Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  June 27, 2018 5:59pm-7:10pm EDT

5:59 pm
the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 6 57 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2019, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 21 printed in house report 115-785 offered by the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, had een disposed of. it's now in order to consider amendment number 22 printed in house report 115-785. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? ms. esty: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in house report 115-785 offered by ms. esty of
6:00 pm
connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentlewoman from connecticut, ms. esty, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from connecticut. ms. esty: thank you, mr. chairman. 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 sacrificed a great deal to serve our country. when they enlist, they do so knowing they may be sent into violent and dangerous situations to confront an adversary. they do not sign up by being sexually assaulted by one of their fellow service members. we need to do better by all those who wear the uniform. the department of defense has established response programming to prevent these crimes from
6:01 pm
occurring and to ensure victims have the resources they need to recover should an incident occur. but the number of service women 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 service members. meanwhile, d.o.d. estimates only one in three service members who experience a sex aal 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 guards and reserves, sexual assault prevention and response programs require our full support and funding.
6:02 pm
we must provide the best possible care and resources for our service members who are honorably serving and defending the united states. that is why my amendment would increase funding for these worthwhile and vital programs to ensure they are there when service members need them. i urge all of my colleagues to support this important amendment. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. granger: i rise to claim time in opposition but not opposed. sexual assault is a serious problem in the military and one we must continue to be addressing. the department has implemented a number of measures to reduce sexual assault incidents and better respond to victims. there is still more to be done. this bill provides $318 million,
6:03 pm
$35 million above the president's request at the service level and at the department of defense in response program office. i agree this is a critical issue that requires attention at the highest level. all of the military services must continue to address incidents and make clear that the military has zero tolerance. i'm pleased to accept the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. ms. esty: i thank the gentlelady for her support and moving forward this important amendment. and with that, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back sm the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment
6:04 pm
s agreed to. the chair: it is now in order tore consider amendment number . it is now in order to consider amendment number 24 printed in house report 115-175. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in house report 115-785 offered by mr. foster of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster and a
6:05 pm
member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. foster: my amendment would prohibit the misguided use of taxpayer dollars to attempt to a intercept layer. they passed it in 2019 tasks the 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 the last 0 years ever since president reagan called for defending the united states by developing strategic system commonly known as star wars. but every time competent outside experts have looked at this concept, they deem it unworkable and expensive, vulnerable to countermeasures, easy for an
6:06 pm
opponent to destroy, easy to overwhelm with a small number of enemy missiles or all of the above. in fact, the former director, said in 2016 that he had serious concerns about the technical feasibility of interceptors in space and long-term affordability. in order toll reach an incoming ballistic missile, a large -- interceptors must be intercepted. they concluded in order to ensure full coverage, a fleet of a thousand or more satellites would be required to inter september a single missile. the united states today currently has slightly more than 800 satellites in its orbit and that is commercial, scientific
6:07 pm
and military satellites. it estimated even an auseter and limited network of 560 satellites would cost 10 times the cost of a ground-based system. setting aside the massive cost, it has inherent vullnergets. even with thousands of interceptors deployed, only a few would be in range and those could easily be overwhelmed by the launch of several missiles by one location and because interceptors must be inter serpted. they can be easily tracked and destroyed. it is these limitations that led the admiral to quote that the technologies have been worked on only spore addically over the years and are not fees i will to procure, to deploy, to operate
6:08 pm
in the near or mid-term. 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 warp drive or the transporter or if they were not technological fantasies. as a scientist, i think that we have to listen to the experts and do our homework before investing hundreds of billions of dollars to develop an unworkable system. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. lamborn: i claim time in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: as noted by
6:09 pm
secretary of defense mat is. this is like air, land and sea. this dangerous amendment would place our country at a disadvantage 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 advances being made day by our adversaries and expanding nuclear weapon proliferation, we must not restrict the defense department from pursuing options to deploy energy in space or any other capability that would result in the possibility of boost space capability that could be deployed from space. this amendment, mr. chairman, is against the possibility of investigating and going down this road. house authorizing appropriators understand the capability and this dangerous amendment would
