[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 125 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7674-H7679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF GOVERNING BY CONTINUING RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the body and my colleagues 
for joining me today in highlighting the negative impact that 
continuing resolutions have on our Nation's military, on our national 
security, and on how this Nation addresses the challenges in our 
military.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that, if you were to come up with 
a way not to run a government, if you were to come up with a way not to 
run a business, you would come up with a continuing resolution.
  We know how problematic those continuing resolutions are for this 
Nation. They damage our military readiness. They damage us being able 
to make long-term decisions. They put our sailors, our marines, our 
soldiers, and our airmen at risk.
  This is not the way for this Nation to do business. Yet, year after 
year after year, we find ourselves without appropriations bills being 
done on time. We find ourselves facing government shutdowns. We find 
ourselves passing continuing resolutions in order to continue 
government operations.
  This is not the way for us to conduct this Nation's business. It is 
not what our military needs. It is not what we must do to make sure 
there is certainty in the future for what this Nation must do under 
Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution.
  I have been asked by a number of folks why we need to spend these 
dollars on our Nation's military, especially to you, Rob Wittman, 
because you are a fiscal hawk. Tell us why the spending is necessary.
  Well, I can say this: We have been through, now, almost 8 years of 
the continuing resolution facade that is brought to us under the guise 
of sequestration. The Budget Control Act of 2011 was supposed to be the 
avenue to make the tough decisions on spending in this body. Yet, that 
didn't happen. And here we are, facing these automatic budgets cuts 
every year for our Nation's military.
  Instead of making those tough decisions or setting the sequester 
aside, we find ourselves in a situation where, each year, it is another 
continuing resolution.
  I would argue that this is absolutely avoidable. It is avoidable by 
this body making decisions on time to get appropriations bills passed 
out of the House, get all those done prior to this body going home for 
August recess. I want to make sure that those things get done.
  I have come to the realization, too, that this body has a variety of 
choices. It can make the choice to properly fund our Nation's military. 
It can make the choice to get appropriations bills done on time. It can 
make the choice to avoid this.
  I would argue that, in order to become a more effective and efficient 
government, these choices have to be made. I would argue that it is 
actually Members of Congress who should suffer

[[Page H7675]]

the consequences if these decisions aren't made on time. That is, if 
all 12 appropriations bill aren't done out of the House, I think 
Members should have to stay in town until it is done. I think we 
shouldn't get to go home on August recess until all 12 appropriations 
bills are done.

