[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 116-25]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
MEMBER DAY
__________
HEARING HELD
APRIL 3, 2019
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
36-899 WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island Texas
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee ROB BISHOP, Utah
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN GARAMENDI, California MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JACKIE SPEIER, California K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice PAUL COOK, California
Chair BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
RO KHANNA, California SAM GRAVES, Missouri
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
FILEMON VELA, Texas SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
ANDY KIM, New Jersey RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr., MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
California MATT GAETZ, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DON BACON, Nebraska
JASON CROW, Colorado JIM BANKS, Indiana
XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
KATIE HILL, California MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia
Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
Sapna Sharma, Professional Staff Member
Justin Lynch, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Case, Hon. Ed, a Representative from Hawaii...................... 1
Cunningham, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina....... 4
Green, Hon. Mark E., a Representative from Tennessee............. 3
Kilmer, Hon. Derek, a Representative from Washington............. 5
Rose, Hon. Max, a Representative from New York................... 10
San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F.Q., a Delegate from Guam............. 11
Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative from California.............. 6
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative from Pennsylvania......... 8
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Case, Hon. Ed................................................ 19
Cunningham, Hon. Joe......................................... 24
Green, Hon. Mark E........................................... 22
Kilmer, Hon. Derek........................................... 26
Rose, Hon. Max............................................... 35
San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F.Q................................ 37
Takano, Hon. Mark............................................ 29
Thompson, Hon. Glenn......................................... 33
Documents Submitted for the Record:
Brownley, Hon. Julia, a Representative from California....... 41
Castor, Hon. Kathy,, a Representative from Florida........... 43
Cicilline, Hon. David N., a Representative from Rhode Island. 45
Cuellar, Hon. Henry, a Representative from Texas............. 47
Himes, Hon. James A., a Representative from Connecticut...... 48
Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative from Washington...... 49
Kinzinger, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Illinois......... 51
Lesko, Hon. Debbie, a Representative from Arizona............ 57
Lieu, Hon. Ted, a Representative from California............. 58
Lipinski, Hon. Daniel, a Representative from Illinois........ 61
Maloney, Hon. Sean Patrick, a Representative from New York... 62
McEachin, Hon. A. Donald, a Representative from Virginia..... 65
McKinley, Hon. David B., a Representative from West Virginia. 67
Moore, Hon. Gwen, a Representative from Wisconsin............ 71
Olson, Hon. Pete, a Representative from Texas................ 67
Rodgers, Hon. Cathy McMorris, a Representative from
Washington................................................. 67
Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative from
Maryland................................................... 74
Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative from Oregon............ 76
Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative from New York..... 77
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska................ 83
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.]
.
MEMBER DAY
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 3, 2019.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Smith. Good morning. We will come to order.
To begin with, I have to ask for unanimous consent that all
Members' written statements will be made part of the record.
The committee has received 10 statements for the record in
addition to our colleagues who are here in person. Without,
objection so ordered.
So, welcome to this Members' Day. We will hear from other
Members of the caucus on what their priorities are. You each
will have 4 minutes and we will ask questions. I think it is
okay. We will just have them all go and then ask questions at
the end.
And we will go left to right, and start with Mr. Case.
STATEMENT OF HON. ED CASE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII
Mr. Case. Chair Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for
the opportunity to testify today on this year's National
Defense Authorization Act [NDAA]. And I do so representing
Hawaii, a proud partner in the Indo-Pacific.
And to put this in perspective, if you get on a plane today
and fly to Hawaii, that is 5,000 miles; if you get on a plane
then and fly from Hawaii to Beijing, that is another 5,000
miles. So that would give you a sense of not only the distances
that we are talking about in the Indo-Pacific, but the
placement of Hawaii. So in Hawaii we live and breathe the
Pacific, always have and always will.
The National Security Strategy and National Defense
Strategy affirmed the reemergence of long-term strategic
competition with other great powers as a central challenge to
our national security.
I think most of us can now agree that no country poses as
significant or long-term challenge and threat to us as does
China. Thus the NDAA as our annual blueprint for the Department
of Defense and our military should reflect the strategic
interest that the U.S. has in the Indo-Pacific region generally
and China specifically.