6:10 pm
significantly constrain options for developing critical defensive capabilities in a gap of our current ballistic missile defense system. a proponent, the commander of strategic command testified that quote, the day you can actually shoot a missile down and have that thing drop back down on their heads, that will be a good head. that is the last one they are going to launch, especially if there is something nasty on top of that. that brings it to bear although weapons do not exist comm the u.s. arsenal. i would point out that the issue of pace-based intercept was debated at length last year, passed with bipartisan support in the house armed services committee and the national defense authorization act passed last year passed on the house
6:11 pm
floor. his year, the senate armed services committee has supported this development area. now is not the time to curtail this emerging potential capability. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: i spent my career as an accelerator designer. nothing is less productive as a use of taxpayer money than designing and building a system, attempting to build a system that you know that cannot and will not work. if there was suddenly a magic new technology, then we can revisit this decision. but the fundamental physicianics and the attack versus defense
6:12 pm
balance in this has not changed in the last 30 years as we examine this issue. so i think just because it would be nice if we can magicically drop a launch missile on the enemy's head and don't have technology that could accomplish that, doing paper designs of systems that will not work is a waste of taxpayer money. again, i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: let me conclude by saying in opposition, if it hasn't been developed yet, you don't know that it does aren't work. we have hundreds or thousands of bright minds. appreciate my colleague's credentials but we have hundreds working in the national defense agency and at the government-sponsored
6:13 pm
laboratories and the defense community and the department of defense in the government sector and there are possibilities that are being pursued that have great promise and great potential. and i think it would be the height of foolishness to cut it off all right now when there isn't any money being appropriated for this. it's 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 suffer the consequences of the missiles coming back on themselves. we shouldn't shut the door. mr. chairman, i would urge a no vote on this amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: how much time do i have left? the chair: 30 seconds.
6:14 pm
mr. foster: toss -- you must make a judgment call as to what things are just way out there and not go to go happen in our lifetime and things that have a realistic chance of working on the time scale we are planning for. and all the experts you convene to look at this unanimously say, it makes no sense, it makes no sense to spend taxpayer money until we get the breakthroughs that makes it possible. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. foster: i request a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be
6:15 pm
postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word. chairman the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i recognize the gentleman from for illinois for a colloquy. r. foster: as the only scientist in congress and i would like to highlight about when discussing the danger of weapons we overfocus our attention on missile and missile defense. proliferation challenges are changing and there are unfortunately many ways to deliver a nuclear weapon. united le of in the states or through the use of commercial or recreational vehicles. we must focus our resources in
6:16 pm
developing and deploying technologies that will lead to substantial improvement in our ability to verify fissile material and devices and we must continue to strengthen our work force 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 veer fible and irreversible north korea's missile programs and nuclear programs. we could have the most expensive in the world but unless we address these threats as well, it is a false sense of security. it is my hope it is my hope that we will continue to develop new and and tive ideas to detect monitor the and
6:17 pm
monitor the proliferation of nuclear weapons and materials and ultimately make the world a safer place. thank you. i yield back. mr. visclosky: -- mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's comments and would 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 national posture review acknowledges the importance of nonproliferation and countering nuclear terrorism. but i do not believe, and -- 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
6:18 pm
nuclear environment. so again, appreciate the gentleman raising it and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. it is now in order to consider amendment number 25 printed in house report 115-785. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. gallegly: mr. chairman, i have an amendment -- mr. gallego: mr. chairman, i have be a amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report 115-785 you are aed by mr. guy yellow of arizona -- gallego of arizona. the chair: the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chairman. 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
6:19 pm
national critical infrastructure. there is no disagreement on this point. congress has been briefed many times on chinese cyberattacks,s i pee nadge and trade secret -- espionage and trade secret theft. we know this is a problem. it's astonishing that u.s. taxpayer dollars can be used to buy goods and services from these two bad apples. my amendment would change that. put simply, and it's very simple, mr. chairman, my amendment would prevent funds under this act to be used 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, sense teve communication networks, -- sensitive communication networks, and critical industry and infrastructure from modern thefts, where they come from china or anywhere else. i look forward to working with my friends and colleagues in both parties in making that a reality. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition?
