[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-28]

                               MEMBER DAY

                               __________

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                              MAY 5, 2021


                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                              ___________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
45-065                   WASHINGTON : 2022   

                                     
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                    ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JACKIE SPEIER, California            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               MO BROOKS, Alabama
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          SAM GRAVES, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland,          SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
RO KHANNA, California                TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  MATT GAETZ, Florida
ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 DON BACON, Nebraska
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       JIM BANKS, Indiana
JASON CROW, Colorado                 LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    Chair                            C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
SARA JACOBS, California              RONNY JACKSON, Texas
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington       BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                PAT FALLON, Texas
JIMMY PANETTA, California
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
Vacancy

                     Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
                 Katy Quinn, Professional Staff Member
               Whitney Verett, Professional Staff Member
                          Emma Morrison, Clerk
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

Arrington, Hon. Jodey C., a Representative from Texas............    13
Case, Hon. Ed, a Representative from Hawaii......................    11
Foster, Hon. Bill, a Representative from Illinois................     2
Kilmer, Hon. Derek, a Representative from Washington.............     4
San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F.Q., a Delegate from Guam.............    14
Scanlon, Hon. Mary Gay, a Representative from Pennsylvania.......     8
Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative from Oregon................    10
Sherman, Hon. Brad, a Representative from California.............    16
Welch, Hon. Peter, a Representative from Vermont.................     5

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Arrington, Hon. Jodey C......................................    37
    Case, Hon. Ed................................................    35
    Foster, Hon. Bill............................................    25
    Kilmer, Hon. Derek...........................................    27
    San Nicolas, Hon. Michael F.Q................................    39
    Scanlon, Hon. Mary Gay.......................................    32
    Schrader, Hon. Kurt..........................................    34
    Sherman, Hon. Brad...........................................    41
    Welch, Hon. Peter............................................    30

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    Brownley, Hon. Julia, a Representative from California.......    47
    Castor, Hon. Kathy, a Representative from Florida............    53
    Cicilline, Hon. David N., a Representative from Rhode Island.    58
    Cohen, Hon. Steve, a Representative from Tennessee...........    62
    Curtis, Hon. John R., a Representative from Utah.............    65
    Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative from Texas.............    66
    Gonzales, Hon. Tony, a Representative from Texas.............    68
    Graves, Hon. Garret, a Representative from Louisiana.........    70
    Griffith, Hon. H. Morgan, a Representative from Virginia.....    72
    Jackson Lee, Hon. Sheila, a Representative from Texas........    74
    Maloney, Hon. Sean Patrick, a Representative from New York...    78
    Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative from New Jersey...    82
    Pocan, Hon. Mark, a Representative from Wisconsin............    84
    Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative from Pennsylvania.....    86
    Wenstrup, Hon. Brad R., a Representative from Ohio...........    88

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, May 5, 2021.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:01 a.m., in room 
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
       WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The Chairman. I call the committee to order.
    Before today's hearing begins, I would like to review a few 
procedural points. This hearing will be broadcast live on the 
committee's website, and the broadcast will begin following 
these announcements.
    I would like to remind Members who are participating 
remotely that they must be visible on screen for the purposes 
of establishing and maintaining a quorum, seeking recognition, 
participating in the proceeding, and voting. Remote 
participants must continue to use the software platform video 
function while in attendance unless they experience 
connectivity issues or other technical problems which render 
them unable to participate on camera.
    If a participant experiences technical difficulties, please 
do not hesitate to contact committee staff for assistance.
    I would also like to remind participants that the software 
platform's chat feature should only be used to communicate with 
staff regarding technical or logistical support issues and that 
those communications will not be considered committee records.
    Members are welcome to leave and rejoin the proceedings. If 
Members who are participating remotely depart for a short while 
for reasons other than joining a different proceeding, they 
should leave the software platform's video function on. If 
Members will be absent for a significant period, or depart to 
join a different proceeding, they may remain logged onto the 
software platform but they must turn the platform's audio and 
visual functions off until they return.
    All participants other than the chair are currently muted. 
All participants are asked to remain muted when they are not 
engaged in the discussion.
    In circumstances in which Members are not speaking and they 
have not muted themselves, I will do so to avoid inadvertent 
background noise. Well, technically my staff will do so to 
avoid inadvertent background noise.
    Members and witnesses are reminded that they are 
responsible for unmuting themselves at any time that they wish 
to be heard during the proceedings.
    Thank you. We are now ready to begin. And today we are 
hearing--this is Member Day. To a certain degree, every day is 
Member Day. But today we are talking about Members throughout 
Congress who wish to express their views as we move forward 
towards marking up the defense bill this year. So we will have 
witnesses, Members who are not members of the committee, who 
will be testifying.
    We are going to take them three at a time. You will be each 
given 5 minutes, though you are not required actually to take 
the full 5 minutes, but you are given 5 minutes. And then when 
those three are done, we will open it up to questions. There 
will be 5 minutes of questions total for the three Members.
    And we have an order here, but we will take Members in the 
order that they show up, and up front the first three Members 
who are going to testify will be Representative Mary Scanlon, 
Representative Bill Foster, and Representative Derek Kilmer.
    Okay. Scanlon is not there. Do we have a third? I have 
Foster and Kilmer, who--we are looking for a third. So while we 
are looking for a third, we will start with Representative Bill 
Foster. You are recognized--oh, I am sorry. I apologize. I 
forgot that important step.
    Ranking Member Rogers, do you have any opening comments?
    Mr. Rogers. No, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank you for 
having this and thank the witnesses for being with us today and 
sharing their thoughts on how we can make the NDAA [National 
Defense Authorization Act] a stronger document and help our 
national security.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And with that, Mr. Foster is recognized for 5 minutes. 
Well, sorry, one quick second. We are adding--Representative 
Welch will be on the first panel. So it will be Foster, Kilmer, 
and Welch. And, Mr. Foster, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ILLINOIS

