiscal year 2015 authorization for DOD, I ask that you support 

the E–2D program, as well as an additional fifth E–2D Advanced 

Hawkeye aircraft. 

The E–2D is equipped with new cutting-edge communications capabilities and radar systems. These advancements enable the E–2D 

to synthesize information from multiple onboard and off-board sensors to provide increased missile protection to our carrier defense 

groups, while also improving the aircraft’s offensive capabilities, 

which are key to supporting our combatant commands. 

The addition of the fifth E–2D aircraft in fiscal year 2015 is necessary for providing carrier strike groups with the E–2D’s advanced Integrated Air and Missile Defense capabilities to pace the 

rapidly evolving Pacific threat. Without this fifth aircraft, a carrier 

will be forced to deploy with less advanced E–2Cs, preventing carriers from having the additional capability that E–2Ds bring 

against multiple threats. Furthermore, additional funding would be 

needed to keep multiple variants of the Hawkeye in service longer. 

The program is critical for the Navy and our military. One of the 

members of this committee and our colleague, Congressman 

Bridenstine, put it well: ‘‘Given the threat to the strike groups, 

multiyear procurement of E–2D is absolutely necessary. The only 

question is, are we purchasing enough E–2Ds and missile intercepters to counter the high volumes of incoming missiles that our 

sailors and soldiers could face?’’ And Jim is a former E–2C pilot, 

so he really sees the advancements in capability with the E–2D. 

It has met every major milestone on schedule since the program’s 

inception in 2003. And as the program moves forward, full funding 

for the E–2D, as well as funding for a fifth aircraft, ensures that 

carrier air wings will fully realize the capabilities provided by the 

state-of-the-art early warning and battle management command 

and control weapon system. 

The role technology plays in modern warfare is very important, 

and the technological advances of the E–2D will ensure that our 

military maintains its critical edge. Your support for this program 

is essential to maintaining the safety of our carriers in a changing 

environment when we are facing new threats. 

Thank you for having me here today, and thank you for what you 

do to support our Nation’s warfighters. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeSantis can be found in the Appendix on page 72.] 
11 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Nugent, is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. DeSantis. I mean, it is disappointing that 

the President’s budget eliminated one of these aircraft. Can you explain to us, or at least to me, why is it so important? I mean, why 

is it so important, the difference between a C and a D? I mean, it 

is a letter. So if you could. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Sure. Well, the E–2 generally has been the eyes 

of the fleet. One of the greatest capabilities we have just as a Navy, 

one of the things I was most proud of was to be able to take an 

aircraft carrier, sovereign U.S. territory, and put it anywhere on 

the seas and project power from there. But you can’t just do that 

without knowing what the threats that you are facing, and so the 

E–2 has historically proven to be that platform that can identify 

the threats. 

I think what the E–2D brings is the capability is just so much 

greater. So we would need to increase capability anyways because 

the threats are stealthier than they have been in the past. But I 

think what the E–2 does is it obviously keeps up with that, and 

then it puts us even at a greater competitive advantage considering 

some of the threats that we are facing. So it really does bring great 

capabilities to the fight. 

Mr. NUGENT. Well, and particularly you talked about in the Pacific theater, there was just a comment, I believe it was in the 

paper today from China basically challenging us as it relates to our 

ability to operate within the Pacific theater and their growing capacity and capability. So I would think the E–2D certainly gives at 

least our forces, and particularly those that are attached to a carrier group, a whole lot more protection and the ability, if faced with 

a fight, to prevail. And so I appreciate you bringing this forward. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Other questions? 

Thank the gentleman for your testimony. Appreciate you being 

here. 

Just to alert members, a couple of things are happening. Number 

one, we are moving along efficiently. Number two, some of the witnesses have been detained in other committee hearings, and so I 

think we will be resuming here in just a moment. 

Appreciate the gentleman from New York being with us. We 

have already gotten unanimous consent for any written statement 

and materials to be made part of the record, and we are asking 

witnesses to summarize their testimony in 4 minutes. With that, 

the gentleman is recognized. If you don’t mind hitting the button 

for the microphone. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. I am sorry. I am sorry. 

Thank you for the invitation to testify before the committee 

today. I come before you first to advocate for the thousands of veterans who served at Fort McClellan, Alabama, and are seeking to 

know whether their service time there made them ill. 
12 

Shortly after I was first elected to Congress in 2008, I met with 

a constituent named Sue Frasier, who had served at Fort McClellan in the 1970s as part of the Women’s Army Corps. Sue described 

for me the numerous health problems she had experienced since 

her time at Fort McClellan, including fibromyalgia, autoimmune 

disorders, and asthma. Most significantly, Sue had to undergo a 

hysterectomy at age 37. 

Sue’s story is not an isolated one. As my office began to investigate this issue further, we have heard from hundreds of vets from 

all over the country who served at Fort McClellan that are experiencing similar health issues consistent with PCB [polychlorinated 

biphenyl] exposure. 

I have introduced legislation that would notify those who served 

at Fort McClellan of potential contamination and create a voluntary health study to assess the validity of their claims. This 

issue has gained the support of 52 cosponsors, including members 

of both parties on this committee. I want to personally thank those 

of you on this committee, on both sides of the aisle, that have lent 

your support to this pro-veteran legislation. 

Our mission here is simple: Obtaining basic information. Unfortunately, after 5 long years and support from many members of 

this committee, we are still stalled. We have yet to have a hearing 

or a vote on this important issue. And this inaction has a price: 

While we wait, these veterans become sicker. 

This is an issue that deserves debate in an open forum. I do not 

pretend to have all the answers, and I am happy to work with anyone from either party to find a solution to this issue. However, 

what we cannot do is continue to turn a blind eye to those veterans 

who are simply seeking to understand why they are so sick. Caring 

for our veterans is a top priority and this is a debate worth having. 

I urge this committee to consider language in the NDAA to address the needs of the Fort McClellan veterans. I also hope you will 

include language based on my bill in H.R. 337 which bears the 

name of Lieutenant Colonel Todd Clark, an Albany, New York, native who was tragically killed in action on June 8, 2013. 

Todd wished to be buried at Fort Sam Houston in Texas; however, his family also wanted to have a hometown service to allow 

friends and family the opportunity to honor him. They were 

shocked to learn that they would be responsible for defraying part 

of the cost of transporting their son’s body from Albany to San Antonio. Currently, it is the Department’s policy to only provide one 

flight at government expense for deceased service members. 

In this case, DOD paid for transport from Dover Air Force Base 

to Albany, but was unable to cover the cost to San Antonio. I have 

suggested allowing for one stopover en route to final destination. 

This would enable service members who wish to be buried in a national cemetery to have a hometown memorial service without worrying about the cost of transportation. This stopover would be completely optional. 

I understand that DOD cannot be asked to fulfill burdensome requests, such as many flights crisscrossing our Nation. One stopover 

represents a reasonable compromise that insulates the Department 

from extravagant costs while allowing families greater flexibility to 

fulfill their loved one’s last wishes. 
13 

Some will argue that families should use the $100,000 death gratuity to cover this expense. But I believe, for a family that has just 

lost a loved one on behalf of our Nation, that money is better spent 

on mortgage payments, college funds, and rebuilding their lives. 

The cost of funeral arrangements is the last thing they should be 

worrying about. 

Truthfully, I do not know how many people have paid this expense or changed their arrangements to avoid extra cost, but I do 

know that the Clarks are not alone. When a service member and 

his or her family make the ultimate sacrifice, the least we can do 

is make sure family and friends have ample opportunity to honor 

and memorialize their loved one. How we treat our fallen heroes 

and those who grieve for them says a lot about us as a Nation and 

the debt we owe our veterans. All I am asking is that we do a little 

bit more. 

Thank you again to the chair and the committee for hearing my 

testimony today. I would be happy to answer any questions or follow up with additional information you may require. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tonko can be found in the Appendix on page 153.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentleman. 

