[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-43]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2014 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
__________
HEARING HELD
MAY 8, 2013
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-458 WASHINGTON : 2013
___________________________________________________________________________
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, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Thirteenth Congress
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JEFF MILLER, Florida ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
JOE WILSON, South Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
ROB BISHOP, Utah JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MIKE ROGERS, Alabama MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
DUNCAN HUNTER, California Georgia
JOHN FLEMING, Louisiana COLLEEN W. HANABUSA, Hawaii
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado JACKIE SPEIER, California
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia RON BARBER, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey DEREK KILMER, Washington
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama SCOTT H. PETERS, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
PAUL COOK, California
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Robert L. Simmons II, Staff Director
Jaime Cheshire, Professional Staff Member
Tim McClees, Professional Staff Member
Aaron Falk, Clerk
Joe Sangiorgio, Communications Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2013
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, May 8, 2013, National Defense Priorities from Members
for the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.... 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, May 8, 2013........................................... 41
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2013
NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Barr, Hon. Garland ``Andy,'' a Representative from Kentucky...... 21
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a Representative from Tennessee.......... 10
Broun, Hon. Paul C., a Representative from Georgia............... 17
Cartwright, Hon. Matthew A., a Representative from Pennsylvania.. 6
Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick,'' a Representative from Arkansas.. 24
DeSantis, Hon. Ron, a Representative from Florida................ 31
Fattah, Hon. Chaka, a Representative from Pennsylvania........... 18
Gabbard, Hon. Tulsi, a Representative from Hawaii................ 33
Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative from Arizona............... 36
Green, Hon. Al, a Representative from Texas...................... 37
Hanna, Hon. Richard L., a Representative from New York........... 20
Heck, Hon. Denny, a Representative from Washington............... 14
Hudson, Hon. Richard, a Representative from North Carolina....... 11
Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative from Texas............ 30
Kildee, Hon. Daniel T., a Representative from Michigan........... 15
Lee, Hon. Barbara, a Representative from California.............. 27
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' a Representative from
California, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services.............. 1
Nunes, Hon. Devin, a Representative from California.............. 3
O'Rourke, Hon. Beto, a Representative from Texas................. 38
Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R., Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico. 12
Posey, Hon. Bill, a Representative from Florida.................. 29
Roskam, Hon. Peter J., a Representative from Illinois............ 19
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative from Florida......... 26
Sherman, Hon. Brad, a Representative from California............. 35
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking
Member, Committee on Armed Services............................ 2
Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative from California.............. 2
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative from Pennsylvania......... 8
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska.................... 22
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Barr, Hon. Garland ``Andy''.................................. 137
Bilirakis, Hon. Gus M., a Representative from Florida........ 99
Black, Hon. Diane, a Representative from Tennessee........... 119
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha....................................... 80
Broun, Hon. Paul C........................................... 105
Burgess, Hon. Michael C., a Representative from Texas........ 84
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative from California.......... 52
Cartwright, Hon. Matthew A................................... 139
Cramer, Hon. Kevin, a Representative from North Dakota....... 142
Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick''.............................. 121
DelBene, Hon. Suzan K., a Representative from Washington..... 136
Dent, Hon. Charles W., a Representative from Pennsylvania.... 88
DeSantis, Hon. Ron........................................... 144
Faleomavaega, Hon. Eni F. H., a Delegate from American Samoa. 168
Fattah, Hon. Chaka........................................... 53
Gabbard, Hon. Tulsi.......................................... 149
Gibbs, Hon. Bob, a Representative from Ohio.................. 126
Gingrey, Hon. Phil, a Representative from Georgia............ 85
Gosar, Hon. Paul A........................................... 130
Green, Hon. Al............................................... 90
Hanna, Hon. Richard L........................................ 132
Heck, Hon. Denny............................................. 151
Honda, Hon. Michael M., a Representative from California..... 68
Hudson, Hon. Richard......................................... 153
Hurt, Hon. Robert, a Representative from Virginia............ 133
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative from California...... 72
Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila..................................... 54
Kildee, Hon. Daniel T........................................ 156
Lee, Hon. Barbara............................................ 63
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative from California....... 107
McMorris Rodgers, Hon. Cathy, a Representative from
Washington................................................. 94
Moore, Hon. Gwen, a Representative from Wisconsin............ 96
Nunes, Hon. Devin............................................ 86
O'Rourke, Hon. Beto.......................................... 158
Pierluisi, Hon. Pedro R...................................... 170
Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative from Maine........... 108
Posey, Hon. Bill............................................. 110
Rice, Hon. Tom, a Representative from South Carolina......... 161
Roskam, Hon. Peter J......................................... 100
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana.................................... 50
Sarbanes, Hon. John P., a Representative from Maryland....... 102
Sherman, Hon. Brad........................................... 60
Stivers, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Ohio.............. 134
Takano, Hon. Mark............................................ 165
Thompson, Hon. Glenn......................................... 115
Vargas, Hon. Juan, a Representative from California.......... 166
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative from California...... 49
Young, Hon. Don.............................................. 45
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Nunes' letter to Secretary Panetta regarding Lajes Field. 175
Slides used by Mr. Nunes..................................... 177
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.]
[H.A.S.C. No. 113-43]
NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FROM MEMBERS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2014
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, May 8, 2013.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:35 p.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 afternoon. The House Armed Services Committee meets
today to receive testimony from Members of Congress on their
national defense priorities for the fiscal year 2014 National
Defense Authorization Act [NDAA].
In exactly 4 weeks, this committee will reconvene to mark
up our 51st consecutive NDAA. And, as we begin crafting our
legislation, it is essential we 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.
In a tough budget environment, such as the one we face this
year, I hope to enlist all of you who care deeply about our
troops and our national security in focusing on solutions to
the damage to our force caused by the across-the-board cuts
known as sequestration, not just targeted fixes.
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 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
all our witnesses.
We look forward to today's testimony and thank the
participating Members for their advocacy on behalf of our
troops.
Mr. Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON,
RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Smith. I just concur in the chairman's remarks and look
forward to hearing from all the Members.
You know, we have 62 Members on this committee, and we work
with them, but the entire House is interested in what goes in
the Defense Authorization Act. So it is always good to hear
from all the Members, and I look forward to doing that this
afternoon.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
We, you know, go through a markup process where members of
the committee all get to offer amendments, and then when we get
to the floor, Members get to offer amendments. But this is a
way to get something in the bill without going through the
cumbersome amendment process.
So Mr. Takano.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Takano. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Recently, a crew from the California Air National Guard
that was operating a remotely piloted aircraft out of March Air
Reserve Base was able to locate a survival raft less than 2
minutes after being given a rough approximation of its
position--not 2 days, not 2 hours, 2 minutes.
We are on the cusp of a new era. Remotely piloted aircraft,
or RPAs, simply perform tasks better than manned airplanes do.
The majority of the United States RPA expertise, both
combat and defense support of civil authorities, is located in
the Air National Guard. Unfortunately, that previously
mentioned California Air National Guard unit will be out of
business in less than 4 years unless they are included in the
Air Force's RPA upgrade plan, a plan they are not currently
even mentioned in. Similar fates threaten Air National Guard
units flying the soon-to-be-phased-out MQ-1 Predator in
Arizona, North Dakota, Texas, and Ohio.
The United States is on the verge of incorporating RPAs in
the National Airspace System, and these Air National Guard
units have the most experience of any RP [remotely piloted]
operation. They are the true experts in how to do this right.
In light of this, the Guard should be at the top of the list
for conversion to safer, higher flying follow-on RPAs, like the
MQ-9 Reaper, rather than as an afterthought.
America needs to capitalize on the Air National Guard's
expertise to reap fully the benefits of seamless RPA support
for search and rescue efforts, disaster relief, and emergency
services. Converting to the MQ-9 swiftly will also protect the
thousands of jobs and countless small businesses that support
these units.
The next 5 years will see substantial, maybe even
exponential growth in remotely piloted aircraft operations
worldwide, and America cannot afford to squander the
significant advantage we have in this arena.
As the MQ-1 nears the end of its service life, it is
absolutely imperative that the Air Force revises its RPA
upgrade plan and upgrades the forgotten Air National Guard MQ-1
units in California, Arizona, North Dakota, Texas, and Ohio to
the MQ-9 as quickly as possible to prevent a gap in mission
coverage. This will also ensure we capitalize on, rather than
lose, the Air National Guard's critical expertise and maintain
America's lead beyond the approaching RPA horizon.
While the Air Force does have a strategic basing process
for the recapitalization of MQ-1s to MQ-9s, the criteria do not
place proper emphasis on the importance of current MQ-1 flight
training schoolhouses. The Air Force should prioritize the
replacement of MQ-1s with MQ-9s at locations with existing
flight training unit schoolhouses, which would allow the Air
Force to capitalize on existing infrastructure, trained
personnel, instructor expertise, and save taxpayer money.
We need to see a formal recapitalization plan for the
replacement of all National Guard MQ-1 aircraft with MQ-9
aircraft. That plan should contain the criteria for bed-down,
including both the weight and scoring that will be given to MQ-
1 wings and squadrons with collocated flight training unit
schoolhouse missions.
That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Takano can be found in the
Appendix on page 165.]
The Chairman. Boy, you used the exact minute, right to the
second.
Mr. Takano. I didn't want to outstay my welcome, sir.
The Chairman. You did a very good job.
Mr. Takano. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
I said in my opening statement we would have 5 minutes, but
it will be 4 minutes. In all of the Members that we have signed
up, it worked out we will only have 4 minutes.
Next will be Mr. Nunes from California.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEVIN NUNES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Smith. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
I have a letter that I would like to submit for the record
based on the Air Force's decision to draw down forces at Lajes
Field on Terceira Island.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 175.]
Mr. Nunes. Lajes has an unparalleled strategic value.
Located on the Azore islands between Europe and the United
States, it is like the Hawaii of the Atlantic Ocean, only
closer to America's homeland.
The islands belong to Portugal, a strong U.S. ally since
World War II that has never prevented us from conducting
operational missions. The base was critical to our tracking of
Soviet submarines during the cold war. Today, it allows us
access to Europe, the Middle East, to Western and Sub-Sahara
Africa. It is also a vital site for countering AQIM [Al Qaeda
in the Islamic Maghreb] and other jihadist groups in Southern
Sahara Africa.
Furthermore, Lajes is well-positioned to act as a
logistical hub, not only for Department of Defense, but for
USAID [United States Agency for International Development], the
State Department, and other agencies.
I want to bring Lajes to your attention today due to the
dire consequences of the decision to draw down the base. Our
strategic planners may believe we can leave a mere skeletal
operation at Lajes and retain access there, but, in reality,
the decision means a total end to the U.S. presence at the
facility.
Scaling back to current plans will severely impact the
Azorian economy, forcing authorities to look for a new tenant
for the site. In light of Portugal's weak economy, we do not
want to make Azorians choose between their loyalty to the
United States and the ability to feed their families.
Next slide, please.
[The slide referred to can be found in the Appendix on page
177.]
Mr. Nunes. While our strategic planners may not want to be
in the Azores anymore, leaders of other nations feel
differently. Several high-ranking Chinese officials have
visited the Azores in recent years, culminating in a June 2012
visit by Premier Wen Jiabao. The Chinese did not divulge what
these delegates were doing there, but I highly doubt they were
sipping port and enjoying the pleasant climate.
