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 

94–745 2016

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–34] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING 

ON

MEMBER DAY—NATIONAL DEFENSE 

PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 NATIONAL 

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 14, 2015 
(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 

SPENCER 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 ............................... 1 

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative from Oregon ...................................... 19 

Bost, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Illinois ................................................... 12 

Chabot, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Ohio ................................................. 9 

Curbelo, Hon. Carlos, a Representative from Florida .......................................... 15 

Ellmers, Hon. Renee L., a Representative from North Carolina ......................... 22 

Fitzpatrick, Hon. Michael G., a Representative from Pennsylvania ................... 13 

Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative from Texas ............................................. 21 

Hardy, Hon. Cresent, a Representative from Nevada .......................................... 4 

Hurd, Hon. Will, a Representative from Texas ..................................................... 25 

Lawrence, Hon. Brenda L., a Representative from Michigan .............................. 16 

Ross, Hon. Dennis A., a Representative from Florida .......................................... 18 

Rothfus, Hon. Keith J., a Representative from Pennsylvania ............................. 8 

Wagner, Hon. Ann, a Representative from Missouri ............................................ 3 

Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska ................................................. 6 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Blackburn, Hon. Marsha .................................................................................. 47 

Blumenauer, Hon. Earl .................................................................................... 35 

Bost, Hon. Mike ................................................................................................ 79 

Chabot, Hon. Steve ........................................................................................... 39 

Curbelo, Hon. Carlos ........................................................................................ 81 

Ellmers, Hon. Renee L. .................................................................................... 54 

Fitzpatrick, Hon. Michael G. ........................................................................... 52 

Gohmert, Hon. Louie ........................................................................................ 49 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L., a Representative from New York ......................... 58 

Hardy, Hon. Cresent ........................................................................................ 83 

Hurd, Hon. Will ................................................................................................ 87 

Katko, Hon. John, a Representative from New York .................................... 91 

Lawrence, Hon. Brenda L. ............................................................................... 93 

Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine, a Representative from Missouri ........................ 51 

McKinley, Hon. David B., a Representative from West Virginia ................. 70 

Ross, Hon. Dennis A. ........................................................................................ 72 

Rothfus, Hon. Keith J. ..................................................................................... 74 

Sarbanes, Hon. John P., a Representative from Maryland ........................... 50 

Wagner, Hon. Ann ............................................................................................ 77 

Young, Hon. Don ............................................................................................... 31 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Hon. David B. McKinley Supplemental Documents ...................................... 99 

(1) 

MEMBER DAY—NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM 

MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 14, 2015. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2212, 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 distinguished acting ranking member, Mrs. Davis, is on her 

way, but I understand it’s fine for us to go ahead. 

The House Armed Services Committee meets today to receive 

testimony from Members of Congress on their national security priorities for the fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Just a quick note about 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 who then want to ask clarifying questions will raise their hand or make their interest known to the staff 

and they will be yielded 2 minutes each, for a maximum of 4 minutes for each witness. This will ensure that we can get through all 

of our witnesses today. And as this hearing is intended to be primarily a listening session, it is not my intent to engage in extended 

debate on various issues. 

We look forward to today’s testimony and certainly thank our 

distinguished colleagues for their advocacy on behalf of our troops 

and our national security. 

First up today is the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, 

who is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I want to thank all of you for allowing Members of the 

House to come and testify on these issues of importance. 

As many of you know, I represent the Seventh Congressional 

District of Tennessee, which is home to the brave men and women 

of Fort Campbell. Yes. And Ms. Wagner is going to cheer because 

her son is one of those brave men. Fort Campbell is home to the 

storied 101st Airborne, the 5th Division and the Army’s 160th Spe-
2 

cial Ops Aviation Regiment. Nearly 1,900 officers and 26,500 enlisted personnel call Fort Campbell home. 

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

operations. 

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

to mission success, but to the safety of our personnel. Due to Army 

budget restraints, Army aviators will only be provided with 9.3 

hours of training per crew per month. This is below the recommended increase to 11.3 hours of training per crew per month. Currently, the Active Army combat aviation brigades have a $55 

million shortfall in meeting 100 percent of their critical requirements. 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 fiscal year 2016. 

I would also like to bring to this committee’s attention the further reduction of our Armed Forces and how this will hamstring 

our ability to meet the challenges and the threats that we see in 

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

have the personnel and the capabilities to respond. If Fort Campbell is required to reduce its Active Duty personnel from 26,500 to 

16,000, I worry about our ability to defend ourselves from threats 

and to project power internationally. 

Fort Campbell is already one of the most heavily deployed bases 

in the country. If it suffers a troop reduction, it is going to be felt, 

and it will matter to our Nation. When Ebola was spreading 

through West African countries, it was 700 soldiers from the 101st 

Airborne Division at Campbell that were deployed to build medical 

facilities and contain the outbreak. 

In the spring, 700 more soldiers from the 101st will be deployed 

to Afghanistan. Soldiers from Fort Campbell are always tapped 

with response to threats made against our security around the 

globe. 

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 Nation’s defense. 

I yield back my time. 

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

Appendix on page 47.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 
3 

Are there any questions of Ms. Blackburn? 

If not, thank you. Appreciate your comments and appreciate your 

input. 

Next we will have the gentlelady from Missouri, Ms. Wagner, to 

testify. 

Thank you for being with us this morning. The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANN WAGNER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI 

Mrs. WAGNER. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Members of the committee, I want to first extend my appreciation for the work that you do. As a proud mother of a son who is 

a West Point graduate and does presently serve in the United 

States Army [inaudible—mike not on] 101st Airborne’s captain’s 

bars this month, I should say proudly. And I represent thousands 

of constituents that wear the uniform. 

I know firsthand the importance of this committee’s work for our 

national security as you begin to debate our defense priorities for 

the coming fiscal year. Thank you for the opportunity to talk about 

a key defense priority for the United States Navy and our Nation, 

the F/A–18 Super Hornet. 

The past 2 years I have become very familiar with the Navy’s 

tactical aviation capabilities. Last year this committee responded to 

the Navy’s requirement for more electronic attack capabilities by 

providing five EA–18G Growlers in the fiscal year 2015 National 

Defense Authorization Act [NDAA]. 

Congress then added 10 additional Growlers on top of that during the appropriations process, and those aircraft will provide a 

warfighting capability that no adversary can match. Growlers will 

keep our Navy equipped to overcome enemies today and in the future in all threat environments. For that, I would like to say once 

again, thank you very much. 

Today I am here to support adding F/A–18 Super Hornet aircraft 

to the fiscal year 2016 NDAA. As you know, the Navy submitted 

an unfunded requirement for 12 F/A–18F model aircraft. In testimony, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, 

stated that the Navy has a ‘‘Super Hornet shortfall,’’ in his words, 

of at least 2 or 3 squadrons, equivalent of some 24 to 36 aircraft. 

As you all are well aware, an aging fleet of legacy aircraft, the 

delayed operational deployment of the F–35 program, and the higher-than-anticipated utilization of Super Hornets in combat are contributing to this shortfall. To this last point, the Super Hornet is 

truly the workhorse of naval combat operations against the Islamic 

State of Iraq and the Levant. 