  Our men and women in the military are required to do the job on time, 
and it is a performance standard. They don't get to go on leave unless 
the mission is accomplished. It should be the same for Members of 
Congress.
  It is also about making priority decisions, Mr. Speaker. Look at what 
this body has to do, and we absolutely have to perform our 
constitutional duty. We have to get appropriations bills done to fund 
our military. We have to make sure we do that in context of also 
addressing the deficit and the debt.
  I would make arguments that we have seen that situation the last 
several years where it is a matter of priorities. It is a matter of 
looking at getting both things done, but doing that in a timeframe.
  If you look at what a homeowner might face, let's say a homeowner 
owns a two-story home and they find themselves in this situation. They 
find themselves, as they drive up the driveway, knowing that their 
house has termites rife through the foundation, knowing that before 
they got home. But as they pull up in the driveway, they find that the 
second floor of their home is on fire.
  Now, that homeowner, we know, is going to make a priority decision, 
like everybody else, and say: Well, what am I going to do? Am I going 
to put the second floor fire out, or am I going to address the 
termites?
  Well, everybody knows they are going to put the fire out on the 
second floor. They are going to call the fire department. They are 
going to do everything they can to address the significance and the 
priority of the situation that they face in front of them. Then they 
will make sure that they call the pest exterminator to come in and get 
rid of the termites.
  That is the same situation this Congress finds itself in, to make 
sure that we take care of the most pressing issue before us as a 
priority. That is funding our Nation's military, restoring readiness, 
stopping continuing resolutions, making decisions on appropriations on 
time, getting that done before the end of the fiscal year so we don't 
have to do a continuing resolution.
  But it doesn't in any way, shape, or form change the scenario that we 
face with the termites in the foundation. The termites in the 
foundation of this Nation are our deficit and our debt, and those 
things, too, must be done. They are also a priority, just not quite as 
immediate as restoring military readiness, as bringing in the fire 
department to put out the second floor fire.
  For us, the analogy to the fire department is us getting our job done 
on time, because there is immediacy to that. There is that requirement 
that we take on the lack of military readiness in this Nation, the 
challenges that we face.
  It is not coming just from this body, Mr. Speaker. It is coming from 
Secretary James Mattis. In January of this year, Secretary Mattis said 
this: As hard as the last 16 years have been, no enemy in the field has 
done more to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined 
impact of the Budget Control Act's defense spending cuts and operating 
under continuing resolutions. Those two, added together, create the 
situation we find ourselves in today.
  Mr. Speaker, don't think that our adversaries don't look at that and 
chuckle a little bit and say this is an entirely avoidable situation. 
This is a situation that the United States has put itself in, that 
Congress has put itself in. Don't think that our adversaries haven't 
taken advantage of that.
  Don't think that China doesn't look at this and go: Wow, here is our 
chance to catch up. Here is our chance to put resources in the right 
places to gain on the technological front.
  In addition to what they steal from us, they also take advantage of 
this disparity in what we are not doing to rebuild this Nation's 
military readiness and use this opportunity not only to catch up with 
us but, in many areas, to surpass us.
  The same with Russia. While Russia's economy is much smaller, when we 
mark time, when we stop making progress in rebuilding our Nation's 
military, when we don't properly fund training, when we don't properly 
maintain the equipment that we have, it gives our adversaries an 
advantage. Don't think that Russia hasn't taken the same advantage of 
this situation to not only catch up and, in other areas, surpass us, 
even with the small economy that they have.
  The same with North Korea, the same with Iran, the same with anybody 
out there that is looking to gain an advantage over the United States.
  These continuing resolutions that have happened over the past 9 or 10 
years have left us in that situation, where we have allowed training to 
atrophy. We have seen that manifest itself in military units not having 
the joint training opportunities that they need to have the skills 
necessary, so that, if we call them into action, they can go with the 
full scope of abilities to take on any challenge that they may face.
  We have an obligation as a Nation to make sure that they have the 
best training and the best opportunities available, to make sure that 
they can face their adversaries, that they can fight to victory, and 
that they can come home safe. We owe them nothing less than that.
  Continuing resolutions take resources away from that. They create 
uncertainty for military leaders to know: Will I have the resources to 
put in place the training? Will I have the simple elements of training? 
Will I have the fuel? Will I have the ammunition to make sure that it 
is a meaningful training exercise?
  Those things are lacking when you have a continuing resolution. The 
automatic budget cuts that come from sequester also add to that.
  When you look at our military hardware and look at the time that it 
needs to be maintained to make sure it is in working order, so that 
when our men and women in the military need it, when we ask them to go 
into harm's way, they have systems that work, they have systems that 
function at the highest level to make sure that they are successful. If 
we skip maintenance availabilities, if we skip the time necessary, if 
we delay maintenance, we place risk right there in the hands of our 
soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen.

  We have seen, over the past 10 years, our force structure rapidly 
diminishing. We see our force structure in the Navy going from 11 
carriers down to nine carriers. That is going to happen over the next 
30 years because we haven't made the commitment to make sure that we 
are building carriers faster than we are retiring them.
  We also have to make sure that we are maintaining those ships. That, 
too, lends itself to problems--ships having to be in port longer when 
we do maintain them because more things have gone wrong, because we 
have missed maintenance opportunities.
  Our attack submarine force structure is going to be reduced by 20 
percent over the next 10 years while, at the same time, our adversaries 
are building more submarines. They have submarines with greater 
capabilities.
  We are missing an opportunity there to do what we need to do as a 
Nation. I want to make sure that we are doing those things, and I am 
going to talk a little bit later on about the specifics about where 
just the Chinese are surpassing our capabilities there within the 
submarine realm. We have superiority in the undersea world, but it 
doesn't come automatically. It doesn't come without commitment. It 
doesn't come without investment.
  Those things absolutely have to happen, Mr. Speaker, in the years to 
come and, I would argue, not just the years to come, in the days to 
come, as we look at the National Defense Authorization Act that, 
hopefully, will come up tomorrow in the conference report for this body 
to pass, as well as an appropriations bill that will come up that, 
hopefully, we will get passed here. If not, we will face more 
continuing resolutions.
  Now, I know my colleagues who are here with me today express the same 
reservations about the impact of continuing resolutions. I am honored 
to have with us today the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), and I 
yield to the gentlewoman for her perspective

[[Page H7676]]

on what impacts continuing resolutions have on this Nation.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Virginia. 
Continuing resolutions are a growing threat to our national security. 
Yet, for the past 17 years, Congress has forced the Department of 
Defense to begin the fiscal year under a continuing resolution 13 
times.

