[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1231-H1237]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
A REDUCTION OF MILITARY FORCES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Rokita), my colleague.
ObamaCare
Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of one of my constituents--Janet,
from Crawfordsville--pictured here with her husband, Steve. Like
millions of our fellow Americans, she is finding out just how deceptive
ObamaCare's cheerleaders were when they sold this insidious law to the
American people.
Following surgical treatment for cancer last year, Janet was
receiving radiation treatment, and, as if battling a serious illness
weren't stressful enough, Janet recently lost her job and was notified
that the insurance provided through her severance package would be
ending soon. Her family faced the decision to either continue the same
coverage under what we call ``COBRA'' or enroll in an ObamaCare plan.
She was skeptical of the process of enrolling in ObamaCare, but as the
end date of her employer-sponsored insurance loomed, she was reassured
by the news that the President and his team had fixed the technical
glitches plaguing healthcare.gov.
Mr. Speaker, I wish I could report that the story ends there on a
good note, but it only gets worse, as it does for millions of
Americans.
Imagine Janet's frustration when she encountered glitch after glitch
throughout the enrollment process. She spent hours on the phone with
call center workers, only to find out that the call center workers were
as bewildered by the Web site as she was. Several times, she was cut
off after holding for over 2 hours.
Mr. Speaker, I would surmise that Members of this Congress get
frustrated when holding for a few minutes for anything--2 hours
repeatedly, a cancer patient who can't get coverage.
Eventually, Janet had to enroll via the United States mail. This is
after taxpayers--and future generations, for that matter, since we
borrow 4 percent of what we spend around here--paid nearly $500 million
for a Web site that was supposed to handle a relatively simple signup
process. Believing she had successfully enrolled, Janet submitted the
appropriate payments for her ObamaCare coverage. She paid for it, Mr.
Speaker. Unfortunately, Janet did not receive any confirmation that
those payments were received or that she had actually enrolled in her
plan.
Adding to the uncertainty, neither Obama's bureaucrats nor the
insurer can verify her enrollment now. Despite efforts, my staff could
not get an answer from the bureaucrats either because of how this law
was designed. Meanwhile, Janet continues to receive notices that
payment is due, again, adding insult to injury since she already
submitted her payment.
It still doesn't end there.
Janet was also informed that she can no longer continue her cancer
treatment with her doctor of choice as the provider would only be able
to accept certain health care plans off the ObamaCare exchange. The
plan Janet chose did not qualify, and it was virtually impossible to
verify this during the enrollment period. Janet will have to continue
her cancer treatment with a new doctor several times per week.
Thankfully, she is allowed to do that, but the doctor is a 60-mile
round trip drive.
ObamaCare has only served to exacerbate already trying and
complicated health care issues with bureaucratic red tape and customer
service so terrible that it is one only this Federal Government can
provide. Like many Hoosiers, Janet was misled by ObamaCare's
proponents. Her choices have been severely limited, and she is hardly
able to shop around for a doctor she is comfortable with. This is not
health care reform. ObamaCare is leading to a health care crisis.
I continue to receive stories from Hoosiers--and I know you do as
well--about how ObamaCare has misleadingly done the complete opposite
of what was promised. Insurance policies continue to be canceled.
Premiums are skyrocketing, and deductibles are soaring. Choice has been
reduced, not amplified, and specialty services are in increasingly
short supply. In other words, they are being rationed.
I will continue fighting to repeal and replace this insidious law for
people like Janet and for millions of Americans in similar situations.
Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Rokita.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about an issue that
maybe is unknown to many Members and many citizens but should be known,
which is the reduction of forces--the reduction in the capability of
our military services across all branches, across the whole spectrum--
and how that process is going. It has been my studied opinion at this
point that the process is what we should discuss at this time--a
process that has lacked transparency, a process that has lacked
deliberation.
Now, while it is this Member's belief that the chiefs at the DOD are
under significant pressure from an administration to defend this
Nation, they are also under significant pressure to make cuts, not only
to make those cuts, but to make those cuts in a very particular way.
That is part of the discussion today--the cuts to the reserve forces.
{time} 1230
Before I recognize some of my colleagues, I just want to provide from
the Joint Chiefs the definition of the operational reserve, which is
your Guard and Reserve:
As such, the services organize, resource, equip, train, and
utilize their Guard and Reserve components to support mission
requirements----
This is important:
--to the same standards as their Active components.
To the same standards, which is interesting to me because
some of the recent reports and quotes that I have heard are
things like it is structured to be complementary, and
capabilities in its three components are not interchangeable.
So that statement flies in the face of the original
definition of what Guard and Reserve forces do.
And things like saying that Guard and Reserve members only train 39
days a year, which, again, I think the
[[Page H1232]]
Chiefs are under considerable pressure. DOD is fighting for its life--
not among its members but, in my opinion, against an administration;
and they are doing what they have to do.
