U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

74–470 2012

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–129] 

TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS ON THEIR 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL 

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 17, 2012 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

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

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

KATHLEEN C. HOCHUL, New York 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

JAIME CHESHIRE, Professional Staff Member 

PAUL ARCANGELI, Minority Staff Director 

DUSTIN WALKER, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2012 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, April 17, 2012, Testimony from Members on Their National Defense 

Priorities for the Fiscal Year 2013 National Defense Authorization Bill ........ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, April 17, 2012 .......................................................................................... 35 

TUESDAY, APRIL 17, 2012 

TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS ON THEIR NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Boren, Hon. Dan, a Representative from Oklahoma ............................................ 11 

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

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative from Virginia .................................. 3 

Cravaack, Hon. Chip, a Representative from Minnesota ..................................... 9 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick,’’ a Representative from Arkansas ........................ 30 

Davis, Hon. Danny K., a Representative from Illinois ......................................... 8 

Graves, Hon. Sam, a Representative from Missouri ............................................. 14 

Guthrie, Hon. Brett, a Representative from Kentucky ........................................ 12 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L., a Representative from New York ................................ 2 

Herrera Beutler, Hon. Jaime, a Representative from Washington ..................... 23 

Holt, Hon. Rush D., a Representative from New Jersey ...................................... 5 

Honda, Hon. Michael M., a Representative from California ................................ 32 

Huelskamp, Hon. Tim, a Representative from Kansas ........................................ 7 

Latham, Hon. Tom, a Representative from Iowa .................................................. 25 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck,’’ a Representative from California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services .................................................................. 1 

Murphy, Hon. Tim, a Representative from Pennsylvania .................................... 27 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative from Texas ...................................... 15 

Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R., a Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico ................ 19 

Stivers, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Ohio .................................................. 32 

Walsh, Hon. Joe, a Representative from Illinois ................................................... 17 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, a Representative from Pennsylvania .......................... 84 

Boren, Hon. Dan ............................................................................................... 79 

Chu, Hon. Judy ................................................................................................. 88 

Cravaack, Hon. Chip ........................................................................................ 95 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ ......................................................................... 98 

Davis, Hon. Danny K. ...................................................................................... 46 

Dent, Hon. Charles W., a Representative from Pennsylvania ...................... 80 

Farr, Hon. Sam, a Representative from California ....................................... 42 

Fitzpatrick, Hon. Michael E., a Representative from Pennsylvania ............ 91 
Page

IV 

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued 

Gowdy, Hon. Trey, a Representative from South Carolina ........................... 107 

Graves, Hon. Sam ............................................................................................. 51 

Guthrie, Hon. Brett .......................................................................................... 86 

Hanna, Hon. Richard L. ................................................................................... 108 

Herrera Beutler, Hon. Jaime ........................................................................... 109 

Holt, Hon. Rush D. ........................................................................................... 48 

Honda, Hon. Michael M. .................................................................................. 55 

Huelskamp, Hon. Tim ...................................................................................... 111 

Kinzinger, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Illinois ................................. 123 

Latham, Hon. Tom ........................................................................................... 43 

McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ .................................................................... 39 

McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative from California .............. 82 

Mulvaney, Hon. Mick, a Representative from South Carolina ..................... 124 

Murphy, Hon. Tim ............................................................................................ 57 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy ................................................................................. 77 

Petri, Hon. Thomas E., a Representative from Wisconsin ............................ 41 

Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R. ................................................................................... 129 

Stivers, Hon. Steve ........................................................................................... 126 

Stutzman, Hon. Marlin A., a Representative from Indiana .......................... 90 

Walsh, Hon. Joe ................................................................................................ 127 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Genitourinary Trauma in the Military, Department of Defense Report 

to Congress, submitted by Hon. Brett Guthrie .......................................... 135 

H.R. 3985, the Building Better Business Partnerships Act of 2012, submitted by Hon. Judy Chu ............................................................................. 144 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.] 
(1) 

TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS ON THEIR NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, Tuesday, April 17, 2012. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ 

McKeon (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 

Good morning. The House Armed Services Committee meets 

today to receive testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense priorities for the fiscal year 2013 National Defense 

Authorization Act [NDAA]. 

As we begin the process of crafting our legislation it is essential 

that this committee seek input from all Members of the House to 

better enable us to fulfill Congress’ Article I, Section 8 constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. 

We all share the responsibility to provide the best possible resources for our warfighters, and we look forward to hearing from 

this group of our fellow Members of Congress on their proposals for 

how best to carry out our mandate. 

A quick note on our format for today—in consultation with the 

ranking member, we will depart from our regular questioning process. Each witness will have 5 minutes to testify, followed by a 5- 

minute round of clarifying questions from the committee. 

Members of the committee may seek recognition by raised hand 

and will be granted 2 minutes apiece, up to the 5-minute limit. 

This will ensure we can hear from all our witnesses today in a 

timely fashion. 

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

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

We look forward to today’s testimony and thank the participating 

Members for the advocacy on behalf of our troops. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

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

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening statement. I look forward to the testimony from the witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now recognize the gentleman from New York 

for 5 minutes, Representative Richard Hanna. 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. HANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW YORK 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Smith. 

Appreciate it. Good morning. 

As you work through the 2013 National Defense Authorization 

Act, I am here to request the committee provide sufficient funding 

for our 21st century defense initiatives. 

The 2013 Department of Defense [DOD] budget proposed by the 

Administration does not provide ample funding for cybersecurity 

defenses or advanced research projects. Such proposals are essential to our maintaining our technological edge. They have been unreasonably cut in the Administration’s budget proposal. 

If the Department of Defense budget figures remain, key program areas that are vital to our Nation’s infrastructure would be 

vastly undercut. For example, over $1 billion in funding would be 

cut from the Air Force’s total funding levels for research, development, test and evaluation programs. 

Of greater concern are the 17 percent cuts that the Air Force’s 

science and technology cyber fund would face. There are many 

agencies that would be adversely affected as a result of these unwise cuts. Some of these agencies include STRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command], the Air Force’s Air Combat Command and intelligence agencies, including National Security Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency. 

These cuts hurt the ability of our agencies to act and leverage 

on external funding. This would multiply the damage done to our 

ability to maintain the technology edge that our forces demand and 

deserve. 

I have seen the type of innovative projects that are being worked 

on by Air Force research laboratories, such as Rome Labs, New 

York. For example, Rome Labs was the first to initiate computer 

network attack and exploitation as a formal science discipline. 

Rome Lab is also a leader in command and control operations, reverse engineering, and several other next generation science and 

technology advancements. 

Our economy, our armed services, our daily lives are dependent 

on accessibility to safe information technology. We must protect our 

networks by providing the funding levels necessary to do just that. 

The National Defense Authorization Act presents the best opportunity to show that we understand the value of these programs. 

I believe that we run risk of falling behind if this Administration’s budget figures stand. 

I know that our national security and the importance of 

prioritizing our information technology and cyber defense programs 

are recognized by the members of this committee. It is my hope 

that these programs will be provided with sufficient funding levels 

that they require to keep us ahead. 

Therefore, I would like to formally ask my colleagues on the committee to review the Air Force Research Lab Information Directorate programs in order to provide fair and realistic funding for 

our Nation’s 21st century cyber defenses within the fiscal year 

2013 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Thank you for your consideration and thank you for your time. 
3 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna can be found in the Appendix on page 108.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. And your comments are 

very timely. We, as we go through this budget, have major cuts in 

the defense budget. $487 billion, roughly, was the amount that we 

are dealing with as we go through the budget process, and then, 

when the sequestration hits, that is another $500 billion or $600 

billion over the next 10 years. So it is going to be devastating to 

many programs. 

Next week, we have several bills on the floor dealing with cyber, 

and I think today there is a briefing for the Members of Congress 

that I would encourage all Members to attend, because this is a 

very, very important issue. And we will definitely give every consideration we can as we go through the drafting of the bill to take 

into account the things that you have mentioned. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Chairman McKeon. 

The CHAIRMAN. Anyone else wish to—any questions or comments? 

Thank you very much. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Gerry 

Connolly, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GERALD E. CONNOLLY, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VIRGINIA 

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

Mr. Smith and distinguished members of the committee. Your committee’s annual work on the NDAA is a model of bipartisan 

inclusivity. We should strive to follow that more often in Congress. 

I appreciate the committee’s ongoing commitment to providing essential support services and the equipment for the men and women 

who served in our Armed Forces and their families. 

The committee has also consistently fostered a strong partnership with the defense industrial base, which supports the services 

and equipment on which our troops and families rely. 

Thanks for considering my language to implement a pilot program for growing small businesses, sometimes referred to as ‘‘midtier,’’ which have outgrown their size standard. I also appreciate 

the consideration of the committee of language to ensure that size 

standards promulgated by the Small Business Administration 

[SBA] accurately reflect industry profiles and promote small business growth. 

These proposals address concerns your committee identified 

through the Shuster-Larsen Panel on Business Challenges Within 

the Defense Industry. In addition, I look forward to opportunities 

to improve energy security for the armed services, building on your 

leadership to address this critical issue. 

As part of the committee’s efforts to strengthen the industrial 

base, Congressmen Shuster and Larsen led the panel on business 

challenges, which highlights challenges small businesses can face 

when contracting within the Defense Department. As the report on 

that panel recognized, growing small businesses are being squeezed 

out of contracts to the detriment of the industrial base. 

In order to strengthen the industrial base and protect small business competition, I have had the privilege of working with a bipar-
4 

tisan group of Members to address the challenge faced by those 

small businesses which have outgrown their size standard. Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama and I participated in a hearing 

recently convened by Chairman Graves in the Small Business Committee to discuss these very challenges. 

