    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                             [H.A.S.C. No. 116-25]

                                    HEARING

                                       ON

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020

                                      AND

                  OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                       ON

                                   MEMBER DAY

                                   __________

                                  HEARING HELD

                                 APRIL 3, 2019

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-899                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                         One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                        ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman

    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California           WILLIAM M. ``MAC'' THORNBERRY,
    JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island          Texas
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                ROB BISHOP, Utah
    JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
    JACKIE SPEIER, California            K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
    TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii                DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
    RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
    SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        MO BROOKS, Alabama
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, Vice     PAUL COOK, California
        Chair                            BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
    RO KHANNA, California                SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
    FILEMON VELA, Texas                  SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
    ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
    KENDRA S. HORN, Oklahoma             TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
    GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, Jr.,           MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
        California                       MATT GAETZ, Florida
    CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       DON BACON, Nebraska
    JASON CROW, Colorado                 JIM BANKS, Indiana
    XOCHITL TORRES SMALL, New Mexico     LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
    ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
    KATIE HILL, California               MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
    DEBRA A. HAALAND, New Mexico
    JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
    LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
    ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia

                         Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
                    Sapna Sharma, Professional Staff Member
                              Justin Lynch, Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Case, Hon. Ed, a Representative from Hawaii......................     1
    Cunningham, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina.......     4
    Green, Hon. Mark E., a Representative from Tennessee.............     3
    Kilmer, Hon. Derek, a Representative from Washington.............     5
    Rose, Hon. Max, a Representative from New York...................    10
    San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F.Q., a Delegate from Guam.............    11
    Takano, Hon. Mark, a Representative from California..............     6
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative from Pennsylvania.........     8

                                    APPENDIX

    Prepared Statements:

        Case, Hon. Ed................................................    19
        Cunningham, Hon. Joe.........................................    24
        Green, Hon. Mark E...........................................    22
        Kilmer, Hon. Derek...........................................    26
        Rose, Hon. Max...............................................    35
        San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F.Q................................    37
        Takano, Hon. Mark............................................    29
        Thompson, Hon. Glenn.........................................    33

    Documents Submitted for the Record:

        Brownley, Hon. Julia, a Representative from California.......    41
        Castor, Hon. Kathy,, a Representative from Florida...........    43
        Cicilline, Hon. David N., a Representative from Rhode Island.    45
        Cuellar, Hon. Henry, a Representative from Texas.............    47
        Himes, Hon. James A., a Representative from Connecticut......    48
        Jayapal, Hon. Pramila, a Representative from Washington......    49
        Kinzinger, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Illinois.........    51
        Lesko, Hon. Debbie, a Representative from Arizona............    57
        Lieu, Hon. Ted, a Representative from California.............    58
        Lipinski, Hon. Daniel, a Representative from Illinois........    61
        Maloney, Hon. Sean Patrick, a Representative from New York...    62
        McEachin, Hon. A. Donald, a Representative from Virginia.....    65
        McKinley, Hon. David B., a Representative from West Virginia.    67
        Moore, Hon. Gwen, a Representative from Wisconsin............    71
        Olson, Hon. Pete, a Representative from Texas................    67
        Rodgers, Hon. Cathy McMorris, a Representative from
          Washington.................................................    67
        Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative from
          Maryland...................................................    74
        Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative from Oregon............    76
        Velazquez, Hon. Nydia M., a Representative from New York.....    77
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative from Alaska................    83

    Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

    Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

        [There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]

    .
                                   MEMBER DAY

                                  ----------

                              House of Representatives,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                              Washington, DC, Wednesday, April 3, 2019.
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in room
    2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
    of the committee) presiding.
        Chairman Smith. Good morning. We will come to order.
        To begin with, I have to ask for unanimous consent that all
    Members' written statements will be made part of the record.
    The committee has received 10 statements for the record in
    addition to our colleagues who are here in person. Without,
    objection so ordered.
        So, welcome to this Members' Day. We will hear from other
    Members of the caucus on what their priorities are. You each
    will have 4 minutes and we will ask questions. I think it is
    okay. We will just have them all go and then ask questions at
    the end.
        And we will go left to right, and start with Mr. Case.