By some estimates, the Super Hornets today are flying at four 

times the anticipated rate. It is an absolutely critically in demand 

weapon against our enemies. To exacerbate the shortfall challenge, 

the Navy has lost 15 Super Hornets and Hornets over the past 5 

years to battle or training losses, aircraft that have not been replaced by the Navy or Congress. 

The strike fighter shortfall identified in the unfunded requirement request is not a new issue to the Navy. We all wish that the 

President’s budget request included additional F/A–18 Super Hor-
4 

nets, and we all expect the Navy to address the total extent of the 

shortfall in subsequent budgets. 

However, without aircraft in fiscal year 2016, the F/A–18 program faces a line closure decision. The F/A–18 manufacturing line 

is the only aircraft production with the ability to build operational 

strike fighters for the Navy today and AEA [airborne electronic attack] aircraft for the entire Department of Defense. Without it, the 

Navy could not address its shortfall, nor could it add Growlers in 

the future. 

Recall that there is likely a larger, joint requirement for more 

EA–18G Growlers that is pending further analysis. I would not be 

in front of you today if funding additional aircraft were not so vital 

to our warfighting capabilities. Adding aircraft and keeping the F/ 

A–18 line alive is the right thing to do to keep our military personnel safe and to keep our country and allies safe. 

I have provided a copy of the House letter signed by myself and 

my colleagues requesting additional aircraft. These are Members 

who have stood by the committee to support defense authorization. 

I have also added a copy of the unfunded requirement, highlighting 

the Navy’s request for 12 aircraft. I ask that both of these documents, Mr. Chairman, be submitted as part of my written testimony. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time of 

printing.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mrs. WAGNER. In closing, I urge you to add 12 F/A–18 aircraft 

to ensure the Navy can protect our Nation now and in decades to 

come. I look forward to working with this committee and supporting the final NDAA legislation as it moves through the House 

of Representatives. I stand at your service and thank you so very 

much for yours. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Wagner can be found in the Appendix on page 77.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Are there any questions for Ms. Wagner? 

If not, thank you. We appreciate you being with us this morning. 

Next we turn to the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Hardy. 

Thank you for joining us. And you are recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CRESENT HARDY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEVADA 

Mr. HARDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I would like to thank Ranking Member Smith 

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

Act for fiscal year 2016. 

There are 627 companies in Nevada’s Fourth Congressional District registered to do business with the government, and 459 of 

those are small businesses. Although they received over $200 million in Federal contracts last year and the options of the contract 

are in the billions, on behalf of those businesses and the businesses 

not yet pursuing Federal work, I want to thank you for your work 

on this permanent reform—or procurement reform. 
5 

I especially want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for including much-needed reforms on the non-manufacturer 

rule, H.R. 1597, the Agile Acquisition to Retain Technological Edge 

Act of 2015. I also introduced legislation on this issue because the 

issue could cripple the participation of small service contractors in 

the Federal marketplace. 

As a former small-business owner, I know the importance of clarification while trying to procure a contract by meeting the provisions required, which is why this legislation is very important to 

small contractors. 

Let me first explain what the non-manufacturer rule is, since it’s 

perhaps the most poorly named rule there is out there. The NMR 

exists to prevent fraud when the government is trying to buy manufactured goods like ball bearings or furniture. 

If a contract for office chairs is set aside so that only small businesses can compete, the last thing the government wants is a winning small business buying chairs from a large business, marking 

them up and then delivering them. 

That’s why the NMR says that, in the case of contract for goods 

that is restricted to small businesses, the winning company must 

either make the goods itself or buy them from another small manufacturer. Where there are some expectations in the cases, there are 

no small manufacturers. This really is the truth in advertising provisions that works pretty well. 

Unfortunately, the Federal courts have started applying the 

NMR to contracts for services so that a small builder would now 

need to either manufacture all the building supplies or buy them 

from another small business. Likewise, a small company customizing software would now be required to manufacture the underlying software. 

This application makes no sense. We already have separate rules 

for service contractors that make sure that they aren’t subcontracting all the work to large businesses. The government gets no 

benefit from putting additional supply chain burdens on small service contractors. 

But this restriction will limit the amount of competition for the 

$267 billion in services the government purchased last year. Therefore, the Small Business Administration agrees that we need to fix 

the statute to make it clear that the NMR only applies to contracts 

for goods. 

For these reasons, I strongly encourage the committee to include 

section 504, H.R. 1597, in the fiscal year 2016 National Defense 

Authorization Act. 

I would also like to lend my support to the testimony of Chairman Chabot and encourage you to include the other small-business 

contracting provisions in H.R. 1597 and H.R. 1481, the Small Contractors Improve Competition Act of 2016. 

Thank you. And I stand ready for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hardy can be found in the Appendix on page 83.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Are there any questions of Mr. Hardy? 

Thank you. We appreciate you being with us and appreciate your 

input. 
6 

Next, Chairman Young. 

Thank you for being with us this morning. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ALASKA 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will tell you I am not 

a happy individual right now. I was in traffic an hour and a half. 

I am going to try to smile right now, I will tell you that right now. 

Mr. Chairman and ranking member and my distinguished colleagues, I am here to talk about the State of Alaska and the mission. According to Air Force ‘‘Billy’’ Mitchell way back, many, many 

years ago, he said, ‘‘He who holds Alaska holds the world. I think 

Alaska is the most important strategic place in the world.’’ 

It is true what General Mitchell said in 1933. That was the year 

I was born, by the way. Alaska offers unparalleled training areas, 

including Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex. While ranges in the 

Lower 48 are parts of States, JPARC’s training areas are the size 

of the States. 

To give you an idea, 65,000 square miles of unencumbered airspace, that’s the size of Florida; 2,490 square miles of land space, 

the size of Delaware; 42,000 square nautical miles of surface, subsurface, and overlaying airspace over the Gulf of Alaska, the size 

of Virginia. 

More than that, support for our service members, their families, 

and veterans runs deep in Alaska. Alaska’s Active Duty military 

personnel, combined with our Vietnam population, our veteran population, equates to more than 15 percent 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. Many of those who have been going overseas actually deployed from Alaska. 

As you continue in the fiscal year 2016 NDAA process, I would 

like to highlight several specific funding and language requests 

that are important to Alaska and the United States mission. 

First, I would like to request the committee include a sense of 

Congress regarding the Air Force’s F–35 basing in the Pacific. In 

August of 2014, Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska was named as 

the preferred alternative for Pacific F–35 basing. Regardless, it is 

important to continue to highlight Congress’s desire to see the Air 

Force consider Alaska’s military value as part of a strategic basing 

process. 

Pacific F–35s would be based at a location that has the ability 

to host fighter-based bilateral and multilateral training opportunities, has significant airspace and ranges to meet its air training requirements, has existing facilities to support personnel, operations, 

and logistical needs, has limited encroachment from outside, and 

minimize the overall construction [and] operational cost. Eielson offers the Air Force these capabilities. 

Second, I would like to speak for a moment on the Alaskan—Native American/Hawaiian Small Business Administration 8(a) program. Mr. Chairman, we talked about this last year. This is a new 

section. 
7 

Section 811 has a large negative effect on Native Americans and 

the Hawaiian community-based contracting organizations participating in SBA 8(a) programs. And I will say personally I believe 

this program has worked well for the government, for the military, 

and the taxpayer. 