We heard testimony that many successful military and civilian 

contractors outgrow their size standards under the North American 

industrial classification system. As a result of their not having adequate resources to compete with larger contractors, they often wind 

up with the untenable choice of either selling their company or, 

frankly, going out of business. 

As the Center for Strategic and International Studies documented, this market dynamic has led to declining market share for 

growing small businesses, which leads to decreased competition 

and a weaker industrial base. 

Conversely, if we ensure that growing small businesses have a 

chance to compete, then we will strengthen our industrial base and 

protect taxpayers by increasing the number of contractors who can 

bid on projects. 

Chairman Graves, Congressman Mike Rogers and I developed bipartisan language to implement a pilot program to allow small 

businesses that have outgrown their size standard. This program 

protects investments we have made through the 8(a) servicedisabled, veteran-owned small businesses and other small programs. It creates a new level of consideration for competition 

among these mid-tier or growing small businesses before a project 

is put up for consideration by the general contracting community. 

The bipartisan language will strengthen the industrial base, 

while promoting competition, and I thank you for considering our 

language in the base text of the NDAA. I may add, Mr. Chairman, 

a number of members of this committee have been cooperating on 

that, and I know Mr. West and his staff have been working with 

us on this language as well. 

I also appreciate the consideration of bipartisan language to ensure that Small Business Administration size standards are accurate, based on legislation Congressman Joe Walsh of Illinois and I 

introduced. As you know, the SBA is required to update the code 

size standards regularly to reflect changing conditions in different 

industrial sectors. Unfortunately, in the past, their administratively promulgated size standards have been inaccurate. 

For example, SBA inexplicably issued a size standard for architectural and engineering firms which deemed 98 percent of all 

firms to be small. This size standard effectively negated small business incentives by including very large businesses in the grouping. 

There is a difference between an architectural firm and an engineering firm. 

By incorporating the legislation Congressman Walsh and I introduced, you would ensure that the SBA size standards are based on 

real market conditions. Like the language on growing small businesses, this provision would strengthen our industrial base by promoting competition and small business growth. It marries recommendations 2.2 from the Shuster-Larsen report. 

Finally, I look forward to working with you to build on your committee’s past achievements to promote energy security. You, Mr. 
5 

Chairman, and the ranking member and your staffs, have led the 

way in creating an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational 

Energy Plans and Programs, and in developing numerous provisions to improve the flexibility and lethality of our armed services. 

Thanks to your leadership, we have reduced our vulnerabilities 

related to fuel convoys, improved the agility and security of forward-operating bases, and saved taxpayer money in the process. 

I thank you and your staff for your bipartisan approach and I 

thank you for this opportunity to testify before the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you for your kind comments, and 

this has been an ongoing problem that we have dealt with for a 

number of years on trying to open up the opportunities for small 

business. And we will, of course, take into consideration your comments and the other Members that are working on this as we go 

through writing the bill. 

So thank you very much. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Keep in touch—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I will. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. And help us through the process. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Rush Holt, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSH D. HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY 

Mr. HOLT. I would like to make four points if I may, beginning 

with the scandal at the Dover Port Mortuary. 

About a year after Sergeant First Class Scott Smith was killed 

by an IED [improvised explosive device] in Iraq in 2006, his wife, 

my constituent, Lynn Smith, learned that not all of his remains 

had been included in his funeral. After years of her persistent 

questioning, she learned from a military official that her husband’s 

additional remains had been cremated, mixed with medical waste, 

and unceremoniously sent to a Virginia landfill. 

About a year ago, his widow asked me to help her find out 

whether other soldiers had suffered her husband’s fate. After 

months of delay, the Pentagon finally revealed that at least 274 

soldiers were desecrated in this way. Because of whistleblowers at 

Dover, what we now know that—and what Lynn Smith discovered—was only one of many scandalous acts of desecration of the 

remains of our fallen. 

Since last fall, through additional letters and meetings with senior Pentagon officials, I have continued to press for the release of 

all relevant information on this matter and for real reforms so we 

can prevent these outrages from ever being repeated. I anticipate 

that my own investigation of these incidents will continue for some 

time. 

However, one thing has become clear. Our military families are 

not sufficiently integrated into the decisionmaking processes of casualty notifications and remains dispositions. The services appear to 

be resistant to our suggestions that civilians, including families, 
6 

clergy and civic leaders, be included in an influential advisory committee. 

I believe it is important that this committee include directive 

language in the NDAA requiring the Pentagon to create an OSD 

[Office of the Secretary of Defense]-level Family Mortuary Affairs 

Advisory Committee. Multiple military reviews over the last decade 

gave ample opportunity for these practices at Dover to be exposed, 

to be challenged, to be stopped. They clearly were inconsistent with 

public standards of morality and decency, but they were not 

stopped. 

Existing Pentagon advisory boards do not provide the kind of 

forum necessary for ensuring that these ideas and suggestions and 

concerns of bereaved family members make their way to the Secretary. A directive from your committee would be very helpful. 

I also ask the committee to conduct an aggressive, probing oversight investigation of what happened at Dover. We now know the 

panel chaired by General Abizaid did not conduct nearly as comprehensive an examination of the problems at Dover as the situation warrants. 

Until the full scope of what happened at Dover is brought to 

light and appropriate remedial and disciplinary action taken, the 

public and our military families cannot have the confidence that 

this episode and these episodes will not be repeated in the future. 

Second, I would like to revisit an issue that we have discussed 

before and that is on all of our minds, and that is the epidemic of 

suicide among our service members and veterans. I want to thank 

you and my other colleagues for your support in last year’s defense 

and military affairs and construction appropriations bills, each of 

which contained $20 million in increased funding for suicide prevention. 

Besides conducting oversight to ensure that the funds are spent 

effectively, another oversight task I think requires urgent attention. One of the great problems in preventing suicide is the handoff, the transfer of separating service members from the DOD to 

the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs], particularly those 

who were Individual Ready Reservists or individual mobilization 

augmentees or inactive Guard members. The veterans in these 

three categories are unknown to the VA. 

The VA has told me and has told the press that they have no 

easy way of tracking down and reaching out to these veterans. Recently, I learned that an IRR [Individual Ready Reserve] airman 

who had separated from the 514th Air Mobility Wing at Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix subsequently took her life. It is exactly those kinds of 

service members and veterans about whom I am most concerned. 

Determining their location and status is an urgent matter that the 

committee should address to ensure that we prevent other casualties from occurring, so I ask your help in that. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

If you could give us the other items that you wanted for the 

record, we will for sure look into these—— 

Mr. HOLT. I appreciate that. I would like to talk about the National Foreign Language Coordination Council and finally about 

the constitutional matter of indefinite detention of American citizens. 
7 

I thank you very much for your time and would be happy to work 

with you on all of these issues. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holt can be found in the Appendix on page 48.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Tim 

Huelskamp, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HUELSKAMP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM KANSAS 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. Ranking Member Smith, thank you for the opportunity, 

allowing me to come and testify. Inviting Members not on this committee to present their ideas and thoughts about the next defense 

authorization bill is a great reflection of the open Congress that the 

Speaker has promoted, so I am glad to join you here today. 

And I am here to respectfully request that my bill, H.R. 3828, 

the Military Religious Freedom Protection Act, be included as a 

part of the fiscal year 2013 NDAA. 

The bill does two things, very simply. Number one, it ensures the 

right of conscience for everyone in the military to express their 

deeply held religious or moral beliefs regarding homosexual behavior. And number two, it prohibits the use of military facilities for 

the performing of same-sex ceremonies. 

The new training documents issued after the repeal of ‘‘Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell’’ require full endorsement of homosexual behavior. 

It says, and I quote from the document, ‘‘Our leadership and personal commitment to implementation must be visible and unequivocal.’’ 

No one is permitted to speak out against the new policies or homosexual behavior in general. There are several reports of situations where service members have been punished for saying anything negative even in private conversations. 

I know one story where one chaplain was threatened with early 

retirement and then was moved to an assignment where he could, 

quote—‘‘be supervised’’ because he merely forwarded an e-mail to 

his subordinates that was a thought reflection on the military’s 

former ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy. And there are numerous 

other examples we can provide to the committee. 

Memos issued by the Department of Defense are attempting, in 

my opinion, to do an end-around the Defense of Marriage Act by 

permitting chaplains to perform same-sex marriages and allowing 

DOD facilities to be used for same-sex ceremonies. My bill would 

help restore compliance with both the spirit and the letter of our 

Defense of Marriage Act. 

This bill, Mr. Chairman, has over 45 cosponsors today, including 

several members of this committee, for which I am thankful, and 

has been endorsed by more than 40 outside groups including the 

Chaplain’s Alliance for Religious Liberty, the Alliance Defense 

Fund, and the National Organization for Marriage. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, Mr. 

Chairman, and I welcome any questions the committee might have. 

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

Appendix on page 111.] 
8 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Anyone have questions? 

Okay, then we will of course look at this and as we go through 

the process keep in touch with us and we will work through it. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Danny Davis, for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DANNY K. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ILLINOIS 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member 

Smith for allowing me to testify in support of a language request 

to establish a partnership to support the work of the National Museum of Health and Medicine to expand its operations to satellite 

museum campuses around the country. 

The authorizing language request before the committee will 

amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize the establishment 

of a nonprofit organization to support the National Museum of 

Health and Medicine. 

The purpose of the foundation is, one, to carry out medical research and education projects under the cooperative arrangements 

with the museum; secondly, to serve as a focus for the interchange 

between military and civilian medical personnel; and thirdly, to encourage the participation of the medical, dental, nursing, veterinary, and other biomedical sciences in the work of the foundation 

and the museum for the mutual benefit of military and civilian 

medicine. 

