[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 27, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5803-H5812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 964 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6157.
  Will the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Lewis) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1758


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Lewis of Minnesota (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 115-785 offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) had been disposed of.


          Amendment No. 22 Offered by Ms. Esty of Connecticut

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 75, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my 
amendment which would increase funding for the Department of Defense's 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response programs.
  The men and women of our Armed Forces sacrifice a great deal to serve 
our country. When they enlist, they do so knowing that they may be sent 
into violent and dangerous situations to confront an adversary. What 
they do not sign up for is the violence of being sexually assaulted by 
one of their own fellow servicemembers.
  We need to do better by all those who wear the uniform. I am 
encouraged that the Department of Defense has established Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response program to prevent these crimes from 
occurring, and to ensure that victims have the resources they need to 
recover should an incident occur.
  But the number of servicewomen and -men who experience sexual assault 
in the military remains staggering. Last year alone, the Department of 
Defense received over 6,750 reports of sexual assault involving 
servicemembers. Meanwhile, DOD estimates that only one in three 
servicemembers who experience a sexual assault file a report.
  Clearly, sexual assault remains a serious issue in the Armed Forces. 
With over 1 million Active-Duty troops, and over 800,000 serving in the 
Guard and Reserves at installations all over the world, sexual assault 
prevention and response programs require our full support and funding. 
We must provide the best possible care and resources for our 
servicemembers who are dutifully and honorably serving and defending 
the United States.
  That is why my amendment would increase funding for these worthwhile 
and vital programs, to ensure that they are there when servicemembers 
need them.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I 
am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, sexual assault remains a serious problem in 
the military and one that we must continue to be addressing. The 
Department has implemented a number of measures to prevent and reduce 
sexual assault incidents, prosecute perpetrators, and better respond to 
victims. Despite this, there is still more to be done.
  This bill provides $318 million, which is $35 million above the 
President's request for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response programs 
at the service level and at the Department of Defense Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response program office.
  I agree that this is a critical issue that requires attention at the 
highest level. All of the military services must continue to address 
incidents of sexual assault and make clear that the military has zero 
tolerance for such behavior.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
for her support and the support of the committee as well as the Rules 
Committee in moving forward this important amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 115-785.


                 Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Foster

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement, the deployment, or the research, 
     development, test, and evaluation of a space-based ballistic 
     missile intercept layer.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward amendment would prohibit 
the misguided use of taxpayer dollars to attempt to develop a space-
based missile defense intercept layer.
  As the Chair knows, the Senate-passed version of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 tasks the Missile Defense Agency 
with developing such a concept.
  Mr. Chairman, we have been here before. The idea of a space-based 
intercept layer has gone in and out of fashion for the last 30 years, 
ever since President Reagan called for defending the United States 
against a massive first strike by developing a Strategic Defense 
Initiative system, commonly known as Star Wars.
  But every time technologically competent outside experts have looked 
at this space-based concept, they deem it unworkable, impossibly 
expensive, vulnerable to simple countermeasures, easy for an opponent 
to destroy, easy to overwhelm with a small number of enemy missiles, or 
all of the above.
  In fact, the former Director of the Missile Defense Agency, Admiral 
Syring said in 2016, that he had:


[[Page H5804]]


  

       Serious concerns about the technical feasibility of 
     interceptors in space, and its long-term affordability.

  In order to reach an incoming ballistic missile during the first few 
minutes of flight, a large number of interceptors must be stationed in 
low-altitude orbit where they will be very easy for an enemy to 
destroy.
  A report conducted by the American Physical Society in 2003 concluded 
that in order to ensure full coverage, a fleet of 1,000 or more 
orbiting satellites would be required to intercept just a single 
missile.
  To put that in perspective, the United States today currently has 
slightly more than 800 satellites in Earth's orbit, and that includes 
commercial, scientific, and military satellites.
  The National Academy of Sciences estimated that even an austere and 
limited network of 650 satellites would cost $300 billion, or roughly 
10 times the cost of a ground-based system.
  Setting aside the massive cost, a space-based missile defense system 
has inherent vulnerabilities that greatly limit its effectiveness. Even 
with thousands of interceptors deployed, only a few would be within 
range to target an incoming missile, and those could easily be 
overwhelmed by the launch of several missiles from one location.
  And because interceptors must be stationed in low-altitude orbit, 
they could easily be detected, tracked, and destroyed. It is these 
limitations that led Admiral Syring to conclude that:

       Essential space-based interceptor technologies have been 
     worked on only sporadically over the years and, consequently, 
     are not feasible to procure, to deploy, or operate in the 
     near or midterm.

  There is no doubt that a ballistic missile defense, if 
technologically feasible and economically justifiable, would be an 
important priority for our national security. So would be the Star Trek 
warp drive, or the transporter, if they were not technological 
fantasies.
  But as a scientist, and, in fact, the only Ph.D. physicist in the 
U.S. Congress, I think that we have to listen to the experts and do our 
homework before investing hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to 
develop an unworkable system.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes'' on my 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chair, as noted by Secretary of Defense Mattis:

       Space is a contested domain by our strategic competitors 
     just like air, land, and sea.

  This dangerous amendment would place our country at a disadvantage 
with our strategic competitors by limiting the work that can be done to 
continue our efforts in protecting our dominance in space, and, 
further, from protecting our homeland from intercontinental ballistic 
missiles.
  With the significant advances being made today by our adversaries in 
key areas, such as hypersonic weapons and expanding nuclear weapon 
proliferation, we must not restrict the Defense Department from 
pursuing options to deploy directed energy in space or any other 
capability that would result in the possibility of boost-phase 
capability that could be deployed from space.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is against even the possibility of 
investigating and going down this road. House authorizers and 
appropriators understand the importance of employing a layered missile 
defense capability, and this dangerous amendment would significantly 
constrain options for developing critical defensive capabilities in a 
gap of our current ballistic missile defense system.
  A proponent of boost-phase missile defense, General Hyten, the 
commander of Strategic Command testified this year that:

       The day you can actually shoot a missile down over 
     somebody's head and have that thing drop back down on their 
     heads, that will be a good day. Because as soon as you drop 
     it back on their heads, that is the last one they are going 
     to launch, especially if there is something nasty on top of 
     it. I think directed energy brings that to bear, although 
     such weapons do not yet exist in the U.S. arsenal.

  Finally, I would also point out that the issue of space-based 
intercept was debated at length last year, passed with bipartisan 
support in the House Armed Services Committee, and that the National 
Defense Authorization Act last year passed with broad bipartisan 
support on the House floor.
  This year, the Senate Armed Services Committee has also provided 
broad bipartisan support on this critical, technological development 
area. Now, is not the time to curtail this emerging potential 
capability.