I also would support a no-cost land—this is a very small thing, 

Mr. Chairman—a no-cost land transfer from the Air Force to the 

City of Galena, Alaska. The western Alaskan town of Galena was 

hit by a devastating flood in the spring of 2013. It was really a bad, 

bad flood. Federal and State disasters were declared and more than 

$75 million—$56 million Federal and $19 million State—has been 

spent to recover this city. 

While Galena has made great strides to recover from this terrible 

disaster, the residents are still vulnerable to the catastrophic floods 

due to the location of 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 and have found there is an optional area 

above the flood plain in the former home of the Campion Air Force 

Radar Station. This area has been actually abandoned. It is still 

maintained by the Air Force. But, very frankly, they don’t have any 

objection if we could transfer the City of Galena. It costs nothing 

to the taxpayers. It will save the city and actually take land out 

of the Air Force’s hands. 

I also request funding authorizing $10 million for State Sponsored Aerospace Facilities, which have been funded before; a missile defense agency and ground-based missile defense and sensors—that’s a PB–16—an F–35 procurement RDT&E [research, development, test, and evaluation]; Alaska military construction, including projects at Fort Greely and Eielson Air Force Base; the 

Civil Military including the National Guard Youth ChalleNGe and 

Innovative Readiness Training programs; language for report of efforts to reduce high energy costs of military installations; language 

to expand space-available travel for gray area retirees. Remember, 

we have a lot of veterans and surviving spouses and airplanes are 

available. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member and 

the members of the committee. I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman—and I ask you this personally and the committee—to come to 

Alaska. This is a fine military area. Has been. Always has been. 

Will continue to be. 

It is the key to our strategic mission as far as military goes. 

Many of the bases we have today in the Lower 48 have really no 

contributing factor other than just being political. 

I say this respectfully. If want to solve a mission, you can get 

anywhere in the world quicker from Alaska than any other base in 

the United States. Now, you might not say that about Guam or the 

Philippines, but it is an area. 

Mr. Chairman, with that, I thank you. And I will answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young can be found in the Appendix at page 31.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
8 

I know that there is a group of our members who are planning 

on going to Alaska before too long on one of their specific trips. 

So any member have questions of Mr. Young? 

Thank you, sir. Appreciate you being here. 

Mr. YOUNG. On time, by the way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Just don’t hold this committee responsible for 

traffic. 

The committee is pleased to welcome the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Rothfus, who is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEITH J. ROTHFUS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, members of the committee, for holding this hearing today and for receiving my testimony on the National Defense Authorization Act for 

fiscal year 2016. 

This morning I would like to focus my remarks on the Army’s 

Aviation Restructuring Initiative [ARI]. As you know, this policy 

will result in the transfer of the National Guard Apache helicopters 

to their Active Component. Army officials have stated that this restructuring is necessary to generate savings and make the remaining aviation fleet more affordable. I have long opposed this plan 

and for the second year in a row asked, Mr. Chairman: Savings at 

what cost? 

Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard has repeatedly 

risen to the occasion. They have answered the call and fought 

bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the height of these wars, nearly 50 percent of the Army’s total force was a mix of reservists and 

members of the National Guard. 

The Pennsylvania National Guard alone contributed more than 

42,000 individual deployments. They have fought side by side with 

the Active Component, all while continuing to achieve their important mission here at home. 

ARI will have devastating impacts on all that the National 

Guard has achieved. By stripping the National Guard of its Apache 

helicopters, the Army is ensuring that the National Guard 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. This represents a fundamental shift in the nature 

and the role of the National Guard. It runs counter to the wisdom 

and preference of many Members of Congress and their constituents. 

This issue is important in Pennsylvania and to the 1–104th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion in Johnstown. These highly trained 

airmen and crew played an invaluable aerial support role in Afghanistan, where they flew their Apache helicopters and fought 

alongside the Active Component. 

The Army now proposes to replace these Apaches with a smaller 

number of Black Hawks. This reduction will deprive the National 

Guard of both highly trained personal and equipment. It will result 

in the National Guard being less effective, less combat-capable, and 

less able to heed the call to defend this Nation both at home and 

abroad. 
9 

I offered similar criticism of AIR last year and joined my colleagues in urging this committee to create the National Commission on the Future of the Army. I also advocated that there should 

be no transfers or divestment of any Army aircraft, including 

Apaches, until after the Commission has had sufficient opportunity 

to examine ARI. 

I applauded the committee for including those important provisions in the fiscal year 2015 NDAA, but I was disappointed to see 

that, at the insistence of the Senate, the legislation also contained 

a glaring exception that allowed the Army to transfer up to 48 

Apaches prior to the Commission releasing its finding and recommendations. 

The Commission was established to offer a deliberate approach 

to addressing force structure issues like ARI. So how does it make 

any sense to permit the Army to transfer these Apaches before the 

Commission has done its work? The answer is simple: It doesn’t. 

And we need to put a stop to this before it is too late. 

Even National Guard Bureau Chief General Frank Grass admits 

that, once these transfers begin, it will be all but impossible to reverse them. For that reason, I respectfully request that the committee include a simple provision in this year’s NDAA that prohibits the transfer of any Apaches until the end of fiscal year 2016. 

This will provide sufficient time for the Commission to release its 

report, for the Army and the National Guard to respond, and for 

the Congress to make a reasoned and well-informed decision. 

I recognize that this committee will be forced to make many difficult decisions over the next month, but this isn’t one of them. Providing a temporary freeze on the transfer of Apaches just makes 

sense and will ensure that irreparable harm is not done to our National Guard without due deliberation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. And 

I am happy to answer any questions that you may I have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rothfus can be found in the Appendix on page 74.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Are there any questions? 

Thank you. We appreciate your being here. Obviously, there are 

a number of members who have expressed interest in this, and we 

appreciate your input. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we will turn to chairman of the Small Business Committee, Mr. Chabot. 

Thanks for being here, Mr. Chairman. And you are recognized 

for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OHIO 

Mr. CHABOT. Good morning, Chairman Thornberry and the ranking member and other members of the committee. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify before you this morning on the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016. 

Let me begin by thanking the committee for its collaboration 

with the Small Business Committee. In my 19 years on the Small 

Business Committee, I have seen the relationship between our two 
10 

committees grow, and we certainly intend to continue that tradition. And so thank you for cooperation of all the members of this 

committee with the Small Business Committee. 

I also want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member 

on H.R. 1597, the Agile Acquisition to Retain Technological Edge 

Act. The bill has many provisions that will help small businesses, 

which I discuss in my written testimony. 

But I will be brief in my oral testimony this morning. And I actually have a hearing in Judiciary that I have to get back to on immigration, and we all know that that is a very important issue facing 

our Nation today. I hope to see those provisions incorporated in 

this year’s NDAA. 

I am here because I know there are several commonsense reforms that we can work together on to see that small businesses 

can compete fairly for Federal contracts. The Small Business Committee has held three hearings on this subject over the past few 

months, and I would like to share with you some of the findings 

of those hearings. 