I am an Army soldier. I joined an Army of one, not an Army of some of
us get this and some of us get that. We all do the same work together
at the same level; and that is the expectation, as it should be. But
that is what we are going to discuss for the next hour.
At this time, I yield to my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Thank you, Representative Perry. I really appreciate this
opportunity to talk about the National Guard.
I first want to start by thanking Congressman Perry for his service
in the Pennsylvania National Guard for some time. He is very committed
to our country and committed to the Guard. I commend him for putting
this on.
I also want to commend his chief of staff, who is seated right next
to him, Colonel Lauren Muglia, who is also an active guardswoman; and I
am very proud of her service at Fort Indiantown Gap in Lebanon County,
Pennsylvania, at the National Guard center up there, which is located
in my congressional district--a very important asset to this country's
homeland security and emergency preparedness, as well as any other
missions that would be called upon them.
But I have a few things I just wanted to say about the Guard very,
very quickly.
The Army's plan for the National Guard includes, frankly, drastic
plans to slash the force structure, end strength and aviation assets,
and will put the Guard on the back shelf as a strategic reserve. I am
very concerned about this. And I know many of my colleagues are as
well.
Congress has made a very significant investment in the Guard over the
past 12-or-so years to train and equip the Guard as an operational
reserve. At a time when the Pentagon must dig very deep for savings in
their programs and agencies, the Guard remains a viable investment.
I say this as a member of the Appropriations Committee. We have to
make a lot of very hard choices with respect to how we allocate our
very limited resources. The Defense Department is coming under a great
deal of stress.
But I want you to consider this: the most recent report of the
Reserve Forces Policy Board, or RFPB, concluded that a National Guard
member costs about one-third of their Active component counterpart.
This would translate into nearly $2.6 billion in savings for every
10,000 positions shifted from a full-time to a part-time status.
What's more, the Army National Guard provides 32 percent of the
Army's total personnel and 40 percent of its operating force, while
only consuming 11 percent of the Army's budget. That represents a value
to this country and, frankly, to the taxpayer.
I mean no disrespect to anybody, but I think we have to understand
the real value of this National Guard to the taxpayer.
The Air National Guard provides 19 percent of the Air Force's total
personnel and 30 to 40 percent of its overall fighter, tanker, and
airlift capacity, at 6 percent of the Air Force budget.
Many of those Air National Guardsmen and pilots are very experienced
and have many, many hours of service. So I think we should acknowledge
how experienced those folks are.
In conclusion, I just wanted to say that not only does the Guard
provide this operational asset to our overall national security and
defense structure; but, just as important, it provides an emergency
preparedness and homeland security function that they have to help us
deal with all the time. In my State, it is usually floods and weather
emergencies. The Guard plays an absolutely critical role to help us
during those times.
So they have that operational component. They obviously contribute
significantly in the wars, and we have seen this, too. By the way, if
you have been to Afghanistan or Iraq--and I know some of our colleagues
here have served there and paid very heavy prices--frankly, we have
seen how well integrated our Guard and Reserve units are with regular
Army and regular Air Force units. So I am very proud of that service.
Again, that dual mission--they can help us fight wars and they are
certainly a critical component to our over homeland security and
emergency preparedness strategy in the country.
With that, I thank Congressman Perry for his leadership on this
issue, and I really appreciate that he put this Special Order together.
Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Representative Dent. I appreciate your comments
and I appreciate your support for our Guard.
Again, that is the discussion--a discussion about a process that
should be open, that we should have a part in. What we would ask at
this point is that the DOD not proceed with the plan until they have
had input from everybody involved, which includes our Nation's Guard
and Reserve and includes hometown heroes that serve right in every
single town, every city, every hamlet, every village across the
country, and serve their Nation well.
In this Nation's wars in the last 10 to 15 years, they have been 50
percent of the fighting force. Why haven't we included them in the
conversation in a meaningful way?
With that, I would like to again yield to another colleague of mine
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
Mr. ROTHFUS. I would like to thank my good friend and fellow
Pennsylvanian (Mr. Perry) for hosting this important discussion.
As my colleague Congressman Dent noted, it is Colonel Perry who in
2008 left the comforts of our country to serve in Iraq. His chief,
Lauren Muglia, also is with the National Guard and went overseas for
our country.
I rise today in support of the Pennsylvania National Guard and, in
particular, the brave soldiers who serve in the 1-104th Attack
Reconnaissance Battalion, based in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. Their
future, like that of many other National Guard units across the
Commonwealth, is being placed in serious jeopardy as part of the Army's
most recent force structure plan.
Major General Wesley Craig, the adjutant general for the Pennsylvania
National Guard, put it best when he wrote in a letter to the editor
that recently appeared in one of our local newspapers, the Johnstown
Tribune-Democrat, that the 1-104th is ``under attack.'' In fact, Major
General Craig's letter encapsulates this issue so well that I would
like to read it into the Record now.
Major General Craig writes:
Johnstown battalion is under attack.