Our goal as summarized by this administration's free and
open Indo-Pacific strategy with which I generally agree is to
peacefully address China's rise and bring it into the existing
regional architecture of free and open navigation,
interconnected trade and development, security cooperation and
international institutions.
The purpose of a strong military posture in the Indo-
Pacific is not to seek conflict or escalate competition with
China, but to raise the costs and international consequences of
Chinese aggression and reassure allies and partners of our
engagement in this critical region.
The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, INDOPACOM, headquartered in
Hawaii is charged with addressing our military challenges in
the Indo-Pacific. It is the largest combatant command in terms
of areas of responsibility and assets, stretching from the west
coast of the United States mainland to the west coast of India.
But it requires additional resources.
Reports of forces in the region being overworked from high
demand and struggling with readiness from deferred maintenance
are simply unacceptable.
This year's NDAA should continue a long-term strategy for
INDOPACOM to reach its goals in deployed forces and readiness
especially in air and naval assets. We need to continue
supporting improvements in doctrine, assets, and technology to
counter China's aggressive military and soft power buildup. I
urge the committee to continue investing in research and
development of these technologies to address these risks.
Hawaii is of particular importance to our Indo-Pacific
strategy. Hawaii offers an indispensable forward position in
the Pacific, is home to INDOPACOM headquarters and commands for
every service, and maintains a large military presence. We need
increased investment in our military construction needs there,
including the Hawaii Infrastructure Readiness Initiative, our
shipyard and training ranges to improve our readiness in the
Indo-Pacific.
Even with increased investment in improving our military
posture in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. cannot do it alone in the
region. Peacefully integrating China into the existing rules-
based regional order requires the active cooperation of partner
countries, the vast geographic space that needs to be covered
in the Indo-Pacific demands reliance on our allies there.
We need to reassure our traditional treaty allies such as
Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand
while building relationships with partners and potential
partners like India and Vietnam.
I also want to ask that this committee pays special
attention to the Pacific Island countries such as Vanuatu, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau to name only a few.
They are critical to our overall posture in the Pacific and
simply need much more attention from both a military and a
State Department foreign aid perspective for our overall
strategy.
In conclusion, I urge this committee to ensure this year's
NDAA reflects the strategic importance of Hawaii and the entire
Indo-Pacific. We must enhance our military posture there and
continue building alliances and partnerships in the region.
Thank you for your consideration and hard work in advancing
our country's national security.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Case can be found in the
Appendix on page 19.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Green.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
TENNESSEE
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
Thornberry, members of the committee. Thanks for the
opportunity to testify today.
Over several years prior to the current administration, the
combination of sequestration and other cuts to DOD [Department
of Defense] coupled with the ongoing fight against terrorism
forced the military to prioritize readiness over some facility
maintenance.
I am here to provide an innovative solution that will work
to keep both sides of the aisle happy, deliver increased
efficiency in the use of defense dollars, and ultimately
strengthen our military's capability for success in combat and
greater deterrence during peace.
Clearly we need to make numerous repairs to installation
facilities, and I am very glad that this committee has shown
the commitment to improvement by increasing defense spending
over the past few years. That brings me to my concern with
Davis-Bacon laws hampering DOD's spending effectiveness.
Davis-Bacon requires a Federal construction contract to pay
at least the prevailing wage that construction workers in the
area are earning on private contracts. Davis-Bacon requires on
military construction and maintenance costs causes those
contracts to pay an additional 20 percent higher wages than
market rates according to Bacon-Hill study group.
These costs take dollars from other projects and limit the
effective use of military construction dollars. In the near
future, I will bring forward an amendment to allow a temporary
exemption, temporary exemption, from Davis-Bacon for those
military construction projects in States where there is no
living wage requirement. In those States which require a living
wage, Davis-Bacon would not be waived.
We don't have time to spare. The Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune
is still broken as you know. Tyndall Air Force Base is
struggling of course from Hurricane Michael still. And we need
to build more capabilities for new projects as our military
evolves to face a changing, expanding, and competitive
environment.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines rely on home station
facilities to refit for more and to retrain for future fights.
We must house, refit, train our troops in a way that makes
their competiveness unquestionable.
