 We'll introduce ourselves and then I'll give you a few ground rules of what we're going to do. I'm Jeanette White, I'm from Wyndham County. I'm Anthony Collina, I represent Washington County. Brian Collin, I'm from the Rotland County District. Allison Clarkson, Windsor County District. And Chris Prate, Addison District. So, first of all, I'm going to say that the Post General and the Military Affairs Committee is up there on the floor right now as we speak. So, they will do whatever they will do, but they could not be with us because they're on the floor. They'll probably hear the ding ding ding a number of times for roll call votes, that's what that is when you hear the ding ding ding. So, this is not a public hearing, and I don't know if you know the kind of difference between a public hearing and a committee meeting, but a public hearing is generally when the way we do it is everybody has two minutes, bang bang bang bang bang, two minutes, that's it. But this is a regular committee meeting, so what we've done is we've kind of divided this into parts. So, the first half hour we have left it up to James to figure out who should be testifying within that 30 minutes as expert witnesses. We then offered the same to the National Guard. They said they didn't really need to come and say anything, so they are not here. And then what we'll do after the first half hour then is just open it up. And we have a couple of people that have notified us in advance, and so they generally what we do in a committee meeting is we put them on the agenda and they speak and then after they're done, if anybody else has anything they'd like to say, we hear from them. And the way we've done it is Jimmy Lee's and Roseanne Greco have asked to speak. They notified us early, and so we've got them on the agenda. They'll start after the first half hour. And then the way we, so that we kind of combine the regular committee meeting with the way we do a public hearing. And we had no idea how many people might want to speak, but you got, if you wanted to speak, you got little tickets here and we'll just draw out and so when your number comes up, you'll speak. And when we get done with everybody who wants to speak, if we still have some time, we'll take other people if you feel so compelled to say something. When you're done speaking, if you would on the table there just assign your name, please make it legible, and the town that you're from so it can go on our witness list because we, for all of our committee meetings, we keep a list of all the people who have spoken to us. So, anything else, committee? Yes, and anybody can submit written testimony to us at any time. Anything else? We're good. Okay, so, James, do you want to jump off here? How do you organize this? I'm going to let you do your half hour. Sure. However you want to do it in whatever order your people are. Thank you. Well, we have our three witnesses. Yep. Mr. Grazier will be our first, followed by Pearl Barossa and then Pierre Sprague. Okay, and I should say that normally in public hearings, we don't ask questions and we don't engage in dialogue with the people who are speaking to us because they're just in time, but since this is just a regular committee meeting, it's not a public hearing, we may ask questions of you, I may enter into dialogue with you, whatever, and the same thing is true with other people who come. And I should say that in a public hearing, you are limited to two minutes usually. You're not limited to two minutes today. We'll get to whoever we can get to in the time that we have. Okay? So, thank you. Very good. Well, thank you, Senator White and Senator Polina and the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Center for Defense Information and the Project on Government Oversights about the F-35 and the potential issues basing a swagger and a brilliance in raises. My name is Dan Grazier. I spent 10 years as an officer in the United States Marine Corps and in my time in the service, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, I learned how to evaluate weapons and equipment on their true military value. As a graduate student of military history at Norwich University at the moment, right down the road in Northfield, I know that the F-35 program is already a disaster of historical proportions that will only get worse in the future. The Center for Defense Information is a nonpartisan watchdog organization. My predecessors and colleagues have spent decades exposing the waste and abuse that all too often accompanies Pentagon weapons programs, and the F-35 is the biggest one we have ever studied. I'm not here to tell you what you should do in Vermont. As an outsider, particularly one from Washington, I think it would be inappropriate. But what I will do is provide you with relevant information that you should consider as you make decisions regarding military forces based in Vermont. I've spent the past four years studying the F-35 program in great detail, and I can assure you that despite the flood of optimistic press reports emanating from the Pentagon and from industry-funded media outlets, the F-35 remains a deeply flawed program. I Know Nuclear Weapons is one of the major concerns citizens have about basing the F-35s in Vermont. The F-35 has, from the very beginning, been slated to become a nuclear-capable aircraft. This capability is one that will be added in the $10-plus billion modernization program planned for all new production planes and for already produced Block III planes. But the F-35 program office has avoided committing to a specific delivery date for these capabilities. Just because Vermont's F-35s will eventually be wired for nuclear bombs doesn't necessarily mean those kind of weapons will be stored here. That doesn't eliminate the risk, however. Our potential adversaries, the nuclear armed ones, monitor very closely all of our nuclear delivery vehicles. Just as we monitor their activities, they know where we station all of our missiles, submarines, and bombers. It is only proven to target nuclear assets in the unthinkable event of a nuclear war. That would include any and all F-35 bases to include Burlington. And here's something else to consider. I understand officials have issued repeated assurances that the 158th Fighter Wing will not be armed with nuclear weapons here in Vermont. But that doesn't mean they never will be elsewhere. The 158th could be forward deployed to a place like Eastern Europe and armed there with the B-61 Mod 12 nuclear bombs stored closer to their intended targets. It should be pointed out that the B-61 Mod 12, which is sized specifically for the F-35's Bombay, has been described as the world's most dangerous nuclear weapon. It is designed to be a variable-yield weapon, which means that it can be employed at a maximum yield of 50 kilotons, which is approximately three times the size of the Hiroshima bomb, or dialed back to a 0.3 kiloton yield. And what makes this weapon dangerous is its small yield size, with some people calling it a tactical or a battlefield nuclear weapon. Imagine a future emergency along the lines of September 11th, with the President under a great deal of pressure to respond strongly in the wake of an attack. As a show of force, the President could deploy Vermont's F-35s to the trouble spot in question, and in response to further tension or provocations, military leaders could tempt the President to use a so-called little nuclear bomb delivered by F-35s to send a message. The trouble with this is that other countries do not distinguish between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons. To them, a nuke is a nuke. If they happen to be aligned with a country targeted by our tactical nuclear weapons, the chances of escalation into a strategic nuclear