[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6289-H6293]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE THAT THE UNITED STATES NAVY'S TOTAL
READINESS REMAINS IN A PERILOUS STATE
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
resolution (H. Res. 998) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives that the United States Navy's total readiness remains
in a perilous state due to high operational demands, increased
deployment lengths, shortened training periods, and deferred
maintenance all while the Navy is asked to do more with less as
financial support for critical areas waned in the era of sequestration
and without consistent Congressional funding.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 998
Whereas Navy readiness could further deteriorate in areas
such as training, ship construction, ship repair, and
deployability if Congress does not provide stable funding for
the Department of Defense;
Whereas the USS Fitzgerald, a United States Navy destroyer,
collided with a container ship while transiting through
Sagami Bay near Japan on June 17, 2017, resulting in the
deaths of seven sailors and hundreds of millions of dollars
in damage;
Whereas the United States Navy's investigation of the USS
Fitzgerald collision concluded that the event was
``avoidable'' and that numerous failures included failure to
plan for safety, failure to adhere to sound navigation
practice, failure to execute basic watch standing practices,
failure to properly use available navigation tools, and
failure to respond deliberately and effectively when in
extremis;
[[Page H6290]]
Whereas the USS John S. McCain, a United States Navy
destroyer, collided with an oil tanker while transiting
through the Straits of Singapore on August 21, 2017,
resulting in the deaths of 10 sailors and hundreds of
millions of dollars in damage;
Whereas the United States Navy's investigation of the USS
John S. McCain collision concluded that the crew suffered
from a ``lack of preparation, ineffective command and
control, and deficiencies in training and preparations for
navigation'';
Whereas the Navy the Nation Needs, the United States Navy's
plan for building and sustaining a lethal, resilient force
through balanced investments across readiness, capability,
and capacity, explicitly states a need for 355 Battle Force
ships, yet the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan peaks at only
342 Battle Force ships in 2039 before a predicted decline;
Whereas an efficient and supported industrial base will be
vital to building and maintaining a 355 ship Navy;
Whereas over the previous 5 decades, 14 defense-related
new-construction shipyards have closed, 3 have left the
defense industry, and only 1 new shipyard has opened;
Whereas stable and predictable funding allows for Navy
leaders to properly forecast their missions and adhere to the
Optimized Fleet Response Plan while also enabling industry
partners to prepare for ship repair work at the most
competitive prices to the United States Government;
Whereas China's shipbuilding industry, according to a Naval
War College professor, is poised to make the People's
Liberation Army Navy the world's second largest navy by 2020,
and, if current trends continue, a combat fleet that in
overall order of battle is quantitatively on par with that of
the United States Navy by 2030;
Whereas China continues to develop forward operating bases
on manmade islands in the South China Sea and, by doing so,
consolidate its control over the strategic corridor between
the Indian and Pacific Oceans through which \1/3\ of global
maritime trade passes; and
Whereas Russia's shipbuilding industry's focus on undersea
warfare has positioned the Russian Navy to add six modernized
nuclear attack submarines to its naval inventory by 2023 and
aggressively modernize its aging Oscar-class nuclear attack
submarine fleet: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the United States Navy's need for
congressional support to address readiness, training, and
modernization challenges that threaten to weaken naval
superiority; and
(2) finds that failing to provide the United States Navy
with stable, predictable funding negatively affects its
ability to project power around the world, reassure critical
allies, and defeat adversaries when necessary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
General Leave
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
There was no objection.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), who is on the Armed Services
Committee, to discuss his resolution.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the gentlewoman from
Wyoming for all of her efforts, as well as all of my colleagues for
their continued effort to do everything possible to assure the passage
of the National Defense Authorization Act and the Defense
Appropriations bill prior to the end of the fiscal year. That is key.
We have heard testimony about how money is wasted and uncertainty has
led us to where we are today. Without that, we must do everything we
can to assure passage of both of those bills.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 998, which expresses
the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Navy's
total readiness remains in a perilous state due to high operational
demands, increased deployment lengths, shortened training periods, and
deferred maintenance all while the Navy is asked to do more with less
as financial support for critical areas waned in the era of
sequestration and without consistent congressional funding.
We have heard that laid out. We agree on both sides that this has
created the uncertainty that creates the situation we found ourselves
in today.