6:20 pm
ms. granger: i claim time in opposition, but i don't oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection. ms. granger: the gentleman's amendment reaffirms existing d.o.d. policy and supports the house ndaa which also includes this provision. i support the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. chair. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 26 printed in house report 115-785. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of amendment number 26 and seek time to speak in support. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 26 printed in house report 115-785
6:21 pm
offered by mr. wittman of virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of amendment number 26, to provide cost-effective funding for the navy's fourth gerald r. ford class aircraft carrier. let me be clear, amendment number 26 does not add any additional funding to the carrier replacement program line for f.y. 2019. none. not one dollar. the nonpartisan congressional budget office found that amendment 26 would not score. it would not change the overall level of budget authority or outlays in the bill for f.y. 2019. according to the parliamentarian, this is simply a perfecting amendment to allow for already appropriated funds to be used for both the aircraft. i believe it is possible to be both a defense hawk and a fiscal hawk. my amendment supports both positions. for defense hawks, amendment number 26 fulfills a critical
6:22 pm
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 ship building and ship retirement plans, the navy would dip below 12 aircraft carriers beginning in 2025 and would atrophy to just nine 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, ground baller, the night hawk helicopter, the seahawk helicopter, as well as the hawkeye aircraft. all require an aircraft carrier to operate in the navy.
6:23 pm
for fiscal hawks, the numbers are clear. a two-ship buy saves over d 1.6 billion in ship building -- $1.6 billion in ship building costs. when government-furnished equipment is included, to the total savings are projected -- the total savings are projected to reach $2.5 billion. this reduces costs for these and future ships in the ford class. we have already had great congressional support on this very issue. in december, 2017, i led a letter with 131 house signatures to the department of defense secretary mattis in support of this same dual aircraft carrier by approach -- buy approach. this was included in h.r. 5515, which recently passed the house by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 35 -- excuse me,
6:24 pm
351-66 on may 24 of this year. it's a signal what have needs to be done. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. mr. visclosky: i rise to claim time in opposition but i do not plan to oppose the amendment. rather, i would like to use my time to express a note of caution to my colleagues. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: 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 the report. secondly, i support the navy's fleet, whatever the correct number may be in the end, the navy definitely needs to have ore ships to meet its mission. however, the construction of ships is very expensive. even with the potential savings
6:25 pm
from a two-carrier buy, the expected cost of those ships would probably exceed $10 billion each. as we also have a bulge coming up in the navy ship building plan, as construction of the columbia class ballistic missile submarine gets under way. i'm not opposed to increasing the navy ship building 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. and unfortunately this body and the other body did not waive the last two years of the budget control act. so i would remind my colleagues that it is terrific talking about building more ships that we don't have the money for. and the fact is, next year this bill, left uncertain, will have $71 billion less in it if the restrictions of the budget
6:26 pm
control act are not changed. and i would also point out to my two colleagues who will very briefly be offering another amendment, that they are co-sponsors of an amendment that we will consider in a few minutes that will cut the carrier program, that will cut the carrier program this year, y $49.1 million. i would also emphasize to my colleagues who think we are not doing enough, that the committee in the bill that is on the floor $837,330,000 to the ship building program that was recommended by the -- istration to be $21,87 $21,000, 870,000.
6:27 pm
and we have added two additional warships not requested by the administration. so, to imply somehow we are weak-kneed and not spending adequately on building ships in this country is simply not true. so i certainly support the objections of my colleagues and that is to look at expanding the 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. and having said that, i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. 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
6:28 pm
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 and take advantage of the savings that my friend described, block-buy purchases have been tremendously successful. the last block contract, the block four, the submarines was always very proud of the fact that we got 10 submarines for the price of nine. because of using the advantages of bulk purchases which anybody who shops in costco knows exactly what he was talking about. and again, that's a fact that we achieve great savings by using the block-buy purchase mechanism. so i certainly strongly support mr. wittman's efforts here. again, i would just note that the $49 million that mr. visclosky talked about is in the
6:29 pm
amendment that's 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're really just talking about excess change orders, which again is the learning curve -- as the learning curve improves for production, the navy and the armed services committee calculated would produce that kind of savings without inefficiencies, without doing harm to the carrier program. so, again, i thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for supporting mr. wittman's amendment and, again, i look forward to working together in terms of both committees to try and achieve the goals of a strong, 355-ship navy. and i yield back. the chair: the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. wittman: how much time do i have remaining? mr. wittman: 15 seconds. i will be quick with my close.