First, the good news. The government has met its goals regarding contract dollars going to small businesses. Early indications are 

that we met the goal again last year as well. So that is good news. 

The percentage of dollars awarded to small businesses is a good 

measure of success, but it is not the only measure. 

Here is the bad news. Within the last 2 years, we have lost over 

25 percent of the small business firms registered to do business 

with the Federal Government. Within the Department of Defense, 

the number of small-business contract actions fell by almost 70 percent, but the size of the average individual small-business contract 

increased by nearly 290 percent. 

We have a declining small-business participation rate, which 

could threaten the core principle of competition. And, as we all 

know, it is basic supply and demand. The more competition you 

have, the better chance you have for restraining prices from going 

up. 

To address these problems, we have in the committee introduced 

H.R. 1481, the Small Contractors Improve Competition Act. This 

bill would require that the Small Business Administration place a 

greater emphasis on small-business subcontracting and participation rates. 

It would also make it easier for small businesses to joint-venture 

and team up and crack down on several contracting abuses. It is 

a good first step to helping our industrial base. And I have provided more detail in my written statement. 

I’d ask the committee to incorporate these provisions, plus provisions in H.R. 838 and H.R. 1666, into this year’s NDAA. Again, the 

details of these provisions are in my written testimony, but I won’t 

go into great detail at this time because I know the committee has 

time restraints here. 

Our Nation demands a vital small-business industrial base. It is 

fundamental to the health of our Nation as whole. I look forward 

to working with this committee to ensure that small businesses 

continue to provide the Department of Defense and the Federal 

Government with innovative and competitive solutions to support 

critical programs. 
11 

And I want to again thank you for hearing our testimony this 

morning. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

Without objection, your full written statement will be made part 

of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chabot can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And let me just say I, too, appreciate the strong 

collaborative relationship we have between our two committees on 

so many issues. 

Mr. Knight, you are recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank Chairman Chabot for his testimony and 

add my support to his request that these provisions be included in 

this year’s NDAA. 

H.R. 1481 includes language I introduced, H.R. 1390, the Small 

Business Joint Venturing Act of 2015, which he referred to. 

We all know how important competition is in the Federal procurement system. Therefore, we should be encouraging qualified 

small-business teams and joint venture to compete for Federal contracts, not allowing agencies to put roadblocks in their way. 

I look forward to working with both committees to push this 

package of commonsense reforms as we move forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment. 

Mr. Knight, I know, has been an extremely valuable member of 

the Small Business Committee already, and I know he has done 

great things on this committee. We are glad to see both committees 

have such a tremendous member. 

The CHAIRMAN. Appreciate that. 

Mr. Ashford, did you want to be recognized? Two minutes. 

Mr. ASHFORD. I don’t need 2 minutes. But could you just for my 

edification—because I am relatively new here. I think this is a 

super idea. Could you just go over what were the two bills now. 

And I could find them out myself, but —— 

Mr. CHABOT. Yeah. Well, briefly, what they deal with is, for example, bundling a lot of the contracts which may, at first, appear 

to be—you know, small businesses involved are bundled and they 

are actually much larger company-involved, and you have consolidation issues. 

Those are some of the issues that we are facing, and these deal 

with the details in all the written testimony which we, because of 

time constraints —— 

Mr. ASHFORD. Right. I don’t need to go any further. 

I think this is especially important, at least in our area of the 

country where we have a large military participation. So thank you 

very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Absolutely. 

And, as we know, about 70 percent of the jobs nowadays created 

in the American economy are small businesses. By definition, small 

businesses are companies generally under 500 employees. So they 

are not all that small sometimes. But those are the jobs of the future. 
12 

Mr. ASHFORD. And I know we are lacking in time. 

But it was interesting. A couple of weeks ago the New York 

Times had an article about out how startups have decreased substantially since 2009 from prior to that. Many of those startups are 

technological types of enterprises that could be candidates for this 

kind of work. 

Mr. CHABOT. And that’s particularly disturbing. And that’s one 

of the things that we had—I don’t recall now if our committee resulted in the article or the article had something to do with our 

hearing. 

But I know that that is a fact. And it is disturbing. Because, historically, we have had more startups than businesses that died. 

And now that’s reversed, and we have more businesses going out 

of business than businesses being created. And that’s dangerous. 

Mr. ASHFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for being here. We will let you 

get to your other hearing, but we appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we have the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 

Bost. 

Thank you for being here. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE BOST, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

ILLINOIS 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, and ranking member. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. First 

off, allow me to summarize my written testimony, if I may, for the 

need for additional F/A–18 strike fighters. 

Mr. Chairman, the Navy is facing a critical shortage of the operational strike fighters. The F/A–18 is the Navy’s only operational 

strike aircraft. The Super Hornet and its sister aircraft, the EA– 

18G Growler, provide critical strike and electronic warfare support 

in a mission against ISIS [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] and terrorist organizations. 

Increased operational tempos in the war on terror, combined 

with the Navy’s other commitments to ensure safe and free navigation of the seas, is resulting in an aircraft utilization rate that is 

four times the expected rate of use. 

As a consequence, strike fighters are rapidly approaching the end 

of their active use. In recent testimony, Chief of Naval Operations 

Admiral Greenert stated that the Navy is experiencing a serious 

shortfall of between 24 to 36 Super Hornet aircraft. The primary 

cause of these shortfalls are the above-mentioned rate of utilization 

and issues with the speed of repairs to the legacy Hornets at the 

depots. 

The Navy’s inclusion of 12 F/A–18 Super Hornet aircraft in their 

unfunded priority acknowledges these shortfalls. Unfortunately, 

the aircraft production line is at a critical juncture. Without congressional action, it may close. 

The inclusion of 12 additional strike fighters in the Defense Authorization Act will ensure that the Navy has the assets it needs 
13 

to protect our Nation. It will also protect the national security 

value provided by the St. Louis air defense industrial base. 

The F/A–18 Super Hornet and the EA–18G Growler program line 

represents more than 60,000 U.S. jobs, with 800 supplier partners 

in 44 States. 

In closing, prudence requires we keep and maintain the F/A–18 

Super Hornet and the EA–18 Growler production lines. I strongly 

urge the committee to authorize the Navy’s request for an additional 12 F/A–18 aircraft for the coming fiscal year. And, once 

again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to address this 

matter. 

On a side note, as a U.S. marine who was actually around when 

we first were testing the F–18, I look forward to working with any 

of you to find out and make sure of the importance of this and 

make sure we can put it in. 

Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bost can be found in the Appendix on page 79.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thank you, sir. 

Are there any questions for the gentleman from Illinois? 

Thank you. We appreciate your time this morning and appreciate 

your input. 

Next, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick. 

Thanks for being with us. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. I thank the chairman and the ranking member 

for this opportunity. 

With the continued threat of terrorism to the homeland, each of 

us only has to remember back to the attacks of September 11 to 

comprehend the devastation caused when our Nation’s airliners 

were turned into weapons. 

That is why I am asking for the committee’s help in protecting 

our skies from terror hijackings by requiring any aircraft that participates in the Department of Defense Civil Reserve Air Fleet program to secure their cockpits by installing secondary barrier doors. 