The more than 250 members of the Pennsylvania Army National
Guard's 1-104th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion, based in
Johnstown, may lose their Apache helicopters and a number of
them could be furloughed if the Army has its way.
These are the same highly trained soldiers who recently
returned from a year-long deployment in Afghanistan, where
they provided aerial support using AH-64 Apache helicopters
fighting side-by-side with their active component
counterparts.
The Army wants to restructure its aviation fleet by
divesting itself from Kiowa helicopters and replacing them
with Apache helicopters taken from the Army National Guard.
Consequentially, the removal of 24 Apaches from our
inventory in Johnstown will render the 1-104th a nonmission-
capable force when it comes to defending our Nation at home
and abroad.
In turn, the Army proposes to replace the Apaches with only
12 other aircraft--a 50 percent reduction in the number of
aircraft that we have in Johnstown.
Detrimental actions like this prove that the National Guard
is still considered ``second-rate'' by the Active component
despite us demonstrating our competence and effectiveness
over the last 11 years of war.
Taking away highly trained personnel and equipment from the
Reserve component--which cost a fraction of what it does in
the Active component to operate--does not make sense for our
community, Commonwealth or country.
Major General Craig concludes:
Having worn the uniform for more than 40 years, I, too,
have been trained to fight; and fight I will for the skilled
and courageous troops of our Nation's reserve forces.
Signed, Major General Wesley E. Craig, Adjutant General,
Pennsylvania National Guard.
Mr. Speaker, there are better options than this. Let us commit to
working together to ensure that the National Guard units like the 1-
104th continue to receive the support they have earned and deserve.
Mr. PERRY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
At this time, we are going to talk a little bit about aviation, and
Guard
[[Page H1233]]
aviation in particular, because it is something I have been familiar
with since the mid-1980s, when I first went to flight school. It is one
of the issues that has become the forefront of this discussion and this
argument.
Mr. Rothfus noted the drawdown and the cuts to Guard aviation and the
claim, or the charge, that the Guard is not trained, accessible, or
ready. With that, I just harken back to my short time in Iraq when I
served with some of the finest aviators on the planet from Alpha 106
from Indiana, a group of fine people under my command in the task that
had been to Iraq, many of them, before. They told me the stories of
their time there before.
They were just above reproach, and they were the most professional
and well-trained individuals that were competent to do the mission from
the day they showed up on the ground; and they proved that every single
day for a year.
With that, I yield to my friend from the great State of Illinois, who
also served with those fine individuals from that very company and has
sacrificed greatly for our Nation. She would like to discuss this issue
as well.
Congresswoman Duckworth.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, my National Guard aviation battalion was
deployed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. We performed missions ranging from
forward refueling point operations to air assaults all across the
battlefield in Iraq. We were so effective that the multinational forces
headquarters assigned us to help Active Duty aviation units to fly
their missions as well as our own. Yet when we first reported to
coordinate these missions, our Active Duty counterparts welcomed us
literally by dismissively saying, Well, here comes the JV team.
Despite this less than friendly welcome, my Guard unit seamlessly
integrated and carried out not only our own, but also their Active
flight missions as well. In the process, we gained trust and mutual
appreciation and respect.
We have come so far as a Nation and as a military. For 12 years, our
Guard and Reserve units have fought side-by-side with our Active Duty
counterparts in combat zones all over the world. This Nation spent
precious blood, sweat, and treasure to build a fully interchangeable,
cost-effective operational reserve that has been key to our successes
in defending our Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. To
squander this investment and divest our training and equipping of the
reserve forces is a huge disservice to our taxpayers and to our
national security.
The Guardsman is ``twice the citizen,'' relied on heavily by our
Governors and generals alike. They respond whether the duty station is
a mountain pass in Afghanistan or the flooding banks of the Mississippi
River.
The Guardsman is one-third the cost of an Active Duty soldier or
airman. The Guardsman is the least expensive asset our military has and
a critical and complementary component of our overall force structure.
We are a better Nation with a better military than to dismantle the
sacrifices made on the battlefield with false claims of National Guard
and Reserves' lack of capability. For 22 years I have served in the
Reserves and in the Guard, the last 8 years of which were without pay.
I certainly have devoted much more than 39 days a year to serving my
Nation as a military pilot; and so have my fellow Guard troops, whose
sacrifices and capabilities are often underrepresented and under
appreciated.
I urge my colleagues to join me in helping preserve the operational
capability of the Guard in this year's National Defense Authorization
Act.
Mr. PERRY. Thank you.
At this time I would also like to yield to my colleague from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo), for a few comments.
Mr. PALAZZO. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as he is being
called today, Colonel Perry, for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, the recent comments by Army leadership are as ridiculous
as anything I have seen in quite some time. In a transparent effort to
protect their own, they have effectively thrown the men and women of
the National Guard out with the bath water.
It is a fact that the average National Guardsman costs one-third of
what his Active Duty counterpart does.
{time} 1245
Now, I ask the American people, what is the better investment here?