  Mr. Chair, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I spent most of my career as an energy 
particle physicist and accelerator designer, designing and building 
complex technical systems. Nothing is less productive as a use of 
taxpayer money than designing and building a system, attempting to 
build a system that you know from the outset cannot and will not work.
  If there was suddenly a magic new technology, then we can revisit 
this decision. But the fundamental physics and the fundamental 
numerology of the attack versus defense balance in this has not changed 
in the last 30 years as we have examined this issue.
  So I think that just because it would be nice if we could magically 
drop a launch missile back on the enemy's head, if we do not have 
plausible technology that could accomplish that, doing paper designs of 
systems that will not work is a blatant waste of taxpayer money.
  Again, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, well, let me just conclude by saying in 
opposition, if it hasn't been developed yet, you don't know that it 
doesn't work. We have hundreds or even thousands of bright minds. I 
appreciate my colleague's credentials, but we have hundreds of 
scientists and engineers working in the Missile Defense Agency and at 
the government-sponsored laboratories and in other parts of the defense 
community in the private sector, and at the Department of Defense in 
the government sector, and there are possibilities here that are being 
pursued that have great promise, have great potential.
  I think it would just be the height of foolishness to cut it off all 
right now when there is not even any money being appropriated for this. 
It is just even the possibility that the gentleman is trying to cut 
off, when we have potential for something that would be helpful to 
saving our homeland, and making those who want to rain missiles on us 
have to suffer the consequences of those missiles coming back down on 
themselves. So we shouldn't foreclose the possibility and shut the 
door.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I think this all comes down to technical 
feasibility. Whenever you are thinking of how to spend taxpayer money, 
you must make a judgment call as to what things are just way out there 
and are not going to happen in our lifetimes, and things which have a 
realistic chance of working on the time scale that we are planning for.
  And when all of the experts that you convene to look at this 
unanimously say that this system makes no sense, then it makes no sense 
to spend taxpayer money until we get the breakthroughs that might some 
day make it possible.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H5805]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Illinois 
for a colloquy.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  As the only Ph.D. physicist in Congress, I would like to take a 
moment to highlight the risks of underfunding both nuclear 
nonproliferation and detection.
  When discussing the dangers of nuclear weapons, we often overfocus 
our attention on missiles and missile defense. Unfortunately, 
proliferation challenges are changing significantly, and there are, 
unfortunately, many ways to deliver a nuclear weapon, for example, the 
smuggling of nuclear radiological materials into the United States 
through our maritime ports or borders or through the use of commercial 
and recreational vehicles to deliver waterborne nuclear devices.
  We must focus our resources on developing and deploying technologies 
that will lead to a substantial improvement in our ability to detect, 
verify, and monitor fissile material and devices. And we must continue 
to strengthen our workforce at our national laboratories by continuing 
to recruit the best and the brightest technical experts.
  I note that much of this expertise is the same as will be required to 
ensure complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement of North 
Korea's nuclear weapons programs and their nuclear weapons.
  We can have the most expensive missile defense system in the world, 
but unless we address these unconventional threats as well, it is 
simply a false sense of security.
  So it is my hope that, by raising these concerns and rebalancing our 
spending, we will continue to develop new and innovative ideas to 
detect and monitor the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons and 
materials and, ultimately, make the world a safer place.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments 
and acknowledge his expertise as a fellow member of the Nuclear 
Security Working Group.
  I am grateful that Mr. Foster has raised the important subject of 
nuclear smuggling and for his continued commitment to addressing 
nuclear security issues. We must be relentless in developing the 
technologies that will help us identify and counter nuclear smuggling 
before dangerous materials fall into terrorist hands.
  The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review acknowledges the importance of 
nonproliferation and countering nuclear terrorism. But I do not believe 
the document is forward-thinking enough when it comes to developing a 
plan to address future threats. We must continue to invest in research 
and development of nonproliferation technologies so we will have the 
tools that we need to keep our Nation secure in an increasingly complex 
nuclear environment.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's raising it, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Gallego

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to procure, or to extend or renew a contract to 
     procure, any good or service from Zhongxing 
     Telecommunications Equipment Corporation, ZTE Kangxun 
     Telecommunications Ltd., or Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gallego) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, ZTE and Huawei Technologies are owned by 
the Chinese Government. Time and time again, we have seen that these 
companies, along with many others, abuse and manipulate their placement 
in the market to attack sensitive American communications, the 
technology sector as a whole, and our national critical infrastructure.
  There is no partisan disagreement on this point. Congress has been 
briefed many times on Chinese cyber attacks, espionage, and trade 
secret theft. We all know this is a problem. It is therefore 
astonishing, Mr. Chairman, that it is still possible that U.S. taxpayer 
dollars could be used to buy goods and services from these two bad 
apples.
  My amendment would change that. Put simply--and it is very simple, 
Mr. Chairman--my amendment would prevent funds under this act to 
procure any goods or services from these two companies. This should be 
the start of a larger, coordinated effort to harden our defense supply 
chain, sensitive communications networks, and critical industries and 
infrastructure from modern threats, whether they come from China or 
anywhere else.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with my friends and 
colleagues in both parties in making that a reality, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I don't 
oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment reaffirms 
existing DOD policy and supports the House NDAA, which also includes 
this provision.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Wittman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 26 and 
seek time to speak in support.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 24, line 1, strike ``(CVN 80)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 26 to 
provide cost-effective funding for the Navy's fourth Gerald R. Ford-
class aircraft carrier, CVN-81.
  Let me be clear. Amendment No. 26 does not add any additional funding 
to the carrier replacement program line for fiscal year 2019. None. Not 
one dollar. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found amendment 
No. 26 would not score; it would not change the overall level of budget 
authority or outlays in the bill in fiscal year 2019. According to the 
Parliamentarian, this is simply a perfecting amendment to allow for 
already appropriated funds to be used for both CVN-80 and CVN-81.
  I believe it is possible to be both a defense hawk and a fiscal hawk. 
My amendment supports both positions.
  For defense hawks, amendment No. 26 fulfills a critical need for our 
U.S. Navy. The Navy's most recent force structure assessment identified 
a need to maintain 12 aircraft carriers to meet combatant commanders' 
needs and address a growing demand for U.S. presence around the world. 
However, under the current shipbuilding and ship retirement plans, the 
Navy would dip below 12 aircraft carriers beginning in 2025 and would 
atrophy to just 9 aircraft carriers by 2048. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  By procuring an additional aircraft carrier now, we better position 
the Navy to meet future requirements. By supporting a strong aircraft 
carrier base, we also show a commitment to the aircraft that operate 
from the carrier. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the FA-18 E/F Super 
Hornet, EA-18G Growler, MH-60S Knighthawk helicopter, MH-60R Seahawk 
helicopter, as well as the E-2C/D Hawkeye aircraft all