These secondary barriers are light, inexpensive wire gates that 

protect the flight deck while the cockpit door is open. While it is 

true the cockpit doors have been strengthened in light of the terrorist attacks, the preventative measure only works when it is 

closed. What happens when a pilot needs to open the door for any 

reason during the course of a flight? 

This lapse in security can provide an attacker just enough time 

to strike and take control of the plane. In fact, a video has surfaced 

online that shows it takes only 2 seconds for a terrorist to breach 

the cockpit once the door is opened under current protocol. 

The recent Germanwings tragedy shows us the danger when 

someone with bad intentions is able to lock themselves behind a reinforced door. Unlike the heroic efforts of the passengers of United 

Flight 93 that crashed in my home State of Pennsylvania, there is 

almost nothing the passengers can do to retake the aircraft in this 

very real scenario. 
14 

As a Congress, we are tasked with many responsibilities. Chief 

among them, the protection of our constituents and our country. 

We can no longer ignore this obvious hole in our anti-terror measures. This Congress must act now to address the shortcoming. 

If there is one thing Al Qaeda and ISIS seeks, it is a high-profile 

attack that is cheap for them to execute. Right now, for the cost 

of one trained extremist and a first-class ticket, Al Qaeda or ISIS 

can turn our aircraft into a weapon once again. This is our reality. 

Earlier this year ISIS sympathizers were arrested by law enforcement in New York City and found to have had plans to hijack 

an aircraft. Last month a passenger on a United Airlines flight 

rushed the cockpit. Three weeks ago the whole world was tragically 

shown the heartwrenching consequences of this danger when someone locked the pilot out of the cockpit and deliberately crashed 

Germanwings Flight 5925. 

As pilots will tell you, this is not hard to fix. A 2013 study found 

that secondary barriers are very cost-effective, require little maintenance, and reduce risk at a modest cost. Pilots, flight attendants, 

and Federal law enforcement have been making the case to have 

these doors on every aircraft. 

Last Congress, 60 Members of the House and 10 Senators joined 

our effort, understanding that the mandate of the 9/11 Commission 

to protect the cockpit will only be realized when every passenger 

aircraft in the country is secured with these cost-effective barriers. 

Nearly one-third of the 38 cosponsors of my bill, H.R. 911, that 

adds secondary barriers to every single aircraft in the country, are 

members of the Armed Services Committee. My ask today, Mr. 

Chairman, is much more tailored. 

The NDAA is one way Congress can work to at least eliminate 

the glaring vulnerability of putting our troops at risk. We must 

guarantee that any aircraft that transports our brave men and 

women in uniform is never turned into a weapon and our troops 

into helpless victims. 

So here is how we can fix this. As you know, the Department of 

Defense, in partnership with the U.S. airline industry, operates the 

Civil Reserve Air Fleet. In exchange for the air carriers committing 

a limited number of aircraft to this program, the airlines receive 

the opportunity to do business with the Department of Defense. 

In fact, the GAO [Government Accountability Office] study shows 

that the airline industry has received over $30 billion in business 

since 2001 through that program. Only about 350 aircraft would be 

affected by this requirement, but those are the 350 aircraft that 

transports some of our most precious cargo, our troops. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. 

I would like to recognize that my constituent, Ellen Saracini, who 

is the widow of United Airlines Flight 175 pilot Victor Saracini, is 

here today. 

Victor’s flight was highjacked by Al Qaeda terrorists on September 11 and flown into the World Trade Center just after 9 

o’clock in the morning. Victor was a naval aviator, a veteran of the 

United States Navy. 

So with Victor in mind, the 3,000 victims of 9/11, and our troops 

today, I offer these remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions. 
15 

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

Appendix on page 52.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. And I appreciate you bringing 

this issue to my attention, at least, because the secondary barriers 

is not something that I really had thought about or been aware of 

before. 

Any other questions for the gentleman? 

Thank you. Appreciate you being with us and appreciate you 

raising them. 

Mr. FITZPATRICK. Thank you, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we invite the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 

Curbelo, to provide testimony. 

The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CARLOS CURBELO, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM FLORIDA 

Mr. CURBELO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very 

much for this opportunity. Good morning to all the members, especially a special greeting for my distinguished colleague from Florida, Mr. Nugent. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on the National 

Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016. Like my colleagues, 

I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for 

their leadership on procurement reform and suggest an additional 

area that requires the committee’s attention, in my opinion. 

Within Florida’s 26th Congressional District—that is the southernmost district in the country—there are 649 companies registered as Federal contractors, including 448 small businesses. Those small businesses won over $61 million in Federal prime contracts last year out of the $440 billion spent on Federal contracts. That is why I believe that those 448 companies and the 

289,000 small contractors nationwide could be doing more if we 

only took subcontracting more seriously. 

Subcontracting is incredibly important for small businesses. Any 

large business receiving a contract for more than $650,000 must 

tell the Federal Government how it will use small businesses as 

subcontractors. This ensures that we have a healthy industrial 

base at all levels. 

Additionally, since about 80 percent of the Federal contracts are 

awarded to large businesses, this is where the money is. In fiscal 

year 2013, small businesses received $86.7 billion in subcontracts, 

which is just about $5 billion less than they received in prime contracts. 

As part of the fiscal year 2013 NDAA, this committee enacted 

legislation to hold agency officials accountable for small-business 

utilization. Specifically, when agencies were considering whether 

senior agency executives deserved bonuses, it required that the 

agencies consider whether the contracting goals were being met 

and the role of said executives in meeting those goals. 

Even though the importance of subcontracting was again acknowledged by this committee as part of the fiscal year 2014 

NDAA when it included language drafted by Congressman Graves 

to count lower-tier subcontractors towards subcontracting goals, 

agencies are disregarding congressional intent. When agencies im-
16 

plemented the fiscal year 2013 language on goaling, they took the 

term ‘‘goals’’ to mean prime contract goals, ignoring the role of subcontracting. 

As a consequence, prime contracting dollars have increased, but 

the percentage of subcontract dollars awarded to small businesses 

has been falling and is down 2.5 percent since 2010. 

Likewise, agencies have not even started implementing the fiscal 

year 2014 language. This means fewer small suppliers, manufacturers, and innovators. Subcontracting is an important entry point 

for new Federal contractors. So if we have fewer subcontractors 

today, we will have fewer prime contractors tomorrow. 

For these reasons, I introduce H.R. 1386, the Small Entrepreneur Subcontracting Opportunities Act of 2015, or the SESO Act, 

with Mr. Chabot, Mr. Gibson and Mr. Bost. SESO requires that 

agencies look at subcontracting accomplishments as well as prime 

contracting accomplishments when evaluating performance of senior executives. SESO is included in H.R. 1481, the Small Contractors Improve Competition Act of 2015, and passed committee on 

March 25th with bipartisan support. 

In Spanish, the word ‘‘seso’’ means ‘‘brains.’’ And I hope you will 

agree with me that including the SESO Act and other provisions 

in H.R. 1481 in the fiscal year 2016 NDAA is the smart thing to 

do. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I’d be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Curbelo can be found in the Appendix on page 81.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Any member of the committee have questions? 

Thank you for being here and for bringing it to our attention. 

Next, the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence. 

