[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.
____________________