When I went to combat, Mr. Chairman, 15 years ago, it
wasn't a fair fight. No American son or daughter should ever go
to combat and it be a fair fight. We need to make every dollar
spent on defense and specifically these construction projects
as efficient as possible. That is why I am proposing that in
those States where there is no living wage requirement, we
waive Davis-Bacon for a temporary period of time to allow for
the most efficient use of those construction dollars.
Thank you, and I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Green can be found in the
Appendix on page 22.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
CAROLINA
Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Thornberry, and distinguished members of the committee. I also
want to thank the committee's professional staff who keep
everything moving behind the scenes and are the reason this
bill has passed every year for nearly 60 years running.
Our district is home to over 10,000 Active Duty service
members who serve aboard Marine Corps Air Station [MCAS]
Beaufort, Parris Island, Beaufort Naval Hospital, and Joint
Base Charleston.
I am here today to advocate for these installations not
only because they are critical to our national security, but
also because they are an indispensable part of our economy in
the Lowcountry. In the Beaufort area alone it is estimated that
these installations have an economic impact of over $2 billion
annually and support nearly 20,000 jobs.
MCAS Beaufort houses several of the Marine Corps F-18
squadrons, and it is the only place in the world where pilots
are trained to fly F-35Bs.
As our adversaries continue to advance their own next-
generation fighters and missile systems, it is imperative we
expedite production of this aircraft and maintain our dominance
in the skies. This is why I urge the committee's continued
support for the F-35 program in this year's NDAA.
On Parris Island, Marine Corps drill instructors work
brutal hours every day of the year to transform young men and
women into United States Marines. As one of two training depots
that make Marines and the only depot that trains women, Parris
Island is a pillar of our national security apparatus. This is
why it is essential that we provide the depot funding they need
to modernize the island's firing ranges.
In the Marine Corps unfunded priority list, they requested
additional resources to upgrade the Chosin Range, so recruits
can continue to learn the fundamentals of marksmanship in a
safe environment.
I respectfully request the committee support this proposal
so that Parris Island can continue to prepare our best and
brightest to win our nation's battles in service to the
country.
Finally, I want to take a moment to discuss an issue that
threatens nearly every base in our district and many of the
bases in some of your districts as well, that is sea-level rise
and climate change.
Parris Island and MCAS Beaufort already experience regular
flooding, and by 2050 it is estimated that they could be under
water nearly a third of the year.
Last year, this committee made important first steps
towards addressing this growing threat by authorizing a new
defense infrastructure program and expanding the Department's
authority to improve roads near bases that are impacted by
recurrent flooding.
I strongly urge the members of this committee to continue
to prioritize climate resiliency and that service members in
the Lowcountry can continue to do what they do best.
As you continue putting together this year's NDAA, I look
forward to working with each and every one of you on these
issues. And I thank you for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham can be found in
the Appendix on page 24.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank you
and the ranking member for holding this Member Day.
I represent Washington State's Sixth District which is home
to 11 federally recognized tribes. And as you know, Native
American tribes have unique status that entitles them to a
special government-to-government relationship with the United
States based on their federally recognized status as sovereign
nations.
Many of these tribes entered into treaties with the Federal
Government that guaranteed certain rights and outlined the
commitments made by our government. And treaties are the
supreme law of the land; treaty rights held by a tribe cannot
be diminished by the passage of time or by non-use.
When any Federal executive agency or department including
the Department of Defense proposes a project, it needs to
engage in formal government-to-government consultation with any
tribe that may be impacted by that project.
Now I also represent Naval Base Kitsap which is located on
the Hood Canal where five distinct tribes have treaty-reserved
rights to access their usual and accustomed fishing grounds.
Naval Base Kitsap had had several important military
construction projects in recent years. We have a shipyard that
works on nuclear ships and a sub base that loads nuclear
submarines, so dry-dock improvement and a new explosive-
handling wharf are just a few examples of projects that are
vital to the Navy's mission, to the security of the work being
done, and to our national security.
So, having said that, every time a Navy construction
project such as a dock or a pier involves a water interface, it
likely has an impact to a treaty right.
In many cases, those impacts are first identified as part
of the process mandated under the National Environmental Policy
Act [NEPA] specifically when the Navy drafts an environmental
impact statement [EIS] for a planned activity. But
unfortunately, when project plans have developed to that point
and impacts to tribal treaty rights are identified that late in
the game, it is often very difficult and sometimes impossible
to develop meaningful project alterations to mitigate the
impact to the treaty-reserved rights.