Are there any questions? If not, appreciate the gentleman being 

here and raising these issues. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. We are ready to resume. Appreciate the gentleman from Missouri, chairman of the Small Business Committee 

being with us, Mr. Graves. And you are recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it, and I appreciate the work that the committee is doing. 

Given that the Federal Government spends nearly half a trillion 

dollars each year on contracts, the Federal procurement market is 

incredibly important for all of the small businesses. Improving 

small business opportunities for Federal contracts is a triple play: 

The small businesses win more contracts; workers win because 

small businesses create jobs; and the taxpayers win because the 

competition saves the government money and it improves the 

health of the industrial base. 

Over the last 3 years, the Armed Services Committee and the 

Small Business Committee have worked together on procurement 

issues, and I am pleased to report this collaboration is working 

very well. For the first time in 8 years it appears that the Federal 

Government met its small business goal. However there is still a 

great deal of work to be done to ensure that the contracting community has the tools and guidance it needs to get the best results 

and that small businesses don’t face unnecessary burdens and barriers to the entry in the procurement process with the Federal Government. 

And to that end, the Small Business Committee recently marked 

up five bills aimed at further improving the competitive viability of 

our industrial base, and I introduced a sixth bill that has not been 

marked up yet. I believe these initiatives, all of which have bipar-
14 

tisan support, tie into the recommendation presented to this committee in 2012 by the Panel on Business Challenges in the Defense 

Industry, which is led by Mr. Shuster and Mr. Larsen. 

The small business bills should complement the efforts of the 

Armed Services Committee in this Congress. Therefore, I am here 

today to support the inclusion of these six bills in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act, and I detail each of the initiatives in my written statement, but I will just briefly mention them 

here. 

The first three bills seek to make general improvements to the 

small business programs. The first addresses the treatment of veterans and service-disabled veterans seeking to do business with the 

government by improving the verification process with these firms. 

The second bill tackles the lack of reliable data on the contract 

bundling and consolidation process, which are practices that unnecessarily preclude small businesses from competing for contracts. 

And the third bill is a provision embraced by this committee in the 

fiscal year 2013 defense authorization which raises the government-wide small business contracting goal from 23 percent to 25 

percent. As spending levels decrease, this is going to protect small 

businesses at the heart of the industrial base. 

The remaining three bills focus on challenges for small business 

in the construction industry. The first makes it easier for small 

businesses to obtain the necessary bonding to compete. It does so 

at no cost to the taxpayer. The second takes the lessons learned 

from the policy enacted by the Corps of Engineers on reverse auctions and expands them government-wide to protect small businesses and the taxpayers alike. And the third improves the way we 

conduct design-build contracting to decrease the cost to government 

while it increases small business opportunities. This last bill is 

pending before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which I understand that that committee of jurisdiction has 

to be consulted. 

The first five bills received bipartisan support in the committee, 

passed by voice vote, and are supported by numerous small business groups, and final bill has support from agencies, industry, and 

the bipartisan group of members. Each bill supports the intentions 

if not specific recommendations of the panel report produced by 

this committee last Congress, and most importantly, each bill provides more opportunity to small businesses to create jobs at a price 

that is in the best interest of the taxpayers. 

I am pleased that our two committees are working very well together and very cooperatively, and I hope this language can be incorporated into this year’s defense authorization. With that, I 

thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves of Missouri can be found 

in the Appendix on page 82.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Any questions? 

Gentleman from Colorado recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank Chairman Graves for appearing before the 

committee today. I would also like to offer my thanks for your support for the inclusion of House Resolution 2882, the Improving Op-
15 

portunities for Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses 

Act. 

In the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, the Small Business Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs both 

verify the status of service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. As a member of the House Small Business Committee and 

the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I have heard numerous 

stories from veterans about problems with the current procurement 

programs for service-disabled veteran small businesses. 

Under the current system, a company can qualify at one agency 

and not another for procurement preferences. The inconsistency 

often adds cost, confusion, and opens the door to fraud. Moreover, 

the current process requires the VA to make decisions that are outside their expertise, such as determining business structures. 

My legislation will transfer the VA verification process for firms 

to the SBA [Small Business Administration], unify the definitions 

of service-disabled small businesses and veteran-owned small businesses, and add transparency. 

I want to again thank Chairman Graves for coming to this committee today. I urge the committee to accept Chairman Graves’ request for the inclusion of these small business measures in the National Defense Authorization Act, including my legislation H.R. 

2882. And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Other questions? 

Appreciate the gentleman being here. Thank you. 

Mr. GRAVES OF MISSOURI. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Next, we have the gentleman from New York, 

Mr. Hanna. Gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. HANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Thornberry, 

Ranking Member Smith, and other members of the committee. 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me today. 

Over the course of almost 30 years in private business, I grew 

a small firm from the ground up that employed over 450 people 

over time and successfully completed thousands of commercial and 

municipal projects in upstate New York. Given that experience, I 

know how important small business construction contracting is. It 

is an industry where small business can grow into large businesses. 

Construction contracting builds communities. 

However, there are a few small areas where the Federal Government’s policies on construction contracting hurt small businesses, 

taxpayers, and agencies themselves. This is particularly important 

given the scope of Federal construction contracting. Construction 

and architect and engineering, or A&E contracting, represents 

about one in six prime contractor dollars awarded to small business. That was over $17 billion in prime contracts in the fiscal year 

of 2012. 

Therefore, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Contracting and 

Workforce of the Small Business Committee, I have introduced two 

bills this Congress and cosponsored a third intended to bring some 

commonsense reform to this area. I will discuss them briefly, and 
16 

I am asking you to include them in this year’s National Defense 

Authorization Act. 

The first, H.R. 776, the Security and Bonding Act of 2013, addresses surety bonding. As the construction projects get larger, it 

becomes harder for these small businesses to obtain necessary 

bonding to bid these projects. In these cases, they are sometimes 

forced to turn to disreputable sureties who issue worthless bonds 

that place the taxpayers at risk. 

This is a no-cost bill that makes it easier for small businesses to 

get legitimate bonds and that makes sure that all bonds are worth 

more than the paper on which they are written. This makes sure 

that agencies get a quality construction job and that taxpayers get 

what they pay for and small businesses get paid. 

The other two bills I want to discuss address the way we contract 

with A&E. The first is reverse auctions. While there is evidence 

that reverse auctions can be a good way to buy commodities, two 

studies by the Army Corps of Engineers demonstrated that it 

doesn’t work for construction services contracts. Therefore, I introduced 2751, the Commonsense Construction Contract Act of 2013. 

This bill takes the lessons learned from the Army Corps of Engineers and applies them to other Federal agencies. 

Likewise, the Corps has also led the way on design-build contracting, implementing a two-phase approach to procurement. 

Given the cost of bidding for design work, the two-phase approach 

allows more businesses to compete and saves the government 

money. Unfortunately, all civilian agencies have not learned from 

the Army Corps of Engineers experience. So I have cosponsored 

2750, the Design-Build Efficiency and Jobs Act of 2013. This bill 

encourages other agencies to adopt the policies in place at the 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

While I encourage you to include all the contracting bills recently 

marked up by the Small Business Committee, given the significance of construction contracting, I hope you will incorporate 776, 

2750, and 2751 into this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna can be found in the Appendix on page 86.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Are there any question of Mr. Hanna? 

Okay. Appreciate you being here. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Next, we will have the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Broun. Gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL C. BROUN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM GEORGIA 

Dr. BROUN. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member 

Smith, and members of the committee. I thank you all for the opportunity to come and testify before you today. 

As an original-intent constitutionalist, as well as a current Navy 

Reserve medical doctor, I view national security as the most important function of our Federal Government. While President Obama 

and many within his party would like to further cut our military 

and prioritize wasteful domestic spending over our national defense, I disagree with his approach. Instead, we should be strength-
17 

ening our military and restoring its readiness in the face of ongoing 

geopolitical threats, as well as nonconventional threats. 

To this end, I appreciate your efforts to counterbalance the Senate and the executive branch in the past and urge you to continue 

to do so. That being said, I continue to have deep concerns over 

how the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, the AUMF, is being utilized. 

