[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.

                          ____________________