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 

99–646 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–102] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

MEMBER DAY—NATIONAL DEFENSE 

PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 NATIONAL DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 1, 2016 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

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

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 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

PAUL COOK, California 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

THOMAS MACARTHUR, New Jersey 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

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

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona 

MARK TAKAI, Hawaii 

GWEN GRAHAM, Florida 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

KARI BINGEN, Professional Staff Member 

WILLIAM S. JOHNSON, Counsel 

BRITTON BURKETT, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

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

WITNESSES 

Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a Representative from Tennessee ............................... 20 

Bost, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Illinois ................................................... 23 

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

Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative from California .............................................. 10 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick,’’ a Representative from Arkansas ........................ 6 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L., a Representative from New York ................................ 7 

Hardy, Hon. Cresent, a Representative from Nevada .......................................... 18 

Meehan, Hon. Patrick, a Representative from Pennsylvania .............................. 9 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative from Texas ...................................... 21 

Perry, Hon. Scott, a Representative from Pennsylvania ...................................... 12 

Poliquin, Hon. Bruce, a Representative from Maine ............................................ 14 

Radewagen, Hon. Aumua Amata Coleman, a Delegate from American Samoa . 16 

Rothfus, Hon. Keith J., a Representative from Pennsylvania ............................. 5 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative from New York ............................. 3 

Wagner, Hon. Ann, a Representative from Missouri ............................................ 15 

Yoho, Hon. Ted S., a Representative from Florida ............................................... 24 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Blackburn, Hon. Marsha .................................................................................. 73 

Bost, Hon. Mike ................................................................................................ 78 

Chabot, Hon. Steve, joint with Hon. Nydia M. Vela ́zquez ............................ 31 

Chu, Hon. Judy ................................................................................................. 60 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ ......................................................................... 44 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L. ................................................................................... 57 

Hardy, Hon. Cresent ........................................................................................ 69 

Meehan, Hon. Patrick ...................................................................................... 59 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy ................................................................................. 75 

Perry, Hon. Scott .............................................................................................. 62 

Poliquin, Hon. Bruce ........................................................................................ 63 

Radewagen, Hon. Aumua Amata Coleman .................................................... 67 

Rothfus, Hon. Keith J. ..................................................................................... 41 

Vela ́zquez, Hon. Nydia M., joint with Hon. Steve Chabot ............................ 31 

Wagner, Hon. Ann ............................................................................................ 65 

Yoho, Hon. Ted S. ............................................................................................. 80 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Blum, Hon. Rod, a Representative from Iowa ................................................ 85 

Costello, Hon. Ryan A., a Representative from Pennsylvania ...................... 87 

DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative from Washington ...................... 89 

DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, a Representative from California, joint with Hon. 

Barbara Lee ................................................................................................... 90 

Duncan, Hon. Jeff, a Representative from South Carolina ........................... 92 

Eshoo, Hon. Anna G., a Representative from California .............................. 94 

Huizenga, Hon. Bill, a Representative from Michigan .................................. 95 

Hurd, Hon. Will, a Representative from Texas .............................................. 96 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD—Continued 

Johnson, Hon. Sam, a Representative from Texas ........................................ 100 

Keating, Hon. William R., a Representative from Massachusetts ............... 103 

Kinzinger, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Illinois ................................. 104 

Lee, Hon. Barbara, a Representative from California, joint with Hon. 

Mark DeSaulnier .......................................................................................... 90 

Loebsack, Hon. David, a Representative from Iowa ...................................... 106 

McKinley, Hon. David B., a Representative from West Virginia ................. 113 

Posey, Hon Bill, a Representative from Florida ............................................. 116 

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

Islands ............................................................................................................ 122 

Sarbanes, Hon. John P., a Representative from Maryland ........................... 137 

Schweikert, Hon. David, a Representative from Arizona .............................. 139 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska .......................................... 162 
(1) 

MEMBER DAY—NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM 

MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, Tuesday, March 1, 2016. 

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

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William M. ‘‘Mac’’ 

Thornberry (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. ‘‘MAC’’ THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive 

testimony from Members of Congress on their national security priorities for fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. 

A quick note on the format today, in consultation with the ranking member we will depart from our regular questioning process. 

Each witness will have 4 minutes to testify. Members of the committee may seek recognition by raising their hand or letting the 

staff know and each would then be granted 2 minutes. 

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

intention to engage in extended debate, rather to hear from our colleagues. 

We certainly look forward to today’s testimony and I will yield 

to the distinguished acting ranking member for any comments she 

would like to make. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy to join with you 

today and I will be listening as well to the presentations that we 

have. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady for being here. Our first 

witnesses are the distinguished chair and distinguished ranking 

member of the House Small Business Committee. And I will say I 

am particularly pleased with the cooperation between our two committees over the past several years in getting a lot of things done 

for small businesses engaged in national security. 

Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Vela ́zquez, thank you 

for being here. 

Chairman, you are recognized for 4 minutes. 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OHIO 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we really do appreciate the cooperation that we have had with this committee. You 

have been great and on a bipartisan basis, we appreciate it. And 

we look forward to working with this committee to ensure that 

small businesses continue to provide the Department of Defense 

and the Federal Government with solutions and foster innovation 

and competition that provide value to the taxpayer and strength 

and agility to the warfighter. 

Mr. Chairman and ranking member, we appreciate your help. We 

really do. And thank you for the opportunity to share a few 

thoughts about the fiscal year 2017 National Defense Authorization 

Act [NDAA]. 

Let me begin by thanking the committee for its collaboration, as 

I say, and in my 20 years on the committee I have enjoyed seeing 

this relationship blossom. And the hard-fought passage of last 

year’s NDAA was a success for our national security, for our men 

and women in uniform, and for our small business industrial base. 

We look forward to continuing that relationship with this year’s 

bill, and I want to congratulate you on passing last year’s bill and 

for your commitment to ensuring that the NDAA remains a vital 

national security policy bill. 

As you well know, improving acquisition and procurement at the 

Pentagon is critical to national security because it delivers real 

benefits to our warfighters. Very often small companies can provide 

better products and services to our military in shorter periods of 

time and importantly at lower cost. When the Defense Department 

has fewer offers there is less competition, costs go up and choices 

are limited. 

Unfortunately, we continue to see that the number of companies 

competing for Federal contracts declining, which threatens competition and harms readiness. Within the last 3 years we have lost 

over 25 percent of the small firms registered to do business with 

the Federal Government. 

Within the Department of Defense, the number of small business 

contract actions fell 47 percent from 2011, but the size of the average individual small business contract action more than doubled. 

Not surprisingly, during the same period the percentage of taxpayer dollars spent without competition has increased. 

As Chairman Thornberry frequently says, we need to focus on 

getting more defense for the dollar. And competition by small business is a major part of that solution. 

With this thought in mind, 15 members of the Small Business 

Committee introduced contracting bills this year. Working closely 

with our colleagues, Ranking Member Nydia Vela ́zquez, here with 

me today, I collected these commonsense reforms plus many other 

solid reforms and put them into one bill, H.R. 4341, the Defending 

America’s Small Contractors Act of 2016. 

We were able to approve H.R. 4341 unanimously earlier this 

year. This bill not only reflects our priorities but also the members 

of the committee in a bipartisan manner as well on the Small Business Committee. While I provided more detail in my written state-
3 

ment, I would like to share with you the five ways H.R. 4341 helps 

small contractors compete. 

First, it modernizes the Small Business Act to ensure that the 

language used is clear and consistent across Federal procurement 

programs. 

Second, it strengthens the small business advocates within SBA 

[Small Business Administration], Department of Defense, and 

other Federal agencies to promote competition and make sure the 

laws on the books, including the NDAA, are followed. 

Third, it improves opportunities for small businesses to compete 

for subcontracts and then to build on that experience to compete 

as prime contractors. 

Fourth, it improves coordination between the SBA and Department of Defense Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ programs, which helps small businesses better serve our military. 

And finally, the bill implements commonsense reforms to ensure 

integrity and accountability in small business programs such as 

size standards, veterans’ contracting programs, and contracting officer training programs. 

In the coming weeks I also expect our committee to approve additional legislation that reauthorizes and strengthens the Small 

Business Innovation Research program, the SBIR. I respectfully 

ask the committee to incorporate all these provisions into this 

year’s NDAA. Our Nation needs a robust small business industrial 

base. It is vital to both the health of our economy and our national 

security. 

We appreciate your time here this morning, Mr. Chairman. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Chabot and Ms. Vela ́zquez 

can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. The Ranking 

Member Vela ́zquez. Sorry. We should have had more than one 

microphone out there. 

Mr. CHABOT. We will switch places. 

STATEMENT OF HON. NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and acting ranking 

member for giving us this opportunity to come before you. And I 

just want to take this opportunity for our continuing collaboration 

between these two committees. 

For several decades now, the Federal Government has looked to 

the private sector to provide services and supplies for its day-to-day 

operations. And the Department of Defense is at the heart of this 

buying power, accounting for over half of all contracting dollars. As 

such, a vibrant industrial base has become essential, not only to 

the U.S. economy but most importantly to our national security. 

The defense industrial base relies on a supply chain that is diverse and agile, so it should come as no surprise to those in this 

room that small businesses are at the heart of this chain. With a 

strong presence in a variety of different industries from construction to manufacturing, small businesses continue to play a vital 

role in providing our government with goods and services. 

Yet in order to continue the resurgence of the industrial base, we 

need to ensure that small businesses are able to compete both glob-
4 

ally and here in America. Competition is good, Mr. Chairman, for 

both taxpayers and for small businesses. 

Here at home this means opening up the nearly half a trillion 

Federal marketplace to small firms. Numerous policies and protections have been put in place to allow for their continued participation in this arena, thereby securing our country’s industrial base. 

However, it appears that we have stalled in removing barriers to 

the marketplace. 

Chairman Chabot and I have been longtime members of the 

House Small Business Committee, and we can both tell you that 

it is getting harder for small businesses, not easier. And that is 

why we are here today. From the difficulty firms face in accessing 

the entrepreneurial development needed to help getting a contract, 

to the uncertainty of programs like SBIR, changes are needed that 

would allow small businesses to compete in the marketplace. 

Over the years we have seen the value of small businesses’ contracts go up, enabling agencies to meet their goals, but at the same 

time the number of contractors has dwindled. In the last 4 years 

the number of contractors registered to do business with the Federal Government has decreased by approximately 100,000 firms. 

I think we can all agree that the disappearance of 100,000 firms 

is a problem for our country’s national security. That is why Chairman Chabot and I, along with the other members of the House 

Small Business Committee, came together to author H.R. 4341, the 

Defending America’s Small Contractors Act of 2016. 

This bipartisan bill addresses just some of the many issues that 

small businesses have indicated they face when competing for contracts. As the chairman indicated, our joint written statement will 

provide you with further details regarding H.R. 4341. 

However, this bill increases transparency, provides clarity on 

uniformity, strengthens competition, and eliminates barriers to the 

marketplace. The landscape of Federal contracting is evolving with 

agencies moving to larger procurement vehicles. We must secure 

our industrial base and ensure that small businesses are not left 

at the wayside. And that is exactly what H.R. 4341 does. 

Therefore, I join the chairman in strongly advocating for the 

complete bill’s inclusion in the fiscal year 2017 National Defense 

Authorization Act. I thank you again for allowing us to testify here 

today. 

Thank you. 

[The joint prepared statement of Ms. Vela ́zquez and Mr. Chabot 

can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me thank you both again for your contribution. I think the sense we have is just as both of you have testified, it is getting harder and harder, especially for small business, 

to do business with the Department of Defense. 

And that is why our committee on a bipartisan basis is so focused on trying to improve the way the Department of Defense 

does acquire goods and services. And the bill that you all have introduced and passed out of committee is certainly something that 

we want to take a serious look at in that effort. 

Are there any questions for these witnesses? If not, thank you 

both again for being here, and I appreciate it. 
5 

Let me ask unanimous consent that the complete written statement of these and all witnesses be made part of the record. Without objection. In addition, the chair has received some written 

statements from members who are not able to be here to testify 

and I ask unanimous consent that they also be made part of our 

record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 31.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Next, pleased to welcome the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Rothfus, for his testimony. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH J. ROTHFUS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, Acting Ranking 

Member Davis, and members of the committee. Thank you for receiving my testimony on the National Defense Authorization Act 

for fiscal year 2017. 

In an increasingly dangerous world there is no greater constitutional responsibility of Congress than providing for the common defense of our Nation. Yet meeting this obligation has become increasingly difficult in recent years due to avoidable and unnecessary fiscal constraints. 

It is as a result of these constraints that our military has been 

forced to implement policies like the Army’s Aviation Restructure 

Initiative [ARI], which I have long opposed. 

As you may recall, I have appeared before this committee each 

year since ARI to raise the alarm that the plan is dangerous, shortsighted, and will significantly harm our national security. Specifically, ARI will have devastating impacts on the National Guard, 

stripping it of its Apaches and ensuring that it will be less combat 

ready and less able to provide operational depth. 

It will also deprive our Nation of an operational reserve for these 

aircraft, which is essential to the retention and management of talented air crews. Post-9/11 the National Guard has become a highly 

experienced and capable combat force, yet ARI represents a fundamental shift in the nature and role of the National Guard and runs 

counter to the wisdom and preference of many Members of Congress and their constituents. This conclusion is bolstered by the recent report and recommendations offered by the National Commission on the Future of the Army [NCFA]. 

I joined my colleagues in urging this committee to create the 

NCFA to offer a deliberate assessment of the ARI. After extensive 

discussion and analysis, the commission soundly rejected the 

Army’s plan. Instead, the commission proposed an alternative plan 

to maintain 4 National Guard Apache battalions equipped with 18 

aircraft each. The plan also proposes to add two Black Hawk battalions to the National Guard. 

In the commission’s opinion, this offers ‘‘significant advantages’’ 

relative to ARI by providing greater wartime capacity, improved 

operating tempo, higher wartime surge capacity, and contributing 

to a key goal of achieving one Army that works and trains together 

in peacetime and if necessary fights together in war. 
6 

Last year I fought to ensure that the Army could not move forward with the ARI until the commission had completed its work. 

The time has come. We must put an end to ARI, implement the 

NCFA’s recommendation and retain a minimum of four Apache 

battalions in the National Guard. 

Of course the question remains how these aviation assets will be 

distributed. And there are some who argue that the battalions 

should be located in single States. I would caution against this approach and instead point to the many positive benefits that come 

from multistate units, such as the agreement that was reached between my home State of Pennsylvania and South Carolina. 

Under the terms of these agreements, one State would retain a 

battalion headquarters and two companies of Apaches. The other 

State would retain the remaining company. By expanding the footprint of the Apache battalions, the National Guard will maximize 

its ability to recruit and retain talented pilots and crew from different regions of the United States. 

Multistate units will also ensure that National Guard companies 

can regularly participate in collective training and maintenance 

with the regular Army thereby advancing the Army’s objective for 

total force integration. Finally, multistate units will provide strategic ‘‘grow-back’’ depth in the National Guard should the need 

arise in the future to re-establish additional Apache battalions, 

such as the 1st 104th, that have been disbanded. 

While addressing current fiscal constraints is important, we 

must proceed in such a way that will maximize our readiness and 

ability to surge in times of war. Time and again the brave members 

of the National Guard have risen to the occasion and heeded the 

call to defend our Nation, both at home and abroad. By taking the 

steps that I have identified here today, Congress can ensure that 

they may continue to do so for years to come. 

I thank the chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothfus can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Any questions for the gentleman from Pennsylvania? If not, I appreciate the gentleman 

being here. 

I agree that I think there is a lot of support for the Army commission. They did what we asked them to do. And we will definitely 

consider those recommendations carefully. I appreciate the gentleman for being here. 

Next we have the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford. Appreciate the gentleman being here. Your full written statement will 

be made part of the record. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking 

Member Smith. I would like to thank Mrs. Davis as well, my cochair of the Congressional Explosive Ordinance Disposal [EOD] 

Caucus. And I want to present to you several priorities for fiscal 

year 2017 NDAA. 
7 

I applaud the chairman and ranking member’s personal interest 

in streamlining DOD [Department of Defense] processes for research, development, and acquisition [RD&A]. 

In that spirit I request enacting the EOD Caucus’ proposed language that would establish a fully joint EOD program with the 

Navy as executive agent for DOD to coordinate and integrate 

RD&A for EOD defense programs. Currently, the Secretary of Defense has designated the Secretary of the Navy as the single service manager for common EOD technology and training. 

This approach creates a nightmare of logistics and paperwork 

that results in years of delays in fielding crucial EOD technology. 

Second, we have concerns that the Army has been quietly duplicating roles, responsibilities, and mission sets of its EOD force into 

that of the Chemical force. 

Briefly, the Army Chemical Corps has taken credit to senior 

Army leadership for the EOD force’s accomplishments over the last 

15 years. All of this at the same time that the Chemical Corps has 

experienced regular mission failure and has not deployed to any 

theater in the last 15 years to conduct their primary mission. 

The EOD formations are the ones who provide scalable and 

tailorable mission command. Tactical EOD units conduct weapons 

defeat, weapons disablement, and weapons disposal activities. 

In that spirit, please also consider enacting EOD Caucus’ proposed language on Title 10, United States Code, chapter 307, section 3063 which strikes ‘‘Chemical Corps’’ and inserts ‘‘Explosive 

Ordinance Disposal Corps’’ as a basic branch of the Army. 

Third, I urge the publishing of directive report language using 

the EOD Caucus’ proposed language for the Secretary of the Army 

to provide a brief and report on the Army EOD Branch Proponent 

no later than December 1, 2016, to the committee. 

Finally, our national security is our biggest priority and when restructuring the end strengths of the Armed Forces we need to slow 

down the process. It is especially important to maintain a strong 

and agile military in the face of emerging threats. 

I recommend incorporating the end strength numbers from the 

POSTURE Act within the NDAA for fiscal year 2017. 

And with that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford can be found in the Appendix on page 44.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his recommendations. Are there any questions for the gentleman from Arkansas? Again, because of your personal experience we really appreciate your expertise. And I know that Mrs. Davis will be bringing those issues forward and so we can consider them that you 

mentioned. So thank you, sir. 

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

Hanna. Thank you for being here. The gentleman is recognized for 

4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. HANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking 

Member Davis. I am here today to respectfully request that the 
8 

committee take action on two important issues, contracting reform 

and cybersecurity. 

The Small Business Committee recently marked up the Defending America’s Small Business Contractors Act which seeks to assist 

small businesses in competing for Federal contracts. I want to 

speak briefly in support of section 302 of this bill. 

This provision would create a voluntary pilot program at the 

SBA that would provide first-tier subcontracting small businesses 

with performance ratings based on their previously completed 

work. One challenge facing many small businesses competing for 

larger Federal contracting opportunities is that it is difficult for 

them to gain recognition for their past first-tier work as subcontractors. This prevents them from bidding, from using their 

track record they need to compete for larger prime contracts. 

As a contractor myself and the chairman of the Subcommittee on 

Contracting and Workforce, I am confident that these changes will 

lead to more competition in the marketplace, which will lead to 

lower costs. 

This committee has taken the lead on contracting and acquisition 

reform. I respectfully urge you to include section 302 in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017. It is a sensible change that creates more opportunity for small business contractors and brings greater competition to the marketplace. 

The second issue I want to bring to the committee’s attention is 

very important to my district. I have the privilege of representing 

the Air Force Research Lab in Rome, New York, which is home to 

some of the most advanced cybersecurity research in the world. 

Our country faces unprecedented challenges in cyberspace which 

demand robust solutions that tap into the total force of our country’s military, including the Guard and Reserve personnel. At this 

committee’s urging, the Army recently conducted an analysis of its 

cyber capacities. It found that the Guard is well-placed to contribute to defensive cyber operations but has yet to effectively bring 

them into the fold. 

While the National Guard Bureau has named 10 Army cyber protection teams to be based in each of the 10 Federal Emergency 

Management Response Regions, the Army has not allocated any 

funds to sustain them. Neither has it provided a long-term plan for 

integrating them into the cyber mission force. No approach to secure cyber domain is complete unless it utilizes the broad range of 

skills and assets possessed by the Guard personnel. 

Anyone familiar with Guard capacities knows how well-suited its 

citizens are to take on an expanded cyber mission. These men and 

women of the Guard develop unique expertise in their private lives 

and can be ground-ready within a moment’s notice. I respectfully 

request that the members of this committee work with the Army 

to provide a long-term strategic plan for integrating the Army 

Guard personnel into cyber mission force for fiscal year 2017. In 

addition, I ask that you support the entire bill H.R. 4341. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna can be found in the Appendix on page 57.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Are there any questions? 

Again, I appreciate the gentleman on both issues. I know from our 
9 

conversations last year because of the gentleman’s personal background and also your leadership position on small business that we 

want to continue to work closely with you on improving contracting 

and acquisition, especially as it affects small business. So I appreciate the gentleman’s input. 

Next we are pleased to welcome the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Meehan, who is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK MEEHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 

the ranking member and each of the members of this committee 

and my good friend the gentleman from New Jersey as well. And 

I want to express my deep appreciation, not just for your holding 

this hearing, but for taking the time to consider the real matters 

of priority-setting with regard to our national defense. And I very 

much appreciate the opportunity to weigh in what I believe is really pressing national security issue. 

The Marine Corps V–22 Osprey program has been involved in 

some of the most sophisticated combat operations since it became 

operational in 2009. And that is including among them the mission 

to eliminate Osama Bin Laden. 

With the kind of flexibility it has, of course, you know it flies like 

a helicopter, lands like a helicopter, flies like a plane, and it gives 

unmatched flexibility to the warfighter in the theater. Now, Marine 

commanders will tell you that the Osprey gives them the unprecedented ability to move troops and material around the battlefield 

faster than ever before. It has also been one of America’s best examples of its outreach to nations who are struggling with natural 

disasters. 

The Osprey is constructed at Boeing’s facility in Ridley Park, 

Delaware County and by Bell Helicopter in your own district, Amarillo, Texas, Mr. Chairman. But fundamentally it has been purchased under a 5-year contract that Congress authorized in fiscal 

year 2013, and at that time all four congressional defense committees, including this committee, supported that contract. 

For good reason. The contract saved nearly $1 billion over a single-year contract and it gave predictability to the industry to even 

drive further efficiencies and capabilities into the aircraft. But unfortunately, the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request unexpectedly reduced the procurement of the Osprey aircraft by two airframes. It increased the cost in termination liability that could ultimately lead to additional and unnecessary cost for the taxpayers. 

It has got the potential to jeopardize the workforce at the Boeing 

facility in Ridley, and I would suspect similarly in Amarillo, Texas. 

And it will take vital tools out of the hands of our battlefield commanders. The only reason for the reduction is a budget from the 

White House that doesn’t meet the needs of our warfighters. 

And it is why the Marine Corps itself actually requested that the 

two aircraft be replaced in its annual unfunded priorities list, 

which was submitted to the committee after this budget release. 

The V–22 Osprey has proven itself to be one of the most versatile 

aircraft in the Pentagon’s inventory. Its success in action is a trib-
10 

ute to the men and women who fly the Osprey and to the skills of 

the workforce in both Ridley Park and in Amarillo that produce it. 

Congress and your respective committees in particular have reliably demonstrated strong support for the V–22 program, and I ask 

that your committee continue the steadfast approach by restoring 

two MV–22 airframes in the fiscal year 2017 budget. They are a 

good deal for our taxpayers. They support good-paying jobs, and 

most importantly, they are a vital tool for the men and women in 

the field. 

And I thank you for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meehan can be found in the Appendix on page 59.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The gentleman from New Jersey is 

recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you. It is good to see that you came in and 

brought this to light. Certainly we have been watching it from the 

days that we went over and saw this. It is about predictability. 

Most importantly it is that V–22, who we hear as early as last 

week from the Commandant of the Marine Corps, how important 

it is for those two additional airframes. So we hear you loud and 

clear and certainly we will be pressing that matter. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I want to thank the gentleman. It was so critical. 

We watched the workers on this program and their ability to create 

the efficiencies with the multiyear contracting, which has produced 

a better and more effective war machine and also saved money simultaneously, but we are working against ourselves if we allow 

this to go forward as directed by the administration. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Thank you, and we yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Other questions? I appreciate the gentleman’s 

testimony. I think he makes the case very well. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Appreciate it. Let us see. Next we welcome the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Chu, before the committee. The 

gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CHU. Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Davis, 

next month will recognize the fifth anniversary of the death of my 

nephew, Harry Lew. Harry was determined to serve his country in 

any way he could. He enlisted in the Marine Corps and deployed 

to Afghanistan in 2011. My family beamed with pride. We never 

could have imagined the tragedy that would ensue. 

While in Afghanistan, he was the victim of military hazing. In 

the middle of the night his fellow Marines took it upon themselves 

to administer so-called corrective training for almost 4 hours. They 

tormented, abused, and degraded him. They forced him to carry a 

25-pound sandbag and perform useless, unnecessary exercise while 

he was clad in his full-body armor. After they kicked, punched, and 

stomped on his back, they nearly smothered him with the contents 

of a sandbag. 
11 

Twenty-two minutes after this torture, Harry took his own life, 

and my family was forever changed. Yet Harry was not the only 

one. Over the years I have heard stories of other service members 

who also experienced hazing so arduous it led to their deaths. 

Private Danny Chen also served in Afghanistan in 2011. He was 

also a victim of racially based hazing and like Harry, Danny took 

his own life. I have made it my mission to end hazing in our armed 

services because it is unacceptable and indefensible. 

I worked to secure reports from the military branches in the 

2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The reports reveal the 

overall lack of reliable information and data on hazing, including 

serious deficiencies in the tracking and treatment of hazing by the 

Department of Defense. 

Therefore, I urged the committee to include language for a Government Accountability Office [GAO] report on the current status 

of hazing in the military in the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act. With your assistance, this language was indeed included 

and I thank all of you for doing that. 

Congress received this report this last month. Today, we have an 

independent analysis that found that DOD anti-hazing policies are 

not being implemented, training is unclear, and tracking systems 

are highly divergent and underdeveloped. More specifically we 

learn that DOD is not aware of the extent to which the Department’s hazing policies have been implemented. 

In December 2015, DOD released an updated policy memorandum on hazing, but as the GAO indicates it does not go far 

enough to ensure that the policies are being implemented consistently and thoroughly. 

GAO underscored the need to better define hazing in order to 

teach service members how to identify it. It emphasized the need 

to vastly improve the military services’ tracking mechanisms, 

which are incomplete and inconsistent, preventing us from having 

the reliable data that would help determine root causes and propose real solutions. 

Lastly, the GAO indicates that the DOD has not evaluated the 

prevalence of hazing in a meaningful way. Given these objective 

findings, I request that as the House Armed Services Committee 

prepares the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, language is 

included to, number one, require DOD to submit an annual report 

to Congress to ensure that anti-hazing policies are implemented 

consistently. 

Secondly, require DOD to improve existing training to help service members better identify and respond to hazing at all command 

levels. 

Third, mandate that DOD issue a Department-wide guidance on 

a comprehensive and consistent data collection system that includes information on protected classes such as race and religion. 

And fourth, evaluate the prevalence through Department-wide 

surveys. Only when we have these changes in place can we truly 

begin to eliminate hazing in the military. 

Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Davis, 

for allowing me to discuss my legislative priorities for the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. I urge Congress to take action to 

eradicate hazing in the military. 
12 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chu can be found in the Appendix on page 60.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me just thank you, Ms. Chu, not only 

for being here but for your commitment to this issue and following 

through on it. It is something that I not only appreciate but admire. As you mention, we have had provisions related to this issue 

in each, I think, of the four last House-passed NDAAs. One year 

it didn’t make it. We couldn’t persuade our colleagues in the Senate. 

But also as you mention we just received the report from the fiscal year 2015 bill. We want to look at that carefully and we will 

absolutely consider your suggestions on how to further get better 

information so that we can see what may be appropriate. 

Are there other questions for the gentlelady from California? 

Great. 

Thank you, ma’am. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Appreciate you being here. The gentleman from 

Pennsylvania, Mr. Perry, is welcomed and recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and 

members of the committee for this opportunity. Appreciate the ability to have some input. 

Today I focus my remarks on one decision of particular concern 

with many of our fellow Members of the House, the armed services—or the Army’s proposed Aviation Restructure Initiative or ARI 

and its negative impacts on our Reserve Component, which are 

highlighted by the report and recommendations offered by the National Commission on the Future of the Army. 

Mr. Chairman, at the height of the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan nearly 50 percent of the Army’s total force was Reserve Component. As a matter of fact, I am proud of my own State, Pennsylvania. The Guard alone there contributed more than 21,000 individual deployments to these theaters, including one of my own 

where I was privileged to command a task force of Army aviators 

across the full spectrum of operations from attack to reconnaissance to heavy lift to general support. 

Now, according to cost savings calculations provided by the 

Army, none of the projected $12 billion in cost savings is derived 

from moving Apaches, the 864, from the National Guard to the regular Army. ARI would leave the National Guard less combat ready 

at most, and most importantly, less able to provide operational 

depth. 

You see, Mr. Chairman, the experience in the attack community, 

as you know, is in the Guard. It is because of multiple deployments 

and the complexity of flying the Apache. You can learn to fly the 

Apache in several months, but to become a true Apache pilot takes 

years and years of dedication. 

Folks simply get tired of being deployed all the time and working 

at that tempo, but they still want to serve so they come to the 

Guard. And so where you have an 800-hour cockpit in the Active 
13 

Component downrange, you will have a 4,500-hour cockpit in the 

Guard. It is not meant to disparage one or the other. It is just 

where the operational depth is located. 

ARI would further reduce the connective tissue that bind the 

Army and the National Guard since Apaches would then constitute 

an area where the two cannot work together. 

Mr. Chairman, at all the times where those of us that served in 

the military say we are an Army of one. How can we be an Army 

of one when one has and one does not? When one goes to replace 

and doesn’t have the components or the training to replace? I 

mean, you can’t say it but not do it. This represents a fundamental 

shift in the nature and role of the National Guard and runs 

counter to the years and billions of dollars invested by the taxpayers. 

We used to be a strategic reserve. I was in the Guard back then 

when we went to summer camp. That has been over for years and 

years and years and the taxpayers have paid dearly, dearly for an 

operational reserve, which is what the Guard and the Reserve has 

become as evidenced by how many times we deploy. 

The National Commission on the Future of the Army rejected the 

ARI, the Aviation Restructure Initiative, after comparing it to a 

number of alternatives. Other significant advantages over the ARI 

include allowing for greater wartime capacity. You can reach back 

to the Guard when Active Components have deployed over and over 

and over again. Improved operational tempo because you can 

schedule that stuff. Higher wartime surge capacity, otherwise there 

is none. 

If you do everything you have got with the Active Component 

and you are tapped out, there is not going to be anybody to reach 

back to under the ARI. And it balances the force. It creates like 

components so we can be an Army of one so we can replace one 

another when we need to. And it achieves the goal of an Army that 

works together, trains together in peacetime, and if and when necessary, can deploy together and fight in a war. 

And finally, Mr. Chairman, in the remaining few seconds I have, 

if as the commission says there should be two more ARBs [Army 

Reserve battalions], those two should be located in the Guard based 

on cost and quite honestly nearly every single other metric including arms inspections results, safety and success in combat. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry can be found in the Appendix on page 62.] 

The CHAIRMAN. So just to be clear, the gentleman supports the 

commission recommendations, correct? 

Mr. PERRY. Indeed I do, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Great. Thank 

you, sir. Appreciate you being here. 

Next we have the distinguished gentleman from the State of 

Maine, Mr. Poliquin. Welcome, sir, and you are recognized for 4 

minutes. 
14 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE POLIQUIN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MAINE 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very 

much; and thank you very much, Ranking Member Davis, for the 

opportunity to be here today. 

There are three topics I would like to talk to you about if I may, 

first deals with the Berry Amendment. The Berry Amendment law 

requires, as we all know, that standard issuance equipment be 

Berry compliant. And the only piece of equipment to my knowledge 

that recruits today in all branches of the military are not issued 

are athletic shoes. And that is because a period of time there were 

no athletic shoe manufacturers in America that were, in fact, Berry 

compliant. 

However, that has changed. The New Balance Shoe Company 

that has three plants in Maine, my district. This is really important, Mr. Chairman, to my district. Nine hundred employees in 

Skowhegan, Norridgewock, and in Naples, Maine make the best 

athletic shoes in the world. In fact, right now I am wearing a pair. 

You just can’t see them, but they are on my feet right now and 

they are terrific. 

All I am asking, sir, is that the Department of Defense obey the 

law and make a standard issuance piece of equipment, athletic 

shoes, that are fully Berry compliant. The New Balance Shoe Company has retooled their manufacturing process, invested millions in 

doing this, and as I said, they are now completely Berry Amendment compliant. 

Now, Congresswoman Tsongas has language that she has submitted to be included in the NDAA. And we please ask you to support that language which would solve this problem and require the 

Department of Defense to issue Berry compliant, Berry Amendment compliant athletic shoes for all of our recruits. That is the 

first thing, sir. 

The second one, Mr. Chair, is that I am very grateful that in last 

year’s NDAA authorization there was an additional DDG–151 destroyer that was put in that authorization. And also the Navy has 

committed to make sure the incremental funding for the complete 

procurement of that destroyer be included in the process. 

All I am asking you folks to do, please, is make sure you support 

the full funding of that additional DDG–151. These are the best 

battleships in the world, sir. They are made in Bath, Maine. They 

have a front-line multi-mission purpose, including a ballistic defense missile defense. So it is really important for national security. 

