U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

i 

67–393 2011

[H.A.S.C. No. 112–44] 

TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS ON THEIR 

NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FOR 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

APRIL 14, 2011 
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

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

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

JOHN C. FLEMING, M.D., Louisiana 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

CHRIS GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOE HECK, Nevada 

BOBBY SCHILLING, Illinois 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

STEVEN PALAZZO, Mississippi 

ALLEN B. WEST, Florida 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

DAVE LOEBSACK, Iowa 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

LARRY KISSELL, North Carolina 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

BILL OWENS, New York 

JOHN R. GARAMENDI, California 

MARK S. CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

COLLEEN HANABUSA, Hawaii 

ROBERT L. SIMMONS II, Staff Director 

JAIME CHESHIRE, Professional Staff Member 

TIMOTHY MCCLEES, Professional Staff Member 

LAUREN HAUHN, Research Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2011 

Page 

HEARING: 

Thursday, April 14, 2011, Testimony from Members on Their National Defense Priorities for the Fiscal Year 2012 National Defense Authorization 

Bill ......................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX: 

Thursday, April 14, 2011 ........................................................................................ 35 

THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011 

TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS ON THEIR NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Berg, Hon. Rick, a Representative from North Dakota ........................................ 12 

Carter, Hon. John, a Representative from Texas ................................................. 29 

Carson, Hon. Andre ́, a Representative from Indiana ........................................... 14 

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

Duncan, Hon. Jeff, a Representative from South Carolina .................................. 4 

Kingston, Hon. Jack, a Representative from Georgia ........................................... 16 

Kinzinger, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Illinois ........................................ 27 

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

Moran, Hon. James P., a Representative from Virginia ...................................... 18 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative from Texas ...................................... 2 

Pearce, Hon. Stevan, a Representative from New Mexico ................................... 7 

Pompeo, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Kansas ............................................. 25 

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Armed Services ............................................................................ 2 

Shuler, Hon. Heath, a Representative from North Carolina ............................... 10 

Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative from Vermont ............................................. 21 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Berg, Hon. Rick ................................................................................................. 58 

Carter, Hon. John ............................................................................................. 76 

Carson, Hon. Andre ́ .......................................................................................... 60 

Crawford, Hon. Eric A. ‘‘Rick’’ ......................................................................... 79 

Duncan, Hon. Jeff ............................................................................................. 52 

Kingston, Hon. Jack ......................................................................................... 62 

Kinzinger, Hon. Adam ...................................................................................... 74 

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

Moran, Hon. James P. ...................................................................................... 66 

Neugebauer, Hon. Randy ................................................................................. 40 

Pearce, Hon. Stevan ......................................................................................... 54 

Pompeo, Hon. Mike .......................................................................................... 71 
Page

IV 

PREPARED STATEMENTS—Continued 

Shuler, Hon. Heath .......................................................................................... 56 

Welch, Hon. Peter ............................................................................................. 69 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Bishop, Hon. Timothy H., a Representative from New York ........................ 89 

Bordallo, Hon. Madeleine Z., a Delegate from Guam .................................... 90 

Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Tennessee .................................. 93 

Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative from Virginia ........................... 95 

Edwards, Hon. Donna F., a Representative from Maryland ......................... 98 

Hanna, Hon. Richard, a Representative from New York .............................. 104 

Lee, Hon. Barbara, a Representative from California ................................... 108 

Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine, a Representative from Missouri ........................ 114 

Pingree, Hon. Chellie, a Representative from Maine .................................... 117 

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative from Florida .......................... 118 

Young, Hon. Todd, a Representative from Indiana ....................................... 120 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

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

TESTIMONY FROM MEMBERS ON THEIR NATIONAL DEFENSE PRIORITIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, Thursday, April 14, 2011. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:33 a.m., in room 2118, 

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

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

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

A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Committee come to order. 

Good morning. The House Armed Services Committee meets 

today to receive testimony from Members of Congress on their national defense priorities for the fiscal year 2012 National Defense 

Authorization Act. 

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

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

better enable us to fill Congress’ Article 1, Section 8 constitutional 

mandate to provide for the common defense. 

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

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

how best to carry out our mandate. 

A quick note on the format for today. In consultation with the 

ranking member, we will depart from our regular questioning process, which means you won’t each have to sit there for all of us to 

ask 5 minutes’ worth of questions. 

We will have 5 minutes total for each Member, clarifying questions if so needed. Members of the committee may seek recognition 

by raised hand and will be granted 2 minutes apiece, up to a 5- 

minute limit. This will ensure we can hear from all of our witnesses today in a timely fashion. 

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

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

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

Members for their advocacy on behalf of our troops. 

Ranking Member Smith. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McKeon can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

WASHINGTON, RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to associate 

myself with your remarks. This is a committee that impacts a lot 

of districts throughout the country, obviously a significant budget, 

not just those Members who serve on the committee. And it is very 

important to hear from other Members who have interests that are 

contained within the Department of Defense bill so that we can 

best represent Congress and the country in the bill we ultimately 

put out. 

And I look forward to hearing from our fellow Members today 

about what their interests are and working with the chairman to 

try to make sure that they are reflected in the bill that we pass 

out of this committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Randy 

Neugebauer, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking 

Member Smith. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

testify before you today about my national defense priorities. 

My district, Texas 19th Congressional District, is home to 5,000 

military and 1,000 civilian personnel at Dyess Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of Abilene, Texas. Dyess houses, among 

many other missions, the 7th Bomb Wing, which is home of 36 of 

the 66 B–1 bombers, as well as the 317th Air Group C–130s. 

As a part of the fiscal year 2012 budget, the Air Force has proposed cutting the B–1 fleet by 6 airplanes, reducing the total number of aircraft from 66 to 60. The Air Force estimates that this will 

save $61 million in fiscal year 2012 and $357 million over the next 

5 years in the procurement and operations and maintenance accounts. 

But however, of these amounts, Air Force plans to invest only 

$32.9 million in the B–1 fleet in fiscal year 2012 and $125.4 million 

over the next 5 years. I am very concerned about these proposed 

cuts, and let me tell you why. 

From September 2001 to June 2010, which is the most recent 

data available, B–1s flew 72 percent of our bomber combat missions while representing only 40 percent of the fleet. Before combat 

in Libya just the other day, since May of 2006, the B–1s have flown 

all of the bombing missions. Now, let me repeat that. From May 

2006 until Libya, the B–1s were the only bombers that flew missions, combat missions. 

I know that this—and frankly, a refreshing climate of looking at 

the budget, and I think as the chairman alluded to, that we have 

to look through the entire budget to get our hands on these huge 

deficits we are running. And so I think one of the things that is 

extremely important is prioritization and putting our money where 

we are getting the most value from our assets. 
3 

It is just a few weeks ago I was in Dyess and asked a few of the 

airmen around there why the B–1s weren’t in Libya, and they said, 

well, because of the number of missions that they are flying in 

other theaters and just didn’t have one to spare that day. 

So it kind of seems a little funny to me if we didn’t have one to 

spare on that day, and now we are talking about necessarily reducing by six the number of airplanes that we have, that that might 

not be in our best interest. 

As of June 2010, the B–1 flew more than 4,500 missions in the 

past 5 years. During this time, as I mentioned, 76 B–52s and 20 

B–2s flew no combat missions. Additionally, the B–1 is not only a 

very capable airplane, and the platform has changed, but it is the 

least expensive bomber in the fleet. 

I have an exhibit that is attached to my testimony, and it shows 

that it is 23 percent more expensive to fly the B–52. And it is 179 

percent more costly to fly the B–2. 

The B–1 is also extremely versatile. You know, when it rolled off 

the line in 1986, it was primarily designed to deliver nuclear capability. Since that time, its nuclear mission has been removed. And 

now it has a really multi-platform operational capability from carrying very small bombs to JDAMs [Joint Direct Attack Munition] 

to very large bombs. And in fact, now with new capability with 

radar and the sniper targeting pod, it is also used for intelligence 

and surveillance during operations. 

Obviously, it is an all-weather, all-day, 24/7 aircraft capability. It 

goes at night, goes in weather, high altitude, low altitude, and has 

become an extremely effective weapon in the last few years, particularly in the fights that we have been involved in. It is able to 

deliver real-time information to people on the ground and then also 

deliver whatever kind of punch that is necessary. 

Recently, there is a new modification that is going to happen for 

the B–1, and it is going to increase its capability on JDAM bombs, 

for example, from 15 to 48. So you can see that this has been an 

extremely effective tool for our Nation in the past. 

There have been additional reductions in the number of B–1s in 

the fleet. And it was always in that our readiness factor will go up 

if we reduce the number of planes and take those parts and put 

them in other airplanes. Unfortunately, that always gives us a little short-term spike, Mr. Chairman. But then we get back in the 

same readiness factor. 

And so as you are beginning to look at priorities and weapons 

systems and how we fight the fight going forward, just remember 

that, you know, we are at least 15 years, at the very minimum, 

from having any new platform to replace the B–1. And if the B– 

1 is the number one weapon of choice, according to General 

Petraeus—I will close, and I know I am over my time a little bit— 

but one of the things that Mr. Petraeus said is the B–1 is a great 

platform in at least two respects, maybe more. 

One, it carries a heck of a lot of bombs and substantial ordnance 

and second, it is very good at ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance] capabilities. It can loiter for a good time. And 

when it is not being used to drop bombs, it also is like having another unmanned aerial vehicle in terms of full motion video and so 

forth. So it is just not just a case of a very capable bomber, just 
4 

boring holes in the sky, waiting to open the bomb bay doors. It also 

is a case for a platform that is very capable, even as it is doing that 

flying around in circles. 

So, thank you again, Chairman and Ranking Member, and I 

would be glad to take any questions. 