    Mr. Foster. Thank you. Am I audible and visible here?
    The Chairman. We got you.
    Mr. Foster. Okay. Well, good morning. Thank you, Chairman 
Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and members of the committee for 
allowing me to testify. I am here today to request that the 
committee do two things. First, authorize $20 million for 
continued research on low-enriched uranium fuel for the 
pressurized water reactors for aircraft carriers and 
submarines; and, secondly, to realign the National Technical 
Nuclear Forensics, or NTNF, program from the Department of 
Homeland Security to the National Nuclear--to NNSA, the 
National Nuclear Security Administration.
    So, first, in regards to the low-enriched uranium. For 
decades, the elimination of highly enriched uranium outside of 
nuclear weapons programs has been a U.S. policy objective 
worldwide because of the proliferation concerns that high-
enriched uranium can be used by a not-very-sophisticated 
entity, whether they be terrorist or proliferation states, to 
make a simple gun-type nuclear bomb with a multi-kiloton yield.
    Currently, the largest remaining non-weapons use of high-
enriched uranium is for fuel for U.S. naval propulsion 
reactors, and many other countries are interested in 
potentially copying the U.S. in this use.
    Public estimates are that the U.S. naval reactors use more 
than 2 tons of weapons-grade HEU [highly enriched uranium] 
annually, the equivalent to hundreds of nuclear weapons. And as 
the only Ph.D. physicist in Congress, I have studied at length 
the question of the feasibility of minimizing the use of HEU in 
naval propulsion reactors, including having detailed 
discussions with naval personnel in classified settings, as 
well as visiting the factory where naval nuclear fuel is made.
    Continuing to research a transition to low-enriched uranium 
fuel is crucial, because if it is found to be technologically 
and economically feasible, the minimization of HEU would have 
significant benefits for international non-proliferation and 
counterterrorism efforts.
    One thing that has changed in the last year is that the 
Department of Energy has approved initial funding for 
commercial advanced nuclear reactors. Most of these new designs 
use what is called high-assay, low-enriched uranium for them, 
and there is interest and participation in those same companies 
that are involved in naval fuel and these advanced reactors.
    So it is now more important than ever for the United States 
to lead by example and continue exploring the feasibility of 
converting our naval nuclear propulsion to high-assay LEU [low-
enriched uranium] fuel.
    As the committee has done in previous NDAAs, I urge the 
committee to include the $20 million to continue this research 
on LEU fuel. I would also like to ask the committee to realign 
the National Technical Nuclear Forensics, or NTNF, program from 
the Department of Homeland Security to NNSA, which is supported 
by both NNSA and DHS [Department of Homeland Security].
    Congress formally codified the NTNF program in 2010 to 
ensure that we have a ready and robust nuclear forensics 
capability. The program has established a nuclear forensics 
interagency partnership to prepare the government to respond to 
a nuclear event that happens without warning.
    However, the NTNF program's capabilities, as they have 
matured, the misalignment of its function has created 
inefficiencies that inhibit the program's advancement. 
Specifically, while DHS is responsible for planning NTNF 
exercises, it has no operational role in the mission itself 
because NTNF relies on nuclear device design and material 
production expertise, which the NNSA is solely responsible for.
    Realigning the NTNF program under NNSA will lead to greater 
efficiency by making NNSA solely responsible for ensuring the 
integration of activities that are consistent with the unified 
strategic direction.
    Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Foster can be found in the 
Appendix on page 25.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer is recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DEREK KILMER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           WASHINGTON

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you and 
the ranking member for holding this Member Day. It is good to 
be back with the Armed Services Committee.
    I would like to discuss two of my legislative priorities 
today, both focused on improving infrastructure in and around 
our military installations. First, I want to touch on the 
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, or SIOP, and then 
the Defense Community Infrastructure Program.
    I represent Washington's 6th District, which is home to 
Naval Base Kitsap in Bremerton. Kitsap is home to one of the 
Navy's four public shipyards, the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 
[PSNS], and intermediate maintenance facility.
    The four public shipyards--PSNS, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and 
Pearl Harbor--are critical in strengthening, maintaining, and 
modernizing our Navy's fleet, and protecting our national 
interest. The four public shipyards perform all of the Navy's 
nuclear repair and retrofit work.
    PSNS plays an outsized role for Department of Defense in 
its current priority theater, INDOPACOM [Indo-Pacific Command], 
in that it is the Navy's only dry dock on the west coast 
capable of performing carrier work.
    As you know, in 2018, the Navy released its 20-year $21 
billion Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, or SIOP, 
to update and modernize our public shipyards. The program will 
revitalize and modernize the infrastructure of the shipyards, 
increase climate resilience, and improve resistance to natural 
disasters.
    The timely execution of SIOP is vital to the Navy's 
mission, to the security of the work being done in the yards, 
and to our national security. Any delays or shortfalls in 
funding for SIOP could result in additional aging and damage to 
the already-substandard facilities, utilities, dry-dock 
equipment, and information technology infrastructure at the 
four public yards. If that happens, the shipyards will be 
unable to meet current and future demands of the fleet without 
continued investment in SIOP.
    Therefore, in my view, Congress and the Navy need to ensure 
SIOP remains on track. I have certainly discussed this with the 
Seapower Subcommittee chair, and he shares the view that this 
has to get done.
    And, Mr. Chair, I know you get to look across the water 
from your district at the 130-year-old shipyard in my district, 
and I would love to invite you and the ranking member to see 
some of these urgent needs up close and personal.
    I appreciate your consideration of my request to prioritize 
the $21 billion currently projected as needed for SIOP, as well 
as any additional funding identified by the Navy, to not 
modernize our public shipyards in the future.
    The second priority that I wanted to discuss is the Defense 
Community Infrastructure Program, or DCIP. This program was 
created in 2019 to help communities around military 
installation address infrastructure deficiencies. Grants from 
DCIP help to preserve and enhance military readiness and 
security by providing funding for critical infrastructure 
projects, which support on-base operations and readiness.
    DCIP is a unique program because it allows the DOD 
[Department of Defense] to partner with local communities and 
share the often expensive costs of infrastructure upgrades. 
Investments from DCIP in defense communities help make these 
towns and cities more vibrant, livable, and safe, both for 
service members and for their families, and for everybody else 
in the neighborhood.
    All of these investments also help improve the readiness of 
the bases because ultimately, if the off-base infrastructure is 
failing, it is that much harder for our service members to get 
to and from work and to do their jobs. If the roads leading to 
a base are too congested, that is hurting the ability of the 
base to most effectively respond to our national security 
needs.
    These funds help communities throughout the country, 
including in my district. Every day thousands of service 
members and civilian employees at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard 
and Naval Base Kitsap commute through a section of congested 
roadway. During the morning and afternoon rush hour, this 
normally sleepy stretch of roadway gives LA [Los Angeles] rush 
hour a run for its money, turning the road into a parking lot, 
not to mention the fact that there are concerns around the 
climate resiliency of the roadway.
    As the nearby military installations continue to grow, the 
concern is only compounded. DCIP could offer much-needed 
assistance and support, not just to Kitsap County as they try 
to address these congestion issues, but to communities around 
the country.
    Ultimately, for the installations in my area and throughout 
America, these issues are impacting bases and their readiness, 
which harms our entire country, not just the people who live 
near and work on these installations. With that in mind, I 
request that you include $75 million for the Defense Community 
Infrastructure Program in the upcoming National Defense 
Authorization Act.
    Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, thank you for the 
opportunity to speak with you. I urge you to consider taking up 
these provisions as part of the NDAA, and I would be happy to 
stand for any questions that you may have.
    And with that, I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kilmer can be found in the 
Appendix on page 27.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Welch is recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF HON. PETER WELCH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM VERMONT

    Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Rogers, thank 
you very much. I am here to talk about burn pits. And as this 
committee knows from the good work you have been doing, burn 
pits have been too widely used, and soldiers who were in the 
vicinity of those burn pits were exposed to all kinds of toxic 
materials that were being burnt. It has got a particular 
Vermont connection, but it is really universal for our service 
members who have been in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    In Vermont, Brigadier General Mike Heston and also Sergeant 
Major Cram both died. Sergeant Cram--Sergeant Major Cram was in 
a unit of 21 military police. Three of the members of that 
force all died from cancer typically related to burn pit 
exposure, and several other members of that unit have had 
various illnesses that we do believe could well be attributed 
to exposure to burn pits.
    The committee has ended the practice of using burn pits, 
but we still have some out there where, for a variety of 
reasons presented by DOD, they can't be stopped. We want that 
to change.
    The committee has also helped the VA [Department of 
Veterans Affairs] expedite the review process so that when 
soldiers are being interviewed, the burn pit question is part 
of that, so that we can get the information we need in the 
registry. We have had about 241,000 soldiers sign up on the 
burn pit registry that is going to allow us to continue to get 
information. Though we do have some continuing challenges with 
the existing burn pits, improving the review process, and 
improving the care for exposed vets, there is a very high 
denial rate.
    Seven hundred Vermonters have signed up on the registry 
here in Vermont out of 14,000 who have served in Afghanistan. 
But this is an acutely serious issue for us because in Vermont 
we had the highest participation rate of our citizens on a per 
capita basis in Iraq and Afghanistan than we have of these 
tragic losses of soldiers who came home and died of cancer that 
we believe is related to burn pits.
    The two questions before us are, one, can the committee 
assist through the NDAA in expediting the review process? It 
takes a long time, and there is a very, very high denial rate. 
Second, we believe it is time to consider doing what we did 
with Agent Orange, and that is apply a presumption of 
disability to soldiers who have illnesses, and those soldiers 
can demonstrate that they were serving in the vicinity right 
around burn pits.
    So we seek the continued energy of this committee to assist 
these veterans who have been exposed to these toxic burn pits 
while serving our country in Afghanistan, sometimes Syria, and 
Iraq.
    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, 
and members of the committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Welch can be found in the 
Appendix on page 30.]
    The Chairman. Thank you. I have one comment and then one 
question. First of all, on Mr. Welch's comments, I think that 
the burn pit issue is enormously important. It is sort of the 
Agent Orange issue of our day, and I think it is imperative 
that we learn the lessons. I mean, we are still trying to get 
people covered who were harmed by Agent Orange in Vietnam.
    We just last year added a significant chunk of diseases as 
presumptive that would get covered, and we can't wait 50 years 
this time. So let's make sure we get the coverage to the 
service members who have been harmed by burn pits.
    A question is for Mr. Kilmer. On both the issues that you 
raised, on the shipyard refurbishment and on the critical 
infrastructure around bases, there is a possibility of folding 
those into the infrastructure, the much-talked-about 
infrastructure package. I know just recently I have had some 
conversations on the shipyard issue. I was wondering if you 
have had any conversations.
    We talked before about the transportation piece around 
bases. But on the shipyard issue, have you discussed that at 
all as including in the infrastructure package?
    Mr. Kilmer. I have, but I know that there is discussion 
about that. You know, if you look at the potential of an 
infrastructure package, both to put people to work in the short 
term and lay the foundation for addressing long-term needs over 
the long haul, I would argue that both of these issues--both 
SIOP and the DCIP--are right in the sweet spot there.
    These investments at our public shipyards, simply put, need 
to happen for us to maintain our national security. And so I 
think there is a real opportunity there. Those of us who 
represent public shipyards and some that don't, including your 
Seapower Subcommittee chair, we have started having 
conversations around whether it would be possible to loop this 
conversation in with the broader infrastructure conversation.
    The Chairman. Yeah. Is this a real infrastructure issue for 
us nationwide? Our shipbuilding and ship repair capability is 
stressed, to put it mildly. Certainly, that is crucial for 
national security and national defense, but it is also an 
incredibly important part of our economy that we should strive 
to preserve. So I would be supportive of that.
    Mr. Rogers, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Rogers. I do not, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Any other HASC [House Armed Services 
Committee] member have any questions for the three Members who 
just testified? Mr. Courtney is recognized.
    Mr. Courtney. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And, Mr. Kilmer, again, you and I have talked about the 
infrastructure connection to public shipyards. Again, you are 
somebody who has studied the SIOP plan that the Navy has put 
together. They actually are shovel-ready; isn't that correct? I 
mean, they actually have an itemized list of items that they 
really could move out on very quickly at all four public 
shipyards.
    I mean, that is your understanding of the SIOP plan which, 
again, is just sort of sitting out there forlorn waiting for 
resources. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Kilmer. Yeah. There is plenty of work that is ready to 
roll. I think there is going to be some phasing because it is 
like a monster game of Jenga at these public shipyards, in that 
they have to both do the projects to modernize the shipyards 
and continuing doing the work of the shipyards.
    So there will be some phasing of the projects, but they are 
absolutely to your point ready to roll on some of these 
infrastructure projects.
    And, listen, you know, as an example, we had the Secretary 
of the Navy out at Puget last week. One of the primary dry dock 
at Puget he was told will be functionally obsolete in less than 
two decades. But I think--actually 2034 I think he was told, in 
terms of being able to service the next class of carriers.
    So his comment while at the shipyard, and I think the 
general perspective, is these are investments that need to be 
made, and certainly there seems like a great opportunity to 
include this in a broader conversation around our 
infrastructure.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, thank you. Again, the public 
yards, which, again, operate different than the private yards, 
again, are kind of just totally dependent on congressional 
action. And that is, frankly, one of the reasons why it doesn't 
have the same quite constituency and sort of support, you know, 
from some of the private sector advocates that are on the Hill.
    So, to me, this is an opportunity in the infrastructure 
package to do a major catch-up in terms of really neglect and 
deterioration in both shipyards.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Any further questions for this panel? Hearing none, thank 
you.
    The next three we have are Representatives Scanlon, 
Schrader, and Case. So, Representative Scanlon, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

