Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would preserve a very important component of the Marine Corps: its search and rescue units.

According to the most recent Marine aviation plan, the Corps had these units slated for a divestiture by the end of the calendar year. I was glad to see that, after some public backlash on that plan, the Corps decided to temporarily postpone those divestiture plans. But just as easily as the Marines postpone their decision, they could also recommence.

I still believe such actions would be a bad decision, and I am not alone. That is why I am offering this bipartisan amendment with my colleagues, Representatives JONES, SINEMA, and BUTTERFIELD.

After many years, there were only two remaining search and rescue units left: one at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, and one at MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina.

Marine Corps Air Station Yuma search and rescue unit performed 72 rescue missions to aid surrounding communities from 2010 to 2014. Last October, the Yuma unit facilitated the rescue of 28 Boy Scouts and four chaperones who were lost during a canoe trip.

MCAS Cherry Point's search and rescue unit, known as VMR-1, performs roughly 50 missions annually to help retrieve lost paddlers and hikers. Just this past March, VMR-1 rescued a man who was reported missing during a kayaking trip near Cedar Island, North Carolina. This was not only a nighttime mission, but there was a heavy fog as well, so much so that the first rescue helicopter, known affectionately as Pedro, had to abort its first landing at a hospital in Morehead and ultimately travel 75 miles to Greenville, where the man was finally admitted for treatment.

But none of us have yet heard a viable alternative to sustain the mission of these search and rescue units. Law enforcement and first responders do not have these capabilities, and, apparently, no contractor does either. This proposed divestiture would literally cost lives.

[Page: H4121]
I ask: What would have happened to these Boy Scouts if these marines didn't come to help? I ask my colleagues to support this amendment which was meant to save lives.

I thank the chair and ranking member.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a cost-saving amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016.

Last year, it was brought to my attention by numerous sources in my district that in 2009, the Department of Army fully phased out the CWU-27/P Army aviation flight uniform and moved to the Army aircrew combat uniform, also known as the A2CU.

Those constituents of mine--many of whom are Active Duty, retired, or are friends and family of military personnel--have expressed a desire for the Army to go back to the CWU-27/P model uniform. There are multiple reasons to switch back to the CWU model uniform. The most important reasons to switch back to the CWU model are safety and efficiency.

To sweeten the deal when making the pitch to me, my constituents explained that moving back to the CWU model would also save the Department millions of dollars a year in procurement costs. All these factors led me to offer this same commonsense amendment last Congress, and it passed this body by a voice vote.

The CWU model has a proven track record of safety and practicality. The CWU model is still authorized for Army special operation aviators, all of the aviators in the other service branches of the U.S. military, and most air forces and navies around the world.

Yes, these points are a testament to the safety and efficiency of the CWU model, and the safety aspects are of paramount importance to our Army aviators because the chances of a fire in an aviation crash are very high.

The CWU model flight suits have an antistatic fiber woven into them to prevent sparks which, for obvious reasons, are not that desirable when operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile jet fuel on board. The one-piece design of the CWU model is also extremely important as it does not, in the event of fire, leave any opportunities for exposed skin.

Speaking to the cost savings, the A2CU model costs an average of 56 percent more than the CWU model, and the A2CU was proven to wear out faster than the CWU. Further, every time the Army decides to change the camouflage pattern of the duty uniform, they have to spend millions more purchasing the new flight uniform.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that this amendment does not score as it is written, but, being that the intent is to move back to the CWU model, the effects of the policy should actually net some cost savings. Conservative estimates show that the Army could save around $5 million a year in procurement costs if it were to move back to the CWU model.

Further, it should not cost anything to reintroduce the CWU model back into the supply system, as the rest of the service branches still use them. In other words, there is no need to reboot the supply chain.

The cost savings are tantalizing for someone like me, who was sent to this town to rein in spending, but more importantly, I listen to these Army aviators and flight operators. They tell me it is safer. Being that they are the ones doing the training and flying, I am going to have to take them at their word.

Given the safety and practicality applications and given that the United States is not exactly running a budget surplus right now, saving a few millions here and a few millions there in the name of safety and practicality is something we should all strive to achieve.

I urge my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment which cuts costs and improves safety.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source