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

Appendix on page 40.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. You bring up some really good 

points. I know I am going to look at your testimony. Seems to me 

the B–1 has—you know, we hear a lot about B–52s and we hear 

about B–2s, but we never hear too much about B–1s. You have 

brought some very important points out. 

That comes under your subcommittee, right? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. [Off mike.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. No, this is—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Readiness? 

Mr. BARTLETT. Projection forces. 

The CHAIRMAN. Projection forces—— 

Mr. BARTLETT. Right, heavy bombers and projection forces. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Anyone have any questions? 

Thank you, Randy. We will look into that. You bring up some 

very good points. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I have some additional exhibits, and part of 

my testimony I would like to request to submit for the record as 

well. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 45.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered, be included. 

Thank you very much. 

Now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF DUNCAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

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

committee, for this opportunity to speak to you today about one of 

the priorities that this committee faces in the coming year. 

The Savannah River Site and the Savannah River National Lab 

is a unique asset to our Nation. The national lab is critical to developing new technologies, which will lead to new ways to defend 

this great Nation. I was pleased recently to lead a tour of the site 

with my colleagues from South Carolina. 

My testimony today is intended to convey that the critical work 

being done at the Savannah River Site is treated the same as other 

defense-related projects, by protecting what is vital, even while we 

cut non-essential spending to reduce our overall budget deficit. 

Perhaps the largest national policy impact of the Savannah River 

Site relates to nuclear non-proliferation. The work done at Savannah River directly impacts our treaties with Russia and our ability 

to match the work being done to dispose of surplus weapons-grade 

plutonium. Disposing of excess fissile materials has been a major 

U.S. national security and non-proliferation objective since 1994, 
5 

endorsed by every President and Congress since that time. Under 

the 2000 agreement, the United States and Russia have committed 

to dispose 68 metric tons of surplus plutonium. These materials, if 

put on the open market, could wind up in the hands of our enemies, the terrorists who wish us harm. These are the materials 

that are being disposed of safely at Savannah River Site. 

Disposing of surplus U.S. weapon-grade plutonium demonstrates 

that the United States is living up to its non-proliferation commitments by drawing down its nuclear arsenal in a transparent and 

irreversible manner. 

I especially want to bring your attention to the work being done 

at the chemical separation facility known as H-Canyon. H-Canyon 

is the only facility of its kind in the United States, yet the Department of Energy has proposed putting it in a warm or standby 

mode. Putting H-Canyon on standby or warm mode will inevitably 

cause severe negative impacts and would cost taxpayers more 

money in the future than it would save immediately. Repowering 

this type of facility after it has been out of commission for any period of time would require an extended timeframe and increased 

amounts of funding. Furthermore, the likelihood of ever restoring 

H-Canyon after achieving standby mode is, at best, slim. The loss 

of human capital that is so crucial to the site’s success would be 

incalculable. 

The Savannah River Site is the only location in the country that 

has an operational, large-scale facility capable of used nuclear fuel 

disposition. The site’s capabilities include the processing of nuclear 

materials, plutonium and spent rod storage, tritium production and 

recycling, and nuclear forensics. The FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] forensics team also uses the national laboratory at Savannah River Site for homeland security purposes. 

The Savannah River National Laboratory also has significant expertise and capabilities that could be an invaluable resource in assisting situations like the current nuclear issue in Japan and other 

comparable nuclear or environmental challenges, both here and 

abroad. 

One last point I would like to make: South Carolina has lived up 

to its commitment, and now it is time for the Federal Government 

to live up to theirs. Commitments were made by the Federal Government to ensure that even as SRS [Savannah River Site] takes 

in new materials for processing, the site cannot be the final home 

for these materials. The important work at Savannah River Site 

transforms these relics of the Cold War into something that can be 

peacefully used in the 21st century environment. 

If H-Canyon is unable to process the aluminum-clad spent fuel 

currently stored or scheduled to be sent to L-Basin, there will be 

no disposition path within the complex. And all this material will 

be stranded. It would be a betrayal of the Federal Government’s 

commitments to lower the operating capabilities of the site while 

leaving the radioactive materials behind. I trust that this committee will not allow that to happen. 

The entire mission at the Savannah River Site is vital to our national defense, our economy and our focus on energy independence. 

Congressional support for the fiscal year 2012 budget is critical 

to the overall success of the national security effort at SRS. I con-
6 

tinue to urge this committee to protect the important work being 

done at Savannah River, and I thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan can be found in the Appendix on page 52.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The thing that is interesting to me, as I think about the 435 districts around the country, 

is how much there is to learn from each Member about their districts. I have never heard of the Savannah River Site before. So I 

appreciate you coming and educating us about this. 

Does anyone—Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I 

want to extend the invitation on behalf of Congressman Duncan 

and myself. We would love to have you come visit Savannah River 

Site. 

And it is really extraordinary. It is 350 square miles where nuclear preparations have been underway. It was called the Bomb 

Plant, and it is an extraordinary facility. It could not be replicated 

anywhere east of the Mississippi. But it is in place now. And you 

would really—I am going to—we will be working to get you there, 

and including Congressman Conaway, too. He needs to come visit. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague and fellow 

South Carolinian, Congressman Jeff Duncan, for making the committee aware of these important issues to South Carolina and 

Georgia. 

I agree with Congressman Duncan that the committee should be 

focused on strengthening our nuclear threat reductions. We remain 

concerned that failing to secure weapons-grade nuclear materials 

will increase the chance of our enemies having the ability to acquire nuclear weapons. 

As Congressman Duncan promotes in his testimony, and as Secretary Gates has already stated, our Nation needs to maintain our 

aging nuclear infrastructure, both facilities and professional personnel. The Savannah River Site in South Carolina is a great example of the progress that can be made with proper resources. 

I want to point out that South Carolina has the perfect climate, 

that is, meteorological and warmly pro-nuclear, pro-military citizens. Many of the people Congressman Duncan and I represent 

were victorious in the Cold War. When called upon, they helped defeat communism by manufacturing the ultimate deterrent for 

peace, nuclear weapons. 

I know firsthand of their commitment, because in the 1980s I 

was a personnel security hearing officer at the Savannah River 

Site. South Carolina and Georgia remain stalwart for the national 

defense missions at Savannah River Site, but we are concerned 

that the administration is closing down the unique national asset, 

H-Canyon, which to replicate would be $3.5 billion. This is one of 

our current facilities critical to the disposition path for types of plutonium and highly enriched uranium. 

In the President’s fiscal budget of 2012 the Department of Energy plans to reduce the operating costs of H-Canyon from $250 

million to $150 million. This would result in a permanent loss of 

personnel talent and expertise, an outcome leading to a loss of a 

national asset for our nuclear complex. 
7 

We can all look forward to working together to address the issues 

of nuclear proliferation, and I look forward to working with the 

committee and the full House on these capabilities to be maintained, especially H-Canyon. 

Thank you, Congressman Duncan. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Are there any further questions? 

Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and we will consider your request. 

We now recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVAN PEARCE, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. PEARCE. We appreciate the opportunity to address you today 

before you roll out this 2012 NDAA [National Defense Authorization Act]. 

With our Nation engaged in two wars and now extending ourselves into Libya, it is time for us to look at the readiness and the 

strength of our United States military. The funding mechanisms 

that the NDAA moves forward must build the necessary long-term 

planning to tailor programs and mission support, as well as weapons, technology, supply, and development, to a rapidly changing 

world. 

Some ways that we have seen in our district the NDAA can be 

helpful are the things that I would like to talk about today. 

Before I get started, the Second District of New Mexico is home 

to White Sands Missile Range. It is also home to Holloman Air 

Force Base. We also are the home of the Waste Oscillation Pilot 

Project. It is the storage facility for nuclear waste. The Rocky Flats 

is now completely underground in New Mexico, all of the waste associated with that site, and that is in our district. 

We are also the site of the first and only decision made by the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in over 30 years, the nuclear enrichment facility in Eunice, New Mexico. And it is all private funding, but it was installed there with 95 percent approval of the people in that area. So our region is friendly to the military and 

friendly to the task of supporting the Nation. 

The first area that I would like to talk about is contracting. In 

White Sands, the training from Fort Bliss—and Fort Bliss has 

many of the ground troops—that training is 95 percent done in 

New Mexico in my district, and yet, when the contracting goes, 

there is an imaginary line that exists by SBA [Small Business Administration] standards on the state line of Texas and New Mexico. 

So our residents see that our ground is taken up for training purposes, but they have very, very, little access—one contract in the 

last several years—because of this imaginary line that the SBA 

says we can’t let people in New Mexico bid, because we are in 

Texas. So that is a constant source of friction. 

Another friction is the bundling, the wrapping. New Mexico firms 

are never going to be able to bid on $500 million contracts, but they 

could easily service the contracts on local bases. What happens is 

many times a contractor from another state, maybe on the East 
8 

Coast, gets the contract and calls our guys to do the sub-contracting. 

And what that does is take away the overhead, the profit potential, in small businesses scattered throughout New Mexico, which 

is contributing a lot of surface area. So if you would look at the 

contracting processes, that would be very critical to support small 

businesses in our state and in our district. 

The second area that I would draw your attention to is Navy research and development. New Mexico is home to Magdalena Ridge, 

which in the end is the base of many types of science and investigation on different programs. They provide near-liftoff point of impact 

tracking of missile tests for the U.S. Army. They play a dominant 

role in the space situation of Atlantis for the U.S. Air Force, the 

Department of Defense Space Command. They provide asteroid 

tracking and orbital projections. They track and characterize potentially hazardous near-Earth objects, and they have done that over 

the last 3 years. 