        STATEMENT OF HON. ED CASE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII

        Mr. Case. Chair Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you very much for
    the opportunity to testify today on this year's National
    Defense Authorization Act [NDAA]. And I do so representing
    Hawaii, a proud partner in the Indo-Pacific.
        And to put this in perspective, if you get on a plane today
    and fly to Hawaii, that is 5,000 miles; if you get on a plane
    then and fly from Hawaii to Beijing, that is another 5,000
    miles. So that would give you a sense of not only the distances
    that we are talking about in the Indo-Pacific, but the
    placement of Hawaii. So in Hawaii we live and breathe the
    Pacific, always have and always will.
        The National Security Strategy and National Defense
    Strategy affirmed the reemergence of long-term strategic
    competition with other great powers as a central challenge to
    our national security.
        I think most of us can now agree that no country poses as
    significant or long-term challenge and threat to us as does
    China. Thus the NDAA as our annual blueprint for the Department
    of Defense and our military should reflect the strategic
    interest that the U.S. has in the Indo-Pacific region generally
    and China specifically.
        Our goal as summarized by this administration's free and
    open Indo-Pacific strategy with which I generally agree is to
    peacefully address China's rise and bring it into the existing
    regional architecture of free and open navigation,
    interconnected trade and development, security cooperation and
    international institutions.
        The purpose of a strong military posture in the Indo-
    Pacific is not to seek conflict or escalate competition with
    China, but to raise the costs and international consequences of
    Chinese aggression and reassure allies and partners of our
    engagement in this critical region.
        The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, INDOPACOM, headquartered in
    Hawaii is charged with addressing our military challenges in
    the Indo-Pacific. It is the largest combatant command in terms
    of areas of responsibility and assets, stretching from the west
    coast of the United States mainland to the west coast of India.
    But it requires additional resources.
        Reports of forces in the region being overworked from high
    demand and struggling with readiness from deferred maintenance
    are simply unacceptable.
        This year's NDAA should continue a long-term strategy for
    INDOPACOM to reach its goals in deployed forces and readiness
    especially in air and naval assets. We need to continue
    supporting improvements in doctrine, assets, and technology to
    counter China's aggressive military and soft power buildup. I
    urge the committee to continue investing in research and
    development of these technologies to address these risks.
        Hawaii is of particular importance to our Indo-Pacific
    strategy. Hawaii offers an indispensable forward position in
    the Pacific, is home to INDOPACOM headquarters and commands for
    every service, and maintains a large military presence. We need
    increased investment in our military construction needs there,
    including the Hawaii Infrastructure Readiness Initiative, our
    shipyard and training ranges to improve our readiness in the
    Indo-Pacific.
        Even with increased investment in improving our military
    posture in the Indo-Pacific, the U.S. cannot do it alone in the
    region. Peacefully integrating China into the existing rules-
    based regional order requires the active cooperation of partner
    countries, the vast geographic space that needs to be covered
    in the Indo-Pacific demands reliance on our allies there.
        We need to reassure our traditional treaty allies such as
    Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand
    while building relationships with partners and potential
    partners like India and Vietnam.
        I also want to ask that this committee pays special
    attention to the Pacific Island countries such as Vanuatu, the
    Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau to name only a few.
    They are critical to our overall posture in the Pacific and
    simply need much more attention from both a military and a
    State Department foreign aid perspective for our overall
    strategy.
        In conclusion, I urge this committee to ensure this year's
    NDAA reflects the strategic importance of Hawaii and the entire
    Indo-Pacific. We must enhance our military posture there and
    continue building alliances and partnerships in the region.
        Thank you for your consideration and hard work in advancing
    our country's national security.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Case can be found in the
    Appendix on page 19.]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Green.

        STATEMENT OF HON. MARK E. GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               TENNESSEE

        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Smith and Ranking Member
    Thornberry, members of the committee. Thanks for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        Over several years prior to the current administration, the
    combination of sequestration and other cuts to DOD [Department
    of Defense] coupled with the ongoing fight against terrorism
    forced the military to prioritize readiness over some facility
    maintenance.
        I am here to provide an innovative solution that will work
    to keep both sides of the aisle happy, deliver increased
    efficiency in the use of defense dollars, and ultimately
    strengthen our military's capability for success in combat and
    greater deterrence during peace.
        Clearly we need to make numerous repairs to installation
    facilities, and I am very glad that this committee has shown
    the commitment to improvement by increasing defense spending
    over the past few years. That brings me to my concern with
    Davis-Bacon laws hampering DOD's spending effectiveness.
        Davis-Bacon requires a Federal construction contract to pay
    at least the prevailing wage that construction workers in the
    area are earning on private contracts. Davis-Bacon requires on
    military construction and maintenance costs causes those
    contracts to pay an additional 20 percent higher wages than
    market rates according to Bacon-Hill study group.
        These costs take dollars from other projects and limit the
    effective use of military construction dollars. In the near
    future, I will bring forward an amendment to allow a temporary
    exemption, temporary exemption, from Davis-Bacon for those
    military construction projects in States where there is no
    living wage requirement. In those States which require a living
    wage, Davis-Bacon would not be waived.
        We don't have time to spare. The Marine Corps' Camp Lejeune
    is still broken as you know. Tyndall Air Force Base is
    struggling of course from Hurricane Michael still. And we need
    to build more capabilities for new projects as our military
    evolves to face a changing, expanding, and competitive
    environment.
        Soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines rely on home station
    facilities to refit for more and to retrain for future fights.
    We must house, refit, train our troops in a way that makes
    their competiveness unquestionable.
        When I went to combat, Mr. Chairman, 15 years ago, it
    wasn't a fair fight. No American son or daughter should ever go
    to combat and it be a fair fight. We need to make every dollar
    spent on defense and specifically these construction projects
    as efficient as possible. That is why I am proposing that in
    those States where there is no living wage requirement, we
    waive Davis-Bacon for a temporary period of time to allow for
    the most efficient use of those construction dollars.
        Thank you, and I yield back my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Green can be found in the
    Appendix on page 22.]