The establishment of the foundation and its subsequent activities 

are planned to be funded entirely through private donations at no 

cost to the Federal Government. 

The bill is necessary to formalize the relationship between the 

National Museum of Health and Medicine [NMHM], a Department 

of Defense museum established in 1862, sited in Silver Springs, 

Maryland, and a new non-partisan not-for-profit foundation which 

has been established to work with and support the museum in its 

research and educational missions, and to expand the Nation’s access to current and cutting-edge information which will foster better understanding of the past, present, and future of health and 

medicine across the United States. 

The legislation will also facilitate the relationship between the 

NMHM and a new, cutting-edge branch museum located in Chicago, which will become the first of a series of privately funded satellite locations across the Nation. These satellite museums will collectively form the central online repository for the DC museum’s 

digital collections, archives, and computational resources, and, as 

such, will help the DC museum share its extensive collections 

digitally with a much broader audience. This mutually beneficial 

relationship will also provide the DC museum with regional anchors to a broader across-the-country audience and access to nongovernmental source of support outside of the Capital. 

The museum will feature interactive exhibits where visitors can 

explore biomedical information in new ways. It will also act as a 

home for a team of information scientists who will advance the museum’s research initiatives. 
9 

In the area of education, the museum would create an online 

community for student, parents, educators, and others to explore 

health science information while interacting with others in social 

networks formed across the topics in the health and medical 

sciences. 

For clinicians, the museum will provide an environment for social networking within knowledge-based affinity groups among 

health care workers globally. It will also give health care workers 

a powerful interactive online interface to the museum’s vast historical repositories. 

The National Museum of Health and Medicine satellite museum 

programs represents a synergistic coverage of efforts to advance 

the state-of-the-art in several areas: science education, museum design, information science, technology innovation, community outreach, and human health. 

We are currently working with the House Armed Services Committee staff and the Department of Defense to get an official response to the support of the satellite museum project. 

In addition, Chicago was chosen as a site due to its vast medical 

district consisting of 3 teaching hospitals and over 20 full-service 

and safety-net hospitals. You will be pleased to know that we don’t 

anticipate any cost to the taxpayer, and are working with CBO 

[Congressional Budget Office] for verification. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your time, and would be 

pleased to respond to any inquires. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 46.] 

Mr. MILLER [presiding]. Mr. Davis, thank you very much for your 

testimony. We will take your proposal into consideration as proceedings continue forward with drafting our authorization bill. 

Does any committee member have any questions of Mr. Davis? 

Mr. Smith? 

The witness is dismissed. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Next I would like to recognize the gentleman from 

Minnesota, Mr. Cravaack. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHIP CRAVAACK, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you very much. I would like to thank 

Chairman McKeon, and also I would like to thank Ranking Member Smith for holding today’s important legislative hearing. 

And I thank the committee for kindly allowing the Members of 

Congress to testify on our national defense priorities of fiscal year 

2013 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Mr. Chairman, the national defense issue that I would like to 

bring to your attention today pertains to NORAD’s [North American Aerospace Defense Command] proposed reduction of the 24- 

hour alert mission requirement of two aerospace control alert 

[ACA] sites in the continental United States. 

It is my understanding that the proposal was submitted in line 

with the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2013 and the 
10 

U.S. Air Force decision to make future structure changes. The 

148th Fighter Wing of Minnesota’s Air National Guard, known as 

the Bulldogs, operates out of Duluth, Minnesota, is one of the two 

proposed ACA sites to have its 24-hour alert mission eliminated. 

I think we can all agree that the ACA mission plays a crucial 

role in defending the sovereignty of the United States airspace. In 

fact, the Bulldogs have performed this mission to the highest degree protecting our Nation from air threats that date back before 

the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. 

For its noteworthy contributions, the 148th was selected for the 

Raytheon trophy, formally known as the Hughes trophy, which is 

awarded for outstanding performance of an Air National Guard 

fighter unit within the mission of our air defense. 

In fact, the director of the Air National Guard, Air Force Lieutenant General Harry M. Wyatt III, announced just this week that 

the 148th Fighter Wing was selected for the 2012 Air Force Association Outstanding Air National Guard Flying Unit. 

Therefore, I have great concerns that narrowing the mission of 

a unit nationally recognized for its high performance leaves our 

Nation more vulnerable to attack. Specifically, there will be virtually no U.S. armed force protection for our country’s northern 

border between Madison, Wisconsin, and Portland, Oregon. 

My greater concern, however, is that the proposed decision will 

reduce the 24-hour alert mission to these two ACA sites was based 

on analysis that could not adequately balance risk with target 

budgeted reductions. Military commanders were forced to make 

painful decisions that jeopardized the military readiness responding to what I consider draconian budget cuts. 

These cuts have and will directly affect our national security and 

the security of our citizens. In January 2012 the GAO [Government 

Accountability Office] produced a report titled, ‘‘Homeland Defense: 

Continued Action Needed to Improve Management of Air Sovereignty Alert Operations,’’ that reviewed NORAD’s 2010 analysis 

on whether it could change the number and location of its fighter 

sites without affecting the military’s ability to defend the country 

against airborne attack. 

This report found that NORAD did ‘‘not identify the potential 

cost savings that could result from eliminating a given number of 

sites.’’ This finding, among others, led GAO to conclude that 

‘‘should NORAD, DOD, or Congress consider modifying the number 

and location of ACA sites in the future, without an analysis that 

balances both risk and cost, decision makers will be unable to fully 

make informed decisions about whether the potential cost savings 

(or increase) warrants the corresponding increase (or decrease) in 

risk.’’ 

I recognize that our country’s current fiscal reality necessitates 

the Department of Defense to look for efficiencies and tightens its 

belt and look for ways to do more with less. However, I think it 

is imperative that these decisions that directly affect our Nation’s 

ability to defend itself should be made on the basis of risk management principles that balance risk and cost. 

Therefore, I support the NDAA draft language that Mr. LoBiondo 

has been working on with the committee with the direct Secretary 

of the Defense to maintain at our Nation’s existing 18 ACA sites 
11 

until the Secretary submits a report that shows a cost benefit analysis and risk based assessment on how future ACA changes would 

affect the DOD budget and force structure. 

Thank you again to Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, 

and all members of this distinguished committee for allowing me 

the opportunity to testify before you today on my concerns regarding this critical piece of our Nation’s defense system. 

And I and my staff stand ready to assist your committee in maintaining the constitutional mandate of maintaining our country’s security. 

Thank you and I yield back. 

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

Appendix on page 95.] 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Cravaack, thank you very much for your testimony. As we have said to everybody, we will take your proposal 

into consideration as we proceed with the drafting of our defense 

authorization bill this year. 

I would ask if any other Member has any questions. 

Mr. Smith? 

No questions. 

Mr. Cravaack, you are excused. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CRAVAACK. Thank you, sir, for your time. 

Mr. MILLER. Now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Mr. Boren, thank you for appearing before this committee. You 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN BOREN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OKLAHOMA 

Mr. BOREN. Thank you, Chairman Miller. 

Also Ranking Member Smith, members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you to discuss an 

issue that is critical to the space industrial base. 

I was recently made aware of efforts by the Defense National 

Stockpile to sole-source contracts for a critical space technology, 

germanium wafers, used in the production of solar cells for our defense satellites. 

I believe the Department of Defense should support competition 

wherever we can find it to preserve valuable taxpayer resources 

and to develop American industry. 

Currently, the Defense Stockpile is limiting the production of 

germanium wafers used in solar cells on defense satellites to one 

company. I am concerned both the qualified supplier of these materials for the last decade and the U.S. subsidiary of that company 

are prohibited from competing to supply these materials, the 

former because their facility is located outside the United States 

and the latter because the Air Force Research Lab has not yet supported qualification. 

I support the efforts of the stockpile to provide the materials 

needed for our national defense and understand its desire to utilize 

a U.S. supplier. However, I cannot understand actions that prohibit 

another U.S. company from competing. Moreover, I am concerned 

that its decisions related to germanium wafers takes an approach 

that stifles competition instead of taking advantage of competitive 

sources of supply that would grow the space industrial base. 
12 

Mr. Chairman, I seek your assistance in requiring the stockpile 

to comply with its obligations to support all U.S. industry equally. 

I intend to submit a letter requesting a provision in the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2013 that requires the stockpile to 

maximize competition for germanium wafers in the larger space industrial base. 

The administrator of the stockpile has stated that he is committed to competition and developing multiple sources of supply for 

this critical material. The provision I am requesting will prevent 

sole-sourcing of this material unless the administrator certifies in 

writing to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees that 

it is in the national interest to do so. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your consideration of this important 

issue. It is also wonderful to be back in my old committee, and I 

see where I would have been sitting there right by Mr. Larsen; so 

good to be back. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Mr. MILLER. It is as if you never left. 

Thank you, Mr. Boren, for your testimony. We will keep your testimony in consideration. 

I would ask if any of my colleagues have any questions. 

Mr. Smith? 

No questions. Thank you, Mr. Boren. We appreciate you being 

here today. You are dismissed. 

Next we have the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. Guthrie, thank you for being here before the Armed Services 

Committee today. You are recognized now for 5 minutes to discuss 

your legislation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM KENTUCKY 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Miller and 

Ranking Member Smith and distinguished members of the House 

Armed Services Committee. 

I am before you today as both a Member of Congress and a 

former Army officer to thank you for your past support of a priority 

issue for wounded warriors; and to ask that you continue to pursue 

needed work on the subject. 