Giving these brave citizens soldiers a pink slip is not only
ridiculous from a readiness standpoint, but it amounts to throwing away
billions of dollars and hours of training.
Here is your pink slip. Thanks for all your hard work, but we won't
be needing you anymore is basically what they are saying.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the men and women of our National Guard
are not only the smarter financial decision, but they have also earned
their stripes over the past 12 years at war.
As a current member of the Mississippi National Guard, I know that
the men and women I serve with and those who come from all over the
United States and the territories to train at Camp Shelby before
deployment are some of the most professional and most capable soldiers
and airmen that our Nation has ever produced, regardless of what
General Odierno has said. These men and women are the best-trained,
most battle-hardened force that the Guard has seen in their 377-year
history. These men and women have fought side by side for over 12 years
with the men and women of our Active Duty. To put them back on the
shelf will not only waste that experience, but it does nothing to deal
with what many military leaders have said is the biggest threat to our
national security, and that is our national debt.
Meanwhile, some Members of this body are content to watch our
national debt climb on the back of runaway entitlement spending that
continues to suck away resources from every sector. We are cutting
right to the bone from our best capabilities. I honestly have trouble
believing that Army leadership truly thinks the best way to handle
budget pressures is to gut our military capability, but that is exactly
what they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, I promise that if the Army and the President bring this
half-baked idea to us here in Congress, I will do everything, along
with my colleagues, in my power as a Member of this House and as a
member of the House Armed Services Committee to ensure that it is
soundly defeated.
Congressman, thank you very much for putting on this Special Order.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for
his comments.
Again, we are not saying that the Guard and the Reserve aren't
willing to do their part. It is my belief, it is this Member's belief,
that the DOD and the Chiefs are under significant pressure from the
administration to do what they are doing.
We are asking for an open process and to be involved in the
conversation because we want to do our part. But we can't watch the
investments that have been mentioned here today be eviscerated, be
thrown away, be cast away like so many things.
We understand very clearly over the course of this last 5 years this
administration's tenor and attitude towards our Nation's fighting
forces, but we must continue on for the sake of what we have invested
in and the sacrifices that have been made by members of our hometowns
in the Guard and Reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the fine gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Enyart).
Mr. ENYART. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Perry and I might debate about the causes for the budget cuts at
the Pentagon and for the reasons for the budget cuts there, but what we
do not debate and what we stand shoulder to shoulder on is the fact
that the Army National Guard, the Air National Guard, is the best-
trained, best-equipped, best-led National Guard force that we have ever
had in our history.
I had the honor, before I came to Congress, of serving as the
Adjutant General, commanding the 13,000 Army and Air National Guardsmen
of the great State of Illinois.
Unfortunately what has happened, as the drawdown has started to
occur, the Pentagon has put forth a plan that would slash the Army
National Guard. The Army National Guard and, for that matter, the Air
National Guard--today we are specifically talking about the Army, but
every remark I make applies to the Air National Guard as well.
[[Page H1234]]
The Army National Guard serves as America's insurance policy. It
serves as the shock absorber for our military. We can't maintain a
large enough military to answer every contingency, and that is why we
have the Army National Guard and that is why we have the Army Reserve.
Those are the soldiers that we call forth when we need them. When we
don't need them, they train at home.
In 2005, in Iraq, 51 percent of the soldiers in Iraq were Army
National Guardsmen and Reservists--51 percent. Over half were Army
National Guard and Reserves. Yet today, folks in the Pentagon want to
slash the Army National Guard.
We had a blizzard in Illinois last week. That blizzard was so bad
that Interstate 57 at its juncture with Interstate 70 in Effingham,
Illinois was closed. There were six jackknifed semitrucks. There were
375 cars stacked up, couldn't get through, snow blowing, 35-below
windchill factor. That blizzard was so bad that the wreckers couldn't
get through. That blizzard was so bad that the snowplows, the Illinois
Department of Transportation could not get through.
Who got through? What did the Governor do? The Governor called out
the Illinois National Guard. He called out those battlefield wreckers
that serve the purpose in battle of going forth on the battlefield and
pulling the Humvees and other Army vehicles that are damaged and
inoperable off the battlefield. Those eight wheel-drive vehicles could
get through that blizzard. They could get through those snowdrifts.
They rescued those hundreds of stranded people in those 375 cars and
six semitrucks on Interstate 57.
Now, that equipment, that is wartime equipment. And you know what the
folks over at the Pentagon are arguing today? Well, they are going to
strip every single AH-64 attack helicopter out of the Army National
Guard, saying, well, the Governors don't need them. What do you need an
attack helicopter in the Illinois National Guard or the Pennsylvania
National Guard or any other National Guard for?
And, by the way, Illinois doesn't have AH-64s, so I don't have a dog
in this fight other than supporting the National Guard.
The Pentagon is saying you don't need them.
What is the first maxim you learn in the Army? You train as you
fight. You have to train as you fight so you know what you are doing
when you go into battle. That is why the Army National Guard needs
those attack helicopters, so they can go into battle with them. They
will train with them so that they can fight with them.
