Hearing of the House Armed Services Committee - FY 2015 National Defense Authorization Act

Hearing

Thank you for holding this important hearing today and for receiving testimony on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015. This important legislation will chart the path forward for our military in terms of policy and funding. To be sure, in setting this course, Congress will need to make difficult decisions on a variety of issues.

1. Army Aviation Restructure Initiative

This morning, I would like to focus my remarks first on one particular decision that has raised significant concern with many of my fellow Members of the House: the Army's proposed "aviation restructure initiative" and the negative impacts that it will have on our National Guard.

As reflected in its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Army has begun a comprehensive restructuring of its aviation assets to "optimize their efficiency and utility at home and abroad." 1 Under the terms of this restructuring, the Army will divest all single-engine rotary wing aircraft (for example, OH-58D Kiowa Warriors) from its inventory, transfer all National Guard AH-64 Apaches to the active component, and replace them with 111 UH-60 Blackhawks. The Army has stated that this restructuring is necessary to generate savings and make the remaining aviation fleet more affordable. But the question remains, Mr. Chairman, savings at what cost?

Since 9/11, the National Guard has repeatedly risen to the occasion. They have answered the call and fought bravely in both Iraq and Afghanistan. At the height of these wars, nearly fifty percent of the Army's total force was a mix of reservists and members of the National Guard. The Pennsylvania Army National Guard alone contributed more than 21,000 overseas deployments. To meet these needs, the National Guard has transitioned from a strategic reserve to a fully operational force. They have been partners and fought side-by-side with the active component, all while continuing to achieve their important mission here at home. As the National Governors Association recently put it best, the modern National Guard has become "a highly experienced and capable combat force and an essential State partner in responding to domestic disasters and emergencies."

Unfortunately, the Army's proposed aviation restructure initiative will have devastating impacts on all that the National Guard has achieved during these years of war. It will leave the National Guard deeply hollowed and much less capable. Notably, by stripping the National Guard of all of its Apache helicopters, the Army is ensuring that the National Guard will be less combatready and less able to provide operational depth. It will also deprive our nation of an operational reserve for these aircraft, which is essential to retention and management of talented aircrews. This represents a fundamental shift in the nature and role of the National Guard. It runs counter to the wisdom and preference of many members of Congress and their constituents.

This issue is particularly important in Pennsylvania and to the 1-104th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion. Based in Johnstown, these highly-trained airmen and ground crew played an invaluable aerial support role while they were deployed in Afghanistan where they flew their Apache helicopters and fought alongside the active component. The Army now proposes to take all of these Apaches away and to replace them with a smaller number of older version Blackhawks that may or may not meet the standard of what active duty aircrews are flying. This reduction will deprive the National Guard of both highly-trained personnel (pilots and ground crew) and equipment. It will also result in the National Guard being less effective, less combatcapable, and less able to heed the call to defend this nation, both at home and abroad. Major General Wesley E. Craig, Adjutant General, Pennsylvania National Guard, summarized this well when he recently stated that this sort of result "does not make sense for our community, commonwealth, or country."

Of course, the 1-104th is only one example among many when examining the widespread negative impacts that will result from the Army's aviation restructuring initiative. That is why we, as a country, need to take a hard look at the Army's proposal and potential alternatives. When faced with similar circumstances, the Air Force successfully relied on an independent commission. I strongly believe that the Army should adopt a similar approach and would request the Committee include language to that end in this year's NDAA.

H.R. 3930, the National Commission on the Structure of the Army Act of 2014, which was introduced this past January by Congressman Joe Wilson [SC-2], provides an excellent framework for the Committee to work from in crafting this language. Notably, the bill freezes the transfer and divestiture of Army aircraft and maintains the National Guard end strength at 350,000 while a commission undertakes a "comprehensive study of the structure of the Army to determine the proper force mixture of the active component and reserve component, and how the structure should be modified to best fulfill current and anticipated mission requirements for the Army in a manner consistent with available resources and estimated future resources." Among other things, the commission is tasked with giving particular consideration to meeting the current and anticipated requirements of the combatant commands, achieving cost-efficiencies between the active and reserve components, and determining a structure that maximizes and appropriately balances affordability, efficiency, effectiveness, capability, and readiness. The members of the commission would be appointed by the President and the Chairman and Ranking Members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and they would submit their findings, conclusions, and recommendations no later than February 1, 2016.

More than 150 of our colleagues have already declared their support for this thoughtful and deliberate approach. The independent commission model that the bill proposes has also been endorsed by all fifty State Governors. Without a doubt, this significant show of support makes it clear that the decision about whether and how the Army force should be restructured requires due deliberation and cannot be rushed. By including H.R. 3930 in this year's NDAA, the Committee can ensure that result, and for that reason, I respectfully request that such language be included in the final bill.

2. Certification Requirements for Military Ejection Seats

I would also like to touch on a second issue this morning: certification requirements for military ejection seats. One of the most important jobs of Congress is to ensure that our armed servicemen and women have the best, most-proven technology available that will enable them to safely complete their missions. To do this, we must also ensure that this equipment is properly tested and certified, and I have submitted proposed language to the Committee that would help accomplish that goal in the area of military ejection seats.

Currently, the Department of Defense (DoD) relies heavily on industry-sponsored testing for ejection seats rather than government-sponsored testing by independent employees or facilities. Further, each service branch is able to establish their own certification process for ejection seat technology and how that technology operates in various airframes, and neither the individual service branches nor the DoD has released definitive requirements and specifications for fully-functioning ejections seats or published a complete set of standards or requirements.

In the absence of this sort of standardized information, certification and testing of ejection seats has been based on individual aircraft mission requirements, and joint operations or development has been minimal. This decentralized structure led to issues with the F-22 several years ago when a component from the F-16 was certified for use despite the fact that it had not been determined how the part would function with the garment and other subsystems.

This engineering failure endangered our pilots and exemplified the growing need for specific DoD-mandated standards for testing and evaluation. Standardization would allow manufacturers and industry partners to have confidence when selecting components that were certified or qualified before, and it would provide our pilots, whether operating new or legacy aircraft, with additional assurances that they are protected by the best and safest egress systems available.

Certainly, the ongoing Air Force study on Ejection Seat Safety and the use of Helmet Mounted Devices, authorized by the FY 2014 NDAA, will help in this process and ensure that aircrew safety concerns with legacy aircraft are addressed for future acquisitions. This study is not nearly enough, however, as we ultimately need a unified testing structure.

For that reason, I respectfully request that the Committee include my proposed language in this year's NDAA that would require the Air Force to set certification requirements for all of its egress systems. Only by establishing these sorts of qualifications and certified standards, test methodology, standardize processes, and risk evaluations can we ensure that our pilots have the safest, most critically tested safety equipment available.

I would again like to thank the Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to address you this morning, and I am happy to address any questions that you may have.

Source