Thanks for being with us this morning. The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM MICHIGAN 

Mrs. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having me here 

this morning. I would like to thank all the members of the committee for allowing me this opportunity to speak on this important 

matter. 

Mr. Chairman, warfare is changing. We are in a time of fighting 

on multiple fronts using weapons we cannot have even imagined 

during the Vietnam era. Most of these weapons require knowledge 

of cyber warfare, the ability to use missiles and drones to fight 

from a distance. 

The fast-paced advance of technology is producing changes in the 

threats we face. How can we keep up? The answer is to be just as 

innovative with our human resources strategy as we are with our 

weapons and tactics. 

The Department of Defense has adopted new and powerful technologies that makes the military more effective and efficient. Despite the power and speed of these technologies, we still have some 

major cyber vulnerability. 
17 

Whether through Internet-based attacks or malicious cyber hardware, we are the primary target of cyberattacks, jeopardizing or seriously impairing our military operations. We must do more to prevent enemies from using our cyber vulnerabilities against us. 

I believe we have to provide for private development of cybersecurity supply chain ratings and accreditation. While the Department of Defense is the most reliable government protector of the 

cyber supply chain, more work is required to be done. 

Our business community is ready to accept this challenge. In 

Michigan, we are ready to meet the challenge. We have supply 

chains that feed such large defense contracts. Our connection to the 

defense industry is a long and well-established one. 

Each part of the military has a need for defensive cyber capabilities, and many also have the need for offensive capabilities. U.S. 

Cyber Command is critical for ensuring leadership in a centralized 

command for cyber operations. 

While Cyber Command set a goal for 133 operational cyber 

teams by the end of 2016, as of February 2014 only 17 were fully 

operational. We need to properly support the development, training, and deployment of these teams. 

Implementing these policies together with expanding existing 

policies such as cyber information-sharing between the public and 

private sectors will better prepare the Department of Defense to 

face serious cybersecurity challenges. 

Finally, as you address cyber operations squadrons for Air National Guard, I would like to express my strong support for the 

110th Attack Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard in Battle 

Creek, Michigan, to host a cyber squadron. Battle Creek Air National Guard Base’s existing cyber missions mean that much of the 

infrastructure required for this new mission is already in place. 

Projections show that a cyber operation squadron at Battle Creek, Michigan, would save $2.2 million, compared to a location 

without such capabilities. Michigan’s current workforce and universities provide a strong foundation for current and future recruiting 

efforts. 

Michigan has a network of highly skilled IT [information technology] professionals and qualified defense personnel. Michigan has 

22 colleges and universities that offer degrees in cybersecurity, including 5 colleges that have earned the NSA [National Security 

Agency] Center of Excellence distinction. 

Cybersecurity is also a gender-neutral occupation, allowing both 

men and women to serve our country and protect our Nation as 

equals. I hope that we will continue to see this growing area of concern addressed through effective human resources and adequate 

funding for advanced technology. 

I am aware of how difficult the job is in these tough, complex 

times. You serve to address the needs of our military service members, their families, and their civilian counterparts at a time when 

we are facing security issues on multiple fronts. This is an awesome power and, as such, it comes with a high responsibility. 

As you consider national security provisions that focus on cyber 

warfare, I respectfully ask that you consider the great State of 

Michigan and its ability to support our national cyber missions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will take any questions. 
18 

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

Appendix on page 93.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. Certainly cyber is one of 

the most important and most challenging issues we face anywhere 

in national security. And so I appreciate very much the gentlelady’s 

comments. 

Are there any questions? 

Thank you. I appreciate you being with us today. 

Next we will go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ross. 

Thanks for joining us. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS A. ROSS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM FLORIDA 

Mr. ROSS. Thank you, Chairman Thornberry, members of the 

committee. It is a pleasure to be here today to speak regarding the 

fiscal year 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. 

This year I introduced House Resolution 1337, legislation to 

waive the time limits for the award of the Distinguished Service 

Cross to Edward Grady Halcomb for acts of extraordinary heroism 

during the Korean War. I want to offer my thanks to my good 

friend, Representative Nugent, and to the rest of the members of 

the committee for including this legislation in the fiscal year 2016 

NDAA. 

The Distinguished Service Cross is the second highest military 

decoration that can be awarded to a member of the United States 

Army, and for years my staff has worked with long-time Mulberry, 

Florida, resident Grady Halcomb, who proudly served during the 

Korean War, to be awarded a Distinguished Service Cross. 

Recently I received confirmation from the Secretary of the Army, 

John McHugh, who personally affirmed that Grady Halcomb 

should be awarded with the Distinguished Service Cross for his 

valor in the service. However, there is a time limitation in the U.S. 

Code currently preventing this award from being presented to Mr. 

Halcomb. 

To address this, I introduced legislation to ensure this American 

hero will receive the award he earned in service to his country and 

his efforts to save the lives of fellow service members so many 

years ago. 

On July 27, 1950, Private Halcomb fought in the Battle of Anui 

as a member of Company B, 1st Battalion, 29th Infantry Regiment. 

This battle resulted in the worst single-unit American fatality rate 

of the Korean War, with only 24 of 235, which is 10.2 percent, of 

the soldiers surviving. 

Enemy forces captured Private Halcomb after he was wounded 

and most of his unit was killed. Now, Mr. Halcomb is a very humble and private man. His time as a POW [prisoner of war] was 

rather enduring, and what I want to just relate to you now is some 

of what he experienced, but it is greater than what we say here. 

After capture, Grady Halcomb endured a 150-mile march from 

Anui to Seoul with little food or water. In the Seoul prison, Private 

Halcomb assumed by his competence and inexplicable stamina the 

role of chief medic. At age 19, Grady Halcomb supervised 9 other 

medics and cared for up to 376 American prisoners. 
19 

At great personal risk, Grady Halcomb exposed himself daily to 

disease and infections while depleting his own strength by virtually 

never leaving his patients’ side for over a 2-month period in garrison or on the 120-mile death march from Seoul to Pyongyang. 

Although aware that sick soldiers were being routinely murdered 

by North Koreans, Grady Halcomb volunteered to remain in Seoul 

with the sick and wounded, who were separated from the main 

prisoner column marching to Pyongyang after the Inchon landing. 

When forced to leave Seoul to begin the death march, he rallied 

the feeble soldiers and escorted them until they caught up with the 

main POW column. Lastly, Private Halcomb then successfully 

helped plan and execute a daring escape with four other prisoners 

in Pyongyang despite the presence of overwhelming enemy forces. 

Awarding the Distinguished Service Cross to Edward Grady 

Halcomb is a long overdue honor for a man who risked his own 

health and safety as a POW during his times in Seoul, on the 

death march, and at the death camp in Pyongyang to care for and 

defend his fellow prisoners. 

I want to thank Secretary McHugh and his staff at the Pentagon 

and all of you here on the Armed Services Committee for working 

with my staff to include this important and needed provision in 

this year’s NDAA. I thank you. 

And I yield back. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions? 

Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I just want to thank Mr. Ross for bringing this forward. You 

know, these guys served, and they don’t ask for much. 

Mr. ROSS. It is amazing. 

Mr. NUGENT. It really is. And for you to bring this forward—and 

I appreciate the chairman for allowing it to be in the chairman’s 

mark. It is the right thing to do. 