[[Page H5806]]

require an aircraft carrier to operate in the Navy.
  For fiscal hawks, the numbers are clear. A two-ship buy of CVN-80 and 
CVN-81 saves more than $1.6 billion in shipbuilder costs when compared 
to single ship procurements. When government-furnished equipment is 
included, the total savings are projected to reach $2.5 billion. 
Additionally, increasing the build rate encourages the shipbuilder and 
suppliers to make capital investments that produce production 
efficiencies and reduce costs for these and future ships in the Ford 
class.
  We already have had great congressional support on this very issue. 
In December 2017, I led a letter with 131 House signatures to 
Department of Defense Secretary Mattis in support of this same dual 
aircraft carrier buy approach. This same provision also was included in 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. And H.R. 
5515, which recently passed the House by an overwhelming bipartisan 
margin of 351-66 on May 24 of this year, is a signal of what needs to 
be done.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I do not plan 
to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I would like to use my time to express a 
note of caution to my colleagues. First, I am on record encouraging the 
Navy to look into constructing two aircraft carriers simultaneously. I 
understand the Navy is in the process of evaluating potential savings 
from a two-carrier buy, and I look forward to seeing that report.
  Secondly, I support the Navy's fleet. Whatever the correct number may 
be in the end, the Navy definitely needs to have more ships to meet its 
mission. However, the construction of ships is very expensive. Even 
with the potential savings from a two-carrier buy, the expected cost of 
those ships would probably exceed $10 billion apiece. We also have a 
bulge coming up in the Navy's shipbuilding plan, as construction of the 
Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine gets underway.
  I am not opposed to increasing the Navy's shipbuilding budget in 
future years, but it needs to be done in a manner that is in step with 
the industrial base and strategic needs of the whole Department of 
Defense.
  Unfortunately, this body and the other body did not waive the last 2 
years of the Budget Control Act. So I remind my colleagues that it is 
terrific talking about building more ships that we don't have the money 
for. The fact is, next year, this bill, left uncertain, will have $71 
billion less in it, if the restrictions of the Budget Control Act are 
not changed.
  I also would point out that two of my colleagues, who will very 
briefly be offering another amendment, are also cosponsors of an 
amendment that we will consider in a few minutes that will cut the 
carrier program this year by $49.1 million.
  I also would emphasize to my colleagues who think we are not doing 
enough that the committee in the bill that is on the floor today has 
added $837,330,000 to the shipbuilding program that was recommended by 
the administration to be $21,000,871,437. And we have added two 
additional warships not requested by the administration.
  So to imply somehow that we are weak-kneed and not spending 
adequately on building ships in this country is simply not true. I 
certainly support the objectives of my colleagues, and that is to look 
at an expanding Navy. But we also have to consider where we are from a 
budgetary standpoint today and not necessarily vote later to cut the 
carrier program in the same year by $49.1 million.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all state very clearly 
that, in my opinion, both the chair and ranking member are strong 
supporters of our Navy and of a strong national defense, and any push 
in terms of these amendments is not a criticism of them at all in terms 
of the great work that they and their staff do putting forward a 
Defense Appropriations bill.
  Again, very quickly, this amendment really just is an opportunity to 
try to take advantage of the savings that my friend, Mr. Wittman, 
described.
  Block buy purchases have been tremendously successful. The last block 
contract for Virginia class, the Block IV, the PEO of submarines, Dave 
Johnson, was always very proud of the fact that we got 10 submarines 
for the price of 9 because of using the advantages of bulk purchases, 
which anyone who shops in Costco knows exactly what he was talking 
about.
  Again, that is a fact, that we achieved great savings by using the 
block buy purchase mechanism. So I certainly strongly support Mr. 
Wittman's efforts here.
  Again, I note that the $49 million that Mr. Visclosky talked about is 
in the amendment that is fast approaching, but it was not to cut the 
program; it was talking to the Navy, a recognition that the change 
orders that occurred in the last carrier, which is first in class, will 
not occur to the same extent. So we are really just talking about 
excess change orders, which, again, as the learning curve improves for 
carrier production, the Navy and the Armed Services Committee 
calculated would produce that kind of savings without inefficiencies 
and without doing harm to the carrier program.
  So, again, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for 
supporting Mr. Wittman's amendment. I look forward to working together 
in terms of both committees to try to achieve the goals of a strong 
355-ship Navy.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
Virginia has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chair, I will be quick with my closing.
  The bottom line is we need these carriers. We need $26 billion in the 
shipbuilding budget to reach 355 ships. So the $21 billion is 
admirable, but the pathway to get where we need to be of 355 is still 
out there for us. The challenge that we face ahead must be taken head-
on. This is the first step in doing that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Murphy of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,200,000)''.
       Page 36, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Mrs. Murphy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment, which I 
am proud to colead with Congressman Barr of Kentucky and Congresswoman 
Sinema and Congressman Biggs of Arizona. This amendment would increase 
funding for the National Guard Counterdrug Program by $3 million and 
reduce funding for the operation and maintenance defense-wide account 
by a corresponding amount.
  If the amendment is adopted, the House will provide $200 million in 
budget authority for the National Guard Counterdrug Program, which is 
approximately the amount that the National Guard Bureau indicates it 
can execute on an annual basis.
  My colleagues and I offered this amendment for a simple reason. We 
believe the National Guard Counterdrug Program is important, that it is 
effective, and, therefore, that it should continue to receive robust 
funding. This is

[[Page H5807]]

especially true in light of the opioid epidemic that is harming so many 
communities and tearing apart so many families throughout this country, 
including in my district in central Florida and in Mr. Barr's district 
in central and eastern Kentucky.
  Under the program, the National Guard Bureau distributes the money it 
receives from Congress to the National Guards in the States and the 
territories using a funding allocation model that examines the nature 
and scope of the drug problem in each jurisdiction. With this funding, 
National Guards may provide many different forms of authorized 
assistance to law enforcement agencies and community-based 
organizations, including analytical, reconnoissance, and training 
support.
  This program is effective because it is targeted and tailored. Each 
State uses its funding in a way that reflects the drug interdiction 
priorities of its Governors, the capability of its National Guard, and 
the needs of its law enforcement partners at the Federal, State, and 
local levels.
  For example, the Florida National Guard receives about $10 million a 
year under this program, which it uses to reduce the supply of and 
demand for illegal drugs in the State. Since 2014, support provided by 
the Florida National Guard has been instrumental in over 2,000 arrests 
and the seizure of nearly $14 billion in illicit drugs, property, and 
cash. National Guards in other States have their own success stories as 
well.
  In conclusion, I hope my colleagues will support this bipartisan 
amendment, which is vital to our Nation's effort to disrupt and 
dismantle drug trafficking organizations and to protect our communities 
and our children from drug-related violence.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I do not oppose 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, this amendment increases funding for the 
National Guard's Counterdrug Program. We are very supportive of the 
counterdrug program. The bill in front of us increases funding at the 
same level that passed the House last year.
  That being said, I understand this program is very important to many 
Members, and I support this amendment to provide a modest increase.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
support for this amendment, and I would just reiterate my view that the 
National Guard Counterdrug Program is important. I would respectfully 
ask my colleagues to support this amendment, which will help ensure 
this program is fairly funded.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands amendment No. 28 will not be 
offered.


                Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Courtney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 
printed in House Report 115-785.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 22, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,500,000)''.
       Page 24, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $49,100,000)''.
       Page 24, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,001,435,000)''.
       Page 24, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $246,510,000)''.
       Page 24, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $685,825,000)''.
       Page 26, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $386,325,000)''.
       Page 27, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $30,900,000)''.
       Page 29, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $73,000,000)''.
       Page 32, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $26,100,000)''.
       Page 32, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $159,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 964, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan, straightforward 
amendment that funds long-lead materials to boost construction of 
Virginia-class submarines to three per year, starting in 2022.
  This amendment comes in response to the adamant, persistent warnings 
of our combatant commanders in testimony before Congress--Admiral 
Harris of the Pacific Command and General Scaparrotti of the European 
Command--that submarines are their number one unfilled priority.
  This appropriations bill, unlike the NDAA, which passed 351-66, 
unfortunately, does not give the Navy the tools to answer that demand 
signal.
  Here is the reality: Today, the fleet has 52 subs. The two per-year 
build rate in this bill will result in a drop to 42 submarines in 2028, 
as shown on this chart from official numbers straight from the Navy, 
because subs are aging out faster than the two-per-year build rate can 
replace.
  My amendment does answer the demand signal of the COCOMs, raising the 
build rate to three per year at the earliest possible window, based on 
Navy analysis of industrial base capacity that was submitted to 
Congress last February.
  Mr. Chairman, right now, in real time, the next 5-year block contract 
is being negotiated, which will determine the Nation's submarine 
construction until 2023. If this amendment fails, Members should be 
crystal clear that our Nation cannot get that time back to magically 
add subs later. It takes 5 years to build an attack sub, and this 
year's bill coincides with block negotiations in a make-or-break 
moment.
  The offsets to pay for this amendment were part of the NDAA that a 
bipartisan majority of us just passed on May 24 and do not--I repeat, 
do not--cut a single ship or plane from the base bill, despite some of 
the claims that are flying around regarding this amendment.
  In particular, a last-minute DOD letter out yesterday about out-year 
impacts is pure speculation. We will talk about this more later.
  I am proud to say that my amendment is supported by some of America's 
most distinguished Navy officers, the last two CNOs, Admirals Roughead 
and Greenert; the former Fleet Forces Commander, Admiral Robert Natter; 
and the former Commander of Sub Forces, Admiral Michael Connor; as well 
as the Navy League and the metal trades of the AFL-CIO.
  Mr. Chairman, they understood the urgency expressed by other COCOMs. 
Now the question is whether Congress will rise to the challenge they 
threw down.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wittman).
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, it really is this compelling argument: Are 
we, as a nation, willing to make the commitment to ensure our future 
national security?
  Here is the deal: We are losing submarines at a breakneck pace 
because we are not building them fast enough to replace the ones that 
are retiring.
  In 2020, the Chinese--just the Chinese--will have 70 submarines. They 
are building them at a rate of six per year. So, by 2029, when we have 
42, they will have 124.
  Are we willing to do that as a nation? Are we willing to take that 
risk? Are we willing to look at our children and grandchildren and tell 
them that, when we had a chance to do something, we didn't do it?
  At 5:48 today, the United States Naval Institute news released an 
article that says: ``Congress Faces Last Chance to Add 2 Virginia-Class 
Attack Subs to the Next Block Buy.'' Last chance.
  Here is our chance to do what is right for the Nation. Here is our 
chance to do what is right for national security. Here is our chance to 
look at our children and grandchildren and tell them we did the right 
thing. We saw what was coming and we stood strong, and we built the 
submarines necessary to defend this Nation.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

[[Page H5808]]

  

  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support just as strongly as my 
friend from Virginia in support of the amendment from my good friend 
from Connecticut.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a serious strategic issue with respect to 
submarines. This amendment would give the Navy the option--just an 
option, Mr. Chairman, not a requirement--to procure submarines at a 
faster rate than it is currently planning right now.
  As we face bigger threats from China, from Russia, and in force 
projection in general, we need to look at all options, all especially 
when we are routinely briefed, as we all are on the Armed Services 
Committee, on the strategic deficiencies that we find right now.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out and make sure 
everyone knows I have zero shipyards in Arizona. We do not build any 
ships in Arizona. We are landlocked.
  I support this amendment not just because I am a marine and because I 
am a patron; I think it is in the best interests of our country and 
national defense.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
  Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment.
  We have an opportunity that doesn't come around all that often, thank 
God. Apparently, there are people who think this isn't important to our 
national defense.
  I went up to an electric boat just 2 months ago. This is the most 
complicated machine ever designed, ever built in the history of the 
world. You don't turn this on and off like a spigot of water.
  This is about saving our country. You heard the chairman talk about 
how we are falling behind as a country. How can we sit by and let this 
go? We must come together. We have to build this now or we are putting 
our country at risk.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Connecticut has 45 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend both Mr. 
Courtney and Mr. Wittman for their tireless effort on the Seapower and 
Projection Forces Subcommittee.
  As they have already stated, our Navy is being squeezed and 
desperately needs more ships, especially submarines. Numerous civilian 
and military officials, including Secretary Mattis, have testified 
about the need for these submarines.
  The goal of this amendment to ensure the Navy has the necessary 
resources in 2019 so that they can officially pursue and negotiate the 
multiyear contract is extremely important.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut and my 
colleague from Virginia for their hard work.
  Mr. Chair, following are my remarks in their entirety:
  I would like to commend both Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman for their 
tireless work on the Seapower Subcommittee on the House Armed Services 
Committee supporting our nation's Navy and our shipbuilding industrial 
base. As I have the honor of representing Newport News, Virginia, home 
to thousands of shipbuilders, I appreciate their work and commitment to 
this issue.
  As Mr. Courtney and Mr. Wittman have already stated, our Navy is 
being squeezed and desperately needs more ships, especially Virginia-
class attack submarines. Numerous civilian and military officials, 
including Defense Secretary Mattis, have testified before Congress that 
we need more submarines. And that's the goal of this amendment--to 
ensure that the Navy has the necessary resources in FY2019 that they 
would need in order to efficiently pursue and negotiate the next 
multiyear block contract in the early 2020.
  Specifically, this amendment provides funding for a submarine 
reactor, industrial base support and other critical items. The 
amendment does not bind Congress or the Navy into any specific course 
of action. If the Navy opts not to pursue the option to purchase 
additional submarines, that reactor and other material purchases with 
these funds will be absorbed into submarines that the Navy has already 
contracted to buy.
  Our shipbuilding industrial base is critical to our national 
security. Making these investments today will both save money for our 
Navy and provide more certainty for our shipbuilders. This amendment is 
supported by unions, the Navy League, and retired flag officers.
  Mr. Chair, we have heard warnings for years that our submarine fleet 
is at risk of dropping to levels that would make in incredibly 
difficult for the Navy to achieve its mission. This amendment guards 
against that from becoming a reality.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that Congress can 
preserve the option for the Navy to build as many submarines as 
possible, and as cost-effective as possible, in the next five-year 
block contract.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from 
Admiral Greenert, Admiral Roughead, and the two most recent CNOs, 
Admiral Natter and Vice Admiral Connor.