Based on the Army's logic, the Illinois National Guard wouldn't have
had those battlefield wreckers to go in and rescue those people.
We can't let this happen to the National Guard.
I went to the retirement ceremony for Lieutenant General Bill Ingram
this week over at Fort Myer, and General Ingram was the TAG of North
Carolina. We served together as TAGs. He commanded North Carolina; I
had Illinois. He got promoted to Lieutenant General; I got demoted to
Congress.
But at his retirement ceremony, he got up and spoke. And what was the
first unit that the Army called up out of North Carolina in 2001 when
we were ready to go to war? It was the attack helicopters. It was the
AH-64s. They were the shock absorber. They were the insurance policy
for America.
While we are talking about the Pentagon, when you look at the
Pentagon today, you look at the Active Duty military establishment. We
have more generals and admirals today than we had during World War II.
We have an army of less than 500,000 people. In World War II, it was
about 5 million. It was about 10 times the size. But today we have more
generals, and every one of those generals on Active Duty Has a staff,
and they have cooks and drivers and so on and so forth. Right now they
have 250 one- or two-star generals serving on Active Duty in the Army.
Now, a division, you need to understand, is commanded by a two-star
general.
Does anybody in here besides Representative Perry and Representative
Duckworth know how many Active Duty divisions we have in the United
States Army?
We have 10. That is 10 two-star generals. We have 250 on Active Duty.
I think before we start cutting those soldiers who go out onto that
battlefield of a blizzard, operating that battlefield wrecker, pulling
people and saving lives, doing that double duty, doing that double duty
of saving lives in floods, blizzards, and hurricanes, as well as
deploying to Afghanistan, I think maybe we need to look at cutting some
of the fat, some of that excess, some of those excess two-stars.
That is what we need to do. We need to preserve our insurance policy.
We need to preserve that best-trained, best-equipped and best-led
National Guard force that has fought for us, not only in Afghanistan,
not only in Iraq, but also on the home front.
And one last pitch for the Illinois National Guard. We have had
Illinois National Guard soldiers on duty 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year in the battle, first in Iraq, and then in Afghanistan, every day
since we went into Iraq--every single day, National Guard soldiers. So
to those folks over in the Pentagon who think that National Guard
soldiers are second-class soldiers, I have got a few brave people I
would like you to meet, and one of them is sitting right there,
Lieutenant Colonel Tammy Duckworth.
Thank you very much, Mr. Perry.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Enyart for his service to our
Nation, both in the military forces as well as here in Congress. I
would like to just reflect upon his remarks as well. It is my intent to
bring a different standard of decorum and bearing to the discussion.
Again, we understand that DOD is under significant pressure and
fighting for its life. We would like a place at the table to have a
discussion, because we don't think that a proportional cut--if you are
cutting 100 percent, and you say 50 percent to the active component and
50 percent to the reserve component is the same thing, it is not the
same thing if the reserve component costs one-third, yet you yield the
same results when you have those servicemembers on the battlefield.
We are going to continue the discussion, but at this time I would
like to yield to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, my friend,
Congressman Perry, from the great State of Pennsylvania, for organizing
this Special Order to talk about the importance of the National Guard
to our great Nation.
The Third District of Florida is home to the Camp Blanding Joint
Training Center and to over 2,000 National Guardsmen and -women and
their families. And we in the Third District of Florida, as well as the
State of Florida, are extremely proud of the National Guard and of
their service in the past, and especially in the recent years in the
wars in the Middle East. They answered the call and performed
admirably.
The National Guard is a cost-effective force that is integral to the
effectiveness of the United States military. Over the past 12 years,
Congress has invested billions of dollars to train and equip the
National Guard as an operational reserve. It would be a disservice to
the taxpayers and to national security to squander this investment
away.
They are that well-regulated militia, the minutemen of our Nation,
which is necessary in order to have a free and secure Nation. They are
ready, when called upon, to aid our Nation in times of need. Be it for
national security or for national disaster, they answer the call.
We must ensure that their effectiveness and readiness is not
adversely affected by a lack of our foresight. We are proud of all of
our Guardsmen and -women, and we must not forget the great sacrifices
that they have made in defense of our Nation.
Again, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Perry, for arranging this
Special Order. Thank you for your service, too.
Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
And to continue the conversation, I would like to yield to the
gentlewoman from the great State of Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
Ms. SINEMA. Thank you to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for hosting
that bipartisan Special Order.
Unfortunately, these days in Washington there are too few issues that
bring Republicans and Democrats together to find reasonable solutions
to
[[Page H1235]]
the challenges facing our country, but supporting the National Guard is
one issue that certainly brings us together, which is why I appreciate
the opportunity to join my colleagues today.
The United States needs a fully functional and operational National
Guard. The active military and the National Guard may have different
attributes, but they train and certify to the same standards, and Guard
units and personnel can function interchangeably with their Active Duty
brothers and sisters.