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOE CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH
                                CAROLINA

        Mr. Cunningham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Thornberry, and distinguished members of the committee. I also
    want to thank the committee's professional staff who keep
    everything moving behind the scenes and are the reason this
    bill has passed every year for nearly 60 years running.
        Our district is home to over 10,000 Active Duty service
    members who serve aboard Marine Corps Air Station [MCAS]
    Beaufort, Parris Island, Beaufort Naval Hospital, and Joint
    Base Charleston.
        I am here today to advocate for these installations not
    only because they are critical to our national security, but
    also because they are an indispensable part of our economy in
    the Lowcountry. In the Beaufort area alone it is estimated that
    these installations have an economic impact of over $2 billion
    annually and support nearly 20,000 jobs.
        MCAS Beaufort houses several of the Marine Corps F-18
    squadrons, and it is the only place in the world where pilots
    are trained to fly F-35Bs.
        As our adversaries continue to advance their own next-
    generation fighters and missile systems, it is imperative we
    expedite production of this aircraft and maintain our dominance
    in the skies. This is why I urge the committee's continued
    support for the F-35 program in this year's NDAA.
        On Parris Island, Marine Corps drill instructors work
    brutal hours every day of the year to transform young men and
    women into United States Marines. As one of two training depots
    that make Marines and the only depot that trains women, Parris
    Island is a pillar of our national security apparatus. This is
    why it is essential that we provide the depot funding they need
    to modernize the island's firing ranges.
        In the Marine Corps unfunded priority list, they requested
    additional resources to upgrade the Chosin Range, so recruits
    can continue to learn the fundamentals of marksmanship in a
    safe environment.
        I respectfully request the committee support this proposal
    so that Parris Island can continue to prepare our best and
    brightest to win our nation's battles in service to the
    country.
        Finally, I want to take a moment to discuss an issue that
    threatens nearly every base in our district and many of the
    bases in some of your districts as well, that is sea-level rise
    and climate change.
        Parris Island and MCAS Beaufort already experience regular
    flooding, and by 2050 it is estimated that they could be under
    water nearly a third of the year.
        Last year, this committee made important first steps
    towards addressing this growing threat by authorizing a new
    defense infrastructure program and expanding the Department's
    authority to improve roads near bases that are impacted by
    recurrent flooding.
        I strongly urge the members of this committee to continue
    to prioritize climate resiliency and that service members in
    the Lowcountry can continue to do what they do best.
        As you continue putting together this year's NDAA, I look
    forward to working with each and every one of you on these
    issues. And I thank you for your time and consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham can be found in
    the Appendix on page 24.]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.

         STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               WASHINGTON

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank you
    and the ranking member for holding this Member Day.
        I represent Washington State's Sixth District which is home
    to 11 federally recognized tribes. And as you know, Native
    American tribes have unique status that entitles them to a
    special government-to-government relationship with the United
    States based on their federally recognized status as sovereign
    nations.
        Many of these tribes entered into treaties with the Federal
    Government that guaranteed certain rights and outlined the
    commitments made by our government. And treaties are the
    supreme law of the land; treaty rights held by a tribe cannot
    be diminished by the passage of time or by non-use.
        When any Federal executive agency or department including
    the Department of Defense proposes a project, it needs to
    engage in formal government-to-government consultation with any
    tribe that may be impacted by that project.
        Now I also represent Naval Base Kitsap which is located on
    the Hood Canal where five distinct tribes have treaty-reserved
    rights to access their usual and accustomed fishing grounds.
    Naval Base Kitsap had had several important military
    construction projects in recent years. We have a shipyard that
    works on nuclear ships and a sub base that loads nuclear
    submarines, so dry-dock improvement and a new explosive-
    handling wharf are just a few examples of projects that are
    vital to the Navy's mission, to the security of the work being
    done, and to our national security.
        So, having said that, every time a Navy construction
    project such as a dock or a pier involves a water interface, it
    likely has an impact to a treaty right.
        In many cases, those impacts are first identified as part
    of the process mandated under the National Environmental Policy
    Act [NEPA] specifically when the Navy drafts an environmental
    impact statement [EIS] for a planned activity. But
    unfortunately, when project plans have developed to that point
    and impacts to tribal treaty rights are identified that late in
    the game, it is often very difficult and sometimes impossible
    to develop meaningful project alterations to mitigate the
    impact to the treaty-reserved rights.
        So, to address that shortcoming, I believe that the
    consultation process should start well before the NEPA process
    and the issuance of a draft EIS for public comment.
        I believe that a tribal consultation requirement and
    certification should be incorporated to the DD Form 1391
    through which requirements and justifications in support of
    funding requests for DOD military construction are submitted to
    Congress. This would ensure that efforts have been taken to
    consult with the tribes early and that impacts to treaty-
    reserved rights can be identified at the earliest stages of the
    project.
        That would assist in discussions between the DOD and the
    tribes on the next steps, which could involve alterations to
    the project to avoid the impact and or further consultations
    between the DOD and tribes to possibly arrive at an acceptable
    mitigation to the impact to treaty-reserved rights.
        Should an impacted tribe decide to work with the DOD to
    develop an appropriate mitigation strategy to allow the project
    to move forward, I believe that the DOD should not limit itself
    to the mechanisms spelled out under the Sikes Act, which was
    intended only to mitigate for environmental damage.
        Impacts to treaty rights can't be equated to environmental
    impacts simply because those rights are tied to natural
    resources. In fact, treaty rights which have been guaranteed by
    legally binding documents is no different than any other form
    of property right.
        An environmental review may identify that a project costs
    the ability to harvest 100 shellfish for example, but that
    fails to address a treaty right that guarantees the right of
    someone's grandchildren's grandchildren to harvest those
    shellfish. So with that in mind the DOD should use any and all
    resources, not just the Sikes Act, at its disposal when
    entering into negotiations with the tribe regarding equitable
    mitigation.
        So I would appreciate your consideration of my request to
    include a provision in the NDAA to require tribal consultation
    requirement and certification on the DD Form 1391 and a
    provision noting that the committee recognizes that a treaty-
    reserved right is no different than any property right.
        So my goal is twofold. One, to help to give the DOD and
    tribes one more tool so that they can increase the odds that
    they can successfully negotiate an outcome and allow projects
    to move forward without delay. And two, to ensure that DOD
    respects treaty rights and the self-determination of tribal
    governments.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kilmer can be found in the
    Appendix on page 26.]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you all very much. I appreciate those
    perspectives.
        Does anyone have any questions for any of the witnesses?
        Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
        And I think we have Mr. Takano and Mr. Thompson are both
    here. You just can come forward and we can get started. There
    are two other people on the second panel, but we will get
    started and plug them in when they arrive.
        Thank you very much, and we will start with Mr. Takano. I
    apologize for moving you from the first panel to the second, I
    know you had another hearing this morning, but I appreciate
    your patience. And you are recognized.