exchange become very great indeed. Another danger inherent with arming single-seat fighters with nuclear weapons is that final release authority presides in a single person. In every other nuclear platform, several people must work together to launch a weapon. Even on a bomber with a B-2, there are two people who both have to agree that one, that their orders are valid, and then two, work through the necessary procedures to employ the weapon. That is not the case with a single-seat fighter. There you have just one person who rationally or irrationally can launch a weapon after they take off. Now, while I have your attention, I'd like to veer off the subject of nuclear weapons for just a brief moment. I know officials have been claiming that bringing the F-35 to Vermont is important for jobs and the local economy. First off, if that's the best argument that can be made about a weapon system, then you can be assured that that program has little military value. There are far better ways to simulate the economy than buying and maintaining weapons. While the sticker price the F-35 tends to garner the most attention, what should concern the Vermont General Assembly the most is the program's ownership cost. Just this past week in a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Pentagon officials admitted that it cost at least $44,000 per hour to operate the F-35A, and we have reason to believe that those costs are actually much higher. And for comparison's sake, the F-16C cost approximately $19,000 per hour. And that's an important point. The F-35 program was designed by Lockheed Martin in such a way that only their people can perform most of the maintenance of that aircraft. Vermont will likely lose jobs here because the aircraft will have to be sent elsewhere for maintenance operations or Lockheed Martin contractors will be sent here temporarily to perform work that is traditionally performed by guard personnel. This ensures the company receives lucrative F-35 systemic contracts throughout the life of the program, contracts that you will have the budget for in part once the 158th fighter plane transitions to the F-35. These high operating costs will not go away over time because they are baked into the system. Pentagon officials talk about all the plans they have to drive down these costs, but also just admitted last week that they are likely to fall far short of their goals in the coming decade. But I thank you again for the opportunity to testify here. I would be happy to answer any questions you can put to me. I just want a quick one. You have a policy, one thing required. You have one. It's up. Is this done? Yeah. Anyway, I've heard that if that policy is done, so there would be nuclear-armed missile systems in the earth, then we wouldn't have any of it because the military would not disclose where those systems are. Yes. They'll probably have things to be heard by the Senate about what they actually base nuclear weapons and so I think one of my fellow witnesses is going to explain that a little bit more, but that says very lightly that they would actually admit that nuclear weapons are based here in Burlington. Thank you. That was very interesting and informative. We also understand that the F-35 is incapable of flying completely across the Atlantic on one tank of gas. That is generally correct. So if that's the case, would it make it unlikely that they would store any armament here? Wouldn't they have to pick it up wherever they were going given how poorly designed they are for long-distance travel? Right. I think it's a fairly safe bet that where the F-35 is to be armed with nuclear weapons, it would be somewhere for deployed, but at the same time the F-35 has aerial refueling capabilities. So has aerial refueling capabilities? As long as it's stable. Right. Right. Well, they do refuel F-35s in the air now, and so it's entirely within the realm of possibility that they could load up any weapons they want to hear and then just hit the aerial refueling vehicles across the ocean on route to Target's elsewhere. Thank you very much. Senators, thank you very much for allowing us to speak and address this issue. Is it for the right of just stage your name? I will. My name is Roger Perez. I am a native of UNESCO. I currently live in Colchester and I retired Lieutenant Colonel of the United States Air Force in Air National Guard. I served 11 years as an Air National Guardsman. My flying experience as a crew member is in these aircrafts included. I believe you have that on your sheet. But two years in the F-89 as a radar intercept officer for the Air Defense Command with the 158 at the airport road to Vermont. Three years in the C-97 as a navigator for the Military Airlift Command in Schenectady, New York. Six years in the F-101 as a weapon system officer for the Air Defense Command in Bangalore, Maine. The F-101 mission was identical to the F-89 mission and operated with the same procedures. So in that type of environment, I have eight years of experience. In Burlington, I was a crew member on the F-89, one of the several Air Defense Squadrons to defend the Northeast from possible enemy attack by Russia. Our mission was to defend the homeland and nuclear weapons were an essential part of our weapons system. Our F-89 carried two I-explosive missiles and two nuclear warheads, mounted on two self-propelled rockets. These nuclear warheads were the AIR-2 Genie Nuclear, tip air to air missile. These nuclear weapons were stored in Burlington. Part of the air crew checklist was to check the proper mounting of these weapons prior to takeoff or taking control of the aircraft on alert. As crew members, we were intentionally not made aware where the nuclear warheads were stored at BJP. That knowledge was exclusively for the ground crews who were responsible for transporting and loading the rockets. While the Vermont National Guard, also known as V-Tank, in Burlington, our routine training flights were with simulated missiles and rockets. Our nuclear weapons were armed with the aircraft and crew members were on alert status. Alert aircraft did not fly missions unless scrambled. While in Vermont Air National Guard, my aircraft was scrambled once carrying nuclear-armed rockets to investigate an enemy Russian bomber that had penetrated our airspace. By the time we reached the airspace violation, the Russian bomber was back in international airspace. In Maine, I was scrambled twice with the same outcome. Penetrating one another's airspace was a gameplay by both the Russians and the U.S. to gather intelligence. Make no mistake, we carry in Vermont nuclear weapons in this game. And had we been given the order, we would have launched our nuclear weapons. Had that ever happened, we would have started a nuclear war. We had been trained in how to quickly maneuver out of the area after we launched our nuclear rockets in order to save our lives from the nuclear attack on the Russian aircraft. But we knew there was a possibility we would be caught in the nuclear verse. Strangely enough, we were never told what might happen to the rest of the world after our launch. We knew there was no way to recall a rocket once launched. But I don't recall at that time we were thinking that we would start a nuclear holocaust. Crew members and ground crews all had top-secret clearances, and we were not allowed to disclose any information about nuclear weapons at BTP to the public. The Department of Defense and the Air Force did not tell the public about our nuclear mission or about the nuclear weapons stored in Burlington. My personal experience with the F-89 nuclear mission leads me to believe that the public will not be told anything should the Air Force decide to give the Vermont Air Guard a nuclear mission. In other