   STATEMENT OF HON. MARY GAY SCANLON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                          PENNSYLVANIA

    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member 
Rogers, for the opportunity to appear before the committee 
today to discuss priorities for the fiscal year 2022 National 
Defense Authorization Act.
    And I really was heartened. I was so glad to hear and would 
second Congressman Welch's discussion about the burn pits. I 
have a sister who served in the Army, and she bends my ear 
regularly about it, as do many of the veterans in our 
community. And, of course, as home to the Philadelphia 
Shipyard, we are always interested in what we can do to make 
sure that our domestic shipyards are meeting our national 
defense needs.
    But today I am appearing to talk about requesting the 
committee's continued support for the CH-47F Block II program, 
the Chinooks. I represent Pennsylvania's 5th District, which is 
home to the production facilities for the Army's Chinook 
helicopter as well as being home to many of the hardworking men 
and women who build the best heavy-lift helicopter in the 
world.
    The Chinook manufacturing facility is a critical regional 
economic engine. It employs over 4,400 people in southeastern 
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey. And across the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Chinook program has 36 
suppliers, supports approximately 6,000 jobs, and provides an 
estimated $1 billion per year in economic impact.
    Nationally, the Chinook program supports more than 20,000 
jobs across 38 States and provides our national manufacturing 
base with an annual economic impact of approximately $2 billion 
a year. Additionally, the Chinook is essential for heavy-lift 
capability for every Active Army division, 24 States in the 
Army National Guard, and 2 States in the Army Reserve.
    The Chinook program represents the best of American 
manufacturing and design and deserves our continued support as 
the Nation builds back from the coronavirus pandemic.
    While there are future vertical lift modernization programs 
underway, there is currently no heavy-lift modernization 
program to replace the critical capability which the Chinook 
provides to the United States Army and I think it is 16 or 19 
of our allies around the world. As you know from your 
oversight, the Chinook will remain the heavy-lift helicopter 
for the Army into the 2060s.
    The F Block II modernization program will allow the Chinook 
to fly at higher altitudes, in hotter temperatures, and lift 
more weight. By the Army's own analysis, the F Block II program 
would save the Army more than $3 billion compared to any other 
modernization alternatives.
    And with the first five CH-47F Block II aircraft authorized 
by the fiscal year 2021 NDAA, and in the fiscal year 2021 
Defense Appropriations Bill, the Block II program is 
modernization that is happening right now. And the program is 
on track to start delivering advanced heavy-lift capability to 
the Army in 2024. Developmental flight testing for the CH-47F 
Block II continues, and F Block II has met all key performance 
parameters.
    I understand that Army leadership has finally stated that 
they will comply with the NDAA and place the first five 
aircraft on contract this fiscal year. My colleagues and I in 
the region will be watching closely for that contracting 
announcement.
    Less than 4 years ago, the Army certified to Congress that 
the F Block II program was a critical modernization priority, 
only to backtrack and try to cancel the F Block II program, 
putting the Chinook at a competitive disadvantage and placing 
thousands of jobs in advanced heavy-lift capability at risk.
    The Army simply didn't deliver on its commitment to support 
the Chinook, and it is unwise for the Army to walk away from 
the Block II program. That is why it is so important for 
Congress to follow up on its actions in fiscal year 2020 and 
2021 and continue its support for the program.
    For fiscal year 2022, we ask that you support an additional 
$140.9 million to procure the second five CH-47F Block II low-
rate initial production aircraft, an additional $52.2 million 
in advanced procurement to procure nine CH-47F Block II 
aircraft in fiscal year 2023, an additional $28.7 million in 
RDTE [research, development, test, and evaluation] funding for 
F Block II development, and directive report language for the 
Army to execute the CH-47F Block II modernization program.
    In closing, the Chinook is critical to the Army, to my 
district, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, our adjoining 
neighbors, and, as you can see from the bipartisan member 
letter that I led with Congressman Mike Bost, the Chinook is 
important for workers, service members, National Guard, across 
the Nation.
    Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, the entire 
committee, thank you for your strong support for, and 
commitment to, the CH-47F Block II program. And thank you for 
the opportunity to appear here today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Scanlon can be found in the 
Appendix on page 32.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Schrader is recognized for 5 minutes.