The next area that the 2nd District of New Mexico is highly involved in is the Air Force Research Lab, which has been given 

DOD [Department of Defense] lead for the development of jet fuel 

from alternative oil sources. Fuel from algae is one of the most 

promising developments that is being looked at. That is centered 

in the 2nd District of New Mexico. They are looking to find alternative energy for power generation and transportation, especially 

aviation. And they are working on the algae fuels right now. 

Because petroleum is an algae derivative, the result of a drop in 

fuel that is the same fuel as JP–8, literally, and the things that we 

should concentrate on include the scale of algal mass production to 

billions of pounds a year, hundreds of millions of gallons of JP–8, 

we should be looking at how to refine the competing oil extraction 

technologies for low-cost production of standard commercial refinery feed stock, and then, thirdly, demonstrate the low cost modification of refineries to produce high-volume production of JP–8. 

The final area that we would look at is the focus of joint national 

and training experiment. In our district is a small town. It was a 

mining town, and it has been set aside now completely for research 

and development. Right now there is in Afghanistan a village that 

is using houses that New Mexicans used to live in. I am not sure 

exactly what that says, but different government agencies come 

there. Intergovernmental agencies come to train and perform experiments that give them better access, once they get to the field. 

The types of training that occur at the Playas Training Center 

are irregular warfare and WMD [weapons of mass destruction], 

new and emerging missions, emergency management, civil affairs 

and peacekeeping missions. So these are the four suggestions that, 

as I look at the jurisdiction of your committee, that it seems to be 

helpful for the Nation, but you don’t do it does what you think of 

to help you, if you are able to look at these and move them forward. 

And so with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
9 

Mr. Pearce, I thank you for raising this. This is actually something that has come up in my district as well at Joint Base LewisMcChord, the contracting issue you refer to. The local contractors— 

and this is, you know, businesses in the building trades agree on 

this—are being excluded from many of these contracts by the national, regional, way that the Department of Defense is doing this. 

They are picking some set number of pre-approved contractors that 

are then being moved all around the country, and really cutting off 

local contractors. 

And obviously that is a huge problem in terms of jobs in our local 

communities, but it is also questionable in terms of whether or not 

they are going to get the best work at the best price if they simply 

pre-approve a very small number of contractors picked primarily, 

it seems to me, for their breadth, not necessarily for the quality of 

their work or what they do, just so they can conveniently go, ‘‘Well, 

we will pick this one and they can do the work in any one of 10 

different states.’’ 

I think this is an enormous problem. And it is also going to create greater tension between the local community and the bases. 

You know, the bases are there and certainly they have very positive influences in all of our communities from an economic standpoint. 

They also place stresses on the infrastructure. And if you take 

away the economic bonus by bringing in outside contractors, and 

in many cases outside workers, and not giving the economic benefit 

to the region, I just think this, you know, creates tension that 

doesn’t need to be created. 

Now, I don’t fully understand how we can go at this, how we can 

change this, but I appreciate your raising the issue. It is something 

that I have been meaning to raise with the majority staff myself. 

And I would love to see if this committee can find some way to examine that contracting process so that it isn’t so biased against 

local workers and local businesses. So I appreciate your raising this 

issue, and I hope we will look into it. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, if I might make a comment? 

An example of that was I was talking with a guy locally that 

makes radios and radio antennas, and he was called about 6 years 

ago from the Department of Defense that said, ‘‘Could you make 

me an antenna that you could put in your pocket like cigarettes 

and it would be that size and it would have these capabilities?’’ 

And the guy was fiddling with his drawer and talking on the 

phone. 

And so, the contracting officer said, ‘‘Can you do it?’’ And he said, 

‘‘Yeah, I have done it right here.’’ And he said, ‘‘Well, what the cost 

of it would be?’’ And he said, ‘‘Oh, approximately $1.50, maybe 

$3.00.’’ And the guy said, ‘‘You know our lowest bid up until now?’’ 

‘‘No.’’ He said, ‘‘$150,000.’’ 

And so, that is what we bump into all the time. And it makes 

your point, but thank you for that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. On the Small Business Committee for a number 

of years now we have been addressing these problems. It started 

with bundling and the use of subcontractors that the prime is fa-
10 

miliar with. We have a great deal of difficulty getting them to 

reach out. 

We are also very much concerned about what is called ‘‘bid shopping.’’ They will get a prime to join them in the bid, and then after 

they get the bid, they come back and say, ‘‘Gee, times are tough. 

We really have to do this for less.’’ And they may have gotten the 

bid because of the quality of the subcontractor, and now they beat 

them down, and then they go with another subcontractor. 

There are a lot of inequities and problems in this contracting. In 

the Small Business Committee we have been following that. Thank 

you for your reminding us that this is still a problem, and we will 

see what we can do from this perspective. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Any other questions? 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. 

We now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Representative Shuler. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEATH SHULER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on an amendment on the National Defense Authorization Act. 

I come before you to speak in support of the language that may 

have profound effects on U.S. manufacturing, as well as the national security of our Nation. As we all know, Congress passed the 

Berry Amendment in order to protect the American industrial base 

during times of adversity and war. 

This amendment generally requires Defense Department contractors to use American manufactured components and materials in 

their products. However, because of the language added in 2008, 

some exceptions to the Berry Amendment have been created, allowing American manufacturers to use non-American components. 

My specific concern today is the exceptions for specialty metals 

that are critically being used in our national security. It is my belief that these exceptions and the outsourcing of manufacturing 

components, especially titanium components critical to aviation, 

are a hindrance to the American manufacturer and pose a very real 

national security threat. 

I understand that these exceptions were created in the 2008 

NDAA. They were honest efforts to expand trade and global capacity with our international allies. This intent led to a provision within Section 804 of the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment amended Section 2533b of Title 10 to 

provide new exceptions for procurement of end-items containing 

specialty metals from American sources. 

By allowing original equipment manufacturers to procure enditems manufactured in accepted countries under agreements that 

allow foreign manufacturers to use any available raw materials to 

manufacture the end-items, it has had a hindrance on U.S. tita-
11 

nium manufacturers in a time of market expansion and defense 

procurement requiring titanium end-items. 

Because the foreign manufacturers are not subject to these same 

requirements, OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] are moving offshore suppliers and walking away from U.S. manufactured 

industrial base. The changes in Section 2533b are giving foreign 

competitors a 30 percent advantage on raw material prices. This 

reduces costs, has resulted in U.S. military engine fans and compressor blades being forged and machined overseas using Russian 

titanium. 

It is unconceivable to me that some of the most essential components of our Nation’s military aircraft are being made in foreign 

countries with Russian materials. American companies are being 

forced out of the military manufacturing base because of offshore 

raw materials being used by competitors. 

With titanium demand on the rise, domestically owned and operated businesses capable of manufacturing medium and large fan 

blades will either go out of business or move offshore. Assessing the 

U.S. market will allow for a better picture to show that Section 804 

affected the domestic titanium market. 

The House inserted a provision in their report accompanying 

their version of fiscal year 2011 of the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 5136, that required the Department to assess the 

U.S. titanium manufactured industrial base and report to the congressional defense committees. Even though the House provision 

was not included in the final bill, I urge you to follow your colleagues in previous Congresses to include this language. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shuler can be found in the Appendix on page 56.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. You mentioned titanium. Russia, of 

course, produces about half the titanium in all the world. There is 

a new process called the Armstrong process, which I have been following for a number of years. It could produce, on a continuous 

basis, titanium at much lower costs than we are getting it from the 

Russians. 

And we have had trouble getting the attention of our military 

and our industrial base here to pursue this process. The problem 

that you present us with is a growing problem—that is, our industrial base is so diminished in this country that frequently now we 

have to go offshore for our materials. 

This isn’t just a threat to our national security—rather to our 

military—it is a threat to our national security, because we now 

have a trade deficit of about $1 billion every 12 hours. And this is 

just another indication of that, and hopefully, the military can kind 

of lead the way to bring some of this industry back to our shores. 

And I hope that your concern about this today will help us to 

move forward more quickly on the Armstrong process, which produces titanium at a continuous process, much lower costs than the 

Russians. Now they have a near monopoly on this around the 

world, which is what you are pointing out for us. 

Thank you very much for your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? 
12 

Mr. Shuler, in the language that we put in our bill last year, we 

did not include the language you are talking about, because then 

we would have to negotiate it with the Senate. Instead, we put it 

in our report, which means then they will have to comply. So we 

will follow up and see what is happening on that report from the 

Department of Defense, and we will follow through on this. 

Mr. SHULER. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your bringing this point up. Thank 

you very much. 

I will recognize the gentleman from North Dakota for 5 minutes, 

Representative Berg. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK BERG, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will figure out the equipment first here. I want to thank you for the invitation to testify before the House Armed Services Committee regarding your national 

defense priorities. I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity. 

I would also like very much to thank all the men and women of 

the Armed Forces for their service to our country. I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the often unsung heroes and heroines—the 

spouses, the families, the children of military personnel that stay 

behind in North Dakota when their spouses are deployed. 

In many ways it is harder for the families that are back home, 

really worrying about the unknown. They all have my profound respect and admiration for all they do for our country. 

I am prepared to offer a few proposals for your committee to consider as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2012. My brief testimony today is intended to provide the 

committee members with the opportunity to assess the congressional priorities in the conduct of U.S. defense policy that are not 

earmarked pursuant to House rule. 

Having two Air Force bases in my district, I have had the opportunity to interact with many airmen and women. And I understand 

the importance of providing a good quality life for our service men 

and women. I would first urge you to consider the quality of life 

issues. 

It is critical that the best interest of our married Air Force personnel are considered as part of the continued monitoring of and 

the proper implementation of the soon to be Air Force-wide policy 

of privatization for military family housing, which would affect 

many Air Force bases, including Minot and Grand Forks. 