                              {time}  1900

  Continuing resolutions are designed to temporarily fund the Federal 
Government if more time is needed to debate and finish remaining 
appropriations bills; however, they inhibit the Defense Department 
planning for the future. Not only do they harm us and our ability to 
deter and defend against emerging threats, but they also put our 
national security in a gridlock.
  Supporting defense programs through prior year funding levels is 
wasteful and inefficient. Think about it. Are our family's or business' 
needs the exact same as they were last year? the year before that? Of 
course not, because as we grow and develop, our needs change.
  The short-term fixes of continuing resolutions ultimately obstruct 
and hinder the military and its responsibility to secure our Nation. 
The consequences of shutdown politics will ultimately compromise the 
Department of Defense by inhibiting our military's ability to pursue 
long-term projects and reforms.
  The Department of Defense relies upon multiyear contracts for fighter 
jets like the F-35, missile defense systems, and other advanced 
weapons. This is because contracts are usually the most cost-effective 
means to pay for military equipment.
  At Luke Air Force Base, which is in my district, I have heard 
repeatedly how uncertainty in the defense budget and the restrictions 
that come from continuing resolutions have stalled the Air Force's F-35 
fighter jet program. This is not acceptable. We must change how we do 
business and fund our single most important responsibility in Congress: 
our national defense.
  We all agree that we must provide a common defense for our country, 
and we need to stop letting political grandstanding get in the way of 
that. We have worked too hard to begin rebuilding our military in a 
meaningful way to let shutdown politics put our Nation at risk.
  While I am pleased and proud at what the House has done, that we have 
done our job and voted to approve both the National Defense 
Authorization Act and the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for 
fiscal year 2019, our work is not done. We must work with our 
counterparts in the Senate to ensure these bills are signed into law.
  We cannot stop falling back on continuing resolutions to determine 
our military's defense budget. We must keep working for the men and 
women who put their lives at risk every day to defend our freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia, Representative 
Wittman, for his commitment to our military.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Arizona, and I 
would like to ask that she maybe elaborate a little bit more.
  I think the gentlewoman brings up a great point about the impact on 
the Air Force, with Luke Air Force Base being there in her district, 
and the impact on airmen, the impact on the job that they do. I would 
love to have her share a little bit more about the conversations that I 
know she has had a lot with members of the military back in her 
district, but especially there at Luke Air Force Base, maybe elaborate 
a little bit more on the specific impacts that they deal with on a 
daily basis there at Luke Air Force Base.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, yes, we have Luke Air Force Base in my 
district in Arizona. And it is not only a powerful base for the defense 
of our Nation; it is the largest training base for our fighter jets in 
the entire Nation. We have F-35s. Prior to that, we had F-16s.
  Just like everything else, just like a family, we need to know what 
our budget is long term, because we need to train our fighter pilots. 
We need to know how many hours of funding we have to do that. We need 
to have a reliable amount of money that we can depend on in order to 
enter contracts.
  So this whole continuing resolution thing, we really need to get past 
that.
  I was the senate appropriations chairman in Arizona, and I heard over 
and over and over again from businesses that: We just need something to 
rely on. We need something that is steady.
  And that is what we need. We need to pass a budget that really puts 
the defense of our country front and center because, after all, that is 
Congress' number one job.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I agree fully with the gentlewoman from 
Arizona, and I thank her so much for being part of this Special Order 
this evening.
  Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of important points that the 
gentlewoman from Arizona brings up. And she talks about training. I 
think training is one of those elements that is absolutely essential 
for us to remember that that training doesn't happen by accident. It 
happens because of concerted efforts here in Congress, within the 
Pentagon, within the service branches, all the way down to the unit 
level to make sure that training takes place.
  But it doesn't take place when there is uncertainty about funding, 
because what is the first thing in a budget that gets put on hold when 
it pertains to our service branches? When they look at uncertainty, 
what is the place where they have the maximum flexibility? It is 
training.
  When you look at it, they have money that is already obligated in 
programs to do things like build ships, to build aircraft, but the one 
place where they can move money around is for training. I can tell you 
that that has a tremendous impact on units at the unit level, 
commanders trying to figure out: How am I going to make sure my units 
get the training?
  As I spoke of earlier, it is not just about tactical training; it is 
about training at the strategic level. How do you interact with other 
service branches so, if you find yourselves in a major conflict, you 
can work across service branches to make sure you have the proficiency 
to be successful on that mission, to be successful in battle?
  Those things are critical, and that doesn't come automatically. That 
comes with repeated training at the highest levels, and it comes with 
assurance that the resources are going to be there so our military 
leaders can plan for that. We want to make sure that that gets done on 
a timely basis.