In the 2011 Defense Authorization Act, report language included 

by this committee directed the Secretary of Defense to, quote—‘‘review the current state of medical training and research for genitourinary trauma within the Department of Defense to determine if 

there are deficits with regard to care that can be provided in combat zones.’’ 

As you may know, genitourinary trauma, or simply urotrauma, 

is a class of wounds that literally hit below the belt. Urotrauma accounts for wounds to the kidneys, reproductive organs and urinary 

tract organs. These injuries are some of the most common and debilitating suffered by our veterans from IED detonations and have 

long-lasting physical and psychological impacts. 

Urotrauma is one of the signature wounds of the IED and now 

accounts for one-eighth of all injuries suffered by our troops in Af-
13 

ghanistan. Unfortunately, the most recent data available suggests 

that this figure is still rising, even after nearly doubling in incidence between 2009 and 2010. 

DOD’s report to Congress titled ‘‘Genitourinary Trauma and the 

Military’’ highlights the size and complexity of this problem, and I 

would ask unanimous consent it be submitted for the record. 

Mr. MILLER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 135.] 

Mr. GUTHRIE. According to this DOD report, urotrauma incident 

rates on the modern battlefield exceed the historical average of all 

prior conflicts by at least 350 percent. This means that the proportion of all wounded warriors who suffer from urotrauma injuries 

sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan is at least three and a half 

times greater than that of any prior war. 

And yet the DOD Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness 

concedes that, quote—‘‘Urotrauma injury is not part of the standards of pre-deployment training for U.S. military surgeons and 

nurses,’’ and that the existing infrastructure for tracking these casualties, quote—‘‘is not sufficient to assess the long-term prognosis 

of G.U. trauma injuries.’’ 

DOD makes it clear that the current state of care isn’t good 

enough and that we don’t have an adequate plan or database to 

help these wounded warriors cope with their injuries throughout 

their lifetime. 

Let me now draw attention to the conclusions of the DOD report, 

which is what brings me here today. To summarize DOD’s needs 

for urotrauma care, the Under Secretary states that, quote—‘‘The 

recommended action plan for research is that the military form 

interservice and interagency relationships to facilitate aggressive, 

innovative and relevant translational and outcomes-based clinical 

research.’’ 

I could not agree more with the Under Secretary’s conclusion. We 

must move forward and build upon the research already collected 

by military and civilian personnel. That is why I have introduced 

H.R. 1612 to form the Interagency Urotrauma Commission to do 

exactly that. 

H.R. 1612 would bring together DOD, the VA, HHS [U.S. Department of Health & Human Services], the surgeon generals of each 

of our Armed Forces, and civilian expertise to create a plan to care 

for these wounded warriors from the point of injury to their final 

resting place decades from now. 

This is a bipartisan bill with 23 cosponsors, many who represent 

military communities like Fort Knox, which is in my district. These 

communities understand the frequency and severity of these 

wounds at a human level and a professional one. Let me say in 

closing that the miracles of modern medicine, combined with the 

devotion of our military medical corps, have allowed many of these 

wounded warriors to live a long life rather than perishing in the 

line of duty. 

However, giving these service men and women the ability to survive is not enough. We have a responsibility to do what we can to 

ensure they can live as full a life as possible. That is a debt we 

owe to those who defend our freedom. 
14 

I urge this committee to continue the work it has already done 

to further our care for these wounded warriors suffering the effects 

of urotrauma, and I urge the adoption of H.R. 1612 into this year’s 

defense authorization. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

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

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Guthrie. We appreciate 

your testimony today. 

I would ask if any of my colleagues have questions for Mr. Guthrie. 

Mr. Smith? 

Thank you very much. Thank you. You are dismissed. 

Next we would like to recognize the gentleman from Missouri, 

Mr. Graves. 

Thank you for being here to testify. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM GRAVES, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI 

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

the rest of the members of the committee. 

Given the Federal Government spends over $0.5 trillion each 

year through contracts, the Federal procurement market is incredibly important for all small businesses. Improving small business 

opportunities for Federal contracts is a triple play. Small businesses win more contracts, workers win as the small business creates jobs, and taxpayers win because the small business brings 

competition, innovation and lower prices, it saves the Government 

money and improves the health of the industrial base. 

Over the past year, the Small Business Committee has held 10 

hearings on the Federal procurement process, which has resulted 

in 8 bills being introduced, each of which has been voted on by the 

committee with bipartisan support. 

The package of reforms has been supported by over 20 trade associations, including the National Defense Industrial Association, 

the Association of General Contractors, Chamber of Commerce, the 

Financial Services Roundtable, the Minority Business Roundtable 

and Women Impacting Public Policy, and many, many others. 

At the same time that the Small Business Committee was developing legislation, this committee’s Panel on Business Challenges in 

the Defense Industry was holding hearings and roundtables addressing many of the very same issues under the leadership of Mr. 

Shuster and Mr. Larsen. I was pleased to be a part of those 

roundtables with Mr. West and Mr. Shuster. 

The panel’s final report, issued just last month, and the legislation marked up by the Small Business Committee complement each 

other and reflect a common understanding of issues facing small 

business participation in the industrial base. 

Therefore I am here today to support the inclusion of the eight 

small business contracting bills in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 

As I discussed in detail in my written statement, each of these 

bills ties to the panel’s report, including raising the government- 
15 

wide small business contracting goal from 23 to 25 percent; including the level of responsibility for small business advocates embedded within each Federal agency; addressing fraud and abuse and 

eliminating the deceptive practice of pass-throughs; improving 

mentor-prote ́ge ́ programs and the size-standard review process; 

and lastly, addressing unjustified contract bundling. 

Each of the bills received bipartisan support in the committee, 

each supports the intentions, if not specific recommendations of the 

panel report produced by this committee, and most importantly, 

each bill provides more opportunity to small businesses to create 

jobs at a price that is in the best interest of the taxpayers. 

I am very pleased that our two committees were able to work cooperatively, and I hope that this language can be incorporated in 

this year’s national defense authorization. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Graves can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Graves, for your testimony. 

Any questions? 

Mr. Schilling, you are recognized. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Mr. Chairman, really no comment. 

I just wanted to thank Chairman Graves. 

As a small businessman, I just wanted to thank him for all of 

his hard work and dedication to the small businesses across America and for really making the Small Business Committee a very effective voice for small businesses. 

So I just want to thank you for your dedication, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCHILLING. Yield back. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Mr. 

Graves as well for his work on the SBIR [Small Business Innovation Research] programs last session. It was, you know, yeoman’s 

work over a lot of years, and we were happy to be able to work 

with you on that and get that out in the NDAA bill. 

Thanks for getting that done. I know it wasn’t easy and it was 

a long time coming. So thanks for your work on that. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER. Any other Members? 

Thank you very much, Mr. Graves, again, for your testimony. 

You are dismissed. 

Now I would like to invite Mr. Neugebauer, the gentleman from 

Texas, forward to testify on his legislation. 

Mr. Neugebauer, you are recognized to testify for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Chairman Miller and Ranking 

Member Smith and other members of the Armed Services Committee. Thank you for providing me this opportunity. 

For the last 9 years I have had the honor and privilege of representing the men and women of Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, 

Texas. This is home of the 7th Bomb Wing and the 317th Airlift 

Group, as well as Guard and Reserve units. 
16 

In between these missions, our service members have been playing a daily role in the fight against terrorism. 

I want to highlight a couple of important things that have happened. For example, the C–130 milestone that happened at the 

317th Airlift Group marked 3,000 days of continuous deployment, 

a streak dating back to December of 2003. During this time over 

7,000 members of this group were in harm’s way. 

As you know, air mobility mission is an important mission in our 

modern military. Operations that used to take weeks and months 

now take days and hours. 

The 317th has often been labeled the busiest C–130 group in the 

Air Force, and this current deployment streak is another honored 

mark in a long history of Dyess airlifters. 

The B–1 milestone was another important milestone. Also, earlier this year, the B–1 flew its 10,000th combat mission since it 

first entered service in 1985. 

The B–1 has been transformed into the workhorse of the bomber 

fleet. In Afghanistan, for example, the B–1 has seen daily use and 

dropped almost 70 percent of the precision-guided munitions. 

At 75,000 pounds, the B–1 actually carries the largest payload of 

any of our bombers, even more than the B–52 Stratofortress. 

But the B–1 is not just about large payloads. To quote General 

Petraeus, the B–1 also, and I quote, ‘‘has very good ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] capabilities. . . [It] can loiter for a good time when it’s not being used to drop bombs’’ and 

it ‘‘is almost like having another unmanned aerial vehicle in terms 

of full-motion video and so forth.’ 

So it is not just a case of a very capable bomber just boring holes 

in the sky and waiting to open the bomb bay doors. Mr. Chairman, 

the B–1 is not just all brawn and no brains. It can simultaneously 

deliver firepower and intelligence support to our troops. And it can 

stay in the area for and sustain these efforts for significant periods 

of time. 

Under the President’s new defense strategic guidance, the attributes are even more important for future conflicts. The tyranny 

of distance and the uncertainty of allied support changes the longrange bomber’s role from important capability to a critical capability for our Nation’s defense. 

I would like to thank the committee, including my West Texas 

colleagues, Mr. Thornberry and Mr. Conaway, and Congresswoman 

Noem for their work to address last year’s B–1 retirement proposal. 

While I feel strongly that we should keep the current fleet size 

at 66 to address our changing national security priorities, but by 

spacing these 6 retirements over 5 years, we can carefully study 

and assess the impact that these retirements may have. 

Soon the Air Force will only have 156 bombers in its fleet. More 

than half of those will be over 50 years old. While a new bomber 

is still probably 10 to 15 years away, we must proceed cautiously 

in making decisions regarding this extremely valuable and limited 

resource. 

