[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 120 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6293-H6295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE THAT THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 
            BUDGETARY UNCERTAINTY ERODES MILITARY READINESS

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 994) expressing the sense of the House of 
Representatives that the United States Marine Corps faces significant 
readiness challenges and that budgetary uncertainty impedes the Corps' 
ability to meet ongoing and unexpected national security threats, 
putting United States national security at risk.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 994

       Whereas since fiscal year 2010, United States Marine Corps 
     active duty end strength has shrunk by 8 percent from 202,100 
     to 186,000;
       Whereas, on March 1, 2016, Marine Corps Commandant Robert 
     Neller stated, ``The fiscal reductions and instability of the 
     past few years have impacted our readiness. As resources have 
     diminished, the Marine Corps has protected the near-term 
     operational readiness of its deployed and next-to-deploy 
     units in order to meet operational commitments. This has come 
     at a risk'';
       Whereas, on February 26, 2015, now Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff Joseph F. Dunford stated, ``[a]pproximately 
     half of our non-deployed units--and those are the ones that 
     provide the bench to respond to unforeseen contingencies--are 
     suffering personnel, equipment and training shortfalls'';
       Whereas, on February 8, 2017, Assistant Commandant Glenn 
     Walters stated, ``A focus on [ongoing] operations, the 
     decrease in funding levels from Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, fiscal 
     instability and the lack of an inter-war period have left 
     your Marine Corps insufficiently manned, trained and equipped 
     across the depth of the force to operate in an evolving 
     operational environment'';
       Whereas the Marine Corps' Assault Amphibious Vehicle (AAV-
     7A1) and Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) average over 40 and 26 
     years old, respectively;
       Whereas the Marine Corps has a stated requirement for 38 
     amphibious ships to support the operations of 2 Marine 
     Expeditionary Brigades, but the amphibious fleet numbers only 
     32 ships today;
       Whereas former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan 
     Greenert testified on March 12, 2014, that, ``[t]oday, in the 
     world that we live in, the world that the Navy and Marine 
     Corps lives in, and the future, we probably need 50 
     [amphibious ships]'';
       Whereas, on April 5, 2017, Marine Corps leaders testified 
     that, ``The most dire readiness situation lies within our 
     Aviation element. An unhealthy percentage of our aviation 
     units lack the minimum number of ready basic aircraft (RBA) 
     for training, and we are significantly short ready aircraft 
     for wartime requirements. We simply do not have the available 
     aircraft to meet our squadrons' requirements'';
       Whereas during parts of 2016, only 43 percent of the Marine 
     Corps' total aviation fleet was available for operational 
     employment, including less than \1/3\ of its F/A-18 Hornets;
       Whereas from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2017, 
     Marine Corps aviation accidents increased by 80 percent from 
     56 to 101 per year;
       Whereas between 2011 and 2017, aviation accidents killed 
     more than 60 Marines, including 19 over a 2-month period in 
     2017; and
       Whereas, on March 10, 2017, Deputy Commandant Gary L. 
     Thomas stated, ``Unstable fiscal environments prevent the 
     deliberately planned, sustained effort needed to recover 
     current readiness of our legacy equipment in the near term, 
     and to modernize in the longer term . . . We must work to 
     avoid a budget-driven strategy and return to a strategy-
     driven budget, informed by the strategic requirements of the 
     current and future operating environments. Unless we do so, 
     the range of options we have to address current and future 
     threats will further erode'': Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) recognizes that the United States Marine Corps faces 
     significant readiness challenges, as well as shortfalls in 
     end strength and delayed modernization;
       (2) finds that failing to provide the Marine Corps with 
     stable, robust, and on-time funding impedes its ability to 
     meet ongoing and unexpected security threats, putting United 
     States national security at risk; and
       (3) commits to enhancing the Marine Corps' ability to meet 
     our Nation's threats ``In the air, on land, and sea''.

  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 may 
have 5 legislative days in which 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 Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), my colleague on the Armed 
Services Committee, to discuss his resolution.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my good friend from 
Wyoming for yielding the time but, more importantly, for her leadership 
in this effort to highlight the devastating impacts when we fail to 
provide full, on-time, and robust funding to our military.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 994, which 
would recognize the significant readiness challenges facing the United 
States Marine Corps, and warn that budgetary uncertainty is undermining 
the ability of our Marines to do their vital work day

[[Page H6294]]