  I understand, too, that there is a lot of hesitancy in folks to say: 
Well, if we can't reach a conclusion on spending decisions, then the 
best thing to do is a continuing resolution.
  I would argue that that is not the case. I would argue that this goes 
right down to the command level. It goes to our combatant commanders 
who have to deal with this every day.
  Our combatant commanders are faced with threats that are on their 
doorstep every day, and there is no place where this threat is more 
apparent on a daily basis than what our Pacific Command faces with the 
aggression of the Chinese, with the aggression of North Korea there in 
the Pacific.
  Admiral Harris, the previous Commander of PaCOM, I think said it 
extraordinarily well. He said this:
  ``The Pacific is the principal space where submarines are the most 
important warfighting capability we have. As far as Virginia-class 
submarines, it is the best thing we have. . . . My submarine 
requirement is not met in the Pacific Command, and I am just one of 
many combatant commanders that will tell you that. . . . ''
  That brings us back to the subject of submarines. Attack submarines, 
our ability to go undetected around the world to sense what our 
adversaries do and also to understand that that threat is real, we 
have, today, an advantage in the undersea world, but that advantage 
continues to wane because we are not making the progress in keeping up 
with building submarines in relation to retiring submarines. That, I 
think, is key, Mr. Speaker.
  I want to point to this chart on the floor. I am going to walk there.
  As we see from the chart, we see the U.S. fleet of attack submarines, 
and we see what happens when we come to 2029. We reach a low point, a 
low point where this Nation only has 42 attack submarines when we get 
to 2029.
  You see the chart where our adversaries go. You see where the Chinese

[[Page H7677]]

go: a significant increase in submarines because they see the value of 
submarines; they see that attack submarines give them a strategic 
advantage in the Pacific.
  It is pretty simple, folks. It is a geography lesson.
  The Pacific is water, and in order to maintain strategic importance 
in that region, you have to control the undersea domain. The Chinese 
understand that. We used to understand it, until now, when we see that 
our attack submarine force is going down to a low of 42 submarines. We 
don't get back to where we need to be to get anywhere close to the 
Chinese until 2050.
  Now, what happens in the meantime when the Chinese now surpass us, 
have that strategic advantage? And I would argue, when the Chinese have 
that strategic advantage, it will embolden them. They will look at this 
as an opportunity to say: Wow. The United States is really not 
committed to a naval presence in this area of the world. We are not 
only going to express that naval dominance in our territorial waters, 
but we are going to even move out into the South China Sea, move into 
the Pacific, into the Indian Ocean, even the Atlantic Ocean.
  We look at how they are spreading their influence and presence today. 
It is all over the world, folks. So our signal that we are sending to 
them, saying, ``Hey, we are just not going to build submarines; we are 
going to retire them faster than we are building them,'' has an impact. 
And it gets exacerbated when we have continuing resolutions or we don't 
make the commitment necessary that comes with getting appropriations 
bills passed on time. This puts us at a strategic disadvantage.
  If you add, now, attack submarines with ballistic missile 
submarines--which, by the way, we are starting down the road to build 
the replacement for our Ohio-class submarines that are the most 
important part of the nuclear triad, I believe, for this Nation--the 
delta gets even bigger, because it is going to be all we can do to 
build the replacement submarines for the Ohio-class.
  But what is happening is that the Chinese are building even more 
ballistic missile submarines. So if you add attack submarines and 
ballistic missile submarines, you have a number somewhere around 70 
total submarines in 2020 that the Chinese will have.
  They, potentially, are building at a rate of five to six additional 
submarines each year, combined attack submarines and ballistic missile 
submarines, which would put them in the realm, by the time we get down 
in 2028, well above 100 total submarines, where we are going to be 
struggling with our reduction in submarines at 42 and just beginning to 
build the new ballistic missile submarine, and in an area where you 
hear from Admiral Harris the most requested asset in the United States 
military is the attack submarine. It is where we have dominance. It is 
where we are yielding dominance with just the Chinese. That doesn't 
even include the Russians, who have developed a very advanced ballistic 
missile submarine, the Severodvinsk class, that is an extraordinarily 
capable submarine.