So, to address that shortcoming, I believe that the
consultation process should start well before the NEPA process
and the issuance of a draft EIS for public comment.
I believe that a tribal consultation requirement and
certification should be incorporated to the DD Form 1391
through which requirements and justifications in support of
funding requests for DOD military construction are submitted to
Congress. This would ensure that efforts have been taken to
consult with the tribes early and that impacts to treaty-
reserved rights can be identified at the earliest stages of the
project.
That would assist in discussions between the DOD and the
tribes on the next steps, which could involve alterations to
the project to avoid the impact and or further consultations
between the DOD and tribes to possibly arrive at an acceptable
mitigation to the impact to treaty-reserved rights.
Should an impacted tribe decide to work with the DOD to
develop an appropriate mitigation strategy to allow the project
to move forward, I believe that the DOD should not limit itself
to the mechanisms spelled out under the Sikes Act, which was
intended only to mitigate for environmental damage.
Impacts to treaty rights can't be equated to environmental
impacts simply because those rights are tied to natural
resources. In fact, treaty rights which have been guaranteed by
legally binding documents is no different than any other form
of property right.
An environmental review may identify that a project costs
the ability to harvest 100 shellfish for example, but that
fails to address a treaty right that guarantees the right of
someone's grandchildren's grandchildren to harvest those
shellfish. So with that in mind the DOD should use any and all
resources, not just the Sikes Act, at its disposal when
entering into negotiations with the tribe regarding equitable
mitigation.
So I would appreciate your consideration of my request to
include a provision in the NDAA to require tribal consultation
requirement and certification on the DD Form 1391 and a
provision noting that the committee recognizes that a treaty-
reserved right is no different than any property right.
So my goal is twofold. One, to help to give the DOD and
tribes one more tool so that they can increase the odds that
they can successfully negotiate an outcome and allow projects
to move forward without delay. And two, to ensure that DOD
respects treaty rights and the self-determination of tribal
governments.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kilmer can be found in the
Appendix on page 26.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you all very much. I appreciate those
perspectives.
Does anyone have any questions for any of the witnesses?
Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
And I think we have Mr. Takano and Mr. Thompson are both
here. You just can come forward and we can get started. There
are two other people on the second panel, but we will get
started and plug them in when they arrive.
Thank you very much, and we will start with Mr. Takano. I
apologize for moving you from the first panel to the second, I
know you had another hearing this morning, but I appreciate
your patience. And you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. Takano. It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, and other members of
the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
First, I am here to advocate for the Work for Warriors
program. Work for Warriors was created to address the
disproportionately higher unemployment rates among members of
the National Guard and military spouses. The underlying model
for this program connects with local businesses to identify job
openings, seek out qualified and currently unemployed
applicants, and help individuals to navigate the resume,
interview, and hiring process.
California has one of the largest Work for Warriors
programs in the country, along with Nevada, South Carolina, and
Washington State. The programs are also being developed in
Florida, Tennessee, Colorado, North Carolina, and other States.
My proposed language would create a national Work for
Warriors pilot program that mirrors these State direct-to-
employment programs to provide direct job placement and related
employment assistance to members of the National Guard and
Reserve, as well as military spouses and veterans.
A Work for Warriors provision has been included in the
House NDAA every year since 2014. And I hope to continue the
longstanding practice of this committee to support our veterans
and members of the National Guard and Reserves by including
this pilot program in NDAA.
As chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, one of my
top priorities is ensuring that our veterans have the resources
they need to succeed.
The Work for Warriors program has been extremely successful
in my home State of California, and has placed more than 5,000
individuals in jobs. The other States I have mentioned have
enjoyed comparable success through this program.
The Work for Warriors program job placement services
provides a sense of stability, purpose, and continuity for
those in the program. And we can deliver on this same
successful model nationwide by creating a pilot program through
the Department of Defense.
Although successful Federal veterans employment initiatives
can cost more than $10,000 per placement, Work for Warriors has
a total per placement cost of roughly $1,100. This staggering
difference is a testimony to the incredible value that a
national Work for Warriors program could bring to countless
National Guardsmen, reservists, and veterans.