6:30 pm
the bottom line is we need these carriers. we need 26 billion in the ship building budget so the $21 billion is admirable but the pathway to get where we need to get to 355 is still out there for us. the challenge must be taken head on. this is the first step to do that. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 27 printed in house report 115-785. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition?
6:31 pm
>> i have an amendment at the desk. he clerk: house report 115-785 offered by mrs. murphy of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 964, the gentlewoman from florida and a member posed each will control five minutes. >> i rise in support of this amendment. mrs. murphy: this amendment would increase funding for the national guard counterdrug funding and reduce funding for the defense-wide account. if the amendment is adopted it will provide money for the national guard counter drug program which is the amount that the bureau indicates it can execute on an annual basis. my colleagues ap i offered this amendment for a simple reason.
6:32 pm
the program is important, it is effective and it should continue to receive robust funding. this is true in light of the opioid epidemic that is tearing apart so many families including in my district in central florida and mr. barr's district. the national guard bureau distributes the money it receives to the national guard states and territories that examines the nature and scope. with this funding, national guards may provide different forms of authorized assistance to law enforcement organizations including recon naysance and training support. it is targeted and tailored and reflects the drug interdiction priorities of its national guard and the needs of its law enforcement partners at the
6:33 pm
federal, state and local level. the florida national guard ceives $10 million to reduce supplies. support provided by the florida national guard has been instrumental in over 2,000 arrests and the seizure of $14 billion in drugs, property and cash. in conclusion, i hope my colleagues will support this amendment to disrupt and dismantle drug organizations and protect our communities from drug-related violence. i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. ms. granger: i claim the time in opposition. this amendment increases funding for the national depaurd's counterdrug program and the bill increases funding at the same level that passed the house last
6:34 pm
year. that being said, i understand this program is very important to many members and i support this amendment. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. mrs. murphy: this program is important and effective and will ensure that this program is fully funded and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. nd the amendment is agreed to. the chair: the chair understands that amendment will not be
6:35 pm
offered. consider amendment number 29. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 115-785 offered by mr. courtney of connecticut. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. courtney: this is a bipartisan straightforward amendment that funds materials to boost construction of va class submarines of three per year. this amendment comes dem response to the persistent warnings of our commanders in testimony before congress, admiral harris that submarines are their number one unfilled priority. this appropriations bill that passed unfortunately does not give the navy the tools to demand that signal.
6:36 pm
the fleet has 52 subjects and two-year build rate will result 28, 2 submarines in 20 because subjects are aging faster. amendment does answer the signal raising the build rate at three per year based on navy analysis of industrial-based capacity that was submitted to congress. the next year five-block contract is being negotiated and there will be and if this amendment fails, members should be crystal clear that we can't get it back to add subjects later. it takes five years to build them and the off jets to pay for this is part of the nd arch arch that the majority of us passed
6:37 pm
and do not cut a single ship or plane from the base bill despite some of the claims regarding this amendment. in particular, a last-minute d.o.d. letter out yesterday about out-year impacts is pure speculation. my amendment is supported by america's most distinguished navy officers. the last two c.n.o.'s and the former fleet commander and former commander of subforces as well as the navy league and the metal trades department of the a fmp l-cio. they understood and now the question is whether congress will go through the challenge. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does does the -- >> i thank the majority.