This hastily crafted response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attack dramatically expanded the powers of the President, and yet 

few Americans are even aware of its existence. In just 60 words the 

AUMF opened the door to egregious abuses of Federal power. In 

particular, it allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens and broad warrantless wiretapping by the National Security 

Agency. 

The AUMF also paved the way to today’s shadow drone war 

under the Obama administration that has quietly claimed the lives 

of at least four Americans. I appreciate the operational advantage 

we gain from using drones in our military operations, I saw those 

when I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2012, and I view them as 

a valuable asset. 

But it is unconscionable for the U.S. Government to kill its own 

citizens without first allowing them their day in court and due 

process. No administration has the right to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens. 

I was pleased that my amendment prohibiting drone strikes on 

American citizens was included in last year’s NDAA as passed out 

of the House. But I am deeply disappointed that the language was 

dropped in the compromise. 

As such, I respectfully urge the committee to include the language from my amendment while crafting this year’s authorization, 

as well as other language to constrain the powers of the AUMF, 

such as Ranking Member Smith’s proposed amendment to prohibit 

indefinite detention. 

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the AUMF itself. However, the Armed 

Services Committee can, and in my opinion should, take the strongest possible action to prevent these specific abuses. At the same 

time, I hope the committee will include text, in plain language, 

clearly showing Americans that these disturbing, overly broad powers come from the AUMF and not from the NDAA itself. 

We need to ensure that people across the country know what 

powers the Federal Government believes it has and what legal justification it presents for those powers. Our war efforts and military 

activities must be tightly focused and kept within the bounds of the 

U.S. Constitution. 

America is a beacon of liberty and a force for good in this world 

only as long as we remain focused on keeping it that way. Liberty 

is too precious and we must continue to be ever vigilant in protecting it. We must never sacrifice our God-given, constitutionally 

protected rights in the name of security or expediency. I am hopeful that this year’s NDAA will stay true to these principles. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I am glad to answer questions. 
18 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Broun can be found in the Appendix on page 49.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate the gentleman being here to share 

his views. Are there any questions? 

Dr. BROUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate the gentleman. 

Next we have the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn. 

Appreciate you being with us today. The gentlelady is recognized 

for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to come and to be with you and to talk a little bit about 

Tennessee’s Seventh Congressional District and the wonderful 

Army post, Fort Campbell, which is primarily headquartered in 

that district, and the brave men and women that call Fort Campbell home. We have got the 101st Airborne, the 5th Special Forces 

Group, and the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Nearly 3,500 officers and 27,000 enlisted personnel call Fort 

Campbell home. 

Like many installations across the country, Fort Campbell is facing reductions that will have an impact on military readiness, as 

well as on the installation infrastructure. I was so pleased to work 

with you and this committee last year in support of the Army Flying Hours Program. It is a vital program that 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 noncombat air operations. 

For aviation units like the 101st Airborne, this training is not 

only vital to mission success, but to the safety of our soldiers. Due 

to Army budget constraints, Army aviators will only be provided 

with 10.1 hours of training per crew per month. This is below the 

recommended requirement of 12.5 hours of training per crew per 

month. I ask the members of this committee to once again pay 

close attention to restoring the Army Flying Hours Program to its 

full capacity in fiscal year 2015. 

I would also like to bring to the committee’s attention the great 

need for Army installation infrastructure funding. As members of 

this committee may very well know, DOD’s model calls for a level 

of funding to cover 80 to 90 percent of the needs of an installation. 

Currently, installations like Fort Campbell will be reliant on only 

62 percent of the required funding set forth by DOD’s model. This 

reduction in funding, if left unaddressed, will surely result in higher future costs to repair these important facilities. 

I fully believe that our Army readiness infrastructure is a key 

component to our full military readiness, and is one that must not 

be forgotten. I stand ready to work with the Army and the committee to address this important concern. 

Another issue that deserves the full attention of every member 

of this committee is that of security encroachment. I am greatly 

concerned that foreign companies are building and acquiring 

projects near DOD ranges and facilities that give them the ability 
19 

to monitor sensitive activities. I believe that we should look at 

amending the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. process so that DOD is able to raise proximity and foreign entity concerns when it is a co-lead agency reviewing a transaction. It is imperative that DOD is able to assess potential security threats related to foreign acquisition or ownership of assets, and has the ability to mitigate or prevent a transaction from moving forward. 

Thank you for allowing me to be with you, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn can be found in the 

Appendix on page 45.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentlelady. 

Are there any questions? If not, again, appreciate you being here. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Next we have the gentleman from Washington, 

Mr. Heck. 

Appreciate your testimony. Gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNY HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM WASHINGTON 

Mr. HECK OF WASHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

Ranking Member Smith. And, Mr. Chair, while I anticipated doing 

this on the floor, I cannot help but insert here that I spoke to my 

Aunt Catherine in Bowie last week, and she literally told me to tell 

you hello. So hello from my Aunt Catherine in Bowie, Texas. 

I thank the committee for allowing me to testify here today about 

our national defense priorities for the upcoming year. As the Member of Congress from the brand new 10th Congressional District of 

Washington State, I have the privilege to represent Joint Base 

Lewis-McChord [JBLM], one of the largest installations in the 

country. It is in the vicinity of Interstate 5 [I–5] that JBLM is located. This highway is the most heavily traveled north-south 

freight corridor in the State of Washington, carrying some 145,000 

vehicles per day. Some say it is the most congested chokepoint between Vancouver, Canada, and Tijuana, Mexico. 

Nearly 80 percent of traffic to and from JBLM relies on I–5, 80 

percent. Local travelers in neighboring cities have no other option 

except to use the interstate as an arterial. When an incident occurs, it takes hours to recover. Backups of literally 6 miles or more 

starting at 6 a.m. are not rare, they are kind of expected. 

So take a moment, if you will, please, and imagine a van full of 

soldiers and civilian workers stuck on I–5. A truck directly behind 

the van could be full of goods waiting to be stocked on the shelves 

of a local warehouse. And in a car behind the truck behind the van 

there is a mom with a crying child waiting to get to the doctor. 

Take these three vehicles, now multiply them into miles of traffic 

and thousands of people. Imagine them not just in Washington 

State, but also stuck on Florida’s State Route 85, Interstate 95, 

395, or 495 in the DC area. The almost daily question has become, 

what is the holdup? 

The truth is military installations are still adapting to base realignment and short-term growth caused by troops passing through 

before being deployed. Installation growth has had a significant ef-
20 

fect on regional transportation, particularly when an installation is 

located in an urban area. Even acknowledging the potential for 

drawdown in military bases, those reductions would not nearly 

come close enough to solving the problem. 

Surrounding roads play an important role in preserving military 

readiness. Our Armed Forces need to instantly deploy, and we need 

functional roads in order for that to happen. The domino effect of 

delays due to congestion impairs our national security. This leaves 

not only military activities on base stranded, but also commerce in 

the community stranded as well. Goods can’t move, companies lose 

money. 

To be clear, the military is not to blame for this. In fact, they 

have done a lot to help mitigate the problem. They know the opportunity costs associated with their soldiers and civilian workers 

being struck in traffic. Bases have come up with innovative approaches to ease the pain. But the problem remains severe and unavoidable without more investment. It is a Band-Aid over a wound 

that needs stitches. 

The only existing DOD program that provides funding for public 

highway improvements is the Defense Access Roads programs, 

DAR. It is limited by outdated and restrictive eligibility criteria. In 

fact, the DAR program began decades ago, when it was expected 

that bases would only be in relatively unpopulated areas. Because 

of the restrictive eligibility criteria, installations in urban areas, 

which feel the effects of installation growth more acutely, fail to 

qualify for DAR funding. Even when DAR applications are successful, it takes years. 

DAR also requires base commanders to choose between on-base 

projects or local roads. And that is not a fair decision, sir. Something should be done. And I ask that you consider upgrading the 

transportation improvement infrastructure around these bases as 

soon as possible as part of the fiscal year 2015 National Defense 

Authorization Act. 