Next slide, please.
[The slide referred to can be found in the Appendix on page
178.]
Mr. Nunes. Crucially, we cannot assume the Portuguese will
exclude China or other bad actors from the site simply out of
allegiance to the United States. The recent decision to send
500 U.S. Marines to Moron, Spain, a contingent that would have
much more flexibility at the logistics hub of Lajes, could
easily be perceived as a calculated insult to our Portuguese
allies.
I fully understand the budget reality we face. However, as
we reduce our European footprint comprising of 110,000
personnel and 29 military installations, we need to consider
each site's geostrategic value. It would cost billions to build
a base like Lajes today. And if our strategic planners insist
on giving up something this vital, then at the very least I
would urge this committee to create a pilot program to
privatize its operations to guarantee 24/7 access to the site
for TRANSCOM [Transportation Command] and other agencies.
I would like to draw the final slide. It is up on the
screen now.
[The slide referred to can be found in the Appendix on page
179.]
Mr. Nunes. In conclusion, the retention of Lajes was not an
issue for 70 years--70 years--because prior planners never
contemplated surrendering something so crucial to the United
States interests.
And I leave this committee with three questions. The first:
If we withdraw from Lajes, should we assume that Chinese and
Russian submarines will suffer some mishap that prevents them
from sailing beneath the Atlantic Ocean?
Second, if we withdraw from Lajes, should we assume that
jihadists will stop training in Sub-Sahara Africa?
And, finally, I want to draw your attention to the map and
ask an extremely simple question: If the U.S. Government wants
to fulfill its responsibility to protect the United States, its
people, and its interests, then I ask you to look at the map,
and what location of the 29 locations on the map is most
critical? I would argue that a strategic site equivalent to
Hawaii in the Atlantic Ocean is the most critical.
And, with that, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, I
appreciate your time, and I look forward to answering any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nunes can be found in the
Appendix on page 86.]
The Chairman. Mr. Thornberry.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Nunes, let me be sure I understand. So the military
thinks they can leave a skeletal force and then come back if we
need it. And your point is that if we leave, they have, by
necessity, got to do something else with the base, and so it
will not be an option to come back.
Mr. Nunes. Right. I think rough numbers, Mr. Thornberry, is
that it would cost multiple billions dollars to construct a
base like we have there today. It is a 10,000-foot runway,
hundreds of homes and facilities. It used to house 5,000
troops; today it is down to 500.
So the problem is, if you want to draw down from 500 to 50
or 75 or 100 and then cut the civilian workforce there, I mean,
this is a no-brainer that they are going to want to sell that
base, because the economics are going to require it. That is
the problem.
You have 25 percent unemployment on the islands already. In
mainland Portugal, you have 20 percent unemployment. Likely, if
you close this base, you are going to see 35 or 40 percent
employment. That is not a sustainable economic model.
Mr. Thornberry. And so the danger is, if we walk away, we
lose it forever.
Mr. Nunes. Right. If we walk away and draw down, the
Portuguese will be forced to make a very tough decision, which
is, do we support the United States, which I think they want to
do, or do we make a strategic decision to try to feed our
families? And that will be the decision they will be down to.
Mr. Thornberry. Okay. And could you just briefly, again,
describe what you are suggesting about private----
Mr. Nunes. Well, roughly, I would think that--this has been
tried some times. It has been tried some times in the past. But
I think, roughly, they are spending about $50 million a year
there now. I think they are trying to draw it down closer to
$30 million. The base is going to go to part-time; it is going
to be a skeleton crew.
I would argue that maybe we could use that $30 million to
look for a way to keep it open 24/7 under a smaller maybe
military contingent, but locals possibly, and we could get more
for less. We could actually save the government money.
I mean, look, I don't believe that we should withdraw the
presence there at all. In fact, I would argue that we should
probably increase the presence at Lajes and draw down other
facilities. But if they are dead set in their plans, perhaps
this is an opportunity for a pilot project to privatize and
save some money and, most importantly, keep our access there.
Mr. Thornberry. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Cook.
Mr. Cook. Yes, sir. I have a quick comment and maybe a
question.
And, by the way, I support what you are saying there.
And I would just call the committee's attention to a little
bit of history. And that was, many, many years ago, when the
Shah of Iran's regime had changed, there were certain
contingencies. And it was about relief forces that were to go
into Iran via that particular base, then into insulate Turkey,
and then into Tehran. At that time, it was to evacuate the
embassy. Never happened for a variety of reasons, one of which
is the op plans, I think, were leaked to the press.
I kind of know the area a little bit. I would hope that the
military has reviewed that. But with the situation in the
Middle East with Syria and Iran, I just think that the
gentleman from California is making an excellent point about
the importance of that. I didn't even know it was going to be
on the docket today, but I did want to offer that support.
Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Nunes. Well, thank you, Mr. Cook. And I appreciate your
service to our country.
And I would point out that, in the past, similar times
throughout history, almost all the other European countries
have blocked our access except for Portugal.
The Chairman. Any further questions?
Thank you. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Next would be Mr. Cartwright from
Pennsylvania.
STATEMENT OF HON. MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member
Smith, members of the House Armed Services Committee. I come
before you today to testify about the importance of our defense
industrial base and specifically about military depots.
Right now, we stand at the tail end of two long wars that
have stretched our budgets and severely strained our All-
Volunteer Force. As the committee is well aware, hard choices
about defense spending will have to be made in the near future.
In order to shrink our defense budget to fit a peacetime force,
this committee will have to identify programs that are no
longer vital to American safety, while at the same time
maintain funding for readiness for a myriad of continuing
threats.
I hope you will join me in supporting replacing the
sequester-level cuts with a defense budget policy that
thoughtfully and appropriately reshapes our fighting forces.
Now, depots. Our military depots are a fiscally prudent
tool in maintaining readiness. As you set their budget, I urge
you to consider the value of depots to the warfighter, the
return on the investment that the American taxpayer receives
from depots, and the indispensable economic role these
facilities play in communities where they are located.
In my district alone, the Tobyhanna Army Depot, the Army's
only C4ISR [command, control, communications, computers,
intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] communications
depot, generates $1.68 in economic activity for every dollar
invested. Additionally, every job at Tobyhanna generates two
and a half jobs in the larger community. Letterkenny Army
Depot, also in my State, generates over one and a half local
jobs for every employee who goes to work for the base.
In many cases, as with Tobyhanna, depots are the largest
employers in their respective congressional districts. Dramatic
reductions would economically devastate these communities.
I would further ask you to consider the impact
sequestration and the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution
have already had on Tobyhanna. Five hundred people have already
lost their jobs. Projected funding is about $100 million below
what was originally planned, and funding actually received by
the depot is now only about 72 percent of the revised scaled-
back plan.
Work stoppages on several key systems will begin occurring
next month. To maintain costs of competitiveness, the depot has
curtailed contracts and canceled its capital investment program
for this fiscal year.
As the ability of depots to refurbish essential supplies
becomes lost because of such costs, the outlook for better
integrating our forces through upgraded communications networks
and equipment becomes bleaker. As Army Chief of Staff General
Raymond T. Odierno stated last August, network upgrades remain
the Army's, quote, ``number-one modernization priority,''
unquote.
Now, going forward, last year the House voted to cut nearly
$2 billion from our military depot budget. Depots are required
to run like businesses. They have to win work and remain cost-
competitive within the private sector. If they can't do so,
they have to cut costs. Slashing their operational funding
means they are able to do less work. And if overhead costs
become too great a percentage of total costs, the facility
becomes less competitive when bidding for new work. That leads
to the kind of a death spiral that is just doomsday for a
depot.
In addition to increasing operational funds, this committee
should seek to enforce the 50-50 rule and ensure that the
essential go-to-war items are identified so that depots
maintain sufficient workload. We should use the oversight power
of Congress to ensure that the service branches move quickly to
establish new systems that will be supported by depots and that
will support depot workloads for decades to come.
I urge you to authorize an expansion of the electronic
technology that tomorrow's warfighter will need, along with
increased direct funding for our Nation's military depots. Only
a well-equipped, well-supported force will allow America to
meet all of its future threats.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cartwright can be found in
the Appendix on page 139.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Thompson from Pennsylvania.
STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith,
members of the Armed Services Committee, I want to thank you
for allowing me to testify before you today.
This committee has done an excellent job supporting the
brave men and women who serve our country, which is a passion I
share with each of you.
Two years ago I worked very closely with the committee to
include the Servicemembers' Telemedicine and E-Health
Portability Act, or STEP Act, in the fiscal year 2012 National
Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law in
December 2012. The STEP Act was a positive step forward in
modernizing how the Department of Defense delivers health care.
Specifically it made widespread telemedicine possible and
accessible by expanding the State licensure exemption to all
DOD [Department of Defense] healthcare professionals,
regardless where they are or the patient is located.
Many committee members have worked closely on the issue of
mental health and suicide prevention and know just how
important it is for our service members to get treatment
without delay. Of equal importance is ensuring our service
members can access care without the stigma that is often
associated with seeking mental health treatment. The STEP Act
is assisting with achieving these very goals.
Last year, after passage of the STEP Act, the Army was able
to perform nearly 36,000 teleconsultations, which included over
31,200 tele-behavioral health clinical encounters. This is an
incredible achievement and a great start. Since its passage I
have worked closely with the Department of Defense to monitor
its implementation.
In large part the services have embraced these changes. In
a new memo to the service chiefs this year, the Department of
Defense presented the first part of the STEP Act implementation
with a broad waiver to expand telemedicine. This waiver was a
tremendous step forward.
However, there remains two issues which the Department of
Defense needs to address. First, the waiver does not allow
service members to use telemedicine from their homes, only
fixed facilities. Second, TRICARE providers were not included
as a part of this waiver for licensure portability. However,
the STEP Act has already clearly addressed both of these waiver
issues. And this is my concern, that the Department of Defense
has not fully implemented the spirit of the law.
We need to make health services and care as convenient and
accessible as possible, especially when it comes to the mental
health. There is no better way to remove the stigma of seeking
mental health from a bricks-and-mortar facility, in plain sight
of colleagues than to allow our service members to access care
in the comfort and privacy of their own homes.
I did have the opportunity to speak yesterday with Dr.
Jonathan Woodson, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs, and relayed some of my concerns to him. As we move
forward, I would appreciate your help with that.
I cut short some of my original prepared remarks just to
elevate an issue that came from constituents just this week.
And I would just ask, with this, the committee's close
oversight as we prepare to draw down and depart from
Afghanistan. This week I received multiple constituent contacts
from members of the military currently deployed in Afghanistan.
They were from different FOBs [forward operating bases], but
had the same issue: hunger.
I recognize, as they do, that we are at war, and at times
of war circumstances will dictate nights when the troops won't
go to sleep, and will go to sleep hungry, or may not go to
sleep at all. That is what happens when you are at war, at
times. But the situation I am talking about is not one of those
times.
In a conversation with CENTCOM [Central Command] on this
issue, after the constituent contacts, I was provided the U.S.
Expeditionary Mindset Campaign Key Messages. Bullet 4 of that
document states, quote, ``It is no longer business as usual. We
do not need money for non-mission-essential resources. In this
cost culture, we need to ask, Do we need it?''