I think it is important to define what the term ``Navy total
readiness'' truly means. The Navy conducted an independent Strategic
Readiness Review composed of retired Navy admirals, as well as current
senior civilian executives in the aftermath of the tragic USS
Fitzgerald and USS McCain collisions. This Strategic Readiness Review
identified institutional deficiencies that have developed over a long
period of time resulting in a weaker Navy.
Factors that contribute to total Navy readiness include: the total
number of assets--we know them as ships--manning and training, that is,
in particular, personnel, in how well they perform their jobs;
equipping and maintaining, that means providing sailors gear and
maintaining ships; command and control, which means establishing clear
lines of leadership and funding; and operations, which is the tempo at
which our men and women in uniform execute their missions.
{time} 1445
If one or all of these total readiness factors are lacking, the Navy
will suffer. Unfortunately, that is the situation we find ourselves in
today.
But we didn't arrive here by accident. I believe we have a tendency
to respond to the crisis of the day rather than prepare for long-term
strategic problems with corresponding solutions.
Make no mistake about it, our adversaries are looking in the long
term. Don't think for a moment that China isn't watching what we are
doing and planning for where they will be not next week, not next
month, not next year, but 10 years down the road, 20 years down the
road, or a century down the road. The same with Russia, North Korea,
and Iran. We need to do the same.
After the Cold War and the Reagan administration came to an end, our
Navy rapidly decreased in size. In the next few decades, funding levels
became smaller and smaller. Tough cuts were made. The surface warfare
community decreased their level of training, weakening the skills of
their officers and reducing their capacity to effectively and safely
perform their jobs as ship drivers and warfighters. Ships retired
without replacements.
Then, a nationwide financial crisis brought upon a shortsighted
decision for sequestration, further crippling the Navy's ability to
take care of itself.
Meanwhile, threats to the United States and operational tempo have
not decreased. This created a situation where the Navy was overworked
with too few resources.
But our men and women in uniform never complain and never say they
can't accomplish their mission. They have the kind of resolve in doing
the things this Nation asks them to do that this Congress should have
in our commitment to providing them the resources necessary for them to
continue the great job that we ask of them.
But at a certain point, we all know we can't continue to operate this
way. Things begin to break down when they aren't given the resources
necessary. When their ships aren't properly maintained, when training
doesn't take place at scheduled intervals to make sure they maintain
that expertise that we need of them, sailors get stressed. When there
are simply too many jobs to do and not enough time for people to do
them, mistakes happen, costly mistakes.
We won't be able to reverse this trend immediately, but we can
continue to make targeted, strategic investments in assets, training,
and manpower to improve the Navy's readiness. I am proud of the work
that Congress has done in recent years, in particular, this year's
National Defense Authorization Act.
The House-passed NDAA adds a total of 13 battle force ships to the
Navy's inventory, makes critical investments in ship maintenance
accounts to take care of the ships we already have, and takes strong
action in regard to surface warfare officer training and command and
control structures within the Navy.
In consultation with our Senate counterparts, I am confident that we
will deliver a bill that supports the Navy's rebuilding efforts and the
drive and the objective of a 355-ship Navy.
We cannot be complacent. Yes, we have the best Navy in the world, but
we can be better. Our sailors and marines are the best on the face of
the Earth, and they do a spectacular job, folks. But until they can
walk on water,
[[Page H6291]]
which someday they may be able to do, until they can walk on water,
then we must continue to build them ships.
It is imperative that this Congress supports the United States Navy
financially and authoritatively in a manner that allows for reassuring
our allies, maintaining global presence, and defeating adversaries when
necessary. We must give our sailors and our marines the tools they need
to succeed in an atmosphere and an environment that is even more
challenging than it has ever been in the era of great power competition
where we know that our allies are committing to not just countering the
United States, but defeating the United States strategically.
We must do nothing less than fully support our Navy-Marine Corps
team, giving them what they need not just for today, not just for next
year, not just for within our purview of what this Congress has to do,
but for years to come, for decades to come, and for centuries to come.
For it is only with that, that we will be able to counter what our
adversaries are doing every second of every day, and that is finding
ways to defeat the United States strategically. We must do nothing less
than the same.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's motion. It is part of the
same discussion we had on the previous resolution, and I, as I said,
completely agree. The lack of certainty on the continuing resolutions
has negatively impacted the Department of Defense and our readiness.
There is absolutely no question about it. The only thing I would debate
today is: What is the best way to address that problem? How do we
honestly get at it?