There are 6,000 Mainers that are employed at Bath Ironworks 

that manufactures, creates, and builds these best destroyers in the 

world. And please I ask you to support the full funding of this additional DDG–151. 

Thirdly, I am introducing a bill, Mr. Thornberry, called the Fair 

Treatment of Our National Guard and Reservists Act. Now, this is 

something that is so commonsense to so many Mainers that they 

rely on common sense to get through the long winters up there. 

Right now if you are a Federal employee and you travel beyond 

50 miles to do your work and you are not reimbursed for travel expenses, let us say, gas, food, and lodging, then those expenses are 

tax deductible. But if you are a guardsman or woman or you are 
15 

in a Reserve, the law requires you to travel over 100 miles to receive the same treatment. 

So now that is just not fair. I mean, these are folks that are 

being trained to make sure they can protect our country, as Mr. 

Perry just testified with respect to the Guard. All we are asking 

is that the IRS [Internal Revenue Service] treat our guardsmen 

and reservists the same way as they treat every other Federal employee, making sure that if they travel beyond 50 miles—not 100 

miles—they can use those travel expenses as a tax deduction. 

Now, my request, Mr. Thornberry, if I may, is simply that the 

Secretary of Defense conduct a study such that we know what the 

cost is to our guardsmen and our reservists for this travel beyond 

50 miles so we can see what the fiscal note will be. 

So the three things I am asking for today, Mr. Chairman, if I 

may, in summary, number one, please include Chairwoman Tsongas’ language into the appropriate parts of the law that requires 

the Department of Defense to obey the Berry Amendment law and 

issue athletic shoes, Berry Amendment athletic shoes for our recruits. 

Secondly, please make sure you support the fully funding of our 

additional DDG–151 destroyer made up in Bath, Maine. 

And thirdly, support my bill that asks the Secretary of Defense 

to create a study such that we know what the cost is to our guardsmen and our reservists with respect to reimbursement deductions, 

travel deductions beyond 50 miles. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Poliquin can be found in the Appendix on page 63.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. I think the gentleman makes the case on 

each of the three points very well. Are there any questions? If not, 

I appreciate the gentleman being here. 

Mr. POLIQUIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we are pleased to welcome the gentlelady 

from the State of Missouri, Mrs. Wagner, before the committee. 

The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI 

Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it 

is a joy to be in front of you again this year, and I thank you for 

your time. I want to begin by thanking you for your steadfast commitment to our Nation’s most pressing national security matters. 

In that vein, I want to highlight the growing stresses on the demands for United States naval tactical aviation. 

As you know, the ongoing wartime operations against the Islamic 

State of Iraq and the Levant have greatly increased operational 

tempo of our tactical aircraft. The carrier-based aircraft F/A–18 

Hornets and Super Hornets have been the backbone of the force 

projection and engagement. 

Last year, the Chief of Naval Operations testified that his Navy 

faces a shortage of operational aircraft. This is commonly referred 

to as the tactical aviation shortfall. Congress and your committee, 

sir, led the way, addressing part of this challenge with added aircraft in fiscal year 2016. 
16 

However, the President has not budgeted to take on the challenge more robustly in this year’s budget. Only two Super Hornet 

aircraft were added in the OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] 

in response to training and operational losses. The fiscal year 2018 

budget shows a demand for 14 more aircraft but there still is a potential gap this year. These actions taken to address the tactical 

aviation shortfall are not enough. That is why the Chief of Naval 

Operations will provide Congress with a unfunded requirement request for 12 additional Super Hornets above the President’s budget. 

There remains a shortfall of at least 36 Super Hornet aircraft in 

total. 

Given the critical capability that the Super Hornet provides for 

ongoing wartime operations, any shortfall is dangerous to the 

Navy’s ability to project force throughout the world. This unfunded 

requirement request helps mitigate that shortfall, anticipating that 

the Navy will follow through on its promise to add aircraft in the 

next year’s budget deliberation. 

In years past your committee has been incredibly responsive to 

the warfighters’ most pressing needs. The budget is unfunded requirement request demonstrates how important tactical aviation is 

to the Navy’s mission. The Super Hornet is providing that critical 

capability today at the most affordable cost. 

I ask that you urgently consider the Navy’s unfunded request 

and add 12 F/A–18 Super Hornets to the President’s budget to address the tactical aviation shortfall and, more importantly, the warfighters’ needs. 

I look forward to working with you throughout the year on this 

issue, and I thank you for the consideration of this request. We ask 

that you take into consideration the recent demands placed on 

naval tactical aviation as you consider the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2017. 

I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Wagner can be found in the Appendix on page 65.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Any questions of the gentlelady? Thank 

you, ma’am. I appreciate you continuing to be such a strong advocate on this issue. The budget presents a number of challenges for 

us, but we will certainly be looking at the unfunded requirements 

list of all the services as we are able to meet additional needs. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the consideration, 

and we will stand ready at your service to provide any additional 

information for support. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you much. Next we are pleased to welcome the gentlelady delegate from American Samoa, Ms. Radewagen, before the committee. 

Thank you for being here, ma’am, and you are recognized for 4 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 

A DELEGATE FROM AMERICAN SAMOA 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, for the opportunity to testify today before the House Armed Services Com-
17 

mittee in regards to H.R. 4341, the Defending America’s Small 

Contractors Act. Particularly I will be addressing section 505 of 

title V of the bill, which I introduced on its own and has been included in H.R. 4341. 

As you may know, over the past decade numerous reports issued 

by SBA’s Office of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have identified structural weaknesses in the 

SBA’s Office of Government Contracts and Business Developments 

[OGCBD] oversight of personnel and program management and 

control. 

Since fiscal year 2014, 39 percent of all Federal contract dollars 

have been awarded to small businesses, and in fulfilling its jurisdictional role, the House Small Business Committee is conducting 

oversight of the contracting programs run by the GCBD. 

However, because of the responsibility for implementing many of 

the programs rests outside of GCBD, and GCBD having limited influence over those responsible for the day-to-day operations of the 

program, the opportunity for waste, fraud, and abuse is prevalent. 

Meanwhile, regulation implementing statutory changes intended to 

help small businesses are taking three or more years to implement. 

Furthermore, many of the organizations within GCBD conduct 

duplicative activities leaving open the possibility of greater inefficiencies and more bureaucracy for small businesses seeking to compete in the Federal marketplace. 

Due to their importance, these issues were recently the topic of 

a hearing conducted by the House Small Business Committee’s 

Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce. As a result of the 

hearing and subsequent data, I introduced the Small Business Contracting and Acquisition Programs Efficiency Act or SB CAPE Act, 

which has become section 505 of title V of H.R. 4341, the Defending 

America’s Small Contractors Act. 

Specifically section 505 requires GAO to examine the extent to 

which SBA personnel who carry out certain procurement and business development programs report to the OGCBD; determine 

whether greater efficiency and consistency in the certification process of the procurement and business development programs could 

be achieved by creating a single organizational unit of employees 

to process all certifications required by such programs; determine 

whether greater efficiency and efficiency in the performance of such 

programs could be achieved by improving the alignment of the field 

personnel assigned to them; assess how the OGCBD could improve 

its staffing of regulatory drafting functions and its coordination 

with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council, to ensure timely 

rulemaking by the SBA and report on any other areas in which the 

GAO determines that SBA could improve its performance with respect to procurement and business development programs. 

The report will prove to be a valuable tool in helping Congress 

to ensure that those offices and programs within SBA, which are 

created to help small businesses compete, are fulfilling their statutory mission. The importance of this legislation plays in my home 

district of American Samoa. It cannot be overstated as nearly all 

of the island’s businesses qualify as a small business. 
18 

Also, with proper organization, SBA will be a better partner to 

DOD as it seeks to strengthen the small business industrial base, 

one of the Department’s current objectives. 

I respectfully encourage the House Armed Services Committee to 

adopt H.R. 4341, the Defending America’s Small Contractors Act, 

and include it in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 

Thank you again for the important work this committee does and 

for allowing me this opportunity to testify before you today. With 

your assistance I look forward to seeing this important legislation 

become law. I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

Appendix on page 67.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentlelady. Are there questions for 

the gentlelady? Gentleman from California, Mr. Knight. 

Mr. KNIGHT. No question, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add my 

support to H.R. 4341. Part of this bill was an issue that we authored, the DOD’s Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ program; and this bill will 

streamline the Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ program by utilizing SBA to help 

the DOD simplify the process for DOD’s execution in their program. 

It goes back to exactly what you have been saying. We need to 

get more defense for the dollar and I highly support this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate the gentlelady giving us further 

background and explanation of that particular section. So I appreciate very much you being here and discussing the small business 

package, which the committee will definitely consider. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we are pleased to welcome the gentleman 

from Nevada, Mr. Hardy, before the committee. The gentleman is 

recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRESENT HARDY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEVADA 

Mr. HARDY. Good morning, Chairman Thornberry and ranking 

member and members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on National Defense Authorization Act 

for 2017. I want to first thank you for keeping small business and 

the procurement reform on top of mind when you crafted last year’s 

NDAA. The small business community appreciates your efforts. 

To continue the conversation, I want to speak briefly concerning 

the Small Business Contracting Initiative that often gets less attention than it deserves. Many times in contracting all of the efforts are concentrated on whether or not the fair competition is 

being observed. While this is absolutely paramount in our society, 

the person that wins the contract is often immediately thrown into 

a firestorm of compliance issues and burdens. 

Therefore, while we observe the pre-contract interactions, we also 

need to enhance the post-award compliance. With that said, I have 

introduced H.R. 4331, the Small Business Easy Contract Compliance Enhancement [and] List Act of 2016 to rectify this issue. This 

is straightforward legislation that requires small business advo-
19 

cates of the SBA, along with other agencies that participate in the 

Mentor-Prote ́ge ́ programs, to offer a list of resources to the contract 

awardees. 

To help reduce compliance burdens, Chairman Chabot included 

post-award compliance language in his larger bill that offers important reforms for contractors and subcontractors. I encourage you to 

take a serious look at Chairman Chabot’s large contracting bill, 

H.R. 4341, the Defending America’s Small Contractors Act of 2016. 

These reforms will truly impact small businesses, one of our country’s truest economic drivers. 

I would also like to draw quickly to your attention an ongoing 

issue in my district that has national security implications as well, 

you have got the word. 

My district in Nevada is the proud home of the Nevada Test and 

Training Range [NTTR], which is the largest continuous air and 

ground space available in the military training operation in the 

free world. It consists of 2.9 million acres of public land underneath 

approximately 12,000 square nautical miles of restricted airspace 

in the military operations area. 

The Air Force uses the NTTR to perform advanced exercises and 

tactics development in a multidimensional training environment 

unlike any other. Yet despite the critical importance of the NTTR 

to our national security, multiple layers of duplicative regulations 

are preventing the Air Force from meeting defense test and training objectives due to the lack of ready access to the withdrawn 

land. 

This inability to fully utilize the withdrawn lands also denies full 

use of the restricted airspace overlaying the area, further restricting operational flexibility. 

Mr. Chairman, the Air Force has been conducting bombing and 

gunnery practice, tactics development, and electronic testing and 

training on these lands since 1940, a full 40 years before the Fish 

and Wildlife [Service] nominated the area for wilderness designation. And it is a flawed wilderness designation to begin with that 

refused to account for the existing military impacts on the land. 

What this all boils down to is the military should not be saddled 

with multiple layers of duplicative regulations that hinder their 

ability to adequately train for the mission that will keep America’s 

people safe. 

While the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior 

have inherently different missions, there is no reason why they 

cannot better partner to arrive at the commonsense solutions for 

the land they co-manage. 

Mr. Chairman, my home State of Nevada is more than 85 percent federally controlled. While Nevadans may have their disagreements with the Federal land management agencies, we are proud 

to welcome the military personnel who call our State home. We feel 

a sense of duty and patriotism to have these vital training activities take place in Nevada, and we would like nothing more than 

to allow our service men and women the freedom to train for their 

missions. 

And again, I would like to thank the chairman and ranking 

member for the opportunity to speak to you today. 
20 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy can be found in the Appendix on page 69.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. As I think you know, I was just 

out at the Nevada test site last November, and I agree completely. 

It is an incredible national asset, as our colleague from Nevada 

knows. And we want to make sure the country can benefit from the 

full use of it. So I think the value of that area is just unquestioned. 

Are there questions for the gentleman from Nevada? Not? Appreciate you being here and raising those issues. I thank you, sir. 

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

Thanks for being back with us, one of the strong advocates for our 

military. The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. Is—— 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I am pleased to be back with you again and 

always I appreciate your patience. As you all are aware, I represent Tennessee’s Seventh Congressional District and it encompasses Montgomery County, Tennessee, which is Clarksville, and 

there you have located Fort Campbell. And Fort Campbell is home 

to the storied 101st Airborne, the most deployed unit in the U.S. 

military, the 5th Special Forces Group, and the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. 

Approximately 1,900 officers and 26,000 enlisted personnel call 

Fort Campbell home. Like many installations across the country, 

Fort Campbell was facing troop cuts. I was pleased to see that Fort 

Campbell was spared major troop reductions. We are grateful for 

that. 

I was pleased to work with this committee last year in support 

of the Army Flying Hours Program. This vital program provides 

aviation training resources for individual crew members and units 

according to approved aviation training strategies. 

In addition, it also provides individual and collective proficiency 

in support of ongoing combat and non-combat air operation. For 

aviation units like the 101st this training is not only vital to mission success, but to the safety of our personnel. Without the necessary funding, home station training opportunities will not be 

available to achieve optimal combat readiness. 

I ask the members of this committee to once again pay close attention to the restoring of the Flying Hours Program to its full capacity in fiscal year 2017. I would also like to bring to this committee’s attention that further reducing our Nation’s Armed Forces 

will hamstring our ability to meet the challenges and threats of an 

increasingly destabilized world. As America withdraws from the 

international community, countries like Russia are becoming increasingly brazen. 

We see it in the annexation of Crimea by Russian-backed separatists, civil war in Yemen and Syria, and China’s military buildup. 

As discord continues to grow around the world, the U.S. must have 

the personnel and capabilities to respond and protect our national 

interests. 

Soldiers from Fort Campbell are always tasked with responding 

to threats to our national security around the globe. We would be 
21 

putting their lives in increased danger by reducing their numerical 

strength and not providing them with the training that they need. 

That is why I support H.R. 4534, the Protecting Our Security 

Through Utilizing Right-Sized End-Strength or POSTURE Act. 

H.R. 4534 would reverse the current drawdown of the end strength 

levels for the U.S. land forces, specifically, the Army and Marines. 

It will freeze the current down draw on Marine personnel levels 

and increase Army end strength levels. 

General Ham recently testified that it takes 3 years to stand 

back up a fully ready brigade combat team. And this legislation 

would make sure that we need to address this issue in a destabilized world. 

Thank you for allowing me to come before you with the testimony. I appreciate your attention to the details of the issues. 

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

Appendix on page 73.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate it, gentlelady. I think there is a lot 

of support on this committee for the proposal that she was just 

talking about. Our challenge of course is going to be budgetary depending on how the budget and allocations work out. Are there any 

questions of the gentlelady? Thank you, ma’am. Appreciate—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate you being with us and raising those 

issues. Next we have the distinguished gentleman from the State 

of Texas, neighbor to Mr. Conaway and to me, Mr. Neugebauer, 

recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, and for 

holding this important hearing. I would like to take this opportunity to testify before this committee today on my national defense priorities. 

My district, Texas 19th Congressional District, is home of 5,100 

military and civilian personnel stationed at Dyess Air Force Base. 

Located on the outskirts of the city of Abilene, Dyess houses among 

the other missions, the 7th Bomb Wing, home to 33 of the 62 B– 

1 Lancers strategic bombers. 

As a part of the fiscal year 2017 budget, the Air Force has proposed a $5.8 million in research, development, and test and evaluation funding for the B–1 and $116.3 million in procurement funding. Throughout its proposed 2017 budget, the Air Force includes 

funding in other accounts for various improvements to the B–1s as 

well as funding for the B–1 maintenance and funding for the new 

B–1 Classic Associate Reserve Unit at Dyess Air Force Base. 

Mr. Chairman and ranking member, I request the committee’s 

support for these essential B–1 programs as it considers the fiscal 

year 2017 NDAA. Since 2001, the B–1 bomber has played a vital 

role in Afghanistan and Iraq and is now a major force in our battle 

against ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]. 

In its budget documents, the Air Force highlights the B–1’s critical importance to our national defense stating that ‘‘The B–1B 

Lancer,’’ and I quote: ‘‘is a swing-wing, supersonic, long-range conventional bomber. It carries the largest payload of both guided and 
22 

unguided weapons in the Air Force inventory. The multi-mission 

B–1B is the backbone of America’s long-range bomber force and can 

rapidly deliver massive quantities of precision and non-precision 

weapons against any adversary, anywhere in the world, at any 

time.’’ The current service life for the B–1 is beyond 2040. 

As further evidence of the B–1’s importance, it was the first aircraft to be fitted for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, and along with the F/A–18, will be the initial aircraft to carry the Navy’s Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile. 

In its request for the 2017 overseas contingency operations funding, the Air Force stated: ‘‘As a force provider to the U.S. Central 

Command area of responsibility, the primary combat forces are the 

Air Force’s front-line fighters and bombers, the A–10, the B–1, F– 

15 and F–16, representing the ‘tip of the global power projection 

spear.’ These assets provide a strong capability to counter a wide 

range of threats to the U.S. and its allies, as well as help assure 

a viable deterrent posture in the region.’’ 

As the backbone of the long-range bomber force, as the ‘‘tip of the 

global power projection spear,’’ and with a service life of beyond 

2040, it makes sense for our national defense standpoint and for 

a physical standpoint to ensure that the B–1 continues to receive 

the funding it needs in order to remain effective and efficient and 

viable today and in the future. 

I request that the committee continue to support funding for 

2017 and beyond. I would also like to request the committee’s continued support for the new Long-Range Strike Bomber which the 

Air Force has designated as the B–21. This new bomber has been 

under development for several years and it is essential that the Air 

Force complete the necessary research work and begin the production of this aircraft in order to meet the goal of having it operational by the mid-2020s. 

As the Air Force and Congress move forward with the new bomber, we support the selection of Dyess Air Force Base to host the B– 

21. Dyess has been a bomber base since its inception more than 50 

years ago, initially hosting B–47s and then B–52s. And then for the 

past 30 years, Dyess has been the Air Force’s primary B–1 base. 

Dyess has also successfully served as the B–1 formal training unit, 

and now has the B–1 Classic Associate Reserve Unit. 

With a strong track record of meeting long-range strike mission 

requirements, Dyess would be an excellent base for the B–21. 

I thank you again, Chairman, for holding these hearings. And I 

appreciate this committee’s important work as keeping America 

safe, and would be glad to take any questions. 

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

Appendix on page 75.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions for the gentleman from Texas? 

The gentleman may be interested to know that just yesterday the 

committee held a meeting where the importance of the B–1 in the 

current fight was absolutely confirmed. So I appreciate the points 

the gentleman raises on both programs, and we certainly appreciate his testimony here today. 

Next we have the distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Bost. Appreciate you being with us, sir. You are recognized for 4 

minutes. 
23 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE BOST, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

ILLINOIS 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry and ranking member, for having me here today and for allowing me to give my comments and those comments will be brief. I intend to discuss two 

items I hope will be included in the NDAA: legislation included in 

H.R. 4341 to modernize small business administration size standards for agricultural producers, and the Navy’s anticipated need for 

additional F/A–18 strike fighters. 

You know, President Eisenhower once said: ‘‘Farming looks pretty easy as long as you do it with a pencil and you are about a thousand miles from a cornfield.’’ Unfortunately, this quote is accurate 

and when describing the statutory establishment size standards for 

agricultural producers. 

Agricultural producers are an important contribution to the 

American economy. According to the USDA [U.S. Department of 

Agriculture], the total value of farm products exceeds $390 billion, 

and the agricultural industry supports 16 million domestic jobs. 

Family-owned farms still account for a majority of farms and 

ranches in the United States. 

However, farming and ranching are low-margin industries. This 

has led to a consolidation of many single family-owned operations 

into larger multi-family-owned operations. But by any reasonable 

definition, these operations remain small business. 

Unfortunately, the current small business size standards for agriculture have been set by statute and are outdated. The standard 

is too low for the vast majority of farms and ranches to participate 

in potential government contracting and subcontracting opportunities. 

In addition, the statutory standard has no reasonable basis for 

why it is set at that. It appears that the Congress at one time just 

decided to pick a number out of the air and the previous Congress 

just set that number. And it was 30 years since its enactment of 

the size standard, but the Small Business Administration has significantly improved its process to determine small business size 

standards. This should address whatever issue previous Congresses 

had when it would establish the statutory size standard. 

I believe that the importance that Congress and Federal agencies 

promote consistency in policymaking. Now, the language in H.R. 

4341 will help ensure consistency and I encourage its adoption by 

the committee. 

But lastly I would like to also discuss the Navy’s need for additional F–18 strike fighters. The F–18 is currently the only operational strike fighter line for the United States Navy, and it is a 

significant and national security asset that should be enacted to 

protect. 

The fiscal year 2016 NDAA and the fiscal year 2016 Department 

of Defense Appropriations Act included funding for the procurement of 12 F/A–18s. However, this number may still be short of 

what the U.S. Navy needs, as the service has previously testified 

to a potential shortfall of 24 to 36 aircraft. 

The procurement of additional F/A–18 Super Hornets is critical 

to meeting the anticipated needs of the United States Navy and to 

keeping the production line open for the United States prepares an-
24 

ticipated aircraft sales to allied nations. It is important to preserve 

the value of the St. Louis region defense industry base as well. 

Therefore, I request the authorization of any aircraft requests by 

the United States Navy. And once again, I thank you for allowing 

me the opportunity to appear here today and I would be glad to 

answer any questions of the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bost can be found in the Appendix on page 78.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. Are there any questions? 

I know the chair of the Agriculture Committee is paying particular 

attention to the testimony of the gentleman on that part of the 

small business package, but I appreciate the gentleman being here 

and sharing his thoughts with us. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Thornberry. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Pleased to welcome the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Yoho, before the committee. The gentleman is 

recognized for 4 minutes. 

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

FLORIDA 

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

Smith, for the opportunity to come and speak before this committee. This is a great chance you are affording Members of Congress who do not sit on Armed Services. 

Today I would like to speak to you about a transfer of property 

and detainees from Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. As you know, 

it is currently illegal for the President to transfer detainees from 

the base to the United States, but the actual base itself can be 

transferred back to the Castro government without the consent of 

the U.S. Congress. 

Recently, the Castro government demanded that in order for normalization to continue between Cuba and the United States, the 

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base must be transferred back to Cuba. 

The 1903 lease agreement between the governments of Cuba and 

the United States are controlled by the language of the 1934 treaty 

stipulating that the lease can only be modified or abrogated pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Cuba. 

The territorial limits of the naval station remain as they were in 

1934 unless the United States abandons Guantanamo Bay or the 

two governments reach an agreement to modify its boundaries. 

While there appears to be no consensus on whether the President 

can modify the agreement alone, Congress is empowered to alter 

that statute by the statute the effect of the underlying 1934 treaty. 

A statute passed later than a treaty is recognized to supersede 

the terms of the treaty, at least as far as domestic law is concerned. Although not firmly established, it seems likely that Congress could override any implications that might be drawn from the 

1934 treaty with respect to Presidential authority to modify the 

Guantanamo lease by enacting legislation specifying that any such 

modification must be accomplished with the advice and consent of 

the Senate or the concurrence of Congress. 

In fact, Congress has passed legislation establishing policy with 

respect to Guantanamo leases. As part of the Cuban Liberty and 

Democratic Solidarity Act known as Libertad, Congress established 
25 

that the policy of the United States is to be prepared to enter into 

negotiations with a democratic elected government in Cuba either 

to return the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo to Cuba 

or to renegotiate the present agreement under mutual agreeable 

terms. 

The provision appears to approve negotiations by the President 

with a democratic Cuban government and in that Libertad agreement it says that the freedoms and the liberty of the Cuban people 

must be enhanced with that agreement. 

Let us see. The provision appears to approve negotiations by the 

President with a democratic Cuban government over the possible 

return of Guantanamo Bay, but it does not explicitly approve the 

entry into such an agreement as a congressional-executive agreement. Moreover, it does not expressly prohibit the negotiations of 

lease modifications with the existing Cuban government. 

It can be argued that an executive agreement with Cuba to close 

the base would in effect amount to an executive agreement pursuant to the 1934 treaty and would thus not require the advice and 

consent of the Senate. 

In order to protect this potential unilateral action by the President, I introduced H.R. 4126, the Guantanamo Transfer Prevention 

Act, which among other things would prevent the President from 

unilaterally ceding the base back to the Cuban government without 

the advice and consent of Congress. It has 68 co-sponsors on it at 

this time. 

While I work to move my standalone bill, I want to take this 

time to urge the Armed Services Committee to take similar actions 

in protecting against this potential for executive action and to ensure that the President must come to Congress first via the authorization process that no authorization be given to transfer the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. 

I thank you for this opportunity and the time here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yoho can be found in the Appendix on page 80.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions for the gentleman? I appreciate 

the gentleman’s suggestions. 

We did have a provision in last year’s NDAA to prevent the 

transfer of the naval base back to Cuba, but I think the gentleman 

raises a number of interesting questions about how to strengthen 

that or make it more permanent because certainly it is only what 

we have in law is only for the fiscal year. 

Mr. YOHO. Right, and it is such a strategic place in the Caribbean and a national security interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. If there are no questions, appreciate the 

gentleman being here. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you for your time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your suggestions. And 

if no other members seeking recognition, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 1, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 1, 2016 

(31) 

.Joint Statement 

Steve Chabot, Chairman, and Nydia Velazquez, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Small Business 

Before the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives 

On the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act 

March I, 2016 

Good moming, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017 (FY 17 NDAA). Let us begin by thanking the Committee for its 

longstanding collaboration with the Small Business Committee. In our combined 40 years on the 

Small Business Committee (SBC), I've enjoyed seeing this relationship develop. The hardfought passage of last year's NDAA was a success for our national security, for our men and 

women in unifo1m and tor our small business industrial base. My testimony today will first 

address legislation already marked up by SBC and how it continues to complement the work of 

the House Armed Services Committee (IIASC), and then to discuss ongoing work the SBC is 

pursuing. 

I. Introduction 

In the past year, the SBC and its subcommittees have held more than a dozen hearings on issues 

afTecting small contractors. These hearings have focused on the fact that within the last three 

years, we have lost over 25 percent of the small firms registered to do business with the federal 

government. 1 Within the Department of Defense, the number of small business contract actions 

fell47 percent from 2011, but the size of the average individual small business contract action 

more than doubled. Not surprisingly, during the same period, the percentage of dollars not 

competed has increased.2 As Chairman Thomberry has said, "we need to get more defense for 

the dollar," and competition by small businesses is part of the solution.3 

As a result of these hearings, 15 members of the Small Business Committee introduced 

contracting bills this year. Working closely with our colleagues, we collected these solid, 

common sense reforms, plus many other legislative provisions, and introduced H.R. 4341, the 

Defending America's Small Contractors Act of20164 The SBC successfully marked this bill up 

on January 13, 2016, when it passed by voice vote with seven bipartisan amendments. When 

you include those amendments, it means that 20 of the 22 members of the SBC contributed to 

this bill. This bill not only reflects my priorities as Chairman but those of my members as well. 

II.R. 4341 helps small contractors compete in five ways. First, it modemizes the Small Business 

Act to ensure that the language used is clear and consistent across federal procurement programs 

1 Committee Report comparing registration numbers in the Small Business Administration's Dynamic Small 

Business Search (DSBS) tool available at \lshs.sfi!~. the decommissioned Central Contractor Registration system. 

and the System for Award Management, available at \YW\\.sam.ucw. 2 Committee Report run using the Federal Procurement Data System (Feb. 26. 2016). 3

Sydney Freedburg. "'Mac Thornberry on Acquisition Reform" Breaking Dclcnse (No.v 18. 2013) available at 

http://brcakin2.defensc.com/20 i 3/1 ! /mac -thornherrY -on-acquisition -re form-conu.rcss- heal-thvscl F. 

'H.R. 4341 was introduced by Chairman Chabot and Ranking Member Velazquez. 
32 

~ DoD contracting officers shouldn't have to learn a dictionary's worth of new jargon just to 

work with a small business. Second, it strengthens the small business advocates within Small 

Business Administration (SBA), DoD, and other federal agencies, to promote competition and 

make sure the laws on the books, including the NOAA, are followed. Third, it improves 

opportunities for small businesses to compete for subcontracts, and then to build on that 

experience to compete as prime contractors. This will further strengthen the industrial base. 

Fomih, it improves coordination between the SBA and DoD mentor-protege programs which 

help small businesses better serve our military. Finally, the bill implements common sense 

reforms to ensure integrity and accountability in small business programs, such as size standards, 

veterans contracting programs, and contracting officer training programs. These provisions will 

reduce fraud and open up our supply chains to greater small business participation. We'll now 

discuss each of these themes in greater detail. 

II. Modernizing the Small Business Act 

Title I of H.R. 4341 focuses on improving transparency and clarity for small businesses, but 

transparency and clarity will also benefit DoD contracting officers, policymakers, and program 

managers. Each ofthe four sections of Title I will benefit us all. 

a. Sec. 10 I, Plain language rewrite of requirements for small business procurements 

Section 101, the plain language rewrite of requirements for small business procurements, is a 

good example of why these refonns are necessary. This section replaces the cunent section 15 

(a) ofthe Small Business Act (the Act). Section 15(a) currently addresses contract bundling, 

surplus property, sales of government supplies, use of size standards, timber sales and promoting 

small business competition in one paragraph. These run-on sentences are difficult for lawyers to 

parse, let alone small contractors or contracting officers. Additionally, the statutory language 

predated the creation of the Federal Acquisition Regulations, which standardized procurement 

terminology. While Title X of the United States Code has been updated to reflect the uniform 

names, the Act has not been which makes it more confusing. 

The Committee worked closely with outside groups to translate the current language into a 

comprehensible set of principles without changing the underlying meaning of the statute. 

Indeed, the only change that did not address the plain language issues came as an amendment to 

address a complaint shared by small businesses and agencies ~that size standards do not reJ1ect 

how the government does business. Currently, section 3(a) ofthe Act requires that SBA set size 

standards according to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. 

Unfortunately, the NAICS system is meant to address broad sectors of the economy, and does 

not distinguish between an infonnation technology (IT) help desk and a company providing 

cutting edge cybersecurity company. The amendment would clarify that when the government's 

requirements and buying practices diverge from the NAICS system, SBA should create 
33 

alternative size standards. This will make it easier for DoD to reach specialized small 

contractors and Jill gaps in the industrial base. 

b. Sec. 102. Improving reporting on small business goals 

Based up on H.R. 4330, Improving Contract Procurement for Small Business Through More 

Accurate Reporting Act of2016 introduced by Rep. Yvette Clarke and Rep. Carlo Curbelo, 

section 102 amends section 15(h) of the Act to increase transparency in goaling. 5 The Act 

already sets goals for the awards of prime contracts and subcontracts to small businesses and 

various subcategories of small businesses. Further, the Act requires that SBA report annually on 

how well the federal government is doing in meeting its goals. The section requires that the SBA 

begin reporting two new pieces of information for each goal: ( 1) the value of contracts credited 

to each goal if the contract is being performed by a company that is no longer small or no longer 

qualifies for that procurement program; and (2) the value of contracts credited to each small 

business goal if a set aside or sole source program for a different goal was used for the award. 

These two pieces of infonnation should prove invaluable. The Jirst will allow the SBC and 

DoD's Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy (MlBP) to track what happens to 

small business success stories. This will give us a better picture of how these program promote 

growth and sustainability, but will have the added benefit of making it easier to catch fraud and 

abuse ofthe procurement program. The second change will give Congress better insight into 

which programs are most successful and which are failing to achieve their objectives. For 

example, the SBC has been told that the majority of awards coded as going to companies in 

historically underutilized business zones (HUBZones) are actually awarded using the 

procurement program for socially and economically disadvantaged businesses (the 8(a) 

program). As each program has different objectives and different requirements, the fact that 

SBA takes equal credit for a contract awarded to an 8(a) program participant that is by 

happenstance also a HUBZone small business as it does for a contract targeted to the HUBZone 

program leaves it unclear as to which objectives are being realized. Section 102 will address this 

confusion. 

c. Sec. 103. Transparency in small business goals 

Section 103 is based upon H.R. 4329, the Transparency in Small Business Goaling Act of2016 

introduced by Rep. Judy Chu and Rep. Trent Kelly. 6 It amends section 15(g) of the Act to 

ensure that the goals established by the Act are measured against the total contract dollars spent 

that year rather than allowing SBA to exclude up to 20 percent of all spending. Despite 

provisions in the FY13 NOAA that required SBA to reissue its goaling guidelines, four years 

later the only change that has been made involves credit for overseas contracting. SBA's partial 

5 For more infOrmation on the SBC's \Vork on the goaling program and the basis for this legislative provision, please 

sec the SBC Memorandum Continuing Challengesfor Small Contractors (2015) available at 

http://smhiz.house.gov/uploadediiles/11-18-20 15 _hearing_merno.pdf. 6 !d. at 3. 
34 

implementation targets DoD, Department of State and United States Agency for International 

Development contracts, but continues to allow agencies like the General Services 

Administration, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury and others to 

continue excluding over half their contract dollars from the goaling base far in excess of what 

DoD ever excluded. The FY 13 NDAA changes were not intended to target DoD while allowing 

civilian agencies to continue manipulating the numbers, and section I 03 ensures that the 

agencies are treated equally. 

d. Sec. I 04. Unifom1ity in procurement tem1inology 

This fourth section is based upon the Unifying Small Business Terminology Act of2016 

introduced by Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez. Like section 10 I, it amends portions of the 

Act so that the same terms are given the same meaning in the Act as they are given in Titles I 0 

and 41 of the United States Code. Specifically, this section updates sections J(m) and l5U) of 

the Act. SBA has already begun using the updated terminology in its own regulation when 

referring to procurement rules, so this harmonization will not change the implementation of any 

programs. 