Well, colleagues, I would argue that the safety, shelter,
and sustenance--or food--are mission-essential resources and an
obligation to the men and women serving in harm's way. I just
ask your oversight that we fulfill these mission essentials
until the last set of boots are out of Afghanistan.
Let me close with sharing just the following email I
received 2 days ago from a constituent. It is short. I got it
May 6. And it is a quote.
``So they took away breakfast and midnight chow and
replaced it MREs [Meal Ready to Eat]. It doesn't affect me much
because it's helping me lose weight, but the guys I work with
that work a 12-hour shift overnight really get hosed. What they
have been doing is going to dinner, which is their breakfast,
grabbing a to-go plate for a meal later on. Tonight''--and I
replaced the position with just senior NCO [noncommissioned
officer]--``told them that they're not allowed to do that.
Other times the dining facility soldiers have told the guys
that they can only take one MRE. Basically these guys are
trying to starve people, I think. Just filling you in. Maybe a
phone call to someone would help.''
Well, I hope the opportunity that you have allowed me
today, quite frankly, has fulfilled that constituent's request.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found in the
Appendix on page 115.]
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
We will include your whole statement in the record. No
objection.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Blackburn from Tennessee.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Smith. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
I represent the Seventh Congressional District of
Tennessee, which is home to the brave men and women of Fort
Campbell, and that is home to the storied 101st Airborne, the
5th Special Forces Group, and the Army's 160th Special
Operations Aviation Regiment, which piloted Navy SEAL [Sea,
Air, and Land] Team 6 during the raid on Osama bin Laden.
The nearly 3,500 officers and 27,000 enlisted personnel who
call Fort Campbell home have gone through intensive training
which has pushed their minds and bodies to the limits. In the
end, those who made the cut have truly earned the right to be
part of the U.S. military and serve on the front lines in the
fight against terrorism.
However, due to the extreme cuts facing our military under
sequestration, some of our military readiness programs are in
jeopardy. One program that I am especially concerned about is
the Flying Hour Program. This vital program provides aviation
training resources for individual crew members and units
according to approved aviation training strategies. In
addition, it also provides individual and collective
proficiency in support of ongoing combat and noncombat air
operations. For aviation units like the 101st Airborne, this
training is not only vital to mission success, but to the
safety of our soldiers.
As a result of sequestration, the Army has already begun
curtailing training, canceling training center rotations,
ending collective training above the platoon level except for
the next-to-deploy units, and reducing flying hours, which is
leaving many units unprepared for possible contingencies both
at home and abroad.
Many military specialties, such as pilots, are acutely
affected, with many set to lose their currency in a matter of
months. The Army could have to cut 37,000 flying hours from
aviation training, creating a shortfall of over 500 aviators
just this year.
I urge the House Armed Services Committee to pay close
attention to restoring the Flying Hour Programs to their full
capacity in fiscal year 2014. Without it, vital national
security assets like the 101st Airborne will find their
important mission at risk. More importantly, the lives of the
soldiers we count on to deploy in our defense will also be put
at much greater risk.
One additional program that I would like to highlight for
the committee is the Troops to Teachers program. Given that the
current unemployment rate for veterans is a staggering 10
percent, it is important that we help our troops exiting the
military transition to a new career. Becoming a teacher is the
perfect outlet for many of our veterans who are looking to
continue their service. The program is currently underutilized
in the Fort Campbell area, despite the large presence of
veterans in the communities. I urge the committee to provide a
thoughtful review of the program and look for ways to enhance
it through innovative changes so that institutions of higher
education can work more closely with members of the armed
services.
I thank you for your time, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn can be found in
the Appendix on page 80.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any questions? Thank you.
Next will be Mr. Hudson from North Carolina. The gentleman
is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon, and Ranking Member Smith, I want to thank
you and this committee for the opportunity to share with you
some of the national security priorities I hold for the
upcoming year on behalf of the Eighth District of North
Carolina.
As I have traveled around communities in North Carolina,
people have consistently told me that restoring fiscal
responsibility is their number one priority, and that they sent
me to Washington to help force the government to live within
its means. Accordingly, I am committed to cutting spending,
reducing the size of government, promoting economic growth, and
putting our budget on a path to balance.
Today I would like to discuss a number of issues; namely,
the challenges that we face, along with our allies and
partners; the commitments we have made to our men and women in
uniform; and the importance of ensuring accountability and
transparency when trying to maintain a strong national defense
in a tough budget environment.
The past decade has taught us that many of the threats we
face no longer come from traditional nations, but rather from
determined groups of extremists who seek to wreak havoc on the
American dream. While the war on terror is an ongoing battle
against evil, in most cases states continue to pose the
greatest threat to our national security, whether through the
sponsor of terrorist groups or outright provocation. A failure
to exercise U.S. diplomatic and military leadership means
nuclear states like Iran and North Korea will be able to bully
the entire international system.
North Carolina is fortunate to be home to over 700,000
proud veterans, and I am lucky to represent a district that has
a strong military presence, given its proximity to Fort Bragg.
I just returned from a terrific visit to Fort Bragg and am
proud to report that some of the finest Americans are working
there on behalf of this great Nation. The men and women of Fort
Bragg have very unique capabilities and a very unique mission.
I look forward to working with this committee on behalf of
Fort Bragg to make sure their priorities are understood and
met. Among these are a number of new centers, including a
skills sustainment course building for the Joint Special
Operations Medical Training Center, an engineer training
facility for the 1st Special Warfare Training Group, a language
and cultural center for the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare
Center and School.
As the United States increases its Special Operations and
airborne operations presence, it is critically important that
we support in-depth training and techniques, an area where Fort
Bragg continues to excel. I look forward to working with you
and this committee to provide the necessary resources to ensure
the utmost success for our dedicated men and women in uniform
serving at Fort Bragg and around the world.
America has made promises to the men and women who have
made countless sacrifices for this Nation, and we must
guarantee these promises are kept. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on Transportation Security, I have worked for and
support the TSA's [Transportation Security Administration]
decision to offer less-invasive screening for members of the
military who have sustained severe combat-related injuries.
Finally, I would like to discuss the defense budget. I
recognize the difficult challenges facing this committee in
balancing the important needs of our Defense Department with
diminishing resources. In tough economic times it is critical
that we hold every Federal agency accountable for taxpayer
dollars, and the Department of Defense is no exception.
I applaud the work of my colleagues, Congressman Mike
Conaway and Congressman Rob Andrews, who have long urged DOD to
make financial management a priority within the Department. We
can all agree that DOD must make certain every dollar is
accounted for and used to its fullest potential.
With that said, it is important to remember that defense
spending represents approximately 19 percent of the Federal
budget, yet has to absorb nearly half the spending reductions
occurring in the past 2 years. We must always ensure that our
military's readiness is not compromised by an inability in
Washington to properly set spending priorities.
Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak to
you today and for your efforts on behalf of our Nation's
warfighters and their families.
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson can be found in the
Appendix on page 153.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Mr. Pierluisi from Puerto Rico.
STATEMENT OF HON. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, RESIDENT COMMISSIONER
FROM PUERTO RICO
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member,
for the opportunity to summarize my requests.
First, the Corps of Engineers is cleaning limited areas of
Culebra, Puerto Rico, a former training range under the FUDS
[Formerly Used Defense Sites] program. However, the Army argues
that a 1974 law prohibits the Federal cleanup of a 400-acre
parcel that was part of the bombardment zone. This parcel is
the only former defense site in the Nation the Federal
Government says it is not authorized to clean.
The committee has recognized that this state of affairs is
dangerous, since the parcel includes beaches, walkways, and
campgrounds. In the 2010 bill, the House repealed the relevant
provision in the 1974 law to authorize cleanup of the parcel,
but receded in conference.
In the 2011 bill, Congress required a study on the amount
of unexploded ordnance within the parcel, the risk it poses,
and the cost of removal. DOD completed the study after this
committee marked up the 2012 NDAA. To preserve the issue for
conference, I offered a successful floor amendment expressing
the sense of the House that if this parcel could be cleaned at
reasonable cost, the 1974 law should be relaxed or repealed.
Again, the Senate failed to act.
This March, the consequences of the Senate's inaction
became terribly clear. A young girl visiting a Culebra beach
suffered burns and was hospitalized after she picked up a
munition containing white phosphorous. Officials responding to
the scene found additional UXO [unexploded ordnance], including
naval gun rounds that were detonated by the FBI [Federal Bureau
of Investigation]. This incident highlights the need for
congressional action. So I ask the committee to again include
language to relax or repeal the 1974 law and to defend this
provision in conference.
My second request concerns the 156 Airlift Wing of the
Puerto Rico Air National Guard. The 156th has had the highest
operational tempo of any C-130 unit in the Guard, conducting
ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] and other
missions in AFRICOM [Africa Command], CENTCOM, and SOUTHCOM
[Southern Command], and fulfilling its commitments under
Operation Coronet Oak, all while flying the oldest C-130s in
the inventory.
The unit has unmatched operational experience in its AOR
[area of responsibility], is strategically located, and is
fully bilingual, yet its future is uncertain. The unit has
three C-130Es that are scheduled to be retired this year, and
recently received WC-130s, which are not combat-coded. I
understand these planes are intended to be a stopgap measure
until the unit is provided with newer H or J models that are
fully mission capable; however, when I ask about the delivery
date of the new planes, no clear response is provided.
There are multiple options that would be good for the unit
and good for our national security. Allowing the unit's flying
mission to lapse would be a strategic mistake and is
inconsistent with repeated assurances I have been given by
defense officials, including the Secretary of the Air Force.
Therefore, I ask the committee to address this matter in its
report.
My final request concerns counterdrug activities. The
murder rate in Puerto Rico is far higher than any State, and
most murders are linked to the drug trade. The Coast Guard
seized or disrupted over 17,000 pounds of drugs around Puerto
Rico in 2012, an 800 percent increase over the previous year.
DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency] seizures rose nearly 100 percent.
CBP [Customs and Border Protection] seized more drugs in Puerto
Rico than along the Mexico-New Mexico border. Meanwhile the
price of drugs in Puerto Rico has decreased. This is a problem
of national scope because most of the drugs that enter Puerto
Rico are transported to the U.S. mainland.
The commanders of NORTHCOM [Northern Command] and SOUTHCOM
recently testified that this is a matter of great concern to
them. I ask this committee to direct DOD to report on its
activities to support counterdrug operations in and around
Puerto Rico, and I hope you will work with me to ensure that
DOD enhances its role as appropriate.
Thank you. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pierluisi can be found in
the Appendix on page 170.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The gentleman's time has expired. Are there any questions
of the gentleman?
Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Heck from Washington. The gentleman is
recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DENNY HECK, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON
Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Smith.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
I have the great privilege to represent the congressional
district that contains Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the third
largest military installation in America. Thousands of families
in my district are connected to this joint base in some way.
They are the families of Active service duty members,
reservists, civilian workers, veterans, and more. In the past
few months, many of these families have begun to feel the
negative effects of the decisions the Department of Defense has
had to make as a result of the sequestration cuts.
I want to read you just part of a letter I received from
one of the members of one of these families. It comes from a
woman named Lacey, who lives in Olympia, the same city as I do.