Minot will turn over 1,700 military family homes and Grand 

Forks will turn over 800 homes to the privatization program. This 

proposal will provide both bases with a community center, clubhouse, indoor playground and storage facilities. In addition, some 

undesirable properties will be demolished. 

Furthermore, the President submitted a fiscal year 2012 budget 

for the Minot Air Force Base that provides for construction of a 

new, 168-room, single occupancy, dormitory for young Air Force 

personnel that is up to Air Force-wide standards. It is important 

that we not only support our Air Force personnel, but their families 
13 

as well. I fully support providing our military service men and 

women with the best quality of life possible. 

I would also like to discuss the technological advancements the 

Air Force is undertaking. As the Air Force moves to the 21st Century, the implementation of new technologies and aircraft, such as 

the Raptor and Global Hawk, are key to the growing mission of the 

American Air Force. 

I have spoken with senior leadership at Grand Forks Air Force 

Base, and they have expressed support for three Global Hawks at 

the Grand Forks Air Force Base that are slated to receive it later 

this year. As bases like Grand Forks continue to expand their development and training for unmanned aircraft, access to these aircraft will be essential. 

Grand Forks will also benefit from the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node Mission, which they are set to develop this year. 

This beacon mission would entail the flying Global Hawks, which 

are forward deployed to military missions in regions such as Afghanistan. This aircraft would serve as an antennae, so a group of 

soldiers on one side of a mountain could communicate with another 

group on the other side of the mountain. 

This is accomplished by using the plane as a relay above the battlefield, where both groups emit a signal through the plane. The 

Grand Forks Air Force Base is quickly becoming an international 

leader in unmanned aviation. This is technology that holds enormous potential, not only for our Nation’s future military, but also 

for agriculture and border security. 

Lastly, just this week I had the opportunity to work with North 

Dakota Air National Guard with regards to the flooding currently 

taking place in North Dakota. The North Dakota Guard and 

guardsmen across the country play a pivotal role in our military 

success, and it is important that we maintain their ability to answer the call of duty. 

I was happy to hear that four C–27J Spartan aircraft are scheduled to be delivered to the North Dakota Air Guard this year. 

Those plans will not only strengthen our security. It will also help 

play a crucial role when the Guard is called up to work on such 

operations as the current flood fight. 

As you consider the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, I would strongly urge you to support the Air Force continued development of these projects. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Are there any questions? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berg can be found in the Appendix on page 58.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Anyone have any questions? 

Mr. BERG. That is okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have a comment. 

If you are not a member already of our unmanned—we used to 

call it unmanned vehicle caucus, it is now unmanned system caucus because it includes air, land and underwater—we would love 

to have you as a member of that caucus to share your expertise 

with us in these areas and also be available for other learning opportunities there, too. 
14 

I have a nephew that flies unmanned vehicles, and he was one 

of the first group that were taken out of pilot training to put into 

training for unmanned vehicles. And they promised at the time 

that they would put him back in a cockpit, and he is enjoying it 

so much he is now training other pilots. 

We are now training more pilots for unmanned vehicles than for 

cockpit flying in the Air Force. So it is really, really the future. 

Appreciate you bringing your comments to us. We will be sure 

to look into all of these as we work forward on the bill. And thank 

you very much for your being here today. 

Mr. BERG. Thank you for your work, and I will be a part of the 

caucus. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thank you. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Carson, for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDRE ́ CARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM INDIANA 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member 

Smith, and thank you all for this opportunity to testify today. 

As you may know, my Indianapolis congressional district is home 

to the largest Rolls-Royce plant outside of the United Kingdom and 

is headquarters for the Defense North America operation. Our engine plant employs over 4,000 people on a range of programs, including the F–136 alternative engine, the vertical lift fan for the 

F–35 and engines for the V–22 Osprey and C–130. 

This plant, Mr. Chairman, employs highly skilled workers, including hundreds of engineers and scientists, the types of stable, 

well-paying jobs that support the central Indiana economy. On behalf of my constituents, I want to begin by thanking you, Chairman 

and Ranking Member Smith and many members of this committee, 

for their continual support of the F–136. 

The alternative engine program has taken a major blow in the 

112th Congress. However, as we begin the fiscal year 2012 authorization and appropriations process, I ask the committee to reauthorize the F–136 and allow this discussion to continue until both 

the House and the Senate can definitively continue or cancel the 

program. 

In this debate, many of us have parochial interests in this program. I don’t want to downplay how important the continuation of 

the alternative engine is to my constituents. It is critical. 

But over the next several months, all of us, whether we have a 

plant in our district or not, are going to be asked to vote on defense 

authorization and appropriations bills that will significantly impact 

our national defense and national debt. 

Members of this committee know all about the lack of a true engine competition and the risks of building a single engine. I just 

want to focus on a few aspects of the F–136 that I believe have 

been overshadowed by the intense rhetoric surrounding the program. 

This is not just a debate about two engines or the relative cost 

of funding one program versus two. This is a debate about a fighter 

jet that is going to replace over 90 percent of our fighter force. The 

debate centers on how our decisions surrounding the transition will 
15 

dictate the future of our defense industry and defense spending 

over the next several decades. 

Opponents frequently point to the fact that many of our fighter 

aircraft operate on only one engine. They also point to the current 

market share of GE [General Electric] versus Pratt & Whitney. 

These would be excellent points, if we were not talking about 90 

percent of our fighter force. 

As this committee is well aware, many of our fighter platforms 

will be phased out over the next several years. Fewer platforms 

will operate on a sole-source engine and fewer will operate on GE 

engines. With this changing dynamic, it is unreasonable to determine the future of the F–136 by focusing on a structure that will 

soon or no longer exist. 

The facts are simple. The F–35 will make up over 90 percent of 

our fighter force. And without the F–136, Pratt & Whitney, the 

producers of a single engine will be responsible for 90 percent of 

fighter engine production. 

GE and Rolls-Royce both have excellent records of quality and 

performance on military aviation. Yet, if they are not allowed to 

compete for future F–35 engine contracts, the GE and Rolls-Royce 

market shares will diminish, and their current expertise in fighter 

engine development will disappear. 

We often look at military programs strictly in terms of the dollars and cents expended each year. But we cannot forget that, over 

the last several decades, billions of dollars have gone to GE and 

Rolls-Royce for research and development. Canceling this program 

and cutting these companies out of future fighter engine production 

would be like throwing away these taxpayer dollars. 

Simply put, we would lose that expertise and may not get it back 

without billions in additional investments. It is true that small savings would be seen if we canceled the F–136 today. But the American taxpayers have already invested over $3 billion in this program, over 75 percent of what is needed for the engine to enter full 

competitive production. 

With just a small investment, we can bring competition to this 

$100 billion engine program. According to a Government Accountability Office historical analysis, the competition spurred by this 

relatively small investment could save up to 20 percent over the 

next few decades. Savings like that are especially likely, given the 

fixed-price contract offered by GE and Rolls-Royce. 

While many of my colleagues were elected on a promise to reduce 

the deficit, we all need to remember that our debt problems will 

not be short-lived. It has taken decades to build this debt, and it 

may take many more years to eliminate it. We clearly need to do 

everything possible now to address our debt, but we cannot overlook billions in savings just to achieve small symbolic cuts today. 

Killing the alternative engine, eliminating thousands of jobs, 

adding to the unemployment rolls and foregoing significant future 

savings just does not make sense to the American taxpayers. 

Thank you, Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for 

the opportunity to speak, and I encourage all of you to reauthorize 

the F–136 alternative engine. 

Thank you, sir. 
16 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Do we have any questions? 

I don’t think we will enter into a debate right now on the second 

engine. It is something that we have debated in the past and I am 

sure we will debate in the future. But I really appreciate your 

bringing these points up at this time, and it is obviously something 

we will be looking at very closely. 

Mr. CARSON. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CARSON. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. We now recognize the gentleman from Georgia 

for 5 minutes, Representative Kingston. 

Is your mic on? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK KINGSTON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM GEORGIA 

Mr. KINGSTON. It is great to be with you guys. I will skip what 

I just said. Three things that I want to testify on, basic ask for new 

missions for Fort Stewart, Georgia, Moody Air Force Base, and 

Kings Bay Naval Base. 

I have the opportunity of representing perhaps the largest military district in the country. I have four major installations. I have 

Townsend Bombing Range, 165th Guard Unit, the 117th and the 

224th and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. 

I have 80,000 active duty soldiers, about 200,000 of its family. 

And that is probably about a third of my constituency, which is 

military or military related. I am proud to represent the 3rd Infantry Division, which, I believe, Colonel Gibson has some intimate 

knowledge of. I am not exactly sure about Colonel West, but I know 

that Mr. Gibson actually knew of him through some soldier friends 

back home. 

So we have the 75th Ranger Regiment there, Special Operations, 

the Air Squadron, the Night Stalkers, which, you know, are the 

Chinook units operating all over Afghanistan. We have Coast 

Guard. We have two Coast Guard cutters, 12 other boats. We have 

the MNST and Marine Reserves at Fort Stewart-Hunter and at 

Kings Bay. So we have got military everywhere. 

The 3rd Infantry actually has won 4 out of the last 6 years the 

Army Community of Excellence, and the only reason why they did 

not win it the other 2 years is they weren’t eligible to compete. We 

have an extremely pro-military constituency. 

Now, back in BRAC [Base Realignment and Closure], the days 

of BRAC, a recommendation was made to move a new combat battalion there. And that was later canceled, even though the city 

made about $74 million in infrastructure changes in preparation 

for a new battalion. But that did not happen. 

And the committee on which I serve, HAC–D [House Appropriations Committee—Subcommittee on Defense], actually put money 

in the Office of Economic Adjustment to help the town offset some 

of its losses because by the military, by Congress, by the Pentagon, 

we were told, ‘‘Gear up, because a new brigade is coming.’’ It did 

not happen. 
17 

Now the President has determined to withdraw a heavy brigade 

combat team from Europe in 2015, and I would solicit your support 

on considering Fort Stewart as the new home for them. Fort Stewart has 280,000 acres. It is the largest post east of the Mississippi. 