IIT.Clarifying the Roles of Small Business Advocates 

There are two principle types of advocates who help small businesses pursue and perfonn federal 

contracts and subcontracts. First, there are those within the SBA, and then there are also those at 

other federal agencies. Some are statutorily established positions, and others are only referenced 

in the Small Business Act (the Act) without a clear explanation of their roles and responsibilities. 

Those within SBA include the Procurement Center Representatives (PCRs), the Commercial 

Market Representatives (CMRs), and the Business Opportunity Specialists (BOSs), while at 

DoD and other agencies there are Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 

(OSDBU). 7 Unfortunately, the statutory roles and responsibilities of these long standing 

programs have not always been adequately addressed or modernized to keep pace with 

procurement reform. Title II of H.R. 4341 addresses these issues with five provisions. 

a. Sec. 20 I. Duties of procurement center representatives with respect to reviewing 

solicitations 

Section 201 is based upon H.R. 4332 Maximizing Small Business Competition Act of2015, 

introduced by Rep. Trent Kelly.8 It amends section 15(1) ofthe Act to remedy a problem that 

prevents SBA's procurement center representatives from reviewing consolidated contracts if the 

contract was set aside or partially set aside for small businesses, even if the acquisition strategy 

harmed the ability of small businesses to compete for contracts. Current regulations are 

7 The OSDBU onice at DoD is referred to as the Oflice of Small Business Programs. 

s For more information on the issue of the PCR ·s limited ability to revic\Y solicitations. please sec SBC 

Memorandum Success: 6 (2015) available at 
35 

inadvertently encouraging large set-aside awards to a small number of companies instead of 

fulfilling Congress's intent that the small business programs foster a healthy industrial base. 

Indeed, recent contracts have excluded small manufacturers, resulting resellers winning awards 

despite the fact that they had higher prices. This misuses of the Act needs to be addressed. 

b. Sec. 202. Responsibilities of Commercial Market Representatives 

This section is based upon H.R. 4198, the Commercial Market Representatives Clarification Act 

introduced by Rep. David Brat. 9 It amends section 4(h) of the Act to provide a clear definition of 

the CMR program and enumerate the CMR's principle duties. Currently, the Act references the 

CMR and provides educational requirements, but does not explain the actual role of the CMR. 

SBA's Standard Operating Procedures have not kept pace with statutory changes, so they also 

fail to explain how the CMR should help small businesses compete for subcontracts. These 

changes will prioritize the key functions already performed by the CMR to promote a healthy 

supplier base. 

c. Sec. 203. Duties of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 

Section 203 is based upon H.R. 4326, the Small and Disadvantaged Business Enhancement Act 

of2016, introduced by Rep. Alma Adams and Rep. Cresent Hardy. 10 It amends section 15(k) of 

the Act to allow the OSDBU to review agency purchases made using government credit cards to 

ensure compliance with the Small Business Act. The SBC learned last year that in one agency 

over $6 billion in such purchases were made without regard to statutory requirements, but the 

OSDBU office remained unaware of the fraud. Additionally, this section furthers the 

Committee's long-standing commitment to parity between the SBA's federal contracting 

programs by addressing an oversight that limited the ability ofOSDBU to assist participants in 

all small business programs. 

d. Sec. 204. fmproving contractor compliance 

Section 204 is based upon H.R. 4331, the Small Business Easy Contract Compliance 

Enhancement and List Act of 2016, introduced by Rep. Cresent Hardy and Rep. Alma Adams. 11 

It amends sections 15 and 45 of the Act, and section 831 of National Defense Authorization Act 

9 For more information on the issue of the CMRjob description. 

Empmwring Small Business Advocates 3(2015) available at hltJQ: !;;JJJ.b_iLJ.l\2]1;;,;~..g_c>.lJJlJ2!!1?_Q£S)j.i_l~i/Ll~L~.: 

2015 hearin~ mcmo.ru,!f 1

° For more infOrmation on the issue of credit card fraud and the small business programs, please see SBC 

Memorandum Manipulation and Fraud in the 's Contracting Goals (2015) available at 

(2015) 

For information on the challenges facing the 

Empmvering Small Bu:s·iness Advocates 5 

11 For more on the issue Supporting Success: 

Empowering Small Business Advocates at http://smbiz.housc.gov/uploadedi1lcs/l1 ~ 18-

2015 hearing~ memo. pdf and the statement of Angela Styles on behalf of the Defense Industry Initiative on 

Business Ethics and Conduc1 (2015) available at http://smbiz.house.gov/uploadedfiles/12-09-

20 15 _styles JulUestimony.pdf. 
36 

for Fiscal Y car 1991, to improve opportunities for small contractors attempting to navigate 

federal contracting regulations. While there are no-cost compliance assistance programs 

available for these companies, the companies themselves are often unaware of the resources. As 

a consequence, otherwise qualified small contractors avoid or are excluded from participating in 

the defense industrial base. This section directs PCRs, OSDBUs, mentors in approved mentorprotege programs and other small business advocates to help small businesses find these free 

resources, including the Small Business Development Centers, Procurement Technical 

Assistance Centers, Women's Business Centers and the training available from the Defense 

Industry Initiative of Business Ethics and Conduct. 

e. Sec. 205. Responsibilities of the Business Opportunity Specialists 

Offered by Ranking Member Velazquez as an amendment, section 205 addresses many of the 

same issues as sections 20 I, 202, and 203 did for the PCRs, CMRs, and OSDBUs. 12 BOS have 

responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the 8(a) contracting program- a program 

that exceeded $9 billion in awards last year. 13 BOS arc the government's defense against waste, 

fraud and abuse in these programs, and SBA's unwillingness to properly staff and train the BOS 

has led to over $115 million in 8(a) contracts being awarded to companies that are not 8(a) 

finns. 14 Section 205 will put the proper controls and oversight on this program, to ensure that 

program participants are given the assistance they are promised while meeting the needs of 

taxpayers, contracting officers, and the warfighter. 

IV. Strengthening Opportunities for Competition in Subcontracting 

Last week, a representative of the DoD Office of the Inspector General (TG) testified before the 

SBC's Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce. 15 The DoD IG reported on two audits of 

Marine Corps contracting activities, where they found that the laws on small business 

subcontracting are being violated. While only two contracting offices, these audits rcaffinncd 

the information frequently heard at SBC. 16 The president of the Association of Procurement 

Technical Assistance Centers also con finned that these violations are widespread, and agreed 

that the reforms in H.R. 4341 are a good step to addressing the problems. 17 

12 For more information on the issue of the IlOS job description, 

Empowering Small Business Advocates 3-4 (2015) available 

2015 hearing mcl]10.pdf. 

13/d. 

II Id. 

15 See SBC Memorandum Hotline Truths: Issues Raised by Recent Audits ofDefonse Contracting (2016) available 

at http:/ /smbiz.house.gov/uploadcdtiles/2-25-20 I 6 hearing_ mcmo.pdf. 16 For more infOrmation on the SBC's work on subcontractnig and the basis for this legislative provision. please sec 

the SBC Memorandum Continuing Challenges jar Small Contractors 5-14 (2015) available at 

http://smbiz.housc.gov/uploadedtilcs/ll-18-2015 _hcaringmcmo.pdC 17 Statement of Chuck Spence, President, Association of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers availahle at 

http://smbiz.house.gov/uploadedtiles/2-25-20 16 _spence _testimony .pdf 
37 

a. Sec. 301. Good faith in subcontracting 

Section 301 is based upon H.R. 4284, the Service Provider Opportunity Clarification Act of 

2015, introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo and Rep. Yvette Clarke. It an1ends section 8(d) of the 

Act to ensure that subcontracting goals are accurately reported and implements GAO 

recommendations on how goals are set. As previously documented by the SBC, the SBA has 

failed to unifonnly implement standards for its subcontracting programs. This disadvantages 

small businesses that are promised work as subcontractors, but it also places large contractors 

who comply with the law at a competitive disadvantage. Finally, it distorts the health of the 

supply chain, which ultimately places the warfighters at risk. Therefore, section 301 requires 

that SBA explain and unitonnly implement its subcontracting regulations. 

b. Sec. 302. Pilot program to provide opportunities for qualified subcontractors to obtain 

past performance ratings 

Section 302 is based upon JI.R. 4317, the Promoting Reliable Subcontractors Act as introduced 

by Rep. Richard Hanna and Rep. Mark Takai. Recognizing that one ofthe best ways to 

strengthen the industrial base is to improve the ability of subcontractors to ultimately compete 

for prime contracts, this section amends section 8( d) of the Act to add three year pilot progran1. 

The pilot program would voluntarily allow small subcontractors and their large prime contractors 

to award past performance ratings to subcontractors. 

V. Mentor-Protege Programs 

Mentor-Protege programs are intended to partner small businesses with established mentors in 

order to improve the protege's ability to win and successfully perform on contracts and 

subcontracts. 18 However, as the FYI6 NDAA found, there are frequently issues with 

implementation of these programs. These include problems ensuring that the beneficiaries of the 

programs are small businesses, that the programs themselves are effective, and that programs run 

by SBA, the civilian agencies and DoD remain complementary rather than duplicative. Section 

IV addresses these concerns and is based upon H.R. 4322, the Mentor-Protege Cooperation 

Reform Act, introduced by Rep. Steve Knight and Rep. Judy Chu. 

a. Sec. 401. Amendments to the Mentor-Protege Program of the Department of Defense 

Section 401 amends section831 of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 to 

allow the Department of Defense to rely upon SBA's Office of Hearings and Appeals to make 

size determinations. Otherwise, due to changes in last year's bill, DoD will be torced to develop 

an internal capacity to determine business size status. This would be duplicative and 

18 For more information on the issues ·with mentor-protege programs, please see SBC Memorandum ,Uaximi:::ing 

Mentoring (2015) available at http://smbiz.house.gov/uploadedfiles/1 0-27-2015~ hearing~ memo.pdf. 
38 

burdensome for DoD, and risks a situation where DoD and SBA arrive at different answers for 

the same businesses. This is an area where our two Committee's share jurisdiction, and this is a 

common sense solution. 

b. Sec. 402. Improving cooperation between the mentor-protege programs of the Small 

Business Administration and the Department of Defense 

Section 402 amends the section 45 of the Act to ensure coordinate between the Department of 

Defense Mentor-Protege program and the SBA's Mentor-Protege program, including the sharing 

of data and measures of success. The FY 13 NDAA already implemented these provisions for the 

civilian agencies. As GAO has repeatedly pointed out, there is no standard definition of success 

for mentor-protege programs. Instead, DoD relies upon whether the protege receives more work, 

but given that its mentor company receives credit or reimbursement for using the protege, it 

doesn't address whether there are sustainable improvements in the protege firm that ultimately 

make the small business more competitive. Section 402 seeks to answer that question. 

VI. Miscellaneous 

Title V of H.R. 4341 is a collection of strong ideas that did not fit elsewhere in the bill. These 

seven ideas have all been examined by the SBC, and deserve support. 

a. Sec. 50 I. Improving education on small business regulations 

Section 50 l is based upon H.R. 4337, Education for Contracting Personnel Improvement Act of 

2016, introduced by Rep. Grace Meng and Rep. Richard Hanna. It amends section 15 of the Act 

to require the SBA to annually share a list of regulatory changes affecting small business 

contracting with the entities responsible for training contracting personnel, including the Defense 

Acquisition University and the Federal Acquisition Institute. It also requires that those changes 

be shared \vith groups providing assistance to small businesses, including the Small Business 

Development Centers, the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, and others. This ensures 

that contracting agencies and small contractors have up-to-date information on rules and 

regulations. Given that the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council has taken more than 7 years 

to implement some statutory changes, this provision is essential. 

b. Sec. 502. Protecting task order competition 

This section amends 41 U.S.C. § 41 06(t) to allow protests of task orders exceeding $10 million if 

the contracts are awarded by civilian agencies. Otherwise, this provision will expire in 

September 2016, leaving only Department of Defense task order open to protests. The provision 

referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Refonn, who have already agreed to 

this provision. 
39 

c. Sec. 503. Improvements to size standards for small agricultural producers 

This section is based upon H.R. 3714, the Small Agriculture Producer Size Standards 

Improvements Act of 2015 as introduced by Rep. Mike Bost and Rep. Grace Meng. It amends 

sections 3( a) and 18(b) of the Act to allow SBA to establish individual size standards for small 

agricultural producers following the same process used for all other industries. Otherwise, the 

size standards will remain at the statutorily-set $750,000. This number, which was set almost 20 

years ago, cannot be adjusted for inflation without a legislative change. The size standard makes 

it harder for DoD and its prime contractors to receive credit for contracting with small fanns. 

d. Sec. 504. Uniformity in service-disabled veteran definitions 

This section is based upon H.R. 3945, the Improving Opportunities for Service-Disabled 

Veteran-Owned Small Businesses Act of 2015, introduced by Rep Cotfman, Rep. Chabot, Rep. 

Miller, Rep. Velazquez, Rep. Hanna, Rep. Connolly, Rep. Walorski and Rep. Moulton. It 

amends section 3(q) of the Small Business Act and 38 U.S.C. § 8127 to unifY the definitions and 

regulations applicable to the government-wide and Department of Veterans Affairs specific 

contracting programs for veterans and service-disabled veterans. The SBC and House 

Committee on Veterans' Affairs have held numerous hearings in support of this provision. 19 The 

Committee on Veterans' Affairs supports the inclusion of this provision. 

e. Sec. 505. GAO review of the Office of Government Contracting and Business 

Development of the Small Business Administration 

Section 505 is based upon H.R. 4340, the Small Business Contracting and Acquisition Programs 

Efficiency Act introduced by Rep. Aumua Amata Radewagen and Rep. Seth Moulton. It 

requires that the Government Accountability Office examine how SBA is organized to 

implement the contracting provisions of the Act. This was spurred by oversight hearings of the 

SBA that identified duplication and confusion with some functions, such as verification, but 

delays in addressing other critical needs, such as timely regulations 20 

f. Sec. 506. Required reports pertaining to capital planning and investment control. 

OfTered as an amendment during markup, section 506 addresses data security issues within SBA. 

These issues were uncovered during a series ofSBC hearings held in January of2016. 21 The 

19 See, e.g.. SBC Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce and Committee on Veterans· Atlairs Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations, Joint Hearing: An Examination of Continued in VA ·s Vets First 

Verification Process (Nov. 4, 2014) available 

2015 hearing mcmo.pdf 20 See SBC Memorandum, SEA Management Review: Office of Government Contracts and Business Development 

(2016) available at http:l/smbiz.house.gov/uploadedlilcs/2-3-16 .hearing memo. pdf. 21 See SBC Memorandum, Attention Needed: Mismanagement at SEA (2016) available at 

http://smbiz.house.gov/uploadedfiles/ l-06-20 16_ memo. pdf. 
40 

legislative provision requires that SBA provide the SBC with copies of reports it already 

prepares on these issues. 

g. Sec. 507. GAO review of surety bonds 

Rep. Steve King offered section 507 as an amendment during markup. This section requires that 

the Comptroller General review the usc of surety bonds in small business procurements. 

Specifically, the study seeks to uncover whether greater use of bonds would better protect 

taxpayers. 

Vll. Other Issues 

In addition to the provisions included in H.R. 4341, the SBC is working to reauthorize the Small 

Business Innovation Research Program and the entrepreneurial development programs of the 

Act. These program further complement Chairman Thornberry's work on procurement reform 

by ensuring that high quality small business research and development projects continue to 

flourish at DoD, and that SBA is effectively introducing the next generation of entrepreneurs to 

the opportunities afforded by federal contracting. Bother provisions strengthen the industrial 

base, and enjoy bipartisan support. The SBC anticipates marking these provisions up in March, 

and will continue to communicate with HASC on these issues. 

VIII. Conclusion 

In conclusion, we all agree that our nation deserves vital small business industrial base: It IS 

fundamental to the health of our nation as a whole. We look forward to working with this 

Committee to ensure that small businesses remain continue to provide the Department of 

Defense and the federal government with innovative and competitive solutions to support critical 

programs. We'd be happy to answer any questions. 
41 

Member Testimony Submission 

Congressman Keith Rothfus (PA-12) 

House Armed Services Committee 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

March 1, 2016 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for holding this hearing today and for receiving my testimony on the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017. In an increasingly dangerous world, there is no 

greater constitutional responsibility of Congress than "provid[ing) for the common defence" of our 

nation. Yet, meeting this obligation has become increasingly difficult in recent years due to 

avoidable and unnecessary fiscal constraints. 

It is a result of these constraints that our military bas been forced to implement policies like the 

Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative (or "ARI"), which I have long opposed. As you may recall, I 

have appeared before this Committee each year since ARI was first proposed to raise the alarm that 

the plan is dangerous, shortsighted, and will significantly harm our national security. 

Specifically, ARI will have devastating impacts on the National Guard, stripping it of its Apache 

helicopters and ensuring that it will be less combat-ready and less able to provide operational 

depth. It will also deprive our nation of an operational reserve for these aircraft, which is essential 

to the retention and management of talented aircrews. Post-9 /11, the National Guard has become 

a highly experienced and capable combat force. Yet, ARI represents a fundamental shift in the 

nature and role of the National Guard and runs counter to the wisdom and preference of many 

members of Congress and their constituents. 

This conclusion is bolstered by the recent report and recommendations offered by the National 

Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA). l joined my colleagues in urging this Committee to 

create the NCFA to offer a deliberate assessment of the proper size and force mixture of our armed 

forces. The NCFA was specifically directed to address ARI, and after extensive discussion and 

analysis, the commission soundly rejected the Army's plan. 

Instead, the NCFA proposed an alternative plan to maintain four National Guard Apache battalions 

equipped with eighteen aircraft each. The plan also proposes to add two Black Hawk battalions to 
42 

the National Guard. In the commission's opinion, this offers "significant advantages" relative to ARI 

by providing greater wartime capacity, improved operating tempo, higher wartime surge capacity, 

and contributing to a key goal of "achieving one Army that works and trains together in peacetime 

and, if necessary, fights together in war." 

Last year, I fought to ensure that the Army could not move forward with ARI until the NCFA had 

completed its work and Congress had sufficient opportunity to consider the commission's report 

and recommendations. That time now has come; Congress must act. We must finally put an end to 

ARI, implement the well-thought-out recommendations of the NCFA, and retain a minimum of four 

Apache battalions in the National Guard. 

Of course, the question remains how these aviation assets will be distributed, and there are some 

who argue that the battalions should be located in single states. I would caution against that 

approach and instead point to the many positive benefits that come from multi-state units, such as 

the agreement that was reached between my home state of Pennsylvania and South Carolina. 

Similar agreements have been reached between Texas and Mississippi and between Arizona and 

Missouri. Under the terms of such agreements, one state would retain a battalion headquarters and 

two companies of Apaches; the other state would retain the remaining company. 

By expanding the footprint of the Apache battalions, the National Guard will maximize its ability to 

recruit and retain talented pilots and crew from different regions of the United States. Multi-state 

units will also ensure that National Guard companies can regularly participate in collective training 

and maintenance with the Regular Army, thereby advancing the Army's objective for Total Force 

integration. Finally, multi-state units will provide strategic "grow-back" depth in the National 

Guard should the need arise in the future to reestablish additional Apache battalions, such as the 1-

104th, that have been disbanded. While addressing current fiscal constraints is important, we must 

proceed in such a way that will maximize our readiness and ability to surge in times of war. 

Time and again, the brave members of the National Guard have risen to the occasion and heeded 

the call to defend our nation, both at home and abroad. By taking the steps that I have identified 

here today, we in Congress can ensure that they may continue to do so for years to come. 
43 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning, and I am happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 
44 

Congressman Rick Crawford 

Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: 

EOD Priorities for the FY2017 NOAA 

Good morning Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member 

Smith, and distinguished members of the Committee. 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 priorities for the Fiscal Year 2017 

National Defense Authorization Act. I served in the Army as an 

EOD tech and am proud to be a co-founder, along with 

Committee member Susan Davis, of the House EOD Caucus. 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal 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 

forces have proven to be game changers in attacking and 

dismantling terrorist cells and associated networks. They support 

counterterrorism operations, build the capacity of partner nations, 

and protect the homeland by supporting civilian law enforcement 

agencies at federal, state and local levels. 

In the homeland, 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. We 

note that the civil authority public safety bomb squads are not 

trained to render-safe military munitions. Render-safe is done 

solely by our military EOD tactical units. These EOD units 

provide highly technical defense support to civilian law 
45 

enforcement agencies but they do not perform law enforcement 

activities. 

With respect to the Army's capability to conduct unified land 

operations, we have concern that the Army has been quietly 

duplicating roles, responsibilities and mission sets of its EOD 

force into that of the Chemical force. Briefly, the Army Chemical 

Corps has taken credit, along with senior Army leadership, for the 

EOD force's accomplishments over the last fifteen years. In order 

to justify increasing and preserving Chemical force structure, they 

have waived a banner of "the all hazards CBRNE force for 

conducting weapons of mass destruction- elimination". 

Actually, it is the EOD formations that provide scalable and 

tailorable mission command. Tactical EOD units conduct 

weapons defeat, weapons disablement, and weapons disposal 

activities in the Joint Force commanders' combating weapons of 

mass destruction elimination operations. The recent report by the 

National Commission on the Future of the Army notes the 

significant value of EOD forces in the theater structure and further 

cites the 30,000 Department of Army Civilians necessary to 

enable EOD units in theaters of operations. 

We concluded that the Army had re-balanced the EOD force. 

However, the Army states that they will now decrement the active 

component EOD force by an additional 877 Soldiers, or even 

more. But the Army will only cut the active component Chemical 

force by a total of sixteen Soldiers, all while the Army busy is 

cutting entire Brigade Combat Teams. 
46 

We observe that the Army's Chemical Corps units have not 

deployed to any of the theaters of operations in the last 15 years 

to conduct their primary mission of passive chemical defense 

operations- reconnaissance, decontamination, and smoke. In 

that time, we have witnessed significant mission failure such as 

shipping live anthrax and unauthorized use of contractors to 

respond to improvised explosive devices at Dugway Proving 

Grounds; release of live chemical agents at Toole Depot; and 

numerous chemical and explosive safety violations at Edgewood 

Area of Aberdeen Proving Grounds; and more. 

Therefore, the EOD caucus provides for your consideration 

proposed language for 10 United State Code, Chapter 307 - The 

Army, §3063(a)(10) strike "Chemical Corps" and insert "Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal Corps" as a basic branch of the Army. 

On a positive note, I applaud the Chairman and Ranking 

Member's personal interest in streamlining the Department of 

Defense processes for research, development and acquisition 

(RD&A); however, I remain concerned about achieving major 

cost-savings while gaining substantial efficiencies with respect to 

EOD research, development and acquisition. 

The Secretary of Defense has designated the Secretary of the 

Navy as the single manager for common EOD Technology and 

Training. This was a 1970s solution set that no longer serves the 

EOD force. I'll highlight an example. 

The go-to EOD tool for rendering safe improvised explosive 

devices (such as those used during the Boston bombings) is the 
47 

percussion actuated neutralization (PAN) disrupter. The Services' 

respective EOD forces identify their common requirement to the 

Navy, which then adopts the requirement into the Navy program. 

Each of the Services must then go back to their own Service's 

requirements process and further identify the requirement, then 

further complete this common EOD requirement within their 

respective Service for acquisition. 

Cutting to the chase, the first organizations to acquire the 

Department of Defense developed PAN disrupter were actually 

civil authority public safety bomb squads for use on improvised 

explosive devices, followed by the Navy EOD, Marine Corp EOD, 

Air Force EOD units and at last, the Army. It took the Army over 

ten years to field PAN Disrupters to their EOD units. 

This is not what the committee envisions as streamlined and I will 

offer language for the committee's consideration. Briefly, this 

language establishes a fully joint EOD program, with the Navy as 

executive agent, for the Department of Defense to coordinate and 

integrate RD&A for EOD defense programs. 

The Secretary of the Army provided the committee a brief in 

November 2015, on the Army EOD force. I have closely 

monitored the Army Training and Doctrine Command's 

(TRADOC) studies on reorganization of EOD force structure, 

EOD force modernization, and establishing an Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal Corps as a basic branch of the Army. 

Today, the good news is that the TRADOC has established 

a capability manager for EOD at the Combined Arms Support 
48 

Command at Fort Lee, Virginia for the purpose of integrating EOD 

force modernization across all of the Army's Centers of 

Excellence. 

However, I remain concerned on the Army's efforts to establish, 

and fully resource, both the EOD qualified Colonel led - TRADOC 

Capability Manager for EOD and the EOD qualified, Brigadier 

General Officer led- Commandant, U.S. Army EOD School to 

ensure health and viability of the Army EOD force. 

Therefore, the EOD caucus provides for your consideration 

proposed directive language requiring the Secretary of the Army 

to provide the committee a briefing and report on the Army EOD 

Branch proponent not later than December 1, 2016 to the 

committee. 

As the committee examines legislation refinement for our Nation's 

defense, I feel that there are a number of issues that we can 

address in this year's NOAA that can help strengthen our 

preeminent military explosive experts. As you draft the NOAA, 

please consider including language that: 

1. Enact the EOD Caucus' proposed language on Title 10 United 

States Code, Chapter 307- The Army, §3063(a)(10) strike 

"Chemical Corps" and insert "Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Corps" as a basic branch of the Army 

2. Enact the EOD Caucus' proposed language on Title 50 United 

States Code, Chapter 57 - Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Program, §4701 to §4702. 
49 

3. Publish directive report language using the EOD Caucus 

proposed language for the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

brief and report on the Army EOD Branch Proponent not later 

than December 1, 2016 to the committee. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present my testimony 

today. I look forward to working with the Committee in the near 

future to craft legislation that supports the critical Joint Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal Forces in their mission to defend the 

homeland and our interests aboard. I remain available to the 

Committee for further assistance on EOD matters, and I thank 

you for your consideration. 
50 

U.S. Code: Title 50- WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE 

Added: 

"50 U.S. Code Chapter 57 -Explosive Ordnance Disposal Program (§4701 to 

§4702) 

§4701 -Conduct of the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Defense Program 

(a) General 

The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the military explosive ordnance disposal 

defense program of the United States in accordance with this section. 

(b) Management and Oversight In carrying out his responsibilities under this section, 

the Secretary of Defense shall do the following: 

(1) Assign responsibility for overall coordination and integration of the explosive 

ordnance disposal defense program to a single office within the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense. 

(2) Take those actions necessary to ensure close and continuous coordination 

between the military departments on the explosive ordnance disposal defense program. 

(3) Exercise oversight over the explosive ordnance disposal defense program 

through the Defense Acquisition Board process. 

(c) Coordination of Program 

(1) The Secretary of Defense shall designate the Navy as executive agent for the 

Department of Defense to coordinate and integrate research, development, test, and 

evaluation, and acquisition, requirements of the military departments for explosive 

ordnance disposal defense programs of the Department of Defense. The military 

departments may conduct research, development and acquisition for Service unique 

EOD requirements. 

(2) The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency may 

conduct a program of basic and applied research and advanced technology 

development on explosive ordnance disposal defense technologies and systems. In 

conducting such program, the Director shall seek to avoid unnecessary duplication of 

the activities under the program with explosive ordnance disposal defense activities of 

the military departments and defense agencies and shall coordinate the activities under 

the program with those of the military departments and defense agencies. 
51 

(d) Funding 

(1) The budget for the Department of Defense for each fiscal year, beginning in 

fiscal year 2018, shall reflect a coordinated and integrated explosive ordnance disposal 

defense program for the Department of Defense. 

(2) Funding requests for the program (other than for activities under the program 

conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under subsection (c)(2) 

of this section) shall be set forth in the budget of the Department of Defense for each 

fiscal year as a separate account, with a single program element for each of the 

categories of research, development, test, and evaluation, acquisition, and military 

construction. Amounts for military construction projects may be set forth in the annual 

military construction budget. Funds for military construction for the program in the 

military construction budget shall be set forth separately from other funds for military 

construction projects. Funding requests for the program may not be included in the 

budget accounts of the military departments. 

(3) The program conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

under subsection (c)(2) of this section shall be set forth as a separate program element 

in the budget of that agency. 

(4) All funding requirements for the explosive ordnance disposal defense 

program shall be reviewed by the Secretary of the Navy as executive agent pursuant to 

subsection (c) of this section. 

(e) Management Review and Report 

(1) The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a review of the management 

structure of the Department of Defense explosive ordnance disposal defense program, 

including-

(A) research, development, test, and evaluation; 

(B) procurement; 

(C) doctrine development; 

(D) policy; 

(E) training; 

(F) development of requirements; 
52 

(G) readiness; and 

(H) risk assessment. 

(2) Not later than May 1, 2018, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 

that describes the details of measures being taken to improve joint coordination and 

oversight of the program and ensure a coherent and effective approach to its 

management. 

§4702- Definitions 

(a) Explosive Ordnance: 

(1) This includes bombs and warheads; 

(2) guided and ballistic missiles; 

(3) artillery, mortar, rocket and small arms munitions; 

(4) all mines, torpedoes, and depth charges; 

(5) demolition charges; 

(6) pyrotechnics; 

(7) clusters and dispensers; 

(8) cartridge and propellant actuated devices; 

(9) electro-explosive devices; 

(10) clandestine and improvised explosive devices; and 

(11) all munitions containing explosives, nuclear fission or fusion 

materials, and biological and chemical agents. 

(b) Explosive Ordnance Disposal: 

(1) The detection; 

(2) identification; 
53 

(3) field evaluation; 

(4) defeat, disablement or rendering-safe; 

(5) recovery and exploitation; and 

(6) final disposal of unexploded ordnance. 

(b) Unexploded Ordnance: 

(1) Explosive ordnance which has been primed, fuzed, armed or otherwise 

prepared for action; and 

(2) which has been fired, dropped, launched, projected or placed in such a 

manner as to constitute a hazard to operations, installations, personnel or material; and 

(3) remains unexploded either through malfunction or design or for any 

other cause." 
54 

10 United State Code, Chapter 307- The Army, Section 3063 

(a) The Secretary of the Army may assign members of the Army to its branches. 

The basic branches are-

(10) Strike "Chemical Corps" and insert "Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

Corps"; 

SECTIONAL ANALYSIS: 

"Section 3063 (a) (13) such other basic branches as the Secretary considers 

necessary." This authorization permits the Secretary to establish additional 

basic branches. 

The Secretary of the Army has used this authorization to establish the additional 

basic branches such as the Special Forces Branch, Psychological Operations 

Branch, and Civil Affairs Branch; and the Acquisition Corps. 

The Army has studied establishing the Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) basic 

branch. However, the Logistics Corp's Ordnance Branch has demonstrated its 

continued reluctance to break away from tradition and commensurately resource 

this EOD Branch for responsibilities on ensuring explosives safety during 

development, testing, fielding, handling, storage, defeat, disablement (renderingsafe) and disposal of munitions. 

The recent National Commission on the Future of the Army Report (January 28, 

2016) highlighted that the Army, as part of the theater structure for sustained 

unified land operations, provides Explosive Ordnance Disposal capabilities to the 

other Services; has Executive Agent responsibilities for Explosives Safety 

Management and the Unexploded Ordnance Center of Excellence; and noted that 

some 30,000 Army civilians were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan to serve with 

Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams. 

Whereas the Army Chemical Corps has committed systemic safety violations by 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Corps led units involving 

anthrax (Dugway Proving Grounds), chemical ordnance (Toole Depot) and 

explosives (Aberdeen Proving Grounds) over the past two decades. 

The Army Chemical Corps has failed to pursue the use of contracting private 

sector chemical engineers and hazardous material specialists to rapidly augment 

performance of their primary mission -decontamination, for the Army's theater 

structure. Instead they have pursued assimilating EOD mission sets into the 

Chemical Corps to justify Chemical force structure and garner EOD funding for 
55 

Chemical Corps use. The root cause of this shortfall is designation of the 

Chemical Corps as a basic branch outside of the Army's Logistics Corps. 

The Army Chemical Corps' Soldiers do not demilitarize chemical weapons 

stockpiles, of either the United States or foreign governments; they do not 

conduct weapons of mass destruction elimination operations (defeat, disable 

(rendering-safe) and disposal activities; however, the Army Chemical Corps is 

manned, trained and equipped to conduct passive chemical defense operations. 

It is notable that none of the Army Chemical units have deployed to Afghanistan 

or Iraq to perform their primary missions of reconnaissance, decontamination or 

smoke operations. (SEE attached "Relevance of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps" 

study). Although the Army is drawing down its Active Component force structure, 

none of the Active Component chemical units are scheduled for draw-down. 