Lacey's husband is stationed at JBLM [Joint Base Lewis-
McChord]. He has been deployed multiple time overseas in the
last decade. Lacey and her husband have two young sons, ages 3
and 1.
She writes: ``Our lives together have held surprises, both
good and bad, thanks to my husband's military commitment. But I
support my husband in his service. I know that for the bad days
at `the office' that he has far more good days. He truly enjoys
his job. My husband was put on orders to come here to Fort
Lewis, and we were told that this particular assignment, though
chaotic, would result in more time home for him. More time with
our young boys. . . .
``The first portion of my husband's assignment was
wonderful. He was home for dinner. We could actually eat a
family meal, for the first time since we have had children, I
might add. He was able to actually do the whole bedtime routine
for our older son instead of barely skidding in the door to
read him part of the story and put him to bed. My sons
blossomed with this extra time with their father. . . .
``In the few short weeks that these sequester cuts have
been coming downhill, I can tell you that there has been a
significant and miserable change in my children. Both of them
have become moody and angry. . . . My husband wakes up at 5
a.m. and isn't getting back home from work until 6 p.m. on a
good day. Many days he is barely getting through the door at
7:30 p.m. at night, and that is with leaving tasks incomplete
at his desk. We have barely 2 hours together before he is
falling asleep, exhausted, on the couch. While I cook a meager
dinner, he works on his graduate course (he just started that
program in January).
``I know my husband is a hardworking man. I have supported
him through two Iraq tours, two assignments in Africa, and an
assignment in a former Soviet territory. I have brought two
children into this world with him. I have moved completely
across the country with him, and I am putting my graduate
degree and career on hold in order to support him and raise our
children until they are of school age.
``I know what kind of hours he works when he is deployed;
it is the same daily hours as he is working now. My job, as I
see it, is to hold this family together, to make sure that my
children are connected to their dad. But how can I keep them
connected to a husk of a person? The schedule, this pace, will
turn my husband into a shell of himself.''
Mr. Chairman, often this town gets lost in the numbers, and
the percentages and the statistics that go into our Federal
budgeting process. We lose focus on the fact that the decisions
we make impact real families in real ways. These are real
people out there, who have to deal with the consequences of
Congress' action or our inaction, as the case may be.
I know this committee does not have jurisdiction on this
issue. I can guarantee you, however, that sequestration has
affected the district of each and every member of this
committee. Congress and we can still get this right. We can
stop the unnecessary hardships that Lacey talks about in her
letter. We just need to muster the will to act, and I hope, for
the sake of our military families around the country, including
those like Lacey's, that we will.
Thank you, sir, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Heck can be found in the
Appendix on page 151.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Are there any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Mr. Kildee. The gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL T. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member
Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, for holding
today's hearing and allowing me the opportunity to share some
of the defense priorities I hope you will consider in preparing
the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.
Although I do not serve on the Armed Services Committee, all
Members of Congress have a responsibility to protect our
Nation, and your gracious invitation reflects that. It is an
honor to be here.
I respectfully ask that you fully fund the National Guard
to enable it to continue to play a critical role as a member of
the total force. The National Guard provides a significant
portion of the Active Duty services' capabilities. Since
September 11, 2001, individual National Guard members have
mobilized over 750,000 times in support of overseas operations,
including over 17,000 individual deployments from my home State
of Michigan.
The Air National Guard supplies 35 percent of the Air Force
capability at a fraction of the Active Duty Air Force's budget.
Moreover, the Army National Guard provides 32 percent of the
total Army force, again, with a significantly smaller portion
of the Active Duty components' budget.
In addition to providing the military combatant commanders
with fully deployable capability, the National Guard continues
to fulfill its critical State mission. Last year, the National
Guard responded to over 100 national disasters, including
deploying 12,000 personnel to assist with the Hurricane Sandy
relief efforts. Further, the National Guard, particularly in my
home State of Michigan, has started to take a leading role in
strengthening our cybersecurity at both the State and national
levels.
Finally, the National Guard members serve as military
ambassadors in our communities. As less than 1 percent of the
population has served in the military, many citizens' largest
connection to our service members and their sacrifices is via
the citizen soldiers of the National Guard.
For these reasons fully funding and supporting the National
Guard is both sound fiscal and defense policy.
I also ask that the committee consider some additional
priorities particularly relevant to individual service members.
A smart and well-educated military is a more effective and
adaptable force. Thus, I ask that you fully fund the Military
Tuition Assistance Program. This program enables service
members to pursue educational opportunities while serving.
Members of the military use this critical program to advance
their military careers as well as prepare for their transition
back to civilian life.
Further, to address the significant veterans' unemployment
rate, the Department of Defense must improve the assistance it
provides to service members as they transition from the
military. Improving opportunities to transfer military
credentials and training to the civilian sphere, job training
and assistance, and implementing programs to ensure that
service members are aware of the support and benefits available
to them would all be positive steps.
Moreover, as the committee is well aware, military suicide
and mental health issues are major problems facing service
members and recent veterans. I ask that you continue to explore
ways to address these issues and increase funding for programs
that will help treat and identify mental illness. In this area
in particular, our service members deserve our Nation's best.
And finally, please continue to support programs that seek
to prevent sexual assault in the military. Sexual assault is
becoming a significant concern in the armed services, and our
service members deserve the opportunity to serve their country
honorably and in an environment free of this type of
mistreatment.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this wonderful
opportunity to testify before the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee can be found in the
Appendix on page 156.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Mr. Broun from Georgia. The gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL C. BROUN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GEORGIA
Dr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today.
There are two issues which I would like to briefly discuss
before the committee. The first relates to the continued
controversy over the U.S. Government's ability to indefinitely
detain, without trial, U.S. citizens who are accused of
terrorism or collaboration with terrorist groups. The second
issue is related to the first, regarding the government's use
of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs or drones, to kill suspected
terrorists either in the U.S. or overseas.
These issues are related insofar as they both raise the
question of how, under the Constitution, suspected terrorists
ought to be treated, particularly those who are U.S. citizens.
While past versions of the National Defense Authorization Act,
the NDAA, have attempted to shed light on this question, it
seems that there remains significant doubt over what the legal
process should be when suspected terrorists are identified by
our government.
Central to this debate is the Authorization for Use of
Military Force in Afghanistan, AUMF, giving the U.S. Government
the authority to indefinitely detain individuals suspected of
terrorism. The AUMF became law in 2001 and was upheld by the
U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. While both the
2012 and 2013 NDAA bills stated nothing in the underlying bills
gives the U.S. Government the authority to detain U.S. citizens
suspected of terrorism without due process, neither bill
included language to repeal the authority granted under the
AUMF.
This apparent disparity has resulted in widespread concern
about whether the U.S. Government may, in fact, indefinitely
detain U.S. citizens accused of terrorism. If the government
does have this power under the law, it is unclear under what
circumstances it may use this potentially sweeping power
against its own people.
Last year I supported an amendment to the NDAA offered by
Ranking Member Smith which would have ensured that individuals
arrested on U.S. soil under either the AUMF or the fiscal year
2013 NDAA would be provided with due process as guaranteed by
our Constitution. Unfortunately, this amendment did not pass
the House and was not included in the final bill language. I
urge the committee to include similar language in the fiscal
year 2014 NDAA so that individuals who are accused of terrorism
are afforded their right to a fair trial and due process,
either via the criminal justice system or the military court
system, depending on the situation and the citizenship of the
accused.
Moreover, I urge the committee to work toward protecting
the definition of ``enemy combatant,'' a broad designation
which lacks a clear meaning and may be placed on individuals
under the AUMF in order to allow for their indefinite
detention. Allowing any administration to use such a vague
designation to punish individuals without due process opens the
door to exceedingly dangerous scenarios, including classifying
dissenters as potential terrorists who may be punished without
regard to their constitutional rights.
At the same time I am very concerned about the white paper
recently released by the Justice Department, which outlines the
legal framework for the use of deadly force against American
citizens. While this document purportedly relates only to
individuals who are suspected of working as forces of Al Qaeda,
I believe that it is highly dangerous nonetheless. Most
significantly, it is unconscionable for the U.S. Government to
kill any of its own citizens without first allowing them due
process and their day in court. As with the designation of
enemy combatants, I believe that no administration has the
right to be judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens.
Our country was founded under the notion that citizens must be
protected from this type of tyrannical overreach, and even in
these times marred by terrorist threats, it is imperative that
we stay true to that important principle.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time expired, but we will
include your whole testimony in the record.
Dr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask the committee to do all it can do to ensure that
Americans' God-given, constitutionally protected rights are
defended as it begins this important legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Broun can be found in the
Appendix on page 105.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Dr. Broun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Fattah from Pennsylvania. It was Ms.
Lee's turn, but she is not here. So Mr. Fattah. The gentleman
is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHAKA FATTAH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
ranking member. I have submitted testimony for the record, but
I wanted to come and make this case personally. And I thank you
for the opportunity.
The Chairman. Your testimony that you submitted will be
included.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since the First Tee was born in 1997, it has worked to help
over 7.5 million young people in terms of character development
and perseverance through teaching the skills of golf.
In 2008, because of the work of both the chairman,
Congressman Clyburn, myself, others, there was a $3 million
Department of Defense grant that allowed First Tee to operate
on all of our military bases. So it is now in 50 States. It is
all across the world on our military bases so that the children
of our service men and women can take advantage of this great
program.
Now, as the Federal dollars are coming to a conclusion,
First Tee has raised private dollars. And like the Boys and
Girls Clubs, like other programs on our bases, these are
critically important programs to really provide real help to
young people there and skills that they will need to go
forward.
And so I know that the committee has heard a lot of
testimony on Member's Day about a lot of important issues. And,
Chairman, I know about your great work and concern for our
national defense. I remember fondly our traveling to the
International Atomic Energy Agency to learn more details about
the Iranian weapons development program. This is not as weighty
an issue as you are going to deal with.
What I am asking is that even though it will no longer be
federally funded--and it doesn't need Federal funding. Joe
Barrow and his board, they have done a tremendous job in
raising money. I am going to be joining former President Bush
in Philadelphia at the U.S. Open. We are doing a little event
for First Tee there. And they have done the work to raise the
money. We want to make sure that they can continue to provide
this service on all of our military bases, both domestically
and internationally.
And I thank the committee for allowing me an opportunity to
make my point.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fattah can be found in the
Appendix on page 53.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I am glad you didn't
mention any of my scores.
Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you. And it is great to see a program that starts out
using Federal funding, weans itself from the Federal funding,
and is able to move forward in the private sector. They have
been a fantastic program.
Mr. Fattah. It is an extraordinary program and widely
successful in 5,300 elementary schools this year. And when they
make this announcement to double their efforts, they are going
to be in 11,000 elementary schools. We want them in all our
Boys and Girls Clubs. It is just a great program.
Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Roskam. The gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER J. ROSKAM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
ILLINOIS
Mr. Roskam. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Smith. I am here to congratulate and thank the committee for
your past support for the U.S.-Israeli missile defense
cooperation and to urge your consideration of that continued
support.
There are four programs that I know are well known to this
committee, but are certainly in need of highlighting,
particularly in the season of incredible challenge that we are
facing. Those programs are Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow, and
Arrow 3. Two of them, Mr. Chairman, as you know, are already
deployed, that is Iron Dome and Arrow, and two of them are in
development.