These resolutions would suggest that if we simply fund defense and
ignore everything else, then we will be fine. I think the way we got
into this mess is instructive, and it is also going to be helpful in
terms of how we get out of this mess going forward.
It is worth noting, at the end of this, we talked a little bit about
tax cuts and how one thing doesn't have to do with the other. Tax cuts
do not increase revenue. If they did, we would have the easiest job in
the world. Also, a tax rate of zero would generate the most revenue for
the United States Government. Obviously, that is not true.
Now, it is true that tax policy, depending on how it is structured,
can be more encouraging to investment. But we have never had lower tax
rates on the Federal level than we have right now. After all of the
Bush tax cuts, as I mentioned the tax cuts under President Obama, and
now the tax cuts under President Trump, all of that has added up to a
massive decrease in our revenue, and that is part of the equation.
When President Bush put the tax cuts in place in 2001, for three
consecutive fiscal years after that, we had a real dollar decrease in
the amount of revenue that the Federal Government took in.
Now, I also understand that taxes are always a burden on the people
who have to pay them. If we are running government well, we are going
to try to keep those taxes as low as is humanly possible. But if we are
going to meet the needs of government, we have to raise revenue.
What we have heard today is a very, very compelling case for how,
over the course of the last decade, we haven't met the needs of
readiness within the Department of Defense. So, again, I simply urge us
to make a choice here. If we want to cover these costs, then let's
raise the revenue and pay for it, and not pretend with this fantasy
that somehow cutting the amount of revenue you take in is going to
increase the amount of revenue you are going to take in. It doesn't
work that way, and it certainly doesn't work in the current economic
environment.
The second thing I would say is, while national security is
critically important, it is not the only thing we do that is important.
And that is the other thing that worries me about this debate. We
massively slash revenue so we have less money to play around with, then
we make the case for why we need to massively increase our defense
budget, and everything else that the Federal Government does just sort
of drifts away as an afterthought.
There are a lot of examples of this. I used infrastructure in the
previous debate, and I will use a different example this time, the Fred
Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. It is not in my district, but it is
just across the street from my district in Seattle, Washington.
It is doing incredible work right now on cancer. They are literally
this close to, in some cases, curing it. They have come up with a new
way for dealing with blood cancers--taking the white blood cells out of
the body, reenergizing them, and putting them back in--that has
achieved truly miraculous results.
Fred Hutch gets an overwhelming amount of their funding from the
National Institutes of Health, from the Federal Government. The budget
that President Trump originally proposed last year would have cut
funding for Fred Hutch by 75 percent.
So while we are caring about national security, I think we also have
to care about, well, curing cancer. It is not irrelevant. It actually
saves lives and makes a difference.
Lastly, I do, as I said earlier, worry about a view of the world that
says, basically, the entire world is out to get us and we have to spend
as much money as is humanly possible here in the United States to
defend ourselves.
We face threats. There is no question about that. We need a National
Security Strategy and a national security budget to meet those threats.
But in order to really create a safer and more prosperous world, we
need to build alliances so that we are threatened by fewer people and
so that we have more friends who will help us deter those who do
threaten us. This is a point that Ms. Cheney made that I completely
agree with.
Deterrence is incredibly important. In a place like North Korea, will
Kim Jung-un attack South Korea? Or will Iran attack? If they feel like
they face a credible deterrent, they won't, and the U.S. needs to be
part of that. But our allies need to be part of that as well.
Here, Russia is a great example. If Russia feels that NATO is weak,
they will be emboldened. We already are seeing what they are doing in
Ukraine. Estonia, Latvia, and other countries in Eastern Europe feel
threatened by Russia. They need to know that the United States stands
with our allies in Europe in order to deter that aggression and stop
the war before it happens.
That does not all fall on the United States defense budget. It falls
on us having friends and allies who can back up our credible
deterrence.
Lastly, I just close by saying that we certainly face the threats we
face. It is worth noting that we still, in the United States, spend way
more money every year on defense than any of our adversaries, than any
other country in the world. So it is not just a matter of money; it is
a matter of having a smart strategy and spending that money well.