in and day out in defense of this Nation.
  Since fiscal year 2010, the Active-Duty Marine Corps has shrunk by 8 
percent. Thanks to the work of this House, that figure is finally 
trending in the other direction, but there is still much more work to 
be done, all of which requires stable, robust, and on-time funding.
  Seven years after the Budget Control Act we are still digging out 
from holes we dug ourselves. In hearing after hearing, we have heard 
military leaders make clear that they will face increased risk due to 
continuing resolutions and years of accumulated defense cuts.
  It can be all too easy to wave off these warnings. After all, our 
military and Marine Corps, in particular, has a ``can-do spirit'' that 
is second to none. But increased risk isn't just an abstract notion. It 
can have very real consequences. The more than 60 Marines who have 
perished in marine aviation accidents since 2011 are a tragic reminder 
of what increased risk looks like in practice.
  The new national security and national defense strategies marked sea 
changes in American security policy. With the new guidance that great 
power competition, and not terrorism, is the primary challenge to 
American national security policy. There is still much work to be done 
to ensure that the Marine Corps, along with the rest of the military, 
is best positioned to compete for the long-term.
  From contested entry to dispersed operations from austere locations 
to contingency response, the Marine Corps is facing great challenges 
and opportunities. The obstacles are many as increasingly capable 
adversaries are forcing the Marine Corps to reconsider long-held 
assumptions about amphibious landings and its ability to operate close 
to shore.
  In the face of these challenges, the Corps will have to do what it 
does best, innovate, and come up with new solutions to execute timeless 
missions. Ultimately, however, I am optimistic; not just because I was 
privileged to serve 7 years in the Marine Corps, and I know the quality 
of the men and women who continue to serve, but because of many other 
factors, including the simple geography of the Indo-Pacific, which is 
tailor-made for the United States Marine Corps.
  As former adversaries learned on the islands of Guadalcanal, New 
Guinea, and Tarawa, the absolute last place on Earth you want to be is 
between a Marine and his objective.
  In the long run however, the only thing that can stop the Marine 
Corps is this body's failure to do its job. If we fail to provide on-
time, adequate, or predictable funding, we will undermine our Marine 
Corps' ability to get the job done.
  This resolution takes a small step to recognize these challenges and 
commit to doing better. We owe our beloved Marine Corps nothing less.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had the broader debate, so let me just say very 
quickly I agree with the resolution brought forward by Congressman 
Gallagher; that the budget uncertainty definitely impacts readiness and 
impacts the ability of Marines, in fact, the entire Department of 
Defense to fight adequately.
  I do believe, as I have said earlier, that we need to get at the 
underlying fiscal issues that have created that, taking us all the way 
back to the Budget Control Act and why it was passed in 2011 in the 
first place. We need to get at a fiscal policy in this country so that 
we can adequately and predictably fund, certainly the Department of 
Defense, certainly the Marine Corps, but I would say the entire Federal 
budget in a way that puts us in a much stronger position as a country.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1515

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking both my colleagues, Mr. 
Wittman from Virginia, Mr. Gallagher from Wisconsin, and all of the 
folks on the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Thornberry, Ranking 
Member Smith, as well as the folks on the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, led by Chairwoman Kay Granger, for their tremendous work 
on these crucially important issues.
  I think that, again, Mr. Smith has highlighted, really, the crux of 
this issue, and the crux of this issue is whether or not we as a body 
are going to recognize that we have the ability here and what we do 
here will determine whether or not we provide the support and the 
resources our troops need or whether we increase the risk they face.
  When we are facing a situation where we have had more servicemembers 
die in training accidents than in combat in the last year, that is an 
unacceptable and indefensible situation.
  Mr. Speaker, on this particular resolution, I want to thank my 
colleague from Wisconsin for introducing this resolution. As a marine, 
he understands better than most how what we do in this body impacts our 
men and women in uniform.
  H. Res. 994 highlights the vast readiness impacts we have seen in the 
Marine Corps over the past 9 years of continuing resolutions, 
sequestration, and overall budget dysfunction. We do not want to be in 
a position, Mr. Speaker, where the Marines are forced to continue to 
use aging or outdated equipment, or they don't have the funds necessary 
to receive the training they require to undo this readiness crisis, or 
they don't have the flexibility they need to respond to the fact that 
we have got an absolutely changing world of warfare. They need agility 
to do that, and that requires funds from this body.
  As my colleagues have said, we have made great progress. Over the 
past year, we have increased the defense spending caps for fiscal year 
2018 and 2019, and we have agreed to fund the Department of Defense at 
$700 billion for fiscal year 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, we have got to get that done now for fiscal year 2019. 
The readiness crisis was not created in a single year, and it will take 
many years of effort to be able to address it.
  The bill that we considered in the House just a few weeks ago passed 
with over 300 bipartisan votes. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we can 
now, today, commit all of ourselves as a body and urge our colleagues 
on the other side of this building to ensure that the work that we do 
is worthy of the men and women in uniform who protect all of us, to 
ensure that we stay on track to get this bill passed by the Senate and 
to the President's desk before the end of the fiscal year.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher) to close.
  Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with the sentiment expressed by my 
colleague, Mr. Smith, that we do need to look at the overall budget 
picture. I think what has changed in that picture over time has been 
the amount of the budget consumed by mandatory spending, which is a 
very difficult problem. I concede that it is going to require men and 
women of good faith on both sides of the aisle to come together and 
have, if nothing else, an honest debate.
  The argument was also made that we spend more on defense than a large 
number of our competitors and our allies, combined, in many cases. I 
hear that a lot. That is true. It is also not that helpful of a 
statistic, as it ignores both the size of our economy, the relative 
size of our economy, as well as the unique nature of our global 
commitments.
  A more useful matrix of perhaps what we are spending as a percentage 
of GDP, we are still spending below the post-World War II average on 
defense as a percentage of GDP. For example, during the 1950s, 8 years 
of peace and prosperity, we were spending closer to 10 percent of our 
GDP on defense.
  So I just think we need to be careful when we throw around different 
terms like this. And I welcome that debate. It is one we definitely 
need to have.
  I just would close by saying our Marines put their lives on the line 
on a daily basis. When we go to war, we cannot guarantee that everyone 
will come home safely, and the Marines know that. They gladly put their 
lives on the line. They take the risk, and they ride to the sound of 
the guns regardless.
  But I do think that we need to look at what we have the power to 
affect, and what we have the power to affect

[[Page H6295]]

here as Members of Congress, regardless, actually, of who is in the 
White House, what we have the obligation to affect is to guarantee that 
we will never send our servicemembers into an unfair fight, that we 
will provide them with the training, the equipment, and the numbers 
they need to run up the score on the enemy with decisive and 
overwhelming force.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what this resolution is about, and I urge my 
colleagues to support its adoption.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 994.
  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.

                          ____________________