I know many of us in Congress have visited the city of
Sderot on the Gaza border, and we have interacted--I know I
have--firsthand with the men and women and families who are
there. A particular conversation when I was there made an
impression on me. A mother described the challenge of having a
15-second lead time when an alert goes that an incoming missile
is coming from Gaza. And you can imagine now the success and
transformation that has happened through this joint effort
between the U.S. and Israel, and it has had an 85 percent
success rate in knocking down hundreds of missiles. This is
exactly the type of thing that I think the United States should
be involved in.
It is a joint effort. All of these programs are a joint
effort between the U.S. and Israel. It is an opportunity for us
to share in technology; share in, essentially, the fruits of
this product. And it continues to enhance our relationship with
one of our key allies in the world and certainly our best
friend in the Middle East.
So, Mr. Chairman, I know that these programs--and along
with the ranking member--have no better friend than this
committee. I am here to cheer you on and urge your
consideration and advocacy. And if I can help in my role, I am
happy to do that. And I appreciate the chance to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roskam can be found in the
Appendix on page 100.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
efforts in this area. I was talking to the ambassador,
Ambassador Oren, maybe, oh, it has been a month or two ago, and
had just had a series of attacks over the weekend, and Iron
Dome at that point was 95 percent effective. No loss of life.
And it probably kept us from having a much bigger war, because
if they had lost lives, they probably would have gone to war.
Mr. Roskam. We in the whip's office had a meeting yesterday
with the ambassador, had 30 members in, and it was a continuous
conversation about that exact issue. He was deeply grateful for
the U.S. participation. And it is an incredible win for the
U.S. as well.
The Chairman. Sure is. Thank you very much.
Mr. Roskam. Thank you.
The Chairman. Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Mr. Roskam. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Hanna.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD L. HANNA, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW
YORK
Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member
Smith, members of the committee, for this opportunity and for
your bipartisan support of our Armed Forces. I come before you
today to formally request the committee's support for programs
of monumental value to our Nation's modern defense capabilities
as you prepare for your 2014 National Defense Authorization
Act.
Specifically, I request that the committee support the
President's fiscal year 2014 budget request for the Air Force's
Dominant Information Sciences and Methods program and the Air
Force's Battleship Knowledge Development and Demonstration
program. These programs fulfill an essential mission that is
critical to our Nation's defense and our information
management. The work completed by this funding is vital to the
development and maintaining of our defensive and offensive
cyber capacities. Adequate funding of these programs is
essential if we are to preserve our secure networks and the
technologies that will allow us to deter enemy attacks against
our systems.
Equally important, these programs provide critical services
for our advanced communications, battleship and command
control, and intelligence exploitation abilities. As our
services work to become more efficient and unified, these
assets are central to the establishment of joint operations. I
believe the funding levels laid out by the President's budget
request acknowledge the critical nature of these important
programs.
The technologies that are developed and demonstrated
through these fundings are essential to our continued 21st
century national defense priorities. Their importance is
clearly recognized by those who utilize the technologies and
practices developed under these programs, including services of
the Defense Department, the Intelligence Community, and other
Federal agencies.
Therefore, I would like to formally ask my colleagues on
this committee to maintain the President's recommended funding
levels for both of these programs within the fiscal year 2014
National Defense Authorization Act. And I thank you for your
time today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hanna can be found in the
Appendix on page 132.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Barr.
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Chairman.
The Chairman. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARLAND ``ANDY'' BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
KENTUCKY
Mr. Barr. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, for providing me the
opportunity to speak before the House Armed Services Committee
today. I come before you in support of our Active, Guard, and
Reserve Components, as well as our veterans, to ensure they
receive the needed equipment and support they deserve.
Today I want to particularly focus on the National Guard,
which faces mounting challenges regarding how to replace
equipment that is obsolete and worn out through normal wear and
tear, as well as strengthening family readiness programs. I
stand beside the Commonwealth of Kentucky's Adjutant General,
Major General Edward Tonini, in requesting that we fully fund
the fiscal year 2014 National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Account request in order to remain mission capable and a
valuable asset toward maintaining our national defense.
I know that appropriations are not within this committee's
jurisdiction, but I do want to commend Chairman McKeon for his
persistent and strong efforts when it comes to advocating for
our military to have the funding resources it needs to do its
job and maintain readiness.
I also would like to address the alarming increase in
suicides, which, as you know, are quickly becoming an epidemic
throughout the U.S. military and among veterans. The VA
[Veterans' Administration] reports that 22 veterans take their
lives every day. On-site access to mental health professionals
has proven successful in overcoming time, geographical, and
stigma barriers that have saved countless lives. I ask that
this committee work to strengthen programs that will aid in
stabilizing our service men and women's mental health.
Separately, a number of concerns have been brought to my
attention regarding the Blue Grass Chemical Activity which is
taking place at the Blue Grass Army Depot, located in Richmond,
Kentucky. As you know, the United States is legally obligated
to ensure the destruction of all chemical weapons under the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their
Destruction Treaty. Many are concerned that the Blue Grass
Chemical Activity at the Blue Grass Army Depot is not receiving
the resources needed to complete the chemical demilitarization
operations.
A major source of funding for BGCA [Blue Grass Chemical
Activity] is Operation and Maintenance, Army [OMA) funding. OMA
funds have been reduced from $23 million to $18 million. This
cut in funding comes at a very critical time, in addition to
hiring freezes, furloughs, and a reduction of force that have
taken place at the depot. Due to these cuts, BGCA will be
challenged to continue supporting vital chemical
demilitarization operations obligations demanded by the CWC
[Chemical Weapons Convention] Treaty, and so I hope to work
further with the committee to address these concerns and
provide the necessary response.
Further, I would like to personally thank Chairman McKeon
and this committee for your leadership and strong support for
increasing public-private partnerships at arsenals and depots.
As someone who recognizes that public-private partnerships can
play an important role in bringing long-term stability and jobs
to communities, I certainly encourage this committee to
continue to take an active role in this area.
By providing increased opportunities for additional
business not limited to the defense industry to locate or
relocate two depots, it would not only increase revenue to the
Army Working Capital Fund, but also allow for additional jobs
to the people of the community. I look forward to working with
this committee, the DOD, and the BGAD [Blue Grass Army Depot]
in my district in order to help the depot reach its fullest
potential.
I yield back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barr can be found in the
Appendix on page 137.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Mr. Barr. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank the committee. Thank you for holding this
hearing.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, Alaska is a proud State and has
a proud military State. Not only is Alaska home to the largest
per capita population of veterans in the country, it is also
home to a significant force structure for both the Air Force
and the Army. Since I have numerous issues to discuss today, I
will keep my remarks brief on each issue. My staff will be
happy to follow up and provide additional information on any of
these issues.
First, I would like to ask the committee to consider
including language for two reports on the possibility of co-
locating both defense-related and other Federal government
tenants on large military installations in the Asian-Pacific
region. These reports, which would be completed by the
Department of Defense and Government Accountability Office,
would go a long way to finding efficiencies that will help us
complete our strategic shift to the Pacific.
Second, I would like to ask the committee to broadly
consider the amazing training opportunities in Alaska in JBER
[Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson]. Specifically, as the
President begins to ask for more funding for training ranges, I
would like to encourage the committee to find ways to apply
those resources to ranges of the future, like JBER. Along these
lines, I would also like the committee to consider working with
the Army to pre-position mobility and instrumented land warfare
equipment at bases like Fort Wainwright for force-on-force
training. The U.S. is an Arctic nation. As other countries in
which we have conducted combat operations in our history, we
must be able to project power into the Arctic environment, and
extreme Arctic training is needed to do that. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to suggest respectfully, as Billy Mitchell said, he
who controls Alaska controls the military of the world.
Third, I would like to request the committee include
language for the report to analyze the capacity of the Northern
and Southern Pacific air bridges. This report would ask the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide information on the
benefits of adding additional manpower and/or aircraft to these
air bridges. These bridges are the logistic keys to power-
projection and rapid-response capabilities of the Pacific.
Finally, I would like to draw my committee's attention to
four remaining issues.
One, given the ongoing drawdown of the C-23, I ask the
committee to work on a specific solution for Alaska's Sherpa
fleet. These aircraft can land on many of Alaska's short rural
runways and a capability cannot be filled with any other
aircraft.
Two, when working with the Air Force on OCONUS [outside the
contiguous United States] basing review of the F-35A, please
consider Alaska's unique and highly strategic location. I have
included a chart in my testimony that demonstrates a unique
position in the world.
Three, as the committee works with the Army on basing the
Gray Eagle, consider interior Alaska. Interior Alaska has a
huge amount of airspace that could be ideal for the Gray Eagle.
Four, I would like to invite all members of the committee
to Alaska. We have a lot of amazing force structure and are
quite proud of it. Specifically, though, one area I would like
to encourage you to visit is the IED [improvised explosive
device] training lane at JBER. This lane is a model of IDA
training on which the rest of the Department of Defense does
its training.
Again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, the ranking
member, the committee members who listen to my testimony.
Again, come to Alaska, see what we can do militarily, and see
how we can accomplish the mission for the rest of the military
and this Nation defending our shores.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young can be found in the
Appendix on page 45.]
The Chairman. Thank the gentleman.
Are there any questions?
Mr. Young. Oh, come on. There has got to be a question
somewhere.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Young. You are quite welcome, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. You did such a great job of selling Alaska.
Mr. Crawford. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM ARKANSAS
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Ranking Member Smith and distinguished members of the
committee. Thank you for the work you do to preserve the
security of our great Nation and for allowing me to testify
before the full committee regarding Explosive Ordnance Disposal
or EOD priorities for fiscal year 2014 National Defense
Authorization Act.
I served in the Army as an EOD tech, and proud to be a co-
founder, along with committee member Susan Davis, of the House
EOD Caucus. EOD soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are the
military's preeminent team of explosive experts. They are
trained and equipped to identify and neutralize explosive used
by terrorist networks across the globe. The military's EOD
mission is to defeat global emerging threats using explosive.
EOD techs protect their fellow military personnel and innocent
civilians from these threats while providing support across a
wide range of military and civilian national security
operations.
EOD forces have proven to be game changers in attacking and
dismantling terrorist cells and associated networks. These
forces will continue to be indispensable assets for the
foreseeable future supporting counterterrorism operations,
building the capacity of partner nations, and protecting the
homeland through providing support to civilian law enforcement
agencies at Federal, State, and local levels.
Thank you for the committee's support of EOD, beginning
with the fiscal year 2008 NDAA that inquired into the health
and viability of EOD forces. I am especially appreciative of
the committee's direction to the Secretary of Defense in the
last three NDAAs to provide reports to the committee to develop
a better understanding of the services' plans for EOD force
structure and funding.
It is critical that EOD is provided with adequate levels of
funding for procurement, research, development, tests,
evaluation, and operations and maintenance to carry out their
mission. A GAO report from last month concluded that the DOD
needs better resource planning and joint guidance to manage
EOD. The report also reveals that the Army and Marine Corps
still have not established a program element for their
respective EOD force since the committee's initial inquiry in
the 2008 NDAA.