words, we could again have a nuclear mission without the governor, legislators, and the public knowing about it. Having a master's degree in international relations, I cannot help but be concerned about how many of our international conflicts were initiated by blunders, mistakes, miscalculations, and or failures in our military political system. But there is no safe level of failure when nuclear weapons are involved. Having a nuclear bomber base at the Burlington Airport is an existential threat to Burlington, to Northeast, and to our humanity. Prohibiting F-35 nuclear delivery system from being based in Vermont means one less possible catastrophe from happening to all of us. Thank you. We're happy to answer any questions. Do you know if there are nuclear weapons still stored in Burlington? I have no knowledge of that. And we wouldn't know anyway, would we? Yes. Well, thank you, Senator. Thank you. Thank you. The pier spray is allowing me to come here and speak on a super important matter, super important for Vermonters and for the country. My background is I spent my entire adult life working on defense matters, some nuclear, more non-nuclear. I started at Grumman Aircraft, working on a number of fighters there and the Navy's small nuclear bomber at the time, E-86. I went to Washington to work for the Secretary of Defense and worked nuclear accuracy on other things. I did a study that convinced the Secretary of Defense and the National Security Advisor and the President that what they'd been told about the accuracy of our nuclear weapons was greatly exaggerated. More importantly to me, I had the privilege of serving in a very small team with some very brilliant Air Force officers and we started the F-16 and the A-10 program oversaw the basic design and the basic contracting of prototypes. I left the Pentagon in 1986 and have been working ever since on military reform matters but I've not accepted a penny from any defense source since then. I'd like to pick up on Colonel Barassus, a very dramatic and very convincing presentation. And by the way, please interrupt me at any point because I would give you a little history and even seem a little tangled, please interrupt me right away. To address this question of the mission of the 158th Fighter Squadron you've been told from various sources, political and military that we're sure that there will be no nuclear mission coming to Burlington. That's an empty statement. And let me just start with a very simple piece of history. From the early 60s when Colonel Barassus was in F-89s and F-101s and the mission here was nuclear armed intercept of Russian bombers until today there have been six changes of mission none of which Vermont had anything to do with or any saying. They were simply imposed. They actually arranged from the early nuclear intercept mission to complete change to electronic jailing and then back to a nuclear attack mission nuclear and non-nuclear ground attack then air defense, back to air defense then back to multi-purpose and nuclear ground attack and the last change has been adding on tactical reconnaissance and close air support in none of those where the citizens of Vermont or the legislature consulted it just happened. So that's six changes of mission from 1960. Actually the last one was in 1994. And you're facing right now perhaps the most momentous mission change that's likely to come to Vermont. So let me give you a little background on that. In 1973, do you want me to continue? The first really important change that affects us today other than the six changes I talked about came in 1973. When we got a new secretary of defense unusually independent of the weapons industry named James Schlesinger it needed a little background to understand what happened with James Schlesinger and the promises that were made to him that were broken. At that point in 1973 the Air Force had made every single-seat fighter in the Air Force a nuclear bomber and that had been true since the mid-50s. What was the reason for that? The reason for that was that during the 50s the Army and the Navy invented a bizarre concept called tactical nuclear war. That is the idea that you could fight some small nuclear war in some corner of Europe or Asia and it wouldn't spread anywhere. Why did they do that? Very simply because the Air Force under Truman and Eisenhower had knocked down this huge portion of the budget for nuclear bombers. Of course the Army and the Navy weren't going to sit still for that, as you might imagine. So they invented this thing that there would be these short-range nuclear war, little local deals and that they would have to develop lots of weapons for that and of course collect lots of money for that. The Air Force, of course, again, as you imagine didn't just take that sitting down. They came back with the idea that they would turn all their small fighters into short-range nuclear bombers to cut into some of that pie of these small nuclear wars. All that was approved by Eisenhower, unfortunately. And the Air Force ever since then from that day to this day has armed all their first-line single-seat fighters with nuclear wiring to enable them to become small nuclear bombers. This is the background where James Schlesinger steps in. Schlesinger was a really staunch advocate of stronger national defense including strong nuclear defense. However, being a man of conscience, he wanted to leave a legacy of improved weapons behind in the Pentagon and he started that right from the day he entered office. With regard to the Air Force, he had two very specific ideas in mind for his legacy. One was that he would introduce new airplanes. They were cheaper and much more combat-affected airplanes replaced with something that went very much against the grain in the Air Force. They were like more expensive airplanes. And because he was very versed in nuclear matters, he understood the true danger, if not absolute, insanity of arming a single-seat fighter with a nuclear weapon. He understood that deeply because he'd been mostly grounded in nuclear studies for most of his career. And so he decided, as I said very early on in his tenure, that he would back the two airplanes that I had worked on, the A-10 and the F-16. They would be his legacy to the Air Force and he would end this insanity of making every single-seat fighter a small nuclear bomber. Being a very able bureaucrat, he understood the Air Force sure didn't like that idea, even of the two ideas. They hated the two airplanes, they were too cheap, and they were doing missions that the Air Force really didn't want to do, especially the close support mission to the A-10. And so it would take an offer they couldn't refuse, let's say. Schreiner came up with that offer, very simply. He offered to expand the Air Force by 1,500 airplanes, using the A-10 and the F-16, 1,500 airplanes that they never expected to get, but of course it was a huge feather in the cap of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to preside over this major expansion of the Air Force. And he said, one string, you must accept these without putting nuclear wiring on them. Well, the deal was too sweet, and the Air Force Chief of Staff, George Brown, signed up, basically signed in blood for the deal in 1973, and they went to work on that basis, started producing the airplanes. All that changed suddenly in 1975, when Schreiner was axed in the Saturday Night Massacre, organized by the now-famous Donald Rumsfeld, a big change. So he was out. Within one week, the Air Force Chief of Staff reneged on his promise and ordered nuclear wiring on the F-16, an enormously consequential decision, because it's the reason you got F-16s that had nuclear wiring here in Vermont, and it's the reason that when the first contracts were let to start