Additionally, none of the Army Chemical Corps Institutional organizations have 

been decremented, nor has the Army provided the Congress the scheduled drawdown and closure of chemical demilitarization operations with anticipated 

personnel and cost savings. 

The decontamination capability is a key component of Defense CBRN Response 

Force (DCRF) and the Army should already have these emergency "surge" 

contracts in place for its Installation support (although the Chemical Corps units 

haven't physically deployed in two decades to perform chemical 

decontamination, they shouldn't be relied upon to be available for Installation 

support). Civil authorities may use the their own certified fire department or 

public safety hazardous material response teams; local contracted private sector 

capability; or use the Army's contracted decontamination capability (for 

Installation support) on a reimbursable basis. 

Actually, it is the Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal Corps that truly possess the 

documented (11,00 and growing classified technical manuals) knowledge, 

certified technical skills, innate attributes and several decades of operational 

experience with an impeccable safety record during dangerous operations to 

defeat, disable and dispose explosive ordnance with chemical, biological, 

radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives. 

10 U.S.C. Chapter 307, Section 3063 (a) (13) does authorize the Secretary of the 

Army, if deemed necessary, to designate a Chemical Corps. 
56 

NOAA for FY 2017 

TITLE X- GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

OTHER MATTERS 

Report on Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 

The committee has been closely monitoring proposed changes to the Army's Explosive 

Ordnance Disposal (EOD) force structure, force modernization and branch proponent 

for impacts upon capability and capacity to provide scalable and tailorable EOD mission 

command and EOD forces to conduct counter improvised explosive devices operations, 

counter unexploded ordnance operations and combating weapons of mass destruction 

elimination operations in support of the Army and Joint Force Commanders. 

The Secretary of the Army has recently informed the committee that the Training and 

Doctrine Command has established a capability manager for explosive ordnance 

disposal to integrate EOD force modernization activities across all of the Army's Centers 

of Excellence. However, the committee remains concerned that the Army has not 

clearly identified its future branch proponent requirements for an EOD Corps consisting 

of a fully integrated explosives ordnance disposal, ammunition and explosives safety 

basic branch. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a 

briefing and a report to the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2016, 

on the Army's EOD branch. At a minimum, the report shall include: 

(1) EOD officer development and career management program depicting key 

development assignments and key leadership positions from Lieutenant to that of 

Logistics Corps General Officer; 

(2) EOD officer and EOD senior non-commissioned officer standard of grade 

authorization requirements to fill the necessary positions throughout the institutional 

Army to ensure enduring health and viability of the EOD Branch; 

(3) Description of the Army EOD School Licensing process of EOD Soldiers; 

(4) Identification of joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational (JIIM) EOD 

Commissioned Officer and NCO positions; and 

(5) A cost-benefit analysis on any proposed realignment or relocation of EOD 

organization, force structure, training and branch proponent. 
57 

Testimony of Chairman Richard Hanna, 

Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce, Committee on Small Business 

Before the House Committee on Anned Services 

National Defense Priorities from Members for the FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act 

April9, 2014 

Good morning. Chairman McKeon, 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 around 450 people over time and 

successfully completed a myriad 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 a small business can grow into a large 

business. Construction contracting builds communities. 

However, there are a few areas where the federal government's policy on 

construction contracting hurts small businesses, taxpayers, and the agencies 

themselves. This is particularly important given the scope of federal 

construction contracting. Construction and architect & engineering (or, A&E) 

contracting represent about 1 in every 6 prime contract dollars awarded to 

small businesses. That was over $17 billion in prime contracts in fiscal year 

2012. 

Therefore, as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Contracting and the 

Workforce of the Small Business Committee, I've introduced two bills this 

Congress, and cosponsored a third bill, intended to bring some commonsense 

reform to this arena. I'll discuss them briefly, but want to ask you to include 

them in this year's National Defense Authorization Act. 

Page 1 of2 
58 

The first bill, H.R. 776, the Security in Bonding Act of2013, addresses 

surety bonding. As construction projects get larger, it becomes harder for 

small businesses to obtain the necessary bonding to bid on these projects. In 

these cases, they sometime 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 

agencies get a quality construction job, that taxpayers get what they pay for, 

and that small businesses get paid. 

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

and 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 Corps of 

Engineers demonstrated that it doesn't work for construction services 

contracts. Therefore, I introduced H.R. 2751, the Commonsense Construction 

Contracting Act of2013. This bill takes the lessons learned by the Corps 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 procurements. Given the cost of 

bidding for design build work, the two phase approach allows more small 

businesses to compete and saves the government money. Unfortunately, not 

all civilian agencies have learned from the Corps experience, so I have 

cosponsored H.R. 2750, the Design Build Efficiency and Jobs Act of2013. 

This bill encourages other agencies to adopt the policies in place at the Corps. 

While I encourage you to include all of the contracting bills recently 

marked up by the Small Business Committee, given the significance of 

construction contracting I hope that you will incorporate H.R. 776, H.R. 2750, 

and H.R. 2751 into this year's National Defense Authorization Act. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

Page 2 of2 
59 

Testimony of 

The Honorable Patrick Meehan (P A-07) 

Before the 

House Armed Services Committee 

Hearing: FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act Member Request Day 

2212 Rayburn HOB 

March 1, 2016 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee, I want to begin by 

thanking you tor holding this hearing. The Committee's support tor our national security is second to 

none, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to weigh in with what I believe is a pressing 

national security issue. 

The Marine Corps V-22 Osprey program has been involved in the most sophisticated combat 

operations since it became operational in2009, including the mission that led to the death ofOsama 

bin Laden. With its one-ot~a-kind ability to land like a helicopter and fly like a plane, it offers an 

unmatched flexibility for the warfighter. Marine commanders will tell you that the Osprey gives them 

unprecedented ability to move troops and materiel around the battlefield faster than ever before. 

The Osprey is constructed at Boeing's facility in Ridley Park, Delaware County and by Bell in your 

home district, Mr. Chairman, in Amarillo. It's purchased under a five-year contract that Congress 

authorized in Fiscal Year 2013. At that time, all four congressional defense committees- including 

this Committee- supported the contract. And for good reason. The contract saved nearly $1 billion 

over single-year contracts while giving predictability to the industry to drive further efficiencies and 

capabilities into the aircraft. Unfortunately, the President's Fiscal Year 2017 budget request 

unexpectedly reduced the procurement of Osprey aircraft by two airframes. 

Increased unit costs and termination liability could ultimately lead to additional and unnecessary 

costs for our taxpayers. The cut has the potential to jeopardize the workforce at the Boeing facility in 

Ridley- and it will take vital tools out of the hands of our battlefield commanders. 

The only reason for the reduction is a budget from the White House that doesn't meet the needs of 

our warfighters. It's why the Marine Corps requested the two aircraft be replaced in its annual 

unfunded priorities list, which was submitted to this Committee after the budget release. 

The V-22 Osprey has proven itself to be one of the most versatile aircraft in the Pentagon's 

inventory. Its success in action is a tribute to the men and women in uniform who fly the Osprey, and 

to the skill of the workforce in Ridley Park and Amarillo that produce it. 

Congress, and your respective committees in particular, have reliably demonstrated strong support 

for the V -22 program. I ask that your committee continue that steadfast approach by restoring two 

MV-22 airframes in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget. They're a good deal for our taxpayers, they support 

good-payingjobs, and they're an important tool for our men and women in the field. 

Thank you for your consideration. 
60 

COMMITTEE 00 

THE JUOICJARY 

The Honorable Mac Thornberry 

Chairman 

Armed Services Committee 

2216 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

March I, 2016 

Dear Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith: 

WASHiNGTON OFFICE: 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Armed Services Committee 

2216Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Next month will recognize the fifth anniversary of the death of my nephew, Harry Lew. Harry 

was determined to serve his country in any way be could. He enlisted in the Marine Corps and 

deployed to Afghanistan in 2011. My familyheamed with pride. We never could have imagined 

the tmgedy that would ensue. 

While in Afghanistan, he was the victim of military hazing. In the middle of the night, his fellow 

Marines took it upon themselves to administer so-called "corrective training" for almost four 

hours. They tormented, abused and degraded him. They forced him to perform useless, 

unnecessary exercises while he was clad in his full body armor, carrying a 25-pound sandbag. 

After they kicked, punched, and stomped on his back, they nearly smothered him with the 

contents of the sandbag. Twenty-two minutes after this torture, Harry took his own life, and my 

family was forever changed. 

Yet, Harry was not the only one. Over the years, I have heard stories of other servicemembers 

who also experienced hazing so arduous it led to their deaths. Private Danny Chen also served in 

Afghanistan in 2011. He was a victim of racially-based hazing. Like Harry, Danny took his own 

life. 

I have made it my mission to end hazing in our armed services because it is unacceptable and 

indefunsible. I worked to secure reports from the military branches in the 2013 National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA). The reports revealed the ovemll lack of reliable information and 

data on hazing, including serious deficiencies in the tracking and treatment of hazing by the 

Department of Defense (DOD). 
61 

Therefore, I urged the committee to include language for a Government Accountability Office 

(GAO} report on the current status of hazing in the military in the 2015 National Defense 

Authorization Act With your assistance, this language was included and Congress received this 

report last month. Today, we have an independent analysis that found that DOD anti-hazing 

policy is not being implemented, training is unclear, and tracking systems are highly divergent 

and underdeveloped. 

More specifically, we learned that DOD is not aware ofthe extent to which the department's 

hazing policies have been implemented. In December 2015, DOD released an updated policy 

memorandum on hazing, but as GAO indicates, it does not go far enough to ensure that their 

policies are being implemented consistently and thoroughly. GAO underscored the need to better 

define hazing in order to teach servicemembers how to identify it. It emphasized the need to 

vastly improve the military services' tracking mechanisms, which are incomplete and 

inconsistent, preventing us from having the reliable data that would help determine root causes 

and propose real solutions. Lastly, the GAO indicates that the DOD has not evaluated the 

prevalence ofhrudng in a meaningful way. 

Given these objective findings, I request that as the House Armed Services Committee prepares 

the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, language is included to I) require DOD to submit 

an annual report to Congress to ensure anti-hazing policies are implemented consistently; 2) 

require DOD to improve existing training to help servicemembers better identifY and respond to 

hazing at all command levels; 3) mandate that DOD issue a department-wide h'Uidance on a 

comprehensive and consistent data collection system that includes information on protected 

classes such as race and religion; and 4) evaluate the prevalence of hazing through departmentwide surveys. Only when we have these changes in place can we truly begin to eliminate hazing 

in the military. 

Thank you Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for allowing me to discuss my 

legislative priorities for the 2017 NDAA. I urge Congress take action to eradicate hazing in the 

military. 
62 

Member Testimony Submission 

Congressman Scott Perry (PA-4) 

House Armed Services Committee 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 

March 2016 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee: 

Today, I focus my remarks on one decision of particular concern with many of our fellow 

Members of the House: the Army's proposed "Aviation Restructure Initiative" (ARI) and its 

negative impacts on our reserve component military. 

At the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly fifty percent of the Anny's total force 

was reserve component personnel; in fact, the Pennsylvania Army National Guard alone 

contributed more than 21,000 overseas deployments. To meet these needs, the National Guard 

has transitioned from a strategic reserve to a fully operational force. 

Unfortunately, the Army's proposed ARI will have devastating impacts on everything that the 

National Guard has achieved thus far. a fact that's supported by the recent report and 

recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA). My 

amendment in last year's NOAA prevented the Army Jrom moving forward with any restructure 

plans-including ARI-until after the NCF A released its report to Congress for with 

recommendations. Simply put, the NCF A rejected the ARI proposal after comparing it to a 

number of alternatives-- so, simply answered; we need to act upon this report and its 

recommendations. Now's the time to halt the ARI, and retain the tour Apache battalions in 

question in the National Guard. 

The Commission's recommendation offers "significant advantages" over ART- allowing tor 

greater wartime capacity, improved operating tempo, higher wartime surge capacity, and the key 

goal of "achieving One Army that works and trains together in peacetime and, if necessary, 

fights together in war." It also balances the force and provides for like components. If two more 

ARBs are needed, they should be maintained in the Guard based on cost and nearly every other 

metric Jrom arms inspection results to safety, to success in combat. 
63 

Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee 

Congressman Bruce Poliquin 

March 1, 2016 

Good Morning, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith and Members of the 

Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today about the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017. First and foremost, I would like to 

thank you for the important work you do. 

I am here today to discuss three topics that are very important to me and ask for your 

support for each of them. 

1. First, the Berry Amendment requires the Department of Defense to use domestically 

made products when available. Due to a decline in domestic athletic footwear 

manufacturing several years ago, the Pentagon stopped issuing Berry complaint athletic 

shoes to enlisted members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps upon their 

initial entry into the armed forces. 

But in recent years, New Balance-which employs 900 hardworking Mainers and 3,000 

workers across the United States- has risen to the challenge and invested heavily in 

producing Berry compliant athletic footwear right here on American soil. 

Congresswoman Niki Tsongas (D-MA) and I have been working hard to ensure that the 

Department of Defense utilizes these American made shoes, which are arguably some of 

the best athletic shoes in the market today. 

I urge you to include a proposal submitted by Congresswoman Tsongas that would 

ensure our men and women in uniform have access to the best American made athletic 

footwear available when they enter the United States Armed Forces. I respectfully 

request that you include this language in the committee mark. 

2. Second, I am extremely pleased that last year's NDAA authorized an additional DDG-51 

ship and also authorized the Navy to utilize Incremental Funding for procurement of 

that ship. The FY 2016 Omnibus provided a billion dollars of funding toward that 

authorized additional DDG-51, but left the balance of the ship's funding to be provided. 

These elite ships are the nation's frontline multi-mission surface combatants and are in 

heavy demand by Combatant Commanders due to their range of mission capabilities 

including expanded capability in Ballistic Missile Defense. Nearly 6,000 of the hardest 

working Americans build these ships in Bath, Maine. We must ensure that our Navy 

remains strong and these ships continue to be built. 

3. Third, today I introduced the Fair Treatment for our National Guard and Reservists Act. 

This common sense piece oflegislation restores the travel tax deduction for members of 

the National Guard and Reservists. These men and women leave their families once a 

month to spend weekends training. Under the current tax code, federal employees who 

travel more than 50 miles from their residence for non-reimbursable work related 
64 

travel can deduct those expenses from their taxes but our National Guard and Reserve 

Members must travel more than 100 miles to take advantage of that same tax 

deduction. This is unfair and wrong. 

4. We cannot expect these men and women to sacrifice 52 weekends a year away from 

their friends and family so that they are prepared to deploy domestically and abroad 

and not provide them with the same tax deductions that we offer other federal 

employees. This bill requests that the Secretary of Defense conduct a study and report 

to Congress on the travel expenses that our National Guardsmen and women and 

Reservists spend annually. I urge the committee to include this study in the NDAA so 

that we can know how much we are asking these men and women to financially 

sacrifice for their weekend long training. 

In closing, thank you for the important work you all do for our troops. Thank you for your 

time and consideration of these requests and I would be pleased to answer any questions 

you might have. 
65 

Testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) 

Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO) 

March 2, 2016 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of 

the Committee. I want to begin by thanking you for your steadfast 

commitment to our Nation's most pressing national security matters. In 

that vein, I want to highlight the growing stresses on and demands for 

United States Navy tactical aviation. 

As you know, the ongoing wartime operations against the Islamic 

State oflraq and the Levant (ISIL) have greatly increased the 

operational tempo of our tactical aircraft. The carrier based aircraft -

F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets, have been the backbone of our force 

projection and engagement. 

Last year the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) testified that his 

Navy faced a shortage of operational aircraft. This is commonly 

referred to as the tactical aviation shortfall. Congress - and your 

Committee led the way- addressing part of this challenge with added 

aircraft in Fiscal Year 2016. However, the President has not budgeted to 

take on the challenge more robustly in this year's budget. Only 2 Super 

Hornet aircraft were added in the OCO, in response to training and 

operational losses. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget shows a demand for 14 

more aircraft, but there still is a potential gap this year. 
66 

These actions taken to address the tactical aviation shortfall are not 

enough. That is why the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) will provide 

Congress with an "unfunded requirement" request for 12 additional 

Super Hornets above the President's Budget. There remains a shortfall 

of at least 36 Super Hornet aircraft. Given the critical capability that the 

Super Hornet provides for ongoing wartime operations, any shortfall is 

dangerous to the Navy's ability to project force throughout the world. 

This unfunded requirement request helps mitigate that shortfall, 

anticipating that the Navy will follow through on its promise to add 

aircraft in next year's budget deliberation. 

In years past, your committees have been incredibly responsive to 

the warfighter's most pressing needs. The budget and its unfunded 

requirement request demonstrate how important tactical aviation is to the 

Navy's mission. The Super Hornet is providing that critical capability 

today at the most affordable cost. 

I ask that you urgently consider the Navy's unfunded request and 

add 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to the President's Budget to address 

the tactical aviation shortfall and the warfighter's needs. 

I look forward to working with you throughout the year on this 

issue. Thank you for consideration of this request. 

We ask that you take into consideration the recent demands placed 

on Naval tactical aviation as you consider the President's Budget request 

for Fiscal Year 2017. 
67 

HASC- Member's Day 

National Defense Priorities from Members for the FY 

2017 National Defense Authorization Act 

(NOAA} 

I would first like to thank Chairman Thornberry, and Ranking Member Smith for the 

opportunity to testify today before the House Armed Services Committee, in regards to H.R. 

4341, the Defending America's Small Contractors Act. Particularly, I will be addressing Section 

505 ofTitle V of the bill, which I introduced on its own and has been included in H.R. 4341. 

As you may know, over the past decade, numerous reports issued by the SBA's Office of 

the Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have identified structural 

weaknesses in the SBA's, Office of Government Contracts and Business Development's 

oversight of personnel, and programs management & controls. 

Since FY 2014, 39% of all federal contract dollars have been awarded to small 

businesses, and in fulfilling its jurisdictional role, the House Small Business Committee is 

conducting oversight ofthe contracting programs run by the GCBD. However, because the 

responsibility for implementing many of the programs rests outside of GCBD, and GCBD having 

limited influence over those responsible for the day-to-day operations of the program, the 

opportunity for waste, fraud and abuse is prevalent. 

Meanwhile, regulation implementing statutory changes, intended to help small 

businesses are taking three or more years to implement. Furthermore many of the 

organizations within GCBD conduct duplicative activities; leaving open the possibility of greater 

inefficiencies and more bureaucracy for small businesses seeking to compete in the federal 

marketplace. 

Due to their importance, these issues were recently the topic of a hearing conducted by 

the House Small Business Committee's Subcommittee on Contracting and Workforce. 

As a result of the hearing and subsequent data, I introduced the Small Business 

Contracting and Acquisition Programs Efficiency Act, or SB CAPE Act, which has become Section 

505 ofTitle V of H.R. 4341, the Defending America's Small Contractors Act. 
68 

Specifically, Section 505 requires GAO to: 

Examine the extent to which SBA personnel who carry out certain procurement and 

business development programs report to the OGCBD, 

• Determine whether greater efficiency and consistency in the certification process of the 

procurement and business development programs could be achieved by creating a 

single organizational unit of employees to process all certifications required by such 

programs, 

Determine whether greater efficiency and efficacy in the performance of such programs 

could be achieved by improving the alignment of the field personnel assigned to them, 

• Assess how the OGCBD could improve its staffing of regulatory drafting functions and its 

coordination with the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to ensure timely 

rulemaking by the SBA, and 

• Report on any other areas in which the GAO determines that the SBA could improve its 

performance with respect to procurement and business development programs. 

The report will prove to be a valuable tool in helping Congress to ensure that those offices 

and programs within the SBA, which are created to help small businesses compete, are fulfilling 

their statutory mission. The importance this legislation plays in my home district of American 

Samoa cannot be over-stated, as nearly all of the island's businesses qualify as a small business. 

Also, with proper organization, SBA will be a better partner to DoD as it seeks to strengthen 

the small business industrial base; one ofthe departments current objectives. 

I respectfully encourage the House Armed Services Committee to adopt H.R. 4341, the 

Defending America's Small Contractors Act and include it in this year's National Defense 

Authorization Act. 

Thank you again for the important work this committee does, and for allowing me this 

opportunity to testify before you today. With your assistance, I look forward to seeing this 

important legislation become law. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 
69 

Rep. Cresent Hardy (NV-04) Testimony for HASC Member Day 

Good morning, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the Committee. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2017. 

I want to first thank you for keeping small businesses and procurement reform top of mind when 

you were crafting last year's NOAA. The small business community appreciates your efforts. 

To continue the conversation, I wanted to speak briefly concerning a small business contracting 

initiative that often gets less attention than it deserves. 

Many times in contracting all of the efforts are concentrated on whether or not fair competition is 

being observed. While this is absolutely paramount in our society, the person that wins the 

contract is often immediately thrown into a firestorm of compliance issues and burdens. 

Therefore while we observe pre-contract interactions, we also need to enhance post-award 

compliance. 

With that said, I have introduced H.R. 4331, the Small Business Easy Contract Compliance 

Enhancement and List Act of 2016 to rectify this issue. 

This straightforward legislation requires small business advocates at SI3A along with other 

agencies that participate in Mentor-Protege programs to offer a list of resources to contract 

awardees. 

1 
70 

To help reduce compliance burdens Chairman Chabot included post-award compliance language 

in his larger bill that offers important reforms for contractors and subcontractors. 

I encourage you to take a serious look at Chairman Chabot's large contracting bill H.R. 4341, the 

Defending America's Small Contractors Act of2016. These reforms will truly impact small 

businesses, one of our countries truest economic drivers. 

I would now like to quickly draw your attention to an ongoing issue in my district that has 

national security implications. 

My district in Nevada is the proud home of the Nevada Test and Training Range, which is the 

largest contiguous air and ground space available for military training operations in the free 

world. 

It consists of2.9 million acres of public lands underneath approximately 12,000 square nautical 

miles of Restricted airspace and Military Operations Areas. 

The Air Force uses the NTTR to perform advanced exercises and tactics development in a 

multidimensional training environment unlike any other. 

Yet despite the critical importance of the NTTR to our national security, multiple layers of 

duplicative regulations are preventing the Air Force from meeting defense test and training 

objectives do to the lack of ready access to withdrawn land. 

2 
71 

This inability to fully utilize withdrawn lands also denies the full use of the Restricted airspace 

overlying the area, further restricting operational flexibility. 

Mr. Chairman, the Air Force has been conducting bombing and gunnery practice, tactics 

development, and electronics testing and training on these lands since 1940, a full 34 years 

before the Fish and Wildlife Service nominated the area for wilderness designation. 

And it was a flawed wilderness designation to begin with that refused to account for existing 

military impacts on the land. 

What this all boils down to is that the military should not be saddled with multiple layers of 

duplicative regulations that hinder its ability to adequately train for missions that will keep the 

American people safe. 

While the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior have inherently different 

missions, there is no reason why they cannot be better partners to arrive at commonsense 

solutions for the land they co-manage. 

Mr. Chairman, my home State of Nevada is more than 85 percent federally controlled. While 

many Nevadans may have their disagreements with our federal land management agencies, we 

are proud to welcome the military personnel who call our state home. 

3 
72 

We feel a sense of duty and patriotism to have these vital training activities taking place in 

Nevada, and we would like nothing more than to allow our servicemen and women the freedom 

to train for their missions. 

Again, I'd like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for the opportunity to speak before 

the committee this morning. 

4 
73 

Blackburn - HASC Member Day 

Chainnan Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for allowing me to testify this morning. 

As you may know, I represent the Seventh Congressional District of 

Tennessee, which is home to the brave men and women of Ft. Campbell. 

Ft. Campbell is home to the storied lOlst Airborne, the 5th Special 

Forces Group and the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation 

Regiment. Approximately 1 ,900 Officers and 26,000 enlisted personnel 

call Ft. Campbell home. 

Like many installations across the country, Ft. Campbell was facing 

troop cuts. I was pleased to see that Ft. Campbell was spared major 

troop reductions. 

I was pleased to work with this committee last year in support of the 

Army Flying Hours Program. This vital program provides aviation 

training resources for individual crewmembers and units according to 

approved aviation training strategies. In addition, it also provides 

individual and collective proficiency in support of ongoing combat and 

non-combat air operations. 

For aviation units like the 10 1st Airborne, this training is not only vital 

to mission success but to the safety of our soldiers. 

Without the necessary funding, home station training opportunities will 

not be available to achieve optimal combat readiness. 

I ask the members of this committee to once again pay close attention to 

restoring the Army Flying Hours Program to its full capacity in FY 1 7. 
74 

I would also like to bring to this committee's attention that further 

reducing our nation's Armed Forces will hamstring our ability to meet 

the challenges and threats of an increasingly destabilized world. 

As America withdraws from the international community, countries like 

Russia are becoming increasingly brazen. 

We see it in the annexation of Crimea by Russian-backed separatists, 

civil war in Yemen and Syria, and China's military buildup. 

As discord continues to grow around the world, the United States must 

have the personnel and capabilities to respond and protect our national 

interests. 

Soldiers from Ft. Campbell are always tasked with responding to threats 

to our security around the globe. We would be putting their lives in 

increased danger by reducing their numerical strength and not providing 

them with the training they need. 

That is why I support H.R. 4534, the Protecting Our Security through 

Utilizing Right-Sized End Strength Act. H.R. 4534 would reverse the 

current draw down of the end strength levels for the United States Land 

Forces, specifically the Army and Marines. 

H.R. 4534 will freeze the current drawdown on Marine personnel levels 

and increase Army end strength levels. 

General Carter Ham recently testified that it takes 3 years to stand back 

up a fully ready Brigade Combat Team. H.R. 4534 will make sure that 

the military personnel we need to address an increasingly destabilized 

world will not be mothballed in the pursuit of short-term budget savings. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify this morning. I stand ready to work 

with this committee on strengthening programs and reviewing processes 

that are vital to our national defense. 
75 

Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee 

"Testimony from Members on their National Defense 

Priorities for the NDAA" 

Rep. Randy Neugebauer 

March 1, 2016 

Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith, I would 

like to thank you for this opportunity to testify before you 

today on my national defense priorities. My district, Texas's 

19th Congressional District, is home to the 5,100 military and 

civilian personnel stationed at Dyess Air Force Base. Located 

on the outskirts of the City of Abilene, Dyess houses, among 

other missions, the 7th Bomb Wing, home to 33 of the 62 B-1 

Lancer strategic bombers. 

As a part of its FY 2017 budget, the Air Force has proposed 

$5,830,000 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 

funding for the B-1 and $116,319,000 in Procurement funding. 

Throughout its proposed FY 2017 budget, the Air Force 

includes funding in other accounts for various improvements to 

the B-ls as well as funding for B-1 maintenance and funding 

for the new B-1 Classic Associate Reserve Unit at Dyess. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I request the 

Committee's support for these essential B-1 programs as it 

considers the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Since 2001, the B-1 bomber has played a vital role in 

Afghanistan and Iraq and is now a major force in our battle 

against ISIL. In its budget documents, the Air Force 

highlights the B-l's critical importance in our national defense, 

stating: 
76 

The B-1B Lancer is a swing-wing, supersonic, long-range 

conventional bomber. It carries the largest payload of 

both guided and unguided weapons in the Air Force 

inventory. The multi-mission B-1B is the backbone of 

America's long-range bomber force and can rapidly deliver 

massive quantities of precision and non-precision 

weapons against any adversary, anywhere in the world, 

at any time .... The current service life extends beyond 

2040. 

As further evidence of the B-1's importance, it was the first 

aircraft to be fitted for the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff 

Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) and, along with the F/A18 ElF, will be initial aircraft to carry the Navy's Long Range 

Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). 

In its request for FY 2017 Overseas Contingency Operations 

funding, the Air Force stated; 

As a force provider to the U.S. Central Command 

(CENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR), the primary 

Combat Forces are the Air Force's front-line fighters and 

bombers (A-10, B-1, F-15 and F-16) representing the "tip 

of the global power projection spear." These assets 

provide a strong capability to counter a wide range of 

threats to the U.S. and its allies, as well as help assure a 

viable deterrent posture in the region. 

As the backbone of the long-range bomber force, as the "tip of 

the global power projection spear", and with a service life 

beyond 2040, it makes sense from national defense standpoint 

and from a fiscal standpoint to ensure that the B-1 continues 
77 

to receive the funding that it needs in order to remain effective 

and viable, today and into the future. I request the 

Committee's support for this funding for FY 2017 and beyond. 

I would also like to request the Committee's continued support 

for the new Long Range Strike-Bomber, which the Air Force 

has designated as the B-21. This new bomber has been under 

development for several years and it is essential that the Air 

Force complete the necessary research work and begin the 

production of this aircraft in order to meet the goal of having it 

operational by the mid-2020s. 

As the Air Force and Congress move forward with the new 

bomber, we support the selection of Dyess Air Force Base to 

host the B-21. Dyess has been a bomber base since its 

inception, more than 50 years ago, initially hosting the B-47s 

and the B-52s. For the past 30 years, Dyess has been the Air 

Force's primary B-1 base. Dyess has also successfully served 

as the B-1 Formal Training Unit and now has a B-1 Classic 

Associate Reserve Unit. With this strong track record of 

meeting long-range strike mission requirements, Dyess would 

be an excellent base for the new B-21. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for the 

opportunity to address you in this forum. 
78 

The Honorable Mac Thornberry 

Chaim1an 

House Committee on Armed Services 

2216 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 205!5 

Dear Chainnan and Ranking Member: 

Febmary 29, 20!6 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

House Committee on Armed Services 

2216 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Thank you for the opportunity to highlight two important provisions for inclusion in the FY 2017 

National Defense Authorization Act (NOAA). Your prompt consideration of these requests is greatly 

appreciated, 

I would first like to discuss the inclusion in the base text of the bill bipartisan legislation I have 

sponsored modernizing United States Small Business Adrninistration (SBA) size standards for agriculture 

producers. The current SBA size standard for this industry is established in statute and lacks a rational 

basis. 

According to the USDA, the total value of fann products exceeds $390 billion and agriculture-related 

firms support 16 million domestic jobs. The vast majority of these firms are small businesses and familyowned farms. 

However, the advent of new technologies has greatly increased productivity, leading to lower prices for 

many commodities. These pressures on commodity prices arc expected to grow as newer technologies 

are adopted. 

This has led to the consolidation of many single family~owned operations into larger, multi family-owned 

operations. But, these operations remain small businesses. 

Unf01tunately, the current small business size standard for agriculture has been set in statute and is 

outdated. The standard is too tow fOr the vast majority of fanns and ranches to participate in potential 

government contracting and subcontracting opportunities, 

In addition, the statutory standard has no rational basis. It appears to be a number that was picked out of 

the air by previous Congresses. 

In the 30 years since enactment of the statutory size standard, the Small Business Administration has 

significantly improved its processes for determining small business size standards, addressing the 
79 

concerns that led previous Congresses to establish the standard in statute. I believe it is important that 

Congress and federnl agencies promote consistency in po!icymaking and the inclusion of language in the 

NDAA allowing the SBA to establish a producer size standard will help ensure that consistency, 

Another issue I believe requires the Committee's attention is the need for the procurement of additional 

Fl A-!8 Super Hornet aircraft The F/ A-!8 is currently the only operational strike fighter line for the 

United States Navy, and is a significant national security asset we should ac.t to protect. 

The FY 20!6 NDAA and FY 2016 Department of Defense Appropriations Act includc'C! funding tor the 

procurement of 12 F/A/-l8s. However; this number may still be short of USN needs as the service has 

previously testified to a potential shmifall of 24 to 36 aircraft. 

The procurement of additional F/ A/-18 Super Homets is critical to meeting the anticipated needs of the 

USN and to keeping the production llne open as the United States prepares anticipated aircraft sales to 

allied nations. It is also important to preserving the value of the St. Louis regions defense industrial base. 

Therefore, as the Committee prepares the FY 2017 NDAA, I request it authorize any aircraft requested by 

the USN. 

Sincerely, 

Member of Congress 
80 

Rep. Ted S. Yoho (FL-3) written testimony Mar 01 2016 "Member DayNational Defense Priorities from Members for the FY 2017 National Defense 

Authorization Act" 

Thank you Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for the opportunity come and 

speak before this committee. This is a great opportunity you arc affording Members of Congress 

who do not serve on Armed Services. 

Today I would like to speak to you about the transfer of property and detainees from the 

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. 

As I am sure you know, it is currently illegal for the President to transfer detainees from the base 

to the United States. But the actual base itself can be transferred back to the Castro government 

without the consent of U.S. government. Recently the Castro government demanded that in order 

for normalization to continue between Cuba and the United States, the Guantanamo Bay Naval 

Base must be transferred back to Cuba. 

The 1903 lease agreements between the governments of Cuba and the United States are 

controlled by the language of a 1934 treaty stipulating that the lease can only be modified or 

abrogated pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Cuba. The territorial limits of 

the naval station remain as they were in 1934 unless the United States abandons Guantanamo 

Bay or the two governments reach an agreement to modifY its boundaries. 

While there appears to be no consensus on whether the President can modify the agreement 

alone, Congress is empowered to alter by statute the effect of the underlying 1934 treaty. A 

statute passed later than a treaty is recognized to supersede the terms of the treaty to the extent 

that they are inconsistent, at least as far as domestic law is concerned. Although not firmly 

established, it seems likely that Congress could override any implications that might be drawn 

from the 1934 treaty with respect to presidential authority to modifY the Guantanamo lease by 

enacting legislation specifYing that any such modification must be accomplished with the advice 

and consent of the Senate or the concurrence of Congress. 