In closing, I would like to urge the committee to continue to follow this issue closely and ensure that the spirit and the letter of 

its efforts from last year are followed. I would also like to urge the 
17 

committee to support the current B–1 sustainability improvement 

efforts in this year’s budget. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify here today. I would offer this 

postscript. I know a number of people have been out watching the 

shuttle do a fly-over, and that is a great sensation, but I would tell 

you that experiencing a B–1 fly-over is an even more exhilarating 

sensation as well. And in fact, a lot of times in the theater, the 

B–1 has been called in really not to necessarily drop a bomb but, 

you know, just to fly over at a close range and, you know, a lot of 

times sends our enemy to scatter. 

But, anyway, the B–1 is an extremely important asset. And as 

we look at strategic needs in the future, I hope that the committee 

will carefully weigh our bomber options and continue to support 

the B–1. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would take any questions. 

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

Appendix on page 77.] 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer, for your testimony and 

your continued fight for your congressional district. I look forward 

to coming to your district. Maybe we can go see one of those 

B–1s while we are out there. 

I would ask if any Members have any questions they would like 

to ask? 

Mr. Smith? Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just be recognized for a 

quick moment to make a comment? 

Mr. MILLER. You are late and you want to talk? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MILLER. You are recognized, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I came to see Chairman Graves’ testimony because 

I wanted to thank him for working—— 

Mr. MILLER. You missed it. 

Mr. SHUSTER [continuing]. With us. I know I did. But I just 

wanted to go on record as saying I appreciate what the Small Business Committee is doing and also to publicly thank Ranking Member Smith for he and Chairman McKeon setting up the business 

panel, and I appreciate you doing that. And hopefully, these recommendations will move forward with the help of the Small Business Committee and the leadership of the committee. So thank you 

very much. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sorry for being late, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. Are you going to stay? 

Okay. Thank you very much. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Walsh, thank you for being 

with us today, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WALSH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ILLINOIS 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am no Sam Graves, but we will do the best we can. 

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

and members of the committee. 
18 

The first hearing I chaired as chairman of the Small Business 

Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Tax and Capital 

Access examined the Small Business Administration’s definitions of 

small business. 

What I learned during that hearing and over the past year inspired H.R. 3987, the Small Business Protection Act of 2012, which 

I introduced with Mr. Connolly and which was marked up last 

month. During that same period, your own Panel on Business 

Challenges in the Defense Industry also explored issues with the 

SBA’s size standards. 

As you know, the Small Business Act defines a small business 

as one that is independently owned and operated and not dominant 

in its field of operation. It then allows SBA to implement industryspecific size standards accordingly. 

SBA, however, is currently decreasing the number of size standards it will permit for the 1,100 industries in the North American 

industrial classification system from about 40 to 16. 

At the same time, it is combining many of these industries together into new common groups under a single size standard. 

While SBA appears to be examining the right factors when establishing size standards, both the Small Business Committee and 

your panel seem troubled by the way SBA is applying these factors. 

Most troubling is this decision of SBA’s to combine related industries into common groups with one size standard. While they claim 

that this simplifies the process, what it really does is hurt legitimate small businesses. 

Let us look at architecture and engineering firms. SBA’s own 

metrics show that architecture firms should have a size standard 

of $7 million and engineering firms of about $25.5 million. Yet, 

SBA has decided to combine them into a common group with a size 

standard of $19 million, which is completely inappropriate for either. 

In the one instance, it forces legitimate small firms to compete 

against much larger firms, and in the other it completely excludes 

legitimately small firms from competing for small-business contracts. 

Excluding legitimate small businesses limits growth and harms 

the defense industrial base. Panel Recommendation 2.2 stated that 

Congress should amend the Small Business Act to end the practice 

of combined size standards, stop placing artificial limits on the 

number of size standards and better define what factors should be 

considered when size standards are proposed. 

In doing so, it reinforced my Small Business Protection Act because this is exactly what the bill does. It requires additional specificity in the rule-making process and directs SBA to both stop these 

unwarranted combined size standards and focus on having the 

right size standards, rather than a fixed number of size standards. 

In short, in ensures that we do not abandon legitimate small 

businesses seeking to compete for Federal contracts. 

Both the panel and I believe these changes will also benefit the 

Department of Defense. It will ensure that the right size standards 

are in place, which will assist the Department as it works on the 

health of the industrial base. I want to thank you all for working 

collaboratively with us on the NDAA and for looking at the many 
19 

bipartisan measures the Small Business Committee marked up for 

inclusion in this year’s bill. 

I want to especially thank you for considering including the Small Business Protection Act in the NDAA. With over $500 billion 

in Federal contracts being awarded each year and 70 percent of 

those dollars being awarded by the Department of Defense, it is important for us all to realize that we can better serve the taxpayer 

and our service members by ensuring that small businesses can 

compete for these contracts. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh can be found in the Appendix on page 127.] 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

This, as I have mentioned earlier, is an ongoing problem that we 

have been dealing with for a period of time, but we will continue. 

Mr. Shuster, with his panel this year, has moved the ball, and it 

will be very helpful as we go through and do the bill. 

Did you have something? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, I think I just want to commend the gentleman 

for moving forward with your legislation. And it is difficult, as we 

found over the last 6 months. You know, nobody was really sure 

where they were, and so you putting that forward that there is no 

rule-making unless they go through a period, I think, is very good. 

I want to continue to work with you and the Small Business 

Committee because we found the challenges are huge out there for 

the small and medium-size companies when they are dealing with 

the Department of Defense. 

So, again, thank you for your work, Mr. Walsh. 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Puerto Rico, Representative Pedro Pierluisi, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, A RESIDENT 

COMMISSIONER FROM PUERTO RICO 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, members of the 

committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify about my priorities for the NDAA. I would like to focus my testimony on the importance of robust funding for DOD counter-drug activities. 

I have worked hard to raise awareness in the Federal Government about drug-related violence in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands [USVI] and to urge the Federal Government to dedicate 

the resources and personnel necessary to address this problem. 

Violent crime in Puerto Rico and the USVI has been on the rise 

for over a decade, even as violent crime nationwide has decreased 

substantially. The homicide rate in each territory is about six times 

the national average and almost three times higher than any State. 

Puerto Rico has nearly the same number of annual murders that 

Texas does, even though Texas is home to 25 million people and 

Puerto Rico is home to just 3.7 million U.S. citizens. About threequarters of the murders in Puerto Rico and the USVI are linked 

to the drug trade. 

As the U.S. Government has, to its credit, increased resources 

along the southwest border, drug trafficking organizations have 
20 

adapted, turning back to well-established routes in the Caribbean 

to get their products to market. 

This is a problem of national scope. Over 70 percent of the cocaine that enters Puerto Rico, which has 700 miles of coastline, is 

then transported to the 50 States. Because Puerto Rico is within 

the U.S. Customs zones, once drugs enter the island, they can easily be delivered to the States on airlines and ships without having 

to undergo heightened scrutiny. And once in the States, those 

drugs destroy lives and communities, just as they do in Puerto 

Rico. In order to reduce drug-related violence in Puerto Rico and 

the USVI, and to make the territories a less attractive transshipment point for drug trafficking organizations seeking to supply 

the U.S. market, Puerto Rico Governor Luis Fortun ̃ o, a Republican, 

and I, a Democrat, have proposed that the Administration establish 

a Caribbean Border Initiative. Our Nation has a Southwest Border 

Initiative, a Northern Border Initiative, but it has no counter-drug 

strategy for our maritime border in the Caribbean. 

The consequences of this non-strategy are clear: the violent 

deaths of tens of thousands of American citizens. I cannot escape 

the conclusion that if this level of violence were occurring in any 

state, it would be treated as a national emergency requiring immediate Federal action. 

DOD has requested $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2013 for counter- drug activities, nearly $200 million below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. I want to discuss two ways in which Puerto Rico will 

be adversely affected in the absence of positive steps from Congress 

and this committee. 

First, DOD has requested an appropriation of $105 million for the National Guard Counterdrug Support Program, which is $123.9 

million below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. This request was 

made despite the fact that in last year’s defense appropriations bill, 

Congress provided a $50 million plus-up to this account, stating, 

and I quote—‘‘The Department of Defense consistently has failed to 

provide adequate resources for state plans in its budget requests. 

Congress repeatedly has demonstrated its recognition of the value 

the National Guard capabilities bring to counter-drug efforts.’’ 

The NGB [National Guard Bureau] is implementing a threatbased resource model whereby funding will be allocated among the 

National Guards in 54 jurisdictions based on the severity of the 

narcotics threat faced by each jurisdiction as measured by over 20 

criteria. In the abstract, the model makes good sense, but in practice, it has completely failed for Puerto Rico because the Federal 

Government does not collect statistics to the same degree in the 

U.S. territories as it does in the states. 

Currently, the Puerto Rico National Guard receives $5.5 million 

annually to provide counter-drug support to Federal and local law 

enforcement agencies. However, under the new threat-based model, 

our Guard is stated to receive less than $850,000. This is an 85 

percent cut. 

Actually, it just makes no sense. It is pretty much outrageous, 

given the threat, given what is happening in the Caribbean these 

days. It is a matter of record. It is in The Washington Post, in The 

Wall Street Journal, New York Times. How can you make a cut of 

85 percent there? 
21 

If this cut is realized, it would destroy the counter-drug program 

in the jurisdiction that has perhaps the single worst drug-related 

violence problem in the Nation, and it would be a tragic result. My 

office has been working with NGB to determine precisely where the 

process broke down. But it is clear that the data collection effort 

in Puerto Rico was inadequate. 