 STATEMENT OF HON. KURT SCHRADER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM OREGON

    Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 
Rogers. Appreciate the opportunity to testify. Generally in 
favor of the President's defense budget as put forward so far. 
It looks to be very forward-leaning, but at the same time 
fiscally responsible, probably the most fiscally responsible 
budget that we have seen coming out of DOD in a long, long, 
long time. And that is important I think at this point in time.
    The Defense Department itself has identified over $125 
billion worth of administrative changes, some waste, 
inefficiencies that they could make to actually augment their 
budget, without having to go into a lot of the domestic 
priorities that are really, really important at this point in 
time. So I really appreciate the President stepping up like 
that.
    Now, with China and Russia the way they are, I do not 
believe we should be cutting the defense budget like some folks 
have talked about. We have to lean in a little heavier. Putin 
and Xi Jinping are being more and more aggressive. Without the 
United States to act as a deterrent, I think the world order, 
frankly, would be in great jeopardy. So I really appreciate 
that.
    Particularly like how the President put the overseas 
contingency operations fund in the base budget. I mean, you 
know, let's be honest. We do not need to have a slush fund for 
the Defense Department. They have plenty of opportunity for 
weapons procurement, building, making sure that their 
operations are sufficient in their base budget.
    There should not be this overseas contingency operation. We 
are pulling out of Afghanistan, we are moving back on our war 
footing into a more thoughtful defense posture supporting 
hopefully our allies over the long haul.
    I would also like to talk a little bit about some concerns. 
I have concerns about the TRICARE system, some of the changes 
that have been made. The costs and those types of things really 
impact folks like myself and my constituents in States and 
districts where there really is not an active military base.
    Our National Guard folks are right alongside Active Duty 
personnel from the armed services branches, and, you know, they 
should get the same treatment, same opportunities, that 
everyone else has out there. That is just not the case. I hope 
the committee is willing to work on that going forward.
    Also, share my concern on the burn pits that Representative 
Welch talked about. That, the Blue Water stuff, we worked on 
the Agent Orange. The committee has shown it is very interested 
in protecting veterans that have served their country and 
making sure that these exposures are taken into account. We are 
learning more and more about how dangerous it is in some of 
these areas.
    And last but not least, I want to thank the committee. You 
have worked on a number of amendments over the years that I put 
forward to make sure our service members get the benefits they 
deserve, don't have financial worries overseas, not worried 
that their home is going to be sold out from underneath them, 
make sure that, you know, if they have been discharged 
involuntarily, that they come back, do not lose benefits. I 
really appreciate the way the committee has leaned into 
protecting the men and women in addition to promoting the 
Department of Defense.
    So with that, I really appreciate the opportunity to 
testify here today, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member. I wish 
you all the best on the defense budget discussions this year. 
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schrader can be found in the 
Appendix on page 34.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Case is recognized for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF HON. ED CASE, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM HAWAII

    Mr. Case. Chair Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, members of 
the committee, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to 
discuss with you our national security challenges and 
opportunities in my backyard of the Indo-Pacific.
    Overall, the current and previous administrations have 
affirmed the reemergence of strategic competition with other 
great powers as the central challenge to our national security. 
No country poses as significant a long-term threat to us as 
China. The NDAA must continue to address our strategic 
challenges throughout the Indo-Pacific.
    Key to ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific is the Pacific 
Deterrence Initiative, or PDI. It provides the foundation for 
establishing a forward-deployed, properly equipped, postured 
force to deter aggression and assure our allies and partners.
    The PDI is less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of the 
Department of Defense's total spending, but its importance 
cannot be understated. We must deter and deny our adversaries' 
ability to engage in acts of aggression or coercion against our 
partners and allies. We need investments in Guam, our Pacific 
Island partners, training ranges throughout the Indo-Pacific, 
and a new generation of weapons to overcome what the INDOPACOM 
command has referred to as the tyranny of distance. I urge you 
to fully support the PDI.
    Hawaii is of particular importance to this strategy as our 
major forward position in the Indo-Pacific. It is home to 
USINDOPACOM, the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pacific Air Forces, U.S. 
Army Pacific, Marine Corps Forces Pacific, and Special 
Operations Command Pacific. We also host several key operating 
forces and military installations.
    Critical to the protection and readiness of these commands 
and forces stationed in Hawaii are three important projects 
that I am going to spend a little time on--Homeland Defense 
Radar Hawaii, the Red Hill Underground Fuel Facility, and, as 
already discussed, the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization 
Plan.
    On radar, given the prominence of Hawaii's military and 
strategic value, Hawaii has become far more of a target to 
those who wish to do us harm, as they have stated publicly. The 
need for a fixed, persistent, and comprehensive missile defense 
cannot be understated. This requirement has been around for a 
while, hasn't gone away, and it won't.
    The Homeland Defense Radar Hawaii, or HDR-H, is the 
solution. It is regarded by the Missile Defense Agency and 
USINDOPACOM as vital and appropriate, and I urge you to 
strongly support continued funding for HDR-H.
    On Red Hill, the current linchpin of the military supply 
chain in the Indo-Pacific is the Red Hill Bulk Storage 
Facility. It is unlike any other in the world, as many members 
of the committee have seen when you have visited, with 20 
underground tanks that can store up to 250 million gallons of 
fuel.
    In 2014, however, approximately 27,000 gallons of fuel 
leaked from one of the tanks. This spill occurred right above 
the main aquifer for the city of Honolulu, providing water to 
hundreds of thousands of our residents, service members, and 
visitors to Hawaii.
    The Navy has agreed to develop, quote, ``double-wall 
equivalency'' secondary containment or remove all of the fuel 
from Red Hill. As this process unfolds, Red Hill must receive 
the oversight and funding needed for its upkeep and operations 
to protect Hawaii's water supply and our forces in the Pacific.
    On SIOP, Hawaii is home to one of our iconic and invaluable 
naval public shipyards, the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and 
Intermediate Maintenance Facility. After over 100 years of 
faithful service, it is time to recapitalize this and our three 
other public shipyards.
    I ask that you prioritize resources for the Navy's $21 
billion SIOP plan, both the construction projects and the 
program management. This massive undertaking also requires 
continuous oversight by this committee and my Appropriations 
Committee to ensure that it remains on schedule to ensure our 
ships are ready to fight.
    And I would endorse your prior discussion with 
Representative Kilmer. We have certainly commenced that 
discussion over on MILCON [military construction]/VA side of 
Appropriations as to whether some of the SIOP projects that are 
in fact ready to go should be part of the infrastructure bill.
    I look forward to working with the committee and its 
members and staff on achieving our national security bills in 
Hawaii and the Indo-Pacific region. Thank you for allowing me 
to testify before you today, and I ask that you consider my 
remarks as you craft the fiscal year 2022 NDAA.
    Mahalo.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Case can be found in the 
Appendix on page 35.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    I do not have any questions for this panel. Do any other 
members of the committee have questions?
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I do. Yeah. I wanted to ask Mr. 
Case, does the HDR-H have public support in Hawaii?
    Mr. Case. Yes, it does. We are in the middle of a 
discussion right now as to exactly where to locate the HDR-H. 
There is one site that the military has under consideration 
which has some concerns from the public, but the site that the 
military and the public want on the island of Kauai at the 
Pacific Missile Range Facility does have public support.
    Mr. Rogers. Good. I know we have talked about putting radar 
discrimination there in the past, and it has had some public 
opposition. I just want to make sure that was eliminated.
    Mr. Case. It is going to be--it is going to be a different 
site from the one that you have--you have that impression of.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much.
    That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Are there further questions for this panel? 
Hearing none, thank you.
    Bit of a problem here. I am expecting several more 
witnesses. None of them are currently present. Mr. Arrington 
had signed on but has not----
    Mr. Arrington. I am here, Mr. Chairman. Can you see me 
okay? And hear me okay?
    The Chairman. Awesome. Yes. There we go. We got you. Mr. 
Arrington, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF HON. JODEY C. ARRINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                             TEXAS