In fact, Congress has passed legislation establishing policy with respect to the Guantanamo 

leases. As part ofthe Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act (LIBERT AD, P.L. 104-114), 

Congress established that the policy of the United States is to be "prepared to enter into 

negotiations with a democratically elected government in Cuba either to return the United States 

Naval Base at Guantanamo to Cuba or to renegotiate the present agreement under mutually 

agreeable terms." The provision appears to approve negotiations by the President with a 

democratic Cuban government over the possible return ofGuantanamo Bay, but it does not 

explicitly approve the entry into such an agreement as a congressional-executive agreement. 

Moreover, it does not expressly prohibit the negotiation of lease modifications with the existing 

govemment of Cuba. 
81 

It can be argued that an executive agreement with Cuba to close the base would in etTecl amount 

to an executive agreement pursuant to the 1934 treaty and would thus not require the advice and 

consent ofthe Senate. 

Tn order to protect against this potential unilateral action by the President, I introduced H.R. 

4126, the Guantanamo Transfer Prevention Act, which among other things would prevent the 

President from unilaterally ceding the base back to the Castro govemment without the advice and 

consent of Congress. While I work to move my stand-alone bill! wanted to take this time to urge 

the Am1ed Services Committee to take similar actions in protecting against this potential for 

executive action and to ensure that the President must come to Congress. 

Thank you for your time. 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 1, 2016 

(85) 

Statement of Rod Blum 

Before the House Armed Services Committee 

Hearing on FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act 

Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith: 

Thank you and the rest of the House Committee on Armed Services for the opportunity to 

provide testimony on priorities for the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). 

hope my remarks will provide the Committee with guidance on policy issues which greatly 

impact my district, as well as provide the Department of Defense (DoD) with greater flexibility, 

spending power, and provide enhanced capabilities for the modern day warfighter. 

I appreciate and respect the work the Committee has done on commercial acquisition to date, but 

believe several issues need to be clarified in the FY20 17 NDAA: 

• Clarification of the definition of a commercial item to those used by the general public or 

by non-governmental entities, and preserves commercial status even if there have been 

slight modifications, if the preponderance of characteristics ofthe item remain 

commercial; 

• Protection of proprietary and other market research and price determination information 

related to commercial item determinations by the DoD to limit to the government 

contracting officers and not the general public to protect pricing and other market 

information; 

• Requesting the contracting officer conduct market research in the determination of price 

reasonableness; 

• Limiting contractual tlowdown requirements to the commercial supply chain to 

specifically exclude requirements from suppliers to fulfill both government and 

commercial orders, as those suppliers may have no or little infonnation about the final 

use of their products; 

• Expansion of the definition of nontraditional contractors from a corporate entity to 

permit other business units of the same company to qualify; 

• Expand the definition of nondevelopmental items to include items sold to foreign 

governments in order for the DoD to avoid additional developmental costs for similar 

items already developed for allied countries. 

Additionally, I request the Committee to insert report language to encourage the Department of 

the Navy to continue their stated schedule and requirements for updating their air combat 

training ranges, i.e., the Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) Increment II program, as well 

as to leverage the all existing technology to meet present and future needs, such as the multilevel secure datal ink and open architecture capable system, developed by the DoD (CRIIS) to 

meet their needs on future test ranges. 

1 thank the Committee for their consideration of these requests, which will provide the DoD with 

the ability to acquire the best possible solutions by leveraging appropriated funds in the 
86 

Statement of Rod Blum 

Before the House Armed Services Committee 

Hearing on FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act 

commercial market. Also, by further building out an already developed system, the Navy can 

utilize already developed systems and move forward with this necessary system. 

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of my requests and look forward to working 

with the Committee as we seek to provide the best policies to ensure the security of our country. 
87 

Statement for the Record: Army Aviation Restructure Initiative 

Congressman Ryan Costello (PA-06) 

03/01/2016 !O:OOam 

2118 Rayburn 

Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith, I appreciate the opportunity to submit 

comments for the record regarding the Army's Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI) and its 

impacts on our country and my state of Pennsylvania. 

Since 9/11, the National Guard has risen to the occasion -they have been tested and have proven 

themselves as a critical, operational force that can provide the support and end-strength to the 

Total Army. The National Guard has met the demands of every request over the last 14 yearsall 760,000 individuals mobilized for overseas operations, including 44,967 mobilized members 

of the Pennsylvania National Guard. They have provided irreplaceable capabilities, leadership, 

professionalism, and grit. They are trained, equipped, and ready to defend their hometowns and 

their country. 

However, due to the Army's ARI, the 1-104th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion has already been 

inactivated and Pennsylvania is at risk of losing the entire 55th Armored Brigade. As we face 

growing and unprecedented security threats, we cannot risk losing such proven, cost effective, 

and capable resources. Should the ARI move forward in its cunent form, it will jeopardize our 

national security and cause near irreversible damage to the capabilities of our National Guard. 

Instead, it is my hope that that House Armed Services Committee will consider the National 

Commission of the Future of the Army's recommendations to maintain four National Guard 

Apache battalions, each with eighteen aircraft, and to add two Black Hawk battalions to the 

National Guard. 

Additionally, as you begin to consider the distribution of the Army's aviation assets, I would like 

to emphasize the advantages of multi-state units like the agreement reached between 

Pennsylvania and South Carolina. With such an arrangement, the National Guard can expand its 

footprint, utilize a collective approach to training and maintenance, and operated within the fiscal 

constraints currently in place. 
88 

As General Mark Milley, Chief of Staff of the Army, said, "We must rely more heavily on our 

National Guard to meet demand." The NCFA recognized this demand and the capabilities of the 

National Guard, and that is reflected in their recommendations. Instead of reducing our combat 

capabilities, we should maintain a sufficient and integrated force structure across all Army 

components. 

As the Committee continues it work on the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization 

Act, it is my hope that the Committee will seize upon the critical cost effective advantages of the 

dual benefits of a ready, operational force and the capabilities that the National Guard provides 

to the end strength ofthe Total Army. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. 
89 

Prepared Statement of Rep. Suzan K. DelBene 

Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith, l thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before the House Anned Services Committee on the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2017. Crafting policies and solutions that keep our nation safe is no easy task, 

and I appreciate your willingness to consider our thoughts and concerns. 

I know that in the coming months, the Committee will be carefully weighing a broad 

array of issues that are vital to our national security, our brave men and women in uniform, 

military families living across the globe, and thousands of American businesses and workers that 

support our nation's industrial base. As you begin to move through this important process, I urge 

you to support my bipartisan legislation to ensure National Guard members serving on full-time 

federal status, along with their families, retain TRICARE eligibility when responding to state 

emergencies like landslides and earthquakes. 

Since 2010, hundreds ofNationa1 Guard members have begun serving on Full-Time 

National Guard Duty, under section 502(1) of Title 32, as part ofthe Department of Defense's 

Homeland Response Force (HRF). HRF units provide the Department with rapid response 

capabilities in the event of an emergency, such as chemical, biological or high-yield explosive 

incidents. Given their federal status, these members and their families are covered by TRICARE. 

Guard members serving on HRF units can also be activated to respond to state and local 

emergencies, such as wildfires or hurricanes, at state expense and under control of the state's 

Governor. However, for them to assist in a state emergency, their federal orders must be broken 

and temporarily replaced with State Active Duty orders- inadvertently causing a break in their 

eligibility for TRICARE. While states already reimburse the Department for the resources used 

to activate HRF units, current law prevents them from paying to extend TRICARE coverage for 

these Guard members. In state emergencies, this means Governors and military commanders are 

forced to choose between not using HRF capabilities or causing a hannful disruption in health 

coverage for Guard members and their families. 

This was a key lesson learned during the first large-scale HRF activation in 2014, after 

the tragic landslide in my district in Oso, Washington. A statutory fix is needed before the next 

disaster strikes. My narrowly tailored legislation, H.R. 4554, is straightforward and budgetneutral. It simply provides states the authority to extend TRICARE eligibility for these National 

Guard members and their families when the member is temporarily ordered into State Active 

Duty to assist with a natural disaster or emergency. 

We shouldn't be forcing Governors and military commanders to use HRF capabilities at 

the expense of our brave men and women in uniform. This important proposal will ensure our 

state leaders have the tools to respond to disasters without hesitation or delay, knowing that 

Guard members and their families won't face an unnecessary disruption in health coverage. 

Chairman and Ranking Member, I thank you again for the opportunity to testify. As you 

begin to cratl the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017, I urge you to support this 

commonsense lix for the heroes who don't hesitate to put their lives at risk to protect and rebuild 

our communities in times of need. 
90 

«nngre.s.s nf t11e l!tniteb ~fates 

The Honorable Mac Thornberry 

Chairman 

Committee on Armed Services 

2216 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

ii(!J: 211515 

February 29, 20!6 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

2216 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 205!5 

Dear Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith: 

As the Committee on Armed Services begins its work to craft a Fiscal Year 2017 National 

Defense Authorization Act that reflects the needs and values of our nation, we write to bring 

your attention to a past injustice that deserves our country's attention and consideration. 

On July 17, 1944, the deadliest home front disaster of World War U occurred at the Port Chicago 

Naval Magazine, a major munitions facility in California, when munitions being loaded onto a 

cargo vessel exploded. Indicative of the discriminatory practices at the time, all of the enlisted 

men loading ammunition at the site were African American, while all ofthe officers were white. 

The explosion killed or wounded 710 people, 435 of whom were African American. This single 

stuoning disaster accounted for more than 15 percent of all African American naval casualties 

during World War H. 

At the time, there was no formal training in safe methods of ammunition handling given to 

enlisted men. The Navy failed to adequately provide these enlisted men with the tools necessary 

to be able to operate under safe working conditions, even after the tragedy struck. Following the 

explosion, when the surviving 258 African American sailors understandably refused to return to 

work in these unsafe conditions, 50 were discriminately charged and convicted with mutiny. 

The conditions under which these men were working combined with the undeniably different 

treatment their white counterparts received following the explosion give reason to question the 

charges of mutiny altogether. We respectfully request, therefore, that the Navy examine the 

totality of the circumstances surrounding these charges by inserting the following language into 

the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act: 

The Secretary of the Navy shall carry out without delay a thorough review of the 

circumstances which may have influenced the mutiny charges against, and convictions of 

the individuals convicted in courts-martial arising from the explosion at the Port Chicago 

(California) Naval Magazine on July 17, 1944. The purpose of the review shall be to 

assess the extent to which racial prejudice or other factors may have impacted the African 

American sailors who were stationed at Port Chicago and Mare Island throughout the 

duration of their service. Specifically, the Secretary is directed to review findings of 

racial bias including those acknowledged in the Navy's 1994 report entitled "Port 

Chicago Courts-Martial Review" compared with the treatment afforded to the convicted 

sailors' white counterparts and officers. If the Secretary determines that the filing of a 
91 

charge of mutiny against any of the African American sailors in any such case was 

connected to, or impacted by, racial prejudice, or if the Secretary determines that the 

presence of prejudicial practices created a pattern of discriminatory treatment affecting 

African American sailors at Port Chicago, then, notwithstanding any other provision of 

law, the Secretary shall submit to the President and Congress such recommendations as 

the Secretary considers appropriate regarding corrective actions that should be 

considered. 

We must provide justice to these sailors whose lives and careers were upended while serving our 

nation. We respectfully ask you give this request your full and thorough review and trust that it 

will receive the serious consideration it deserves. Thank you for taking the time to consider our 

thoughts on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Member of Congress Member of Congress 
92 

February 29, 2016 

Mr. Chairman, 

I first want to thank you and the Members of this Committee for your hard work in 

providing for our military and the defense ofthis nation. Without your efforts every day, our men 

and women would not have the necessary tools to protect and defend our liberties, as well as the 

tools they need and use every day to ensure that those injured have the best care. 

More and more, Omega3·hased wound care is being used to treat patients. BlueCross 

BlueShield has approved this wound care technology in South Carolina, and the Greenville 

Health System has already begun using it on their patients who had failed other treatments. 

Doctors at the Greenville Health System have experienced favorable results on their patients 

using Omega3-based wound care, This kind of care is promising to use as treatment for our men 

and women injured in the military, 

The US Army and the US Navy have already begun to use Omega3-based wmmd care 

products and technology on injured soldiers and are achieving positive results dtte to the natural 

anti-inflan1matory characteristics of0mega3's. l urge this committee to direct the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs), in conjunction with the Defense Health Agency, to 

evaluate this wound care technology lor use within the Department of Defense in order to 

improve wound care for US military personneL 

We are blessed to have the finest troops in the world who put their lives on the line every 

day tor the sake of our freedoms. We have sacred responsibility to support our soldiers both on 

the battlefield and when they return home. l firmly believe that this wound care technology will 

improve the care provided to our injured military, and I urge you to carefully consider this 

request. 

Blessings and Liberty, 
93 

Omega3-based Wound Care Technology 

The Committee is aware that the US Navy and the US Army are beginning to use Omega3-based 

wound care products and technology and are achieving positive results due to the natural antiinflammatory characteristics of Omega] 's, The Committee urges the Assistant Secretary of 

Detense (Health Affairs), in conjunction with the Defense Health Agency, to evaluate this 

technology for use within the DcJk1flment of Defense (DoD) in order to improve wound care for 

US military personneL 
94 

Statement of Representative Anna G. EshoJJ-/ 

Priorities for National Defense Authorizatio;;,;:c'Cfor FY 2017 

House Armed Services Committee Hearing 

March 1, 2016 

Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith, 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide testimony regarding my top priority for the 

Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act: Naming the Ill-acre cantonment area of 

Moffett Federal Airfield, home to the !29th Rescue Wing of the California Air National Guard, 

as Moffett Air National Guard Base. 

Moffett Federal Airfield is located in the heart of my congressional district and is home to the 

!29th Rescue Wing ofthe California Air National Guard. I've fought hard to keep the !29th at 

Moffett Field because they're an important part of the region's history and their work in the post9111 era is critical to the people of the Bay Area. My seventeen years of work to keep the !29th at 

Moffett Field culminated in a long-term agreement reached in 2010 between NASA Ames and 

the U.S. Air Force to make Moffett Field the permanent home of the 129'h Rescue Wing. 

However, the !29th Rescue Wing's facility has not been officially named by the USAF. 

On July 29, 2015, l introduced H.R. 3341, which would formally designate the !29th Rescue 

Wing's Facility as Moffett Air National Guard Base, and on December 23,2015, I wrote to U.S. 

Air Force Secretary Deborah James seeking the Air Force's support for this effort. The Air Force 

agreed that the preservation of installation identity is important to the surrounding community, 

the California Air National Guard, and the Air Force, and pledged to work expeditiously to 

process the name change once H.R. 3341 is enacted into law. 

The !29th Rescue Wing is a highly decorated California Air National Guard Unit known for 

their specialized capabilities in a wide range of environments from frres, floods, earthquakes and 

hurricanes. The !29th has often been tasked with the medical evacuation of patients from 

merchant vessels at sea. The federal mission ofthe !29th is to rapidly deploy worldwide to 

conduct combat search and rescue operations over land or water, in both hostile and permissive 

environments. The Unit has performed rescue missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations 

around the globe. The I 29th continues its search and rescue mission anytime, anywhere, living 

up to the unit motto, "These Things We Do ... That Others May Live." 

l respectfully request the Committee to include H.R. 3341 in the Fiscal Year 2017 National 

Defense Authorization to rename the Ill-acre cantonment area of Moffett Federal Airfield, 

home to the !29th Rescue Wing of the California Air National Guard, as Moffett Air National 

Guard Base. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this important priority for my Congressional 

District which has no cost to the taxpayers. 
95 

The Honorable Maq Thombeny 

Chairman 

House Armed Services Committee 

2216 Raybum House Office Building 

Washington, DC20515 

February 29,2016 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

House Armed Services Committee 

2216 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Thomberry and Ranking Member Smith: 

We are writing in support ofa proposal from Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA) to ensure compliance 

with domestic source requirements for footwear furnished to enlisted members ofthe Army, 

Navy, Air Foree and Marine Corps upon their initial entry into the aimed forces. We applaud the 

Department of Defense {DOD) decision from April2014 to require that the athletic footwear 

issued to all military recruits be Berry Amendment compliant. 

Most importantly, this provision ensures our men and women in uniform have access to the best 

American made equipment available during the most formative part of entering the United States 

Armed Forces. 

Again, we strongly support the efforts of Rep. Niki Tsongas to codify the April2014 DOD 

decision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. We respectfully 

request that you include this language in the committee mark. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

Member of Congress 
96 

(Hurd TX-23) 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, I want to thank you 

and this Committee for the opportunity to share some of the national 

security priorities I hold for the upcoming year on behalf of those serving 

and working in the Twenty Third Congressional District of Texas and 

around the world. 

Having spent nearly a decade serving as an undercover officer in the CIA, 

I've seen the threats and challenges we face around the world first 

hand. This experience taught me that it is vital we have a foreign policy 

that is based on clear military and economic goals and a sound strategy for 

achieving them. 

In order to achieve those goals we must ensure that our brave men and 

women have the tools they need to take the fight to the enemy around the 

globe, win, and return home safely. As threats around the world continue 

to increase, now is simply not the time to limit our ability to respond. 

Maintaining our place as the world's leader requires military strength, 

diplomacy, and a willingness to stick to our guns. 

Today, I would like to discuss a number of issues: namely, the challenges 

that we must face along with our allies and partners; the importance of 

Page 1 of 4 
97 

(Hurd TX-23) 

ensuring accountability, and the value of training and preparation for the 

future. 

As this committee continues to deal with the threat ISIS and affiliated 

groups pose to U.S. interests and national security, I believe that we must 

continue to focus our efforts on encouraging our Arab allies in the region 

to directly engage this barbaric threat. Meanwhile, the U.S. focus should 

be on providing support not only militarily, but also through actionable 

intelligence and leadership. As my good friend Ambassador Ryan Crocker 

has noted, sometimes it is just as important to have pumps and wingtips on 

the ground, as it is boots. 

We cannot just look at the current threats, but as we rapidly enter an age 

where micro actors can have a macro impact it is critical we look toward 

the future. Not only does this mean developing new weapons systems, but 

also strategies and tactics that focus on realms beyond the physical 

battlefield. As the importance of defensive and offensive cyber operations 

grow, we also need to modernize the way in which we procure 

information technology. I am thrilled that this committee has made 

acquisition reform a priority and I look forward to working with my 

colleagues to ensure meaningful improvements to Information Technology 

procurement continue to be a part of this conversation. I also hope that 

Congress will continue meaningful engagement on increasing our 

Page 2 of 4 
98 

(Hurd TX-23) 

defensive and offensive cyber capabilities along with establishing norms 

around what constitutes a digital act of war. 

Texas is fortunate to be home to over 1.5 million proud veterans, and I am 

lucky to represent a District that has a strong military presence given its 

proximity to Joint Base San Antonio, Camp Bullis, Laughlin Air Force 

Base, and Fort Bliss. Having recently visited many of these installations I 

am pleased to report on their fine work. 

The men and women at these installations have matchless capabilities and 

unique missions, across intelligence, cyber, maneuver, and training, 

safeguarding future dominance across the battlefield. Continuing to work 

with each installation to ensure their priorities are met when it comes to 

equipment, facilities, and training is a top priority for me particularly as 

the nation transitions from a focus on counter insurgency to more 

traditional operations. 

While numerous strides have been made at addressing the flooding issues 

at Laughlin Air Force Base, for which I commend the committee's work, 

there is still much to do to ensure that deficiencies continue to be 

addressed. At a time when the number of pilots available to the Air Force 

continues to be a concern we must prioritize training dollars to those bases 

that produce the most pilots. Failure to make the necessary upgrades to 

Page 3 of 4 
99 

(Hurd TX-23) 

training infrastructure has a direct impact on readiness. This is also 

playing out at Camp Bullis, part of Joint Base San Antonio, where some of 

the infrastructure they depend on to simply feed our troops and maintain 

vehicles while training was built in the 1930s and poses significant health 

risks. I recognize that many of these shortcomings are a direct result of 

limited defense dollars, and appreciated the difficult position the 

committee is in, but I earnestly hope that as we work through the 

authorization and appropriations process my colleagues will seek to 

address these deficiencies at installations across the nation. 

Finally, I would like to take a moment to recognize the enormous sacrifice 

our service members and their families have made over the past decade. 

Increased operational tempos, new types of warfare, and increasingly 

complex battlefield injuries have been borne by a minority of this country 

so that the rest of us can sleep safely at night. As their elected 

representatives it is our responsibility to ensure their sacrifices have not 

been in vain. 

Thanks again to the Committee for the opportunity to speak today and for 

your commitment to our nation's warfighters and their families. 

Page 4 of 4 
100 

Statement for the Record 

Rep. Sam Johnson (TX-03) 

Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House of Representatives 

NDAA FY17 HASC Testimony 

Chainnan Thomberry, Ranking Member Smith, Members ofthe Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to present this testimony on the FY20 17 National Defense Authorization Act 

(NDAA). 

As the Committee considers the NOAA, I would like to discuss two priorities which are listed in 

more detail below. Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony for the FY20 17 

NDAA. 

Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) Increment II 

Mr. Chairman, Air Combat Training (ACT) ranges provide the opportunity for greatly improving 

the readiness of aviation forces by enabling the simulation of numerous combat scenarios while 

employing a wide range ofplatfonns, both in capability and quantity. The Tactical Combat 

Training System (TCTS) Increment 11 program is a major modification of the current Tactical 

Combat Training System that will address cun·ent system shmifalls while also providing a 

pathway towards future requirements, such as live, virtual constructive training, and/or embarked 

(i.e. "rangeless") training. Therefore Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the following 

language be included in the FY2017 NOAA: 

• The Committee encourages the Department of' the Navy to leverage the current 

investment DoD has madefor their test ranges, i.e., the Common Range Integrated 

Instrumentation System (CRIIS) program, as their solution for the Navy's Tactical 

Combat Training System (TCTS) Increment II program. 

• Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the Department of' the Air Force leverage 

existing technologies developed in DoD's CRJJS program by incorporating its MILS 

encryption, data/ink technology and open architecture design into the Air Force 

Research Lab's Secure LVC Advanced Training Environment (SLATE) Advanced 

Technology Demonstration (ATD). 

The Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System (CRJIS) program, developed by DoD to 

provide the needs of future test ranges, is a proven, secure and cost-effective system that 

addresses current and future DoD training needs as identified in the DoN's Tactical Combat 

Training System (TCTS) Increment II acquisition program. Thank you for the oppmiunity to 

present this testimony, Mr. Chainnan. 
101 

Protection of Industrial Control Systems (ICS) from Cyberattack 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to request that language be included in the FY20 17 NDAA to 

ensure that our military is able to detect and defend against cyberattacks targeted at industrial 

control systems (JCS). lCS are mission critical infrastructure that in many cases are vulnerable to 

attack ti·om our adversaries. This is a current capabilities gap that must be addressed. Therefore 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the following language be included in the FY20 17 

NDAA: 

Section XXX-SECURING INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT 

OF THE ARMY 

(a) In General-The Secretary of the Army shall take such steps as may be necessary to 

continuously monitor, detect, and mitigate cyberattacks intended to degrade the security and 

availability ofArmy industrial control systems (JCS). These steps should include the deployment 

(fa multilayered threat detection and prevention solution sufficient to ensure that, at a 

minimum, all mission critical ICS sites within the Department, to include Civil Works, are made 

secure as a matter o.furgent priority. 

(b) Industrial Control System Defined-In this section, the term 'industrial control system" 

means the combination of control components such as electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, etc. that 

act together to achieve an industrial objective such as manufacturing, or the transportation of 

matter or energy, etc. 

Section XXX-SECURING INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT 

OF THE AIR FORCE 

(a) In General-The Secretary of'the Air Force shall take such steps as may be necessary to 

continuously monitor, detect, and mitigate cyberattacks intended to degrade the security and 

availability o.fAir Force industrial control systems (JCS). These steps should include the 

deployment ofa multilayered threat detection and prevention solution sufficient to ensure that, at 

a minimum, all mission criticallCS sites within the Department are made secure as a matter of 

urgent priority. 

(b) Industrial Control System Defined-In this section, the term 'industrial control system·· 

means the combination o.f control components such as electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, etc. that 

act together to achieve an industrial objective such as manufacturing, or the transportation of' 

matter or energy, etc. 

Section XXX-SECURING INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT 

OF THE NAVY 

(a) In General-The Secretary of the Navy shall take such steps as may be necessary to 

continuously monitor, detect, and mitigate cyberattacks intended to degrade the security and 
102 

availability of Navy industrial control systems (ICS). These steps should include the deployment 

ola multilayered threat detection and prevention solution sufficient to ensure that, at a 

minimum, all mission criticaliCS sites within the Department are made secure as a matter of 

urgent priority. 

(b) Industrial Control System Defined-In this section, the term 'industrial control system" 

means the combination of' control components such as electrical, mechanical, hydraulic, etc. that 

act together to achieve an industrial objective such as manuf'acturing, or the transportation of 

matter or energy, etc. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present my testimony on the FY20 17 NOAA, Mr. 

Chairman. I look forward to working with the Committee to craft legislation that addresses these 

issues and supports our national security interests. Thank you again for your consideration. 
103 

Rep. William R. Keating 

Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act Testimony 

March I, 2016 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, thank you tor the opportunity to testify before the House 

Armed Services Committee as you seek to draft the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 

Fiscal Year 2017. 

With over 5 total million soldier and civilian casualties, the Korean War, "Forgotten War," as it is 

commonly known, shook a generation. The signing of the armistice to end the war did not mark the end 

to the conflict or to violence. Since 1954, over I ,200 men and women stationed on the Peninsula have 

given their lives in service to this conflict and to the protection of their home country. 

Today, we honor those who served on the Korean Peninsula through the awarding of the Korea Defense 

Service Medal. However, unlike both World Wars and the Vietnam War, there is no physical monument 

erected in their memory to which family members and survivors can pay their respects. While solemn, 

heartrending, and thought-provoking, both the Korean War Memorial on the National Mall in 

Washington, D.C. and the Korean War Contemplative Bench at Arlington National Cemetery recognize 

only those who served in the Korean War from 1950-1953. 

In honor of the brave American servicemembers who gave their lives in the over sixty years since 

completion ofthe Korean War, I recommend for inclusion in the FY2017 NDAA a provision expressing 

that it is the sense of Congress to construct a marker in the Memorial Amphitheater in Arlington National 

Cemetery to honor the memory of those who have served their country on the Korean Peninsula since 

July 28, 1954. This new proposed memorial would complement the Korea Defense Service Medal and the 

Contemplative Bench in Arlington by recognizing those that have been awarded or arc eligible tor the 

KDSM who are missing in action, unaccounted for, or died in-theater. This provision is critical to raising 

awareness for the sacrifice our veterans and their families made -and continue to make - on the Korean 

Peninsula. 

Already, there is bipartisan support for this effort. Last May, I introduced H.Con.Res. 50, expressing that 

it is the sense of Congress to identify a location within the Memorial Amphitheater in Arlington National 

Cemetery. This resolution is supported by 37 of our colleagues from both sides of the aisle, and has been 

endorsed by the Korean War Veterans Association, the Combined KOREAN-US Veterans Association, 

the US&KOREA Alliance Association, and the 2nd Infantry Division Association, in addition to other 

local affiliates nationwide. It is my belief that by including this language in the NDAA, Congress can 

honor the brave men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice or are still missing in action while 

defending the Korean Peninsula. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Smith, I thank you and the other Members ofthis Committee for 

your consideration of my suggestion to include language in the FYI7 National Defense Authorization Act 

to honor the deserving men and women who have served in the Korean Peninsula. I look forward to our 

continued cooperation on this issue. 
104 

DEPUTY RtPUSLtCAN WH!P 

CoM~>.nnEs oN 

fOREIGN AFFAIRS Testimony for the Record fi·om 

Congressman Adam Kinzinger (IL-16) 

U.S. House of Representatives 

March l, 2016 

"Member Day· National Defense Priorities trom Members for the FY 2017 National Defense 

Authorization Act 

I would like to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for giving me 

the opportunity to discuss a very important program in the National Defense Authorization Act: 

the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) tor Afghan nationals. 

The SIV pmgram was designed to provide safe refuge to the countless brave Afghan men 

and women who willingly put their lives on the line and served shoulder to shoulder with our 

servicemembers in Operation Enduring Freedom, As an Air Force pilot that served in 

Afghanistan, 1 saw firsthand how this program is critical to our national security and to our 

servicemembers and veterans in any future engagement that will likely come at some point in the 

future. 

The SIV programs provide lifesaving protections to those who served in U.S. missions 

and now are iu danger as a result at the end of that service. The Taliban, ISIS, and other 

extremist groups are hunting these people down as we speak here today, It is essential that we 

continue to keep our promises and protect onr allies because it is the right thing to do. 

I want to thank you both for your leadership on this issue. As a result of that leadership, 

you have protected several Afghans that risked their lives to serve American servicemembers as 

guides, interpreters, and drivers. In the 2016 NDAA, Congress was able to extend the program 

through the end of2016 and add 3,000 visas for our Afghan allies. 

However, even while we added 3,000 additional visas to the pmgmm, it is still riddled 

with processing delays for applications, According to the State Department, there are 

approximately 10,000 Afghan principal applicants at some stage in the process. Many applicants 

(approximately 5,200) are at the first step ofthe process, pending submission of a complete set of 

documents for consideration by the Chief of Mission. The deadline for Afghans to apply for 

Chief of Mission approval is December 31,2016. 

I mentioned earlier the threats that these people live under. lt is estimated that multiple 

people who served the United States as translators are being killed every day. These translators 

-when served- wouldn't even put on anything to obscure their tace and would stand side by 

side with Americau soldiers against Taliban in very tough areas, many of them, now as America 

withdraws its mission fi·om Afghanistan and winds down its mission, now find themselves under 
105 

threat every day. Given this significant backlog, these people still face endless waiting and 

constant threats from extremists sworn to kill them. 

In a time of war, what can American soldiers and marines, airmen, and sailors do in order 

to communicate with the local population and to get them on our side versus a determined 

enemy? Of course, the basic thing to that is to be able to speak to the local population in their 

native language. 

The reality of it is this: we all can agree that those that were willing to stand hy us and to 

stand against this enemy deserve a chance to apply tor this program, which they earned with 

their service and sacrifice to the United States. 

That is why I am asking this Committee to continue to remember the sacrifice of these 

individuals. Specifically, I request that the Committee language in the 2017 NDAA that extends 

the deadline for the Afghan SIV program and adds no fewer than 4,000 additional visas to the 

Afghan program. This will help alleviate the ongoing backlog that the State Depmtment is 

dealing with and give these people hope for their sacrifice. 

As I stated earlier, these individuals provided a vital service to our men and women in 

unifo1111 and sacrificed their own safety to serve the United States. As Americans, we subscribe 

to the motto that we "leave no one behind." It is critical that we put that into practice when 

thinking about our Afghan brothers and sisters who served with our military. 

In addition to my request regarding the Afghan SIV program, I would like to request the 

Committee include provisions related to the following in the FY 2017 NDAA: 

Recommend the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive Reseatch Development and 

Engineering Command (TARDEC) continue its work on Metal Matrix Composite 

teclmology to reduce weight, reduce fuel consumption, increase payload capacity, and 

extend service life of ground combat and tactical vehicles 

Clm·ify that the conttacting officer conducting market research for commercial itCllls 

should include a determination of price reasonableness 

Thank you Chairman Thornbeny and Ranking Member Smith for the opporttmity today 

to address these critical issues. 
106 

FY 2017 NOAA legislative Proposals 

March 1, 2016 

1. Commercial Item Definition 

Proposal Description 

For over two decades, the Congress has expressed support for providing the U.S. Government 

with access to the latest commercial technologies. Title VIII of the 1994 Federal Acquisition 

Streamlining Act (Public law 103-355} (FASA} established the statutory requirements for 

acquiring commercial items which subsequently resulted in the creation of FAR Part 12. Section 

8104 of the Act specifies a preference for commercial item acquisitions. Section 8105 specifies 

that certain provisions of law do not apply to acquisitions of items that meet the definition of a 

commercial item when acquired by the Government. 

The commercial item definition was intended to be broad and includes items "of a type" that 

have been sold, leased, or licensed or even merely offered for sale, lease, or license to the 

general public. This includes items that are not yet available in the marketplace due to their 

advances in technology or performance, items that have modifications of a type customarily 

available in the commercial marketplace, and items with minor modifications of a type not 

customarily available in the commercial marketplace but made to meet U.S. Government 

requirements. Commercial items "off the shelf" are also a subset of a commercial item as 

defined by the FAR. The commercial item definition is thus broad, and intentionally so, in order 

to allow the Government to have access to the latest and most innovative commercial items, 

technologies and companies. 

In recent years, the Department of Defense has tried to narrow the statutory definition, either 

through legislative proposals, which were rejected by the Congress, or through policies such as 

assigning a specific percentage to a modification in order for it to be determined as "minor" or 

requiring a certain percentage of sales to be commercial, both of which are not consistent with 

the statutory language or congressional intent. 

More recently, the Department has attempted to define "of a type" itself by requiring the exact 

item offered to the Government (no modifications, alterations, additions, etc.} be sold, leased, 

or licensed or offered for sale, lease, or license, to the general public. This narrows the 

definition of "of a type" to only items sold in the commercial marketplace, and subsequently, 

excludes similar items in terms of form, fit or function that are capable of meeting 

governmental requirements. This construct essentially eliminates "of a type" items and allows 

only "off the shelf" items. 