I am pleased that--knock on wood--this is supposed to be the first
year in forever that the Department of Defense will actually have a
full audit of where they spend their money. But making sure the money
that is spent is spent efficiently and effectively is also part of
having an adequate national security budget. So I worry that,
basically, we say, look, all we have to do is spend as much money as
the Pentagon wants and everything will be fine. I think it is a lot
more complicated question than that. Again, it comes back to having a
sound fiscal policy and a sound national security policy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Smith, is worried about a lot of
things that really just aren't the case over here on this side of the
aisle.
I agree with Mr. Smith that weakness is provocative. We certainly
need look no further than the Obama administration to see what happens
when the United States is weak, to see what happens when the United
States abandons its longstanding allies in the Middle East, including
Israel, in order to provide funding and a pathway to nuclear weapons
for the Iranians. We see what happened again and again and again.
We saw what happened when the Obama administration, President Obama,
decided to pull troops out of
[[Page H6292]]
Iraq based on a timeline that he established in Washington, D.C., with
no regard to the facts on the ground. We saw what happened. What
happened was the rise of ISIS.
So the problem that we have is, in order to deter, we have to make
sure people understand that we are strong. We have lived through 8
years in the previous administration of apologies and weakness, and
President Trump is turning that around. President Trump is making clear
that people understand that no longer will that be the case, and that
we, in fact, are going to be a Nation that stands up for what we
believe in.
I think it is also very educational, Mr. Speaker, to think about this
debate we are having here today, this discussion, and to think about
what it sounds like to men and women who are serving overseas and to
their family members. What we are supposed to be discussing here and
debating here is a resolution that expresses a sense of this body that
the United States Navy has been hurt extensively by the lack of
predictable funding. Instead, what we are getting is a lot of
discussion and conversation about a whole bunch of other things that I
am more than happy to debate.
Mr. Smith and I clearly have very different opinions about the
economy and about what you have to do to generate economic growth in
this economy. But that is not this resolution.
I think we have the opportunity here, on a bipartisan basis, once and
for all, to show that we are in a position where we are going to
provide the kind of support that our men and women in uniform need.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, and I agree, that the fundamental
point is that we need to make sure that we adequately provide for, in
this case, what the resolution is focused on, the Navy and the Marine
Corps. As I have agreed throughout, adequate readiness for them is
incredibly important. The CRs and the budget fiasco that we have had
have not provided that.
{time} 1500
What I am trying to do is, rather than just an empty resolution that
says, gosh, it would be great if we actually looked after you, to talk
about the policy steps that are going to be necessary to actually do
that. So I think that is an incredibly important part of this debate.
Now, we can have every resolution all day long saying we want to cure
cancer, we want to bring peace to the world. That is great. But what
are the steps that are going to be necessary, in this case, to get to
the point where the Navy and Marine Corps has the adequate funds that
they need, or at least has predictability for what they are going to be
able to do, because we have been having these discussions about how,
gosh, we ought to do this, and then we don't.
I am trying to explain to the people who serve in the military and
everybody else exactly why we don't; instead of just giving them empty
promises saying we would really like to help you, it just seems like
year after year, somehow we don't. We don't, for all of the reasons
that I have listed in terms of fiscal policy going forward.
The other thing that I would like to point out is, Obama is no longer
President. Donald Trump is President. And it seems to me like the one
thing the Republican Party would want to do, they would love to have
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to kick around for, like, ever. But
you are actually in charge now; so why don't you be responsible for the
policies that we have right now.
And I just, I couldn't believe that I heard the Representative from
Wyoming say that America is now projecting strength. If there was ever
an example of the President of the United States projecting the most
embarrassing, abject weakness I have ever seen than what President
Trump just did with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, I can't think of it.
And quite frankly, a number of Republican commentators that I have seen
talk over the last 24 hours can't think of it either.
So I know it is incredibly comforting, from a policy perspective, to
blame everything, absolutely everything, that has gone wrong in the
world on President Obama, but he is not in charge anymore.
Donald Trump is in charge. The Republican Party is in charge of the
House and the Senate, and it is time to focus on policies that are
going to move us forward and advance our interests; and not just feel
comfort in the fact that we can sort of rewrite history and blame
President Obama for absolutely everything that has gone wrong.
It is a big, complicated, and difficult world for President Trump. It
was for President Obama. We need to work together. We need to find ways
to confront the challenges we face in a thoughtful way. Simply blaming
the past president for absolutely everything isn't going to get us
there.
So, again, let me just conclude by saying I completely agree. The
issue that needs to be addressed is to make sure that we have adequate
readiness for all of the men and women who serve in the military.