    Mr. Arrington. Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers, 
thank you for the opportunity to provide input in preparation 
for the 2022 NDAA.
    I come from West Texas and represent the largest B-1 bomber 
base in the country and try to be a voice for our Nation's 
airmen and the Air Force and to work alongside of you all to 
make sure that we are the absolute best fighting force on the 
field every day in defense of our great country, our freedoms, 
and our interests abroad.
    I will cut to the chase in terms of my very focused 
knowledge base and concerns as we proceed and as you all 
deliberate, Mr. Chairman. In the last NDAA, well, let me back 
up even further than that. We have flown the B-1s and utilized 
them in a way that has left them with some structural 
challenges.
    They are at the end of their life cycle, and they have been 
utilized, again, extensively, and the Air Force has had need to 
retire 17 of the 62 fleet. But of the 62, only 36 are combat-
ready. So that should get everybody's attention.
    Now, in the last NDAA, Mr. Chairman, we said to the Air 
Force ``You can reduce the combat-ready aircraft of the B-1 
from 36 to 32, but no more than that, for the next 5 years.'' 
And I think that is obviously wise, especially given the 
evolving threats and the importance to our air dominance that 
the B-1 provides the Air Force and the Global Strike Command.
    My concern--and I am asking you all to be extremely 
vigilant about this, and I have talked to our colleague, Rob 
Wittman, and he has been a big help. But we have to make sure 
that we have--that as these changes are made with the aircraft 
to ensure that we have the 32 combat-coded B-1s, that they are 
in fact PMAI [primary mission aircraft inventory], they are 
combat-ready.
    And whatever resources to maintain that in the transition 
to the B-21, which is the next-generation bomber, we need to 
make that the top priority because this is a very tenuous and 
potentially vulnerable situation to be with the tip of the 
spear now reduced significantly, as I said, 17 retirements and 
then the loss of 4 combat-coded B-1 bombers.
    So my first comment and recommendation and plea to my 
colleagues, make sure that those aircraft have the resources to 
be maintained at combat-coded, they are ready to get into the 
fight if necessary, and continue to project power all over the 
world. Secondly, let's make sure that the desires and the plans 
of the Air Force to make them more lethal, those that remain 
more lethal, with expanded carry and hypersonic weapons, I 
think that is wise, and I think it is critical, especially in 
this transition period and the gap between the B-1 and the B-
21.
    And lastly, obviously, the B-21 is the future. It is the 
most powerful, most capable, most lethal bomber that the world 
will ever see. And I am glad it is going to be on our team 
fighting for the good guys, but it is going to be several years 
down the road. I understand that it is on target in terms of 
budget and timing.
    I want to just say whatever we can do to keep that pace and 
those outcomes, those positive outcomes, and whatever we can do 
to accelerate it, I ask my colleagues to consider that because 
of the crucial timing of the B-1 to B-21.
    I didn't read through my notes, so I hope all of that made 
sense, but I thank you again for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, 
and my friend from Alabama, Mike Rogers, and his leadership. 
God bless you guys. You are doing the most important job and 
the first job of the Federal Government.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Arrington can be found in 
the Appendix on page 37.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, and I appreciate those comments. I 
think we do have some interesting decisions to make in, well, a 
number of areas. But in the bomber fleet, you know, as I've 
told a number of people, the most encouraging things that I 
have heard in quite a while when it comes to defense programs 
is where the B-21 is at. You know, it is under budget, it is 
performing as expected and is moving forward, and we have 
learned a lot of lessons.
    It is one of the more successful to date--knock on wood, 
got a ways to go here--large-ticket item programs that we have 
had in a long time. So I am pleased we are moving in the right 
direction on that. I know the Air Force has some tough 
decisions to make in terms of what to do with existing 
platforms.
    We are going to rely heavily on the B-52, and what role the
B-1 plays going forward is a matter of debate. So I appreciate 
getting your perspectives on that, and we will work to try and 
come up with the right decision. So thank you.
    I will take one more person, if you would hold on for just 
a second, Mr. Arrington. I just violated the rules there 
because I was stalling to give Mr. San Nicolas time to get on.
    So Mr. San Nicolas is recognized for 5 minutes, and when he 
is done, we will then--I will then open it up to questions for 
him and Mr. Arrington. Mr. San Nicolas, you are recognized.