the F-35 in 1996, the nuclear wiring was paked in. The Air Force never had the slightest doubt that they were going to make this airplane a nuclear-thinkable airplane. The next real major turning point that brings us to the current toilet was in 2018, very recently. President Trump and his Secretary of Defense issued a new nuclear posture review. Those have been about every four years to state what the overall nuclear position of the United States is. And that new posture review has some momentous stuff in it that directly affects Vermont. What happened was the whole issue of these small nuclear wars that I just talked about, that had been so consequential earlier, had been gradually suppressed. And from about the early 90s, small nuclear bombers that had fighters with nuclear weapons won't have been standing nuclear alert, which of course was the most dangerous thing they could do. So this issue had, it hadn't gone away, the wiring was still on all the fighters, but it was less than a forefront. Trump's 2018 nuclear posture review has brought that roaring back in a way that we've never had before. It now makes a small nuclear war. An integral part of the strategic defense of the United States, it says in its essence that there's a seamless ladder of nuclear weapons options from tiny warheads in small regional nuclear wars all the way up to the all-out Holocaust. That's in essence what it says. This is 50 pages of very tedious reading. And what's the consequence here? The consequence is very simple. That report places the F-35 front and center in the strategic defense of the United States because it actually, for the first time ever, it mentions a specific fighter by name. The posture review has never happened before. And in fact, it brings up the F-35 eight tolerance in this report, very unusual. And of course, there's a reason why. One, of course, is they're trying to justify the unprecedented budget of the F-35. Remember, this is the most expensive weapons program in the history of the world, much more so than, say, the atom bomb as an example, or the nuclear submarine or any of that. So, needless to say, the administration's nuclear posture has to justify those budgets and works hard at doing it. It also puts the F-35 front and center because it will be the first weapons system deployed with this whole new emphasis on small nuclear weapons. Remember, Dan Granger mentioned how dangerous small weapons are, kind of counter-intuitively. The small weapons are much more dangerous than the big ones because it's easier to envision dropping them. And that's exactly what the nuclear posture review does. It says we can envision the credibility of using small nuclear weapons to settle small regional wars and we reserve the right to use them first against an enemy who's never used a nuclear weapon against us. It says that very specifically. And if in the judgment of the president we're facing some super dangerous threat, which may or may not exist, of course, heat reserves the right to drop a nuclear weapon, presumably a small one, to supposedly keep all this from going anywhere. And of course, as Colonel Baraza pointed out, that could be a very small weapon. That could be the beginning of basically the end of the world. Bringing that up to date, the F-35s you're getting now, of course, are not nuclear wired, left to its own devices. Inevitably, the Air Force will nuclear wire them. No president F-35 has nuclear wiring because the F-35 hasn't even been fully designed yet. We're producing it like crazy. And it's like a do-it-yourself kit. We're still building it. We're still designing it. We're sending out parts to redo it. You know, as we go down the production line and a very clear part of that is the new modernization program used to be called Block 4 and now called C2D2. I won't bore you with the ridiculous acronyms. That is an upgrade program that has about 50 different upgrade items. Central one, which is nuclear capability. And that will be applied to every one of the current production. F-35s that are like the ones you're getting and it will be applied, of course, to future new production. So it will continue in the Air Force tradition of every single seed of fighter being a short-range nuclear bomber. And that's an enormous consequence to Ramon. You are going to be the first state to receive National Guard F-35s. No other state will have them before you. The F-35 is the opening wedge for the small nuclear warhead and the supposed ability to fight a small nuclear war. And that will be coming here. And so you as the Ramon legislature and the people of Ramon are facing a very, very large issue, which is simply, do you really want to be the lead in all national governments in the country to house a small nuclear bomber that could be the very first nuclear weapon dropped on another country that never dropped one on us and set off the nuclear holocaust and at the same time turned Vermont into a nuclear target for Russians, Chinese or whatever. That's a huge decision and I hope you take it seriously. It's an enormous consequence and I'll be very happy to answer any questions now. I'll leave my contact information. If you or any of your staff want more detail, I know I've laid a lot of history on it here. That's probably unfamiliar but I'm very happy to assist in any of your deliberations in the future. And I can be reached by email and phone. Thank you very much. Pretty interesting. One of the reasons it's great to be a legislator is you learn a lot of things you didn't know before. But I guess one of my questions is I'm understanding from your testimony that none of the F-35s at the moment are nuclear-wired, is that correct? None here, none anywhere else in the world. Because that hasn't even been designed yet. You see, this is such a work in progress. Right, the whole F-35s. But we're buying them like crazy even though they haven't been designed yet. Right. But the understanding is that they will be... Do we have a time frame for that and how do we know that... We used to have a time frame. We had a company that would first... They would happen in 2024. Then there was a general who testified no, it would be earlier, in 2022. And now... Because the F-35 has missed almost every single milestone it's ever had. Now the Air Force is being cagey and they've instituted what they call a six-month rolling development. That's the C2D2 acronym I told you about. So they're not committed to any date. God knows when the nuclear capability will come. And as Colonel Baraza said, you may not even know. Right. So I guess that's my second question which is what control can we actually extend to the federal government in this regard? I mean, let's say we pass this. Let's say the governor supports it. Let's say Vermont says no to wanting our F-35s wired for nuclear and capable for nuclear bombs. How seriously would they take that? I think it would be an enormous consequence. I mean, in more than symbolic there'd be real legal consequences. And the reason is because, as you know the services are full of people who have a conscience. And something as momentous as bringing nuclear weapons to Vermont that have been banned here somebody for sure would leave might leave the Air Force would not risk such a thing. In your experience which is substantial have you ever experienced a state saying no to something that the Department of Defense honored? Yes, they have. I mean, I've got to look it up but there have been a number of things. I think we should appreciate it. States have refused various things. And they have honored that. Yeah, I mean some of them were real obvious they couldn't not honor them. They simply rolled over for everything that the Pentagon wants of the National Guard Bureau in Washington. Well, we've