                                                        June 2018.
     Hon. Mac Thornberry,
     Chairman, House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Robert Wittman,
     Chairman, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
     Hon. Adam Smith,
     Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Joe Courtney.
     Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommitee.
       Dear Chairmen Thornberry and Wittman, and Ranking Members 
     Smith and Courtney, Thank you for your leadership in passing 
     another timely and insightful NDAA for 2019. In my opinion 
     your respective committees have led the way in Congress in 
     proposing strategic and coherent defense related legislation.
       I want to pass along my belief in the importance of this 
     bill's provision regarding the expansion of our undersea 
     capabilities--particularly the submarine fleet.
       During my 40-year career, including my tenure as CNO, our 
     Navy ``owned'' the Undersea domain. Navy's superiority in the 
     undersea domain has been unchallenged, predominantly due to 
     the excellence of the submarine force. This is no longer 
     assured. Real threats are emerging--fast.
       Our industrial base builds the finest submarines in the 
     world. Combatant Commanders consistently request a robust 
     submarine presence. And, the demand for submarine presence 
     has grown even more since I retired in 2015. Navy's recent 
     Force Structure Assessment, embraced by the Executive and 
     Legislative Branches, validates a need for 66 submarines. The 
     need is real and urgent. However, without near term 
     additional legislative action our fleet is on track to reach 
     41 attack submarines by 2029. This will leave our future 
     civilian and military leaders woefully short of a key 
     platform to meet emerging challenges in the undersea (and 
     surface) domain.
       The House 2019 NDAA recognized that sustaining an SSN build 
     rate of two-per-year would not arrest, and reverse, the 
     decline in the undersea fleet. Authorizing additional 
     resources for increased SSN production, specifically 
     preserving the option to use available industrial capacity in 
     2022 and 2023 to reach a three-per-year build rate, is 
     exactly the kind of thoughtful and tangible legislative 
     action, and messaging, we need. Again, your respective 
     committees are leading the way. As Congress continues its 
     work on defense authorization and appropriation in the near 
     term, I would urge your colleagues to see the opportunity and 
     flexibility inherent in this option--and support the plan 
     laid out in the 2019 NDAA passed by the House.
       Our undersea superiority is being challenged. The recent 
     acknowledged loss of intellectual property (Sea Dragon) is a 
     recent example. I urge the Congress to embrace this unique 
     opportunity presented by the House 2019 NDAA. Our security 
     depends on this sort of bold and innovative action.
           Sincerely,
                                             Jonathan W. Greenert,
     Admiral, USN (Retired).
                                  ____

                                                    June 17, 2018.
     Hon. Mac Thornberry,
     Chairman, House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Adam Smith,
     Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Robert Wittman,
     Chairman, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
     Hon. Joe Courtney,
     Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
       Dear Chairmen Thornberry and Wittman and Ranking Members 
     Smith and Courtney: I appreciate your Committee's and 
     Subcommittee's support of the U.S. Navy reflected in your 
     markup of the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
       The National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy 
     and your NDAA address and articulate the realities of once 
     again confronting peer adversaries. In that regard, our 
     undersea dominance will be challenged aggressively and 
     simultaneously in several geographic regions. Whoever 
     controls the undersea domain and sea lanes vital to us and 
     our allies will have the upper hand in crisis and conflict 
     history bears that out and our time is no different. 
     Investments in capabilities (sensors, communications, weapons 
     and quiet propulsion, etc.) will matter greatly but submarine 
     capacity, the number of submarines we have to dominate in 
     dispersed geographic areas, is vital. In confronting peer

[[Page H5809]]

     adversaries at sea we must acknowledge and anticipate high-
     end, complex maritime warfare will result in some loss of 
     capital assets which cannot be replaced quickly. Our 
     submarines, because of their lethality, will be aggressively 
     hunted and we must anticipate losses in that force. The 
     Navy's recent Force Structure Assessment (FSA) validates the 
     need for 66 attack submarines (I believe that number should 
     be 72) yet we are on a path to 41 in 2029. The House 2019 
     NDAA recognizes this shortfall and thoughtfully and prudently 
     seeks to enable increasing the Virginia Class submarine build 
     rate to three ships per year in 2022 and 2023 by authorizing 
     expenditures to that end.
       Our peer adversaries are investing in research, technology 
     and capacity. This is not what we think they will do, it is 
     what they are doing. Our submarines and the industrial base 
     that produces them are superior but we will need more of them 
     and it in the coming years. We must continue to maintain our 
     dominance and I urge your committee and your colleagues in 
     the Senate and those on the House and Senate Appropriation 
     Committees to definitively provide for at least three 
     submarines in fiscal years 2022 and 2023. The gap in 
     submarine capacity between the U.S. and our peer competitors 
     is growing to our disadvantage. Proactive investments must be 
     made now to arrest that growing disparity in submarine force 
     structure and avoid the consequences of being. for the first 
     time in decades, at a disadvantage under the sea.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Gary Roughead,
     Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired).
                                  ____

                                                    June 12, 2018.
     Hon. Mac Thornberry,
     Chairman,
     House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Robert Wittman,
     Chairman, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
     Hon. Adam Smith,
     Ranking Member,
     House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Joe Courtney,
     Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
       Dear Chairmen Thornberry and Wittman, and Ranking Members 
     Smith and Courtney: I am Robert J. Natter, Admiral, US Navy 
     Retired. I am submitting to you my personal views and strong 
     endorsement in support of one particular 2019 NDAA provision 
     regarding our nation's submarine fleet. Firstly, I want you 
     to know that I am not a submariner (I was a surface warfare 
     officer); I am not a constituent; I do not live in a State 
     that builds our nation's submarines; and I do not consult for 
     or represent in any way our two major submarine building 
     shipyards.
       I do address this important issue from my perspective as a 
     former Seventh Fleet Commander dealing with, among other 
     challenges, North Korea, China, Freedom of Navigation 
     operations around Taiwan and in Southeast and East Asia 
     waters, and the readiness and combat planning associated with 
     US Navy forces throughout Asia and Indian Ocean waters. I was 
     also Commander of US Fleet Forces Command for three years and 
     in that capacity was responsible for training, equipping and 
     deploying all US-based Navy forces in response to national 
     tasking.
       Since I left the service, threats to our nation and our 
     potential adversaries' capabilities have increased 
     significantly. In the meantime our forces, while improving 
     technologically, have diminished in numbers while being 
     tasked at a level not seen since Cold War days. The Navy's 
     recent Force Structure Assessment clearly validates the need 
     for increased ship and aircraft numbers to meet our defense 
     needs. It also clearly validated the need for a MINIMUM of 66 
     attack submarines (SSNs). Having said that, we are now on a 
     dangerous build slope of having only 41 SSNs by 2029. The 
     House 2019 NDAA agreed that the current build rate of two 
     submarines per year would not reverse the decline of our 
     undersea fleet.
       Authorizing additional dollars for increased SSN production 
     to reach a three-per-year build rate addresses our national 
     security disadvantage while reducing the unit cost of these 
     valuable assets. As you and your Committees work with the 
     Appropriators I encourage all your fellow members to embrace 
     and support the build plan called for in the 2019 House NDAA 
     with its increased build rate for our SSN fleet. In my view, 
     if there is sufficient funding for only one more weapon or 
     ship system, that ship should be an SSN. This is due to its 
     inherent survivability, flexibility (anywhere on the globe) 
     and effectiveness against the highest end threats.
       I urge you and your fellow Congressional leaders to 
     convince your colleagues that this provision is necessary, 
     cost effective, and the right thing to do for our country. 
     Thank you for your continuing service to our nation and 
     strong leadership in Congress on behalf of our defense needs.
           Most sincerely,
                                                 Robert J. Natter,
     Admiral, US Navy Retired.
                                  ____