  If we don't have attack submarines to keep up with their submarines, 
a nation that has a large stockpile in inventory of nuclear weapons 
that are deployed on submarines, then the question becomes: If you 
combine that with the Chinese, where does it leave this Nation? It 
leaves us with a strategic capability that is lacking in relation to 
our adversaries.
  And, folks, if you look at times in the history of the world where 
there have been conflicts between major powers, those conflicts have 
been a result of a major imbalance between those powers.
  If we allow this imbalance to continue because Congress goes down the 
road of continuing resolutions, which continues to erode the ability 
for us to deploy dollars to do things like build submarines, if we 
don't get past the sequester, which puts artificial reductions in our 
defense budget while, at the same time, our adversaries are increasing 
their efforts, we will find ourselves in that situation in the not too 
distant future where we say: How did we get here? How did we find 
ourselves in this strategic position where our adversaries now don't 
have to do a whole lot to surpass us, where we embolden our 
adversaries, where we put ourselves in the position where are 
adversaries say: It won't take much for us to take on the United States 
and do that successfully?
  That, I think, is the key of what we have to address.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania for 
his perspective, because I think he has a very unique perspective not 
just on major powers, but specifically on where Russia plays in this.
  We talked about China, but I want to yield to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania to get his perspective on how this major power imbalance 
affects the United States' security, affects our strategic ability to 
deter our adversaries, and I would like to recognize his perspective.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Rothfus).

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. ROTHFUS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
for yielding. It wasn't too long ago that we had the gentleman visit 
our district in western Pennsylvania to talk to a number of folks in 
the defense industry, and I just applaud him for his very serious work 
on the Armed Services Committee.
  He is good to highlight the situations that we come into when we see 
these continuing resolutions, the damage it does to our military, the 
need for long-term planning, how we have threats around the world, both 
emerging threats that continue to evolve, but there are our old 
adversaries and not-so-old adversaries: Russia, China, North Korea, 
Iran, and global terror networks.
  We could go on and on and on, but we have to have a military that is 
ready to respond. And we cannot be holding our military budget hostage 
to any other part of the Federal Government. It makes no sense.
  Speaking of one of those adversaries, I want to talk a little bit 
about Russia, because Russia has been in the news so much lately. Mr. 
Speaker, I want to talk about Russia and the threat it poses to us and 
our allies.
  For the past 40 years or so, I would describe myself as a hawk when 
it comes to Russia. As such, I would like to welcome my friends from 
across the aisle who are finally starting to express their concerns 
about the Russian bear. The question I have is: What took so long?
  Russia has been an adversary of the United States and the West for 
decades. I will spare the House a lengthy history lesson and then, 
instead, focus on the recent past. This is important because in 
conversations I have had back home, there are some constituents who are 
unaware of that history.
  Next month will mark 10 years since Russia invaded the Republic of 
Georgia. In response to this, then-President George W. Bush condemned 
the action saying:

       The territorial integrity and borders of Georgia must be 
     respected, just as those of Russia or any other country.