Now as we continue to seek out ways to improve outcomes and
create new opportunities and provide adequate support and care
for members of our armed services and veterans, we must
recognize the programs that are successful and make appropriate
investments to support those programs. Work for Warriors is a
strong example of an investment that we should be rushing to
make.
Now I am also here to advocate for another important
initiative, the Keith Nolan Air Force Deaf Demonstration
program. This language would create an Air Force demonstration
program for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to access as
officers of the Air Force as long as they continue to meet all
the other essential qualifications for accession as an officer
in the Air Force.
This provision is inspired by a deaf young man named Keith
Nolan, a teacher at the Maryland School for the Deaf, who
successfully completed two levels of Army ROTC [Reserve
Officers' Training Corps]. Keith was preparing to take the next
step when he was informed that he could not continue with his
service because he is deaf.
I have no doubt that the Air Force would have been
strengthened by Keith's service. And we should not be so quick
to turn away individuals who proudly look to serve. Individuals
who want to serve should have the opportunity to do so. This
demonstration program would give them the opportunity to serve
the country they love.
Now I am thankful that my amendment to create this program
was included by the committee in last year's NDAA. And it is my
sincere hope that it will be included again during this year's
reauthorization. And I am excited that we are taking this step
forward to give the deaf community a chance to defend the
country that they love.
I urge you to support the inclusion of both the Work for
Warriors and the Keith Nolan Air Force Deaf Demonstration
programs and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.
And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Takano can be found in the
Appendix on page 29.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
members of the Armed Services Committee, good morning and thank
you for the opportunity to share my priorities for the fiscal
year 2020 with the House Armed Services Committee.
As a father of an Active soldier who received a Purple
Heart during Operation Iraqi Freedom, I appreciate your
willingness to receive my testimony. I recognize the challenges
facing this committee and I appreciate your ongoing support for
our service members.
These brave Americans put their lives on the line regularly
in the defense of a higher cause, so we have a responsibility
to support them in the strongest, most responsible way
possible.
While I certainly understand that the Department of Defense
has the best interest of our troops in mind, our oversight role
is necessary that the Department stays on the right course.
Specifically, the Army Corps of Engineers work to construct
the Rhine Ordnance Barracks Army Medical Center in Germany, or
ROBMC, concerns me and warrants additional oversight.
I led a congressional delegation to this site in November
of 2018; it consisted of five bipartisan members of Congress,
three of whom sit on this committee, and what we found was
alarming. For background, the ROBMC is a new hospital being
constructed in Kaiserslautern, Germany, that will serve injured
troops from AFRICOM [U.S. Africa Command], European, and
Central Commands. It is located less than 2 miles from the
flight line at Ramstein Air Base and will be the most
strategically important military hospital outside of the
continental United States.
It will cost American taxpayers more than $1 billion and is
an excellent investment for our American heroes.
Congress fully understands the strategic importance of this
hospital, but also recognizes its vulnerabilities. And one of
the main vulnerabilities is its potential reliance on Russian-
sourced natural gas.
According to the Energy Information Administration, Germany
imported 40 percent of its natural gas supplies from Russia in
2015. And this percentage has only increased since. Just last
year, Germany bought more natural gas from Gazprom, Russia's
state-owned gas company, than any other nation. Considering
Russia's willingness to use its energy export as a political
tool in the past, or as I would like say, weaponize energy, we
need to ensure that our military installations are not subject
to Russian interference.
As a result of Germany's increased reliance on Russian
natural gas, Congress and specifically this committee included
language in both the fiscal year 2018 and 2019's National
Defense Authorization Acts that limits Russia's influence over
our military bases in Europe.
The fiscal year 2018 NDAA called on the Department of
Defense to limit the use of Russian sourced energy at military
facilities in Europe as much as possible.
The fiscal year 2019 NDAA took these concerns a step
further and specifically cited the ROBMC and its energy
supplies. It called for the medical center to be fueled using a
mixed-fuel source that is domestically sourced when possible
and that limits the use of Russian gas. The mixed-fuel source
is particularly important as it ensures energy security through
the diversification of fuel sources.
The Army Corps is working in direct violation of these
laws. It is planning the construction of an onsite co-
generation plant that will only use natural gas to produce the
hospital's electricity and hot water backups. This is
contradictory to congressional intent and an illogical costly
path forward. The Army Corps insists on moving forward with
this single-source plant despite Congress' previous actions
calling for a mixed-fuel energy source.