We are only talking about the Navy and Marine Corps. As I think the
gentlewoman said, we are going to talk about the Air Force and the Army
next week. I think we should talk about all of them at the same time,
because it is all equally important. But to get there, we need to have
a strategy that is actually sustainable, instead of one that is based
on hope.
And to my mind, that is the worst thing that we can do to the men and
women who serve in the military is say we want you to do all of this,
and we don't really have the funds to do it, so you are going to have
to figure it out as you go. It would be far, far better to say, look,
here is, realistically, where our budget is at. Here is, realistically,
what we can do.
Give them that task, and then they will be trained and equipped to do
it, instead of being asked to do more than we are willing to provide
money for.
And it is one thing if this was just 1 year. It is one thing if we
had a surplus. But we don't. We have the budget environment that we
have. So if we are going to get to the point where we adequately
address readiness and address the issues that are being raised, then we
need to be realistic about what we can do and, like I said, not keep
blaming past administrations for things; actually try to implement
policy right now that is going to make sure that we have the strongest
national security policy we can, and that, again, the men and women who
serve in the military, at a minimum, are trained and equipped to do the
missions that we are asking them to do; that we don't ask them to do
missions that go beyond the funds that we provide for them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
These resolutions do lay out the steps necessary. These resolutions
make clear that the House has done its business, has done its work; we
need the Senate to do its work, and we need to get these bills to the
President's desk.
As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the only person that had hope as a policy
was Barack Obama, and my colleague is right, that he is no longer--
President Obama is no longer in the Oval Office. However, the damage
that his policies did are so devastating and so long-lasting that we
are having to dig out from under it. That is why we are here today.
We are here today because not only have continuing resolutions hurt
the Department of Defense, the policies of the last 8 years have
created a situation, geopolitically and militarily, where the work that
we have got to do to undo those very ill-guided policies is significant
and requires the kind of funding that we are talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) to close.
Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
Wyoming, again, for all of her efforts today to highlight this
important issue about the commitment this Nation has to make to our
military to make sure we rebuild this lost readiness, and H. Res.
998 is purely simply about that.
Are we willing to state our commitment to our sailors and Marines
about what we must do as a Nation to provide the resources that they
need to do the job that we ask them to do?
[[Page H6293]]
Are we willing to send a message to them that says, we are committed
to standing by them for everything that has to happen to provide
certainty to them so they know what their future holds?
Are we willing to send a message to our adversaries to say that this
Nation is committed to rebuild our Navy and Marine Corps team to make
sure that they are a force to be reckoned with anytime an adversary of
ours may think of acting badly around the world; that that Navy and
Marine Corps team will be there. That is what this resolution is about.
It is also sending a message to every one of our constituents; is
this Congress committed to the right policies to making the commitment
of resources to make sure that our Navy and Marine Corps team has what
they need? That is another important part of this message.
And will we, as a nation, assure that in the long-term we are
committed to countering what our adversaries are doing? And we see
that. We see that in scores. Whether it is something like submarines,
where we are on path, by 2029, to be down to 42 total attack
submarines, the most requested asset in the entire United States
inventory. We are down to 42 submarines in 2029.
China, by 2020, will have 70 submarines, total attack submarines and
ballistic missile submarines, building five to six per year, so that by
2029, when we are at 42 submarines, attack submarines, and on the way
to rebuilding Ohio-class submarines, the Chinese could be as high as
124 submarines. Now, quantity has a quality all of its own.
This resolution today says, are we going to make the commitment to
make sure that we can counter those adversaries? Are we going to be
able to tell our children and our grandchildren that when we had the
chance we made the commitment? We made the commitment to our sailors,
to our Marines, and as we will next week, to our soldiers and our
airmen, and subsequently our Coast Guardsmen, to make sure that they
have what they need, that this Nation makes the commitment to assure
that we have the future of our Nation's defense well in hand. That is
what today is about.
I ask my colleagues to join me to make sure that we are willing to
make this simple commitment. While it may be in words, those words will
speak volumes to our sailors, to our Marines, to our citizens, and to
our adversaries, that this Nation has an unshakable resolve to make
sure that we have what we need to counter the threats abroad, and to
counter anybody that thinks of threatening the United States, or our
friends, or our allies, or would want to act badly. Today's resolution
is all about that, not just for today, but for decades to come.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 998.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________