                                                    June 12, 2018.
     Hon. Mac Thornberry,
     Chairman,
     House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Robert Wittman,
     Chairman, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
     Hon. Adam Smith,
     Ranking Member,
     House Armed Services Committee.
     Hon. Joe Courtney,
     Ranking Member, Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.
       Dear Chairmen Thornberry and Wittman, and Ranking Members 
     Smith and Courtney: Thank you for passing the National 
     Defense Authorization bill for FY2019 out of the House, 
     especially the bill's provisions relating to the needed 
     expansion of our undersea fleet.
       Submarines are critically important to national security. 
     During my time as Commander of the Submarine Force from 2012 
     to 2015, I struggled to pace the growing undersea needs of 
     combatant commanders around the world. Many high priority 
     missions can only be accomplished by submarines because peer 
     competitors improved their anti-access technology and long-
     range strike capability. Submarine demand continues to grow. 
     The most recent force structure assessment that increased the 
     attack submarine requirement from 48 to 66.
       Without additional action, our undersea fleet will drop to 
     41 attack submarines in 2029. This reduced fleet size will 
     leave our civilian leaders and military commanders without 
     the tools they need to keep ahead of changing threats and 
     challenges around the globe. Mitigating this decline in the 
     undersea fleet should be a top priority for the Navy, the 
     Congress, and our nation.
       The 2019 NDAA as passed by the House last month recognizes 
     that simply sustaining the two-a-year production rate of 
     Virginia-class submarines will not arrest the decline in our 
     undersea fleet. By authorizing additional resources for 
     increase submarine production, the bill preserves the option 
     for utilizing available capacity in 2022 and 2023 to achieve 
     a three-submarine build rate in those years. This will reduce 
     the looming shortfall we face in the coming decade and help 
     alleviate the mis-match in submarine demand and resources.
       As Congress continues its work on the defense authorization 
     and funding measures in the weeks ahead, I would urge your 
     colleagues to support the plan you have laid out in the 2019 
     NDAA passed by the House. At a time when our nation's leading 
     edge in the undersea domain is being challenged by 
     competitors around the world, this is an opportunity that we 
     cannot afford to miss.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael J. Connor,
                                    Vice Admiral (ret), U.S. Navy.

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut has 
expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank Mr. Visclosky and 
Ms. Granger for the courtesy and, again, having parity in terms of the 
time. I realize this is an extraordinary situation. They have a lot of 
folks who want to take the opposite position, but this is a really good 
comity in terms of the field.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
want to thank the ranking member for his work on this Defense 
Appropriations bill as well as Congresswoman Granger. In particular, I 
want to thank my colleague, Mr. Courtney, for his tireless work as the 
ranking member of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee and 
Mr. Wittman for his tireless work.
  Our submarines are the true unsung heroes of our naval fleet, and I 
know from firsthand experience because much of the critical fabrication 
work of these amazing submarines is done by my constituents in my home 
State of Rhode Island.
  Admirals continuously tell us that they cannot get enough submarines, 
which are desperately needed across the globe to protect the interests 
of the United States. In fact, they are only able to meet some 60 or 65 
percent of the demands of the requests of the combatant commanders for 
the use of these submarines.
  Despite this urgent need, the number in our fleet is actually 
dropping. By 2028, it has been reported the number of submarines will 
drop from 52 to 42. So how can we support this near 20 percent drop 
when we have the ability to do something about it?
  Thankfully, there is a plan to close at least some of this gap by 
procuring additional submarines in 2022 and 2023. But we can't increase 
our sub production by 50 percent on a dime. We need to make investments 
today if we are to be in a position to help reduce the bottoming out of 
our sub fleet.

[[Page H5810]]

  The hardworking employees of our defense industrial base need to 
build additional capacity now. We need to act immediately if we are 
going to be in a position to provide more submarine reactors in the 
out-years.

                              {time}  1845

  This amendment will ensure that we have the flexibility going 
forward. That is why we included similar language in this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act, which overwhelmingly passed this 
Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, the urgency is particularly evident because our 
adversaries are not standing still. DOD has estimated that China will 
have an estimated between 69 and 78 submarines in 2020, and the CSBA 
has estimated that they will have between 80 and 100 submarines 
somewhere between 2022 and the 2030 time frame. We cannot, in good 
conscience, ignore the startling growth of this adversarial fleet.
  Mr. Chair, subs not only deter our adversaries, but they also build 
up our allies and ensure a more prosperous, secure world. Funding our 
Virginia-class and Columbia-class programs must remain an absolute 
priority. Anything less is an affront to our national security.
  This amendment continues our practice of robust investment in our 
submarine fleet, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, may I ask the Chair how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Courtney).
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, having been pretty close to this issue over 
the last 12 years, I would like to add just a little bit of perspective 
in terms of this initiative which, again, started at the Seapower 
Subcommittee.
  The last two times block contracts were being negotiated was in 2007 
and in 2012. In both instances, the Congress plussed up the budget for 
submarine construction exactly the same way we are doing it in this 
amendment: by funding long-lead materials; advanced procurement; 
purchase of a reactor, which will be built in Ohio, by the way. That 
gave the Navy the tools to increase their block buy.
  It was done, incidentally, over the objection of the Department of 
Defense. I was there with Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young who, again, decided 
to override that objection at the time. That is when we went from one-
sub-a-year to two-subs-a-year production.
  In 2012 we had a similar situation where the White House, the Obama 
administration, only requested nine subs in the next block contract, 
the block 4. Again, the two committees working together boosted that 
block authority in appropriations to get to 10 a year. Again, that was 
over the objections of the Department of Defense.
  I realize we are going to hear a lot from my colleagues, my good 
friends, about Mr. Shanahan's letter that objects to my amendment. I 
would just say that that is not the first time we have heard that. 
Luckily, we have leadership in Congress which withstood those 
arguments. Otherwise, we would be in a worse predicament than we are 
today.
  Again, follow past precedent. The 23 bipartisan amendment cosponsors 
and I strongly urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank both the chair and the ranking member for 
the time they have allotted.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, this amendment increases funding for the 
Virginia-class submarine program by $1 billion, at the expense of other 
critical Navy and Air Force programs.
  The Department of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the 
Air Force, and the National Coast Guard Association of the United 
States all oppose this amendment.
  In fact, the Deputy Secretary of Defense sent a letter detailing the 
harmful effects this amendment has on multiple critical National 
Defense Strategy programs. His quote: ``disrupt multiple critical 
National Defense Strategy programs.''
  These are must-have programs, like the DDG 51 guided-missile 
destroyer, the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, the Global Hawk, and the 
TAO fleet oiler, just to name a few.
  I have also received a letter from the National Guard Association 
opposing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the letters I received from the 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and the National Guard Association.