    STATEMENT OF HON. MARK TAKANO, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Takano. It is my pleasure, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, and other members of
    the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today.
        First, I am here to advocate for the Work for Warriors
    program. Work for Warriors was created to address the
    disproportionately higher unemployment rates among members of
    the National Guard and military spouses. The underlying model
    for this program connects with local businesses to identify job
    openings, seek out qualified and currently unemployed
    applicants, and help individuals to navigate the resume,
    interview, and hiring process.
        California has one of the largest Work for Warriors
    programs in the country, along with Nevada, South Carolina, and
    Washington State. The programs are also being developed in
    Florida, Tennessee, Colorado, North Carolina, and other States.
        My proposed language would create a national Work for
    Warriors pilot program that mirrors these State direct-to-
    employment programs to provide direct job placement and related
    employment assistance to members of the National Guard and
    Reserve, as well as military spouses and veterans.
        A Work for Warriors provision has been included in the
    House NDAA every year since 2014. And I hope to continue the
    longstanding practice of this committee to support our veterans
    and members of the National Guard and Reserves by including
    this pilot program in NDAA.
        As chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, one of my
    top priorities is ensuring that our veterans have the resources
    they need to succeed.
        The Work for Warriors program has been extremely successful
    in my home State of California, and has placed more than 5,000
    individuals in jobs. The other States I have mentioned have
    enjoyed comparable success through this program.
        The Work for Warriors program job placement services
    provides a sense of stability, purpose, and continuity for
    those in the program. And we can deliver on this same
    successful model nationwide by creating a pilot program through
    the Department of Defense.
        Although successful Federal veterans employment initiatives
    can cost more than $10,000 per placement, Work for Warriors has
    a total per placement cost of roughly $1,100. This staggering
    difference is a testimony to the incredible value that a
    national Work for Warriors program could bring to countless
    National Guardsmen, reservists, and veterans.
        Now as we continue to seek out ways to improve outcomes and
    create new opportunities and provide adequate support and care
    for members of our armed services and veterans, we must
    recognize the programs that are successful and make appropriate
    investments to support those programs. Work for Warriors is a
    strong example of an investment that we should be rushing to
    make.
        Now I am also here to advocate for another important
    initiative, the Keith Nolan Air Force Deaf Demonstration
    program. This language would create an Air Force demonstration
    program for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals to access as
    officers of the Air Force as long as they continue to meet all
    the other essential qualifications for accession as an officer
    in the Air Force.
        This provision is inspired by a deaf young man named Keith
    Nolan, a teacher at the Maryland School for the Deaf, who
    successfully completed two levels of Army ROTC [Reserve
    Officers' Training Corps]. Keith was preparing to take the next
    step when he was informed that he could not continue with his
    service because he is deaf.
        I have no doubt that the Air Force would have been
    strengthened by Keith's service. And we should not be so quick
    to turn away individuals who proudly look to serve. Individuals
    who want to serve should have the opportunity to do so. This
    demonstration program would give them the opportunity to serve
    the country they love.
        Now I am thankful that my amendment to create this program
    was included by the committee in last year's NDAA. And it is my
    sincere hope that it will be included again during this year's
    reauthorization. And I am excited that we are taking this step
    forward to give the deaf community a chance to defend the
    country that they love.
        I urge you to support the inclusion of both the Work for
    Warriors and the Keith Nolan Air Force Deaf Demonstration
    programs and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions.
        And I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Takano can be found in the
    Appendix on page 29.]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Thompson.

        STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                              PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Thompson. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
    members of the Armed Services Committee, good morning and thank
    you for the opportunity to share my priorities for the fiscal
    year 2020 with the House Armed Services Committee.
        As a father of an Active soldier who received a Purple
    Heart during Operation Iraqi Freedom, I appreciate your
    willingness to receive my testimony. I recognize the challenges
    facing this committee and I appreciate your ongoing support for
    our service members.
        These brave Americans put their lives on the line regularly
    in the defense of a higher cause, so we have a responsibility
    to support them in the strongest, most responsible way
    possible.
        While I certainly understand that the Department of Defense
    has the best interest of our troops in mind, our oversight role
    is necessary that the Department stays on the right course.
        Specifically, the Army Corps of Engineers work to construct
    the Rhine Ordnance Barracks Army Medical Center in Germany, or
    ROBMC, concerns me and warrants additional oversight.
        I led a congressional delegation to this site in November
    of 2018; it consisted of five bipartisan members of Congress,
    three of whom sit on this committee, and what we found was
    alarming. For background, the ROBMC is a new hospital being
    constructed in Kaiserslautern, Germany, that will serve injured
    troops from AFRICOM [U.S. Africa Command], European, and
    Central Commands. It is located less than 2 miles from the
    flight line at Ramstein Air Base and will be the most
    strategically important military hospital outside of the
    continental United States.
        It will cost American taxpayers more than $1 billion and is
    an excellent investment for our American heroes.
        Congress fully understands the strategic importance of this
    hospital, but also recognizes its vulnerabilities. And one of
    the main vulnerabilities is its potential reliance on Russian-
    sourced natural gas.
        According to the Energy Information Administration, Germany
    imported 40 percent of its natural gas supplies from Russia in
    2015. And this percentage has only increased since. Just last
    year, Germany bought more natural gas from Gazprom, Russia's
    state-owned gas company, than any other nation. Considering
    Russia's willingness to use its energy export as a political
    tool in the past, or as I would like say, weaponize energy, we
    need to ensure that our military installations are not subject
    to Russian interference.
        As a result of Germany's increased reliance on Russian
    natural gas, Congress and specifically this committee included
    language in both the fiscal year 2018 and 2019's National
    Defense Authorization Acts that limits Russia's influence over
    our military bases in Europe.
        The fiscal year 2018 NDAA called on the Department of
    Defense to limit the use of Russian sourced energy at military
    facilities in Europe as much as possible.
        The fiscal year 2019 NDAA took these concerns a step
    further and specifically cited the ROBMC and its energy
    supplies. It called for the medical center to be fueled using a
    mixed-fuel source that is domestically sourced when possible
    and that limits the use of Russian gas. The mixed-fuel source
    is particularly important as it ensures energy security through
    the diversification of fuel sources.
        The Army Corps is working in direct violation of these
    laws. It is planning the construction of an onsite co-
    generation plant that will only use natural gas to produce the
    hospital's electricity and hot water backups. This is
    contradictory to congressional intent and an illogical costly
    path forward. The Army Corps insists on moving forward with
    this single-source plant despite Congress' previous actions
    calling for a mixed-fuel energy source.
        It is also an illogical approach to ensuring energy
    security for the hospital. The Army Corps is planning on using
    Russian-sourced natural gas as a redundancy for disruption in
    Europe's natural gas supply. These disruptions, however, are
    most likely to be caused by Russia's willingness to shut off
    gas supplies to Western Europe. This is an irrational approach
    to energy security and poses a major threat to the American
    troops serving in the area, three areas of responsibility that
    the hospital will serve.
        And I respectfully request the committee's consideration
    including language in the National Defense Authorization Act
    that prohibits the authorization of funds for the construction
    of the ROBMC's onsite co-generation plant; let me be clear, not
    the rest of hospital.
        Now when my son was wounded in Iraq that was one of the
    three places that he got great care and surgery. I have a lot
    of respect for that hospital. And the new hospital will be
    amazing with the short commute from the Air Force strip.
        But I just would ask that again, language to prohibit the
    authorization of funds for the construction of ROBMC's onsite
    co-generation plant until the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can
    certify that it is in compliance with U.S. statute.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today, and I
    really look forward to working with you as this process moves
    forward.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson can be found in the
    Appendix on page 33.]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Rose.