We rely on the National Guard to protect our country overseas and
here at home. Arizona has a proud tradition of service, and we are
proud of our fellow Arizonans who become citizen soldiers.
Since September 11, over 12,000 members of the Arizona National Guard
have deployed, and we have 150 members currently mobilized.
Not only does the Arizona National Guard deploy overseas, it has a
critical mission here at home: responding to natural disasters,
improving border security, and performing counterdrug operations.
The Arizona National Guard is also leading the way in helping our
citizen soldiers and their families balance the challenges of service
with civilian life.
Under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Denise Sweeney, Director
of Arizona's National Guard Total Force Team, the Be Resilient Program
is promoting mission readiness and retention by increasing the
resilience of each servicemember and their family.
{time} 1300
The Total Force Team focuses on integrating and coordinating the
efforts of all resilience and support programs for Arizona National
Guard members and their families, and it leverages public-private
partnership to engage the broader community.
This program is strengthening servicemembers and their families and
is another example of why the Arizona National Guard is so important to
our State and why the National Guard deserves our full support.
I support a defense budget that responsibly uses taxpayer dollars and
keeps our country safe and secure. I have serious concerns that the
proposed cuts to our National and Reserve component would undermine the
ability of Arizona's National Guard to perform its critical missions.
Substantially reducing the size of National Guard, and in particular,
removing all helicopter attack aviation, could hurt Arizona and our
national security. You can't build emergency response, combat, and
leadership capabilities overnight. We will continue to call on our
National Guard in times of need. We should make sure they have all the
training, tools, and force strength to answer that call.
As a member of a military family, I understand that these citizen
soldiers and their families make great sacrifices in order to serve our
country. We should stand up and support these brave and committed men
and women, and give them the tools that they need to keep us safe.
Thank you, Colonel Perry, for hosting this time. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this important issue more.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady from Arizona and would
also like to commend her on her comments regarding the Guard.
Specifically, for me as an Army aviator, one of the main topics of
discussion in the reduction of forces in the Guard is Army-Guard
aviation. The comments that, quite frankly, that are disappointing and
hit my heart are that Guardsmen train 39 days a year, and that is 2
days a month and 15 days a year of annual training. I would suggest to
you that I know very few--as a matter of fact, I don't know one single
Guard member that trains only 39 days a year.
As a commissioned officer who was on flight status, I spent the bulk
of my time during the 2 days a month, and 15 days in the year,
commanding, doing administrative things, leading my troops, planning
for the future, planning their training.
The other time that I came in at least once a week, if not more
often, was to get my flight time because I had the exact same
requirements. It is important to note when folks say, well, they are
not as trained, they are not accessible, and not ready as Active
components, it is not to take anything away from the Active component,
because they train every single day.
I will tell you this: I have the same standards, require the same
amount of flight hours, the same check rides, flight evaluations, the
same physical requirements every single year as an Active Duty aviator.
If I am a gun pilot, I must do gunnery. If I am a utility pilot, I must
do sling loads, I must fly with night-vision goggles so that I am ready
to go. Indeed, we are ready to go every single time.
People say, well, why do we need attack assets? Why do we need the
AH-64 Apache in the Guard? I am not sure, quite honestly, from the
standpoint of are you protecting your State that we need that AH-64
Apache in the Guard, but I will tell this: most Guard units are replete
with former members of the Active component. They did their time on
Active Duty, whether it was 6 years, or whether it was 15 or 18, and
then they came to the Guard, and they enhanced their skills.
As a matter of fact, on Active Duty when you are downrange, when you
are over the wire, and you are serving with Active Duty members and
Guard and Reservists, oftentimes if given a choice to fly with members
of the Guard as opposed to Active Duty, many Active Duty components
will choose to fly with the Guard members.
There is one simple reason. It is because the Active Duty component,
even though they are serving all day long, every day of the year, as a
captain you are administering your administrative duties. You are
leading your troops. You are planning their training, but you are not
flying. So the bulk of the experience in doing the job of flying the
aircraft is actually in the Guard. If you have a choice between flying
with a captain and a lieutenant who have 800 hours between them or
flying with a Guard CW-4 and a captain that have 35 to 4,000 hours
between them in difficult terrain, in difficult conditions, what would
you choose?
The mechanics who work on these aircraft don't work on them just a
little bit and then move on to something else. They work on these
aircraft for 20, 30 years at a stretch. They know every single thing
about them; they live with them, they sleep with them. Oh, by the way,
many of these folks are active Guard and Reserves. So it is not just 39
days a year, and not only more than that, it is every single day of the
year. That is why the Guard and the Reserves are ready to go when
called upon, and people will say, well, you are not ready to go. You
have got to go to a MOB site and train before you can go.
As a task force commander, a battalion commander who went through
that, I was ready to go. I met my minimums, and I met every single
requirement that the Active component met. So did all of the members of
my unit, men and women who had served for years and years. When they
send you to a place like that they give you a unit from Illinois, they
give you a unit from Alaska, or a unit from Oregon, a unit on Active
Duty, a unit from the Reserves. You haven't worked together. You have
got to spend a little time figuring out your SOPs, your standard
operating procedures, so that you can work together, and that does take
some time.