Mr. ROSS. I agree. And thank you. 

Mr. NUGENT. And just for a time lapse, some things take a while 

to work out. And so I just really want to appreciate what you did 

for Mr. Halcomb, and I am sure he and his family would appreciate 

it, too. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. ROSS. He definitely earned it. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Further questions? 

Definitely a remarkable story. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Ross. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

I appreciate you being with us this morning. The gentleman is 

recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

courtesy of the committee being able to share two points with you. 
20 

One, I want to thank the committee for your tireless efforts on 

behalf of the foreign nationals who worked with us in the theater 

of Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been an honor working with your 

colleague, Ms. Gabbard, to be able to move this forward. It has 

been kind of a hairspring effort walking up to the cliff, but thanks 

to your leadership and others coming together in a bipartisan fashion, we have been able to increase the necessary number of visas. 

We have been able to accelerate the processing. 

But, in fact, we are being penalized a little bit because of our 

success. We are running out of visas, and we may have only 1,600 

left. It is going to be soon exhausted. We desperately need provisions in your underlying bill to help us continue this progress. It 

is the least we can do for people who put their lives on the line 

for Americans and are now at risk because there are people with 

long memories who are settling scores. These are people who are 

shot, kidnapped. Their families are at risk. And we need to keep 

the supply of visas available to them. And I have more detail in 

my written testimony. 

But part of it is to thank you. Second is to keep this alive 

through your legislation, which will make it much, much easier to 

navigate the difficult legislative shoals that you have seen in the 

past. 

The other point I wanted to make dealt with investments in dealing with our nuclear arsenal. We are on a path to invest far more 

than is needed and, frankly, what the country can afford. A recent 

report from the nonpartisan CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimates that the nuclear weapons planning currently in the pipeline calls for spending more than $350 billion over the next decade, 

and there are estimates that suggest that it will far exceed a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to build a force that will be more 

than the administration and security experts have said is needed 

to effectively deter our nuclear threat. 

Former military officials have acknowledged that the plan is unaffordable. Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General James Cartwright, said the United States nuclear weapons 

modernization plans—the challenge here is we have to recapitalize 

all three legs of the nuclear triad. We don’t have the money to do 

it. A recent defense panel report called these plans unaffordable 

and a threat to needed improvements in conventional forces. And 

I have more detail in my written testimony. 

But not only are they unaffordable, the scope is unnecessary. The 

Pentagon’s 2013 report declared that we can ensure the security of 

the United States and our allies and partners and maintain a 

strong and credible strategic deterrent while safely pursuing up to 

a one-third reduction in deployed nuclear weapons from the level 

established in the New START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] 

Treaties. Other experts, including a commission chaired by former 

General Cartwright, said that America could go even lower without 

jeopardizing security. 

Our nuclear weapons are not helping us with ISIS, with other 

challenges that we face. We have far more than we need to destroy 

any country on the planet. And the point is that it is eating into 

your ability to be able to deal with the myriad of other challenges 

that we face for our conventional forces that we do need. 
21 

I have introduced legislation. We call it the Smarter Approach to 

Nuclear Expenditures, the SANE Act, a bill that would save the 

United States approximately $100 billion over the next 10 years by 

reducing or eliminating unnecessary nuclear weapons programs. 

As you consider the 2016 Defense Authorization, I hope there 

will be a hard look at what we really need and what we really can 

afford and the impact it is going to have on the other important 

things that you are challenged with balancing. 

I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me to speak today. I 

don’t envy your hard work. And I hope you will consider these two 

suggestions. 

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

Appendix on page 35.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we definitely appreciate the input. 

Are there any questions? 

Thank you, sir. I appreciate you being here. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Next we will turn to the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Thank you for being with us and sharing your testimony. The 

gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM TEXAS 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much 

for being willing to hear testimony from others, and I appreciate 

the other members of the committee and the work you do. 

After the attack on our military at Fort Hood November of 2009, 

we suffered another shooting here at a military installation at the 

naval yard followed by the Obama administration appearing to do 

nothing effective to prevent future or such attacks. 

Our military members are normally authorized to carry automatic weapons, fire RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], drop bombs, 

shoot tanks and missiles that can kill dozens, thousands even, of 

people. Yet, the question remains why shouldn’t they be able to 

carry a weapon on military installations here in the United States? 

Some commanders, I understand—I have talked to them—have 

an issue with some carrying weapons on military installations here 

in the U.S. Some have a problem with open carry on a military installation here in the U.S. Some have a problem with concealed 

carry, but would be okay with open carry. 

Others I have talked to, including a retired top general, said 

maybe the best way would be to have people on duty as duty officers or enlisted members who were carrying while they were on 

duty. Some have said, ‘‘Look, even overseas we have some that we 

don’t allow to carry weapons overseas.’’ Fine. Check them out. 

But it seems like there ought to be a process put in place just 

like some States, like Texas has, where you could apply for a carry 

permit. Make it open, make it concealed, depending on what the 

Army felt was the best needs at that installation. 

But, at a minimum, we should at least have military members 

in addition to MPs [military police] who are authorized to carry 

weapons. And perhaps you could designate like we do in most 

States if you are an off-duty or on-duty law officer, MP, CID [crimi-
22 

nal investigation division], or even intelligence or maybe you are 

field grade or above or E–8 or above, whatever the military felt was 

appropriate—but allow some people around a military installation 

to carry a weapon on or off duty. 

There was an article by Arthur Bird in The Wall Street Journal 

sometime back that said the people that instigate these events by 

firing and killing people want to conclude their attack themselves; 

so, if they are afraid someone is going to shoot them and stop 

them, they won’t instigate the attack. 

And the best news we could ever get is that, because something 

you put in the NDAA was there, we never had another shooting. 

There was nothing else to report. 

So I would ask that the committee please consider this issue in 

the NDAA. I just know we have got military members killed twice, 

and to prevent our military members trained with weapons from 

defending themselves on their own military installation really 

should be unconscionable. 

On another note very quickly, I visit with so many friends in different services of the military, including visiting with some in the 

past 2 weeks, including visiting with some at Fort Hood last Friday 

during the Purple Heart presentation, who question how unfair it 

is for Christians to be told and Christian chaplains who have said 

they have been told, ‘‘You cannot pray in Jesus’ name.’’ Jesus said, 

‘‘If you ask for it in my name, then it will be given.’’ 

So it is a prohibited act to prohibit somebody from practicing 

their religion. And I know we give up many of our rights when we 

go into the military. I didn’t have freedom of assembly or freedom 

of speech at Fort Benning. 

One other matter. At Fort Hood—I know that this committee is 

concerned about it. Secretary McHugh says he is working on it. But 

to see these members that got the Purple Heart and know, as one 

said, ‘‘It is like a slap. Here is the medal, but you really don’t deserve it. So you are not getting benefits’’—I hope the committee 

will address that. 

I will be glad to answer any questions. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for raising three important issues. 

Are there any questions? 

Thank you. I appreciate you being here. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Now the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Ellmers. 