6:38 pm
>> i thank the gentleman from connecticut sm it is this compelling argument as we as a nation willing to make the commitment to ensure our future national security. mr. wittman: we are losing submarines because we are not building them fast enough to replace the ones that are retiring. the chinese in 2020 will have 70 submarines and building them at a rate of six per year. in 2029, when we have 22, they will have 224. are we willing to look at our children and grandchildren and tell them when we had a chance to do something, we didn't do it. at 5:48 today, there was an article that said congress faces last chance to add two virginia
6:39 pm
class submarines. last chance. here's our chance to deal what is our right to national security and look at our children and grandchildren and we saw what was coming and we stood strong and we built the submarines necessary. mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. courtney: i yield 30 seconds of mr. gallego of arizona. mr. gallego: i rise in support just as sfrongly as my friend from virginia. we have a serious strategic issue. this amendment would give the navy the option, just the option, not a requirement to procure submarines at a faster rate than is currently being procured now. we look at all options when we
6:40 pm
are briefed on the strategic deficiencies that we find right now. i would like to point out, that i have zero shipyards in arizona. we do not build ships in arizona. we are land locked. i support this amendment. i'm a patriot and it is a best interest of this country and i yield back. mr. wittman: i yield 0 seconds to mr. norcross. mr. norcross: i rise in strong support of this amendment. we have this opportunity to come around. there are people this is important to our national defense. i went up to electric boat. this is the most complicated machine ever designed and ever built in the history of the world. you don't turn this on and off. this is about saving our
6:41 pm
country. you heard the chairman talk about how we are falling behind as a country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. norcross: we must come together and build this now or we are putting our country at risk. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: i yield 30 seconds to mr. scott. mr. scott: i commend mr. courtney and mr. wittman for their efforts and our navy is being squeezed and needs more ships especially the submarines including the secretary of -- have testified for the need for these submarines. the goal of this amendment to ensure they have the necessary resources in 2019 so they could pursue and negotiate the multi year contract. i want to thank the gentleman
6:42 pm
from connecticut and colleague from virginia for their hard work. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: i ask that the tters from the most recent c.n.o.'s be admitted into the record. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered under general leave. mr. courtney: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i am happy to yield to my colleague, mr. courtney. mr. courtney: i want to thank mr. visclosky and ms. granger. this is an extraordinary time and folks want to take the opposite position and this is
6:43 pm
good comityy. i yield to my friend from rhode island, mr. langevin to speak in support of the amendment. mr. visclosky: i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from from rhode island for as much time as he consumes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to thank the ranking member whose work on this defense appropriations bill and congresswoman granger and thank my colleague, mr. courtney, for his tireless work as the ranking member of the sea power subcommittee and mr. wittman. our submarines are the true unsung heroes and i know that because much of this critical fabrication of these submarines are built in my home state rhode
6:44 pm
island. admirals say they cannot get enough submarines which are desperately needed across the globe to protect the interest of the united states. they are only able to meet 60% or 65% of the demands of the request of the combatant commanders. despite this urgent number, the number of our fleet is dropping. by 2028, the number of submarines will drop from 52 to 42. how can we support this 20% drop when we have the ability to do something about it. there is a plan to close some of this gap by procuring in 2022 and 2023. we can't procure on a dime. we need to make investments today if we are in a position to reduce the bombing out. the hard working employees need to build additional capacity now
6:45 pm
and need to act immediately if we are in a position to build more submarine reactors. this amendment makes sure we have the flexibility to go forward. and this overwhelmingly passed this chamber. the urgency is because our add veer various is not standing still. china will have between 69 and 78 submarines in 2020. and as the c.f.d.a. estimated tween between 2022 and 2030r time frame. we cannot ignore the startling growth of this fleet. subjects, not only deter our adversaries but buildup our allies. funding our virginia class and columbia class programs must be
6:46 pm
an appropriate priority. this amendment continues our practice of robust investment and i urge my colleagues to support it. i thank the gentleman for yielding the time and i yield back. . mr. courtney: thank you again. can i ask the chair how much ime is left? the chair: the gentleman has 1 3/4 minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, 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 subcommittee. the last two times block contracts were being negotiated was in 2007, and in 2012. in both instances, the congress plused up the budget for submarine construction exactly the same way we're doing it in this amendment, by funding long
6:47 pm
lead materials, advanced procurement, purchase of a reactor, which will be built in ohio, by the way, and 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. and that's when we went from one sub a year to two a year. in 2012 we had a same situation where the white house, the obim administration, only requested -- the obama administration, only requested nine subs. again, the two committees working together boosted that block authority and appropriations to get to 10 a year. and again, that was over the objections of the department of defense. i realize we're going to hear a lot from my colleagues about mr. shanahan's letter that objects to my amendment. i would just say that that's not the first time we have heard that. and luckily we have leadership