I would also say that sometimes the Guard and Reserve, things are
placed upon them for training purposes that the Active component says
we need, when we would argue we don't need, and they slow us down from
getting to the fight.
As an aviator, I wondered why I had to get into the heat trainer. I
had to do rollover drills in a Humvee. I am not driving a Humvee around
the streets of Iraq or Afghanistan. I am flying an aircraft, and that
is where I should spend my time, but the Active component says, no, you
all are going to do this and it takes some time. We get that. They want
us to be safe and they want us to have that training. Okay, we get it.
Our core mission, the things that we do, the things we train for, the
things the taxpayers pay for is exactly the same for an Army aviator in
the Guard as an Army aviator serving on Active Duty. Now, it might not
be the same for artillery men or an infantryman or a medic or something
like that, it might not be. I don't know because I don't serve in those
branches, but I know my branch.
[[Page H1236]]
I would say that each of us have our strengths and we recognize that.
We recognize the Active component strength. I think in my heart that
the Active component, DOD recognizes the strength of the Guard, but
again, it would be my contention that DOD is fighting for its life, not
against its brethren who have served in an Army of one, but against an
administration who arguably doesn't have the same view as many of those
who serve and many Americans that support the armed services of the
armed services. So they are in a difficult position.
I think about when they say that we are not ready to go, the Eastern
Army Aviation Training Site, located at Fort Indiantown Gap where I
serve, the folks that serve there work every single day, and they train
Army aviators. That is what they do there. When you leave Fort Rucker
and need to get an advanced aircraft, you come to EAATS many times--
Eastern Army Aviation Training Site--and learn to fly a Chinook, learn
to fly a Black Hawk. They don't do that in Fort Rucker in many cases.
Your advanced training happens in the Guard. That is where that
experience is.
Not only is it the same aircraft that many times the Active component
is flying, but the EAATS folks oftentimes train even more advanced
aircraft than the Active component's flying. I think that those EAATS
guys are out training the special operations guys in the F model
Chinook. These are Guard folks, training the Active component to go do
their mission, and not just any Active component, special operations,
the best of the best. Guard folks are training them. I don't want
anybody to lose sight of that argument and that discussion.
You know, I am not saying, again, that the Guard shouldn't do its
part. We are ready to do our part. We understand that the budget is
tight and that changes must be made. But we are asking again for an
open and a transparent conversation that meets the standards of decorum
and bearing that we have so come to love, and one of the reasons why
many people serve in our Armed Forces. I want to be an army of one that
doesn't fight with his brothers and sisters in the Active component.
As a task force commander, I was privileged--and I mean well
privileged--to command a task force of 800 to 1,000 souls that included
National Guard, Active component, Reserves from the continental United
States, from places in Europe, all fine individuals working under one
commander, one mission, with one standard. I am concerned when I hear
that the chiefs are being put into, in my opinion, a position to say
that the Guard and the Reserves are lesser, because it is my experience
that they are not.
It is my experience when soldiers are serving side by side that they
don't see, and they don't recognize, and they don't notice any
difference. They do their jobs. I don't want the chiefs to be put in
that position. So we are asking, we are pleading, through this, with
the administration. Let's have an open process. Let's have one that is
transparent. Let's have one that we can engage in a conversation,
because if the Guard costs 30 percent of what the Active Duty costs
are, then a proportional cut really isn't proportional. If we offer
things that are important to the Nation, as is evidenced in the last 10
or 15 years of war by our presence, where 50 percent of the component
is fighting those wars, not only in just logistics, but in kinetic
activity, engaging the enemy in close combat, with the tools of the
trade, with what you have offered and have sacrificed greatly, greatly,
your Guard and Reserve, those men and women, they go, and some of them
don't come home. Their sacrifice is just as important as those in the
Active component.
It would be my contention, Mr. Speaker, that we need to slow this
process down. It needs to be opened up so that everybody can see, and
so that everything can be evaluated and that the Guard and Reserve can
do its part but shouldn't have to do more than its part.
The Nation's investment in this readiness that you find in your
States that comes into play when you have storms, when you have natural
disasters, comes to play right there; that that readiness isn't lost,
and that the days of the strategic Reserve are long in the past and
that we don't go back to that failed model, and that we don't draw down
so significantly that when we have a new administration, the American
taxpayer will be asked, well, we are not ready to fight. We are not
ready to meet our constitutional obligation to defend this Nation. Now
we must spend more money to get back to where we were. We don't have to
do that.