       STATEMENT OF HON. MAX ROSE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

        Mr. Rose. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry, thank
    you so much for giving me the opportunity to give this
    testimony today and thank you for your leadership.
        I want to talk to you today about an issue that we are
    encountering in my district, Staten Island, South Brooklyn, New
    York City.
        Today, and you all might not be aware of this, the BAH
    [Basic Allowance for Housing] for the GI Bill on Staten Island
    is significantly lower than the rest of New York City. And the
    reason for that is because Staten Island is not counted as a
    part of New York City when the BAH is calculated. So today, the
    monthly BAH is $600 less than the other four boroughs. That
    goes to $7,200 per year and it has been up to $1,000 less per
    month.
        It makes veterans on Staten Island feel like we don't care.
    It makes them feel like we are there getting ignored or ripped
    off, and you all can fix it.
        From your perspective this is tiny stuff. And we really ask
    in this NDAA that you include Staten Island as a part of New
    York City in terms of the calculation of the BAH.
        And I want to go down for the facts as to why this is so
    ridiculous. Today, Staten Island has the highest percentage of
    vets as compared to any other borough. In fact, compared to
    Manhattan and Queens, it is double the number on a percentage
    basis.
        Our median rents are very similar to the rest of New York
    City, and nonetheless, though, we have a BAH that is $600 less.
    The median household income is right in the middle for New York
    City, and to repeat, our BAH is $600 less and calculated as if
    we are not part of New York City. By all other government
    metrics, New York City is counted as a five-borough element.
        Every other time the government is thinking about New York
    City, it is five boroughs, but for some reason for the BAH,
    four boroughs plus Staten Island. Again, this makes no sense
    and we are just inflicting pain on people.
        And lastly, to really, and this is the icing on the cake.
    When the CONUS COLA [continental United States cost of living
    allowance] is determined, we have the highest, Staten Island
    has the highest one for all the five boroughs and one of the
    highest in the nation. If I were to tell you, highest COLA
    lowest BAH in the city, you would think that was crazy. You
    would think that was insane. And you can fix it.
        People come here asking for the earth, the world, the moon,
    the stars, everything. I am not today. I am just asking for you
    to be fair as it pertains to Staten Island. But it is not just
    the veterans. This is our economy as well. Remember, BAH is
    based off where you go to school, not where you live.
        So Staten Island is so hospitable, so wonderful to vets,
    they are moving to Staten Island at times but going to school
    in other places. They will take the free ferry to Manhattan
    because it could mean upwards of $1,000 extra per month for
    them. That is a massive hindrance to our local universities,
    and that hits our economy as well.
        And we are following the rules. We are just trying to do
    the right thing and DC right now is not treating us fairly.
        And so I come before you today, again, very thankful that
    you gave me this opportunity. And again, I ask you to equalize
    the BAH rates for Staten Island and the other four boroughs.
    Include us in the New York City calculations. It will be nice,
    simple, and most of all, it will be fair.
        Thank you again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rose can be found in the
    Appendix on page 35.]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you very much. Mr. San Nicolas.

      STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F.Q. SAN NICOLAS, A DELEGATE FROM
                                  GUAM

        Mr. San Nicolas. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Thornberry,
    Subcommittee Chair Garamendi, and members of this distinguished
    committee, thank you for the chance to testify on my priorities
    for Guam and the Asia-Pacific region and development of the
    chairman's mark for the National Defense Authorization Act for
    Fiscal Year 2020.
        As the Federal Government continues its plan for
    realignment and building up its military presence in our
    territory and throughout the region, probable impacts to Guam's
    economy must be addressed. Guam recognizes its unique position
    and the key role it plays in our nation's defense, but the
    nation in turn must recognize its duty to ensure economic
    stability in the application of Federal laws.
        Small steps can be taken to address these concerns in the
    fiscal year 2020 NDAA. First, I ask the committee to expand the
    language from the fiscal year 2019 NDAA to allow foreign labor
    through the H-2B visa program for construction projects to
    include civilian projects.
        Recently, the approval rates for H-2B applications for
    civilian projects is close to zero percent, while military
    projects received very healthy approvals of H-2B labor. This
    alarming situation significantly increased the cost for
    building homes and delayed completion times for public
    infrastructure projects.
        Addressing the significant labor shortages will allow for
    stabilization of the island's economy and bring parity into
    civilian construction projects outside the fence.
        Additionally, with Guam receiving the highest per capita
    rate of tourism in the highly sensitive Asia-Pacific region,
    civilian projects are critical to soft power force projection,
    as the tourism experience on Guam is a direct showcase of
    American exceptionalism to the citizens of allies and potential
    adversaries.
        Second, I ask that language be included that would extend
    by at least an additional year the prohibition of using the
    former ship repair facility property at Naval Base Guam for any
    other purpose than depot level ship repair. This language was
    included in the fiscal year 2019 NDAA.
        I am concerned that the Navy continues to send Military
    Sealift Command ships to foreign shipyards in direct
    contravention of the intent behind 10 U.S.C. 8680, which
    requires these ships to be repaired in U.S. shipyards except
    for voyage and emergent repairs.
        I ask the committee to include language that requires U.S.-
    flag vessels serving the U.S. Armed Forces be repaired and
    maintained in ports within U.S. jurisdictions.
        Allowing our military ships to be maintained and serviced
    in foreign jurisdictions when we have local jurisdictions that
    can provide the work is counter to and undermines our ability
    to protect our nation against threats in the Asia-Pacific
    region. Moreover, I am deeply concerned that the Navy continues
    to find reasons to reduce ship repair capability on Guam when
    their own report conducted by U.S. Pacific Fleet several years
    ago clearly showed a long-term cost savings to the Navy for
    maintaining such capability on Guam.
        Finally, I request that language be included to require any
    future DOD telecommunication services and infrastructure
    installation on Guam be limited to U.S.-owned firms unless the
    Secretary of Defense certifies that a foreign firm can meet the
    resiliency and security requirements necessary to serve a U.S.
    military installation.
        From recent experience of Huawei, ZTE, and others, it is
    apparent that some foreign countries have identified
    telecommunications infrastructure as a potential infiltration
    point and are seeking to exploit that through artificially low-
    cost exploits. Beyond this, the Pacific Islands are susceptible
    to hurricanes and other natural disasters requiring a high
    level of resiliency that lowest cost bids may not achieve.
        In the Asia-Pacific region, U.S. military facilities enjoy
    a variety of missions from missile defense to rapid deployment
    and response. Foreign governments would be highly interested in
    the ability to monitor or even affect these missions. We must
    take steps necessary to protect our national security and
    interests.
        The Armed Services Committee has been a friend of and
    strong advocate for Guam's interest as our island plays a key
    role in our nation's primary defense against adversaries in
    Asia. I have appreciated this committee's longstanding efforts
    in reaffirming Guam's seat at the table and ensuring that
    Guam's concerns are not brushed aside.
        I want to thank you for your time and consideration of my
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. San Nicolas can be found in
    the Appendix on page 37.]
        Chairman Smith. Thank you.
        I have two questions, actually.
        Mr. Rose, first of all, and forgive my ignorance here, I do
    not know if that is our committee's jurisdiction on the GI
    Bill. Now, we do things outside of our jurisdiction all the
    time, but it is conceivably and since we have the chairman of
    the Veterans Affairs Committee with us, it is conceivably in
    his jurisdiction.
        But we can work together to make that happen and do it in
    our bill. But I just want to be clear on that.
        Mr. Rose. I am on the VA Committee as well. Originally we
    thought that was the case, but actually the GI Bill's BAH is
    based off DOD calculations.
        Chairman Smith. Okay. Just within our bill.
        And the other challenge there would be whether or not
    making that change carries with it a mandatory score which
    basically we have to find the money for that, so that is
    unfortunate.
        I mean I completely agree with your argument. There is no
    reason that it should be separate. But once it is separate, to
    fix it you have to come up with the money to fix it. So we will
    have to look at different ways to do that.