  Less than 7 months after the 2008 Georgia invasion, however, during 
the opening days of the Obama administration, then-Secretary of State 
Clinton presented a reset button to Russian's foreign minister, as if 
it was the prior administration's fault for Russia's aggression and 
consequent chilly relationship.
  And mere months after hitting the reset button, we learned President 
Obama was shutting down a proposed missile defense system in Poland and 
the Czech Republic. Some reset.
  Within the aura of this reset, a Russian bank paid Secretary 
Clinton's husband $500,000 for a 1-hour speech in Moscow. That is some 
billable rate, even for a Yale Law School graduate.
  At the same time, a Russian company was preparing to take a 
controlling interest in Uranium One, a corporation that held 20 percent 
of the U.S's uranium supply. That foreign acquisition required the 
approval of the Obama administration and Secretary Clinton. Approval 
was granted.
  Ultimately, The New York Times reported that $2.3 million of 
contributions from Uranium One connections flowed to the Clinton 
Foundation. But that has not seemed to draw concerns from the new 
Democrat Russia hawks from across the aisle.
  Later, as Secretary Clinton wrapped up her State Department tenure in

[[Page H7678]]

2012, President Obama, not aware that a microphone was picking him up 
said to then-Russian President Medvedev:

       This is my last election. After my election, I will have 
     more flexibility.

  And Medvedev responded:

       I will relay that to Vladimir.

  That would be Vladimir Putin. The flexibility was about missile 
defense. President Obama even mocked Mitt Romney in a 2012 Presidential 
debate after Romney identified Russia as our biggest geopolitical 
threat.
  President Obama glibly responded to Romney: ``And, the 1980s are now 
calling to ask for their foreign policy back . . . ''
  During President Obama's second term, we saw continued indifference 
towards Russia, Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, the downing of Malaysia 
Airlines Flight 17, Russian violations of the Reagan-Gorbachev 
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, ceding Middle East influence 
that fueled the growth of ISIS, and failure to respond to Bashar al-
Assad's use of chemical weapons, to name a few. And not once do I 
recall ever hearing a peep from my friends across the aisle, even after 
President Obama drew his infamous red line.
  Let's compare the response to the shooting down of Korean Airlines 
Flight 007 to that of flight MH17. Brilliantly, U.N. Ambassador Jeane 
Kirkpatrick publicly prosecuted and convicted Russia at the United 
Nations for shooting down KAL Flight 007, which killed 269 innocent 
civilians, including Congressman Larry McDonald.
  The KAL 007 shoot down dramatically increased our resolve to collapse 
the evil empire. However, the Obama administration never thoroughly 
prosecuted the case for Russia's culpability for the MH17 shoot down.
  In the midst of all this, Russia was plotting to interfere in our 
elections. Ignoring the 1980s calling about the foreign policy, the 
Obama administration did not take the Russia threat seriously. They 
never picked up the voicemail that the 1980s left.
  It was the last administration's failure to understand the threat 
that Russia posed that virtually paved the way for the aggressive 
Russia we see today. Throughout the Obama administration, Secretary 
Clinton and others failed to confront Russian hostility, the result of 
a reset button.
  The reality is that Vladimir Putin wants to sow discord in the West. 
He would cause trouble to whoever was in the White House. 
Interestingly, when Putin said in Helsinki that he wanted Trump to win, 
it was amazing to see people accept his remarks without a hint of 
skepticism, even though Putin is a former KGB agent and a master of 
disinformation. Let me repeat that. Vladimir Putin is a former KGB 
agent and a master of disinformation.