By narrowing the definition of commercial items, the Government not only limits the types of 

commercial items it is able to access, but also limits it potential sources of supply to only those 

companies that have established the infrastructure to accommodate unique government cost 
107 

accounting, audits and other requirements. These requirements cause companies not to 

compete for DoD programs or, in cases where they do compete, often results in separate 

businesses for government and commercial customers so that the increased costs of the 

government infrastructure can be allocated to the government contracts. 

There is ample evidence that the commercial item definition was intended to be interpreted 

broadly. In a January 5, 2001 policy memo, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition 

Technology and Logistics stated that "of a type" broadens the commercial item definition so 

that qualifying items do not have to be identical to those in the commercial marketplace. More 

recently, in the SASC report for the FY13 NOAA, the committee stated FASA "adopted a broad 

definition of commercial items to ensure the federal agencies would have ready access to 

products that are available in the commercial marketplace- including new products and 

services and modified products that are just becoming available." Further, in its July 2014 

report, the Defense Business Board (DBB) concluded that the procurement process for 

acquiring non-commercial items (FAR Part 15} is a significant barrier to innovation and does not 

accommodate commercial operating or investment models; the report recommended that FAR 

Part 12 be established as the default procurement method for non-platform acquisitions. The 

DBB's number one recommendation was for DoD to utilize its existing FAR Part 12 authorities 

more and to expand rather than restrict the definition of "of a type" commercial items. 

The Government's current, narrow approach to commercial items that are "of a type" is 

creating an acquisition environment within which commercial suppliers cannot depend on 

reasonable and practical approaches to valuing their products. Ultimately, these challenges will 

drive suppliers out of the market and create an impenetrable barrier to entry for new, 

innovative suppliers. 

Congress should reinforce the broad definition of commercial items, including items "of a type", 

items with modifications customarily available in the commercial marketplace, and items with 

minor modifications required by the Government. It should be noted that these modifications 

do not need to be derived from an item sold to the general public, but only be similar in terms 

of form, fit or function. 

Bill language: 

Amend 41 U.S. Code §103 as shown to clarify the "of a type" items with modification or minor 

modifications: 

In this subtitle, the term "commercial item" means-
108 

(2) Any item that evolved from an item described in paragraph (1) of this definition through 

advances in technology or performance and that is not yet available in the commercial 

marketplace, but will be available in the commercial marketplace in time to satisfy the delivery 

requirements under a Government solicitation; 

(3) Any item that would satisfy a criterion expressed in paragraphs (1) or (2) of this definition, 

but for--

(A) Modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace; or 

(ii) Minor modifications of a type not customarily available in the commercial marketplace 

made to meet Federal Government requirements. Minor modifications mean modifications 

that do not significantly alter the nongovernmental function or essential physical characteristics 

(4) Any combination ..... 

Report language: 

The Committee intends that a commercial item does not have to be "off the shelf" to be 

classified as commercial and that modification of a type and that minor modification should be 

acquired to meet Federal Government requirements. 

2. limiting contractual flowdown requirements to the commercial supply chain 
109 

What does it do? 

Excludes unique government flow down requirements from commercial suppliers providing 

commodities that are fulfilling both commercial and government orders. In short, if a 

commercial contractor is buying bulk commodities from a commercial supplier- and those 

commodities are then being used in the manufacturing line for both commercial and 

government orders- those commercial suppliers in the commercial supply chain will not be 

subject to unique federal flow downs requirements as outlined in FAR Part 12.301 and FAR 

Subpart 213.3. 

Proposal Description: 

All companies buy commodities for production and operations that do not relate in any way to 

a particular contract, customer or customer requirements. This is generally referred to as 

"general procurement of commodity items purchased in the ordinary course of business", and 

is a standard commercial practice. Companies purchase items in this manner in order to take 

advantage of bulk pricing and for efficiency of operations and production. 

The proliferation of the application of unique terms and conditions as flow-down requirements 

on government contracts has created a uniquely problematic situation for these general 

procurement purchases, where the supply chain is largely commercial in nature and is 

comprised of a significant number of small businesses. The suppliers are not subcontractors on 

any particular program, and no specific contract is yet known for purposes of the ultimate use 

of the commodity. The flow-down requirements should not be applied in these situations. 

Bill Language: 

Amend 41 USC 1906, "List of Laws inapplicable to procurements of commercial items," as 

follows (new lw/uc'u'''" 

(c) Subcontracts.-

{1) Definition.-ln this subsection, the term "subcontract" includes the transfer of commercial 

items between divisions, subsidiaries, or affiliates of a contractor or subcontractor; 

Report Language: 

"The committee intends that the definition of subcontract not include agreements for 

commodities that are used to meet both commercial and military contracts." 
110 

3. Definition of Nondevelopmentalltems 

Issue: 

In FAR Part 2.101, Definitions, the definition of "Nondevelopmental item" means--

(1) Any previously developed item of supply used exclusively for governmental purposes 

by a Federal agency, a State or local government, or a foreign government with which 

the United States has a mutual defense cooperation agreement; 

(2) Any item described in paragraph (1) ofthis definition that requires only minor 

modification or modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial 

marketplace in order to meet the requirements of the procuring department or agency; 

or 

(3) Any item of supply being produced that does not meet the requirements of 

paragraph (1) or (2) solely because the item is not yet in use. 

In the FY2009 NOAA, the sales of commercial items to foreign governments was removed from 

the definition of "general public". 

"General public" and "non-governmental entities," as used in the definition of "commercial 

item" at FAR 2.101, do not include the Federal Government or a State, local, or foreign 

government (Pub. L. 110-181, section 815(b)). 

Since sales to foreign governments are excluded from the definition of "general public", it 

would be appropriate to include such sales under the section for Nondevelopmental items, 

given that term currently includes sales to other types of government entities. This will enable 

the USG to acquire products that are already developed without incurring costs to develop a 

government-unique item. 

legislative proposal: 

Subsection 8 of 41 USC 103 and the FAR 2.101 definition of a Commercia/Item should be 

changed as follows: 

(8) A nondevelopmental item, if the procuring agency determines the item was 

developed exclusively at private expense and sold in substantial quantities, on a 

competitive basis, to multiple State,-aflfl..local or foreign governments. 

4. Market research for the determination of price reasonableness 

Proposal description: 
111 

Government decisions concerning commercial item price reasonableness typically are based on 

a narrow approach that relies solely on commercial sales data provided by the offeror. This 

approach fails to account price and materiel factors found in market research. While 10 USC 

2377 establishes the preference for acquisition of commercial items, it limits the requirement 

for market research only to preliminary market research. Preliminary market research is 

defined in terms of understanding what commercial items are suitable to meet military 

requirements. Similarly, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10.001 focuses the 

requirement for market research on potentially identifying commercial items can meet an 

agency's needs and requirements. 

There is a distinct deference between conducting market research to determine if commercial 

technology is available to meet military requirements and market research done to support 

price reasonableness of commercial items. The former is a capabilities based research with the 

focus at identifying commercial items that can meet government requirements- to include the 

modification of commercial items (of a type). The latter is a decision-based process to evaluate 

prices offered in context of the market place to determine the prices proposed are fair and 

reasonable. Without market research when evaluating commercial item prices, the 

determination of price reasonableness is constrained. Commercial prices are not developed in 

a vacuum free of market forces, resources constraints and material availability. Just as it is 

important for the government to perform market research to understand what is available in 

the market place, it is equally important to understand prices offered in context of that same 

market place. 

Bill language: 

Amend 10 USC 2377 by adding a new subsection (d) as shown to include market research in the 

determination of price reasonableness: 

Report language: 

"The committee intends that market research be included to the determination of the 

reasonableness of price for commercial items." 

5. Tactical Combat Training System, Inc II (TCTS II) and the Common Range Integrated 

Instrumentation System {CRIIS) 

Air Combat Training (ACT) ranges provide the opportunity for greatly improving the readiness 

of aviation forces by enabling the simulation of numerous combat scenarios while employing a 

wide range of platforms, both in capability and quantity. The Tactical Combat Training System, 

Increment II (TCTS II) program is a major modification of the current Tactical Combat Training 
112 

System that will address current system shortfalls while also providing a pathway towards 

future requirements, such as live, virtual constructive training, and/or embarked (i.e. 

"rangeless") training. 

The Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System (CRIIS) is a seven (7) year DoD effort 

that has invested more than $300M to mature and develop key technologies to field an open 

architecture, MILS encrypted, high bandwidth data link system for both the test and training 

communities. This development effort was specifically designed to address historic shortfalls in 

both test and training ranges. CRIIS is a mature program and had achieved NSA Type 1 security 

certification for its MILS solution. 

TCTS II is envisioned as an air combat training program that will follow Better Buying Power 

3.0's key tenants of technology responsiveness through use of open architecture and 

appropriate commercial technology. CRIIS provides a pathway for TCTS II to achieve DON's 

vision of a next generation training range capability. 

Report Language: 

The Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System (CRIIS) program, developed by DoD to 

provide the needs of future test ranges, is a proven, secure and cost-effective system that 

addresses current and future DoD training needs as identified in the DoN's Tactical Combat 

Training System (TCTS) Increment II acquisition program. Therefore, included NDAA Report 

language should state: 

The Committee encourages the Department of the Navy to leverage the current 

investment DoD has made for their test ranges, i.e., the Common Range Integrated 

Instrumentation System (CRIIS) program, as their solution for the Navy's Tactical Combat 

Training System (TCTS) Increment II program 

Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the Department of the Air Force leverage 

existing technologies developed in DoD's CRIIS program by incorporating its MILS encryption, 

datalink technology and open architecture design into the Air Force Research Lab's Secure LVC 

Advanced Training Environment (SLATE) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD) 
113 

Testimony Before the House Armed Services Committee 

Congressman David B. McKinley, P.E. 

February 29,2016 

Thank you, Chairman Thornberry for the opportunity to speak before the House Anncd Services 

Committee today. As your Committee begins the process of cratling the critically important 

annual National Defense Authorization Act ('NOAA'), I would like to revisit an issue which, 

under your leadership, the Committee attempted to address last year only to have the Senate 

block it. The issue involves our nation's solid rocket motor ('SRM') industrial base. This issue 

aJTects not only our national security, but also American manufacturers and the continued supply 

of the nation's premier air-to-air missiles. 

Last year I testified that limited new tactical missile programs, coupled with tew planned 

upgrades to existing tactical missile programs, have placed the domestic industrial base of SRMs 

at risk. The situation has been made worse by outsourcing rocket motor production to foreign 

suppliers. Since then, the situation has only worsened. In October 2015, the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics submitted a report to Congress 

that stated, "declining DoD missile development and procurement funding has allowed [the SRM 

industrial base] to atrophy and become Jragile." As this Committee knows well, the October 

2015 report is simply the latest in a string of clarion reports dating over a decade that warn of a 

critical military capability that has declined and is under duress. Normally, one would think that 

if the Department of Defense identified a military weakness that has a direct operational impact, 

action would be taken and taken quickly. Unfortunately, little or no measurable steps have been 

taken- allowing the situation to degrade lurther. 

To stem continual decline, my ask today is the same as it was a year ago: include language in 

the NOAA to ensure that every US military tactical missile program that uses solid propellant as 

the primary propulsion system include at least one (I) American domestic rocket motor supplier. 

This change will not only help safeguard a vital industrial capability, but help guarantee 

competition which ultimately delivers much needed technical innovation and cost efficiencies. 

Since the mid-1980s, the number of US domestic producers of tactical SRMs has declined trom 

five ( 5) suppliers to two (2). Two main tactors have contributed to this decline: ( 1) a significant 

reduction in the number of new tactical missile programs developed and produced and (2) the 

volatility from year-to-year of planned missile purchases, which causes financial uncertainty and 

inefficiencies in the marketplace. Existence of a struggling, at-risk SRM industrial base has been 

highlighted in numerous Department of Defense and Congressional Committee reports, which 

have been provided for your stati 

Aggravating the industrial base situation are instances in which missile programs have used 

foreign SRM suppliers. For example, the US military's primary air-to-air missile, AMRAAM, 
114 

relies solely on a Norwegian supplier despite desires of the Air Force to have two suppliers. 

Reliance on a single, foreign supplier is an inherent national security issue and is a considerable 

risk in terms of supply chain vulnerability and cost containment. Further, not sustaining an 

American SRM industrial base now will only impede the future development of missile systems. 

The Defense Department's own analysis estimates that new programs could be delayed by 5 to 

10 years or more should we lose domestic SRM production capability and the US will need to 

reconstitute its propulsion design and engineering capabilities. Simply put, SRM design and 

manufacturing is a highly technical and specific field, and if we lose American know-how and 

capabilities, it will take years of time and money to get it back. 

As this Committee knows well, a constrained defense budget limits the number of weapon 

programs that can be started or upgraded. This is especially true for tactical missiles where SRM 

designers and manufacturers have undergone dramatic "right-sizing" to match reduced market 

demands. Nevertheless, the SRM industry remains at risk and thus any program delays or 

outsourcing of work has an amplified impact on an industry which relies on several key singlesource sub-tier suppliers. Increased support of a shrinking SRM industrial base is warranted 

given the limited number of new and planned upgrade missile programs that are identified in the 

out-year budget. A Department of Defense policy that ensures that at least one (!)US SRM 

supplier be required for every US missile program that is designed, developed and used by our 

military will encourage competition, drive down costs and reduce a glaring national security risk. 

Attached please find suggested language that addresses this critical national security issue. 

Thank you for taking my views into consideration. 

Sincerely, 

David B. McKinley, P.E. 

Member of Congress 
115 

Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base Suggested Language 

Policy regarding solid rocket motors used in tactical missiles: 

(a) Policy The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that every tactical missile program of the 

Department of Defense that uses solid propellant as the primary propulsion system shall 

have at least two fully certified rocket motor suppliers in the event that one of the rocket 

motor suppliers is outside the national technology and industrial base (as defined in 

section 2500(1) of title 10, United States Code). 

(b) Waiver The Secretary may waive subsection (a) in the case of compelling national 

security reasons. 
116 

The Honorable Mac Thornberry 

Chairman 

Honse Armed Services Committee 

2216 Rayburn Honse Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Thombcrry: 

February 29, 2016 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit my requests lor the FY2017 National Defense 

Authorization Act l appreciate the work you do in crafting the NDAA, which is no small task. 

for the national defense is one of the most important constitutional responsibilities of 

government. 

First, I ask the Committee to include in the NDAA a common sense provision that was adopted 

by the House two years in a row by voice vote. Despite broad support in the House, the provision 

did not make it through the Senate or the con terence process, This provision simply allows 

nonprofit organizations to ship items to U.S. service members serving overseas on a space 

available basis. 

Since 1985, under the "Denton Program" the Department of Defense has been authorized to 

transport privateJy.donated humanitarian cargo for foreign nationals on a space available basis. 

This program has the dual benefit of making good 11se of open space on DOD transports while 

saving humanitarian organizations prohibitive shipping costs. 

l introduced the Deployed J)·oops Support Act to extend the benefits ofthe popular Denton 

Program to members of the U.S. Armed Forces. H.R. 1177 would allow nonprofit organizations 

to ship items via DOD transport which are intended for U.S. service members currently serving 

overseas. Like humanitarian items shipped under the Dentonl'rogram, these items intended for 

U.S. troops could only be transported on a space available basis. The program would be 

administered at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary would have authority to 

determine that there is a legitimate need for the goods being shipped, that supplies are suitable 

for distribution, and that adequate arrangements have been made t<w distribution. My bill would 

give veterans' nonprolits and private chari!able organizations that support our troops the same 

consideration that Inummitarian organizations are already given [{)1· transporting humanitarian 

goods. 
117 

to continue to make modernizing the tactical 

NetWt)rkinQ Vehicular Radio provides 

and 

the CommiHee to insert report 

their Stated SChedule and rC(jUirC!llC!1(S jy,- nndof;M 

the Tactical Comlxlt Training System as well 

meet present future needs, such as multilevel secure and open architecture capable system, developed by the DoD to meet their 

needs on l11tnre test ranges. 

I suggest the Committee include a directive to the Assistant Secretaries !or Acquisition f(n· both 

the Air Force and the Navy to provide to this Committee, no later than Jniy 1, 2016, their 

rcRpcetive plans for procuring Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) firmware and enabling 

their respective communications systems, current and future, with the MUOS capability. MUOS 

is replacing the aging Ultra High Frequency Follow On (UFO) constellation, and cun·cntly has a 

satellite constellation on orbit but few Air Force and Marine Corps comm1mications terminals 

actually carrying the MUOS waveform so!\ware. The benefits ofMUOS include enhanced 

communications capability over existing systems~ including simultaneous voice and data; similar 

to capabilities delivered by smart phones. Both the Air Force and the Marit1c Corps have 

requested funds for MUOS waveform upgrades in FY!7, and were appropriated similar funds in 

FYI6. 

l respect the work the Committee has done on commercial acquisition, but l believe there are 

other issues which need to he claritied in the FY2017 NDAA. Specifically, clarification ofthe 

definition of a commercial item to those used by the general public or by non-governmental 

which preserves commercial status even if there have been slight modilications, if the 

pre:pond<eranc<" of cllaraeteri;sti<:s of the item remain commercial. 

I thank the Committee for their consideration of these requests. Attached are several addendnms 

with the referenced suggested report and bill language. 
118 

Recommended Report Language 

Mid-Tier Networldng Vehicular Radio 

Modernizing battlefield communications is a critical priority for the Army. After years of delay, 

the Army is moving forward with procuring, testing, and fielding next-generation tactical radios 

via the Mid-Tier Networking Vehicular (MNVR) and Handheld, Manpack, Small Form Fit 

(HMS) programs. 

MNVR provides the terrestrial backbone for the Army's tactical network, cmmecting lowerechelon radios, like HMS Manpack and Rifleman, with the upper tier at the brigade and battalion 

level. This terrestrial backbone provides a critical capability to the Army and reduces reliance on 

satellite communications for command and control capability. The radio utilizes advanced 

network waveforms, including the Wicleband Networking Waveform (WNW) and the Soldier 

Radio Waveform (SRW), to transmit voice, data, imagery, and video across the battlefield. 

The Army's MNVR radio has completed initial test activities and is expected to move to full-rate 

production after testing in the Summer of2016. Any further delay in this program will 

jeopardize the fielding schedule for Capability Sets 18 and beyond . The Committee reiterates 

its support for MNVR and urges the Army to maintain its testing schedule in order to meet 

fielding requirements. 
119 

Recommended Report Language 

Tactical Combat Training System, Inc II (TCTS II) and tlte Common Range Integrated 

Instrumentation System (CRIIS) 

The Committee encourages the Department of the Navy to leverage the current investment DoD 

has made for their /estranges, i.e., the Common Range Integrated Instrumentation System 

(CRllS) program, as their solution fin· the Navy's Tactical Combat Training System (TCTS) 

Increment 11 program 

Furthermore, the Committee recommends that the Department oft he Air Force leverage 

existing technologies developed in DoD's CRIIS program by inc0111orating its MILS enCIJ>ption, 

datalink technology and open architecture design into the Air Force Research Lab's Secure LVC 

Advanced Training Environment (SLATE) Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD} 
120 

Recommended Repm't Language 

Accelerate Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) to tbe Warfighter 

The Committee has previously noted the Jack of alignment between the space, ground, and user 

equipment segments on various space-based acquisition programs. The MUOS program has a 

satellite constellation on orbit but few communications terminals carrying the MUOS waveform 

software. The Committee understands that MUOS capability will be available for operational 

deployment within FY16. Both the Air Force and the Marine Corps have requested funds for 

MUOS waveform upgrades in FY17, and the Congress appropriated similar funds in FY16. The 

Committee directs that the Assistant Secretaries for Acquisition for both the Air Force and the 

Navy provide to the Congress, no later than July 1, 2016, their respective plans for procuring 

MUOS firmware and enabling their communications systems, current and future, with the 

MUOS capability. These reports shall inelude a schedule for orders, delivery, and fielding. 
121 

Commercial Item Definition 

Suggested Bill Language: 

Amend 41 U.S. Code § 103 as shown to clarify the "of a type" items with modification or minor 

modifications: 

In this subtitle, the term "commercial item" means-

(1) Any item or service, other than real property, that: i!i-ofa-iyt!I!"C-illifemm'ily-used-hyflw 

generalpuhl-ie or by non gel'ermnen.'fll enliliesfer ]JIW]Jeses ether than gevernmenlalpwpeses, 

tmtl--

(A) is of a type customarily used by the general public or by non-governmental entities for 

plii]JOSes other than governmental p/1/]Joses, and Has been se!d, lee/sed, er !ieensed te !he 

genel'atfr~QI';; 

(B) is of a type that has been sold, leased, or licensed to the general public, or offered for sale, 

lease or license to the general public; Has been offered tor sale, !ease; er /ieense le t!w general 

tmbl-iet 

(2) Any item that evolved from an item described in paragraph (I) of this definition through 

advances in technology or performance and that is not yet available in the commercial 

marketplace, but will be available in the commercial marketplace in time to satisfY the delivery 

requirements under a Govemment solicitation; 

(3) Any item that would satisfy a criterion expressed in paragraphs (I) or (2) of this definition, 

but for--

(A) Modifications of a type customarily available in the commercial marketplace; or 

(ii) Minor modifications of a type not customarily available in the commercial marketplace made 

to meet Federal Government requirements. Minor modifications mean modifications that do not 

significantly alter the nongovernmental function or essential physical characteristics of an item 

or component, or change the purpose of a process. Factors to be considered in determining 

whether a modification is minor include the value and size of the modification and the 

comparative value and size of the final product. Deil<w Vc1l11es mul percentages lilffr' be used-mi 

g11ideyt()rrts,lmt I!;"'! neLQQfiJi:l!itti:J:~'::f!Wfrfli.!f!J!- thai-£H»edi{leali811-is-mit1&'-For m ino1· 

modifications, the item need only retain a predominance or preponderance of nongovernmental 

functions or essential physical characteristics. In either case~ modifications of a type 

customarily available in the commercia/marketplace or minor modifications the source of 

fimdingfor the modifications shall not be afltctor in a determination that an item is a 

commercial item under this subsection or in determining the Government's rights in any 

technical data pertaining to such modified commercial item or in computer so.fiware qua/ifj,ing 

as a commercial item; 

(4) Any combination ..... 

Recommended Report Language: 

The Committee intends that a commercial item does not have to be "off the shelf" to be 

classified as commercial and that modification of a type and that minor modification should be 

acquired to meet Federal Government requirements. 
122 

Congressman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan 

Before the House Armed Services Committee 

Member Day Testimony on the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act 

March I, 2016 

2118 Rayburn House Office Building 

Thank you Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and Members of the House 

Armed Services Committee for the invitation to submit testimony from non-HASC members on 

our nation's Defense priorities as you craft the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017. 

I request that you consider two proposals for inclusion in the 2017 NOAA. The first 

proposal is authorization for the establishment of a unit of the National Guard in the Northern 

Mariana Islands. Legislative language I have introduced, II.R. 3649, is attached that would 

amend Titles I 0, 32, and 3 7 of the United States Code for this purpose. 

The National Guard Bureau issued a report on August 19,2015, affirming that it would 

be feasible to establish a National Guard unit in the Northern Mariana Islands. The Bureau was 

responding to the mandate for a study, contained in Section 515 of the Fiscal Year 2014 National 

Defense Authorization Act, that Congress required for guidance on this issue. 

Establishing a National Guard in the Northern Marianas would support the Defense 

Department's goal of a rebalance to Asia, increasing our military presence in the first line of U.S. 

soil in the western Pacific and thereby enhancing security and stability in the region. 

In addition to the national security rationale, a National Guard unit would give the 

Governor of the Northern Marianas additional capacity to respond quickly and effectively to 

emergency. Ours is one of only two jurisdictions nationwide that does not have its own National 

Guard- a deficiency sorely apparent in August of last year, when Typhoon Soudelor caused 

widespread damage and led the President to declare a major disaster in the islands. 

The groundwork for establishment of the Guard unit is already in place at the local level. 

The Northern Mariana Islands National Guard Act (Public Law 13-32) was enacted in 2002 by 

the Northern Marianas Legislature. What is now needed is federal action. H.R. 3649, my bill 

authorizing National Guard units in my district, will not require any funding nor would it impose 

any new requirements on the National Guard Bureau or the Department of Defense. It would 

simply include the Northern Mariana Islands in the definitions sections of current law of what 

constitutes the National Guard. 

My second request is that the 2017 NOAA include language requiring the Department of 

Defense to produce a report detailing its plan on how it would implement a unit of the National 

Guard in the Northern Mariana Islands. The 2015 feasibility report found formation ofNational 

Guard units in the Northern Marianas to be feasible. I believe the proper next step would be for 
123 

the Secretary to report to this Committee its implementation plan to establish, maintain, and 

sustain a unit of the National Guard in the Northern Mariana Islands. Such a report should 

include details regarding force structure allocation, recruiting, and funding requirements that 

would enable this Committee to better understand how the Department would stand up a new 

National Guard unit, and how Congress could help. 

I thank the Committee for its consideration of these two proposals for inclusion in the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. I also thank the Committee lor 

keeping a keen eye on the expansion of military activity in the Northern Marianas and for 

working with me as these plans continue to develop. The military buildup and presence in the 

Marianas region will have long-term consequences for the people I represent; and I appreciate 

the partnership of this Committee in managing these developments in the best interest of my 

constituents and of the national security needs of our nation. 
124 

114TJI CONGRESS H R 3649 1ST SESSION 

• • 

To amcnil titles 10, 32, and 37 of the United States Code io anthorize 

the establishment of units of the National Guard in the Cnnwwnwcalth 

of the NortlJern 1\lariana Islands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVl'i;S 

SEPTE:VIBER 29, 2015 

Mr. S,\13b\N introduced the following bill; which WHS r<'ferred to I he 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend titles 10, 82, and 87 of the United States Code 

to authorize the establishment of units of the l\ational 

Guard in the Commonwealth of the Northcm Mariana 

Islands. 

Be 'it enacted by the Senate and House q( Represcnta2 hves of the United States q{A.:merica in. Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITS OF THE NATIONAL 

4 GUARD IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

5 NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS. 

6 (a) 'l'ITLE 82 (NATIONAJ_, GuARD) AlVIE;\lmiE:\TS.-

7 (1) DEFINITIONS.-Seetion 101 of tiilc 32, 

8 United States Code, is amended-
125 

1 (1\) in paragraph (4), by striking "Puerto 

2 R,ico" and inserting "the Commonwealth of 

3 Puerto 1'\.ico, the Commonwealth of the North4 ern iVlariana Islands,"; 

5 (B) in paragrapb (6), by striking "Puerto 

6 R,ieo" and inserting "the Commonwealth of 

7 Puerto Rico, the Comrnonwealth of the North8 ern Mariana Islands,"; and 

9 (C) in paragraph (19), by striking "Puerto 

10 Rico," and inserting "Puerto Rico, the Com11 monwralth of the Northern J\Iariana Islands,". 

12 (2) BlV.o\'CI-IES AND ORGANIZATJONS.-Section 

13 103 of title :32, United States Code, is amended by 

14 striking "Pnerto Hico," and inserting "Puerto Hico, 

15 the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is16 lands,". 

17 (3) Ui\'ITS: LOCA'l'lON; ORGANIZXI'ION; COJVJ18 J\'Llu'\'D.-Seetion 104 of title 32, United States Code, 

19 is amended20 (1\) in subsection (a), by striking "Puerto 

21 Rico," and inserting "Puerto Hico, the Com22 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,"; 

23 (B) in subsection (e), by striking "Puerto 

24 Rico," ancl .iJJserting "Puerto R,ieo, the Com-

•HR 3649 III 
126 

2 

3 

3 

monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,"; 

and 

(C) in subsection (d), by stril;:ing "Puerto 

4 Rico," and inserting "Puerto Rico, the Com5 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

6 ( 'l) AVAihllillJITY OF ".\.PPROPRB.TIONS.-Sec7 tion 107(b) of title 32, United States Code, is 

8 amended b)' striking· "Puerto Hi co," and inserting· 

9 "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

10 Mariana Islands,''. 

11 ( 5) 1\L\JNTEN.AJ'lCJ<J O.F OTHER 'l'ROOPS.-Sec12 tion 109 of title 32, United States Code, is amended 

13 by striking "Puerto Rico," each place it appears and 

14 inserting "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 

15 Northern Mariana Islands,". 

16 (6) DmJG IN'l'ERDICTJON AND COUNTER-DRUG 

17 ACTTvrrms.-Section 112(h)(3) of title 82, United 

18 States Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Rico," 

19 and inserting "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of 

20 the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

21 (7) ENI,ISTMENT OATH.-Section 304 of title 

22 :32, United States Code, is amended by striking "or 

23 of Puerto Rico" and inserting "the Commonwealth 

24 of Puerto R,ico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

25 Mariana Islands,". 

•HR 3649 Ill 
127 

4 

(8) AD.JUTANTS UJ~NERAL-Section 814 of title 

2 ~'12, United States Code, is amended by striking 

3 "Puerto Rico," both places it appears and inserting 

4 "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

5 Mariana Islands,n 

6 (9) DETAIL OF REGUI.u\.R MEAIBERS.-Section 

7 815 of title 82, United States Code, is amended by 

8 striking "Puerto Rico," each place it appears and in9 serting "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 

10 Northern Mariana Islands,''. 

11 (1 0) TERl\IINA'l'ION OF APPOlNTMgNT.-Section 

12 824(b) of title 82, United States Code, is amended 

13 by striking "Puerto R.ico," and inserting "Puerto 

14 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

15 Islands,". 

16 (11) RELIEF FROM :\'ATIONAL GTlARD m;TY 

17 WJ-IE:\' OHDERED TO ACTIVJ~ DllTY.-Section 825 of 

18 title 32, United States Code, is amcnded19 (A) in subsection (a), by striking "Puerto 

20 Rieo," each plaee it appears and inserting 

21 "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the North22 ern Mariana Islands,"; and 

23 (B) in subsection (b), by striking "Puerto 

24 Rico" and inserting "Puerto H.ieo or the Com25 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands". 

•HR 3649 IH 
128 

5 

(12) COMPOSITION OF COUHTS-1\IAWrJAL.-See2 tion 326 of title 32, United States Code, is amended 

3 by striking "Puerto Rico," and inserting "Puerto 

4 R,ico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

5 Islands,". 

6 (13) ComTEJ\TING AUTHORITY OF COUI'\,TS-MAR7 TL\L.-Section 327(a) of title 32, United States 

8 Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Rico," and in9 serting "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 

10 Northern Mariana Islands,". 

11 (14) GovJmNOH'S AUTHOIUTY.-Section 328(a) 

12 of title 32, United States Code, is amended by strik13 ing "or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rieo," and in14 serting ", the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

15 Conm10nwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

16 (15) TRAIJ\TING GENERAH.N.-Section 501(b) of 

17 title 32, United States Code, is amended by striking 

18 "Puerto Rico," and inse1i,ing "Puerto Rico, the 

19 Commonwealth of the NOiihern Mariana Islands,". 

20 (1()) SUPPORT OI<' TRAINING OPERATIONS Al'ID 

21 TRAJ:\TING MISSIONS.-Section 502(f)(2)(B)(i) of 

22 title 32, United States Code, is amended by striking· 

23 "or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" and insert24 ing ", the Commonwealth of Puerto Rieo, the Cmn25 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

•HR 3649 m 
129 

6 

1 (17) PARTICIPATION lN FIELD EXEHC'ISES.-

2 Section 503(b) of title 32, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking "Puerto Rieo," and inserting 

4 "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the J\ orthern 

5 Mariana Islands,". 

6 (18) NATION.A.IJ GUARD SCHOOJA) Ai\D SJ\L'\LIJ 

7 ARMS COlVIPE'l'l'l'IONS.-Section 504(b) of title 32, 

8 United States Code, is amendccl by striking "Puerto 

9 Rico" and inserting ", the Commonwealth of Puerto 

10 Rico, the Commonwealth of the J\ orthern Mariana 

11 Islands,". 

12 (19) ATTENDANCE AT .AlDIY AXD AIR l<'ORCE 

13 SCHOOLS.-Section 505 of title 82, United States 

14 Code, is amended in the first sentence by striking 

15 "Puerto Rieo," and inserting "Puerto Rico, the 

16 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

17 (20) NATIONAL GllARD YOUTH CHALLENGE 

18 PROGRA.NL-Section 509(1)(1) of title 82, United 

19 States Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Rico," 

20 and inserting "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of 

21 the Northern Mariana Islands,"-

22 (21) ISSUE ()}<' SUPPLJES.-Section 702 of title 

23 32, United States Code, is amencle<l24 (A) in subsection (a), by striking "Puerto 

25 Rico," and inserting "Puerto Hieo, the Com-

•HR 3649 IH 
130 

7 

monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,"; 

2 and 

3 (B) in subsections (b), (c), and (d), by 

4 striking "Puerto Rico" each place it appears 

5 and inserting "the Commonwealth of Puerto 

6 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mar7 iana Islands,". 