It is also an illogical approach to ensuring energy
security for the hospital. The Army Corps is planning on using
Russian-sourced natural gas as a redundancy for disruption in
Europe's natural gas supply. These disruptions, however, are
most likely to be caused by Russia's willingness to shut off
gas supplies to Western Europe. This is an irrational approach
to energy security and poses a major threat to the American
troops serving in the area, three areas of responsibility that
the hospital will serve.
And I respectfully request the committee's consideration
including language in the National Defense Authorization Act
that prohibits the authorization of funds for the construction
of the ROBMC's onsite co-generation plant; let me be clear, not
the rest of hospital.
Now when my son was wounded in Iraq that was one of the
three places that he got great care and surgery. I have a lot
of respect for that hospital. And the new hospital will be
amazing with the short commute from the Air Force strip.
But I just would ask that again, language to prohibit the
authorization of funds for the construction of ROBMC's onsite
co-generation plant until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can
certify that it is in compliance with U.S. statute.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
really look forward to working with you as this process moves
forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Rose.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAX ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK
Mr. Rose. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, thank
you so much for giving me the opportunity to give this
testimony today and thank you for your leadership.
I want to talk to you today about an issue that we are
encountering in my district, Staten Island, South Brooklyn, New
York City.
Today, and you all might not be aware of this, the BAH
[Basic Allowance for Housing] for the GI Bill on Staten Island
is significantly lower than the rest of New York City. And the
reason for that is because Staten Island is not counted as a
part of New York City when the BAH is calculated. So today, the
monthly BAH is $600 less than the other four boroughs. That
goes to $7,200 per year and it has been up to $1,000 less per
month.
It makes veterans on Staten Island feel like we don't care.
It makes them feel like we are there getting ignored or ripped
off, and you all can fix it.
From your perspective this is tiny stuff. And we really ask
in this NDAA that you include Staten Island as a part of New
York City in terms of the calculation of the BAH.
And I want to go down for the facts as to why this is so
ridiculous. Today, Staten Island has the highest percentage of
vets as compared to any other borough. In fact, compared to
Manhattan and Queens, it is double the number on a percentage
basis.
Our median rents are very similar to the rest of New York
City, and nonetheless, though, we have a BAH that is $600 less.
The median household income is right in the middle for New York
City, and to repeat, our BAH is $600 less and calculated as if
we are not part of New York City. By all other government
metrics, New York City is counted as a five-borough element.
Every other time the government is thinking about New York
City, it is five boroughs, but for some reason for the BAH,
four boroughs plus Staten Island. Again, this makes no sense
and we are just inflicting pain on people.
And lastly, to really, and this is the icing on the cake.
When the CONUS COLA [continental United States cost of living
allowance] is determined, we have the highest, Staten Island
has the highest one for all the five boroughs and one of the
highest in the nation. If I were to tell you, highest COLA
lowest BAH in the city, you would think that was crazy. You
would think that was insane. And you can fix it.
People come here asking for the earth, the world, the moon,
the stars, everything. I am not today. I am just asking for you
to be fair as it pertains to Staten Island. But it is not just
the veterans. This is our economy as well. Remember, BAH is
based off where you go to school, not where you live.
So Staten Island is so hospitable, so wonderful to vets,
they are moving to Staten Island at times but going to school
in other places. They will take the free ferry to Manhattan
because it could mean upwards of $1,000 extra per month for
them. That is a massive hindrance to our local universities,
and that hits our economy as well.
And we are following the rules. We are just trying to do
the right thing and DC right now is not treating us fairly.
And so I come before you today, again, very thankful that
you gave me this opportunity. And again, I ask you to equalize
the BAH rates for Staten Island and the other four boroughs.
Include us in the New York City calculations. It will be nice,
simple, and most of all, it will be fair.
Thank you again.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rose can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you very much. Mr. San Nicolas.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F.Q. SAN NICOLAS, A DELEGATE FROM
GUAM
Mr. San Nicolas. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
Subcommittee Chair Garamendi, and members of this distinguished
committee, thank you for the chance to testify on my priorities
for Guam and the Asia-Pacific region and development of the
chairman's mark for the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2020.
