Kay Granger

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentleman for raising the issue of off-base infrastructure. I know the gentleman has been working on this issue since his first days in Congress, and I commend his dedication. I appreciate that the authorizing committee has given us a tool to begin to address this problem. Unfortunately, we don't yet know the full scope of the challenge. Before we can appropriate funds to a program like the Defense Community Infrastructure Program, we need more information to define the priorities and ensure that the most urgent needs are met.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, yes, I can commit to working on this issue if the gentleman can give me the details on the scope of what we need to solve. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Rosen

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense is responsible for defending the homeland and U.S. interests from attack, including attacks that may occur in cyberspace. This is an important mission and one that this bill prioritizes by providing $8 billion across the entire cybersecurity landscape. Our Nation's cybersecurity posture starts with our cybersecurity professionals. The gentlewoman's amendment provides an additional $5 million to ensure that we continue to have the most qualified and highly trained cybersecurity professionals in the world. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, as discussed yesterday on the Allen-Raskin amendment, I support the work of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Office. They perform tireless work to track, locate, and recover our fallen heroes, and I thank them for their continued efforts. That is why the base bill already includes $10 million above the budget request. I supported the Allen-Raskin amendment yesterday, which provides an additional $10 million above the request. This amendment provides $10 million, which will support continued efforts to return our fallen heroes home where they belong. Mr. Chair, I support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for her support of our missile defense programs. I agree with her support for these capabilities. I fully commit to working with her during the conference process to ensure both the missile defense tracking system and the laser scaling technologies for boost-phase ICBM missile defense are funded in the conference report.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, while I will not oppose the amendment, I will urge caution about proposals that limit the department's flexibility to adapt to changes in its need in the ROTC program. I am prepared to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. GRANGER

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge the rejection of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, not only does this amendment cut $1 billion from vital programs in FY19; it will leave future Congresses with at least a $6 billion shortfall. That is not the appropriate way to spend our taxpayers' dollars. The Navy is not committed to funding these two additional submarines in the future. In fact, the Statement of Administrative Policy on the House-passed NDAA specifically objects to adding two additional submarines above what is currently in the President's budget. This amendment takes $346 million that has been set aside for the reactor core for the last Nimitz-class carrier refueling overhaul. Delaying this procurement for yet another year hurts this program and creates serious production gaps. This will directly impact the ability of the manufacturer to provide Columbia-class core reactors in a timely manner, and it introduces risk to the schedule for the Columbia-class submarine program. That is unacceptable. The amendment takes $315 million from other shipbuilding programs, funds that will have to be repaid in future years. It takes more than $245 million from the DDG 51 guided-missile destroyer program, a critical missile-defense-capable ship that is deployed throughout the world. This amendment is asking Congress to fund $1 billion now but create a bill for the future, a bill that will not be paid due to the imminent threat of the return of sequestration. Some Members have asked if we can just fix this amendment in conference. Let me be very clear on that point. The answer is no. We will not be able to fix the damage this amendment causes in conference. Should this amendment pass, all cuts will be included in the conference report. I received a letter today from Representative Courtney and Representative Wittman asking me to reconsider my position on their amendment. Their letter says that this amendment doesn't lock the Congress or Department into any course of action. That is not true. Who will pay for these subs, and where will they find the money? Cutting $1 billion out of critically important programs so the Navy can have options in future negotiations of additional submarines is also irresponsible, especially when the Navy has neither requested nor budgeted them. Since when is it acceptable to give $1 billion to someone so they can have options? Their letter also claims they have not heard of any concerns about the proposed first-year offsets. This is not true. In May of this year, the Navy warned that any reductions to the DDG 51 destroyer program will affect the ability of the Navy to achieve any--any--multiyear procurement savings. Mr. Chair, I will continue to oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, this amendment increases funding for the Virginia-class submarine program by $1 billion, at the expense of other critical Navy and Air Force programs. The Department of Defense, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force, and the National Coast Guard Association of the United States all oppose this amendment. In fact, the Deputy Secretary of Defense sent a letter detailing the harmful effects this amendment has on multiple critical National Defense Strategy programs. His quote: ``disrupt multiple critical National Defense Strategy programs.'' These are must-have programs, like the DDG 51 guided-missile destroyer, the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, the Global Hawk, and the TAO fleet oiler, just to name a few. I have also received a letter from the National Guard Association opposing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the letters I received from the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the National Guard Association. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC, June 26, 2018. Hon. Kay Granger, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington. DC. Dear Madam Chairwoman: The Department of Defense (DoD) objects to the proposed amendment by Representatives Courtney and Wittman that cuts over $1 billion from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 President's Budget. The FY 2019 cuts disrupt multiple critical National Defense Strategy (NDS) programs, including the carrier program and Air Force research and procurement. Combined with the out-year cost of finishing the incrementally funded submarines. the Department would be required to cut over $6 billion from multiple programs such as reducing, the buys of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, oilers and fast frigates. The FY 2019 President's Budget request supports a robust. balanced shipbuilding program. providing $23.7 billion for ten combat ships and eight support ships. including, two Virginia-class submarines. DoD is committed to growing the size of the Navy, investing over $20 billion per year across the Future Years Defense Program. Consistent with the NDS. Dolls request balances ship procurement with readiness and other systems to be a more lethal joint force and meet future capabilities. The Virginia-class submarine provides crucial capabilities to the joint warfight. The current Navy fleet faces known shortfalls in attack submarine inventory in future years. However, in the FY 2019 President's Budget we balanced the investment in this capability against other critical capabilities in areas such as space and cyber, and in emerging areas such as autonomy and artificial intelligence. The Department appreciates Congressional support for growing the Navy's fleet and ensuring robust future capabilities. Working together we will find solutions that make us stronger and safer. Patrick M. Shanahan.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, this amendment increases funding for the National Guard's Counterdrug Program. We are very supportive of the counterdrug program. The bill in front of us increases funding at the same level that passed the House last year. That being said, I understand this program is very important to many Members, and I support this amendment to provide a modest increase. Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I do not oppose the amendment.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment reaffirms existing DOD policy and supports the House NDAA, which also includes this provision. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, but I don't oppose the amendment.

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, sexual assault remains a serious problem in the military and one that we must continue to be addressing. The Department has implemented a number of measures to prevent and reduce sexual assault incidents, prosecute perpetrators, and better respond to victims. Despite this, there is still more to be done. This bill provides $318 million, which is $35 million above the President's request for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response programs at the service level and at the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program office. I agree that this is a critical issue that requires attention at the highest level. All of the military services must continue to address incidents of sexual assault and make clear that the military has zero tolerance for such behavior. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.