The Boston bombings serve as a stark reminder of the threat
of the terrorist detonation of explosives in the United States
and have revealed gaps in the Nation's ability to defeat a
sustained bombing campaign in the homeland. Following the
attacks, the Army Forces Command issued guidance that the local
staff judge advocate must review every civil law authority
request for emergency EOD response prior to sending aid to
ensure that the support does not violate the Posse Comitatus
Act of 1878. In addition, the guidance requires that a general
officer must then approve each of these EOD immediate responses
and must ensure that civil authorities will reimburse the Army
as a condition of immediate response.
There is an estimated 66,000 call outs annually across the
United States on explosive ordnance by interagency, military
EOD, and public safety bomb squads. Army EOD units responding
under immediate response authority have historically departed
their home station installation with 30 minutes of notification
during duty hours and within 60 minutes of notification after
duty hours, 365 days a year. On these civil support missions,
EOD has provided support to civil law enforcement authorities,
but they do not perform law enforcement activities.
In one of the most significant examples of EOD civil
support missions, the 387th Ordnance Company from Camp Edwards,
Massachusetts, responded to 64 call outs during the Boston
bombing. This support was critical in the aftermath of the
attack. I understand the need to ensure the EOD is compliant
with Posse Comitatus Act in any of its civil law enforcement
authority missions, but it is vital that we do not overcorrect
for a nonexistent violation and negatively impact the ability
of our EOD forces to provide increasingly needed and immediate
support to our civilian law enforcement agencies.
We must also ensure that our EOD units, like the 387th out
of Massachusetts, are properly equipped to respond to explosive
threats in cities and towns throughout the United States. Mine-
Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, or MRAPS, are critically
needed vehicles for EOD operations in Afghanistan, but I feel
that Army National Guard EOD units, comprising one-third of
Army EOD force, need response vehicles like those used by WMD
[weapon of mass destruction] civil support teams. These units
also need portable containment magazines to safely store
explosives as well as communications capable of integrating
with civil law enforcement authority that they are supporting.
These National Guard units should also receive training
readiness oversight and Active Duty soldier support from
FORSCOM/20th [United States Army Forces Command] Support
Command.
I will leave the remainder of my comments in writing. And I
appreciate the chairman's permission to testify this morning.
Yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Crawford can be found in the
Appendix on page 121.]
The Chairman. Gentleman's time expired. But your full
testimony will be included in the record.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for coming.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
STATEMENT OF HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
FLORIDA
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman,
committee members. Thank you for everything that you do,
because you all have dedicated your congressional service on
behalf of our service men and women who bravely protect us. And
whether it is Active Duty and Reserve and veterans and their
families. So thank you for your service.
Those who dedicate their lives to the service of others
truly embody the heart and spirit of America, and I thank each
one of you for what you do and for helping all of our brave
Americans continue in their battle to keep our country free.
Florida--and I am here with Congressman Bill Posey, my
colleague--is a very active State in terms of military presence
and is rated among the States that is most accommodating to
service men and women, as well as their families. As you craft
this year's National Defense Authorization Act, I know that you
will rightfully be focused on the warfighter well-being here at
home, as well as downrange. Heightened security demands on our
military installations caused by an increasingly dangerous
world is of utmost importance to your committee, and many
installations still suffer from inadequate security measures,
which is a recipe for disaster.
And that brings me to why I am here today, Mr. Chairman,
because the Homestead Air Reserve Base is a perfect example of
a facility that is in dire need of enhanced security measures.
The installation has two entry gates to allow traffic in and
out of the base, but at present one of them has been forced to
be closed due to terrorism concerns. The remaining gate is
substandard. You would not believe it if you looked at it. It
is completely ill-designed to function as a primary entry
control point. It is a single insufficient guard shack that is
within close proximity of the base fuel storage compound and is
only a 30-second drive to the F-16 ramp, which holds $800
million in F-16 fighter jets.
So just think about that, Mr. Chairman and members. A
little guard shack very close to the fuel storage, and then
just a 30-second drive and you have got access to fighter jets
worth $800 million. So it fails in every aspect to meet force
protection standards. And with the current and projected
mission growth at the Homestead Reserve Base, we know that it
is a high visibility target for potential attacks.
And truck inspections is currently being conducted outdoors
during all weather conditions. And if you have ever been to
South Florida, you know it is raining half the time. So you
have got this terrible weather condition, that is the only time
that they can inspect the trucks, and once again in close
proximity to the base bulk fuel storage compound. It is
extremely small, the inspection area, and when the volume of
traffic is very high, unfortunately, the inspections are not
done as high as they really should be done. And these service
men and women are doing the best they can within very difficult
parameters.
So we have got traffic backups, we have got terrible
weather conditions, no space, proximity to high value targets.
So we have had in many circumstances traffic backed up over a
mile long during the high volume usage that this facility
regularly sees. So more often than not, the traffic is backed
up more than a mile. It is a long procedure. And Homestead Air
Reserve Base serves 2,700 airmen, soldiers, sailors, marines,
coastguardmen, Customs and Border Protection agents, and
Florida National Guardsmen who dedicated their lives, work to
serving our Nation throughout our country.
There are projects out there that demand our attention. And
I know that you are committed, as well as every member here, to
issues affecting service members. And I hope, Mr. Chairman and
members, that you take a careful look at the needs of Homestead
Air Reserve Base and the security concerns that are hampering
their ability to do as good a job as they want to do. And they
are doing it to the best of their abilities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ros-Lehtinen can be found in
the Appendix on page 50.]
The Chairman. I have a question. You say there are two
gates, but one is closed.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Correct.
The Chairman. Is it a better gate than the guard shack?
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. No. It is the same type of problems.
The Chairman. They are both bad.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. They are both bad. But because of the
budget constraints they had to choose one, and they chose the
one where the traffic could be backed up without it being a
problem for the base. And that is why they chose this one. It
is two bad options. They chose the one that could be less
dangerous. And those men and women who patrol those gates, they
are doing the best they can. We couldn't ask more of them. And
they do it every day and very professional and courteous. And
we thank them for their service. We just want to make life a
little bit better for them so they can do their job in a better
way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Lee. Gentlelady is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, thank
you for affording me the opportunity to explain my request to
you to consider including in the fiscal 2014 Defense
Authorization Act. I want to thank all of the members for this
chance to be with you today.
I have a number of recommendations that I will quickly
address and for which I strongly urge you to look at, support,
and hopefully include. I have also submitted my full set of
remarks for the record.
First, Mr. Chairman----
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Lee. Thank you very much.
I am concerned that this bill may not contain language
prohibiting permanent military bases in Afghanistan. As signed
into law on numerous occasions by both former President Bush
and President Obama, Congress has maintained a longstanding
prohibition on the establishment of permanent military bases in
Afghanistan. I request you to consider and include in the 2014
Defense Authorization Act that this be brought clearly in line
with the ``no permanent bases'' provision which historically
have been included into the defense authorization and related
appropriations measures.
Secondly, it should come as no surprise that I share the
belief of many in the Congress that there is no military
solution in Afghanistan. As the daughter of a military veteran,
I also know firsthand the sacrifices and the commitment
involved in defending our Nation. Our troops have done
everything that was asked of them and more. But the truth is
that their mission in Afghanistan is far past due and we should
be withdrawing all of our troops and military contractors as
soon as safely possible.
In addition to auditing the Pentagon, which I will touch on
in a few moments, it is important that the Pentagon face the
same financial constraints that all other government agencies
are being subjected to. I am deeply concerned that the Pentagon
is already seeking an exemption from the sequestration cuts
mandated by Congress as part of the deeply flawed legislation
that, of course, I could not support last year. I urge the
committee to consider commonsense defense spending reforms
outlined by many organizations across the political spectrum.
With billions each year lost to waste, fraud, and abuse at the
Pentagon, we need to ask the same of the Department of Defense
that we ask of other agencies.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned to hear about a
possible expansion of the 2001 authorization to use force. As
you know, Congress has a solemn constitutional obligation to
deliberate and authorize all war-making and hostilities abroad.
If the executive branch is seeking expanded war-making
authority, let them request it and let us engage in a full and
transparent debate with the proper committees holding--excuse
me, proper committee hearings--and also with Members of
Congress who should be afforded the opportunity to consider the
full implications of an expanded AUMF. I am as deeply opposed
to expanding the 2001 AUMF as I was against authorizing the
original one on September 14th, 2001, when I cast the lone vote
against it, because I knew then that it was a blank check to
wage war, that it really did erode our systems of checks and
balances. We passed that with little debate, and it removed
Congress from our constitutional responsibility again in
matters of making war.
Lastly, on the AUMF issue, in addition to my opposition to
expanding the 2001 AUMF, now is the right time really to repeal
this overly broad 2001 AUMF.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I ask your committee to consider
creating financial consequences for the Pentagon unless the
Defense Department subjects itself to an audit, as it is
required to do by law and as all other Federal agencies
regularly do. I urge the committee to take a first step toward
compelling the Pentagon to act with urgency in assuring fiscal
responsibility in our defense dollars. As the only Federal
agency not subject to audit, the Pentagon has lost tens of
billions of dollars to waste, fraud, and abuse.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. And I
strongly request you to consider these requested changes to the
bill.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee can be found in the
Appendix on page 63.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any questions of the gentlelady?
Mr. Posey. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL POSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify today in advance of the committee's consideration of
the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act.
National defense is the government's greatest constitutional
responsibility, and I appreciate the challenges faced by the
committee, especially after sequestration, with its impact
falling significantly more on the defense portion as compared
to all other federal spending.
In regards to the 2014 NDAA, I have a letter that I am
submitting with a number of priorities. And I would appreciate
the committee's attention to those.
The Chairman. That will be included in the record without
objection. Thank you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 112.]
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to address my concern about the administration
letting slip from its budget the important Range Communications
Building, commonly known down in the Cape as the XY Building,
at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The building must be
updated for the 21st century. The XY Building is the hub for
commercial telemetry and radar for Cape Canaveral Air Force
Station, Kennedy Space Center, Wallops Island, and all
downrange launch sites. It is indispensable for military and
NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] launches.
I have been inside the XY Building and not much has changed
since the 1970s. Despite its importance for our national
security, it feels like a museum. The original structure
predates the Apollo era, and the facility still utilizes vacuum
tubes. I believe we have Members of Congress who don't know
what vacuum tubes are, and we are still relying on them to do
our telemetry down there at the Cape.
The building is also prone to flooding, which can render it
unusable. There are other safety concerns with the structure.
And if anyone thinks I am exaggerating, I would be happy for
them to tour it with me any time.
Our national security and our leadership in space depends
on a capable and functioning XY Building. I am informed the Air
Force has indicated in previous years that a new facility is a
very high priority, but in the 2014 President's budget request
it was not addressed. I understand the Air Force may place a
request for a new facility in the fiscal year 2015 budget, but
I have heard some in the Pentagon are looking to put this
critical project off until 2017 or beyond. I am concerned that
this can can keep getting kicked down the road. I would ask
that the committee include report language expressing interest
in ensuring that a safe, secure, and reliable modern Range
Communications Building be operational in accordance with the
needs of the U.S. military and NASA. Such language should
direct the Air Force to report back to the committee on the
steps being taken to ensure the facility is properly upgraded.