  It is President Trump that wants to arm Ukrainians. He is demanding 
that Germany stop buying gas from Russia. He is advancing American 
energy development, as opposed to the Obama administration that sought 
to curtail it. And when Russia's puppet, Assad, used chemical weapons 
on his own people, President Trump responded with military force.
  From that perspective, would Putin, the master of disinformation, 
really have preferred President Trump over President Clinton? The 
American people can draw their own conclusions. While my friends across 
the aisle seem to have awoken to the threat that Russia presents, going 
forward, I hope they remain as concerned about Russia and President 
Putin as they are about President Trump.
  For starters, they could show up by helping to get to the bottom of 
the Uranium One scandal. Meanwhile, on our side of the aisle, we take 
Russia seriously and have done so for decades. We are providing 
military assistance to Ukraine. We are passing new Russian sanctions 
legislation on top of what we passed earlier this year. We are the ones 
countering Russia's influence in the Middle East and their ally, Iran.
  When it comes to checking Russia, it is Republicans, not Democrats, 
who have the established record of doing so, and we will continue to do 
that for as long as Russian hostility exists.
  I simply implore President Trump to be vigilant and clear and heed 
the concerns of my fellow Republican legislators who have engaged on 
Russian matters for years.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his work on this area.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
outlining very in-depth the impact that Russia has on the United 
States, the responses that are needed to be strong against Russian 
aggression, against the things that they are trying to do to 
destabilize this Nation.
  I appreciate the gentleman's leadership there in pointing that out 
and calling everyone to task to make sure that we, as a Nation, are 
acting to make sure we are doing the right things, to make sure, too, 
we point out past instances where there have been inconsistencies in 
how this issue has been addressed with previous administrations.
  I deeply appreciate that. I think it is an important part of our 
discussion here today about what we have to do to counter those 
threats, the obligation this Nation has to counter those threats. The 
gentleman has laid it out very plainly, very succinctly, and very 
clearly for what the obligation of this Nation is, and calling upon our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be as committed to 
countering Russia as we are on this side of the aisle. So I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to also point out that it is not just the 
strategic impact that continuing resolutions and lack of on-time 
appropriations bills has on our Nation strategically. We pointed those 
out, the threats that are there, but also the impact that it has at the 
individual level; the impact that it has on sailors, on soldiers, 
marines, and airmen.
  We saw this past year in two ship collisions where 17 sailors died on 
board the USS Fitzgerald and the USS McCain. And we see that there was 
a contributory factor for the lack of training on those ships, the 
issues of material readiness on those ships that goes back to 
continuing resolutions and not adopting appropriations bills on time.
  The uncertainty that comes with that and the lack of resources 
dedicated for proper training, for proper maintenance, did have a 
contributory effect there. It didn't create the sole impact necessary 
for those unfortunate incidents to occur, but it did contribute to 
those incidents.
  In avoiding continuing resolutions, we can send a clear message to 
our men and women in the military, to their families, that this Nation 
is committed to their wellbeing; that this Nation is committed to them 
getting the mission done; that this Nation is committed to giving them 
the best; to give them the tools that they need to succeed; to give 
them the ability, when called upon, to fight to victory and come home 
safe.
  We, as a Nation, owe them nothing less. And when we have continuing 
resolutions, or lack of adopting appropriations bills on time, we are 
not sending the message to them and their families that we are 
committed to reducing their risk. That is key for us to make sure that 
we get that done. And it is also a commitment that we have to taxpayers 
to assure them that we will spend money efficiently and effectively to 
defend this Nation.
  Continuing resolutions are not effective or efficient ways to spend 
money. Not getting appropriations bills done on time do not allow long-
term planning.
  And let me tell you, our adversaries long-term plan. And they look at 
our lack of long-term commitment here as a vulnerability. And, indeed, 
it is. It is a vulnerability not only for our Nation, but it is a 
vulnerability that we see manifested in the risks that our sailors, 
soldiers, and marines face, and, ultimately, those who gave their lives 
in avoidable accidents on board those ships.
  It is not just ships, Mr. Speaker. It is also aircraft. We have seen 
an inordinate number of aircraft crashes this year and last year that 
are associated with lack of maintenance on those aircraft, in some 
instances, tangentially associated with training. Those things are 
preventable. They are preventable if we adopt appropriations bills on 
time for our Nation's defense, and avoid continuing resolutions.
  We must make sure that we get that job done on time. And I can tell 
you that it is not just Members that see it that way, but it is also 
the Speaker. In fact, Paul Ryan was quoted just yesterday saying: ``We 
really just want to get the military funded on time, on

[[Page H7679]]

budget, on schedule this year and that's the primary concern.''
  He pointed that out because that is the primary concern for what we 
are facing with getting appropriations bills done on time. That is the 
primary consideration in getting the National Defense Authorization Act 
conference report out of the House tomorrow so that it can get over to 
the Senate so that they can get it done on time.
  If this gets done this year, Mr. Speaker, it will be the soonest it 
has been done in almost 30 years.
  Why is this year the exception? This should be the rule. We should be 
getting these things done early, getting it done in time so that we can 
get an appropriations bill done prior to the end of the fiscal year. 
Those are obligations that this Nation has to make sure that we get 
that done on time.