just been dealing with burn pits and they roll over everything else and everyone else. I'm sorry? So I mean it's interesting that they have honored other states' requests. Any other questions? Thank you. I should get to those. Thanks a lot. The great eight other states thank it. Thank you for allowing me to speak here. This is two minutes and 18 seconds. Don't do that. I can keep my time. Yes, so I'm going to read this in the interest of time. My name is Roseanne Greco. I served on active duty in the Air Force for 30 years and retired as a full colonel. I was an intelligence officer and I specialized in nuclear weapons and specifically in nuclear weapons targeting. I was also a nuclear weapons arms control negotiator and I was on the delegation of the start talks which we signed was start number one. I don't know how to adequately convey the magnitude of the issue before you today. I've dealt with and planned for a nuclear war for most of my career. That was my job. But I find in talking about nuclear weapons much less nuclear war that people either don't want to believe it or they are too frightened to even talk about it. So thank you for talking about it. In current the issue of pretending it can't happen is dangerously foolhardy. Admittedly the prospect of having an all out nuclear war is remote but it is still a possibility and should it happen we face planetary annihilation. The other star reality is that we are closer to nuclear war than we have been in the last 30 years. This is because of the reinvigorated push to quote modernize our nuclear weapons to make them quote more usable as Pierre just mentioned to you making them small makes them more usable. The aggregation of nuclear weapons treaties the increase in the number of nuclear countries and increased world tensions. Having the newest nuclear weapons system the F-35 in Vermont has enormous implications and make no mistake the F-35 is a nuclear weapons system. The Secretary of Defense announced that publicly in his 2018 nuclear posture review that Pierre Spray just spoke about. Regardless of any assurances you may hear I can share with you from my background in nuclear targeting that our enemies will assume that all F-35s are nuclear weapons delivery systems and as a result all F-35 bases will be targeted. From a targeting perspective meaning we are the target the only thing that matters is what the enemy thinks. The other unimaginable aspect of having F-35s based here is a possibility that the Vermont Air National Guard could one day be called upon to drop a nuclear payload on another part of the world or even worse could one day become the instrument for initiating world-wide holocaust. I cannot fathom how Vermonters would stomach that possibility. Any other mission for the Vermont Air Guard is better than this. Thank you very much. You mentioned that you knew of instances where you would come for the list of the states that you were trying to detail. In Alaska there was a certain type of aircraft and the governor spoke up and the Air Force reversed that. In North Carolina I believe there was F-35s the people spoke up and threatened to sue and they reversed it. They never came. In the Air Force base they had a lawsuit against F-35s and they reduced the number of F-35s by 50%. That was in Florida. England Air Force base is in Florida. In North Carolina in Virginia and in I think it was I don't know. I will get you all of those. There were eight states that said no. They were all aircraft two or three of them were F-35. And either because of lawsuits or because the senator said no. When senators say no in my military career and I'm sure the guys back here in the military they always get what they want. Always. Those are back senators. I'm sorry not you. I'm sorry. You're very powerful. Yes. You're senators. I'm sorry. Senators control the budget. They direct the military. They bring up the borders. They work for the army. They work for the people. And the senators say I want something or I don't something. In my career 100% of the time they give what they want. Senator Lakey got a CF-35. Senator Lakey can get as any mission he wants. The discussion about nuclear that would be nuclear weir and I guess wanting to sort of be in the debate that they should have once again. A very good question, Senator. The Air Force never told us in their environmental impact statement anything about carrying nuclear weapons. A few of us in this room went through documents that the Air Force had to provide because of our lawsuit. We were looking for other things. Maybe they did something inappropriately. We stumbled upon four references to nuclear weapons coming here. It took us by surprise, right? And by the way, hundreds of pages had been redacted. I think these slipped through. We then did some investigating. And that's when we found out about this document. So this took us by surprise. This was issued in February of 2018. I had no idea. I put aside this job years ago when I retired. Nuclear war can really wear on you. But when we learned about this, we did some investigating. And that's when we found out about it. Not because they told us, but because we stumbled upon it. We actually brought it to people's attention last year, but nobody paid attention to it. And then when it got more publicity, and then when the F-35s were definitely coming here, we started to talk more about it. And here we are today. So it was a game changer, at least, for us. Sure. This is a different kind of question, but I imagine nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons, they're not to the airplane, flying high, it's kind of dropping a bomb down. But I got some pressure from the fellow that testified earlier that there might be missiles, nuclear missiles, that are shot at another plane. Is that true? Yes. So there are two kinds of nuclear weapons that are launched from air breathers, which means heavy bombers, the B-52s, the B-2s. And now, the F-35. They're called cruise missiles. That's actually what Roger flew. They were very imprecise, which is why they put a nuclear warhead on them. Because they didn't think they could hit the bears, that's the aircraft that Russians flew in. So because the weapons were imprecise, they put a nuclear tip, a warhead on it. Figuring the blast would blow the aircraft out of the air, probably would blow them out of the air, too. We've gotten much more precise now. So we have things called cruise missiles, and they're guided. The bomb that they are designing for the F-35, called the B-62x12, that's going to be a guided. So it's going to be much more technological savvy than just a gravity bomb. So there are two types. You can drop a bomb, just plop, or you can fire a cruise missile, a rocket, and that hones in using sophisticated technology to hit its target. So, yeah. Okay, thanks. Kimmy. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Trace that question. He's so quiet and shy, we hardly know he's there. Oh, sorry, sorry. So is there any non-nuclear mission for the F-35? Oh, for the F-35, no. Well, actually it's dual capable. It's called the DCA, dual capable aircraft. It's going to carry conventional weapons as well as nuclear weapons. No, it is designated as a dual capable mean. And if you read through the administrative record where we found the Air Force said, it said every one of the ones at the Vermont Guard in every place will have to train with all of the weapons that are eventually going to carry. You have to. And you can't wait until a catastrophe, say let's try it now and see if it works. So. My name is James Lease, and I'm going to talk about the legal part of this, especially about war crimes. Now according to the US Department of Defenses, own law of war manual that was issued for the first time in 2015 and updated in 2016, war crimes are not restricted to where the shooting is going on in the theater of war. One way a war crime is committed is when civilians are harmed or when civilian property is damaged when there was no military objective at all. Or when the military objective is not necessary, it's a matter of choice. And that's precisely what we have here in Vermont. There's another way, there are several other ways you can have war crimes. And another one is when high value military equipment is located adjacent or intermingled with a heavily populated area or intermingled with civilians. This all comes right out of the Department of Defense law of war manual. I'm not making this up. Vermont is very far removed from the active theaters of war that the US is now involved in. There are no enemy forces located around Vermont. And the 2013 environmental impact statement that was put out by the Air Force identified five other better locations for basing the F-35 than in a city in Vermont. Those five others were remote from civilian population. The decision to base here in Vermont was a choice, not a military necessity. So harm to civilians is a war crime. Now let's talk about the harm to civilians. And then we'll talk about the nuclear crime. The Air Force sets thousands of families that live in the Chamberlain School neighborhood of the town I live in, South Burlington, in Winooski, which is in the flight path immediately after takeoff, same for Williston, and also parts of Burlington and Colchester are gonna be harmed. The Air Force admits, for example, that children's learning can be impaired by the blasting noise that they're directly hit with from the day they're born, and also from multiple classroom interruptions in the seven schools identified by the Air Force. They name the schools. So they're gonna have 10, 15, 20 classroom interruptions with blasting noise every day. The blasting noise is just the sound of the aircraft taking off. And lesser noise when it's landed. But it's still very loud. And there's another problem. So classroom interruptions, blasting noise, causes learning impairment. And that's, the data from that is mostly from much lower noise level aircraft, commercial aircraft. The F-35 is much, and the F-16 were much louder and are much more dangerous for children's learning. Now, there's another problem, and that's hearing damage. The Air Force gives much pages of information about the hearing damage from this noise. They say that 114 decibels, which is the sound the Air Force says the F-35 will make as it's flying over Winooski, repeated exposure to noise at that level causes permanent hearing damage. And that is without the afterburner. That's by the time it reaches Winooski, the afterburner is off, even if they took off with the afterburner. But in South Burlington, in the Chamberlain School neighborhood, the F-35 is gonna be using its afterburner and it's gonna be using it according to the Air Force report 5% of the time, or about 200 takeoffs per year. And that's gonna be much, much louder than what we've experienced with the F-16. And it could cause immediate permanent hearing damage from one exposure. We'll have to see what that noise level is. The Air Force says 130 decibels sound blast, just one exposure is enough. There's also the crash risk that you probably know about because unlike the F-16, the F-35 has a flammable body. It's a carbon composite body with a stealth coating. All of that burns in the fire when it crashes and thousand gallons of jet fuel catches on fire. The whole plane goes up in smoke and that smoke is toxic because the carbon composite doesn't burn all the way to water and carbon dioxide. It has a slew of toxic carcinogenic and mutagenic fibers, particulates and chemicals. And all of these dangers that I'm talking about are known, described, foreseeable. It's all in the Air Force report, but the harm is worse than all of this put together. And as we've heard, this nuclear bomb delivery system subjects our entire population, the seven towns just immediately around the airport add up to 126,000 people. That's a big fraction of the population of Vermont in those seven towns. And those people in those seven towns are gonna be targeted as we heard earlier. So, I'm gonna skip some of this. The nuclear bomb delivery vehicles are very high value targets and very legitimate military targets. Enemies of the US are going to be basing, are going to be targeting all the bases where all possible nuclear weapons can be launched. We have 4,000 passengers a day using that airport. It's a civilian airport. Those passengers, in addition to the people living in the Chamberlain School neighborhood and in the neighboring towns in Manuskin, and so on, will be targeted. And this is called in the law of war manual, human shielding. So, it's illegal for the enemy to intermingle its military equipment and personnel with the civilian population. It's equally illegal for the US military forces to do the same thing. And that's what's happening here. Now, our state government depends on respect for the rule of law. So, here we have an agency of our state government, the Vermont National Guard, which reports to the governor, it's an agency of the state. It shouldn't be engaging in any kind of law breaking, much less the two kinds that I've talked about here, where they're making people human shield and harming children and adults with learning impairment, hearing loss, and crash risk. So, even now, here's one other thing, last March, in 2018, we had a vote, a town meeting vote in Burlington, without even knowing about the nuclear weapons capability and design of the F-35. The people of Burlington voted with more than 55% to cancel the F-35 basin in the airport Burlington owns. And then city councils in Winooski, South Burlington, and in Burlington joined the Burlington voters in making the request to cancel the F-35 and provide another mission that's compatible with location in a city. Fine, if you're going to be remote, maybe that wouldn't be a war crime. But here we're based in a city surrounded, intermingled, adjacent, civilians, tens of thousands of civilians. Senate resolution five provides a way for this committee and for the senators whole to hold the military's own law to protect the learning of children, to protect the health, safety, and property of remanders, and to respect the will of the people at town meetings. Thank you. While he's drawing the number, my apologies, it's this time of the year when you call to other committees to explain to the bill that you're hoping to pass it was appropriations like this talk. Chris, that's a question. We'll do it in an opportunity. Maybe now. The first group? Yeah. After each presentation? No. Now that they're done, the first group. Do you have questions, Tim? Yeah, I have three quick questions. Do you want me to do that now? Okay, yeah. So I just wanted to, I don't know who's the most appropriate person to address these two, but for you all do. And I guess, as I'm learning more about the F-35, I think it raises questions with the F-16. So I'm wondering, was the F-16 ever nuclear capable? Would we have known that? Could there have ever been nuclear weapons stored in Burlington related to its deployment? As I mentioned, yes, the F-16 was certainly nuclear capable and it was part of the old idea of small nuclear wars that dates back to the 50s. As I've also mentioned, we had abandoned the practice of putting these small nuclear bombers on alert, on nuclear alert in the 90s. So in essence, you had a nuclear capable airplane, but it was in essence a dormant capability. That's all been changed, you know. The major difference between the F-35, which is now being declared an integral and seamless part of our