In coordination with State and local entities, the DAR program 

can be revised to pay the military’s share of road improvements. A 

separate DOD program should also be established to fund the transit services necessary to meet the needs. 

Mr. Chairman, while I have been sitting here talking to you 

today think back to that van, that truck, and that car. Chances are 

just in the time I have been speaking they have only advanced 

about 50 feet. There is probably still going to be gridlock when this 

hearing ends, as a matter of fact. 

I know being stuck in traffic is not something unknown to most 

Americans. We are all too familiar with the horrible feeling of approaching an unexpected slow crawl on the road. But when this affects our military’s ability to get to base, to do the job, and to be 

ready for anything, that is when we can’t just sit and wait for it 

to get better. We can do more. Please, sir, consider updating regulations to meet this critical need, or we will need to find another 

way to address this unsustainable problem and situation. Thank 

you very much for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heck of Washington can be 

found in the Appendix on page 88.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentleman. 
21 

The ranking member is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I know how bad the situation is there, having previously 

represented that area. I was going to say, you know, it was just 

fine when I represented it. But that is not true. It is a growing 

area. The base is growing, the population around it is growing. And 

I know that the folks at Lewis-McChord have done on-base improvements, because there is a lot of areas where they can travel, 

stay on base instead of getting on the freeway. They have changed 

lights. They have tried to do a lot of things. Nothing that can be 

done unless there are improvements done on that piece of I–5. 

How would what you are asking for here dovetail with what 

could happen in a State transportation bill? You and I know how 

bogged down and terrible that process is. The State should have 

passed it a long time ago. But it is a huge priority. Eventually they 

might. Has there been money in the various proposals that have 

thus far died on the State level that would help this problem that 

we could potentially leverage with Federal funds? 

Mr. HECK OF WASHINGTON. Yes, Congressman Smith, there was 

included in the version that was proposed in the Senate Majority 

Caucus Coalition substantial funds. And there were some funds included in the House-passed version as well. The proposal that I am 

in the late stages of developing, which would reform DAR, would 

in fact of necessity have to dovetail with State and local efforts. 

They cannot go separately. This is a shared responsibility, which 

I fully recognize. 

Mr. SMITH. Absolutely. And I think that is our best approach, is 

to try to blend the different pieces and get enough money to hopefully improve the situation. But you have described it very accurately. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Other questions? Okay. 

Appreciate the gentleman being here and your testimony. 

Next the gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu. Appreciate you 

being with us today. The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith, for the opportunity to testify today. First, I ask that my 

written testimony be entered into the record. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. All of the witnesses’ written testimony will be 

made part of our record. Appreciate the gentlelady. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Six days ago, on April 3rd, marked the third anniversary of the 

death of my nephew, Harry Lew. Harry was an enlisted Marine deployed to Afghanistan. He took his own life after enduring over 3 

hours of degrading physical, abusive hazing by his fellow Marines. 

In the wake of his death, I learned that Harry’s story is not an isolated incident. There are other brave, dedicated members of our 

armed services who were needlessly subjected to physical and emotional torment at the hands of their peers. 

I am committed to ensuring that hazing in our Nation’s military 

is addressed by the Department of Defense. The military needs to 
22 

create a bond within a unit and provide useful training. But instead, hazing breeds fear and distrust of peers and leadership. 

Where hazing results in death or harm, there is often no justice for 

the victims. For the future safety of our service members and our 

country, we must eliminate hazing outright. 

For the past 3 years I have received encouraging support from 

the public, various advocacy groups, and fellow Members of Congress. Together, we included language in the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act requiring the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the manner in which hazing is reported, tracked, and prevented by each branch of the armed services. These reports revealed some startling trends and practices. 

First, substandard tracking systems result in unreliable data on 

hazing. Reports are unreliable because most branches do not track 

allegations or incidents of hazing separately from similar punishable offenses. Without a system solely in place to track hazing, the 

true scope of the problem remains unknown. 

Second, the branches that do not require hazing to be reported 

have more hazing incidents. The reports show that the branches 

with the highest numbers of hazing allegations do not require service members to report if they are hazed or witness hazing. It seems 

that policies that do not explicitly require service members to report hazing have thereby tacitly condoned the practice. This is a 

problem that must be rectified. 

But most importantly, much more information is needed. The 

lack of reliable statistics and other information in these reports underscores the need for an independent review of DOD hazing policies. As lawmakers, we must ensure we have objective, unbiased 

information on which to formulate policy. 

In light of the disclosures of the DOD hazing reports, I ask the 

committee to first request updated hazing reports from the Department of Defense. Most of the reports indicated recent or planned 

actions by the branches of service in their ongoing efforts to eliminate hazing. As we continue to refine and perfect DOD hazing policies, we will need the most up-to-date information on each branch’s 

effort. An update to each branch’s report will be crucial as we move 

forward. 

Secondly, I request that the Government Accountability Office 

[GAO] conduct an independent review of hazing within the Department of Defense. A GAO review of hazing that identifies problems, 

trends, and best practices amongst the branches of the military is 

vital to a better understanding of the scope of the hazing problem. 

The importance of unbiased information in the effort to eliminate 

hazing in the military cannot be understated. For the fiscal year 

2015 National Defense Authorization Act, the inclusion of language 

requiring an independent analysis of DOD hazing policies is my top 

priority. 

The failure of Congress to follow through with our responsibility 

to provide civilian oversight of our Nation’s military would be a disservice to Harry and all those who have suffered or lost their lives 

as a result of hazing. As the committee begins crafting the 2015 

National Defense Authorization Act, I urge you to consider the impact of hazing on morale, unit cohesion, combat readiness, and the 
23 

health of our troops and veterans. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chu can be found in the Appendix on page 56.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentlelady. 

Are there any questions? 

Thank you again for continuing to raise this issue and for being 

here today. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Ribble, being with us. We already agreed to have your written 

statement made part of the record. The gentleman is recognized for 

4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. REID J. RIBBLE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM WISCONSIN 

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

and Ranking Member Mr. Smith for letting me have some time this 

morning. It is not my intention to read my testimony. It has already been submitted for the record. 

Good morning, Chairman McKeon. It is good to see you here as 

well. 

But I wanted to just talk a little bit about the Littoral Combat 

Ships that are in part built in Marinette, Wisconsin. One of the 

concerns that I have as it relates to that, and I speak of it in my 

testimony, is that we are about to embark on a journey that could 

raise costs to the American taxpayer. Without regard to a determination about whether moving from 54 ships down to 32 ships, 

I look at how those ships are being purchased over time. If in fact 

the contract is broken for a four-ship purchase in fiscal year 2015, 

breaking that contract does two significant things, in my opinion. 

One is it opens up the Navy for an increased cost on the remaining ships that will be purchased, because each shipyard was promised two ships per year in each year. If the contract is broken, they 

then can go back and renegotiate whatever the price is for the 

ships. And here we have a program that at the initial first run 

those ships were costing $650 million. They are now in a fixed contract price of $348 million. If we break that contract, the taxpayer 

will be subject to the difference in pricing however they can negotiate with the Navy. 

Secondarily to that, it goes more toward the fact that we want 

in this country, we want the private sector to invest in shipbuilding 

and in these shipyards. And in fact, private investment in the shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin, exceeds $200 million on the promise 

that the Navy was going to build two ships a year there during the 

term of this contract. 

And so I feel that if we are going to continue to incent American 

shipbuilding, which the Navy needs, and we are going to be fair 

and honest to those shipyards, keeping our word to the letter of the 

contract is fairly essential to that end. We do not want to create 

a pattern in this country whereby American entrepreneurs and 

business owners make investments on the promise of the American 

taxpayer through its government and then have those promises 

broken, because it will be a disincentive for American investment 
24 

in the very types of things, our national defense, that is so essential to the American people. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks this 

morning, and I thank you for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ribble can be found in the Appendix on page 129.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate the gentleman raising this issue. 

