Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - National Defense Priorities from Members for the FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act

Statement

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit additional data about the bases and the offer for additional land from Allegheny County Airport Authority for the record.

Mister Chairman and Members of the Committee, Thank you for your time and efforts in service to our nation's defense, our soldiers, and military families. I am grateful for the opportunity to share with you the deep concerns of Southwestern Pennsylvanians about Air Force plans to close the 911th Air Reserve Station, which houses C-130 Hercules transport planes, and the transfer of four KC-135 refueling tankers from the 171st Air National Guard station. These facilities, which are located in Moon Township in Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district, are two of the most accomplished and cost-effective installations in the country. They possess unique value to our nation's military, and I fear the Pentagon is proceeding with an irreversible course that is misguided, misinformed, and mistaken.

Over the past two months, I have been pushing the Air Force to provide documentation justifying these actions. The report, which I recently received, confirms what I've been saying all along -- the Air Force is making the easy decision rather than the economical one.

The Air Force's analysis relies on two points: 1) the 911th has the oldest and costliest C-130s, and (2) the decision to close the 911th doesn't require congressional approval. First, the 911th has older aircraft only because the Air Force took the newer models from the 911th in 2007. Second, the Air Force believes the 911th has fewer than 300 authorized personnel, which means no congressional approval is needed for closure. If true -- and I dispute those numbers -- the 911th is a victim of its own success. By sharing expenses
with nearby bases and the Pittsburgh International Airport, the 911th has fewer personnel.

The irony is if the 911th was less efficient and costlier to operate, the Pentagon wouldn't have the power to close it.

***

I am confident that once you review the data I have seen you will agree that these bases must remain fully operational.

First, a little background. The 911th and 171st are highly decorated. The 911th has won numerous honors and the 171st was handpicked to serve as the lead unit for combatsupport missions enforcing the Libya "no-fly zone." The 171st executed more mission hours in the last two years, and had the lowest total non-mission capable rate for maintenance, amongst all KC-135 guard units.

Beyond the accolades are strategic reasons why these bases must remain open. The 911th and 171st offer joint training with other units, and regularly work with local emergency responders and federal law enforcement. As part of the military's disaster preparedness responsibilities, few places have the assets of Pittsburgh, which is located within two hours' flying time of seventy percent of U.S. population. And, the region's world-class medical system offers a unique combination of supportive operations and a readily accessible airlift hub.

End-strength at both bases is extremely high because commanders recruit from a unique talent pool trained and working in commercial aviation at the Pittsburgh International Airport. The 911th, which is one of the top three highest-manned units in the Air Force Reserve, is at 122% of end-strength.

I am deeply worried that the FY13 structure changes relocate aircraft to less populated regions lacking the physical capacity to service aircraft, let alone recruit technicians and reservists. The Air Force would have to spend millions on building new C-130 maintenance facilities and on recruitment and training.

Moreover, no other reserve or guard station can claim to have all-weather access to non-congested airspace and four ten thousand foot runways at a fixed cost of only $20,000 per annum. Other reserve stations pay millions for runway maintenance, air traffic control, and emergency response. These benefits make the cost-per-flying-hour significantly lower at the 911th, and save taxpayers an estimated $10 million annually.

For all of these reasons, the Pentagon is making sizable investments at the 911th. Since 2004, more than $58 million has been spent on renovations and new lodging facilities at the 911th. It's practically a brand new base. And, it's growing. The Navy Reserve will build a $14M joint operations center, the Pentagon breaks ground in July on a new $17.2M commissary, and an expanded Post Exchange is in the works.

I am also troubled that the Air Force relied on faulty assumptions about the 911th's acreage. The Air Force says the 911th can house no more than ten C-130 Hercules aircraft. This is untrue, and has been discredited by 1995 and 2005 BRAC reports. The 911th can support 20 C-130s. I am submitting an offer from Allegheny County Airport Authority to make additional land available to the Air Force for expansion as well.

***

On behalf of the 168,000 active duty soldiers, reservists, guardsmen, and veterans whocall Southwestern Pennsylvania home, I seek your assistance.

First, I urge you to include in the National Defense Authorization Act my bill -- H.R. 3911 -- that would stop the Air Force from transferring any planes from the 911th until Congress reviews the matter. Today, the Pentagon seeks to close down the 911th in my district without congressional approval. Tomorrow, it could be a base in your district.

Congress has an obligation to make sure these hugely impactful decisions are done fairly and impartially.

Second, I request a full and accurate cost-benefit analysis of the Air Force's decision that: compares the 911th and 171st against installations with similar missions; calculates cost savings due to resource sharing with the Pittsburgh International Airport and nearby bases; accounts recent investments at the base; considers the offer from Allegheny County for additional land; and examines the potential impact on recruiting.

Decisions of this magnitude should be made in the best interest of the taxpayers and the military -- not because it's the easy option. Again, I thank you for your time and am happy to answer any questions.

Source