strategic posture, as opposed to the F-16, which is part of the traditional, old-fashioned tactical nuclear war that had been de-emphasized. And clearly, the Air Force would lean much more heavily on the F-35 because they believe its stealth will allow it to actually penetrate Russian defenses. They never believed that about the F-16 because it wasn't stealthy. How many did, how many do you have? We wanna make sure we have time for the members of the public to speak also. I'm sorry? We wanna make sure that we have time for the members of the public to speak also, so I'm just trying to move us along. So the other quick question would just be, we've talked about Burlington being targeted, and I haven't heard what that means in terms of what kind of, what the implications of Burlington being struck would be, is that an event for all of Burlington, or are we talking about Burlington? Not that it makes, I just would like to understand better what people refer to it, but where are the implications? The implications of Burlington being targeted, you're asking? Yes. Yes, that is huge implications for Burmont because if you're talking about strategic nuclear strikes on airfields, they're done with very large weapons. And you'll have effects, depending on which way the wind is blowing, of course, you'll have effects well into point another. So you're not just affecting Burmont, you might be affecting New York State, New Hampshire. This is not a little confined local matter that maybe Burlington might get obliterated and the rest of Burmont will be fine, hardly at all. Compliant any obliterations, okay, I just wanted to understand what the implications are. So that's another interesting question, which is, is Canada waiting on this at all given that they'd be impacted? No. Oh, don't worry about it, it's okay, it's okay. I don't need one, thank you. That's okay, that's okay, thank you, thank you, thank you. Oh, yes. It's okay, I would just leave it. I can't answer for what you're saying. Yeah, we've pulled it too far here, give it to me, what's it? We're only having about, we have to be on the floor and see if I can get to the floor to talk about the state budget and some other issues at three o'clock. So we're gonna have to be just right in three or a couple of minutes before three, so I just wanna make sure that other people have a chance to speak. So Brian's gonna call some numbers and we are gonna limit these stocks to about two minutes. Whoever has number 49, Celestia number 49. My name is Julia Masuga, and one year ago we learned by accident that our home was about to become the target of possible nuclear war, which sounds hyperbolic, but I assure you it is not. I spent last spring combing through tens of thousands of pages of heavily redacted documents that were made public through a lawsuit. Internal emails between the Vermont Air National Guard, the Air Force, Congress, contractors, and even legislators like yourselves. We found corruption, violation of DOD regulations, and the straw that broke the camel's back. The question of nuclear weapons. I recall all too clearly reading a document to Colonel Greco at my kitchen table. It was titled Command Messages F-35A, and it was written by the Vermont Air National Guard. It lists out questions they hope they don't get. A red herring if I ever saw one. Question five reads, where are you planning on storing the nuclear weapons that are part of the F-35 arsenal? Colonel Greco was floored. She explained with all the expertise that specializing in strategic intelligence and nuclear arms control affords a person that we had bigger worries than noise and technological flaws. Vermont had painted a target on its back. The Air Force has recently stated that the F-35 is designed with a requirement to be compatible with nuclear weapons, and while we'll never know if nuclear weapons are stored here, it doesn't matter. The delivery system, the F-35, makes us a target as soon as they arrive here just a few miles away from where I sleep. Our defenses are essentially a chain link fence. Not only that, but the F-35, unlike past aircraft, is manned by just one person. One person in Vermont's name could initiate a nuclear war, and I don't think our home is worth the risk. I will leave you with one more of our findings from the administrative record document number 58254, an Air Force Public Affairs person emailed Captain Guggen of V-Tank who wanted to know how to respond when folks ask about the F-35's nuclear role. The Air Force was uncertain, so V-Tank responded, quote, I will work on a neutral statement for your review, just in case. A neutral response does not assure our safety unless the Air Force suddenly decides not to have any nuclear-capable F-35s, which seems unrealistic. Until then, we have a target painted on our backs, so I ask you to please pass this resolution to protect us. Thank you. Thank you. Could you give your name to Gals and then we'll list the witnesses? Number 43. Therefore, I roll a call for it. Thank you. My name's Beth Champagne. I had a good homing instinct and moved to Vermont from Pennsylvania once I was an adult. My paternal grandfather was Abenaki, and I would like to speak to issues of childhood. You know, we say have a good day, the French table au jour, the Germans say go to a dog and so forth. The massage people of Kenya, Africa, don't say that. They say, how are the children? James Lees has just shared some of what the children are suffering under the takeoff with or without afterburner of the F-16 and what we can expect with the F-35. Should it indeed be based with its nuclear capabilities here? Our children are already subjected to, I believe it's monthly walk down drills in case there's an active shooter. I was in a local school classroom with two of my grandchildren during that and I was enraged and horrified. You know, ducking under our desks back in the 50s just didn't seem to hold a candle to what these kids are facing. And then there's climate change. For viewers, I've said to my friends who are now in their teens, whoa, what are you hearing about climate change? Who talks about it? And the answer is usually nobody. And you can read, and I'm sure you as I have been reading about the terror that these young people feel. And of course that's why the tremendous power of the Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg's adamant insistence that our generation stand up and do something. And then we all know about the opioid crisis. We know about the big pharma that pushed these drugs knowing that they could get people hope just the way the English brought opium to China knowing that they could break the society down and get in that way. Back when my kids were little, you know, the bumper sticker said, wouldn't it be nice if the pentagon had to hold big sales? Mutually a short description is M-A-D. And it's high time. And I know all of us want to and we're stuck in a system that makes it really hard to change. But we know we need to change. I would like also to bring up an issue which is painful because the senator I'm about to speak of, the senator in Washington, and you've just heard how when senators say what they want, they get it, is a distinguished person who's done a great deal of good, and you can all certainly tell me if you've heard otherwise, but I've heard for years that when the Air Force first looked for places to base the F-16, they had three rankings, green, yellow, red, and because the Vermont International Guard is right in the middle of such a highly populated area, it was rated red, the lowest possible rating. But, and again, anybody correct me? Who feels they know otherwise? Senator Lady prevailed upon the military to choose Burlington, the Vermont Air Guard for that. I think that's probably