Any questions? 

Thanks again to the gentleman from Wisconsin. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. The gentlelady from New York. 

Welcome to the committee. Your full written statement will be 

made part of the record. And the gentlelady is recognized for 4 

minutes for whatever testimony you would like to give. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE MENG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW YORK 

Ms. MENG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking 

Member Smith, and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to testify on three bipartisan pieces of legislation that 

have the support of the House Small Business Committee. These 

commonsense proposals would increase the level of fairness that 

should be expected in any programs the government is involved in. 

Combined, they help small businesses avoid unnecessary expenses 

when seeking a government contract, ensure the Federal Government is not being ripped off, and most importantly, remove from 

the Federal procurement system the bad actors who corrupt it for 

those playing by the rules. 

Since I have only a few minutes and three bills to cover, my remarks will be brief. The Design-Build Efficiency and Jobs Act of 

2013, H.R. 2750, would clarify when agencies should use a two-step 

process to buy design-build services. Design-build contracts offer 

well-documented benefits to the government, but can be very expensive to bid on, especially if the team is led by a small architect 

or engineer. Indeed, submitting a full proposal on one of these contracts routinely costs over a quarter million dollars. Given that 

most architects make less than a million dollars each year, this excludes well-qualified firms from bidding. Some have joked that they 

would be better served by taking the money to a casino. 

H.R. 2750 addresses this problem by allowing any qualified company to submit a technical proposal, which is significantly less expensive than a full-blown proposal. After the agency evaluates 

these technical qualifications, only the top five firms will be asked 

to submit a full proposal. Therefore, they aren’t wasting bid and 

proposal dollars and time on contracts that they have no chance of 

winning. 

The government also benefits from this approach, which has already been adopted by the Corps of Engineers. By having more 

companies submit initial proposals, the government gets a better 

pool of initial competitors. However, since the government only 

needs to evaluate five full proposals, the government saves time 

and effort overall. This is truly a win-win approach. 

Finally, the Security in Bonding Act of 2013, H.R. 776, addresses 

abuses of the surety bond process. Surety bonds are required when-
25 

ever a company is doing construction work for the Federal Government, and these bonds ensure that the work is completed properly 

and that all subcontractors are paid. Unfortunately, there are welldocumented cases where bad actors do not have the resources to 

back the bonds they issue, placing both the government and small 

subcontractors at risk. 

H.R. 776 requires that bonds be worth the paper they are printed 

on and that small businesses have access to quality surety bonds. 

This is a zero-cost solution that protects all parties to Federal construction projects. 

Also, the Commonsense Construction Contracting Act of 2013, 

H.R. 2751, improves the use of an often-abused procurement method, reverse auctions. Although reverse auctions may be acceptable 

for commodities or small items, several Corps of Engineers studies 

show that they are unacceptable in the construction industry. The 

practice should be ended immediately. The legislation is supported 

by subcontractors and prime contractors alike, and would result in 

a higher quality project for any Federal agency. 

Reverse auctions are a prime example of failing businesses competing in a race to the bottom. They will bid on projects at impractical levels in an attempt to keep the business afloat for a few more 

months. The projects, if completed, are shoddy. The Army Corps of 

Engineers has stopped using reverse auctions for construction services, but this legislation would ensure that ban is in place amongst 

all the Federal agencies. 

Thank you for your consideration of these bills. I hope you will 

strongly consider them for inclusion in this year’s defense authorization. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Meng can be found in the Appendix on page 107.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate it. 

Are there any questions? 

Appreciate, again, the gentlelady’s testimony. Thanks for being 

here. 

Next we will have the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Lowenthal. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking 

Member Smith and members of the committee, all of you. Thank 

you for allowing me this time to discuss with you the importance 

of STEM [science, technology, engineering, math] education for the 

Department of Defense, specifically the STARBASE program. 

Providing science, technology, education, and math education to 

America’s youth is critical to the global competitiveness of our Nation. That we all agree upon. The STARBASE program engages 

local fifth-grade elementary students by exposing them to STEM 

subjects through an inquiry-based curriculum and is currently active in 56 congressional districts throughout the country. 

The program is carried out by the military services because the 

lack of STEM-educated youth in America has been identified as a 

future national security issue by the Department of Defense. Last 

year, both the House and the Senate rebuked the Office of Manage-
26 

ment and Budget [OMB], their proposal to terminate this critical 

program. And today I ask you once again to join me in restoring 

the STARBASE program at a modest funding level of $30 million. 

The Department of Defense STARBASE program is one of the 

most cost-effective programs throughout the Federal Government. 

It costs an average of only $343 per student. Last year, 3,062 classes were conducted in 1,267 schools, among a diverse 413 school districts throughout the country. More than 70,000 students attended 

the program, bringing the total to over 825,000 since its inception 

in 1993. 

STARBASE is one of the most educationally effective STEM programs as well, according to internal Department of Defense studies 

that show that pre- and post-STARBASE youths demonstrate undisputed improvements in STEM fields. Just as crucial is the positive dispositional change in youth that they experience after participating in this exciting, hands-on, experiment-based program. 

Changing our children’s attitudes on math and science from negative to positive is a paramount achievement. Research shows that 

children begin to lose interest in STEM subjects as early as the 

fourth grade, and then subsequently they lose their motivation to 

select the necessary high school courses that will allow them to 

pursue STEM careers in college. 

As a Member of Congress, I fully appreciate OMB’s desire to consolidate STEM programs across the spectrum into one funding line. 

However, this is a national defense issue and has been identified 

as such by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. STARBASE was created under 

the auspices of the Department of Defense to meet its critical needs 

in STEM-related fields. I respectfully request that this committee 

reinstate the STARBASE program and authorize it at $30 million 

for this and for future years. 

In conclusion, STARBASE inspires America’s youth to discover 

technical career fields that are imperative for future national security challenges. We cannot lose this battle and concede our technical edge. And in conclusion, I can say I have visited my program. 

It is a wonderful program. These are students that would not be 

into science. It is one of the things that at our military base that 

the military does so well in bringing that kind of excitement to students that would never have that kind of motivation in the future. 

I think it is money well worth spent, and it is really in our Nation’s 

best interests to promote this program. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal can be found in the 

Appendix on page 98.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay. Any questions? Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Mr. Lowenthal, we had testimony in front of one of our subcommittees in regards to DOD making, or the Pentagon making a 

decision to eliminate the program even though one of the services 

continued to provide it. And I believe it was the United States 

Army continued to provide it. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Right. 

Mr. NUGENT. Because they felt that it was better to move it to 

Department of Education. And the interesting part about this conversation that we had with members of the armed services, they 

actually thought that was probably a bad idea to move it to Depart-
27 

ment of Education because of the focus that is lost in regards to, 

you know, Department of Defense issues, and particularly in regards to getting kids excited about their ability and how it is so important to the national defense. I think it was wrongheaded by 

DOD to make that decision. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. I, too. I can just say I represent in southern 

California, in Orange County, the Joint Forces Training Base, 

which has one of the STARBASE programs. And we just last year 

dedicated a new building to the program. And I cannot tell you how 

excited those students are when they leave that program. Also the 

military in terms of the service that they provide to their community. 

I think that the uniqueness of targeting students who, many of 

them are at-risk students, who would never go on to science and 

technology, but because it is done by the military, because it is 

done in a particular way, it really excites those students. And there 

is no doubt, in terms of our national security, we need these students to be involved in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. 

Mr. NUGENT. I appreciate you bringing this to the attention of 

the committee, the whole committee. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Again, thank the gentleman for your testimony. We appreciate you being with us. 

Mr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you so much. I appreciate your listening. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Barr, is 

next. Your full written statement will be made a part of the record, 

and you are recognized for 4 minutes for whatever testimony you 

would like to give. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

KENTUCKY 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity 

to speak before the House Armed Services Committee today. 