And its impact area can accept live fire, including the multi-launch 

rocket system. 

It is close to the Port of Savannah and has one of the longest 

runways in the world. It is ready for business, because BRAC already has done the environmental impact studies. There is no land 

acquisition that is necessary. All that is already done. So if you put 

the new brigade there, it would be an easy fit at no additional cost. 

Moving on to the Air Force, Moody Air Force Base is in the thick 

of the worldwide fighting. They have been in Afghanistan, really, 

since almost 9/11; they went there in October. 

At Moody, we have combat search and rescue elements. We have 

security forces for base and A–10 squadrons, which are in Afghanistan. We have the C–130s and the HH–60s. These elements have 

deployed many times over and over again to Iraq and Afghanistan 

and complement each other. 

Their proximity to Fort Stewart and Hunter gives opportunities, 

which they are already capitalizing on, for some joint basing. I 

know that the Air Force is looking to procure the light attack arm 

reconnaissance aircraft or LAAR in fiscal year 2012, and we believe 

that Moody Air Force Base would be a good fit for that, and we 

would like your support in taking a good look at that. 

Also, moving on to Kings Bay Naval Base, as you know, there 

are two nuclear submarine bases in the country. One of them is in 

Camden County, Georgia, which I represent. Again, during BRAC 

there was a proposal, actually a BRAC recommendation, to move 

the submarines from Groton down to St. Mary’s at Kings Bay, and 

unfortunately moving submarines out of Groton would be like moving football out of Green Bay. 

In the final analysis, Submarine Nation just would not stand it, 

but at the same time we have room, because there are 18 berths 

out there, and we can move submarines down there. And just like 

Fort Stewart, they are ready for business. So we are hoping that 

we can get some more missions for Kings Bay. 

We have six of the SSBNs down there already, two of the 

SSGNs, and as well as a refit facility and Marines and Coast 

Guard standing by. So, we wanted to make a recommendation on 

that. 

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will—I mean, excuse me—Mr. 

Chairman, I want to make one final plug—last week a bill, which 

I believe many of you have co-sponsored, Congressman Gomer and 

I introduced to say that in the event of a government shutdown, 

that the troops would still continue to be paid. 

We may have a government shutdown again. It may be in October, and it may be over the issue of appropriation bills. I think this 

legislation actually should be considered. It is still live. It is out 

there in the Senate. They have 70 co-sponsors in the House. We 

have about 150 co-sponsors. I think it would actually sail through 

the House, if we could move it. And I certainly would like us to 

move it before the Senate does. 
18 

So with that, I yield back. I will submit the rest of my testimony 

for the record, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be with 

you guys. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And put me on that bill if I am not 

already on it, would you? 

Are there any questions of Mr. Kingston? 

Thank you very much. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, my congressman when I am in town, Mr. Moran, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA 

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

and members of the committee. I have a larger statement for the 

record, but I know we want to facilitate this, so I am just going to 

talk about my highest priority. 

The CHAIRMAN. Your full statement will be included in the record 

without objection. 

Mr. MORAN. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. My highest priority is also a very urgent one. There is a Department of Defense 

building that has been constructed at the intersection of 395 and 

Seminary Road inside the Beltway. If you drive within the Beltway 

on 395, you can’t miss it. It is an enormous building. 

And consistent with BRAC, within a few months 6,400 people are 

to move into that building. There will be at least 3,800 additional 

vehicles, but there have been no traffic mitigation measures put 

into place. Finally, just yesterday, the Defense Department notified 

Congress that it will reprogram $20 million for some short- and 

mid-term transportation improvements. 

And in the justification, they said, and I will quote: ‘‘The existing 

roadway capacities around the Mark Center development will be 

insufficient to accommodate the influx of new traffic in connection 

with the BRAC recommendation.’’ 

Well, finally, Mr. Chairman, there have been five studies that 

have shown that we are about to have chaos occur on 395. Now, 

this has consequence, not just to the military, but particularly to 

the 200,000 commuters that travel north in the morning to get into 

Capitol Hill, to get into the Federal office buildings, to go to work. 

There are thousands of staff, dozens of Members who live south 

of the Beltway. Mr. Wittman has probably tens of thousands of constituents traveling north every morning. I estimate that they will 

be subjected to a 1 to 2 hour delay every morning as a result of 

this new Department of Defense construction. 

The Army says that they think that if they take all their measures and everything works perfectly, it is only going to be an additional 20 minutes that this move will cause. Now, some people 

think an extra 20 minutes in what is already what seems like an 

interminable commute is a long time. 

I am confident they are wrong, that we are talking about 1 to 

2 hours. That is why this is an urgent top priority. Your committee 

has put in now for the last 2 years a cap on parking until the miti-
19 

gation measures are in place. Now, in addition, the Army has said 

that with 2,200 people they will have met their BRAC requirement. 

We had a cap of 1,000 parking spaces. In other words, they can 

fill the building, they just can’t take more than 1,000 vehicles 

there, because 1,000 vehicles, if you spread over 3 hours, 300 an 

hour, it could possibly accommodate that with only a, you know 10- 

to 15-minute delay for everyone else, even if it had to be a cap of 

the 2,200 that meets their mission. 

But 3,800 is going to create a situation where everyone commuting every day for decades to come, is going to wonder who let 

this happen and why? Now, once we get the transportation measures in place, we can lift the cap. It will be a delay for everyone, 

but at least it won’t be this kind of extraordinary delay that will 

adversely affect everyone. 

So, what I am asking is for the committee to put the cap in the 

authorization that we have had in the prior authorization bills. 

And then we lift it as soon as the military and the city and the 

state have agreed to do an $80 million ramp from hot lanes that 

will go into the building. And when that is done, then we lift the 

cap, and we deal with the ramifications. 

But until these measures are in place, I think we owe it to those 

200,000 commuters to give them some relief, because in fact when 

the construction takes place, it is even going to exacerbate the traffic problem. So that is my request. I know it is a local issue, but 

when it affects as many as 200,000 people, I think it has some consequence for a lot of people. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moran can be found in the Appendix on page 66.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Are there any questions? 

Ranking Member Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, just so I understand, 

I know there have been some studies on this. The IG [Inspector 

General] has looked at it. The Transportation Research Board has 

looked at it. What were their conclusions about what it would cost 

in terms of the transportation mitigations and how long it would 

take to get them in place so that this could even have a chance at 

working? 

Mr. MORAN. It is a very good question. The immediate improvements, which would be to widen the exit ramp, that would be taken 

care of with the $20 million reprogramming that they have asked 

for. But it is still going to take 1 to 2 years to get that in place. The $80 million ramp that the state will pay for itself will take 2 to 3 years at the very least. Then there is another, probably $100 

million or so, depending upon how much we can get from the state. 

I am not optimistic about that, but the Defense Department, I 

think if we had some leverage, would work with us and get the 

most reasonable number possible. 

You mentioned the Inspector General’s report. They are looking 

into how this was allowed to happen in the first place, because the 

state has determined that there were a number of deliberately false 

assumptions that were put into their report. They assumed only 75 

percent of the employees will go to work on any one day, even 

though the Army assumes over 90 percent will be at work any day. 
20 

They sped up the traffic light timing so that they could show 

more cars coming through, and then they had three left-hand turning lanes turning against a solid green light, which, as you know, 

can’t happen. So a number of false assumptions were built into 

their report, and that is what the Inspector General is looking at. 

In the meantime, we have just got to figure out a way to delay 

the complete move until we can mitigate. 

Mr. SMITH. So, you feel if you keep it to 1,000 cars and the people that would accommodate—— 

Mr. MORAN. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. You know, you can mitigate going forward. Have you gotten a response from DOD yet about the impact 

of, I mean, limiting it to that and how it would impact the transfer? 

Mr. MORAN. No. I don’t. I just have the request that we got yesterday, and I think that will be approved. And so if we could even 

delay it for the 18 months until that $20 million of improvements 

are in place, that would help a lot. 

Mr. SMITH. And I should point out, this is something that was 

in the House bill—— 

Mr. MORAN. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Last year when we got it out. During the 

madness of trying to get it in NDAA at the end of last year, it came 

out. But it is something this committee has supported before and 

the House has supported before, so. 

Mr. MORAN. That is correct. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moran, thank you 

so much. I couldn’t agree with you more. This is going to be a significant issue, much more significant than I think anybody dreams 

of in what will happen in that corridor. And it is a tough enough 

commute coming up that corridor now. 

I want to go back. In last year’s NDAA the 1,000 parking space 

cap was there. And were there provisions in there to say that that 

cap would be in place until such time as the $20 million in mitigating other traffic accommodations would be put in place? I am 

assuming that that is in there, but what also about this should we 

consider with the $80 million project that Virginia is putting in 

place? 

It seems like to me we need to have a sequential, thoughtful way 

to make sure we transition if we are going to go from 1,000 spaces 

to the $20 million improvement, make sure we don’t get out in 

front of the $80 million improvement so we have a long-term vision 

about how this is going to transition with minimal impact on the 

traffic in that area. 

I may want you to comment on that a little bit. 

Mr. MORAN. It is a very good point, Mr. Wittman, because I do think that while the construction is going on for the $80 million 

project, that is going to cause further delay, exacerbate the situation. So it seems to me the best thing to do might be to have the 

Pentagon analyze the difficulty of a delay for other commuters and 

just exercise their judgment when we can lift the cap. 
21 

We will know how bad the delay is as soon as they start moving. 