                              {time}  1930

  The NDAA has some very important elements in it this year that are 
critical to our Nation's military readiness, critical to our getting 
the job done for our men and women in the military, and critical to 
making sure that we can counter the threats that we know are there from 
our adversaries. It accelerates U.S. efforts to field conventional 
prompt strike capability before fiscal year `22. Those things are 
critical. That strike capability is the deterrence for our members of 
the military. Those things absolutely must happen, and this bill lets 
us get that done.
  It also focuses on rebuilding the nuclear deterrence of our Nation. 
Nuclear deterrence is the way we keep our adversaries at bay; and when 
they look at us and don't see a commitment there that is expressed in 
getting appropriations bills done on time and having ourselves in these 
continuing resolutions debacles year after year after year, they look 
at it as a vulnerability.
  It also allows us to improve our missile defense. An aging missile 
defense, one that in comparison to upgrades by our adversaries, put us 
in a terrible strategic position.
  Also enhancing our space warfighting. The disparity that we have in 
space operations with our adversaries is mind-boggling. The only way 
that we close that delta is to make the commitment and put the 
resources in place on time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to put in perspective where we are today and the 
waste that occurs with a continuing resolution.
  I will conclude my remarks with the comments of Secretary Richard 
Spencer that he outlined on our behavior that this body has put in 
place since 2011. He actually came before the House Armed Services 
Committee and said this, he said:

       We have put $4 billion in a trash can, poured lighter fluid 
     on it, and burned it. $4 billion is enough to buy a squadron 
     of F-35s, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, 3,000 Harpoon 
     missiles. It is enough money to buy us additional capacity 
     that we need today in order to counter the threats that we 
     find ourselves facing around the world. Instead, it's lost 
     because of inefficacy in the ways of the continuing 
     resolution.

  Mr. Speaker, this is an entirely avoidable situation, one that 
Congress year after year after year finds itself in a position to 
address, yet chooses not to. It is not just a single continuing 
resolution. Last year we found ourselves in a situation of having four 
continuing resolutions that took us 6 months into the budget year and 
then finally coming up with an appropriations bill that finished the 
year with 6 months of funding that was supposed to take place over 12 
months.
  So, Mr. Speaker, not only did you miss out on the certainty with the 
first 6 months of funding that was done by continuing resolutions, but 
now you take 12 months' worth of money and try to pack it into 6 
months, and we wonder why there is inefficiency there. We wonder why 
money is pushed out the door in ways that waste money.
  The Secretary of the Navy pointed it out and showed us the ills of 
our ways, and what we can do to avoid this, what we can do to make sure 
that resources will get to the right place, get there on time, can be 
efficiently deployed where there is certainty in what our military 
needs to plan for the long-term needs that this Nation has left 
unaddressed, for the long-term needs of rebuilding readiness.
  It hasn't happened, Mr. Speaker, and it is entirely avoidable. We 
have that full ability in our grasp to make sure this doesn't happen 
again.
  Again, if we were to come up with the worst way to run a business and 
with the worst way to run a government, it would be a continuing 
resolution. It is avoidable.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues that when the National Defense 
Authorization Act conference report comes up before this body that they 
vote ``yes,'' that we do that this year in the quickest timeframe we 
have done in nearly 30 years.
  And that when the Defense Appropriation bill comes before this body--
after the Senate puts together whatever they will put together--that we 
must get the defense of this Nation funded prior to the end of the 
budget year.
  If we do that, then the 17 billion additional dollars that we put 
towards helping our soldiers, our sailors, our marines to do the job we 
ask them to do will be there. To deter our adversaries around the 
world, the resources in order to accomplish that will be there. To do 
anything less is a disservice to this Nation. To do anything less is a 
disservice to the men and women who serve in our military. To do 
anything less is disrespectful to their commitment to our Nation, and 
the commitment that their families make to this Nation.
  We can do better. We must do better. And we have an opportunity in 
the weeks to come to do better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to show the same kind of commitment for 
this Nation's military through no continuing resolutions and through 
passing appropriations bills for our defense on time. That same 
commitment should be shown by us as the commitment by our brave men and 
women in uniform.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________