6:48 pm
in congress which withstood those arguments. otherwise we would be in a worse predicament than we are today. so again, follow the past president. the 23 bipartisan amendment co-sponsors and i strongly urge adoption of this amendment. i again want to thank both the chair and the ranking member for the time they've allotted. i yield back. mr. visclosky: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from texas. is recognized. ms. granger: i rise in strong opposition to the amendment. this amendment increases -- the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. granger: thank you. 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 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
6:49 pm
critical national defense strategy programs. his quote, affects multiple critical national defense strategy programs. these are must-have programs like the d.d.g. 51 guided missile destroyer. the aircraft carrier. the global hawk. and the t.a.o. fleet oiler, just to name a few. i've also received a letter from the national guard association opposing this amendment. mr. chairman, i'd like to enter both those letters into the record. the chair: without objection. ms. granger: not only does this amendment cut $1 billion from vital programs in f.y. 2019, it will leave future congresses with at least a $6 billion shortfall. that is not the appropriate way to spend our taxpayer dollars. the navy is not committed to funding these two additional submarines in the future. in fact, the statement of
6:50 pm
administrative policy on the house-passed ndaa specifically obblets to adding two additional -- objects to adding two additional submarines. this amendment takes $346 million that's been set aside for the reactor corps for the last carrier class refueling overhaul. delaying this procurement for yet another year hurts this program and creates serious production gaps. this will directly impact the ability of the manufacturer to provide columbia class core reacters in a timely manner -- reactors in a timely manner. and it reduces risk to the schedule for the columbia class submarine program. that is unacceptable. the amendment takes $315 million from other ship building programs, funds that will have to be repaid in future years. it takes more than $245 million
6:51 pm
from the missile destroyer program, a critical missile defense ship that's 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 stick this amendment in conference. let me be very clear on that point. that en-- 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, our department, into any course of action.
6:52 pm
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 not requested nor budgeting 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 offset. this is not true. in may of this year the navy warned that any reductions to the destroyer program will effect the ability of the navy to achieve any, any multiyear procurement savings. i'll 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
6:53 pm
reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. courtney: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word and would emphasize that i am strongly opposed to this amendment and join with the chairwoman. it is now my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from maine for a minute and a half. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for a minute and a half. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. chair. and thank you very much to the ranking member of the subcommittee, who i feel very privileged to work with, for allowing me this time. i rise tonight in opposition to this amendment. first, i want to say i have the utmost respect for the many sponsors of this amendment. in particular, mr. wittman and mr. courtney. they've shown tremendous bipartisan support and leadership in their tireless support of the navy. they are excellent in the role on their committees and i consider them both great colleagues and friends. however, this amendment is the
6:54 pm
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. and 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. i am proud to be from maine and to have bath ironworks and their excellent work force in my district. the men and women of bath ironworks have been proving the adage bath built is best built for decades. i reject any efforts to cut from this program. my colleagues said this is funded by procurement savings in future years in the targeted programs. and therefore we should take that funding from these programs now. but the rational 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
6:55 pm
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. so i ask my colleagues to oppose and yield back the balance of my time. mr. visclosky: i would yield one minute to the gentleman from california, -- the chair: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time. mr. visclosky: i would yield time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. calvert: i thank you and i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. which would add $1 billion in advanced procurement for two additional virginia class submarines -- in f.y. 2022 and 2023. the navy has a substantial plan for submarines that achieves the mission of 355-ship navy by 2050 and does it in a way that's fiscally responsible and provides for stability of the industrial base. in a letter to the -- from the secretary of the navy to -- to chairman frelinghuysen, the secretary states, f.y. 2019 president's budget provides sufficient funds to procure the hips included in f.y. 2019
6:56 pm
program. advanced procurement amendment of $1 billion in f.y. 2019, and by the way, an additional $6 billion tail, that 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. 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. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would yield now to the gentleman from florida, mr. diaz-balart. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: i want to thank the gentleman and, look, the chairwoman, the ranking member, i, which wholly support the u.s.