And then, perhaps, we could lift it in, you know, sequence. For example, once the $20 million is in, maybe 2,000 vehicles. Once the 

$80 million ramp is in, then completely lift it. I think that would 

probably be the most rational way to deal with it. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Very good. 

And in the language, and you will have to refresh my memory, 

the language from last year, were there conditions in there to allow 

some mitigation in case the 1,000 space limitation still creates 

problems? In other words, I want to make sure there is flexibility 

there where if the 1,000 creates a problem that they are forced to 

be able to take up that issue, so it doesn’t get kicked down the 

road? 

Mr. MORAN. Yes, there wasn’t, Mr. Wittman. You know, I think 

we are going to have to accommodate at least 1,000 people using 

that building. We can’t leave it completely empty. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. 

Mr. MORAN. And no matter how effectively they might figure out 

a way to get people to drive, for example, to the Pentagon, take 

buses back and so on, we are still going to have at least another 

1,000 vehicles coming into that one site. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions? 

Well, thank you again—— 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. For bringing this to our attention. 

And we will continue to look at it as we go through the writing of 

the bill. 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VERMONT 

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And members 

of the committee, thank you. 

I am here to talk about something to provide for the well-being 

and welfare of returning troops. And I do that with great humility, 

because there are no Members of Congress more than the members 

of this committee who are acutely sensitive to the needs of our men 

and women in uniform. 

What I am here to talk about is something that is based on 

Vermont experience. And I have worked closely with our adjutant 

general with the Vermont National Guard, so I feel I have some 

qualifications, even though I don’t have your long history, Mr. 

Chairman, and the intimate involvement that the members of your 

committee have. 

We have 1,500 Guard members just back from Afghanistan, and, 

as you know, they face very significant challenges. And one of the 

things that our adjutant general, I think, acutely appreciated was 

that those soldiers who are in the battlespace have unit cohesion. 
22 

They have each other to rely on. And it just binds them together, 

and they get through whatever adversity it is that they face. 

And what he has found is that in many cases it is tougher for 

them when they come back home than it was than when they were 

there, because suddenly they are isolated. And of course, Vermont 

is a very rural state. 

Mr. Gibson, you know, we share a border. 

But those soldiers get home and instead of having that unit cohesion and that clarity of mission and that real sense of purpose, 

things that motivated them to go into the service in the first place, 

they are really on their own. 

And they come back to a changed situation. Their family situation may have changed a bit. The family has had to make adjustments to be alone without the breadwinner. And it has led to real 

difficulty—mental health issues, PTSD [post traumatic stress disorder], physical health issues. 

And what our adjutant general has found is that many of our soldiers—all of our soldiers, really—they are very proud people. So admitting you have, say, a mental health problem, taking that step 

to get help to act on it, that is really hard for them to do. And it 

is not like they are with their buddies anymore where they can 

talk about it and say, ‘‘Hey, Peter or Jim, you know, let us walk 

down and get a little help here.’’ 

So the program that has been incredibly helpful is this outreach 

program, where oftentimes veterans, folks who have credibility, go 

to the home of the soldier and check in and make it easy for them. 

We have got cases where it has resulted in a person who is suicidal 

getting help he needed and getting into long-term therapy. 

It helped somebody who was not dealing with their financial situation avoid an eviction, because they sat down and got the help 

that they needed. It obviously has helped in many cases just dealing with the stress in the marriage. 

So it is a modest amount of money, considering everything that 

is involved. But the help that is offered is at that point when they 

really need it and when they are really on their own. And it tends 

to be offered by another veteran, who has that credibility to speak 

to a proud soldier back from the battlespace, to help them make 

a good decision. 

And this program has helped hundreds of Vermonters. And 

again, I say this because I have talked with some of the folks who 

are doing the casework. You know, I have talked to our adjutant 

general, Michael Dubie. And he is just so strongly supportive and 

committed to this program as something that is helping our folks 

make that readjustment back home that is in many cases—I don’t 

know if this sounds odd; I don’t think it is does—harder for our soldiers to deal with on a personal level than dealing with the stress 

of being in the battlespace. 

Now, we have got a lot of help on this. We have been circulating 

a letter. Some of the committee members here have signed it. But 

essentially what we are looking to do is get funding for this program that is working in Vermont and some other states. Several 

other states have done this. And some of the Members here who 

have joined me in this effort are Frank LoBiondo, John Runyan, 

who was just here, Mike McIntyre, Larry Kissell. 
23 

The National Guard Bureau tells us the cost of expanding the 

outreach program around the country in 54 states and territories 

would be about $72 million. So the question—I mean, tough budget 

times, you all are dealing with that, I know—but I can just say as 

the Congressman from Vermont, where we have bipartisan support 

for our men and women in uniform, the unanimous verdict, based 

on our experience with this program, is that it is really, really 

making a difference for our men and women coming back from the 

battlespace. 

So it is easy for me to sit here and ask you to do something. I 

suspect this is something that if there was any way budget-wise 

you could get from here to there you would want to do, because it 

is totally bipartisan. But it has made a difference in Vermont in 

saving lives, in the mental health. And it is practical and on the 

ground and driven by our veterans. 

So I really appreciate you allowing me to come here and make 

this case on behalf of this outreach program. And anything you can 

do, I think the Nation would be grateful. 

Thank you. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate you bringing 

that up. And the comment about doing it in a bipartisan nature, 

that is a very strong culture in our committee. 

Mr. WELCH. I know that. 

The CHAIRMAN. We think about the troops, not so much about 

Republican and Democrat. 

Mr. WELCH. You know, we need more of that in this Congress, 

Mr. Chairman. You may have to lead the way. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Mr. Welch, I agree with you. I think it is very important and 

I have heard many, many stories out of California and other places 

of how that particular—in many cases it is a veteran mentor, really, that steps in to be a guide. A lot of it has to do with preparing 

someone for either the job they had before, which has changed and 

they have changed, so that there is—— 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

Mrs. DAVIS [continuing]. Some difficulty there, but also, for the 

opportunities that may be out there that, you know, are a little difficult I think to see when you come back from a battlespace. 

My question is really about the role of the state and whether 

Vermont participates in that—the National Guard, so of course 

there is an interest there—and whether or not, as we look at this 

funding, there should a state match? Or how realistic that is in 

Vermont? And where do you think that offer is? 

Mr. WELCH. Well, you know, I think that is pretty reasonable. 

And I suspect, you know, Vermont has a tough budget situation, 

but I know from experience the state has stepped up and provided 

assistance, emergency funding that is available to the adjutant 

general to deal with some of the emergencies like fuel assistance. 

You know, families are left behind, the husband or the wife is 
24 

away. They have got one breadwinner instead of—well, it is tougher financially. They are just juggling a lot. 

And the Vermont legislature has actually appropriated funds 

that were made available for the discretionary use by the adjutant 

general to help in emergencies. So I think there would be some 

support. I think it is a reasonable request. You know, this is the 

Guard. There is some significant state commitment. We are limited, but I would accept as reasonable your suggestion. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Looking at some kind of a match perhaps? 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to associate myself with the remarks from my colleague 

right now. 

Mr. WELCH. Well, you know more than I do about this. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, I just want to say that your approach is spot 

on, based on my experience, that, you know, really it is without 

each other there is a sense of isolation—— 

Mr. WELCH. Yes. 

Mr. GIBSON [continuing]. That really overwhelms an individual, 

who is trying to come to terms with, in some cases, unspeakable 

acts that have occurred in theatre. And so, you know, right now in 

our district we have vets helping vets in a volunteer way. But I am 

very interested in seeing perhaps what more could be done by pulling across the state and Federal effort. 

Maybe as you point out, I don’t think it would need to be a lot 

of money, but maybe an administrator to help with this in terms 

of logging in phone calls and making sure no one falls through the 

cracks. So I would like to be on this effort—— 

Mr. WELCH. Oh, great. 

Mr. GIBSON [continuing]. And just ask that we can have our 

staffs coordinate. 

But I just want to say that the approach of a community, the 

community of those who served, those who are interested in helping those who have served, really, there is no way to quantify that. 

And it helps get through the very toughest of times and build a 

foundation of emotional support that then can propel one for full 

reintegration. So thank you very much. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Gibson. And I look forward to working with you very much. 

Mr. GIBSON. God bless you. Thanks. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bartlett. 

Mr. BARTLETT. We are already noticing disturbing trends among 

our returning warfighters. Suicides are up. Homelessness is up. 

Thank you very much for reminding us that we need to have renewed attention to this. We owe an awful lot to them. We need to 

make sure they aren’t falling through the cracks. Thank you. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mrs. Davis. 
25 

Mrs. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, if I may, just very briefly, because I 

think that the First Lady and Dr. Biden have undertaken an extraordinary effort to reach out to communities in addition to interagency cooperation, if you will, to say something very special, I 

think, to our military families, that they are valued and that they 

are not going to be forgotten and in fact there is going to be a large 

effort to respond to them as well. 

And so I just wanted to mention that, because I think we are 

going to see some differences in terms of the way communities are 

going to be responding. And I think Vermont would certainly benefit from that, but it is also very important for all of us to in our 

own way, I think, as Members of Congress, to seek out on our Web 

sites—there will be newer Web sites coming up—that we can all 

make certain that our constituents are very aware of those activities. So that would fit into your concerns as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WELCH. Right. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Also, I had a meeting, last week I believe it was, 

with Mrs. Petraeus. And she has taken on an assignment, a new 

organization that she will be working outreach to help military 

families, military personnel. She might be another one that you 

might talk to. 

There are lots of people that really want to—— 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. To help—so much different than 

during the Vietnam war time. It is amazing how well, whether people support the war effort or not—— 

Mr. WELCH. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. How well they have supported the 

troops. 