As the Federal Government continues its plan for
realignment and building up its military presence in our
territory and throughout the region, probable impacts to Guam's
economy must be addressed. Guam recognizes its unique position
and the key role it plays in our nation's defense, but the
nation in turn must recognize its duty to ensure economic
stability in the application of Federal laws.
Small steps can be taken to address these concerns in the
fiscal year 2020 NDAA. First, I ask the committee to expand the
language from the fiscal year 2019 NDAA to allow foreign labor
through the H-2B visa program for construction projects to
include civilian projects.
Recently, the approval rates for H-2B applications for
civilian projects is close to zero percent, while military
projects received very healthy approvals of H-2B labor. This
alarming situation significantly increased the cost for
building homes and delayed completion times for public
infrastructure projects.
Addressing the significant labor shortages will allow for
stabilization of the island's economy and bring parity into
civilian construction projects outside the fence.
Additionally, with Guam receiving the highest per capita
rate of tourism in the highly sensitive Asia-Pacific region,
civilian projects are critical to soft power force projection,
as the tourism experience on Guam is a direct showcase of
American exceptionalism to the citizens of allies and potential
adversaries.
Second, I ask that language be included that would extend
by at least an additional year the prohibition of using the
former ship repair facility property at Naval Base Guam for any
other purpose than depot level ship repair. This language was
included in the fiscal year 2019 NDAA.
I am concerned that the Navy continues to send Military
Sealift Command ships to foreign shipyards in direct
contravention of the intent behind 10 U.S.C. 8680, which
requires these ships to be repaired in U.S. shipyards except
for voyage and emergent repairs.
I ask the committee to include language that requires U.S.-
flag vessels serving the U.S. Armed Forces be repaired and
maintained in ports within U.S. jurisdictions.
Allowing our military ships to be maintained and serviced
in foreign jurisdictions when we have local jurisdictions that
can provide the work is counter to and undermines our ability
to protect our nation against threats in the Asia-Pacific
region. Moreover, I am deeply concerned that the Navy continues
to find reasons to reduce ship repair capability on Guam when
their own report conducted by U.S. Pacific Fleet several years
ago clearly showed a long-term cost savings to the Navy for
maintaining such capability on Guam.
Finally, I request that language be included to require any
future DOD telecommunication services and infrastructure
installation on Guam be limited to U.S.-owned firms unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that a foreign firm can meet the
resiliency and security requirements necessary to serve a U.S.
military installation.
From recent experience of Huawei, ZTE, and others, it is
apparent that some foreign countries have identified
telecommunications infrastructure as a potential infiltration
point and are seeking to exploit that through artificially low-
cost exploits. Beyond this, the Pacific Islands are susceptible
to hurricanes and other natural disasters requiring a high
level of resiliency that lowest cost bids may not achieve.
In the Asia-Pacific region, U.S. military facilities enjoy
a variety of missions from missile defense to rapid deployment
and response. Foreign governments would be highly interested in
the ability to monitor or even affect these missions. We must
take steps necessary to protect our national security and
interests.
The Armed Services Committee has been a friend of and
strong advocate for Guam's interest as our island plays a key
role in our nation's primary defense against adversaries in
Asia. I have appreciated this committee's longstanding efforts
in reaffirming Guam's seat at the table and ensuring that
Guam's concerns are not brushed aside.
I want to thank you for your time and consideration of my
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. San Nicolas can be found in
the Appendix on page 37.]
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
I have two questions, actually.
Mr. Rose, first of all, and forgive my ignorance here, I do
not know if that is our committee's jurisdiction on the GI
Bill. Now, we do things outside of our jurisdiction all the
time, but it is conceivably and since we have the chairman of
the Veterans Affairs Committee with us, it is conceivably in
his jurisdiction.
But we can work together to make that happen and do it in
our bill. But I just want to be clear on that.
Mr. Rose. I am on the VA Committee as well. Originally we
thought that was the case, but actually the GI Bill's BAH is
based off DOD calculations.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Just within our bill.
And the other challenge there would be whether or not
making that change carries with it a mandatory score which
basically we have to find the money for that, so that is
unfortunate.
I mean I completely agree with your argument. There is no
reason that it should be separate. But once it is separate, to
fix it you have to come up with the money to fix it. So we will
have to look at different ways to do that.