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

    Mr. San Nicolas. I deeply appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the 
efforts to facilitate our participation. It is about 1:42 a.m. 
here on Guam, so I thank you so much, and I thank the committee 
for their kindness.
    Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and members of the 
distinguished House Armed Services Committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on our priorities for Guam and the Indo-
Pacific Region in the development of the chairman's mark for 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.
    As a matter of national policy, in reviewing the hiring 
practices and policies of the Department of Defense with the 
ongoing Marine relocation to Guam, it is apparent that there is 
an opportunity to further align community stakeholder interests 
on Guam and throughout the country with DOD mission. Key to 
such alignment is the direct availability of jobs in the 
communities in which DOD operates, when and if such jobs become 
available.
    With current hiring practices filtering job offerings and 
applicants for preference based on specific status categories 
such as DOD employment, veteran status, spousal status, 
priority placement, et cetera, it would be worthwhile to 
further filter these categories based on community proximity, 
such as ``DOD, Veteran, or Spouse Within Commuting Area,'' or a 
``DOD Member, Veteran, or Spouse Within State or Territory.''
    Such emphasis will ensure geographic preference is part of 
specific and general considerations, making communities within 
proximity of DOD hiring opportunities direct beneficiaries and 
strengthening stakeholder relationships.
    This, Mr. Chairman, will be particularly timely during this 
need for us to be able to ensure that communities are able to 
recover as quickly from our pandemic circumstances as possible 
by allowing for there to be a community preference 
consideration based on proximity. Whether it is by commuting 
area or by State or territory, geographic location, or both, we 
can really help the communities in which DOD operates.
    In continuance with our priority to align national defense 
interests with specific requests for Guam, we ask that this 
committee also continue to make strides and support INDOPACOM's 
request for a substantial Guam missile defense system that will 
protect our people, military intelligence, and defense assets 
located on and around the island.
    The need for the Aegis Ashore system is critical to the 
defense of our Nation in a progressively aggressive region. We 
need to do more to ensure that attacks or threats of attack 
from our adversaries are mitigated and ameliorated by the 
presence and potential use of greater response.
    As noted by Admiral Davidson, the current use of the 
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to protect Guam is 
not sufficient to address threats posed by China. With all of 
the investments that we are making on Guam for the interests of 
the country, the region, national defense, it is imperative 
that we do not miss the opportunity to strengthen defense 
capabilities with an Aegis Ashore system.
    Regionally, we are also concerned about communication 
capabilities facing unique threats with reports of 
deteriorating relations with China in the region suggesting 
that the DOD should take critical steps to secure American 
information technology assets. We understand that DOD has been 
addressing this through military-specific initiatives, such as 
the Mission Partner Environment.
    With the loss of protected status for information 
infrastructure in Hong Kong, we face serious threats to our 
commercial communications and information capacity. The MPE 
[Mission Partner Environment] alone may not be sufficient to 
meet military and civilian needs. We ask that you include 
language to require DOD to report on activities it is taking to 
ensure the security of our critical communication links and 
explain how plans to utilize dual-use communication services, 
such as commercially operated data centers on Guam, and other 
commercial operations that would be of vital use to Department 
of Defense initiatives, when and if those needs arise.
    And, lastly, Mr. Chairman, we do like--we would like for 
the committee to also initiate another study on whether or not 
there would be a value-added proposition to whether--to 
enhancing our Guam Air National Guard capabilities to include 
aircraft and flying missions. We are one of only three National 
Guards in the country--Air National Guards that do not have 
that capability. And for us to be the front line towards our 
potential adversaries to the east, I think that this would be 
something worthwhile to study. That way we can help augment the 
mission of our Active Duty and Air Force base operations.
    Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again for your 
consideration and facilitation. I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. San Nicolas can be found in 
the Appendix on page 39.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    We have also been joined by Mr. Sherman, so we will hear 
from Mr. Sherman, and then we will take questions. Mr. Sherman, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
                           CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are all familiar 
with the War Powers Act, the restriction on the President just 
deploying our troops into harm's way. Every President since the 
1970s has said that that provision is not constitutionally 
binding. They have sought support from Congress as an 
afterthought but never acknowledged that it was a necessity. 
And every attorney general has advised Presidents that the War 
Powers Act is not constitutionally binding on them.
    So Congress needs to act on the AUMFs [authorizations for 
the use of military force], but we also have to act to make 
sure that the War Powers Act is as constitutionally binding on 
the President. Otherwise, the President doesn't need an 
authorization to use military force. The way to do this--
something Congress has done on every appropriations bill since 
the 2012 fiscal year--is to provide that no funds can be used 
in contravention of the War Powers Act.
    We have had a former Republican attorney general testify 
before Foreign Affairs saying that that would be 
constitutionally binding. And if you look at the Constitution, 
the power to wage war is held within both Article I and Article 
II of the Constitution. Congress can declare war. The President 
is Commander in Chief. But our power over the purse is vested 
exclusively in Congress.
    So we have--it was controversial. In fact, we voted in 
2011. There was a series of floor votes, the Constitution 
prevailed, and now we have it in the national defense 
appropriations bill. No funds shall be used in contravention. 
But now it ought to be part of permanent law, not just law for 
1 year, and that is why I hope this year's NDAA specifies that 
Presidents cannot spend money in contravention of the War 
Powers Act.
    I will also be suggesting revisions requiring congressional 
approval for any unprovoked attack on the Korean Peninsula. I 
will also be submitting a provision about cooperating more with 
India, one of our non-NATO major allies. And I do that as 
Democratic chair of the India Caucus, and I expect that the 
Republican chair of the caucus, Mr. Chabot, will join me.
    And, finally, I will be suggesting to the committee a 
provision preventing defense sales to Azerbaijan until it 
releases the POWs [prisoners of war] from its recent war with 
Armenian forces.
    So I want to thank the committee for its time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sherman can be found in the 
Appendix on page 41.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Do we have any questions for our last three--well, 
witnesses is the wrong way--last three Members who testified? I 
don't have any questions.