8 (22) PliHCHASES OF SUPPLIES FIWl\I ARMY OR 

9 AIR I~OHCE.-Section 703 of title 32, United States 

10 Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Rico," both 

11 places it appears and inserting "Puerto Rico, the 

12 Cmnmonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

13 (2i1) AccmJNTABILITY.-Section 704 of title 

14 :32, United States Code, is amended by striking 

15 "Puerto Rico," and inse1i.ing "Puerto Rico, the 

16 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

17 (24) PHOPERTY AND J<'ISCAJ, OFFICI<JHS.-Sec18 tion 708 of title i12, United States Code, is amended 

19 by striking "Puerto H,ico," both places it appears 

20 and inserting "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of 

21 the J\'orthern Mariana Islands,". 

22 (25) EMPLOY:\II<JNT, USE, Al'\TD STATUS OJ'' 

23 TECJINIClANS.-Section 709(a)(3)(C) of title 32, 

24 United State;; Code, is amended by striking "or the 

25 Commonwealth of Puerto H,ieo" and inserting ", the 

·HR 3649 l1l 
131 

8 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 

2 of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

3 (26) ACCOUN'r,\.BILITY FOR PROPERTY ISSUED 

4 '1'0 'ri!E NATIONAL GUARD.-Seetion 710 of title 32, 

5 United States Code, is amended by striking "Puerto 

6 Rico," each place it appears and inserting "Puerto 

7 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

8 Islands,". 

9 (27) DISPOSITION OF OBSOLETE OR CON10 DEMNED PROPERTY.-Section 711 of title 32, 

11 United States Code, is amended by striking "Puerto 

12 Rico," and inserting "Puerto Rieo, the Common13 wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

14 (28) DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS CW CON15 DEMJ\'ED STORES ISSUED TO NATIONAL GUARD.-

16 Seetion 712(1) of title 32, United States Code, is 

17 amended by striking "Puerto Rieo," and inserting 

18 "Puerto Rieo, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

19 Mariana Islands,". 

20 (29) SETTLEMENTS FOR PHOPEHTY LOSS, PEH21 SONAL INJURY, OR DEATH.-Section 715(c) of title 

22 32, United States Code, is amended by striking "or 

23 Puerto Rico" and inserting ", the Com.monwealth of 

24 Puerto Rico, or the Commonwealth of the Northern 

25 Mariana Islands". 

•HR 3649 IH 
132 

9 

1 (30) HOl\TELAND DEFENSE ACTIVITIES.-Sec2 tion 901 (2) of title 32, United States Code, is 

3 amended by striking "Puerto Rico," and inserting 

4 "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

5 Mariana Islands,". 

6 (b) TITLE 10 AMENDJYIENTS.-

7 (1) DEF'INITIONS.-Section 101 of title 10, 

8 United States Code, is amendcd9 (A) in subsection (c)-

10 (i) in paragraph (2), by striking 

11 "Puerto R.ico," and inserting "the Com12 monwealth of Puerto Rico, the Common13 wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,"; 

14 and 

15 (ii) m paragraph ( 4), by striking 

16 "Puerto Rico," and inse1i,ing "the Com17 monwcalth of Puerto Rico, the Common18 wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,"; 

19 and 

20 (B) m subsection (d)(5), by striking 

21 "Puerto Rico," and inserting "Puerto Rico, the 

22 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is23 lands,". 

24 (2) lVIILITlA DUTY EXEMPTIONS.-Section 

25 312(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is amend-

•HR 3649 m 
133 

10 

ed by striking "Puerto Rico," and inserting "Puerto 

2 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

3 Islands,". 

4 (3) AR'riCLES OF UNIFORlii.-Section 771a(e) 

5 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by strik6 ing "Puerto Rico," and inserting "the Common7 wealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 

8 Northern Mariana Islands,". 

9 (4) MILITARY POVi'ERS OF ATTORNEY.-Section 

10 1044b(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amend11 eel by striking "Puerto Rico," and inserting "Puerto 

12 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

13 Islands,". 

14 (5) ADVAJ'<CE :MEDICAL DIRECTIVES OF MEM15 BER.S .Al'lD DEPENDENTS.-Section 1044c(e)(l) of 

16 title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking 

17 "Puerto Rico," and inserting "Puerto Rico, the 

18 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Ishmds,". 

19 (6) DE1'AIL OF ARl\fY NA1'IONAL GUAHD AS STU20 DENTS, OBSEHVERS, ;\..'lD INVESTIGATORS AT EDl:-

21 CATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, INDUSTHLUJ PJ.u\J'<TS, "L'JD 

22 HOSPI1'AIJS.-Seetion 4301(c) of title 10, United 

23 States Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Hi eo," 

24 and inserting "Puerto Rico, the CommoJJwenlth of 

25 the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

•HR 3649 IH 
134 

ll 

1 (7) DETATI~ CW ,\!H l\"ATIONAL GUARD AS STU2 DENTS, OBSEHYEHS, AC\D Il'iVESTIGATORS AT EDU3 C.;~TIONAL INSTITUTIO:'\'S, INDUSTRUL PLANTS, i'u'\'D 

4 HOSPITALS.-Section 9801(c) of title 10, United 

5 States Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Rico," 

6 and inserting "Puerto Rico, the Commomvealth of 

7 the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

8 (8) DEPll\ITION OF STATE FOR DIVISION E.-

9 Section 10001 of title 10, United States Code, is 

10 amended by striking "Puerto Rico," and inseTting 

11 "Puerto Rieo, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

12 Mariana Islands,". 

13 (9) TRAJNING OF MII.,ITARY TECHNICL\1'-JS 

14 (DU.AL STATl:S).-Seetion l0216(a)(8)(C) of title 10, 

15 United States Code, is amended by striking "or the 

16 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" and inserting ", the 

17 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth 

18 of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

19 (10) COliDUSSIONED OFFICERS ORIGINAl_, AP20 POINTMEN'l'.-Section l2204(b) of title 10, United 

21 States Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Rico," 

22 and inserting "the Cornmonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

23 the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is24 lands,". 

•HR 3649 rn 
135 

12 

1 (11) DE'l'AII.- FOii, ORGANIZING, Amlll\-

2 ISTERING, ETC., RESERVE COMPONENTS.-Section 

3 12310 of title 10, United States Code, is amcnded4 (A) in subsection (b)(4), by striking "or 

5 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico" and insert6 ing ", the Commonwealth of Puerto Hieo, the 

7 Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Is8 lands,"; and 

9 (B) in subsection (c)(7), by striking "Puer10 to Hico," and inserting "Puerto Rico, the Com11 monwea1th of the Northern Mariana Islands,". 

12 (12) STA.c'\'DARDS Ai''m QU"\.LIFICATIONS FOR 

13 COMJYIISSIONED Oli'I<'ICERS.-Section 12G42(c) of title 

14 10, United States Code, is amended by striking 

15 "Puerto Rico," and inserting "the Commonwealth of 

16 Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern 

17 Mariana Islands,". 

18 (13) FACII,ITffiS FOR RESERVE COMP0-

19 NENTS.-Section 18232(1) of title 10, United States 

20 Code, is amended by striking "Puerto Rico," and in21 serting "Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the 

22 Northern Mariana Islands,". 

23 (e) TITLE 37 DEHNITIONS.-Section 101 of title 37, 

24 United States Code, is amended-

•HR 3649 IH 
136 

13 

1 (1) m paragraph (7), by striking "Puerto 

2 Rico," and inserting "the Commonwealth of Puerto 

3 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

4 Islands,"; and 

5 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking "Puerto 

6 Rico," and inserting "the Commonwealth of Puerto 

7 Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

8 Islands,". 

0 

•HR 3649 m 
137 

l~OIU!f nf !Rtpt!lltlltlltilltrl 

Ba.ll4it!gtnu, !!J(!l2U515-2!Ul3 

The Honorable Mac Thornberry 

Chairman 

Committee on the Armed Services 

US House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

February 24, 2016 

Dear Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith: 

The Honorable Adam Smith 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Armed Services 

US House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

I submit this testimony to express my strong support for three important military 

construction projects at Fort George G. Meade for the National Security Agency (NSA). These 

projects- NSA W Recapitalization Building #2, Increment 2, NSA W Campus Feeders Phase 3 

and Fort Meade Access Control Facility··· all are included in the President's FY 2017 budget. 

I support authorization of the NSA W Recapitalization Building #2, Increment 2 project. 

The NSA recapitalization plan calls for the phased replacement of aging facilities that have 

exceeded their service life and can no longer support the technology required for new missions. 

This facility is needed to provide an environment necessary for support mission operations. With 

authorization for this project, NSA will be able to further implement the recapitalization plan, 

and will not continue to overburden existing facilities and infrastructure, which impedes its 

ability to effectively operate and meet its mission. 

I also support authorization of the NSA W Campus Feeders Phase 3 project. The existing 

feeders and physical infrastructure surrounding them have exceeded their service lives and are 

not able to meet requirements for the increasing power demand. Upgrading the feeder size and 

building them to modern standards will contribute to overall improved electrical reliability across 

the NSA W campus. As the NSA W campus electrical loads increase to meet demand, unplanned 

outages resulting from excessive thermal loading pose a risk to the currently inadequate 

electrical distribution duct bank, conduits, and medium voltage power feeds. Without this 

project, NSA will continue operating under progressively reduced levels of power reliability. 

Finally, I support authorization of the Fort Meade Access Control Facility. Fort Meade 

has insufficient facilities and requires additional area to process visitors due to mission growth. 

The Access Control Facility will allow NSA to effectively process the expected increase of 

visitors requesting andJor requiring access to the installation. Without this project, NSA will 

continue to overburden the existing access control facility, which is not adequate to process the 

expected increase in the amount of visitors. 
138 

Fort Meade has continued to grow as other military installations have shrunk because of 

the critical role it plays in our Nation's security. As home to NSA and to U.S. Cyber Command, 

Fort Meade is at the forefront of the modernization of our Armed Forces, and I urge the 

Committee's support for these necessary improvements. 

Sincerely, 

John P. Sarbanes 

Member of Congress 
139 

11Jejournal ofTRAUMA" lnjwy. Infection, and Critical Care 

Long Range Transpon of War-Related Burn Casualties Evan M. Rene. MD. 1-'ACS, Leopoldo C. Cancio. MD. FACS, Dm·id .1. Barillo, MD, F'ACS, 

Christopher E. White, MD, FACS. Michael C. Albrecht, MD. Charles K. 71zompson, PA-C, 

Jodv· L. Ennis, RN, BSN. Sandra M. Wanek, MD. James A. King, MD, F'ACEP. Kevin K. Chung, MD, 

Steven E. Wolf; MD, };~cs. and COL John B. Holcomb, MC 

Background: US milita.ry hurn casu~ 

altie.<; are evacuated to the US Army Insti~ 

tute of Surgical Resean:h Burn Center in 

San Antonio, TX. Patients arc tmn<;ported 

by US Army Institute of Surgical Rc..o;;earch 

Burn Flight Teams, Air l<'orcc Critkal Care 

Air Transport Teams, or routine aeromed~ 

ical evacuation. This study characterizes the 

military burn casualties transported by 

each tc.'lm and reports a_<;sodatcd outcomes. 

burn, ventilatory status, inhalational inw 

jury, assodatcd injuries, injury severity. 

disposition, morbidity, and mortality. 

(32.2%) \vere transported by Critical 

Care Air Transport Team. with a mean 

transit time of 4 days after injury. One 

hundred sixty (29.6%) patients were rouw 

tine aeromedical evacuees. There were no 

in-night deaths reported; 30 (5.6%) pam 

tient'i died of their wounds at our burn 

center. 

Methods: \Ve performed a retrospec~ 

tivc revi<'W of burn center registry data, 

identifying all US hurn casualties adrnitw 

ted to the Army's burn center between 

March 2003 and February 2007. Data inw 

eluded total body surface area (TBSA) 

Results: During 4 years of military 

operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, 540 

casualties were admitted to our burn cenK 

ter for treatment of injuries resulting 

from warwrelated operations. l\'lcan bum 

size was 1f•.1°/o total body surface area 

(range, <1 %-95%) with a mean Injury 

Severity Score of 12.2 13.7. One hundred 

eighl-one (33.5%) casualties required venliw 

latory support in flight; inhalation injury 

was confirmed in 69 (12.7%) patient'>. 

Twu hundred six (38.1%) were transported by the Burn Flight Team and 174 

Conclusions: Burn casualties repreK 

sent a group of patients with sevet·e trau~ 

matic injuries. Our current system of 

selectively using specialty medical transa 

po1·t teams for the long:-1·ange transpor1 

of burn casualties is safe and effective. 

Key Words: Burns, Aeromedical 

evacuation, Clitical cm·e air iranspmi. 

U

nited States military operation<> in <.;upport of the Global 

War on Tcuorism continue throughout the world, but 

occur on the largest scale in and Afghanistan. 

Since March 2003, more than 8,000 service members 

have sustained injuries from hostile action for which air 

was rcq~ired. 1 Military surgeons assigned to deunits, as \vel! as those in Germany and at military 

medical facilities in the enitcd States. continue to treat rnulti:-,ystcm trauma which frequently includes extre111ity VVt)unds, 

and burn-. related to tlame and 

percentage of combat wounded with 

injury varies from war to war, ranging from to ! 07r. Even 

relatively small surface area burns. such as those isolated to 

Submitted fur pubhcation October 2007. 

Octnh,;r ?-0, 2007. 

Fort Sam Hou~ton, Tcxa~: Landstuhl Regional McdJcal Cenlcr (SJvtW.), 

Land~tuhl, Germany: and United Stales Air Force Schoo! of AcrPspacc 

Medicine (.I.A.K), Lack land AFB. T..;xu'>. 

The \'it'\\·~ cxprc\"ed herein arc tho~c of the author~ and do not necessarily reflect thmc <)I the Army Med1ca! D~·partmcnt t'r the Department ol 

CYan.ren; (<tu~.anny .nn! 

001: l0.I()(J7fl'A.Obll13c318L608(1c9 

5136 

J Trauma. 2008;64:.Sl1(l-Sl45. 

the hands, can represent serious war-related injury with significant long-term sequelae. Since military operations began 

in Iraq in March 2003, hundreds of US military personnel 

have sustained thermal injuries from explosions and other 

implements ohvar, severe enough to warrant specialty care at 

a designated burn center. 3 The United State~ Army Institute 

of Surgical Research (l!SAISR) Burn Center in San Anton]() 

is the designated treatment facility for all military casualties. 

Improvised explosive devices, both man-packed and 

vehicle-borne, have resulted in significant traumatic burn 

injuries.4 Currently, combat ca~ualties from Iraq and Afghanistan are Jnitially evacuated from military hospitals in their 

respective theater of operatiom. by US Air force (USAf) 

Aeromedical Evacuation crews to the US military Regional 

Medical Center at Landslu!JJ (LRIVJC) in Germany. At 

LRMC, trauma patient\ are rapidly reassessed and admitted 

to receive further resuscitation and interventions a~ 

required to ensure continuity of care. Patients are then Jlown 

back to one of the designated receiving hospitals in the continental US (CONUS), typically \Valter Reed Army Medical 

Center (WRAMC) in Washington, DC. the National Naval 

Medical Center in Bethesda, MD, or Brooke Army Medical 

Center ( BAMC) in San Antonio. TX. 

All burn casualties arc flown more than 5,300 miles 

(8,600 km) from Germany to the USATSR burn center, located at BAMC, fnr definitive care and rehabilitation; the<.;e 

flights arc usually 12 hours to 13 hours in duration. During 

aeromedical transport, les~ severely hurned patients, schedFebrum:r Supplement 2008 
140 

i 2. REPORT TYPI: 

Long Range Transport of War-Related Burn Casualties 

: 51. \VOKK l':-..Jil !'./lfl'VIBER !-------------------------------C-----------

: 8 PU./H)RMING ORliANJLA.l !( lN 

REPOIU :-.1{ r.'\1BER 

7. PVRI"ORtvi!NG ORGA\JJLA flO!\ l\!AMt;(S\ Al\!D AD! )!{J::SS(l:.~J 

U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research (USAISR),3400 Rawley E. 

Chambers Avenue,Fort Sam Houston ,TX,78234-6315 -------

, I!. SPO"<SORi!'v10NrJ OR·s RU'OR! 

f------------------------------ ______________ : "'tfi\1B~~-(S_l ___ _ 

12 !)[SnUBlrnoN,AVAli"ABJJJTY STAJVJ'vlU\l 

unclassified unclassified 

c !!lbPAliL 

unclassified 

ABSTHACI 

Same as 

Report (SAR) 

~t:mdard l''orm 298 (Rch 8-98) 

!'K><.Rbctib).\\SI~HIIJ<ll\( 
141 

uled for routine evacuation. receive in-flight care from aeromedical evacuation (AE) crcwmembers. When 

critically ill burn patient:-.. the AE crew 

Army Burn Hight Team (BFT) or a US Air Force Critical Care 

Air Transport Team (CCATT). Untlcr rbese circum..,tances, 

the augmenting team assumes direct care of the in 

flight. lt the mission of both the BFT and to 

world\vide in-flight critical care for 

sustained severe thermal and 

purpose of this study wa<, to characterize recent combat burn 

ca~ualtic\ transported by each team, examine patient outcomes and di~position, and to :malylC the currently 

used to tran..,port thi~ group of often severely 

We expected to find that US military burn casualties were 

with the level of care ba.<,ed upon 

patient acuity, severity. and the number of 

patients transpmied. 

PATIENTS AND METHODS 

During the 4-year period from ?vlarch 2003 through February 2007, 1.497 patients were admitted to our burn center. 

Eight hundred fifty-six (57.2st) of these patients were civilfrom San Antonio and the o.;urround-

(43.27r) were military personnel including 

family members, and retirees. Thermal injuries 

occur in a variety of working environments and result from 

various including direct combat action, 

explosions. shipboard and usc of nvrotc<:hnic<. 

Using a protocol approved our Review· 

Board, we performed a review of data collected 

from the burn center 

in Iraq who were transported from 

to our burn center bct\vcen March 2003 and February 

a BFT, CCATT. or AE crew alone. Data included 

surface area (TBSA) burn, ventilatory status, presence of associated including inhalational injury, inseverity, morbidity, and Patients 

were transpo1tcd because of inhalation alone, 

\Vithout cutaneou-; burns, or for skin and soft tissue conditions 

:--uch as necro!ysis, or 

were from analysis. 

RESULTS 

Patients and Characteristics Five hundred forty US comhat casualties, with an average of 25.9 year:.. (range, 19~52 years), were flown from 

tn San Antonio for treatment at our hum center 

522 (96.7\0) were men and 18 

(73.29'c) of the ca:-.uallies 

War-related burn ca:--ualties 

Marines 

Total 

Evacuation '!f'Bum Casualties 

explosive device. One hundred eight-one (33%) casualties 

required ventilutory support tran~port: inhalation injury was confirmed in 69 (12.81/(') patients. 

Associated Injuries The average Injury Severity Score {[SS) was 12.2 ± 13.7 

and an ISS of 16 or was reported for 169 (31.300) 

patient:-., generally the presence of severe associated injuries. The lack of statistically significant different ISS 

between the EFT and CCATT groups was expected, as the 

burn injury itself was often the less severe of multiple injuries 

tran:-ported by CCATT. Two hundred seventy-five (50.9'k) 

patients had multiple traumatic injuries with fractures of the 

lmver extremity being most common. Tihia! fractures were 

found in 29 (5.4~'k) were noted in 20 

(3.7r:1i) patients 

ankle fractures. 

or ulna in 18 patient'> 

humerus in 15 (2.77c) p<Hicnrs. One hundred nine (20.!%) 

patients required escharotomics of one or more extremities 

and 93 (17.27d required fasciotomies because of the 

severity of wound\ or because of cmnnn•Tn•cn< 

drome. Other !:.erious injurie\ included closed 

traumatic brain injury, and injuries to the lungs or intraabdominal organs. 

Transport Information The BFT 

mi~sions and 174 patients were 

85 CCATT missions. The mean transit lime, 

period from the day of injury until arrival at the burn center, 

\Vas just under 4 days for both groups of intubated 

(Table 2). When all were considered, the patients arrived at the center slightly sooner than the 

The remaining 160 (29.601') patients were 

as routine aeromedical evacuees and arrived at the 

burn center after The 

manifc_.,t for I to 13 

l ,497 hum center admissions Outcomes TBSA Five hundred ten (94.4%) of the transported patients 

-"urvived their injuries. The length of hmpita!ization at our 

burn center averaged 26 days, ranging from 1 day to 496 days 

(Table 3). 

Volume 64 • Sumber 2 5137 
142 

The]ourna! ofTRAUMA' fnjUIJ', fnjixtion, and Critical Care 

Associated injuries 

Ventilated 

Inhalation injury 

Transit time 

Transit time for ventilated patients 

Burn center length of stay 

3.42 :':: 1.37 

38.0 ~ 57.8 

*Trauma patients without burns were not included in analysis. 

NA indicates not assayed; NS, not significant. 

Table 3 Burn Casualty Characteristics 

Variable 

ISS 

Ventilated 

Inhalation 

Transit time 

25.9 :± 25.2 

16.9-!:: 16.5 

3.65 7 2.11 

28.0 56.6 

Routine AE 

5.6 ::':: 4.0 

4.2 ± 4.9 

0 

0 

6.7 ± 4.2 

0.0012 

0.0079 

0.0464 

NS 

NS 

0.0464 

0.0011 

NS 

0.0175 

Overall 

540 

25.9 ,, 6.26 

16.7 ~ 19.7 

12.2 13.7 

181 

~ 3.2 

Mean stay {d) 38.0 J:: 57.8 28.0::!.. 56,6 8.7 ± 9.8 26.1 ::'::49.7 

Mortality ________ 27(13.1%) 

(54.41/0 patients returned to 

One hundred four (19.3%) 

that prevented 

as determined 

Currently, I 12 

burn patients arc clas.,fficd as in Transition as they 

continue their rehabilitation until the full 

to burn center. Among the 30 

·who died of their \vound~ at the hurn center, 

hurn ~ize was 67tk_ TBSA, the mean {kTBSA \vas 

Table 4 Disposition of Patients Compared With 

Severity of lnjury 

3(1.7%._:_) ____ _ 0 30 (5.6%) 

63.1 ± 22.3, and the mean ISS \Vas 39.9 ± !6.!, ranging 

from 22 to 75 (Tahlc 5). 

DISCUSSION 

Association and the Advanced Burn 

Casualties arc initially treated by military or 

men closest to the point of injury. Initial treatment is 

on the of airway protection, control, 

and of volume resu~citation. The are then 

evacuated to Lhe next higher level nf care where the 

can he further asse~scd and stabilized. The evacuation 

the 

time~ and arrive at a care 

hour~ after injury. Certain region~ of 

~omewhat longer evacuation times as 

Warriors in transition may ultimately undergo Medical Evalu- ct a!.\; US military medical personnel are 

ation Board. capable of providing critical care during both tactical intrathS 138 Febmary Supplement 2(}{]8 
143 

arrived at the Army's burn center weeks after injury. 

Initial Management and Consultation Initial management of the hum casualty in the combat 

zone a strategy of a::.sessmcnt. airway protection, appropriate in addition tn a thorough 

examinatilm for a~sociated common to the battlefield 

burns, those demonstrator inhalation injury. and 

a significant re:-.uscitation 

edema are anticipated, are often preempll\'CIY 

intubated :-.oon after injury to ensure airway 

mechanical ventilatory support. 

men! in the burn patient can be very 

that the 

menl, 

tia!ly devastating complications 

crystalloid resuscitation as noted by Chung et al. 

Volume 64 • Number 2 

Evacuation '!f'Bum Casualties 

wounds of the extremities arc prone to the potentially devastating effects of va~cular compromise as the suhcutanenu~ 

ti~sues are constrained by the restrictive e:-,char. Early 

mance of fasciotomie~ of the hmned cxtremitie~ is 

The burn 

Burn Center physicians, 

continuously available 

Since early 2005, the 

USAJSR 

5139 
144 

The]ourna! ofTRAUMA' fnjUIJ', fnjixtion, and Critical Care 

to Iraq to serve as both trauma surgeon and theater consultant 

for burns. Although the theater consultant is not able to 

examine every burn he or she is able to provide rapid 

consultation and 

imagery is 

An electronic system e'ltablished hy the US 

Army Medica! Command speeds access to care as key medical information is sent from theater back to the 

Burn Center at Fort Sam Houston. The of early telephone communication and email between providers along the 

cvucuation roU!c cannot be overemphasized. A 

cent and major enhancement in the transmission of 

patient infonnation is provided hy the Joint Patient Tracking 

Application. The Joint Patient Tracking Application is a Department of Defense web-ba<;cd <;oftware utility \Vhich enhance~ the provision of care by allowing provider-. to review 

care provided along the evacuation route. videoteleconferences between theater and CONUS also 

enhance care by rapid performance improvement. 

Evacuation the combat ca<>ualties is managed hy the 

Theater Patient Movement Center. The Patient 

Movement Request initiated burn casualty identifies 

BAMC a<; the definitive receiving medical facility. Cunent 

US evacuation 

burn casualties 

portation Command 

casualties provides to American Burn A~­

sociation burn center admission criteria hascd on the severity 

nf burn injury, the of inhalation 

and other Timely 

of information between providers allows for early 

and rapid mobilization of the. appropriate evacuation teams. 

AE Teams 

AE is a major operational 

Medical Service. 

1'\urscs 

craft of opportunity", usually cargo aircraft 

Table 6 t:STRANSCOM Guidelines for Specialty Burn 

Flight Team lltilization 

Burn severe mechanical trauma 

Burn or inhalation injury patients with PAo2 to F!02 ratio of less 

than 200 

5140 

after unloading in the war zone. Currently, the C-17 

Globemaster HI is principle 

used for AE. With a cruising 

signed to carry 36 litter and ambulatory patient:.. and 

attendants, and routinely makes the journey between Ramstein Air Base in Germany to San Antonio in anr>rm:imatel'v 

12 hours. Each C I 7 is 

and equipment for nine AE crews are specially 

trained to configure any cargo aircrafl to meet AE 

mission requirements. Both CCATT and BFT crews augment 

the AE to every AE mis::.ion. The medical 

crew the organic AE crew as'>igned to an 

evacuation mi-;sion. 

Transport Options The decbion whether to transport a particular patient 

the AE crew. or to augment the AE mi~sion 

or a BFT is hased upon many factors, 

the number and severity of burn patients. their 

overall ~tatus. and the presence of inhalation 

In the case of the stable patient for tnm<;port at the 

of a scheduled mission that already a CCATT. the 

decision may favor using a CC ATT rather than incurring the 

delay inherent in activating a BFT that must travel from their 

home station in San Antonio; CCA TT personnel arc based 

ncar LRMC, at Ramstcin Air Base with the AE crews 

that to CONGS. 

The pulmonary status and response to convcn~ 

is often a key factor in the decision 

to request a hundred (33 1

7<) of the hum 

patients required intubation and 

halation injury was confirmed in 69 

studied. On occa~ions \vhcn a burn casualty is 

and i<> u::.ing conventional ven-

~upport, more prudent to manifest the 

patient with an CCA TT crew rather than 

transport to mvait the arrival of a BFT. Conversely, 

personnel arc and to 

burn patient<> inhalation or 

requires ventilatory thecarmbrlttHos 

tran:-.port ventilators. 

choscopes as part of its standard 

event brnnchoscopy is required for 

flight. Frequently multiple 

the same explosion and the is ideally suited to tram,port 

multiple burn casualties. as well as trauma without 

thermal injurie.-,, de:-.ignated for evacuation to BAMC. 

Air Force CCATT 

February SupplEment 2(}()8 
145 

Fig. 1. CCA7T crnr inflixhr. 

crew 

includes a critical care one ~pecia!ized in 

pulmonary medicine critical care. emergency medicine. 

anesthesiology. or surgery. a critical care registered nurse. 

and a cardiopulmonary technician (Fig. I). Key to the success 

of these teams is their daily involvement with critical care in 

their hospital practice. CCATTs are to care 

for three to six patient:. depending on 

acuity. 

The experience of a given CCATT crew caring for burn 

variable based on rheir clinical specialty and preflight experience. CCATT personnel receive training in 

management of burn patients both the initial and 

advanced CCATT courses. USAlSR members serve as 

adjunct faculty at the initial CCATT course. The value of this 

frequent interaction between the teams has been demonstrated on multiple occasions \Vhere CCATT and BFT crews 

have flown caring for both burn and trauma patients 

destined for 

Army BFT The mission of the LJSA1SR i:-- to enhance and 

to the battlefield casualty, through reand advanced clinical care. The USAISR Burn Center 

i:-- desiunatcd as the definitive care facility for all LIS Armed 

Force:--... who sustain severe burns. Clinicians and 

gcons 

to the USAISR are actively involved in 

and trauma care. Surgeons deployed from 

participate in the treatment of warrior~ from 

assessment and treatment at facilities 

through the process back 

combined American 

Burn 

Association verified burn center. 

Since 195 !, the United States military has used the 

Army's BPT to tran<>porl burned personnel, including those injured in combat, training exerci~es, or 

related to injuries from other causes, to its burn center for 

Volume 64 • Numher 2 

Evacuation '!f'Bum Casualties 

definitive care.L"i.\ 6 The rationale for a specialized BFT mirrors that used hy burn centers themseh'eS··---patients benefit 

frorn care afforded to them by personnel who 

work with critically ill burn patients. 

1n addition to caring for the combat casualty, the USAISR 

Gum Center the Army's Special Medical Augmentation Response (SMART) system. The SMART-Burn 

consists of burn center personnel organized to perform consultation, assessment, treatment. and missions as 

The SMART-Bum mission can be for homedefense contingencies or to respond to natural disasters 

where burn is required. 

E~ ~~ 

center's 

intensive care units (ICU-;). Team size and compu<;ition can 

be augmented based on the number and complexity of 

tients to he transponed. Each BFT carries with them 

mcnt and supplies necessary to provide complete lCU level 

care \Vithin the austere transport environment. The leader for 

each RFf is a "urgcon experienced in the areas of 

center. 

critical care. including the mansevere lung di:.ease commonly seen 

injury. Each of tbe BFf surgeons is credenand perform surgical imcrvcntions at l,RMC' 

transporting the patients ba<:k to the burn 

The !cad flight nurse for each Btl' is a critical care 

Nurse with <>il!nificant burn and critical care exA Licensed Vo~ational Nurse serves as the second 

in using a 

\Vith severe lung 

the 

hy a 

2). The operations noncommissioned officer for 

team is also a medica! technician who serves a~ both the 

operations officer for each mission, and provides assistance 

to the flight team as needed. 

One of the most 

Fig, 2. Burn Flixht Team members attending to patient. 

5141 
146 

The]ourna! ofTRAUMA' fnjUIJ', fnjixtion, and Critical Care 

one or more factors: CCATT crews often fly from Germany 

to CONUS on a set schedule, with an intervening 

CONUS to allow patients destined for WRAMC or 

Naval Medical Center to disembark. The BFr is 

:-,cheduled flight directly from Ramstein 

thereby maximizing utilization of limited airframes 

tramport to the bum center and BAMC. This 

process often a CC'ATT to fly another mission, 

maximizing the capabilities of both teams, which exist 

limited numbers. 

Critical Care in Flight 

in the intensive care trauma unit, 

team providing the care. The manner in 

vided, ho\vcver. he markedly more 

than on the air transport 

the isolated nature and austere environment of the 

\vhich allows for finite and limited suppli~:-, and 

Ainvay protection maintenance is a continuous for all team members during flight. 

breathing and 

in flight using pul~c 

mc~burcmenb. Arterial 

as required. 

Continuous cardiac 

the PROPAQ Encore 206 

Falb, NY) :-,ecured t0 the SMEED EmcrEvacuation Device (impact West 

:'-JJ) which is then attached to the standard :Korth 

American Treaty (NATO) litter. The SMEED 

was designed at the 

BFT, to provide a solid, 

to mount multiple must use 

visual cues on the monitors as the alarm:-. are inaudible 

against the drone or aircraft noise. 

Hemodynamic support using pressor agents i~ 

for a suh:-.et of and the ttse of these 

generally 

5142 

security mu:-,t be intermittently 

and security. Both 

II1 (Cardinal Health, Dublin, OH) 

for infusion of maintenance and resuscitative fluids as well us 

pressor agents. Pain management and sedation arc closely 

monitored and controlled using intravenou.'> medications administered through the lVAC system. to the environment of the aircraft remains a challenge 

in the care of most burn patients. Heat loss from !mi!tjple 

open wound<;, including 

be taken into con:-.ideration. in airborne aircraft 

environments have provided greater cabin temperature control, 

which facilitate~ improved patient comfon and thennoregulation. Fluid management. monitoring of input and output 

volumes, and controlling fluid replacement is a continuous 

procc:.s during the night. Urinary is closely monitored 

to avoid either fluid replacement 

required for both 

To enhance 

and rigors of providing care at austere 

aeromedical environment, as well as strengthen the effective 

working relationship with Air Force Medical Service personnel, BfT team personnel complete the CC' ATT initial course 

along with new CCA TT members at the US Air Force School 

of Aerospace Medicine. Before CCATT members also attend two additional 

Military aircraft 

Burn Center at Fort Sam 

Antonio International 

Each of these airfields 

located at 

Hospital Trauma Center, Cincin~ 

the abilities to pnwide care in 

aircraft. Medical transportation between the arrival 

and BAMC varies on the number and 

of the 

\vith arc routinely 

burn patients as they provide 

emergency vehicles 

the most congested periods. ambulance 

which can transport multiple patients while 

integrity of the transport team and equipment. 