Once again, I come before you in support of our Active Duty, 

Guard, and Reserve components, as well as our veterans, to help 

ensure they receive the equipment and support they deserve. I believe that the National Guard and Reserve components are critical 

to our national security. And in order to safely and effectively complete their missions, they must be equipped with modern aircraft 

and the most updated avionics. I ask this committee to continue to 

help provide support for the National Guard and Reserve equipment account in order to help sustain accounts such as the Aircraft 

Modernization Program. 

In addition, one of my priorities is preventing reckless reductions 

of our military troop levels, especially within the Army National 

Guard. I respectfully ask that this committee postpone any decision 

that substantially impacts troop levels for the National Guard until 

the National Commission on the Structure of the Army publishes 

its final findings. This is too important to consider without the 

commission’s recommendation, given that the decision could have 

a lasting and harmful impact on our Nation’s readiness to engage 

threats to our allies and our national security. As we proceed toward a drawdown, a postwar drawdown, we ought to carefully con-
28 

sider not reducing the Guard and the Reserve components, which 

are the most cost-effective components of our military. 

Several issues of concern have also been raised by my Sixth District Veterans Coalition. I know this committee remains committed 

to helping combat military sexual assault and provide the best care 

possible for survivors. I encourage this committee to consider incorporating legislation I have introduced, H.R. 3775, the Military 

SAVE [Sexual Assault Victim Empowerment] Act. 

This legislation would allow victims of military sexual trauma to 

choose treatment outside of the TRICARE or VA health care network that they would feel best fits their particular needs, so long 

as the care is in response to the MST [military sexual trauma]. The 

TRICARE or VA system would issue the victim a voucher which 

entitles the victim to seek care from a private provider, and serves 

as a promise by TRICARE or the VA to reimburse the private care 

provider for their services. This legislation can serve as an important tool in our ongoing efforts to help victims of military sexual 

assault. 

I am also aware of the committee’s actions to help address mental health issues within the military. Tragically, the recent event 

at Fort Hood is a painful reminder of how important it is to continue to provide critical mental health services to our service members and veterans. As you know, the VA reported within the 2012 

Suicide Data Report that an average of 18 to 22 service members 

and veterans commit suicide each day. Sadly, according to the latest report published in January by the Department, their findings 

still indicate no clear changes in suicide rates in the total population of Veterans Health Administration users or in male veterans 

overall. While I believe the DOD and VA are doing the best they 

can to properly administer many of its new suicide prevention and 

support programs, I also believe it is up to Congress to continue to 

provide these departments with the tools and resources they need 

to do more. 

I am also concerned about the backlog, the medical claims backlog. It has reached an unacceptable level of 611,000 outstanding 

medical claims. According to the VA, claims have been reduced by 

more than 44 percent. And while I commend the VA on its efforts 

to reduce the claims backlog, actual reductions vary from facility 

to facility. Therefore, I urge this committee to commit additional 

resources to help ensure this issue is quickly resolved. 

Finally, I ask this committee’s continued support in increasing 

public-private partnerships at all arsenals and depots. I represent 

the Bluegrass Army Depot. Public-private partnerships can play an 

important role in bringing long-term stability and jobs to communities, while increasing revenue to the Army Working Capital 

Fund. This committee has taken a leadership role in this regard in 

previous NDAAs, and I encourage this committee to continue to 

take an active role in this area, in addition to continuing to commit 

to fully funding the demilitarization efforts at the two remaining 

depots, in Pueblo and in my congressional district, in order to fulfill 

our treaty obligations. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time, and thank 

you for your leadership on these issues. 
29 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barr can be found in the Appendix on page 43.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate it. 

Any questions? 

Thank you, again, Mr. Barr, for your testimony. Appreciate you 

being with us today. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Now we will go to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry. Thanks for your patience. The gentleman is 

recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the committee for allowing me the opportunity to testify. 

I want to begin by saying that I am here in support of a study 

that includes a traditional force design, force development model. 

I want to say that everybody must sacrifice, and the Reserve component is no different in that regard. But I have asked what is 

driving this plan, because I can’t seem to get the facts and what 

I see doesn’t add up. The theme keeps changing. It started out with 

the cost. And then it was Guard, Reserve, their readiness is not 

where it is, they are not available. Then it changed to they don’t 

do enough collective training. Finally, it was we don’t have enough 

aircraft to do the mission, and they call it stacking, where the aircraft are in the mission set. But I can’t get the information on that 

either. 

Regarding costs, we say we can’t afford the R&D and replacement of the OH–58D. A 64 Echo model costs between $25 and $30 

million, yet an OH–58D costs $7.5 million, including the mastmounted sight. I understand it is a legacy aircraft and we might 

want to get rid of it, but we have a platform readily available right 

now flown by the Special Operations Forces, which is the AH–6 or 

MH–6, which is a fabulous aircraft. The plan never mentions the 

cost of retraining everyone currently involved in flying and maintaining the AH–64. It does not validate the need for more UH–60s 

in the Reserve component. And it does not adequately address increased costs of the UH–72 as the primary trainer. 

Regarding readiness, that we are not ready, the Guard flew more 

fiscal year 2012 AH–64 hours in CONUS [continental United 

States] than any other units in the Army. The flying hour and experience level in the Guard, this is where the experience is, Mr. 

Chairman. The Guard pilots have two to three more times hours 

and experience than their Active Duty component. It is not a dig 

on the Active component, it is just how it is. When people leave the 

Active component, they come to the Guard. If you really want the 

metric, look at the class A accidents in the AH–64 over the last 

year and where they occurred and why they occurred. 

We progressed more aviators. We progressed 60 aviators to RL 

[Readiness Level] 1 in 2 years not using any additional money. And 

I would ask, why are we now making Reserve component units look 

different than Active unit components? It not doctrinally correct. 
30 

Availability. We have mobilized 12 battalions and 4 companies in 

deployments, and we have answered every single request that has 

been asked. 

And I would also say this regarding the AH–64 as a reconnaissance platform. If you have to get it to theater, and this is coming 

from Active component, you cannot get it there in a C–17 because 

it does not land in nonpermissive environments. If you can’t get the 

airframe to the fight, what does it matter what the airframe is? 

You know, you can buy five or six MH–6s for the cost of one 64, 

and you can get it to the fight, which is important. 

Regarding collective training, that we don’t do collective training. 

I can list the number of instances, but right off the bat training 

with Special Operation Forces grew on an Active Duty basis, joint 

live fire exercises, air-ground integration, monthly JTAC [Joint 

Terminal Attack Controller] training. I would ask this. Why are we 

requiring battalion-level collective training for employment when 

on employment uses Scout Weapons Team. And I would also say 

if you just Google this or go by AKO [Army Knowledge Online], the 

guidance memo for a particular ARB [Air Reserve Base] under a 

certain cab shows that Active component ARBs are not training at 

company level either, and they are focusing on air weapons training proficiency. And that is open source. 

Regarding mission accomplishments and stacking. I was in a 

meeting a couple weeks ago, and I was told we don’t have enough 

aircraft to do it. And it was about basing. I said, fine, I agree, if 

that is the case. Show me the plan. 

We asked last Thursday, what is the plan? What is the requirement? We can’t get it. If we can’t get it, I think it raises some 

doubt. And I would also say there is a U.S. Army War College 

study that says that ARI, the Aviation Restructure Initiative, is resource driven, not mission driven. And I would harken back to a 

time when we had 58 Sherman and M60 tanks in a unit, and because of capability we went down to 29 tanks. The E model Apache 

is wildly capable. I know you are going to cut me off, sir, and I appreciate that. If you remember anything else from this briefing, remember this: We have not been given sufficient facts to support 

this decision. 

And I thank you. And I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry can be found in the Appendix on page 119.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentleman. Lots of information. If 

the gentleman would indulge, I think the gentleman from Florida 

has a question. 

Mr. NUGENT. I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. 

This is one of the issues that we have been having as it relates to 

the restructuring, particularly as it relates to the Army National 

Guard aviation unit. You know, my son is an Army aviator in the 

National Guard, and I think he gets as much or more flight time 

than his Active Duty brethren. And they are actually, I know, 

training live fire and everything else this summer for an extended 

period of time to do all those things that big Army is saying that 

they are not capable of doing. 