Therefore, I respectfully ask the committee to work with me to 

ensure that total funding for the National Guard Counterdrug Support Program is increased, and in particular to ensure that Puerto 

Rico receives its fair share of whatever funding is allocated. One 

option I hope the committee will consider is a provision in the 

NDAA stating that the territories should receive an appropriate 

portion of any plus-up that the Appropriations Committee provides 

to this account in fiscal year 2013. 

The second problem for Puerto Rico involves the Tethered Aerostat Radar System program known as TARS. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. And I will be glad to submit my statement in 

writing—my full statement for the record of this committee, Mr. 

Chairman. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We will include that in 

the record and we will take it into consideration as we prepare the 

bill. And thank you very much. 

Mr. PIERLUISI. Thank you, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now recognize the gentlelady from California, 

Representative Judy Chu, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CHU. Good morning. 

Before I begin, I ask unanimous consent to submit an extension 

of my remarks into the record for this hearing, asking to include 

the Building Better Business Partnership Act, a bipartisan bill that 

Representative Robert Schilling and I introduced as a provision in 

this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 

The CHAIRMAN. No objection? 

So ordered. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 144.] 

Ms. CHU. But my primary reason for being here is to discuss how 

the Armed Services Committee through this year’s NDAA can help 

prevent military hazing. This month marks the year anniversary of 

the death of my nephew, Marine Lance Corporal Harry Lew. It was 

on April 3rd, 2011, in response to hours of physical abuse and torture at the hands of his peers that Harry took his own life. 

At the time, I didn’t know how common this tragedy was—how 

many other service members had suffered as he did, but the letters 

started pouring in day after day, week after week. Mothers, friends 

and service members themselves wrote in excruciating detail about 

what they and their loved ones endured. 

And so I came to both of you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking 

Member Smith, and told you Harry’s story. I asked for your sup-
22 

port to prevent another young man or woman from having to suffer 

like Harry did. You helped me monitor Harry’s case. You met with 

top officials in the Marines. And last month, there was the first 

hearing on military abuse since 1979. In fact, it might have been 

the first official hearing on hazing in every branch of the service 

in congressional history, and I thank Congress Member Wilson for 

holding the hearing and Congressman Coffman for being there. 

But at the March hearing, I heard every branch say that they 

have hazing under control; that their policies are working. If that 

were true, why is Harry dead; Danny Chen, Brushaun Anderson? 

Why do their abusers continue their military careers and get promoted? And why have I received so many letters and calls from as 

far away as Germany asking me to stand up against hazing? 

I am here today to ask your help again because we have much 

more work to do. At the hearing, I was shocked to learn that some 

services don’t even have a policy expressing the prohibition of hazing. Others don’t offer anti-hazing training. Most of the services do 

not track the number of hazing incidents. And those that have a 

tracking system do not analyze or use the data to improve their 

practices. 

So I ask: How can the military claim that they are doing everything perfectly if they don’t have anti-hazing policies or training? 

How can they know that they are doing everything perfectly if they 

don’t know how many people are being hazed? They can’t. That is 

why I ask you to include the following language in the NDAA to 

help eradicate hazing in the military. 

First, we should make hazing a crime in the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice. This would help provide a strong disincentive 

against hazing. It would be an important tool to prosecute perpetrators. Currently, 31 states define hazing as a crime. In the 

March hearing, both representatives from the Marine Corps and 

the Army expressed interest in creating a statutory definition of 

hazing in the military code. This would make it easier for them to 

track the number of hazing incidents. 

Second, we should institute a national hazing database that 

tracks incidents of hazing. By creating such a database, similar to 

the Database for Sexual Assault, the military, Congress and the 

public would be able to improve the military’s hazing practices and 

ensure better oversight. 

The database should be comprehensive and include the number 

of hazing allegations, the number of substantiated cases, and the 

penalties imposed on the perpetrators, including non-judicial punishment and court-martials. The military could then use this data 

to provide an annual report to Congress. 

Third, we need an objective GAO study on hazing. Every branch 

of the armed services has different policies, training and procedures regarding hazing and harassment. We need a more thorough 

understanding, an objective analysis of hazing in the military and 

what more can be done to prevent it. 

Hazing has no place in our military. It undermines our military 

readiness and deeply scars those volunteers forced to endure it. So 

thank you for all that you have done so far. I look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that the military truly has a 

zero-tolerance hazing policy at every level, from the Pentagon to 
23 

the smallest COB [contingency operating base] on the most remote 

base in Afghanistan. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chu can be found in the Appendix on page 88.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and we will continue to 

work with you as we go through the writing of the bill. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Ms. Chu, if I could just quickly, before you depart. 

First of all, thank you for your work on this. And second of all, 

I don’t know if you know we had a small roundtable discussion yesterday with Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey talking about 

sexual assault. And General Dempsey made the point unasked, you 

know, what are they looking to do in terms of to make the force 

look better, and he said, ‘‘Well, the cornerstone of everything is 

trust.’’ And he said the two biggest things that are undermining 

the trust right now is the sexual assault problem, and he mentioned hazing as the second. 

So certainly at the very top of the Joint Chiefs, they are aware 

of the problem and would welcome your help and assistance, as 

this committee will, in trying to find ways to solve it. Because if, 

you know, basically if you can’t trust as a member of the military 

that the people in the military have got your back, the trust goes 

away and the entire system doesn’t work. 

So you have made a difference. You are getting people’s attention 

and we will continue to work on the problem. And I thank you very 

much for your work on it. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you so much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to commend Congresswoman Chu for your leadership on this issue. You have really conducted yourself in such a 

professional manner, an extraordinary reflection on your family. 

And we do share your concern, and thank you so much for raising 

the issue of hazing. And I join back. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We now recognize the gentlelady from Washington, Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Smith, for having me today. 

I was grateful to hear this committee produce findings last 

month highlighting many of the issues that Mr. Schrader and I are 

attempting to address with H.R. 3980, the Small Business Opportunities Act. And that is why I am here today. I want to support 

the inclusion of this bipartisan bill’s language in the NDAA, along 

with other bipartisan reforms proposed by the Small Business 

Committee. 
24 

This bill, along with a few others, are jobs bills. In my corner of 

southwest Washington we are approaching our 38th straight month 

of double-digit unemployment, yet we have more than 900 small 

businesses and small business contractors in my district alone who 

could benefit from this bill. And small businesses are the ones who 

create 7 out of 10 new jobs, or at least they have for the last 20 

years. I would like to see that continue. 

The Small Business Opportunity Act seeks to improve acquisition 

planning, training and the roles of the procurement center representatives, or PCRs, all of which were addressed in the bipartisan panel on business challenges. 

The panel, led by Mr. Shuster, made several recommendations 

that can be addressed by this bill; first, improved coordination between senior acquisition officials and small business advocates. 

The Small Business Opportunities Act involves small businesses 

and small business advocates from the beginning of the acquisitions process. Under this improved system these advocates can 

begin removing barriers to small business participation early in the 

planning process. Currently these advocates aren’t consulted until 

the very end and it is really hard to unscramble an egg. 

Secondly, the Panel Recommendation 3.9 states that the Secretary of Defense should make small business programs an emphasis item when training the acquisition workforce. Currently, contracts that are best suited for small businesses are frequently handled by lower level contracting personnel who are not adequately 

trained. This problem is not unique to the Department of Defense. 

It happens government-wide. 

And my bill would improve this by providing training to all contract specialists on small business contracting programs. And the 

result is a well-educated workforce and clearer roles for small business advocates who will no longer have to spend as much time providing training. This way, they will be better able to assist small 

businesses. 

Finally, the Small Business Opportunities Act sharpens and 

modernizes the job description of PCRs. PCRs work in agencies 

throughout the Federal Government. Their role is to review acquisition plans with an eye toward increasing small business participation. 

Mr. Chairman, small businesses across the country are eager to 

compete for these Federal contracts, and the byproduct will be jobs 

created across this Nation. Therefore, I want to thank you for considering including this language in the NDAA, and I offer my support for the inclusion of this bill and the other procurement reforms 

proposed by the Small Business Committee. 

I thank Ranking Member Smith and Chairman Graves and 

Ranking Member Velazquez of the Small Business Committee for 

their help in this effort, and my partner Kurt Schrader, and I yield 

back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Herrera Beutler can be found in 

the Appendix on page 109.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I am sure that—— 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, just a brief comment. 

I just wanted to thank Congresswoman Beutler for putting this 

forward. We found going through our process over the last 6 
25 

months this is one of the—it has a significant problem for small 

business and a lot of folks don’t even want to do business because 

of just this, because nobody understands they are a smaller business. So I think this is incredibly important, that we include this 

in the NDAA as we move forward. 

So, again, I commend the gentlelady for her efforts. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. 

Tom Latham, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM LATHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM IOWA 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Chairman McKeon, for giving Members the opportunity to bring their priorities and concerns 

to the committee in this open process. 

As you know, in order to meet the requirements of the Budget 

Control Act, the Air Force intends to substantially cut its force 

structure, with the majority of cuts coming from the Air National 

Guard. 

Like you have expressed, I am also concerned that changes are 

being recommended to Congress based purely on meeting the right 

budget number in the short term and not based on the national security environment or the finding a more cost-effective force structure. 

I am greatly concerned that just one F–16 unit out of the entire 

Air Force, the Air National Guard 132nd Fighter Wing in Des 

Moines, was singled out for elimination under the plan, with no 

justification given. When I asked a senior Air Force leader why this 

unit was chosen, I was told that it was simply a judgment call. 

Obviously, I am concerned about the economic impact in Iowa 

and the future of those airmen, but I also am most concerned that 

it appears that the decision was made using nonstrategic criteria 

and that the greater cost-effectiveness of relying on Air Guard 

units was completely ignored. 