Ventilatory Support 

The patient's severity of injury, pulmonary status, and 

response to ventilatory dictates the choice of ventilator and ventilator mode transport Patients with inhalation injury can require significant ventilatory 

beyond the capahilities of conventional devices and 

one of the most common rea~ons for using the 

to the Uni-Vent Mode! 754 (Impact Instmmentation. Inc. West NJ) and LTV 1000 (Pulmonetics. VIASYS Healthcare, lnc, MN) 

vemilator-':. U-"ed by CCATT crews. the U'>es 

VDR-4 and the TXP (Percussionaire Corp, Sand Point.ID). 17 

February• Supplement 2008 
147 

Extensive use of the Percussionuire Volumetric Diffusive (VDR) by our hum center to treat 

with injury and other severe pulmonary 

tion led to the inclusion of the VDR in the team's standard 

equipment list The TXP 

used by the BFT because 

effectiveness. The TXP is driven 

has no electrical requirements. The basic 

no electrical power, hmvever, an 

pressed air b during lone-duration 

3500 Air Compre<;sor (Timeter Instrument 

Allied Health Care Producb, St Louis. MO) is 

by the USAF for use in tlight and provides a ready 

source of compressed air for the VDR-4. 

Minimizing Complications In-Flight Patienb arc carefully assessed by CCATT or BFf personnel before flight to ensure they arc stabilized for the 

1:2-hour to 13-hour tlight. Assessment include~ an in-depth 

review of the medical record, examination, and review of all recent laboratory and radiographs. Every 

precaution is taken to avoid procedures in-flight 

Al! patients, \vhcther scheduled transport by CCATT or 

BFT, are assessed by a validating surgeon to help 

ensure that the <>afcly. A !though the 

focused on 

and two were later 

transpotied to the Burn Center and subsequently discharged. 

Both patient~ who died before at our burn center 

demonstrated severe hypotcmion 

the patients \Vho required 

demon~trated bloody output from his abdominal drain and a 

marked decrease in hematocrit of bleeding from 

his operative site. the burn center, 

and underwent abdominal exploration, which revealed no 

evidence of He tolerated ~uhsequent transport \Ve!l 

and was flown to hurn center for treatment and eventual 

The fourth patient experienced a hriefun~cheduled 

and wa~ later transported to the burn center 

further :-.equel.ae. 

Concerns long-range flight and prolonged bed 

rest and vein thromVolume 64 • Sumber 2 

Evacuation '!f'Bum Casualties 

civilian emerge1Jcy patients. 

with low molecular weight heparin is often adbefore, and in flight, in an effort to reduce the risk 

of deep vein thrombosis and embolism. 

Volume resuscitation of during the first 

72 hours after injury remains a challenge for 

at all levels. Both over- and under-resuscitation of 

burn patient can lead to "criou-; complications. The challenge jo; even greater a:-. patients arc transferred between ai 

least three facilitic~. by a distance of several hundred to thousands Efforts to the process of 

fiuict resu-,citation throughout the process include 

\Veb-based publication of conscnsu~ guidelines and development of a burn resuscitation tlowshcct to be used during the 

rirst 24 hours to 72 hours after 

Our rcgrcs~ion analysis the data examining 

q,TBSA, ISS. intubation, and inhalation as 

predictor:.. of mortality. l'\ot surprisingly, only 

the ISS proved to be predictive of mortality (Table 6 ). 

CONCLIISIONS Burn casualties represent a of :..eriously injured 

warriors. Rapid treatment and care transport remain 

vital to the ~urvival of the burn casualty injured thousand-; of 

rnilcs from definitive care. Cu!Tcnt policies and 

consultation. both remotely and 

between deployed 

casualty and the burn center is important. 

Joint training :-.uch as the CCATT cour<;C and Joint Comhat 

essential education f0r tho~c 

or BFT 

cre\VS depending upon number of patient:-., the severity of 

their injurie~, and the clinical judgment of the physicians 

for lhe The joint sy:-.tem employed 

state the art care for severely ca:-.ualties 

with unprecedented rapidity when compared \Vith thal used 

ju-;t several decades 

h<'<n<><lvnc>miic monitoring, and multiple device conwill also benefit aircrews managing several critically 

injured patients in-flight. 

S143 
148 

The]ourna! ofTRAUMA' fnjUIJ', fnjixtion, and Critical Care 

Based on patient outcomes. the criteria used to determine 

when and how to augment AE mission~ transporting burn 

casualties from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan appears Lo be 

and cfricient. Current guidelines maximize the 

or highly speciali~:ed, yet very limited resources 

\Vithin the Army and Air Force. The current system 

encourages teamwork while striving to match severely injured patients v,:ith the appropriate team. at the right time, and 

at the right place. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the USAISR Research Nurse~ 

and 

William~. RN. BSN for thdr <h~istance m data colkction a11d Jo!m A. Jones 

for ~tatiqical comultmion. We aho acknowledge the contribution~ or LTC 

Loui.'> R. StouL RN. MSN: MAT Li'a John-'>Pn, RN, MSN: CPT Mario A 

Ri\'era, RN, BSN: and CPT Kri~tinc P. Bmger, RN. BSN for their contri~ 

hution~ w flight mL~610ll data cn!kc!ion. 

REFERENCES 

4 Kauvcr DS, \Volfe SE, \Vade C'E Cancio LC Ren; EM. Holcmnh 

7. San1o~ FX. Sanchez-Gabriel J. Mayoral E, Hamann C. Air 

Mil Med. 1095:!60:593-5%. 

trc;Hmcnl. US i\nned Forre.1 Mcd ./. 

9. Klein MB. Nathan~ AB. Emcrvm D. Heimbach DM. Git>ran NS. An 

ana!y~i~ of the long-distance 

burn center. .! Bum Carl' Res. "'"""'44~-"-

JO. Treat RC. Sirinek KR. Levine BA. Bruit BA Jr. Air evacuation of 

12. 

thermally uftrcatmcnt and rc~u!b. 

EY. Treatment of I. lJ6] hurncd 

YPkohoma. Japan . .I Trmmw. 

KK. Blackhourne LH. \Volf SE. ct al. Esnlution of hum 

in operation Iraqi freedom . .! Bum Care Re1. 2006: 

27:606-611. 

D. United States Tan~portation Command (USTRANSCOM) ~urgcon 

memorandum. Dl.'ccmher 7. 2004. Subject: E\aluation ,lf' Bum 

Ca~uahies. 

14. Gri\~om TE. Parmer JC. The 

Crit Care 

15 BA. Aeromedical transportation. JAMA. 19Tl.: 

5144 

16. Kirbcy TD. Dowling JA, Pruitt BA, Moncrief JA. Safe. 

!ran.<.pPrt of the scriotl'ily hurned patient. Arch Surg. 

794, 

17 Baril!o OJ, Dickerson EE, Cioffi WG. M<vingo D\V, Pruitt BA Jr. 

Prc~'iure-nmtrol!cd ventilation for the 

tran.<.p011 of patients and burns. J BHm 

205. 

1097:!8:200-

DISCUSSION Dr. Stephen l.~. Barnes (Division ofTruuma and Critical 

Care, Cincinnati, OH): Dr Renz and 

the CSAlSR pre-;en1 an excellent descriptive with outcome~ of the final ~tagc of the global 

aeromedical evacuation of burn related casualties in support 

of OEF/OJF. Significant bums, c'>peciaHy those \vith as::-.ociated combat related trauma and inhalational injury are some 

of the most challenging patient movements in our current en 

route care system. The Burn Flight Team has been 

moving for nearly 60 In 1993, the USAF 

embarked on formalization care in the air with the 

development of Critical Care Air Transport Teams, modeled 

in part, after the Burn Flight Team. Although more general in 

construct and for the mo<;t part staffed hy non<;urgeon-;, the 

three CCA T teams have moved more than 3,400 

and disease stricken patients in support of 

do not. however, have the <;arne level of 

or of the equipment provided by the Burn 

Team to comfortably manage severely burned casualtics. I have a few for the authors. Is the Burn 

evacuation'? If ~o, what role do you think team 

inexperience in hurn management or equipment played in 

these m.1tcomes'? 

The USTRANSCOM Team 

do you 

Team utili.lation with comparison hemovements and the authors should 

be applauded for their efforts. They bave demonstra1ed that 

our aeromedical en route care system, though complex in 

comtruct, is both safe and effective for lhe movement of our 

February Supplement 2008 
149 

thermally wounded warriors. Thank you for the opportunity 

to review this article. 

Dr. Evan M. Renz (US Army Institute of 

Research, fort Sam Houston. TX): 

Dr Barne . .., for his insightful comments and offer the 

re~ponses to the raised. 

One advantages possessed hy the Burn Flight 

Team in caring for severely burned trauma patients stems 

from the fact that the entire team is comprised of personnel 

who arc immersed in the care of burn patients. 

arc critically ill. The author:-. would submit that 

\vorking daily in the Burn 

In response to the quc:-.tion of whether equipment or 

personnel a unique advantage to the team, the answer 

b both. in'>titution's experience the VDR over the 

few decades to support patients 

provide~ an option that we think is 

The VDR doc~ require that both the physician the respiVolume 64 • Xumber 2 

Evacuation '!f'Bum Casualties 

significant experience in its use to 

maximize its eff<'ctivencss. We are currently implementing a 

randomized control trial the VDR4 with conventional ventilatory support to help us the validity of 

It is our hope that our wi II be able to 

data to help answer the question ideal equipment 

burn in the near future. 

to question of need and fea~ibility for 

detailing the employment of the Bf-T, 

that the answer lies in education and dissemination of information. Our efforts to maximize training in 

burn care through the Joint Forces Deployment cour~e:-, 

CCATT, and other educational programs continue to enable provider~ to better assess burn patients before transport and rcque!-.t con<;u\tation as needed. Discussion forums 

such tho~c provided through the Joint Theater Trauma 

System videoconfercnces also supplement the guideline~. 

We have striven to help deYclop guidelines which 

a<>sist the clinician in providing and timely evacuation 

for the burn patient. while taking into account the likelihood of other associated injuries. 

5145 
150 

CAREPL~?/~ 

Burn Injury Life Care Ptan 

Case # 2 - Johnathon Doe 

't.:5'T!:., ·>.'.'~:: ; :·:, 

The attached tables represent a Life Care Plan for "John~~~~;'[:~b~-~6,~~)1 ' 

pertains to the severe and devastating third burn injurie~-h;:~,~~~ra:~~~dt~~,.;,~· ;:.~: 

approximately 65% of his body. ~he burns were so severe that he was 

hospitalized for almost one year during the acute care phase. The tables show 

the realistic amount of care that he will need for the remainder of his lifetim~~ T~e 

Life Care Plan is designed to assist in determining the patient's long)E!rtrfn~~~s: , which are a result of their burn injuries. The tables include a plan ~f-~a~e th~t ';:c 

projects the cost of associated medical and home care needs over the 

individual's lifetime. The goal is to develop a plan of care that will assist in 

maintaining medical stability, maintain or increase the patient's functional status. 

and quality of life and assist in the prevention of future p<)tenti~fa~~pii~attb{ls;~ ·. -. ·- -.. :··- :,.-_,·:.,'<·.:-'_~~-~-·::~-~~;-:~~:,.->X~:-~{:--.·, .. ·.-.-_ ~' ·-.- ,:.- -~ :_-; ::. ::. 

These tables represent an actual patient. The name and all other identifiers have 

been changed to protect the client's privacy. 
151 

~\' :':.:'··;: 

. i:~.. . ' .: '·i -•.r '• 

Lif~,t~~re Plan Av~;~aged 5.~:· i for 

Jonathon H. Do 

Anytown, USA, 

Date of Birth: March 12, 1973 

Event Date: March 10, 2007 

Primary Disability: 65%- Mostly 3rd Degr' e Burns 

Preparation Date: July 21, 2009 

Ruth B. Rimmer PhD, CLCP 

2145 East Glencove 

Mesa, AZ 85213 

480-612-2994 

Copyright 2000 ~ 2004, Sadd1ePolnt Software, All Rights Rese d. 
Internal MediCi~~· 2008 

Plastic s~fr;l~dr;: 2018 

. , .:•:, 

4 Physiatrist '.2008 

Dietician··· ··.: 2008 

;--·: 

Dermatolog.iSt 2008 Occupationa~ Therapy 2008 

Otolaryngologist 2008 

Physical Therapy 2008 

10 Psychiatrist 2008 

11 Psychologist 2008 

12 Podiatrist 2008 

13 Opthamalogist 2008 

14 Recreational Therapy 2008 

15 Psychologist 2013 

16 Psychiatrist 2018 

Ute Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

··• "Cosi/Y<!"ar Average" and "To!al" are annualized If item Is a plOrl<>dk reptacemomt lt.,m. 'LEw Ute Expectancy '"U" Unknown 

C<>pyrogllt 2GOO- 20114, Saddld'olnl Sottw .. re, All Rights ReseNed, ~All Dates Inclusive, I.e., 200!}. 2002,. J Years. 

42 $325.00 

2049 32 $80.00 

2049 42 $275.00 

2017 10 $137.50 

2049 42 $137.50 

2049 42 $225.00 

2027 20 $200.00 

2049 42 $300.00 

2017 10 $212.50 

2023 16 $270.83 

2049 42 $162.50 

2049 42 $157.50 

2049 42 $46.67 

2038 26 $122.50 

2049 32 $85.00 

Sub Tota
2008 

,·-,.:·,:.-, 

·- Therapy 2008 

M8ssage Therapy Ongoing ,. 2028 

Disabled Driver Training 2008 

Individual Psychotherapy 2008 Individual Psychotherapy 2018 

ic:! ,, " 

Vocational Rehabilitation Evaluation 2009 

" 

Scooter 2018 

Scooter Batteries 2006 Scooter Maintenance 2006 Scooter Canopy 2006 

Life Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

••• ··costi'Year Average" and "Total" lire annuallled If I" a 11erlodlc !t.,m. 'LE" Life •·u"' 

CopyrlghtlOOU·2004,$;oddh•P<>mtSoftwore,AIIRightsReserve<L #A!IO<ttnorelncluslve.Le., 2000·20D2":1Years. 

2018 2017 2049 

2027 

2049 2037 

2037 

2037• 

$2,500.6o•': 

$1,950.00 

'.· 11 $480.00 

10 $2,700.00 

32 $1,250.00 

Sub Total 

19 $221.43 

Sub Tot

32 $396.79 

32 $18.40 

32 $68.75 32 $19.66 

Sub Tota

Apphcable 
'>:ido8 

":-ido8 

)6o8 

Elbow Splint .2008 2020 Elastomer 2008 2020, 

Long Leg Splint 2008 2008 

Elastomer 2008 2008 

Axilla Splint 2008 2049 

10 Elastomer 2008 2049 

CPM 

d5¥¢H+"' I 

2008 2010i 

Life Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

··• ''Cosi!Yea.r "'"d "To!af" are annualized II Item Is a perlodk <eplacemenlltem. "LE U!e .. U,. 

C<>pyrlght21l00-2004.,Sadd!ePt>h>ISoftware,AI\RightsRe$erved. IIA11Datesarelncluslve,l.e., 

13 $260.82 

13 $146.25 

1 $245.56 

1 $117"00 

42 $558.33 

42 $17.06 

Sub Tota

3 $3,270.00 

Sub To
L~~J ~~ndled B~th Brush 2008 ;2649 4 Reacher 2008 • z.o49 Shower Chair 2008 ; 2&49 Jar Opener 2008 2o49 Shower, Hand Held 2008 2049' Long Shoehorn 2008 2049 Commode With Padded Seat 2008 2049 10 Medication Organizer/Box 2008 2049' 

Bandage Scissors 2008 2017 

Dressing Change Materials 2008 2017 

Gloves, Latex 2008 2027 

Ensure 2008 2017 

Aloe First Spray 2008 2049 

Aloe Vera Lotion 2008 2049 

Up Balm 2008 2049 

Aquaphor 2008 2049 

Maderma 2008 2017 

Life Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

... "Co~IIYear Average~ itl'ld MTotal" are annudl!ted !f Item a perlo!l!c replacement item. ·LE"' Life Expec\~ncy "'\.! Unknown 

Copyroght 2000.2004, Sadd!ePnlnt Snltware, All R!!Jhls ReseNed. It All O~tu are Inclusive, t,e., 2000.2002" 3 Years. 

42 

42"· 

42 

42 

42 $6.99 

42 $4.80 

42 $7.60 

42 $1.25 

Sub Tota

10 $7.50 

10 $1,700.00 

20 $6.00 

10 $2,606.40 

42 $144.00 

42 $504.00 

42 $120.00 

42 $917.46 

10 $318.89 

Sub Total 
Tylenol 500 mg. ~ooa Arttficlal Tears 2008 

Benadryl 2008 

Multi-vitamin"' 2008 

Sun Screen 2008 

Stool Softener 2008 

10 Bacitracin 2008 

Case Management 2008 

Housekeeping Services 2008 

Interior/Exterior Home Maintenance 2008 

Lawn Care 2008 

Assisted Uving Facility 2034 

Daily Attendant 2034 

Life Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

... "C<>st!Year Aver•ge" Dnd "T<>t"l" are annuahzed II olem ls a perl<>dic •~placement Item. 'LE"' Llfe E~peclancy Copyright ZOOO. 2004, SaddlePo!nt Sottware, All Rogh!~ Re11eNed. ~All Dates are ll'lcluslve.l.e .. 2000 • 20!.12" l Yea ...... 

2049 

2049 

2017 

2049 

2049 

2017 

2017 

2049 

2033 

2033 

2033 

2049 

2049' 

$215.88 

42 $51.96 

42 $144.00 

10 $179.88 

42 $65,70 

42 $137.45 

10 $62.25 

10 $43.50 

Sub Total 

42 $4,880.00 

26 $3,640.00 

26 $9,360.00 

26 $4,375.00 

16 $41,400.00 

16 $15,375.00 

Sub Total $

Appllc~b-le 
Van, Adaptive with Lift 2008 

2 Mileage 2008 

Mileage 2018 

Architectural Renovations 2008 

Gym Membership Monthly Fee 2008 

Radiation to elbow 2008 

Emergency Room Visits 2008 

Life Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

··• "CostJY.,ar Aver•11eM and ~To~:or· are annuahzed II !lem ls a periodic replacemen! item. 'lE Llle Expecrancy .. U .. Ur>imown 

Copyrlgh!lGO!l- 2!lll4, SaddlePolnt Sol'twMe, All Rights Reserved. ~All Oates lnduslv .. ,l.e., 2!lM. 2(102 = 3 Years. 

20341 

2017 

2049 

2033 I 

2034 

" 

2010 

2017 Appllc~ble 27 $5,375.00 

10 $281.25 

32 $117.50 

Sub Total 

26 $4.750.00 

Sub Total 

27 $360.00 

Sub To

3 $5,000.00 

10 $1.525.00 

Sub Tot
Anesthesia Fee zoos/· 

OR/Surgery Suite 2008 

Therapy 2008 

Post-Op Home Health 2008 

10 Repair hetertropic ossification of right elbow 2008 

11 Dermal Replacement 2008 

12 OR/Surgery Suite 2008 

13 Anesthesia Fee 2008 

14 Grafting 2008 15 Anesthesia Fee 2008 

16 OR/Surgery Suite 2008 

17 Post-Op Therapy 2008 18 Post-Op Home Health 2008 

19 Dermabrasion 2012 

20 Grafting of bllateral poplitea!s (behind) knees 2008 

21 Anesthesia Fee 2008 

22 OR/Surgery Suite 2008 

23 Post-Op Therapy 2008 

24 Post-Op Home Health 2008 

25 Contracture Release Axilla 2008 

26 Integra- Dermal Replacement 2008 

Life Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

... and "Total" are annualized U Item Is a periodic replacement Uem. •LE "'Life Expectancy .. U" Unknown 

Copyright 2000-2004, SaddtePomf Software, At! Rights. Reserved, #All Jre lncluslve.l.eH 20!1(1. 200Z" 3 

$3;ezs:oo 

Hib:sooo 

2008 $3'1B7.50 

2008 $8,375.00 

2008 $6,900.00 

2008 $3,600.00 2008 $4,000.00 

2008 $9,53750 

2008 $11,250.00 

2008 $3,375.00 2008 $2,908.00 

2008 $3,187.50 

$8,375.00 

$6,900.00 $3,600.00 

$4,333.33 

$6,480.00 

$3,625.00 

$11,375.00 

$7,950.00 $3,240.00 

37 $1,691.67 37 $2,079.69 
27 

28 

29 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

OR/Surgery' Suite 

PostkOp Home Health 

Post·Op Therapy 

Arthritis 

Commissuroplasty - release of contractures around mouth 

Major Depression 

Contractures 

Decrease Range of Motion 

Decubitus Ulcers 

Heterotopic Ossifications 

Osteoporosis 

Peptic Ulcer Disease 

10 Infection 

11 Skin Breakdown 

12 Chronic Pain 

13 Respiratory Complications 

14 Surgical Comp!icatJons 

Life Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H, Ooe 

2008 

2008 

2008 

•·· ··cmoiJY~ar AverageH and'"Total" an1 annuallled II !tern Is a J><>rlodlc '"Placement tt .. m. 'lE" L1le Ex~t~~t~n<:y 

C<>pyrFgl'lt 20Q(l. 2004. S<>ddle?olm Software, All Rl!lhb Res-erved. It All O~tes are t<l,luslve. I.e., 200(). 2002" 3 Years. 

37 $2,479.17 

37 $540.00 

37 $4,150.00 

Sub Total 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

$0.00 

Su

Applicable 
;::] 

:It 

.I 

E 

] 

'--' 

[ 

.-1 

! X~Rays and Diagnostic Studies 

Dressing Supplies 

4 Medications & IV Fluids 

Therapies Inpatient 

Med-Surg Days 

Ufe Care Plan Averaged Summary Jonathon H. Doe 

2008 

2008 

2008 

2008 

2008 

2018 

2018 

••• ··cos!l'l'eM A"erage" a!ld "T<>!al" ar<> annlla\lled II item Is a per!odoc repl~cement Uem. 'LE"' Lole Expectancy ·•u"' Unknown 

Copyrlght20.00-lOil4,SaddtePoln!Soltwar.,,AIIR!ghtsRuerved. •AI!Oate,.arelnch.o"l"e,l.e., 2000-2002"JVeMs, 

2017 

2017 

2017 

2011 

201 

204 

204 

10 $17,940,00 

10 $3,500.00 

10 $2,625.00 

10 $1,250.00 

10 $2,500.00 

32 $531.25 

32 $2,795.00 

Sub Tota

••••Grand Total $4

N<>IAppflcable 
161 

Ruth B. Rimmer PhD, CLCP 

Care Plans for Life, LLC 

2145 East Glencove 

Mesa, AZ 85213 

Sample Costs of Burn Patients during Acute Care Phase Patients cared for at the 

Arizona Burn Center and a Burn Center in the Southeast -Verified US Burn Centers 

Male- 48 years- 15% Total Body Surface Area Burns with ankle fracture 

31 Days Acute Care Hospitalization-$ 626,725 

Wound Care- Outpatient for three weeks-$ 39,168 

Total- approximately- $665,893 

Male - 39 years- 35% Total Body Surface Area 

20 Days Acute Care Hospitalization- $337,847.66 

Male- 22 years- 65% Total Body Surface Area 

Pre- Burn Center Care for Stabilization: $32,456.00 

150 Days- Acute Care- Burn Center Costs- Southeast: $5,248,372.00 

Male- 35 years- 64%- Total Body Surface Area 

96 Days- Acute Care- Burn Center Costs - Southeast: $ 4,635,954.00 

Male- 32 years- 45%- Total Body Surface Area 

52 Days- Acute Care- Burn Center Costs- Southeast: $ 1,884,681 

Male -19 years- 35%- Total Body Surface Area with Inhalation Injury 

43 Days - Acute Care - Burn Center Costs - Southeast: $ 906,458.37 

The average cost of care for ICU and Med Surgical at the Arizona Burn center is 

combined is $12,174.00 per day. 
162 

Testimony of 

The Honorable Don Young (AK-AL) 

Before the 

House Armed Services Committee 

Hearing: FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act Member 

Request Day 

2118 Rayburn HOB 

March 1, 2016 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished colleagues on 

the House Armed Services Committee, thank you for holding this hearing, and for 

giving me the opportunity to testify as the lone Representative for the State of Alaska. I 

will keep my remarks today brief, and my staff will be happy to follow up with you to 

provide additional information on all of these issues, if needed. 

According to Air Force General Billy Mitchell, "he who holds Alaska will hold the 

world, and I think [Alaska] is the most important strategic place in the world." This was 

true when Gen. Mitchell testified to that fact in 1933, and it remains true today. Alaska 

offers unparalleled training areas, including the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex. 

While ranges in the Lower 48 are parts of states, JPARC's training areas are the size 

of states. JPARC includes 65,000 square miles of unencumbered air space (The size 

of Florida), 2,490 square miles of land space (The size of Delaware), and 42,000 

square nautical miles of surface, subsurface, and overlying airspace over the Gulf of 

Alaska (The size of Virginia). Support for service members, their families, and veterans 

runs deep in Alaska's DNA. Alaska's active duty military personnel, combined with our 

Veteran population, equate to more than 15% of the state's entire population. We as 

Alaskans pride ourselves in the strong, mutually beneficial relationship we have with 

our Alaska-based military members. 

As you continue to in the FY 2016 NOAA process, I would like to highlight 

several specific language and funding requests that are important to Alaska and the 

United States. 

Language Requests 

Inclusion of the Rural Guard Act of 2016 

I request language from a bill I introduced, the Rural Guard Act of 2016. When I 

first moved to Fort Yukon, Alaska, the National Guard played a huge, positive role in 

the community. Unfortunately, since then, rural participation has dramatically 

decreased-partly because of the high cost of travel to guard and reserve training. 

While the current travel reimbursement system may seem equitable in urban areas of 

the country, it fails to recognize the unique geography and distances people in my state 

and across the country face. 

I hope to increase participation by leveling the playing field for rural Americans 

looking to serve their nation in the Guard or Reserves. This legislation is endorsed by 
163 

HASC NDAA Member Request Day Hearing 

Testimony of Congressman Don Young 

the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association, 

and the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and currently 

has a bipartisan group of 18 cosponsors (10 Democrats and 8 Republicans). It would 

increase rural participation and remove cost-prohibitive factors in the National Guard 

and Reserves by removing the arbitrary $300 reimbursement cap for members 

traveling to training exercises and activities. This provision is critical in ensuring that all 

Americans, no matter how rural an area they live in, can serve their country by 

participating in the National Guard and Reserves. 

USAF Land Transfer to Galena, Alaska 

I request a no-cost, public purpose land transfer from the Air Force to the city of 

Galena, Alaska. The western Alaska town of Galena was hit by a devastating flood in 

the spring of 2013 (the third major flood event in Galena in the past 50 years). Federal 

and State Disasters were declared, and more than $75 million ($56 mil Federal, $19 mil 

state) has been spent on recovery efforts thus far. While Galena has made great 

strides to recover from this terrible disaster, its residents are still vulnerable to 

catastrophic floods due to its location in the Yukon River flood plain. To eliminate the 

flood threat, the City of Galena would like to move to higher ground. They have done 

surveys of the areas, and found an optimal area above the flood plain in the former 

home of Campion Air Force Radar Station. I request language authorizing a public 

purpose transfer of this land to the City of Galena. While this language was included in 

last year's House-passed NOAA, it regrettably fell in the Conference Committee. I hope 

that this year we can keep this language in the final bill and help Galena avoid future 

Yukon River floods. 

USAF Land Transfer to the University of Alaska & AHTNA, Inc. 

I request a provision that would direct the Air Force to convey the High 

Frequency, Active Auroral Research Program facility to the University of Alaska, and 

surrounding areas to Alaska Native Corporation AHTNA, Inc. This research facility was 

originally developed by DARPA and the Air Force and Navy Research Laboratories to 

conduct research in the ionosphere, the uppermost portion of the atmosphere. In 2014, 

the Air Force decided that it did not intend to continue use of the facility, and planned to 

dismantle it. Since then, the University of Alaska has worked with the Air Force to 

continue use of the facility. As the Air Force would like to relinquish ownership of the 

facility and surrounding areas, I request language that would authorize the Air Force to 

transfer the facility and underlying land to the University of Alaska, and the surrounding 

areas to AHTNA, Inc. for consideration agreeable to the Air Force and the University of 

Alaska, and the Air Force and AHTNA. 

Native American/Hawaiian SBA Section 811 Fix 

I request a fix to the Native American/Hawaiian Small Business Administration 

8(a) program. Late in Conference for the FY2010 NOAA, an original "good government" 

provision, Section 802 was modified to unfairly isolate native contractors for enhanced 

scrutiny. This new provision, Section 811, has had large negative effects on Native 

American and Hawaiian community-based contracting organizations participating in the 

SBA's 8(a) Program. Given Section 811 's negative effect on Native 8(a)s in Alaska and 

around the country, I request that the House include language that was included in last 

2 
164 

HASC NDAA Member Request Day Hearing 

Testimony of Congressman Don Young 

year's House-Passed NOAA (The amendment was en-bloced and approved on the 

floor, but fell in Conference). This provision would repeal section 811 justification and 

approval process, and would then replace it with the justification and approval process 

from the Competition in Contracting Act for contracts above $20 million. This will 

ensure that there are fair, equitable, and balanced requirements for all 

contractors seeking Federal sole source contracts. 

Creation of the National Icebreaker Fund 

I join my colleague from Southern California, Mr. Duncan Hunter, in requesting 

that the Committee create a new acquisition fund that it is vital to our national security 

interests-a National Icebreaker Fund. This body has established several of these 

acquisition funds in our history when it has become clear that the nation must prioritize 

the acquisition and procurement of equipment vital to our interests-whether it was the 

National Defense Sealift Fund, or the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. 

During my time in Congress, I have seen firsthand the hurdles we face in trying 

to expand our icebreaker fleet. Every year, our ice breaking needs grow, as does the 

cost to build a new icebreaker or renovate an existing one. Under this proposal, the 

National Icebreaker Fund would allow the Coast Guard to use funds to renovate its 

existing polar icebreakers, acquire a new one, or lease such a vessel from a private 

owner. In these times of growing threats in the Arctic region, it is time that we in 

Congress prioritize the development of these Icebreakers, which are truly critical to 

defending our national interests. 

Inclusion of the POSTURE Act 

I request that the Committee sets military force structure levels in accordance 

with H.R. 4534, the Protecting Our Security Through Utilizing Right-Sized End-Strength 

(POSTURE) Act of 2016. When the Obama Administration announced its plan in 2014 

to reduce the Army's size from 490,000 to 450,000, the world was a very different 

place. Since then, global threats have grown and our security environment has 

worsened. The risks are real, be it ISIS spreading violence across the globe, a nuclear 

ambitious North Korea, or Russia actively expanding its military footprint 

by reopening Soviet-era military bases and positioning four new combat brigades 

above the Arctic Circle. To adequately protect our interests worldwide, we must have a 

sufficient land force. This language would reverse the President's ill-advised decision, 

set personnel levels that match the global threat environment, and ensure that the U.S. 

Military has the resources, and the people, necessary to protect our national security 

Funding Requests 

State Sponsored Aerospace Facilities Funding 

I request a $10 million funding authorization for State Sponsored Aerospace 

Facilities. In the enacted FY2016 NDAA, language was included to recognize the 

"legitimate role of state government sponsored aerospace infrastructure as space 

assets." This language specifically urged the Department of Defense to "consider" the 

3 
165 

Æ 

HASC NDAA Member Request Day Hearing 

Testimony of Congressman Don Young 

use that state government capabilities can provide to the national security interests of 

the United States. This funding was included in the FY 2015 Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, and provided critical support for these state sponsored 

aerospace facilities. Unfortunately, this funding was not appropriated for Fiscal Year 

2016, despite the language stressing its importance. It is my hope that the Committee 

will take the next step and specifically authorize $10 million, from currently existing 

funds, for DOD support of commercially licensed spaceports or launch and range 

complexes, which provide mid-to-low inclination orbits or polar high inclination orbits in 

support of the national security space program. 

Alaska Military Construction 

request authorization for the full PB-17 funding request for Alaska Military 

Construction (MILCON). This funding includes several important MILCON projects in 

Alaska, totaling $561 million. These projects include $155 million for construction of 

Phase 1 of the Long Range Discrimination Radar at Clear Air Force Station, $295 

million for the beddown of two F-35A squadrons at Eielson Air Force Base, as well as 

other projects at Fort Wainwright, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, and Fort Greely. I 

request that the Committee authorizes all of these important requests. 

Report Language Request 

DoD Report on location for US Navy Arctic Operations Base 

I request a Report from the Department of Defense on locations for a U.S. Navy 

Arctic Operations Base. As the Arctic Ocean warms, its waters are becoming 

increasingly navigable. Other countries have begun exploiting the Northern Sea Route, 

as well as other routes through these far-north waters. For the United States to 

continue to be a global player in Naval operations, it must not only increase the number 

of vessels that can operate in the Arctic Ocean, but must also develop a deep water 

port from which it can operate. Therefore, I request that the Committee direct the 

Department of Defense to complete a report that will examine possible locations in the 

Arctic and Sub-Arctic Regions from which it can operate. 

Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and other members of the 

Armed Services Committee, I again thank you for giving me this opportunity. I 

encourage all of you, and your staff, to come to Alaska to see firsthand our strategic 

value, our incredible training areas, and the support Alaskans provide the military and 

its members. A strong defense presence in Alaska is not only vital to Alaska, but also 

vital to the national security of the United States. 

4