Plus, that is ignoring the State mission that they have that is 

hugely important to States like Florida as it relates to—you know, 
31 

the plan is to reduce the number of UH–60s in Florida. And you 

go, how does that work in reality when the Florida Army aviation 

unit has been deployed multiple times into Iraq and Afghanistan, 

but also into Europe to support that mission? It is amazing that 

we would cut that resource. And I appreciate your comments in 

that regards to that. 

Mr. PERRY. I would just hope, again, that we would follow the 

paradigm of figuring out what the mission is and then figuring out 

what the force would look like. This is not following that paradigm 

that has been followed time and time again. 

Mr. NUGENT. If you look at it, remember the Army first talked 

about taking Lakotas away from the National Guard and use those 

as a training bird at Rucker, and it would have eliminated that 

whole vast training experience that you currently have at Rucker, 

because they have never flown a Lakota. And they are not durable 

enough to actually be in a training mission, because when my son 

was learning at Rucker, I mean, they pretty well abused those aircraft, and that airframe is not capable of doing it. So I want to 

thank you. 

Mr. PERRY. I wouldn’t say it is not necessarily not capable, but 

it is a two-engine aircraft. The cost is not addressed in this. The 

OH–58, the TH–67, the jet Ranger is a highly prolific aircraft. 

Mr. NUGENT. And what they were telling us and those that I 

know that are extremely good pilots were saying that the reason 

they are not as durable is because they say, well, you don’t have 

to do the type of training with it. But if you did, they would be replacing skids daily. 

Mr. PERRY. Exactly. And the Lakota, having to land with the engine off, because you only have 1 in a 58, the training that you get 

from that, that lasts for the rest of your life, is immeasurable. 

And I would also say this, with all due respect. When we lose 

this talent pool, which is what we are talking about, talent management, you can run a new aviator through Fort Rucker once a 

year. Every year you can get a whole crop of new ones. But the proficiency level that you lose from a 4,000- or 5,000-hour aviator is 

what you don’t get. Yes, you have an aviator with 190, 250 hours. 

But when you are in combat, that 4,500 hours is really what makes 

the difference. And that will be gone. And you cannot get that 

quickly. You cannot get that quickly. It takes time and experience. 

And that is what we are throwing away. There is no operational 

depth in this plan. 

So I would just say let’s study it, let’s take a look at it, and let’s 

use the method that has been used time and time again, as opposed to this just quick reaction to a budgetary problem. Which I 

understand the considerations. But I think this needs further review. 

Mr. NUGENT. My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you so 

much. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate again the testimony of the gentleman and the issues he raised. 

Next we have the gentlelady from the State of Missouri, Ms. 

Wagner. 

Appreciate you being with us. You are recognized for 4 minutes. 
32 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you very, very much. I appreciate also, 

Vice Chairman Thornberry, the members of the committee, thanks 

again for the opportunity to talk about a key defense priority for 

the United States Navy and our Nation, the EA–18G Growler. The 

2014 Quadrennial Defense Review notes, and I quote, ‘‘In the coming years, countries such as China will continue seeking to counter 

U.S. strengths using anti-access and area-denial approaches.’’ Full 

spectrum airborne electronic attack has been identified by the 

Navy and the Department of Defense as a critical and required capability for our forces to effectively and successfully operate in 

these challenging environments. As the Chief of Naval Operations 

[CNO] Admiral Jonathan Greenert has stated, control of the electromagnetic spectrum is critical to the warfighting mission today 

and in the future. 

As you know, the Growler is the Nation’s only full-spectrum airborne electronic attack aircraft. It provides this unique capability 

off of Navy aircraft carriers and provides support for joint force 

land bases. It is truly the tip of the spear as our forces enter into 

contested air environments. 

Recognizing that there is a warfighting need, the CNO submitted 

an unfunded priority of 22 additional Growlers for congressional 

consideration of the fiscal year 2015 defense appropriations. The 

stakes are quite high, and the time to act is now. Without additional Growlers to meet the Navy’s unfunded priority, it is likely 

that the F/A–18 manufacturing line will shutter. To avoid this very 

predicament, last year Congress added $75 million in advanced 

procurement funds for the F/A–18 in the fiscal year 2014 Defense 

Appropriations Act, enough for 22 aircraft. 

Another critical consideration is the Nation’s defense industrial 

base for tactical aviation. Today there are multiple providers for 

tactical aviation, sophisticated tactical radars, and strike fighter 

engines. With the end of the F/A–18 production, however, DOD will 

be left with only a single manufacturer in each one of these areas. 

This scenario limits warfighting surge capacity, it eliminates competition that drives innovation and cost control, and imperils future 

development programs. Moreover, the F/A–18 program supports 

American manufacturing, including 60,000 jobs, 800 different suppliers and vendors, and provides $3 billion in annual economic impact. 

For these reasons, I have authored a House letter to your committee asking for consideration of the Navy’s unfunded priority of 

additional Growlers. I hope it demonstrates to you that there is a 

broad bipartisan support for this request across Congress to support both the warfighter and the defense industrial base. I look forward to working with this committee and supporting the process as 

the National Defense Authorization Act moves through the House 

of Representatives. And I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Wagner can be found in the Appendix on page 154.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank the gentlelady. 

Any questions? Great. 
33 

Appreciate the gentlelady being here and for her testimony on 

this issue. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Next we will have the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford. 

Your full written statement will be made part of the record. And 

the gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes for whatever comments 

he would like to make. 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Ranking Member Smith, Chairman McKeon, distinguished members of 

the committee. I thank you for the work you do to preserve the security of our great Nation, and for allowing me to testify before the 

full committee regarding explosive ordnance disposal [EOD] priorities for fiscal year 2015 in the National Defense Authorization Act. 

I myself served in the Army as an EOD tech. I am proud to be 

a cofounder, along with committee member Susan Davis, of the 

House EOD Caucus. EOD soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines 

are the military’s preeminent team of warrior explosive experts. 

They are trained and equipped to identify and neutralize explosives 

used by terrorist networks across the globe. EOD techs protect 

their fellow military personnel and civilians from these threats, 

while providing support across a wide range of military and civilian 

national security operations. 

EOD forces have proven to be game changers in attacking and 

dismantling terrorist cells and associated networks. These forces 

will continue to be indispensable assets for the foreseeable future, 

supporting counterterrorism operations, building the capacity of 

partner nations, and protecting the homeland through providing 

support to civilian law enforcement agencies at Federal, State, and 

local levels. 

There are an estimated 66,000 call-outs annually across the 

United States on explosive ordnance by interagency, military EOD, 

and public safety bomb squads. Army EOD units responding under 

immediate response authority have historically departed their 

home station installation within 30 minutes of notification during 

duty hours and 60 minutes off-duty, 365 days a year. On these civil 

support missions, EOD provide support to civil law enforcement 

agencies, but they do not perform law enforcement activities. 

The Boston bombings serve as a stark reminder of the threat of 

the terrorist detonation of explosives in the United States and have 

revealed gaps in the Nation’s ability to defeat a sustained bombing 

campaign in the homeland. 

I note that military EOD immediate response included the 387th 

Ordnance Company EOD from Camp Edwards, Massachusetts, 

which responded to 64 call-outs during the Boston bombing. 

However, I have concern that following these attacks, the Army 

Forces Command issued guidance that the local Staff Judge Advocate must review every civil authority request for emergency EOD 

response prior to sending aid to ensure the support does not violate 

the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. In addition, the guidance requires 

that a senior commander, normally a three- to two-star general, 
34 

must then approve each of these EOD immediate responses and 

must ensure that civil authorities will reimburse the Army as a 

condition of immediate response. 