I believe the decision would have three significant national security implications. First, eliminating these multi-role fighters and 

nearly 500 positions would be an irreversible decision. It takes at 

least 10 years to achieve the average level of experience of Guard 

pilots and maintainers. 

At the same time, in order to manage uncertainty about the future strategic environment, Secretary Panetta’s new military strategy released in January insists on reversibility in any reduction of 

capabilities, ensuring they can be quickly regenerated if the need 

arises. 

Secondly, the Air National Guard will be flying F–16s for many 

years, even decades into the future, indefinitely in fact, since the 

Air Force has yet to submit a long-range plan for them, and most 

incoming F–35 aircraft will be flown by active components. So the 

Guard will need to maintain expertise in operating F–16s for a 

very long time. 

Third, having the most advanced aircraft is important, but adequate numbers of airframes also matter, because an aircraft and its 

pilot cannot be in two places at the same time. We currently have 

the smallest and oldest Air Force in our history, which is a signifi-
26 

cant challenge given the new military strategy places renewed 

focus on the Asia-Pacific region. 

According to the American Enterprise Institute, quote—‘‘No matter how capable weapon systems might be on an individual level, 

the Asia-Pacific domain demands adequate numbers of key platforms.’’ 

The concern is that enormous distances between bases and potential targets in the region could spread aircraft too widely, limit 

dwell times over targets and limit fighter coverage. 

I agree with Senator Graham who recently said on the Senate 

floor concerning the Air Force plan that, quote—‘‘Keeping the active duty first approach will mean smaller and smaller forces that 

are stretched thinner and thinner and cannot respond where and 

when we need them to.’’ 

Finally, there is the issue of making the most of each taxpayer 

dollar, which is precisely what Congress should be doing and what 

the American people expect in response to budget constraints. Air 

Guard F–16s bring greater experience and lower operating costs, 

both personnel and infrastructure, yet the Air Force ignores the 

cost effectiveness of the Guard as a way to achieve additional cost 

savings. They have relied upon what many believe is a flawed costing model, which compares deployed members only and concludes 

that reservists cost more than Active Duty members. 

As for infrastructure efficiencies, the Air National Guard has access to $5.9 billion in community airport infrastructure for $20,600 

per year, the equivalent of renting a $300,000 house for $87 a 

month. 

The Department of Defense and GAO are currently conducting a 

new study on comparative cost effectiveness mandated in last 

year’s defense bill. The study will also examine what mix of forces 

could carry out the range of missions anticipated under the national military strategy. 

The results of the study are due to the committee June of this 

year. Before we allow the Air Force to shift the Active Duty/Reserve Component mix back to the Cold War ratio of the 1990s, we 

need to have these results. 

We face a very challenging defense budget. Let us work to minimize cuts to capabilities we need in the long term. I believe that 

the members of the committee understand the seriousness of this 

issue and I know they will do what is best for the future of our Nation’s defenses. 

And I thank the gentleman very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. You have pointed out very 

well the problem that we have facing us, that we were given a 

budget by the President and that was built off of a speech that he 

gave a little over a year ago that we needed to cut another $400 

billion out of defense because it was such a big target. 

And then instead of picking what our needs are, what our risks 

are, and then devising a budget to meet that, we have backed into 

solving our risks to meet the smaller budget. And what that does, 

then, is increase the risk. 
27 

So I appreciate you pointing this out. And we will definitely look 

at this as we go through the process. It is going to be tough working all of these things out. But I think that people need to really 

understand how serious this is. I was sitting down at the Pentagon 

a few months ago and our top military leader told me at the end 

of that meeting, ‘‘I have been in this business for 37 years and this 

is the most serious I have ever seen our situation our Nation is in.’’ 

So I think that we really need to take all of that into consideration as we go through this process. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the chairman very much for opportunity. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit 

additional data about the bases and the offer for additional land 

from the Allegheny County Airport Authority for the record, as I 

talk. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 60.] 

Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in particular Mr. Shuster, and thank him for personal efforts on this 

issue, I thank you for your time and efforts in service to our Nation’s defense, our soldiers and military families, and I am grateful 

for the opportunity to share with you the deep concerns southwestern Pennsylvania has about Air Force plans to close the 911 

Air Reserve Station, which houses C–130 Hercules transport 

planes, and the transfer of four KC–135 refueling tankers from the 

171st Air National Guard station. 

These facilities, which are located in Moon Township near Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, are both located at the Pittsburgh International Airport. The 911th and the 

171st are two of the most accomplished, cost effective, and decorated installations in the country. 

They possess unique value to our Nation’s military, and I fear 

the Pentagon is proceeding with an irreversible course that is misguided, misinformed, and mistaken. It is a present-day version of 

the $400 hammer and the $200 toilet seat; cut in haste, pay in the 

long run. And over the past 2 months I have been pushing the Air 

Force to provide documentation justifying these actions. 

The report which I recently received confirms what I have suspected all along. The Air Force is making a quick and easy decision, rather than an economical one. They are doing what they 

think they can instead of what they should. 

The Air Force analysis relies on two flawed premises. First, they 

believe the 911th has the oldest and costliest C–130s, and indeed 

they do, but they were given those old C–130s when they took their 

newer planes from them. 

Number two, the decision to close the 911 doesn’t require congressional approval, another flawed assumption. First, I said the 

911th has older aircraft because the Air Force sent the new ones 

off to combat. They gave the 911th older high maintenance models. 
28 

Second, the Air Force falsely believes the 911th has fewer than 

300 authorized personnel, which means that no congressional approval would be need for the closure. However, that base actually 

has more than 300 civilian employees, but the Air Force is using 

different accounting methods for that. 

Now I dispute the numbers of the Air Force, and I believe the 

911 is the victim of its own success—should also note that by sharing expenses with nearby bases and the Pittsburgh International 

Airport, the 911 has fewer personnel for the low cost of $20,000 per 

year. The Pittsburgh Airport, which has four 10,000-foot runways, 

takes care of snow removal, fire and safety security, and control 

tower all given to the air base at next to nothing charges. 

By sharing all these expenses, and by having fewer personnel, 

the irony is that if the 911th was less efficient and costly to operate 

the Pentagon wouldn’t have the power to close it. 

Ironically, as I say the airport authority did not offer those personnel. It would cost the U.S. Air Force about $40 million over 10 

years, instead of $200,000 over 10 years. And there you have your 

$400 hammer again. 

I am confident that once you review the data, I am sure you 

agree that these bases must remain fully operational. 

First, a little background; the 911th and the 171st are highly 

decorated. Now stop and think also, a base called 911. Few dates 

are etched in the minds of Americans with more patriotic emotion 

than 911. Imagine other places such as Pearl Harbor, Valley Forge, 

or Gettysburg being cited for dismantling. 

I also should say the 171st was handpicked to serve as a lead 

unit for combat support missions enforcing the Libya no-fly zone. 

The 171st executed more mission hours in the last 2 years and had 

the lowest total non-mission capable rate for maintenance among 

all KC–130 Guard units. It would be like an NFL coach told to cut 

its roster by removing the first string so they could save some 

money. 

But beyond the accolades are strategic reasons why these bases 

must remain open. The 911th and the 171st offer joint training 

with other units, and regularly work with local emergency responders and Federal law enforcement. As part of the military disaster 

preparedness responsibilities, few places have the assets of Pittsburgh, which is located within 2 hours flying time of 70 percent of 

the U.S. population. 

And, the region’s world-class medical system offers a unique combination of supportive operations, and a readily accessible air lift. 

This included in the national disaster medical system which trains 

nurses and doctors to respond to disaster stricken zones and therefore be ready if problems should happen again of an attack from 

terrorists. 

End strength at both bases is extremely high because commanders recruit from a unique talent pool, trained and working 

commercial aviation. And it is one of the highest recruiting units. 

I am deeply worried that these structure changes will cost the 

Air Force a great deal more. And for all these reasons, the Pentagon is making sizeable investments. I should say they spent more 
29 

than $58 million dollars in the last 5 years on new buildings, some 

yet to reopen; new security gates; new medical facilities; and newly 

rehabbed buildings. 

I am troubled that they are relying on faulty assumptions about 

the acreage. The Air Force says the 911th can’t house any more 

than 10 C–130 aircraft. This is untrue. And it has been offered additional space from the county airport authority of 20 acres; they 

can go up to 20 more airports. 

Finally—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Gentleman’s time has expired and without objection your full statement will be included in the record. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. I especially like your analogy of getting rid of the 

first string on any professional team to save money. That looks to 

me exactly like what we are going to be doing with our defense. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well thank you Mr. Chairman. I have grave concerns about closing 911 also, and just a couple of questions for Mr. 

Murphy. Just recently I was out there and visited and I want to 

make sure that we stress here. Maybe you can just talk a little bit 

about the jointness out there, what is coming because I don’t know 

if you mentioned that in your testimony. 

The Navy’s building there now—— 

Mr. MURPHY. The Navy is about to break ground. A new facility, they are going to invest about $14 million. That was also meant to 

share cost with the 911 base and reduce their cost. 

They also have a joint training facility of a gun range. There also 

is a new commissary being built, the Defense Commissary Agency 

about to spend $17 million on that. A new exchange out there as 

well. 

So all these investments are taking place to the tune of close to 

$100 million. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And the Marines are considering moving out? 

Mr. MURPHY. Marines are considering moving out there too, because as the Navy closes their base and Marines are considering— 

a great joint forces training opportunity. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And not only is this jointness which we should be 

promoting, but also the Department of Defense needs to realize 

that they are not doing these in a vacuum, they are part of the 

U.S. Government and there are other agencies, the U.S. Marshals, 

if I am not mistaken; they are looking at moving back there. 