enough. Thank you, thank you. 48, thank you. Alternative missions. Mr. Czeplenski, veteran, and I'm president of veterans for peace. I'm an advisory member of the specialization, and I'm also on board with the NRC, and I'm vice president of a local watershed group. I have quickly one specific, a couple specific things on the F-35s. This morning I was doing some research, and I noticed that the next F-35 sightings are in Wisconsin and Alabama. One is, I was born in Wisconsin, and it's gonna be in Truex, an Air Force base. It's in a rural area in the Fireland, away from Madison. Looking at it now in Alabama, it's away from Montgomery, not a residential area. It's important to know this fact, because this decision probably was the wrong one. We've been working with the Congressional Delegation to reverse their decision, and I'm told in white blank, you have to reverse that decision. I'd like to make a bigger point, and that is the connection between the huge military spending and climate change. There have been a Pentagon report saying that climate change is a national security crisis, or a national security, what's the right word? They're just concerned, what's the next one up? Anyway, they recognize it, and it has to be doubtless. The Watson Institute at Brown University, did a study about the war spending over since 2011, equivalent of $6 trillion, and concluded that it is not sustainable, and it is a national security concern. My point is, we have a huge military, and you're saying $100 you spend for taxes and you pay them, about 65 goes to the military. That's humongous, I mean it's the biggest in the nation, and some countries don't have a military, Costa Rica, for example. So I think there's room, and we're a strong enough country that we could be generous, rather than building up our military. And I think we need to take that into consideration. So I urge you to pass the resolution, ask our Congress Congressional delegation to reverse their decision, it's really important. I think that's all, and thank you for letting me testify. Thank you. That's all right, one last point. I have been writing commentaries, and this is my latest one on this issue, and I will leave you a copy. Do you think it'll, yes, number 32, 32? Yes we, there are only 10 minutes left. Number 29, number 30. Hi everybody, thank you very much for having this hearing. I'm Rachel Siegel, I live in Burlington, and I'm the director of the Peace and Justice Center. And the Peace and Justice Center started 40 years ago doing anti-nuclear work, and we were part of the organizing that was referred to earlier in 1981 first. On town meeting day, our great tradition, 17 pounds declared themselves nuclear-free. In 1982, another 160 joined in. 177 towns and cities in Vermont declared themselves nuclear-free zones. In 1982, 2,000 Vermonters went to New York City, which was the largest anti-nuclear protest ever, and Vermont had the highest per capita participation of any state. Reagan listened at that time, started dismantling some weapons, and slowed down the arms race. The people of Vermont spoke, and we're speaking again. We don't want nuclear weapons, and we don't want nuclear weapon delivery systems in our state. And it might sound really radical, it might sound really pie in the sky, but that's what it sounded like when people started talking about abolishing landmines. And you know what happened? They were abolished. And the same thing with biological weapons, and the same thing with chemical weapons, it absolutely can't happen, it can't, and it can start here. It was abolished with people power, and we can do it again. Vermont has had a history of speaking out against nuclear weapons, and this time it really could be the end. It could be the beginning of the end, who knows. If not us, who, and if not now, when. Like, let's try. We don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot before we try. Vermont's been at the forefront of tremendous national change. We think of marriage equality. We think of healthcare reform. We've changed the course of politics outside of our state borders before, through bold commitment to what is right, even when it seems implausible. Let's do that again. I would be so proud, and so happy. Please let's send a clear message that we don't want these in Vermont. We don't want them anywhere. But we have more jurisdiction here than we have other places. It won't be quick, and it won't be easy, but it has to start somewhere. And it could start with you all. I really, really hope that you'll pass this resolution and bring it to the whole Senate for passage. And it was mentioned that we should talk about alternative missions, and the one that comes to mind for me is cybersecurity, because that's the thing that my understanding is that's our biggest risk, is somebody could shun down our whole grid like that. And so if we had a cybersecurity mission working in Vermont, we actually could do some real good. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. 28. Here you go. This will be our last. Good afternoon. I'm Tim Ponger. I live in Williston, just down range. And I'm a late counter to this conversation. I've been buried in my other work, but this has really grabbed my attention because what I'm concerned about is creating a situation that always occurs in a legislative process. If somebody wins, somebody loses. The opportunity here is a rare, true opportunity knocking at a door, which is that if we were to, building off what was just mentioned, cybersecurity, if we were to take on this opportunity, it gives us an opportunity to create a synergy between Vermont institutions and a commission that makes a difference. So cybersecurity is one of the focuses of Norwich University's curriculum. It's a very big one. They just received a major federal grant to continue to expand that program. So we already have an academic involvement, but we also have in the technical field the work at Shenmue College at the University of Vermont at Middlebury. So we have an academic component and then our tech industry in the state is fairly vibrant, but it's grown to a point where it can grow, but it has trouble recruiting people to work because there's not enough of an opportunity in Vermont to build a career in technology. This would open new opportunities and new doors. And then what I've been working on lately is an affordable housing. Already as a result of the proposed case, and we have 35s, we have lost scores of affordable home ownership opportunities around the airport. I don't know if you've been to the airport lately, but there are streets, used to be vibrant neighborhoods that are absolutely barren at this point, and those were all affordable home ownership opportunities. So when we talk as a state that we're anxious, that we can't get young people to come here, we can't get young people to stay here, this is the exact opposite of what needs to be done. So I believe that if we propose to our congressional delegation that the mission be changed, it would create opportunities for current Vermont National Guard folks to find a new opportunity to serve. It would also create a dynamic turn within the technology sector of the state, and then all of the spin-off opportunities to occur as we go back. Thank you very much. If there is calling us back up to the floor, we have to go back up there right now. So thank you very much. Yeah, and if you give things to Gail, if you have testimony you'd like to have us read, give them a course. Are you going to bring this resolution to the floor of the house? We will have some committee discussion about it and decide what we're going to do. Thank you very much. Thank you so much for opening the series. Thank you for allowing this testimony to happen. Thank you. Thank you.