                                  Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2018.
     Hon. Kay Granger,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington. DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: The Department of Defense (DoD) 
     objects to the proposed amendment by Representatives Courtney 
     and Wittman that cuts over $1 billion from the Fiscal Year 
     (FY) 2019 President's Budget. The FY 2019 cuts disrupt 
     multiple critical National Defense Strategy (NDS) programs, 
     including the carrier program and Air Force research and 
     procurement. Combined with the out-year cost of finishing the 
     incrementally funded submarines. the Department would be 
     required to cut over $6 billion from multiple programs such 
     as reducing, the buys of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, 
     oilers and fast frigates.
       The FY 2019 President's Budget request supports a robust. 
     balanced shipbuilding program. providing $23.7 billion for 
     ten combat ships and eight support ships. including, two 
     Virginia-class submarines. DoD is committed to growing the 
     size of the Navy, investing over $20 billion per year across 
     the Future Years Defense Program. Consistent with the NDS. 
     Dolls request balances ship procurement with readiness and 
     other systems to be a more lethal joint force and meet future 
     capabilities.
       The Virginia-class submarine provides crucial capabilities 
     to the joint warfight. The current Navy fleet faces known 
     shortfalls in attack submarine inventory in future years. 
     However, in the FY 2019 President's Budget we balanced the 
     investment in this capability against other critical 
     capabilities in areas such as space and cyber, and in 
     emerging areas such as autonomy and artificial intelligence.
       The Department appreciates Congressional support for 
     growing the Navy's fleet and ensuring robust future 
     capabilities. Working together we will find solutions that 
     make us stronger and safer.
     Patrick M. Shanahan.
                                  ____

         National Guard Association of the United States, Inc.,
                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2018.
     Hon. Kay Granger,
     Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairwoman: On behalf of the 45,000 members of 
     the National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS), 
     I write today to express our opposition to the proposed 
     amendment by Representatives Courtney and Wittman which 
     provides funding for long lead time materials to construct 
     additional Virginia-class submarines in FY 2022 and FY 2023.
       We share the concerns of the Department of Defense as 
     outlined in their June 26th letter of objection. Primarily, 
     our concern centers on the fact that while programmatic 
     adjustments are identified for the beginning of the program, 
     this change will create an unfunded liability across the 
     multi-year procurement cycle. As you know, the National Guard 
     is often supplemented with Congressional assistance from your 
     committee and I worry that creating such a large additional 
     requirement will unduly force cuts in other critical defense 
     funding over the next several years.
       I thank you and your staff for your efforts in writing this 
     expansive and important piece of national security 
     legislation. Thank you, as always, for your continued support 
     of the men and women of the National Guard. My staff and I 
     stand by to assist in any way, and I look forward to 
     continuing our great work together.
           Sincerely,

                                              J. Roy Robinson,

                                         Brigadier General (Ret.),
                                                 President, NGAUS.

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, not only does this amendment cut $1 billion 
from vital programs in FY19; it will leave future Congresses with at 
least a $6 billion shortfall. That is not the appropriate way to spend 
our taxpayers' dollars.
  The Navy is not committed to funding these two additional submarines 
in the future. In fact, the Statement of Administrative Policy on the 
House-passed NDAA specifically objects to adding two additional 
submarines above what is currently in the President's budget.
  This amendment takes $346 million that has been set aside for the 
reactor core for the last Nimitz-class carrier refueling overhaul. 
Delaying this procurement for yet another year hurts

[[Page H5811]]

this program and creates serious production gaps. This will directly 
impact the ability of the manufacturer to provide Columbia-class core 
reactors in a timely manner, and it introduces risk to the schedule for 
the Columbia-class submarine program. That is unacceptable.
  The amendment takes $315 million from other shipbuilding programs, 
funds that will have to be repaid in future years. It takes more than 
$245 million from the DDG 51 guided-missile destroyer program, a 
critical missile-defense-capable ship that is deployed throughout the 
world.
  This amendment is asking Congress to fund $1 billion now but create a 
bill for the future, a bill that will not be paid due to the imminent 
threat of the return of sequestration.
  Some Members have asked if we can just fix this amendment in 
conference. Let me be very clear on that point. The answer is no. We 
will not be able to fix the damage this amendment causes in conference. 
Should this amendment pass, all cuts will be included in the conference 
report.
  I received a letter today from Representative Courtney and 
Representative Wittman asking me to reconsider my position on their 
amendment. Their letter says that this amendment doesn't lock the 
Congress or Department into any course of action. That is not true.
  Who will pay for these subs, and where will they find the money? 
Cutting $1 billion out of critically important programs so the Navy can 
have options in future negotiations of additional submarines is also 
irresponsible, especially when the Navy has neither requested nor 
budgeted them.
  Since when is it acceptable to give $1 billion to someone so they can 
have options?
  Their letter also claims they have not heard of any concerns about 
the proposed first-year offsets. This is not true. In May of this year, 
the Navy warned that any reductions to the DDG 51 destroyer program 
will affect the ability of the Navy to achieve any--any--multiyear 
procurement savings.
  Mr. Chair, I will continue to oppose this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I would emphasize that I am strongly 
opposed to this amendment and join with the chairwoman.
  Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member of the 
subcommittee, with whom I feel very privileged to work, for allowing me 
this time. I rise tonight in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, first I want to say, I have the utmost respect for the 
many sponsors of this amendment, and particularly Mr. Wittman and Mr. 
Courtney. They have shown tremendous bipartisan support and leadership 
in their tireless support of the Navy. They are excellent in their 
roles on their committees, and I consider them both great colleagues 
and friends.
  However, this amendment is the wrong way to support our Navy. The 
amendment would cut $1 billion in funding from a variety of extremely 
important Navy and Air Force programs to fund advanced procurement for 
two Virginia-class submarines.
  While they have made an excellent case about how important 
strategically those submarines are--and I agree with them on that--the 
problem is that one of them will be the DDG 51 program, which is 
supported at Bath Iron Works.
  I am proud to be from Maine and to have Bath Iron Works and their 
excellent workforce in my district. The men and women of Bath Iron 
Works have been proving the adage ``Bath Built is Best Built'' for 
decades, and I oppose any efforts to cut from the DDG 51 program.
  My colleagues have said that this amendment is funded by potential 
multiyear procurement savings in future years in the targeted the 
programs and, therefore, we should take that funding from these 
programs now. But the rationale ignores critical military and defense 
needs and the budgets that have been agreed upon.
  The amendment will abandon several agreed-upon key national defense 
priorities, including increasing the ships in our Navy, a critical 
priority. Ships that I am proud to say are being manufactured, 
designed, and engineered by many hardworking men and women in my 
district.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, which would add $1 billion in advanced procurement for two 
additional Virginia-class submarines in FY 2022/23.
  The Navy has a substantial plan for submarines. It achieves the 
mission of a 355-ship Navy by 2050 and does it in a way that is 
fiscally responsible and provides for stability of the industrial base.
  In a letter from the Secretary of the Navy to Chairman Frelinghuysen, 
the Secretary states: ``The FY 2019 President's budget provides 
sufficient funding to procure the ships included in the FY19-FY23 
Future Years Defense Program.''