I understand the need to ensure that EOD is compliant with 

Posse Comitatus in any of its civil support missions, but it is vital 

that we do not overcorrect and negatively impact the ability of our 

EOD forces to provide increasingly needed and immediate support 

to our civilian law enforcement agencies. It is further problematic 

that under the recent Army Forces Command guidance, the responding EOD units must now seek reimbursement from local, 

State, and Federal law enforcement as a precondition for providing 

the requested military EOD support. 

On April 4, 2014, I met with the general officer that has the 

training readiness authority for the Army Forces Command to 

EOD units. I have grave concerns over his proposed reorganization 

of the Army EOD force structure, reorganization of Army EOD 

force modernization and branch proponents, and reorganization 

and restationing of EOD tactical units and EOD institutional activities. 

The significance as well as the irreversibility of these proposed 

actions deserves the committee’s close scrutiny and oversight, and 

I respectfully request that you and the committee seek more information and further require the Department to justify these proposed changes before permitting any of them to proceed. 

We must also ensure that our EOD units, like the 387th out of 

Massachusetts, are properly equipped to respond to explosive 

threats in cities and towns throughout the homeland. The MRAP 

[Mine-Resistant, Ambush Protected] vehicles for EOD operations in 

Afghanistan are a good place to field excess MRAPs to the Army 

National Guard EOD units, comprising one-third of Army EOD 

Force, need response vehicles like the MRAP. 

As I am running low on time, I will just continue to submit these 

statements for the record and just ask for your consideration, and 

any questions you might have I will be happy to answer them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford can be found in the Appendix on page 65.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Any questions? 

I appreciate the gentleman’s input on these issues and his continued leadership and expertise, which we will continue to take advantage of. So I appreciate very much the gentleman being here. 

Next, we will turn to the State of North Carolina, distinguished 

gentleman, Mr. Hudson. 

Appreciate you being here. Recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 

and Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for the opportunity to share with you some of the national security priorities 

that I hold for the upcoming year on behalf of the Eighth District 

of North Carolina. 

As I have traveled around my communities in my district in 

North Carolina, people have consistently told me that restoring fiscal responsibility is their number one priority, and they sent me to 
35 

Washington to force the government to live within its means. Accordingly, I am committed to cutting spending, reducing the size of 

government, promoting economic growth, and balancing our budget. That means we have to focus on priorities, priorities like a 

strong national defense. 

Today, I would like to discuss a number of issues, namely the 

challenges that we face, along with our allies and partners, the 

commitments we have made to our men and women in uniform, 

and the importance of ensuring accountability and transparency 

when trying to maintain a strong national defense in a very tough 

budget environment. 

While we have seen the gradual reduction of core Al Qaeda influence, it is important to remember that we continue to be engaged 

in a global conflict against increasingly factionalized groups that 

seek to do us harm along with the states that support them. A failure to exercise U.S. diplomatic and military leadership means nuclear states like Iran and North Korea will be able to bully the 

international community, both through direct means and through 

their proxies. 

North Carolina is fortunate to be home to over 700,000 proud 

veterans, and I am fortunate to represent a district that has a 

strong military presence given its proximity to Fort Bragg. I just 

returned from a productive visit to Camp Mackall, an extension of 

Fort Bragg, where some of America’s finest train to become part of 

the special forces, and I am pleased to report on their fine work. 

The men and women of Fort Bragg have matchless capabilities 

and a unique mission. I look forward to continuing working with 

the base to ensure their priorities are met when it comes to equipment, facilities, and training. As the United States increases its 

special operations and airborne operations presence, it is critically 

important that we support in-depth training and techniques, an 

area where Fort Bragg continues to excel. 

I look forward to working with you and this committee to provide 

the necessary resources to ensure the utmost success of our dedicated men and women in uniform there. While I recognize this 

committee does not intend to reauthorize or make changes to the 

authorization of military force this year, I would still like to take 

a moment to touch on the issue given its continued important in 

regard to civil liberties and our ability to effectively prosecute terrorists. 

I would like this committee to note that I will not support trading our guaranteed civil liberties for the promise of security. With 

that said, I also refuse to stand by and allow terrorists to be treated as common criminals. The administration has taken this stance 

when it comes to pursuing those involved in the deadly September 

11 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, and we have all seen 

the failure in results this approach has led to. Waving subpoenas 

in the face of radical militants is simply not the way to protect 

America’s interests. 

This approach is also apparent in the administration’s attempt to 

close the prison in Guantanamo Bay and transfer over 150 terrorists to U.S. soil or return them home to their home nations. I cannot and will not support policies like this that threaten Americans 

around the world. 
36 

The United States is a nation built on the premise of liberty and 

constitutional rights. We preserve a unique separation of powers so 

that we can ensure not one branch has too much power. The programs in the NDAA, like any other, fall within that system, and 

it is our duty as elected representatives to ensure it does not violate our privacy or civil liberties. 

Thanks to the committee for the opportunity to speak today, and 

thank you for your commitment to our Nation’s warfighters and 

their families. Thank you. I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson can be found in the Appendix on page 90.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Appreciate the gentleman. And committee appreciates his input. Thank you for your testimony. 

Next, we have the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. 

Nunes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a brief statement for the record, and I am also submitting it for the record. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. And without objection, we previously made 

any written materials you want to include, including your full written statement, part of our record. 

Mr. NUNES. And I also have a slide that I would like to draw 

your attention to as I am giving my statement. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

Mr. NUNES. I would like to submit the GAO report for the record 

titled ‘‘Defense Headquarters: DOD Needs to Reassess Options for 

Permanent Locations of U.S. Africa Command.’’ 

[The report referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning 

on page 165.] 

Mr. NUNES. Amid the challenging budgetary situation now facing 

the U.S. military, opportunities for significant cost savings have 

been identified in AFRICOM’s [Africa Command] operations. I am 

proposing the relocation of AFRICOM headquarter stateside. The 

Government Accountability Office, GAO, reported that the transfer 

would save $60 million to $70 million annually. Additionally, GAO 

estimated that the move would create 4,300 U.S.-based jobs and infuse $350 million to $450 million into the local economy. 

The office found no—and I want to repeat no—substantiating evidence or rationale for the DOD’s decision to keep AFRICOM headquarters in Germany. In fact, the placement of AFRICOM’s headquarters in Germany was supposed to be temporary and was done 

merely out of convenience since it was spawned out of EUCOM 

[European Command]. This proposal would move AFRICOM stateside and have it operate much like CENTCOM [Central Command] 

and SOUTHCOM, which have their headquarters stateside with 

forward operating locations near the theater in order to conduct operations. 

In conjunction with this transfer, I would also say that Lajes 

Field base, which is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, should 

serve as a forward-operating base and a logistical hub for 

AFRICOM. The Azores base recently has had $150 million in up-
37 

grades to it. It is really one of the Taj Mahals of all U.S. Air Force 

bases around the globe. And it is really not being used; and in fact, 

USAFE [U.S. Air Forces in Europe] is trying to close the base. 

I think this would be a strategic error, as I presented to this 

committee last year, and I was thankful actually that this committee found that that was a very poor decision on behalf of 

USAFE. And that is why this committee put in the bill last year 

strong language that said that no troops should be withdrawn. In 

addition, Defense Appropriations put in a similar rider. 

And so what I have been looking to do is, how do you save money 

and also get our warfighters closer to the battlefield and create efficiencies. I believe that this is a strong way to do it, and I would 

urge the committee to give it serious consideration. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield back for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nunes can be found in the Appendix on page 110.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Let me just say, I appreciate the gentleman’s 

leadership on this issue and continuing to raise questions about 

current plans and better options. And I appreciate the material 

that the gentleman has submitted. I think that will benefit the 

committee in looking at these issues. 

So, again, thank you for being here. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Roskam, Mr. Young of Indiana, 

Mrs. Lummis, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Rothfus, Mr. Collins of New York, 

Mr. Rahall, Mr. Gardner, Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Chabot, 

Mr. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sablan, Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, Mr. 

Fincher, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Williams, and Mrs. Roby can be found in 

the Appendix.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. And with that, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 9, 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 9, 2014 

(43) 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 9, 2014 

(165) 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 

Æ