    Mr. Rogers, do you have anything? Mr. Rogers, you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Rogers. Yeah, thank you. I wanted Mr. San Nicolas to 
know that I wholeheartedly agree with the request for the Aegis 
Ashore site at Guam, that that is inadequate, and this should 
be one of our highest priorities, to protect what we know is an 
early target from any attack.
    So I feel very strongly about trying to help them with 
that, as well as Mr. Case with his radar discrimination. We 
have to recognize those are vital targets.
    I am really interested in learning more, Mr. San Nicolas, 
about some missions for your Air National Guard. So if you will 
catch me on the floor sometime, or whatever, fill me in again 
on what you have in mind.
    And with regard to Mr. Sherman, I would like if it our 
committee did have authority or jurisdiction over the AUMF. I 
think we should, but unfortunately that is Foreign Affairs.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Sherman, go ahead.
    Mr. Sherman. Yeah. I think this provision will--the 
parliamentarian will let it in the NDAA. So thank you.
    The Chairman. Well, we have long had that battle, and I 
know we are actually working with a bipartisan group of Members 
on both Armed Services and Foreign Affairs that are interested 
in the AUMF. It is a very sticky wicket.
    In principle, you know, certainly Congress should reassert 
more authority, but there is considerable disagreement on how 
to express that authority between those who want to rein the 
President in more and those who are worried about reining him 
in too far. Threading that needle is something I have on and 
off worked on over the course of the last 10 years, obviously 
without success.
    We have stuck with the status quo just because we can't 
come to agreement on how to change it. I know there are a lot 
of Members who are really focused on figuring that out, and we 
will--I applaud those efforts, and we will see how they play 
out. And I am certainly in conversations with Chairman Meeks on 
Foreign Affairs about how he wishes to handle it. I know the 
Foreign Affairs Committee is pursuing options at the moment as 
well.
    And on the missile defense front, you know, Guam is a 
fundamental question. Certainly, that is the top priority that 
Admiral Davidson has put in front of us every year, and 
INDOPACOM is coming up with a better defense system for Guam. 
It is certainly his top priority in the region, so that has 
gotten our attention and we will consider that request.
    And as I said to your predecessor, Ms. Bordallo, whenever 
we were working on these: work on the Senate. You know, the 
Senate has always been a challenge when it comes to Guam, for a 
variety of different reasons. So we need some Senate allies, so 
when Mr. Rogers and I get into conference we have some friends 
on the Senate side to back up the requests from Guam. So, 
appreciate your work.
    Does anyone else have any questions for these Members?
    Mr. Kahele. Yeah. Aloha, Chair. This is Kai in Hawaii with 
a question for Rep. San Nicolas.
    The Chairman. Please go ahead.
    Mr. Kahele. Thank you so much. And hafa adai, Rep. San 
Nicolas. I know it is early there in Guam.
    Chair, having just spent about 4 hours at INDOPACOM 
yesterday, I can also assure you that the new INDOPACOM 
commander, Admiral Aquilino, his top priorities as well are 
Guam and the defense of Guam. And, obviously, that is not 
suitable or capable for the--increasing the emerging threats 
from both China and/or North Korea and their intermediate range 
ballistic missiles.
    I think my question--I have two questions. One, kind of 
piggybacking off the ranking member's previous question to 
Congressman Case about the Homeland Defense Radar Hawaii is--
the first one would be, is there public support for Aegis 
Ashore on Guam in terms of siting Aegis Ashore there?
    And then my second question would be, also along the lines 
of the Air National Guard adding a flying platform there, do 
you have any--is there any sentiment on--are we talking 
fighters, bombers, tankers, mobility aircraft? Has there been 
any discussions on what type of Air National Guard platform? 
Would it be a single aircraft or a flying wing? Any thoughts 
along those lines or how we should proceed forward with that? 
Thank you.
    Mr. San Nicolas. Thank you. And aloha, and very much 
appreciate the support that we get from our Hawaiian brothers 
and sisters.
    As for the public support for Aegis Ashore, unequivocally, 
yes, there is public support for it. Our community has had to 
deal with North Korea even just, you know, making empty 
threats, but they are still having psychological impacts not 
only in the community but also on our visitor industry. And so 
having those assets on the ground here would of course protect 
our mission, our DOD investments, our military personnel, the 
Americans living on Guam, but would also be very 
psychologically reassuring, and it would take off the table the 
ability for a closed-in adversary like North Korea from just 
being able to spew a few words and economically impact American 
interests in terms of the economy here in Guam.
    So absolutely, unequivocally, yes, we would like Aegis 
Ashore, and there is public support for it.
    To your second question about the flying mission for Guam, 
my Guam Air National Guard just wants to be a part of the 
solution, and they want to be able to build the modalities 
necessary for them to expand into whatever the DOD ultimately 
determines would be in the best interest of the country.
    So if it goes all the way to a fighter mission, they will 
be ready to grow into that. If it is just to start out with 
initial flight-based modalities, a single aircraft, they will 
be willing to accept that just to get their foot in the door. 
They know that in order for us to be able to contribute to the 
mission we need to of course develop the skill sets. And if 
developing those skill sets means just some initial basic air 
mission capability, we will accept that and grow into whatever 
DOD needs us to grow into.
    Mr. Kahele. Great. Thank you for that. And, you know, 
perhaps there may be things to learn from the Hawaii Air 
National Guard as a flying wing. You know, we have F-22s, C-
17s, KC-135s, and there might be some coordination that the 
Guam Air National Guard can do what the Hawaii Air National 
Guard did.
    And I couldn't agree more. Guam is absolutely critical to 
our national defense in the Pacific, and, you know, I just want 
to mahalo Representative San Nicolas and the people of Guam 
who, you know, allow our United States military to have very 
robust operations on the island of Guam and are continuing to 
do that as we move Marines over from Okinawa. There is a lot 
that the people of Guam have, you know, welcomed the United 
States military with.
    And so thank you so much, Rep. San Nicolas, and aloha.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Any further questions? Hearing none, that is all of the 
Member testimony we have.
    Before we go, I do have to get a unanimous consent to have 
the written testimony that has been submitted by Members put 
into the record. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
    That is all I have. Mr. Rogers, do you have anything for 
the good of the order?
    Mr. Rogers. I do not, other than to thank the witnesses for 
their time and efforts.
    The Chairman. Likewise, I thank them and look forward to 
working with all of you as we work through the National Defense 
Authorizing Act again this year.
    And with that, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

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

                            A P P E N D I X

                              May 5, 2021
      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              May 5, 2021

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              May 5, 2021

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                [all]