  An advanced procurement amendment of $1 billion in FY19 and, by the 
way, an additional $6 billion tail, would take from much-needed 
programs that have already been considered by the committee. 
Additionally, it would jeopardize the future programs and assume risk 
in other areas.
  Mr. Chair, I certainly urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I will remind 
my Members, as my friend from Indiana mentioned, we have a cliff coming 
in 2020. Making a commitment to spend an additional $7 billion, which 
we don't have, is not a good idea. We ought to be working on trying to 
resolve that cliff issue.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, the chairwoman, the ranking member, and I 
wholly support the U.S. Navy and, also, the Navy's plan to get to the 
355-ship number.
  This bill already supports the purchase of 12 new ships, including 
two new Virginia-class attack submarines. However, this amendment for 
an additional two more Virginia-class subs will wind up cutting, as you 
heard, much-needed money from other vital programs. The Department of 
Defense estimates that it would cut $7 billion from other programs over 
the next 5 years, by the way, impacting military readiness and other 
vital equipment procurement.
  So, again, while we must obviously pursue an aggressive shipbuilding 
program, it must be balanced. The Virginia-class sub is absolutely a 
critical national security capability, but we do not want to sacrifice 
other equally critical capabilities while we do that.
  Mr. Chair, I would respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.
  Mr. Chair, I would again emphasize, first of all, that the committee 
recognizes the needs of the United States Navy, and in the underlying 
legislation we have increased--increased--the administration's request.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, we have increased the underlying budget 
request by $837 million, and we have added two ships.
  The best description for the amendment before us is shortsighted 
cannibalism. It eats other important Navy and Air Force programs in 
2019 to feed the Virginia-class submarine. In doing so, it creates a 
myriad of problems in the out years.
  The chairwoman mentioned a number of the programs that were cut in 
this proposal. I mentioned one in a previous amendment. I would 
emphasize that some of the gross numbers that have been mentioned 
include a cut of $10.5 million from weapons procurement from the United 
States Navy. It does, I emphasize, cut from carriers $49.1 million. It 
takes $20 million from fleet oilers. It takes $26.1 million from our 
research and development from the Navy and $262.9 million from the Air 
Force.

[[Page H5812]]

  This is not new money. This is not free money. We are taking money 
from programs that need it in 2019.
  Mr. Chair, I would also point out that Mr. Courtney mentioned two 
letters that were referenced by the chairwoman. I would also reference 
two other letters. The suggestion was made that we hear from the 
administration all of the time.

                              {time}  1900

  Well, Chairman McCain, in the Senate, on May 30, 2017, heard from 
Admiral Richardson relative to the Navy's unfunded priority list for 
fiscal year 2018. Admiral Richardson, who is Chief of Naval Operations, 
mentioned 38 priority items for the United States Navy. It did not 
include this item. It included a request for an additional 
$4,796,000,000. It didn't include this item.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that was sent to Chairman Frelinghuysen 
on February 22 of this year from Admiral Richardson for the Navy's 
unfunded priority list for this year, 2019. It includes 25 items. I 
have been scanning this with my bifocals, looking for this item of 
importance to the United States Navy, and I have not been able to find 
it in their request for an additional $1,502,270,000.
  The sponsors' claim that this gives the Navy the option to construct 
two additional Virginia-class submarines during the next 5-year block 
contract, cutting $1 billion for useful programs this year, to give the 
Navy an option to do something in 4 years, does not make a bit of sense 
to me.
  The sponsors say that this amendment sets the Navy up well for a 
multiyear procurement agreement, and I might not be able to argue that, 
in particular. However, in their quest to set that up, they are, in 
fact, damaging the ability of the United States Navy to set up a 
multiyear procurement program for the DDG-51 program.
  Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I am strongly opposed to this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge the rejection of this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
will be postponed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, earlier in this debate, we thanked 
all the members of the staff who made this great bill a reality through 
their good efforts: the professional staff, associate staff, and all 
those who work in our personal offices. Again, I would like to do that 
on all of our behalf.
  Mr. Chairman, I especially thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking 
Member Visclosky for their leadership, and the involvement of all those 
on the floor in the production of this bill. But, at this time, I would 
like to offer special recognition to one in particular: the late 
Stephen Sepp, the Appropriations Committee's resident budget expert.
  Sepp, as he was known by all, died earlier this month, but he left 
his mark on this bill and on our committee. His funeral was held today 
at St. Peter's Catholic Church, in Olney, Maryland, and attended by 
hundreds of Members and his friends from Capitol Hill and the 
appropriations family.
  Among many things, Sepp was the caretaker of the all-important 302(b) 
sub-allocations. Through his careful work from his desk in the Capitol, 
upstairs here, and from home, in the final months of his illness, he 
ensured that the Congress provided adequate funding--may I say well 
over $1 trillion--not just for the Department of Defense, but for all 
12 Appropriations bills.
  This, of course, required a deep understanding of the policy and 
budgetary needs of each and every aspect of these bills, and a base of 
knowledge and situational awareness of all the various political 
factors at play. He expertly maneuvered this huge responsibility with 
skill, savvy, and an immense amount of poise.
  Sepp embodied strength, facing both professional and personal 
challenges equally with grace and fortitude. In short, he made a 
difference in the lives of all he touched--literally millions--as well 
as the lives of Americans in every part of the country.
  We extend our love to his wife, Diem; his two children; and family. 
We will always remember him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to follow the chairman's 
remarks, and associate myself with his remarks relative to the staffer 
who has been lost.
  The chairwoman was kind enough in the general debate to mention the 
staff and the Members who have been so instrumental in this work 
product, and I would be remiss if I did not conclude by again thanking 
the full committee chairman, as well as Mrs. Lowey.
  I can't thank Chairwoman Granger enough. This has just been a 
pleasant and productive experience, and I appreciate her leadership 
very much. I appreciate the work of all of the members of the 
subcommittee, as well as all of our staff. That includes our clerks, 
Jennifer Miller and Rebecca Leggieri, as well as Walter Hearne, Brooke 
Boyer, B.G. Wright, Allison Deters, Collin Lee, Matthew Bower, Jackie 
Ripke, Hayden Milberg, Bill Adkins, Sherry Young, Barry Walker, 
Jennifer Chartrand, Chris Bigelow, Johnnie Kaberle, Jonathan Fay, Joe 
DeVooght, and Christie Cunningham. I can't thank them enough.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Wittman) having assumed the chair, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 6157) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________