It is critical to our national security that it is not being
unnecessarily delayed in a way that jeopardizes the U.S. space
launch capabilities.
There are other defense priorities, Mr. Chairman, which I
believe merit your attention, and they are included in my
separate correspondence. I thank you and the members very much
for your time and the opportunity to make this presentation.
Yield back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Posey can be found in the
Appendix on page 110.]
The Chairman. All right. Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Gentlelady is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TEXAS
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for your
courtesies and that of this committee. Thank you for allowing
me to come and make a brief presentation. I want to add my
public comments again that all of us have mentioned on the
concern for the incident in Boston, and due to the hearings on
Benghazi I again add my sympathy to the families who lost loved
ones serving their country in the Benghazi tragedy.
I am also one to acknowledge that I come from a State that
has sent very large numbers, proudly so, of men and women to
the front line with a number of bases. And in particular I
guess most recently to Iraq and Afghanistan. And I want to
thank those men and women over the ages that have served us in
uniform and those that you care for under this committee.
I understand that my entire statement will be placed in the
record, so I will, as I indicated, make these remarks brief on
the issues that I would like to discuss.
The Chairman. Without objection, the entire statement will
be included in the record, thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Authorization of appropriations adequate to fund research
programs to treat and to prevent breast cancer, especially that
under-studied strain known as the triple negative breast
cancer. Authorization of appropriations adequate to fund the
increasing need for programs, including grant programs, to
treat and recover from post-traumatic stress disorder. And an
even stronger commitment to provide and extend to women and
minority entrepreneurs' business enterprises the opportunity to
compete for and win procurement contracts for military
construction projects, overseas contingency operations, and
other projects.
Very quickly, on the triple negative breast cancer, this
disproportionately affects young women of color and others
under the age of 50. This disease should continue to be of
special concern to the Department of Defense because a
significant portion of its personnel is comprised of women and
women of color under the age of 50. And I am pleased that this
committee responded to my request, including a provision in
last year's Defense Authorization bill, that will lead directly
to improve awareness, early detection, prevention, and
treatment of breast cancer among Active Duty members of the
Armed Forces.
But I am here today to ask you to ensure that the NDAA for
fiscal year 2014 not only contains the same provision, but also
utilizes all necessary resources within the Department of
Defense and the National Institutes of Health to identify
specific genetic and molecular targets and biomarkers for all
types of breast cancer, including specifically triple negative
breast cancer [TNBC]. I think that will give long life to many
in the United States military who serve this country and who
have a longer tenure as career officers, and I believe that it
is crucial. As a survivor myself, I believe that this will not
only help men and women in the United States military, since we
realize that breast cancer is not a respecter of gender, but it
will help expand the research that we have across the Nation.
I am respectfully asking that fiscal year 2014 authorize
research funding needed for biomarker selection, drug
discovery, and clinical trial designs that will lead to the
early detection of TNBC and to development of multiple-targeted
therapies to treat this awful disease.
I also want to add my advocacy for increased opportunities
for treating post-traumatic stress disorder. The need for
mental health services for service members and their families
will continue to grow in coming years as the Nation recovers
from the effects of more than a decade-plus of military
conflict. As a Member of Congress from Texas, we have seen, as
I indicated, a number of our men and women returning from
Afghanistan and Iraq, and they join others from other wars
needing urgent services regarding PTSD [post-traumatic stress
disorder]. And I would hope that that would be one that would
you be able to provide for, Mr. Chairman.
In addition----
The Chairman. Gentlelady's time has expired, but your full
statement will be included in the record.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I close, if
you would consider small businesses for opportunities for
procurement. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee can be found in
the Appendix on page 54.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions of the gentlelady.
Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. DeSantis. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON DESANTIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman McKeon,
Ranking Member Smith, members of the committee, thank you for
having me here to testify. I know this is a particularly busy
period for the committee, and I appreciate your time.
I am here to talk about the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye, which,
as you know, is the Navy's carrier-based Airborne Early Warning
and Battle Management Command and Control system. Variants of
this aircraft have been serving our military well since the
1960s. The most advanced version, the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye,
has now been cleared for full production. The E-2D is equipped
with new cutting-edge communication capabilities and radar
systems. These advancements will enable the E-2D to synthesize
information from multiple onboard and offboard sensors to
provide increased missile protection to our carrier defense
groups while also improving the aircraft's offensive
capabilities, key capabilities in support of our combatant
commands.
The E-2D program has met every major milestone on schedule
since the program's inception in 2003. As the program moves
forward, I urge you to support the Navy's multiyear procurement
of the E-2D in the President's fiscal year 2014 budget. Fiscal
year 2014 is the first year of a planned 5-year, fixed-price,
multiyear procurement which would provide the Navy with the
full complement of 32 E-2D aircraft in the program of record
over the next 5 years. Multiyear procurement will yield a 10
percent savings over single or over annual single-year
contracts, an expected savings of more than $522 million over
the length of the contract term.
This is a critical program for the Navy. As my friend and
committee member Congressman Jim Bridenstine from Oklahoma
said, ``Given the threats to the strike groups, multiyear
procurement of E-2D is absolutely necessary. The only question
is, are we purchasing enough E-2Ds and missile interceptors to
counter the high volumes of incoming missiles that our sailors
and soldiers could face?'' End quote.
Thank you for your consideration of support for the
multiyear procurement of the E-2D. This procurement method will
ensure that this vital aircraft is produced in a timely and
cost-effective way. As an appendix to my written testimony, I
have attached a letter from May 7th from myself, Congressmen
Bridenstine, Crenshaw, Mica, Brown, Posey, Rooney, Miller,
Yoho, and Diaz-Balart to Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member
Smith in support of this program.
And I would just also like to encourage the Department of
Defense to examine the advantages of acquiring simulation
capability using short-term, fee-for-service contracting,
thereby rewarding and expanding innovation and commercial off-
the-shelf offerings. Likewise, DOD should encourage common,
commercially developed, commercially supported R&D [research
and development] investments by industry. These common
standards would reduce costs, eliminate duplicative government
R&D, create a competitive industry base, ensure that simulation
components can plug and play, regardless of original equipment
manufacture, and most importantly, eliminate the long
acquisition cycle.
Thank you again for having me here today, and thank you for
what you do to support our warfighters and our military.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeSantis can be found in the
Appendix on page 144.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions of the gentleman?
Mr. Bridenstine.
Mr. Bridenstine. I just wanted to thank you personally for
your leadership on this issue. As you and I have talked, and
our staffs have talked, this is an issue that is personally
important to me as a naval aviator and somebody who has flown
E-2 Hawkeyes for most of my adult career. Started off flying E-
2Cs. Got many hours in that aircraft. And, of course, the E-2D
is a platform, while I was on Active Duty, I was responsible
for designing the requirements for that particular platform.
I am very glad that the President's budget had multiyear
procurement for that platform, and I am so glad that you are
leading the charge to make sure that this stays as it is in the
NDAA.
Real quick, if it is okay, would you just share with us
your philosophy or your thoughts on why this particular
platform is so important to the future of the United States
Navy?
Mr. DeSantis. Absolutely. As a Navy guy, you know that, you
know, these carrier groups that we have are essentially taking
American sovereignty and putting them essentially anywhere in
the blue seas throughout the world. And that is a huge
capability for us. But because it is a good capability, that is
obviously a target for our enemies. And so I think, you know,
with the C [E-2C] that you have the experience in, this
aircraft has even more capability for detection of threats and
early warning that is going to be absolutely critical to
maintaining the safety of our carrier groups, especially in a
changing environment where we are facing new threats. This is
the type of platform that can meet that challenge.
Mr. Bridenstine. Well, I appreciate that. And certainly as
the threats around the world become more robust, it is
absolutely critical that we have the ability to intercept those
threats beyond the horizon, which requires an airborne platform
capable of delivering what is required to do interdiction and
interception of those threats. So I appreciate your leadership
on this issue.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Ms. Gabbard. Gentlelady is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. TULSI GABBARD, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Smith, members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today. I echo the words from
last year's priorities for the 21st century defense strategy.
We are in a moment of transition. Under your leadership with
this committee, the United States has made significant progress
in the drawdown of the costly and protracted wars in the Middle
East that have consumed the resources and attention of our
armed services for the previous decade. This is no easy task,
and your leadership in seeing it through is greatly
appreciated.
The priorities for the 21st century defense strategy also
emphasize the importance to focus on a broader range of
challenges and opportunities, including the security and
prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region, which has matured into
our rebalance strategy. My representation of our constituents
in Hawaii have placed us strategically and otherwise in the
middle of this rebalance.
The regional instability created by the recent North Korean
provocations, as well as the slow-boiling territorial
disagreements around the Senkakus and South China Seas
underscore the growing need to strengthen our Nation's military
and diplomatic presence in this region where our economic and
national security interests are inextricably linked; a region
where our greatest security adversary is not a nation or a
specific threat but the distance we must overcome to ensure
open and secure access to the global domains and our national
security interests.
Hawaii is a critical link in addressing this challenge. We
must keep Hawaii safe, and in today's threat environment, this
translates into ballistic missile defense. With the increased
operational tempo that our naval forces are experiencing, the
Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Regional Maintenance Center
provides full-service support to the surface fleet and the new
Virginia-class submarines, which cover more than 60 percent of
the world's surface and are essential to maintaining the robust
presence called for in our national military strategy.
As we continue to realign our force posture in the Asia-
Pacific region, it is important that we ensure that we provide
the very best training facilities enabling combat readiness.
This additional presence comes on the heels of the Marine
Corps' decision to base two squadrons of its latest transport
aircraft, the MV-22 Osprey, and one light attack helicopter
squadron in my district at Kaneohe Bay.
The Pacific Missile Range Facility [PMRF] is the world's
largest multi-environmental range capable of supporting
surface, subsurface, air, and space operations simultaneously.
PMRF's work with the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Complex
is vital to enhancing our Nation's ballistic missile defense
capabilities and protecting the United States and its
territories from any future attack.
In addition, the Pohakuloa Training Area [PTA] serves as
the premier combined arms training facility for all of the
Pacific region. Ground and air units from all U.S. military
services are able to train at PTA because it offers realistic
training opportunities not found elsewhere and thus vital to
our Armed Forces' readiness.
Each of these key enablers is critical to this committee's
efforts to provide oversight to the ongoing military
transportation that has already begun taking place. I look
forward to working with the committee as we continue to build
on the progress we have already made in executing the U.S.
rebalance to this vitally important region.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith,
for allowing me the opportunity to testify today about Hawaii's
strategic importance in this process and rebalance. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gabbard can be found in the
Appendix on page 149.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Any questions of the gentlelady?
Thank you very much.
Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Sherman. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith, good to be
with you. And the chairman asked me to keep it brief; said I
would have a higher likelihood of success if I do that. I will
follow that.
The Chairman. The lengthy one will be included in your
record.
Mr. Sherman. I am here in support of inclusion of report
language requested by Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, the
ranking member of the Tactical Air and Land Forces
Subcommittee, directing the Transportation Command and Air
Force Mobility Command to develop plans for the manufacture of
an operational prototype hybrid airship. This would be an
airship capable of carrying between 60 and 70 tons. The project
would cost roughly $300 million, spread out over the next 3
years. Roughly half of that money will come from the private
sector because this technology has tremendous private sector
potential as well.