So if you could make sure and work with the staff on if, is
it mandatory; if it is not mandatory it is a hell of a lot
easier to work out.
Mr. Rose. Absolutely.
Chairman Smith. Yes, but I completely agree with your
assessment on that.
Mr. Rose. Thank you for your consideration, Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you.
And Mr. Thompson, just so I am clear the current plan of
the hospital is to rely on Russian natural gas. And you want us
to prohibit them from, you talked about the onsite--
Mr. Thompson. Chairman, we are constructing right now a new
medical center that is approximately just 2 miles from the
landing strip on Ramstein. It is a great concept. When we were
there and led a CODEL [congressional delegation] there, three
of your members joined me. I mean, they were just clearing the
site at that point.
Chairman Smith. No, I am familiar with the project.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, what we do today is all of that
electricity, hot water, everything is purchased through the
city of Kaiserslautern.
Chairman Smith. And they get it from the Russians?
Mr. Thompson. No. Kaiserslautern use multi-fuel source.
They use biomass. They use wind.
Chairman Smith. Sorry, I am just trying to get down to a
very specific point. You want us to prohibit them from doing
what?
Mr. Thompson. The Corps of Engineers is moving away from
what we have always done and they are building a co-generation
plant. They have plans to build a power generation plant on the
site of the hospital, which would be solely and completely
relying on natural gas.
Right now, part of the trust that we have with the
community, the city of Kaiserslautern, that area is that
partnership with the type of heating source that we use at
Ramstein, it is used all throughout that region and it is the
Corps of Engineers that have chosen to veer from that.
Chairman Smith. What source of energy would we be using
instead of natural gas?
Mr. Thompson. That, quite frankly, if they choose to
continue to what I think is an excessive and unnecessary cost
of building their own generation plant which we have never done
that. This would be the first time. That would be obviously up
to the Corps of Engineers. Our statute that this committee has
passed and has been incorporated in the NDAAs in the past just
calls for multiple sources so that we are not dependent on
Russia for their natural gas, because Russia has been known to
weaponize energy.
Chairman Smith. Yes. I got all of that.
Mr. Thompson. And so there are two alternatives here. One,
ultimately, I mean, if I had the opportunity to have a
preference would be to continue the relationship we have with
the city of Kaiserslautern that uses multiple sources for
generating power, electricity, hot water.
Chairman Smith. Right, understood. I mean, obviously we
would rather not be reliant upon Russian natural gas. It
depends on what we are then going to be reliant on if we don't
allow them to go that route.
Mr. Thompson. That is correct. And the past two National
Defense Authorizations have addressed this issue, but just
clearly, the Army Corps of Engineers is ignoring Congress in
this situation with proceeding with, quite frankly, building a
plant at significant cost, and then the cost of operating that
plant is going to require additional fulltime employees to
operate.
And the part that I didn't address is it continues to break
down that trust that we have within those German communities
there. And I think that you will find with Ramstein that I am
hard pressed to think anyone in there hasn't been well served
by that partnership with the city of Kaiserslautern where all
this is generated today.
Chairman Smith. Absolutely. I have been to the current
hospital at Landstuhl many, many times. It is an outstanding
facility.
Mr. Thompson. It certainly is.
Chairman Smith. And incredibly important. And they do
amazing work there. I was in Iraq and visited a wounded
soldier, and then by the time I got to Landstuhl, he was
already there being treated. So it is an incredibly important
part.
Mr. Thompson. It will be an easier trip now that you are
coming down off that top of that hill. It would just be 2 miles
from the point where that transport plane will be landing at
Ramstein.
Chairman Smith. Absolutely, thank you. That is all I have.
Anybody else?
Mr. Thornberry. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank this
panel and our previous panel. Some of the issues we have heard
about today I am familiar with, some not so much. But that is
the importance of having members bring their priorities to our
attention, and I know that you and I will work together with
our staff to look at each of the issues that the members have
brought, so I appreciate it.
Chairman Smith. Absolutely, that is a commitment on both my
part and the ranking member's part. We represent the whole
caucus. And we understand, certainly in the districts that have
been represented here, that our national security needs are met
by every district in this country and every member has an
interest, and we want to make sure that we address those
interests as best as we can on the committee.
So, appreciate you all being here.
Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you very much.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 09:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 3, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
April 3, 2019
=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]