It is going to save us tremendous amount of money by taking 

other government agencies, locating on a secure military base, 

where they can do their functions. And save us money by not having to secure buildings. Are there other agencies that are looking 

to move there? 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, we know the Air Marshals are considering it. 

We also know that the Air Force has not done a cost comparison. 

And this is where your committee can have valuable impact. 

They talked about moving these planes and therefore saving 

money. Well those planes are going to be moved anywhere, but to 
30 

compare the Pittsburgh airport where they get four 10,000-foot 

runways, and all these other things for $20,000 a year versus other 

bases where the Air Force has to provide all the cost. It is just a 

ridiculous lack of accounting. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It says ‘‘bargain’’ all over it. And that is what we 

have to be looking for as we are saving money as you mention— 

four 10,000-foot runways, $20,000—they can house 20 planes there 

without any—— 

Mr. MURPHY. My rotary club can do a fundraiser and cover that 

cost. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Well I thank you gentleman for being here and advocating for 911. And I yield back. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and we will certainly look 

into this as we move forward. Thank you. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Rick 

Crawford, for 5 minutes. 

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

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, and thank you Ranking Member Smith. And distinguished members of the committee, I thank all of you for what 

you do to preserve the security of our great Nation and for allowing 

me the opportunity to testify to the full committee regarding explosive ordnance disposal, or EOD, priorities for the fiscal year 2013 

National Defense Authorization Act. 

As none of the services have a three-star EOD flag officer with 

a legislative affairs staff, it is my honor to represent the interests 

of this critical component of our fighting force in their stead. I myself served in the Army as an EOD tech, and I am proud to be a 

co-founder along with committee member Susan Davis, who is here 

today, of the House EOD caucus. 

Explosive ordnance disposal soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the military’s preeminent team of explosive experts. They 

are trained, equipped, and integrated to attack and defeat explosive and associated insurgent networks across all operational environments. 

The military’s EOD mission [is] to defeat the global improvised 

explosive device [IED]; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, 

and high-yield explosives; and weapons of mass destruction 

threats. The EOD tech protects our military and innocent civilians 

from explosive threats, and supports our Armed Forces by providing relevant and ready explosive experts in full spectrum military operations, joint and interagency operations, and national security objectives. 

EOD forces have proven to be game changers in attacking and 

dismantling terrorist cells and associated networks. EOD forces 

will continue to be indispensable assets for the foreseeable future 

supporting counterterrorism operations, building the capacity of 

partner nations, and routinely conducting homeland defense missions in support of civil authorities. 

It is vital that we continue to preserve the EOD force structure 

and maintain the EOD technical chain of command, and control 
31 

structure, and full spectrum capabilities to ensure success in a 

wide range of contingencies as directed by the Secretary of Defense’s strategic guidance on 21st century policies, the Quadrennial 

Defense Review, and as specifically emphasized in Homeland Security Presidential Directive 19 entitled, ‘‘Combating Terrorist Use of 

Explosives in the United States’’ and its implementation plan. 

I have concerns with the Administration’s budget request for 

military EOD. In the fiscal year 2012 NDAA House report, the 

committee required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on 

the services EOD force structure planning and the consolidated 

busted—budget justification for EOD programs to include research, 

development, testing, evaluation, operations and maintenance and 

procurement. These reports were due by March 1st of this year to 

the committee and neither of these reports were provided by the 

Secretary. 

Additionally I see a troubling and continuing trend of heavy reliance by the services on overseas contingency operations [OCO] 

funding for EOD as evidenced by OCO funding levels of 27 percent 

in fiscal year 2012, 59 percent in fiscal year 2011, and 29 percent 

in fiscal year 2010. Instead of including this EOD funding in the 

OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] and services baseline 

budget, I urge that we reallocate this OCO funding into the services baseline budget for EOD and fiscal year 2013. 

After discussion with fellow EOD caucus members, members of 

your committee, and with EOD warriors during events such as the 

EOD Day on the Hill, I found that funding we envisioned to support EOD forces in many instances never made it to them. 

For example, Members of Congress that I talked with logically 

assumed that funding in the amount of approximately $100 million 

was allocated to the Joint IED Defeat Organization, or JIEDDO, to 

specifically support rapid solutions for EOD forces. It was not. In 

fact, the Office of the Secretary of Defense program that actually 

supports this effort is the EOD/Low-Intensity Conflict program, 

which is inadequately funded at a level of only $8 million for its 

fiscal year 2013. 

Appropriately, funding EOD-specific programs at levels commensurate with the dangers faced by EOD forces will save lives and 

allow these brave men and women to continue to combat the threat 

of IEDs. I look forward to working with the committee in the near 

future to craft legislation that supports the critical joint explosives 

ordnance disposal forces in their mission to defend the homeland 

and our interests abroad. I remain available to the committee for 

further assistance on EOD matters and I thank you for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford can be found in the Appendix on page 98.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman for his comments. And we 

will certainly take those into account as we continue to draft the 

bill. 

Any other questions? 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Steven 

Stivers, for 5 minutes. 
32 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE STIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM OHIO 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith 

for allowing Members who are not on the committee to testify on 

the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. 

I am testifying today about a bill that I am sponsoring, H.R. 

4341, the TRICARE for Kids Act. But first I want to thank my cosponsors, Representative Bobby Schilling and Representative 

Susan Davis, for working with me on this really important legislation that will be supportive of our military families. 

Mr. Chairman, the goal of this bipartisan legislation is to help 

the Department of Defense shape its policies and practices of the 

TRICARE benefits to account for the specific health care needs of 

children. 

My TRICARE for Kids legislation brings together experts representing the military, children’s health, military families, and it 

places them in a working group convened by the Department of Defense. 

The TRICARE for Kids working group would be tasked with analyzing TRICARE policies, practices and resources that involved 

children’s health care. 

The TRICARE for Kids bill was drafted under the guidance of 

the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] and is estimated to have no 

impact on direct spending or revenues. And the CBO estimated it 

will have minimal cost and it requires no offset. 

The bottom line is that this legislation can help the Department 

of Defense as it works to support our military families and address 

the health needs of children covered by TRICARE. 

I urge my colleague to consider supporting this important legislation by including it in the 2013 National Defense Authorization 

Act. Again, I appreciate the ability to testify today before you and 

look forward to working with you to try to get this bill enacted. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stivers can be found in the Appendix on page 126.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And thank you for your thoughtfulness on this, and we will look at this as we go through the process. 

Mrs. Davis? 

Thank you. 

Mr. STIVERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ranking 

Member. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now recognize the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Mike Honda, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA, 

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HONDA. Good morning. And I want to thank Chairman 

McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, and my colleague also, Mrs. 

Davis, and Mr. Coffman for being here and taking our testimony. 

The—and allowing me to testify in support of my priority for the 

fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, which means 

the hazing and harassment prevention in the U.S. military. 
33 

From recent tragic cases such as Lance Corporal Harry Lew and 

Private Danny Chen, I believe that the U.S. military has fallen into 

a culture that is blind to the damages that hazing and harassment 

cause to our own service members. Their tragic deaths are urgent 

calls to action. 

The crucial issue of hazing and harassment in the military must 

be addressed immediately and the culture that tolerates them must 

be reversed. 

The brave men and women of our armed services must be able 

to serve within a system that guarantees their protection and ensures their family’s trust in their superiors. 

I am grateful to the Subcommittee on Military Personnel for recognizing the important need to address hazing in the military by 

recently holding a hearing regarding this concern. 

As an invited Member, I was glad to hear the witnesses representing each service denounce hazing and harassment and give 

broad overviews of the services’ preventative safeguards. 

Yet these safeguards apparently are not adequate. And hazing 

and harassment occurs, as evident by the recent incidents of Private Danny Chen and Lance Corporal Harry Lew. 

In fact, Secretary Panetta issued an anti-hazing directive during 

his holiday message in December. What I found extremely troubling from the testimony is the lack of actual statistics on hazing 

and harassment. 

How can anyone be convinced that a problem does not exist or 

current prevention policies are working if there is no method of 

monitoring or evaluating it? 

Furthermore, a definition of hazing and harassment is either 

lacking or inconsistent within the services. 

For these reasons, many of my colleagues and I are convinced 

substantial efforts are needed to eradicate hazing and harassment 

in the military. 

In a letter to the committee dated April 3, 2012, the Tri-Caucus 

requested your committee’s consideration of the following: statutory 

definition of hazing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice; a Government Accountability Office study on each of the services’ hazing 

prevention policies, and the prevalence and consequences of hazing 

over the last 5 years; a national hazing database that tracks incidents of hazing and an annual report to Congress on the military’s 

progress in responding to hazing. 

I know from meeting with Harry Lew’s parents, my constituents, 

how much it meant to Harry to serve his nation in uniform. We 

must act now to ensure that the Department of Defense has effective and continuous training for all ranks, proper oversight by and 

access to leadership, including expectation of responsibility at the 

lowest level of command to the highest and stricter enforcement 

policies to guarantee that our service members, no matter their 

background, are able to safely and honorably defend the citizens 

and the Constitution of the United States. 

And I want to thank you again for your consideration of our requests. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda can be found in the Appendix on page 55.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 
34 

Any questions? Comments? 

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will look at your comments very closely as we 

go through the writing of the bill. 

Mr. HONDA. I appreciate it very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And now, without objection, I would like to request that the written testimony of those Members that have spoken and additional 

Members who could not be here today be entered into the record. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection; so ordered. 

This hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 17, 2012 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 17, 2012 

(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 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 17, 2012 

(135) 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 

Æ