I am here to testify not only on behalf of myself, but
Grace Napolitano, Adam Schiff, Dana Rohrabacher, Steve
Stockman, Judy Chu, and Mike Honda, and some of those Members
will be submitting statements of their own in support of this
project.
A new airship technology has the potential to carry perhaps
hundreds of tons of material and personnel anywhere on the
globe at a fraction of the cost per ton-mile of fixed-wing
aircraft, because you can travel directly to where the cargo is
needed and land anywhere where there is open space. You can
provide necessary material and personnel where you need them,
even if there is no infrastructure. That would be so important
in Afghanistan, and so important to our humanitarian efforts,
whether they be after a Pakistani earthquake, an Indian Ocean
disaster, Haiti, et cetera. As TRANSCOM Commander General
Fraser told the committee on March 6, ``Hybrid airships
represent a transformational capacity bridging the longstanding
gap between high-speed lower capacity airlift and low-speed
higher capacity sealift.'' Hybrid airship technology, he said,
has the potential to accomplish ``factory to foxhole'' cargo
delivery. Airships will also save in fuel costs, 20 cents per
ton-mile as opposed to the 80 cents per mile for airlift today.
The advantages, psychological and physical, in humanitarian
relief, where an enormous airship is able to bring relief to
the distant village even when the airports and seaports are
unavailable, offers an opportunity for our foreign policy that
exceeds any other technology I am aware of.
The recently completed Pelican Project, an effort of the
Emerging Capacities Directorate at DOD and Ames NASA,
demonstrated that it is possible to overcome the previous
challenges to hybrid airship development. The technology in the
Pelican allows the airship to take off and land vertically and
to move and to increase and decrease its altitude in flight
without losing ballast or releasing helium.
The Pelican is a demonstrated technology. However, there is
nothing in the budget right now in order to build on the
success of the test completed just a few months ago in January.
The government should move forward with an operational
prototype. Therefore, I respectfully request that the committee
include the language requested by Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez
calling for the development of this prototype. And I would
welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman can be found in the
Appendix on page 60.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Gosar.
STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARIZONA
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member
Smith. I thank you for allowing me to testify before you today.
I appreciate the fair and open process that is taking place
here today. I come before you to highlight a serious issue
facing a group of my constituents.
By way of background, the Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act of 1990, or RECA, as it is called, established a trust fund
to provide a compassionate lump-sum payment to individuals,
commonly referred to as ``down winders,'' who have contracted
certain cancers and other serious diseases that are presumed to
be the result of their exposure to ionizing radiation from
above-ground nuclear weapons testing or from various activities
in connection with uranium mining.
Though the testing in question was performed in Nevada,
radioactive elements affected people in Utah and Arizona as
well. The original language in the 1990 RECA used a broad
definition of the affected areas in Arizona. The language reads
``that part of Arizona that is north of the Grand Canyon and
west of the Colorado River.'' That definition, therefore,
included northern Mojave County, Arizona, in its definition as
it is the county in Arizona that is closest to Nevada, and
therefore closest to the testing ranges.
But when RECA was reauthorized and amended in 2000, the
purpose was to expand eligibility. With respect to Arizonans'
eligibility, the definition of the affected areas changed to
reflect certain specific counties. Of the five Arizona counties
listed in the 2000 act, Mojave County is not among them. Then,
in 2002, technical corrections were made to the 2000 act to
reflect part of the 1990 language concerning Arizona. So after
the 2002 correction, the law listed the five counties that
included the language and that part of Arizona that is north of
the Grand Canyon. Again, Mojave County is the closest of the
Arizona counties to the Nevada border and, therefore, to the
nuclear testing ranges. The Arizona counties directly east and
southeast from Mojave County are both covered in their
entirety.
This omission seems to be a clerical error, which is
consistent with the fact that the 2000 reauthorization
contained composition errors that had to be fixed in a separate
2002 act. To correct the omission, Congressman Trent Franks, a
member of this committee, introduced bills in the 111th and
112th Congresses to include Mojave County as an affected area
for RECA purpose. Because I am now the representative of Mojave
County, I have reintroduced the bill in the 113th Congress. It
is known as H.R. 424, the Mojave County Radiation Compensation
Act. And I am pleased to have Representative Franks as an
original cosponsor.
I thank Representative Franks for his continued support for
this cause. It is this exact language that I am seeking to have
included in the National Defense Authorization Act for the
fiscal year 2014. The trust fund associated with these claims
has been active since 1992, and the fund will sunset in 2022 by
statute. My goal is to ensure that the affected residents of
Mojave County, Arizona, have a fair shot at justified
compensation before the trust fund is closed. It will not
increase costs, it will simply allow constituents who should
have been included in the 2002 law to submit a claim.
Each Mojave claimant should be subject to the same burden
of proof as any other claimants. But for Congress to deny the
rest of Mojave County, Arizona, the right to even file a claim
is both inconsistent and careless.
Again, I thank the committee for providing this opportunity
to be heard. It is my hope that the committee will favorably
adopt this language and ensure that my constituents affected by
the government's nuclear weapons testing are eligible for
reasonable and justified compensation. I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gosar can be found in the
Appendix on page 130.]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Are there any questions?
I have one. Is this a stand-alone act, this RECA?
Mr. Gosar. It is a stand-alone act, and it was based upon
compensation for those individuals that took on nuclear
radiation or worked with the nuclear industry for testing, were
in the military coming from Nevada.
The Chairman. Has it ever been a part of the NDAA?
Mr. Gosar. That I am not sure.
It has been. Sorry about that. It has been part of the
NDAA.
The Chairman. Does it have jurisdiction in other
committees?
Mr. Gosar. The other one would be Judiciary.
The Chairman. Okay. Well, we will look into that. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Green. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. AL GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the ranking
member as well. And, Mr. Chairman, I, too, will be brief.
The Chairman. Is your mike on?
Mr. Green. It is now. Thank you.
The view from here is slightly different, Mr. Chairman, I
might add.
If I may just take a second, Mr. Chairman, and say this, I
know that the time is precious. But I was very much impressed
with Mr. Bridenstine's statements about his record. He looks so
young. And God has truly been good to him and he has been good
to his country. And in his absence, I would just like to let
him know that I appreciate his service, and thank you for that
moment.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to talk about the HAVEN [Housing
Assistance for Veterans] Act. It received bipartisan support in
the 112th Congress. It went through the House and through the
Senate and made it to conference committee, but it did not make
it through the conference committee. This is a piece of
legislation designed to assist disabled and low-income
veterans, to help them with their housing needs, to modify
their homes, their bathrooms, their kitchens, so that they may
use them efficaciously.
I am honored to tell you that this legislation will result
in a pilot program wherein NGOs [nongovernmental organizations]
will have the opportunity to work with our veterans to perfect
the renovations necessary.
This is a great piece of legislation, in my opinion, and I
have just hope that we will be able to get it into the Defense
Authorization Act. I could say a lot more about the number of
veterans that may benefit, but you and I know that we have a
good many coming home who don't return the way they left. And
they need this help. So I am begging, I beseech, I implore that
we place this in the NDAA.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green can be found in the
Appendix on page 90.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Any questions?
This committee doesn't have jurisdiction or responsibility
for the veterans, but we create the veterans.
Mr. Green. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So we feel strongly about the veterans. So we
will look into this and see where it fell out last time and if
there is some way we can include it this time. So thank you
very much.
Mr. Green. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
ranking member as well. Thank you both.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. O'Rourke. Gentleman is recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. BETO O'ROURKE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. O'Rourke. Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith,
thank you for this opportunity to testify about the fiscal year
2014 National Defense Authorization Act. I would also like to
thank the chairman and his staff for being so accommodating so
that I could testify in person.
I have the honor of representing El Paso, home to Fort
Bliss and the Army's 1st Armored Division, along with nearly
33,000 soldiers and their family members. I was reminded again
this week of the incredible sacrifice these service members and
their families make to our country when five soldiers from Fort
Bliss were killed in an IED attack in Afghanistan.
I would like to testify about three things today. Number
one, the ability of Fort Bliss to adapt to the changing needs
of the Army and the amazing support it has in El Paso. Number
two, the new Army hospital at Fort Bliss. And number three, the
importance of the Tuition Assistance Program. The Army's
ability to field a ready and capable force to meet its mission
requirements has been placed at risk by fiscal challenges in
fiscal year 2013, especially the sequester. Despite these
challenges, the Army remains the best trained, best equipped,
and best led fighting force in the world. I urge this committee
to use the National Defense Authorization Act to guarantee that
this remains true.
Even absent the sequester the reality is that the Army is
significantly reducing its Active Duty force. This reduction
should be carried out in a way that prioritizes readiness,
balance, and flexibility. Fort Bliss is well-suited to help the
Army meet these objectives. To echo the words of former
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta when he visited the
installation, Fort Bliss is the premier post in America.
The El Paso region and the entire Fort Bliss community
continue to go above and beyond in their steadfast support of
our soldiers and their families. El Paso has invested over $2
billion in highway projects, new schools, and a children's
hospital to support the growth at Fort Bliss. Recently, we
agreed to tax ourselves to pay for additional quality-of-life
projects around the installation. Civil, political, and
business leaders all work closely with Major General Pittard
and Fort Bliss leadership to make El Paso a great place for
soldiers and their families, and we will continue to do so.
Fort Bliss has always responded swiftly when the needs of
the Army have changed. In 2005, it became the new world-class
home for Old Ironsides, the 1st Armored Division, providing
nearly 1 million acres of maneuver area for this division to
train and later seamlessly receiving several brigade combat
teams and their supporting units. Fort Bliss is uniquely
situated to serve the evolving needs of the Army.
Service members and their families depend on top quality
health care from the Army. Thanks to the past work of this
committee, the new William Beaumont Army Medical Center stands
ready to fill this role. The hospital complex will have a 7-
story hospital building with 135 private rooms, 30 specialty
clinics, and a 4-story administration building. The hospital is
designed to last for the next 50 years and is expected to set a
new bar in patient care for the Army. I urge this committee to
continue to support this project so that our soldiers,
including our wounded warriors returning home, receive the
world-class care that they deserve.
I also urge the committee to continue support for the
Military Tuition Assistance Program in fiscal year 2014. In the
last year alone, this program has allowed service members to
take 870,000 classes and earn over 50,000 degrees, diplomas,
and certificates. It constitutes 0.1 percent of the Department
of Defense's budget. I was proud to work with Joe Wilson from
this committee on maintaining tuition assistance during the CR
[continuing resolution] debate. Denying our brave men and women
access to education programs will negatively impact their
ability to carry out their missions while in service and it
will also make it harder for them to find jobs after
transitioning out of the military.
Recently, I led 68 of our colleagues from both sides of the
aisle in submitting a letter to the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee to support full funding in fiscal year 2014. While
I don't serve on this committee, I have a very keen interest in
seeing these priorities carried out. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rourke can be found in the
Appendix on page 158.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Any questions of the gentleman?
Thank you very much.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
The Chairman. That concludes Members that have signed up to
give testimony before the committee. There are several others
who have submitted written testimony. That will be included in
the record.
And that concludes our business for today. The committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:31 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
May 8, 2013
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
May 8, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
May 8, 2013
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]