Mr. WELCH. Yes, and actually, I think your committee with its 

bipartisan approach on that, Mr. Chairman, is making a big contribution. And we really do, obviously, need to sustain that. And if 

your example could spread throughout Congress, I think we would 

be the better off for it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

We will now recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE POMPEO, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM KANSAS 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity to testify here this morning. My request is a bit different, 

but nonetheless, I think, very important. 

Father Emil Kapaun from Wichita, Kansas, was a brave and 

honorable soldier, a cavalryman like me, and I ask that into H.R. 

437 there be language inserted to permit a waiver of the time limit 

for the granting to Father Emil Kapaun of the Congressional 

Medal of Honor. 

In 1940 Father Kapaun was ordained in Wichita, Kansas. He 

served in World War II and then was discharged. And in September of 1948, he decided he wanted to go back and serve again, 

and he served amazingly during the Korean war. 
26 

Shortly after the invasion in 1950, he entered the cavalry and 

followed his regiment into battle at the Battle of Unsan on November 1st and 2nd. And according to the report, as the day wore on 

it became apparent that the battalion’s position was hopeless. 

Though the able-bodied men were ordered to escape, Chaplain 

Kapaun elected to stay behind with the wounded in the finest tradition of military leadership. 

As he cared for his men, he noticed a wounded Chinese among 

the group. And as the Chinese infantry approached the American 

position, Chaplain Kapaun convinced the officer to negotiate a safe 

surrender for American forces. Many Americans were taken prisoner that day, and the prisoners, all of them American, were weak 

from extreme exertion and malnutrition. 

They were forced to march from camp to camp. Nonetheless, 

Chaplain Kapaun continued to lead by example, constantly encouraging his men and refusing to take a break from carrying stretchers for the wounded. He risked his life by sneaking out after dark 

in order to forage for food and rations for his men. He was recaptured each time. 

As winter set in, it got worse. Father Kapaun ultimately was 

transferred to a filthy, unheated hospital, where he died alone. He 

repeatedly risked his own life to save what were hundreds of Americans. His extraordinary courage and leadership inspired thousands 

and continues to do so in south central Kansas and across America 

today. 

As a result of his efforts, he was awarded posthumously the Distinguished Service Cross on August 18, 1951; and in 1993 he was 

named a ‘‘Servant of God’’ by the Catholic Church, which is the 

first step towards Father Kapaun’s canonization. We in Kansas admire Father Kapaun a great deal. I think America ought to honor 

him, too. 

As the committee knows, the Medal of Honor recommendation 

must be submitted within 2 years. We are after that timeline. That 

is the reason for my request that we insert language into the 

NDAA which would permit a waiver. I would ask that there would 

be entered into the record a letter from the Under Secretary of Defense, Mr. Stanley, who has agreed that this would be appropriate. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 73.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be with your testimony. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This would be a great outcome for America, for Father Kapaun, 

for the United States Army to honor Father Kapaun in this way. 

And I would ask for your support to have this language inserted, 

as it has been previously, in the NDAA. Thank you very much for 

your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pompeo can be found in the Appendix on page 71.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that to our 

attention. And we will continue to look at that as we move forward 

on the bill. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
27 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And now we will recognize the gentleman from Illinois for 5 minutes, Mr. Kinzinger. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM KINZINGER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM ILLINOIS 

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

committee, for the opportunity to come out and express our concerns or thoughts on various aspects. 

I have just a couple of quick issues I want to bring to the committee’s attention. I am an Air Force pilot. I do it currently as a 

reservist in the Air National Guard. I fly the RC–26. That is something I am going to talk about in a second. 

But one of the things I have noticed is, I guess, something that 

has been great for a number of years is the Air Force flight suit 

and the functionality of it. I heard recently, actually in November 

of 2010, that the Air Force issued a contract for $100 million for 

the flight suit redesign. 

I know it was asked not that long ago of the Chief of Staff of the 

Air Force if that was still at play. The Chief of Staff stated that 

in fact the Air Force is not going to be in the business of redesigning the flight suit. Indications we have gotten, however, is that 

that is continuing on path, so that is something I want to bring to 

the attention. 

I think it is important to know that this is not a flight suit specifically for the new F–35 in the requirements, but instead it really 

seeks to integrate various aspects of what is already functional— 

flight suit, the anti-G suit, which is already good for up to over 

nine Gs for a pilot in that environment. 

And while the goal of increased comfort and integrated protection 

for the pilot is laudable, I don’t believe that this is urgently needed 

by the Air Force, particularly in this current budget environment. 

Two improvements over the current system mentioned—the antiimprovement—or the increase in the G-suit capabilities, and they 

also say, a long-term cost savings in the integrated model. I believe 

that if there is an increased need, a new G-suit in and of itself may 

be something worthy of this committee to look at for redesign. 

But I always find it kind of hard to buy into the argument that 

a redesign of a $100 million of a flight suit worn by a few 10,000 

people or so is actually a cost savings measure in the long run. So 

that is something I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee. 

The other thing I want to talk about is the aircraft I fly. It is 

the RC–26. The RC–26 is a relatively inexpensive piece of equipment for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The inexpensive nature of it is a great thing for our country. It is a bad 

thing for the RC–26 in that it stays very, very low on people’s 

radar. It is inexpensive. 

It originally started out as a counter-drug mission, and that is 

what it was solely used for. But within the last few years, it has 

been plucked from that mission and integrated into our operations 

in Southwest Asia, to great avail. It has actually been very successful. The customers of this aircraft say nothing but very great things 

about it. 
28 

In the process of that and it becoming useful, one of the bad 

parts of that is one of the most deployed assets currently in the 

United States Air Force and in the Air National Guard with pilots 

and equipment being deployed at a record and rapid pace. 

And we are also sitting right now on potentially another deployment to another part of the world, which I can’t necessarily elaborate on here, but it would add even more stress. And the folks of 

the RC–26 are very happy to do it. 

One of the concerns, however, is since it is low on the totem pole 

as far as funding goes—as far as being on the radar, I guess, is a 

better way to put it—you have people not only being outstretched, 

there is no real steady stream of funding for the RC–26. 

It was originally part of counter-drug, so that counter-drug funding is an issue as we go forward. And then as it is chopped over 

to missions in Southwest Asia, it is kind of a piecemeal together 

string of funding. As a result we have seen a lot of people every 

day, in essence, being threatened of having their long-term orders 

taken away. There has been a threat of the funding stream. 

And I think this is a very important mission not just for what 

we are doing in Southwest Asia, but stateside it provides a continued counter-drug force, which I think is important. But most importantly, this is important for its ability at homeland defense, the 

intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance side of this in homeland 

defense, responding to whether it is a terrorist incident. 

In my unit nearby is Milwaukee and Chicago, also St. Louis. So 

it can be overhead with real-time surveillance at a terrorist incident. It also provided very strong surveillance and reconnaissance 

for Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Ike. I was personally involved in a mission when Hurricane Ike hit Louisiana and hit the 

coast, providing real-time battle damage assessment and search 

and rescue operations. 

So I think this is a very good program for our country. I would 

just ask the committee to look at solidifying the stream of funding, 

solidifying where it gets its money from so that we are not constantly in kind of a swap back and forth. And again, the fact that 

it is so inexpensive is kind of its big enemy, because it stays low 

on the radar. So I would just ask of the committee to continue to 

look into that. 

And finally, just quickly, I would ask the committee to continue 

to look at the Air Force’s plan for rolling out the F–35, which I am 

very supportive of the aircraft and the mission it will provide. We 

have seen recently in some of the rollout plans, I think, the Air National Guard being kind of not utilized to the extent it should be 

in the rollout of the F–35 mission. 

So I won’t elaborate too much into that, except to say that is 

something that I would ask also to stay on your radar. 

So with that I will see if you have any questions or yield back. 

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

Appendix on page 74.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Questions? Thank you for bringing that to our 

attention. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have taken notes and we will look into that 

as we move forward. Thank you very much. 
29 

We now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes, Representative Carter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM TEXAS 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate you allowing me to testify here today. I am before you today to respectfully request that the House Armed Services Committee again consider incorporating the Fort Hood Victims 

and Families Benefit Protection Act into this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 

That presently references H.R. 625. This was in the last version 

of the NDAA, but unfortunately the language was removed, along 

with some other very worthy language, in a last-ditch effort to get 

it passed. I will remind you of something I am sure you already 

know, that Fort Hood has deployed more troops into the overseas 

theater of combat since 9/11 than any other U.S. military installation. 

They have also suffered the most combat casualties in Operation 

Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The terrorist attack that rocked Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, resulted in the 

deaths of 13 service members and one DOD civilian employee, as 

well as 32 wounded. 

Recently the incident was correctly labeled the deadliest terrorist 

attack within the United States since September 11, 2001, by the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

The language of the Fort Hood Victims and Families Benefit Protection Act would deem the Fort Hood attack for the purposes of 

all applicable laws, regulations and policies to have occurred in a 

combat zone during a contingency operation and at the hands of a 

terrorist or enemy of the United States. 

In so doing, this legislation would afford the victims of the Fort 

Hood attack, which include both troops and civilians, the very same 

benefits as service members wounded or killed in combat zones, or 

as applicable DOD civilians wounded or killed in contingency operations or terrorist attacks. 

One impact of these provisions does not require, but makes eligible—and I want to emphasize does not require but makes eligible— 

for the Purple Heart and comparable civilian awards those service 

members and DOD civilians wounded or killed in the Fort Hood attack, to be awarded at the discretion of the Secretary in accordance 

with the Executive orders. 

This doesn’t change the existing Purple Heart in any way. As it 

stands, those killed or wounded in the Fort Hood attack by a homegrown, Islamic extremist will not necessarily receive the same benefits as their deployed counterparts who are wounded or killed 

merely because this attack took place on United States soil rather 

than in a declared combat zone such as Iraq or Afghanistan. 