This administration's actions right now, we are making a conscious
choice to reduce our readiness without cause, without reason, without
justification, without a conversation. So, while some will say that it
is too expensive, we have an obligation. It is expensive. Training and
equipment is expensive. There is a great deal to be had in the Guard
and Reserve. Again, I would like to have a discussion that honors the
decorum and bearing that all servicemembers are bound to.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I appreciate the time that the Nation has
taken to listen to this argument. I would ask that you call, that you
write, that you email, that you correspond with your Representatives in
this House of Representatives, and in the Senate, and with this
administration to talk to them about having an open process by which we
have to make changes to our fighting forces and to the defense of this
Nation.
Well, let's have it open, let's have an open process, let's have a
candid discussion, let's not pit one brother, one sister against
another in this fight. We are all on the same team. Let's not do that.
Let's have an open conversation and let's make the best arrangement we
can that serves both the Guard, both the Reserve, both the Active
forces, and in particular, the necessary defense of this Nation.
General Leave
Mr. PERRY. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special
Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Byrne). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to draconian budget cuts that
would adversely impact the Army National Guard.
Currently, my State of West Virginia is under a State of Emergency
because of a chemical spill into our Capital's water supply. Our
state's National Guard has been critical in getting clean drinking
water to affected residents and ensuring their health and safety.
The Guard's assistance is an absolute necessity in times of state
emergencies, but let us not forget that the men and women of the Guard
are also serving overseas and safeguarding our Nation's security as
Soldiers in the Total Army, held to the same standards and exposed to
the same risks as their active component counterparts.
I strongly believe that a proposal to reduce the Army National Guard
to its lowest level in over 50 years would not only weaken our national
security and homeland defenses, but makes very little fiscal sense
within a long-term military strategy, as personnel costs for Guardsmen
are roughly one-third the cost of active component personnel.
Congress should be clear from the beginning of the budget cycle that
draconian, end strength reductions to the Reserve Component are
dangerous. We owe our Guard and the American people better.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my concern
about the proposed size of our Army. Our active Army should not be
reduced to 420,000 personnel and our National Guard to 315,000
personnel as this represents a substantial risk to our national
security policy. Within the Army, I am concerned about the
restructuring of the Army Aviation force. This restructuring would
represent a significant policy shift away from the Army's, ``Total
Force Policy.'' It would also negatively impact Army National Guard
aviation and the communities in which those units are based.
I fully understand that sequestration has caused the Army to make
some very difficult decisions about their future force structure. I do
not want to see a repeat of the 1990s when the active and reserve
components fought one another for the limited resources available.
However, that seems to be the path we are on and it in no way advances
our national security. That is why; I begin by asking and imploring my
colleagues in the House of Representatives to work together to find a
solution to sequestration and repeal this misguided method of reducing
spending. It is our
[[Page H1237]]
Constitutional duty to provide for the common defense and we should not
be reducing spending by placing half of the cuts on the back of the
Department of Defense when defense spending only represents 15.1
percent of the budget.
Following the Vietnam War, former Chief of Staff of the Army, General
Creighton Abrams devised the Total Force Policy. This policy vested
much of the Army's reserve combat power in the hands of the Army
National Guard. The Army National Guard was meant to be a ``mirror
image,'' of the active force to the extent possible and to provide
strategic depth in times of conflict. Mirror imaging meant that the
National Guard would be trained and fielded with the same equipment as
the active Army and this proposed aviation restructuring veers away
from the total force policy.
There are those that say that Army National Guard aviation currently
is not a mirror image of the active force because the structure of
units is different. Providing a mirror image of brigade structure is
not the point, the National Guard is not resourced or intended to
follow the active duty Combat Aviation Brigade (CAB) structure. The
mirror imaging is in smaller units such as battalions that permit the
Army to have strategic depth in its forces so that in wartime, the
active units do not have to bear the full brunt of the fight. Without
the National Guard and strategic depth, these past 12 years of conflict
in Afghanistan and Iraq would have broken our Army.
Divesting the Army National Guard of the Apache helicopter is a
mistake. The active Army will have all of its attack and scout aviation
power in the active force with no strategic depth and no reserve relief
available if we find ourselves engaged in another major conflict.
Enormous amounts of training dollars will be wasted. Years of aviation
and combat experience will have been squandered.
Our National Guard Apache pilots are amongst the finest in the world.
In my home state of South Carolina, the 1st of the 151st (1-151) attack
reconnaissance battalion is one of the best attack battalions in the
Army. There operational tempo is not as high as the active Army and it
gives them a chance to train on critical skills that active duty simply
does not have time for with the fight ongoing in Afghanistan. The 1-
151st recently began to train its pilots on how to land an Apache on a
Navy ship. Prior to these pilots becoming qualified, the Army did not
have one single Apache pilot currently qualified to perform deck
landings. Now however, the pilots of the 1-151 are helping to train the
rest of the Army on this difficult and important task.
In closing, the battle we have is with sequestration. The active and
reserve components should not be fighting one another; we in Congress
should be providing them the necessary resources they require. We need
to resource the Army at a level that protects our national security and
keeps our personnel levels at the necessary levels, and keeps our
equipment in the reserve and active components modernized and ready.
____________________