        So if you could make sure and work with the staff on if, is
    it mandatory; if it is not mandatory it is a hell of a lot
    easier to work out.
        Mr. Rose. Absolutely.
        Chairman Smith. Yes, but I completely agree with your
    assessment on that.
        Mr. Rose. Thank you for your consideration, Chairman.
        Chairman Smith. Thank you.
        And Mr. Thompson, just so I am clear the current plan of
    the hospital is to rely on Russian natural gas. And you want us
    to prohibit them from, you talked about the onsite--
        Mr. Thompson. Chairman, we are constructing right now a new
    medical center that is approximately just 2 miles from the
    landing strip on Ramstein. It is a great concept. When we were
    there and led a CODEL [congressional delegation] there, three
    of your members joined me. I mean, they were just clearing the
    site at that point.
        Chairman Smith. No, I am familiar with the project.
        Mr. Thompson. Yes, what we do today is all of that
    electricity, hot water, everything is purchased through the
    city of Kaiserslautern.
        Chairman Smith. And they get it from the Russians?
        Mr. Thompson. No. Kaiserslautern use multi-fuel source.
    They use biomass. They use wind.
        Chairman Smith. Sorry, I am just trying to get down to a
    very specific point. You want us to prohibit them from doing
    what?
        Mr. Thompson. The Corps of Engineers is moving away from
    what we have always done and they are building a co-generation
    plant. They have plans to build a power generation plant on the
    site of the hospital, which would be solely and completely
    relying on natural gas.
        Right now, part of the trust that we have with the
    community, the city of Kaiserslautern, that area is that
    partnership with the type of heating source that we use at
    Ramstein, it is used all throughout that region and it is the
    Corps of Engineers that have chosen to veer from that.
        Chairman Smith. What source of energy would we be using
    instead of natural gas?
        Mr. Thompson. That, quite frankly, if they choose to
    continue to what I think is an excessive and unnecessary cost
    of building their own generation plant which we have never done
    that. This would be the first time. That would be obviously up
    to the Corps of Engineers. Our statute that this committee has
    passed and has been incorporated in the NDAAs in the past just
    calls for multiple sources so that we are not dependent on
    Russia for their natural gas, because Russia has been known to
    weaponize energy.
        Chairman Smith. Yes. I got all of that.
        Mr. Thompson. And so there are two alternatives here. One,
    ultimately, I mean, if I had the opportunity to have a
    preference would be to continue the relationship we have with
    the city of Kaiserslautern that uses multiple sources for
    generating power, electricity, hot water.
        Chairman Smith. Right, understood. I mean, obviously we
    would rather not be reliant upon Russian natural gas. It
    depends on what we are then going to be reliant on if we don't
    allow them to go that route.
        Mr. Thompson. That is correct. And the past two National
    Defense Authorizations have addressed this issue, but just
    clearly, the Army Corps of Engineers is ignoring Congress in
    this situation with proceeding with, quite frankly, building a
    plant at significant cost, and then the cost of operating that
    plant is going to require additional fulltime employees to
    operate.
        And the part that I didn't address is it continues to break
    down that trust that we have within those German communities
    there. And I think that you will find with Ramstein that I am
    hard pressed to think anyone in there hasn't been well served
    by that partnership with the city of Kaiserslautern where all
    this is generated today.
        Chairman Smith. Absolutely. I have been to the current
    hospital at Landstuhl many, many times. It is an outstanding
    facility.
        Mr. Thompson. It certainly is.
        Chairman Smith. And incredibly important. And they do
    amazing work there. I was in Iraq and visited a wounded
    soldier, and then by the time I got to Landstuhl, he was
    already there being treated. So it is an incredibly important
    part.
        Mr. Thompson. It will be an easier trip now that you are
    coming down off that top of that hill. It would just be 2 miles
    from the point where that transport plane will be landing at
    Ramstein.
        Chairman Smith. Absolutely, thank you. That is all I have.
        Anybody else?
        Mr. Thornberry. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank this
    panel and our previous panel. Some of the issues we have heard
    about today I am familiar with, some not so much. But that is
    the importance of having members bring their priorities to our
    attention, and I know that you and I will work together with
    our staff to look at each of the issues that the members have
    brought, so I appreciate it.
        Chairman Smith. Absolutely, that is a commitment on both my
    part and the ranking member's part. We represent the whole
    caucus. And we understand, certainly in the districts that have
    been represented here, that our national security needs are met
    by every district in this country and every member has an
    interest, and we want to make sure that we address those
    interests as best as we can on the committee.
        So, appreciate you all being here.
        Any further questions? Hearing none, thank you very much.
    We are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 09:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

    =======================================================================

                  PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 April 3, 2019

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    =======================================================================

                       DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                                 April 3, 2019

    =======================================================================

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]