Thank you for being with us this morning. The gentlelady is recognized for 4 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RENEE L. ELLMERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the ability to come and testify before you in the House Armed Services 

Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I am the proud representative of the Second District of North Carolina, which is home to Fort Bragg. I would like 
23 

to draw attention to an incredibly shortsighted decision the United 

States Air Force has made, which is deactivation of the 440th Air 

Lift Wing located at Pope Army Airfield at Fort Bragg. 

The 440th Air Lift Wing is the only C–130H model wing in the 

country that the Air Force is choosing to close completely, and this 

is occurring at the behest of the busiest airfield in the world for 

training requiring tactical air lift. The Air Force wishes to remove 

all organic air lifts from Pope Army Airfield and away from the 

18th Airborne Corps and the 82nd Airborne Division Global Response Force as well as Army Special Forces groups. 

This is a decision that essentially takes the ‘‘air’’ out of ‘‘airborne,’’ as planes have been located at Pope since 1954. The removal of the 440th Air Lift Wing at Pope Army Airfield not only 

lacks strategic merit, but it injects avoidable and unreasonable 

risks into the readiness of some of the most unique and rapid deployment forces our Nation’s military has to offer. To say that this 

has been an oversight and is occurring and in regard to this decision a severe understatement. 

This ill-conceived proposal comes at a time when our Nation is 

facing growing uncertainty abroad and could require a military response that only forces at Fort Bragg can provide. This joint mission was formed over the last 8 years to provide the Airborne and 

the Special Forces with easily accessible and high-quality training 

so that they can carry out any mission they are asked without the 

risks of distance that is often created by bureaucratic, logistical, 

and operational delays. 

Eliminating the ability to rapidly mobilize, train, and deploy the 

local commanders, air crew, and aircraft that has established relationships with our most in-demand forces increases risk at an unacceptable rate. 

Now, the Air Force has repeatedly assured me that this will not 

impact military readiness, but the very client that the Air Force 

serves, the 18th Airborne Corps, disagrees. I have spoken with 

Lieutenant General Anderson, the commanding general at Fort 

Bragg, and there is a true feeling that this decision will impact his 

training abilities. 

I am pleased to say that my North Carolina colleagues have rallied around me in both the House and the Senate in a bipartisan 

manner in order to prevent the Air Force from making this poor 

decision. I brought this fight to the attention of former Secretary 

of Defense Chuck Hagel and currently Secretary Ash Carter. 

Just within the last month I have sat down with both North 

Carolina Senators and we met with Secretary of the Air Force, 

Deborah James, and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Welsh. 

It is my hope this committee sees the vital role that the 440th provides in maintaining the readiness and operational standards of 

the paratroopers and special forces stationed at Fort Bragg. 

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that you maintain the mission of the 440th Air Lift Wing and its C–130s. In conclusion, I believe it is more important than ever that the United States maintain the military superiority and continue to be the dominant force 

in freedom in the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with the 

committee on any of the challenges facing our military, and I wel-
24 

come any questions. And my staff and I are ready at any time to 

provide additional information. And any questions that you might 

have, I am happy to answer. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Ellmers can be found in the Appendix on page 54.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thank you. 

Well, I know we have worked with you and your office on this 

issue in the past, and we will certainly continue to do so. 

Are there any questions? 

Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, just a comment from a father of a 

couple of guys—or one that was stationed at Fort Bragg for 6 

years. 

I want to tell you that military air lift capacity is huge. But the 

training capacity down at the Green Ramp, where the soldiers go 

down to get requalified or to do more jumps to stay qualified, is so 

important. 

What was the Air Force’s—so how are they going to make up 

that lost capacity for the 82nd? 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Well, the Air Force maintains that the military 

readiness will continue to be there and that the training will not 

be affected because they will be able to bring in C–130s from other 

areas. But, at the same time, we all understand that a schedule 

and weather and all these different things that can happen can 

interfere with that. 

So that provides the problem for our paratroopers and their 

training and their availability—their ability to be ready, their 

availability to complete the mission. I was there at Pope Airfield 

monitoring and watching some of their training missions, and that 

particular day one of the paratroopers actually died in the training 

exercise. 

And I understand, the Air Force understands, that this is very 

important as well, but at the same time I just believe that this operation itself is so crucial and it is so unique that it is hard for me 

to justify and see the need for them to dismantle it. 

Mr. NUGENT. I just worry that—you know, we have had issues 

in regards to getting troops to Haiti when there was an earthquake 

down there. We had paratroopers sitting on the tarmac at the 17- 

hour mark and had to wait 2 days to catch a lift. 

And so I worry that, when you start degrading our capacity at 

that air base to provide that lift, it is going to worsen, not just 2 

days. It is going to be a week before we get that capacity. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the additional 

time. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

I appreciate the gentlelady being with us and continuing to bring 

this issue to our attention. 

Mrs. ELLMERS. Thank you, sir. And thank you to the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Next we have the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hurd. 

Thank you for being here this morning. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes. 
25 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILL HURD, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM TEXAS 

Mr. HURD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all letting 

me be here today and for having this opportunity. 

I was at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, twice over the last 2 weeks. 

I am proud to report that morale is high. They are excited to continue doing their mission, and they appreciate the support that this 

committee has given to them over the years, the largest facility in 

DOD’s arsenal. And they are even more excited about, hopefully, 

the opportunity for the funding levels to be where they should be, 

and they are appreciative of the work that you and this committee 

have done. 

What I want to do today is talk about three quick points. One 

is Laughlin Air Force Base in Del Rio, Texas. Laughlin produces 

more pilots than any other facility in the Air Force’s arsenal. And 

if it rains more than an inch, the entire flight deck is flooded and 

they have to stop operations. 

And they have proposals in place in order to fix this, correct this 

problem in stages, and I hope that this committee and the authorization process funds that to make sure that we are training as 

many pilots as we possibly can. 

The other thing I want to talk about is Joint Base San Antonio 

and the number of bases in San Antonio. San Antonio is becoming 

cyber city, U.S.A. We have the 24th Air Force, the 25th Air Force. 

We have NSA Texas as well. And not being part of the National 

Capital Region, there is resources in San Antonio, and the continued support of the cyber operations in San Antonio is something 

that we are looking forward from this committee. 

And the last point is something I am hoping to work with this 

committee on as my role as the chairman of the Information Technology Subcommittee on Oversight and Government Reform. When 

a soldier, airman, or marine leaves DOD or they are medically discharged, they have to physically carry their records over to the VA 

[Department of Veterans Affairs] or to Social Security. It is 2015. 

That shouldn’t happen, and it creates gaps in coverage oftentimes. 

And having 1.5 million veterans in my district, this is something 

that I think we can solve. And the technical solutions are the easy 

part. I think we need the political will to solve this not only for the 

folks currently serving this mission, but those who have left. 

So, with that, I want to thank you again for you all’s support, 

pending any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurd can be found in the Appendix on page 87.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for raising all of those 

issues. It has been enormous frustration for this committee, the 

transition issues out of the military to the VA or to the other 

things and the technology delays that the organizations are having, 

and we will definitely stay on top of that. 

Are there questions for Mr. Hurd? 

Thank you. I appreciate you raising these important issues. And 

I believe that is all of our witnesses today. So, with that, this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:19 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 14, 2015 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 14, 2015 

(31) 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 14, 2015 

(99) 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 

Æ