6:57 pm
navy. -- we wholly support the u.s. navy. and 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 these two more -- 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 five years. and by the way, impacting military readiness and other vital procurement equipment. so, again, while we must obviously pursue an aggressive ship building 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. so i would respectfully urge for
6:58 pm
a no vote on this amendment. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. visclosky: 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 the administration's request by $837 -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. visclosky: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: we have increased the underlying budget request bid 837 million and we have $837 wo ships -- $-- by million and we have added two ships. this is short-sighted cannibal itch. it eats other important navy -- cannibalism. it eats other important navy programs in 2019 to feed the virginia class submarine. in doing so, it creates a myriad of problems in the outyears. the chairwoman mentioned a number of the programs that were cut in this proposele. i mentioned one in a previoused a -- proposal. i mentioned one in a previous
6:59 pm
amendment. but i would emphasize some of the numbers i mentioned, 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. t takes $26.1 million from our research and development from the navy. and $262.9 million from the air force. this is not new money, this is not free money. we are taking money from programs that need it in 2019. 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. well, chairman mccain in the senate on may 30, 2017, heard from admiral richardson,
7:00 pm
relative to the navy's unfunded riority list for fiscal year 2018. admiral richardson, who is c.n.o., mentioned 38 priority items for the united states navy . did not include this item. it included a request for an additional $4,796,000,000. didn't include this item. i have another letter. i have a letter that was sent to chairman frelinghuysen on ebruary 22 of this year by admiral richardson for nate -- for the navy's unfunded priority list for this year, 2019. . it includes 25 items and i have been scanning this looking for importance to the united states navy and have not been able to
7:01 pm
find it in their request for an .dditional $1 billion the sponsors claim that this gives the navy option to onstruct two submarines. $1 billion for useful programs this year to give the navy an option and four years does not make a bit of sense to me. the sponsors says it sets the navy up for a multi year agreement and i may not be able to argue. in their quest to set that up, they are, in fact, damaging the ability of the united states vy
7:02 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields ack the balance of his time. ms. granger: in closing, i urge the rejection of this amendment. i urge the rejection of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. and the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. . those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. courtney: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut will be postponed. >> i move to strike the last
7:03 pm
word. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, earlier on the debate we thanked all the members of the staff that made this great bill a reality through their good efforts. our professional staff and associate staff who work in our personal offices. i would like to do that and especially thank chairman granger and ranking member visclosky and for their leadership and involvement in the production of this bill. i would like to offer a special recognition to one in articular, the late steven sipp, the budget expert. sipp died earlier this month but he left his mark on this bill and our committee. his funeral was held at st. peter's church in maryland and
7:04 pm
attended by hundreds of members of his friends from capitol hill and the appropriations family. among many things, sipp was a retaker of the 302-b suballocations and from his work upstairs here and from his home, he ensured that congress provided adequate funding not just for the department of defense but for all 12 appropriations bills. this required a deep understanding of each and every aspect of these bills and base of knowledge and situational awareness of the political factors at play. e expertly maneuvered this with skill savvy and immense amount of poise.
7:05 pm
he embodied strength both challenges equally with grace and fortitude. he made a difference in the lives of all those he touched, literally millions and lives of americans. we extend our love to his wife and his two children and family and we always remember him and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: we move to strike the last word. i want to follow the chairman's remarks and associate my remarks to the staffer that has been lost and the chairwoman mentioned the staff and i would would be remiss if i did not conclude thanking the full
7:06 pm
and this chairwoman has been a pleasant and productive experience and i appreciate your leadership very much. i do appreciate the work that all of the members of the subcommittee and as well as all of our staff. and that does include our clerks, jennifer and rebecca as b.j., walter, prook, jackie, olin, matthew, hayden, bill, sheerey, barry, johnny, chris, jonathan, joe and christie. i can't thank them enough and i would yield back.
7:07 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. granger: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having ad under consideration h.r. 67 6167 reports that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the committee has had under consideration and has come to no resolution thereon.
7:08 pm
e chair -- the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.
7:09 pm

13 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on