And let me tell you that in talking with people who were in the 

room, and I have talked to numerous people who were in the room, 

the perpetrator in this instance sought out green suits. He sought 

out soldiers to shoot. Almost everyone acknowledges that with the 

possible exception of the man who was killed, which he may have 
30 

had some alternative reason for shooting that person, but other 

than that, he was seeking out soldiers to kill in this situation at 

Fort Hood. 

So I would argue that he viewed this as a combat mission on his 

behalf to attack those who were unarmed, but in uniform and then 

were being processed onto one of the theaters that we are fighting 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I think there is a solid argument to 

be made that the intent of the perpetrator was to be involved in 

killing soldiers on behalf of the effort of those we are in combat 

with in the combat zones. 

And therefore, I think it would be appropriate, especially in light 

of the fact that we provided these benefits to the victims of the 

9/11 attack at the Pentagon, that a precedent is set there for instances like this. 

And quite honestly for one individual, he did some pretty major 

damage to not only the lives and the bodies of individual soldiers, 

but he also did major damage to the morale of the United States 

Army, because I can tell you of an instance at the hospital when 

I was there, where one of the nurses took me aside and said she 

had trained with Australian nurses who she was working with in 

Iraq, and they had called her and said it was having an effect on 

Australian troops that someone could be killed in a place where 

they are supposed to be safe as part of an attack from the people 

they are fighting. 

So, I would hope that you would consider to place this in the 

NDAA this year so that we can get these benefits for these soldiers 

and these civilians, which I think clearly was injury or death in 

what I would argue is an extension of the combat zones. 

And I yield. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carter can be found in the Appendix on page 76.] 

Mr. BARTLETT. Some will argue this would set a precedent. I 

think that would be a very appropriate precedent to set, thank you. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you, Mr. Bartlett. 

The CHAIRMAN. It sounds like the precedent is already set. 

Thank you very much, Judge. We will look at that as we move forward on writing the bill. 

Mr. CARTER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We now recognize the gentleman from Arkansas for 5 minutes, 

Mr. Crawford. 

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

REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning and 

thank you, Members. I appreciate the honor of addressing you this 

morning. 

And I thank you for all that you do to preserve the security of 

our great Nation and for allowing me the opportunity to testify regarding recommended explosive ordnance disposal [EOD] priorities 

for fiscal year 2012, National Defense Authorization Act. 

As none of the services have a three-star EOD flag officer with 

the legislative affairs staff, it is my honor to represent the interests 

of this critical component of our fighting force in their stead. I my-
31 

self served in the Army as an EOD tech, and so it is a great honor 

for me to represent these individuals. 

Explosive ordnance disposal or EOD soldiers are the military’s 

preeminent team of explosives experts, warriors who are properly 

trained, equipped and integrated to attack and defeat explosive and 

associated insurgent networks across all operational environments. 

The military’s EOD mission is to defeat global improvised explosive device, or IED, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, 

CBRN, and high-yield explosives and WMD, weapons of mass destruction, threats. 

The EOD warrior protects our military and innocent civilians 

from explosive threats and supports maneuver forces by providing 

relevant and ready explosive experts in full-spectrum military operations, joint and interagency operations, and supports civil authorities in support of national security objectives. 

These EOD technicians do this task at great personal peril. 

Quoting from Army regulations, ‘‘There are no safe procedures for 

rendering safe and disposing of unexploded ordnance, IEDs, devices 

or other explosives—merely a procedure that is considered the least 

dangerous.’’ That comes from Army regulation 7515 policy for explosive ordnance disposal. 

EOD forces have proven to be game changers in attacking and 

dismantling terrorist cells and associated networks. EOD forces 

will continue to be indispensable key enablers of our combatant 

commanders for the foreseeable future to include during overseas 

contingency operations, counter-insurgency, stability and counterterrorism operations, building the capacity of partner nations and 

routinely conducting homeland defense EOD missions in support of 

civil authorities. 

The EOD warrior is the culmination of the best tactical and technical training in the Army and civilian academia can provide. He 

and, yes, she, are trained from the first day to manage risk in all 

operations. 

The EOD professional performs the duties of locating, positively 

identifying, rendering safe, exploiting together technical intelligence from first seen ordnance and IEDs, and disposing of both 

foreign and domestic conventional, chemical, biological and nuclear 

ordnance commonly referred to as weapons of mass destruction, or 

WMD. 

This includes IEDs, whether detonated by a victim, initiated by 

an insurgent remotely, transported by large vehicles, or worn by a 

homicide bomber. 

They routinely work in the shadows during very important personal protection support activity missions in support of the Department of Homeland Security’s Secret Service and Department of 

State Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and without fanfare render 

support to the Department of Justice’s Federal Bureau of Investigation and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. 

It is vital that we continue to preserve the rebalanced EOD force 

structure and maintain our EOD technical chain of command and 

control structure and full-spectrum capabilities to ensure success in 

a wide range of contingencies as directed by the 2010 Quadrennial 

Defense Review and specifically emphasized in Homeland Security 
32 

Presidential Directive 19 entitled, ‘‘Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United States and Its Implementation Plan.’’ 

EOD mission competencies and capacities led by EOD qualified 

commanders at the group and battalion levels of command will be 

essential for defeating these enduring explosive ordnance and other 

asymmetric threats and future irregular warfare challenges. 

I can’t help but wonder how many of the 4,662 killed in action 

and over 42,000 wounded in action military personnel from Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom could have been prevented, had 

we pushed to revitalize Army EOD force capabilities and capacities 

earlier to counter the enemy’s use of IED weapon systems. 

Today I am proud to wear the distinctive unit insignias of the 

Army’s 52nd, 71st and 111th Ordnance Groups EOD in recognition 

of their extraordinary service and contribution for preserving the 

security of our great Nation. 

Colonel Thomas Langowski’s 52nd EOD Group home stationed at 

Fort Campbell, Kentucky, is currently deployed in Afghanistan as 

the counter-IED Coalition Joint Task Force–Paladin. Colonel Jose 

Atencio’s 111th EOD Group recently returned home to Opelika, 

Alabama, from duty as the counter-IED Coalition Joint Task 

Force–Troy in Iraq. And Colonel Leo Bradley’s 71st EOD Group is 

resetting at Fort Carson, Colorado, from a recent duty as CJTF– 

Troy and is training his soldiers for redeployment to Afghanistan 

for duty as CJTF–Paladin. 

My concern is how the Army’s EOD force accomplishes its deployment demand—seven EOD groups’ worth of workload through 

train, deploy and reset for Afghanistan, three groups train, deploy, 

and reset for Iraq, and other contingencies’ three groups and provide command control of enduring EOD support to civil authorities 

and mobilization for deployment 2 years out of 5-year cycles for the 

National Guard EOD group, and accomplishing all the tasks with 

only three Army groups available in the force structure. 

I believe the answer is by professionally teaming the three Army 

EOD groups with the Navy’s premier maritime and underwater explosive experts under the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command 

led by Rear Admiral Michael Tillotson. His forces augment these 

land-based counter-IED taskings. 

Specifically, EOD Group 1, led by Commodore Ed Eidson, based 

in Coronado, California, is currently conducting operations as 

CJTF–Troy in Iraq and EOD Group 2, led by Commodore Dale 

Fleck, stationed at Little Creek Amphibious Base, Virginia, is preparing for deployment. 

With the Marines and Air Force EOD companies and flights supporting the Army company level, the Joint Service EOD Force has 

answered the Nation’s call for defeating IEDs and associated insurgent networks, all while combining forces to conduct joint interagency, intergovernmental, and multinational operations. 

I highly recommend attending the global EOD conference and exhibition on the 3rd through 5th of May this year in Representative 

Jeff Miller’s district in Florida to learn more about how EOD forces 

achieve success during these complex operations. And I have enclosed industries’ proposed strategy map on EOD priorities, as it is 

quite illuminating. 
33 

And, finally, we must continue to support these tremendous EOD 

warfighters in all services, but with particular emphasis on the 

Army as they primarily align to support sustained, land-based operations by shifting their funding of overseas contingency operations supplementals back into each of the services’ respective 

baseline budgets on EOD program elements for research, development, tests and evaluation, operations and maintenance, and procurement. 

This funding amount totaled roughly just over $403 million in 

fiscal year 2010. However, this total does not reflect additional 

funding provided by the Joint IED Defeat Organization for specific 

in-theater EOD equipment, funding for training EOD forces, nor 

funding for transition and transfer from Joint IED Defeat Organization to the services of this EOD equipment and training. 

Additionally, the funding for Navy single-service management of 

common type EOD training and technology and the Office of Secretary of Defense’s EOD/Low-Intensity Conflict program have remained virtually flatlined for over 10 years, despite the increase of 

emerging threats, for which the EOD community is uniquely and 

singularly qualified to confront. 

We must collectively do more to ensure adequate funding of these 

critical EOD program elements now and make investments in EOD 

force structure readiness for securing the future. 

I respectfully request inclusion of the enclosed proposed legislative language, an item of special interest for the fiscal year 2012 

NDAA, a report on budget justification, display of key enabler explosive ordnance disposal force structure and budget requirements. 

I remain available to the committee for further assistance on 

EOD matters. And I thank you for your consideration and for your 

service to the Nation. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your efforts 

on this. This is one of the big concerns that I have with IEDs and 

what a tremendous impact they have had on us in both Iraq and 

Afghanistan. So this is something we will look at as we move forward on the bill and appreciate you working with us on this. 

Mr. CRAWFORD. Yes, sir. Glad to be of help. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

That concludes our witnesses that have signed up to participate 

today, so this hearing will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

APRIL 14, 2011 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 14, 2011 

(39) 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

APRIL 14, 2011 

(89) 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 

Æ