Peter Visclosky

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I simply close by making the observation: the gentleman talks about choices. The committee did make a choice for readiness as opposed to munition, where we have a 21-month delay in components. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding. I, too, share her sentiment that we ought to encourage innovation, but I join her in opposition to the amendment. I am wary of providing funding for an organization within the department that makes commitments of almost $1 billion without carefully coordinating some of these activities within the department, as happened this past year with a cloud computing contract. I am also concerned about the fact that the Defense Innovation Unit has found only a way, basically, to fund innovative activities in limited areas of the country; that is, the East Coast and the West Coast, with rarely anything in between. I also add my concerns that the Defense Innovation Unit relies on Reserve officers to man their organizations when each of the Reserve chiefs have advised us that they cannot fill their own ranks. So I do agree with the gentlewoman and her opposition, and I appreciate her yielding.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Illinois for a colloquy.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and 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 Nuclear Posture Review acknowledges the importance of nonproliferation and countering nuclear terrorism. But I do not 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 nuclear environment. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's raising it, and I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Gallego

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, but I do not plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I would like to use my time to express a note of caution to my colleagues. First, 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 that report. Secondly, I support the Navy's fleet. Whatever the correct number may be in the end, the Navy definitely needs to have more ships to meet its mission. However, the construction of ships is very expensive. Even with the potential savings from a two-carrier buy, the expected cost of those ships would probably exceed $10 billion apiece. We also have a bulge coming up in the Navy's shipbuilding plan, as construction of the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine gets underway. I am not opposed to increasing the Navy's shipbuilding 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. Unfortunately, this body and the other body did not waive the last 2 years of the Budget Control Act. So I remind my colleagues that it is terrific talking about building more ships that we don't have the money for. The fact is, next year, this bill, left uncertain, will have $71 billion less in it, if the restrictions of the Budget Control Act are not changed. I also would point out that two of my colleagues, who will very briefly be offering another amendment, are also cosponsors of an amendment that we will consider in a few minutes that will cut the carrier program this year by $49.1 million. I also would emphasize to my colleagues who think we are not doing enough that the committee in the bill that is on the floor today has added $837,330,000 to the shipbuilding program that was recommended by the administration to be $21,000,871,437. And we have added two additional warships not requested by the administration. So to imply somehow that we are weak-kneed and not spending adequately on building ships in this country is simply not true. I certainly support the objectives of my colleagues, and that is to look at an expanding 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. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, may I ask the Chair how much time is remaining.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

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

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I would emphasize that I am strongly opposed to this amendment and join with the chairwoman. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I 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--increased--the administration's request.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, we have increased the underlying budget request by $837 million, and we have added two ships. The best description for the amendment before us is shortsighted cannibalism. It eats other important Navy and Air Force programs in 2019 to feed the Virginia-class submarine. In doing so, it creates a myriad of problems in the out years. The chairwoman mentioned a number of the programs that were cut in this proposal. I mentioned one in a previous amendment. I would emphasize that some of the gross numbers that have been mentioned include 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. It 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. Mr. Chair, 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 relative to the Navy's unfunded priority list for fiscal year 2018. Admiral Richardson, who is Chief of Naval Operations, mentioned 38 priority items for the United States Navy. It did not include this item. It included a request for an additional $4,796,000,000. It didn't include this item. Mr. Chairman, I have a letter that was sent to Chairman Frelinghuysen on February 22 of this year from Admiral Richardson for the Navy's unfunded priority list for this year, 2019. It includes 25 items. I have been scanning this with my bifocals, looking for this item of importance to the United States Navy, and I have not been able to find it in their request for an additional $1,502,270,000. The sponsors' claim that this gives the Navy the option to construct two additional Virginia-class submarines during the next 5-year block contract, cutting $1 billion for useful programs this year, to give the Navy an option to do something in 4 years, does not make a bit of sense to me. The sponsors say that this amendment sets the Navy up well for a multiyear procurement agreement, and I might not be able to argue that, in particular. However, in their quest to set that up, they are, in fact, damaging the ability of the United States Navy to set up a multiyear procurement program for the DDG-51 program. Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to follow the chairman's remarks, and associate myself with his remarks relative to the staffer who has been lost. The chairwoman was kind enough in the general debate to mention the staff and the Members who have been so instrumental in this work product, and I would be remiss if I did not conclude by again thanking the full committee chairman, as well as Mrs. Lowey. I can't thank Chairwoman Granger enough. This has just been a pleasant and productive experience, and I appreciate her leadership very much. I appreciate the work of all of the members of the subcommittee, as well as all of our staff. That includes our clerks, Jennifer Miller and Rebecca Leggieri, as well as Walter Hearne, Brooke Boyer, B.G. Wright, Allison Deters, Collin Lee, Matthew Bower, Jackie Ripke, Hayden Milberg, Bill Adkins, Sherry Young, Barry Walker, Jennifer Chartrand, Chris Bigelow, Johnnie Kaberle, Jonathan Fay, Joe DeVooght, and Christie Cunningham. I can't thank them enough. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation for how Chairwoman Granger has conducted the business of this subcommittee. Her abiding priority has remained the safety, effectiveness, and efficiency of every man and woman in uniform. Additionally, she has taken a thoughtful and bipartisan approach to our work. She has been transparent, considerate of every Member's request in this body, and is a fierce defender of the oversight responsibilities and constitutional prerogatives of the Congress. I would also like to express my gratitude to Chairman Frelinghuysen, Ranking Member Lowey, and the other members of the subcommittee for their efforts. This legislation would not have happened without the incredibly skilled staff that the chairwoman has just enumerated, and I will join her in thanking them for their outstanding work. I would also be remiss if I did not also use a portion of my time to recognize that this will be the last time I will manage time on a Defense appropriations bill with my very good friend, Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen, on the floor with us. He is a consummate gentleman, decent to his core, a tireless advocate for the people he represents, and always working for the best interest of our Nation and those wearing its uniform. He will be sorely missed, and this body will be lesser without him. I thank him for his service, and I thank him deeply for his friendship. With regards to the matters before us, I would like to begin by calling attention to an issue of great importance to me: the full integration of women in the military. Female servicemembers are invaluable to the defense of our Nation. For the majority of the time that they have been allowed in the military, women have had to assimilate into a culture established by men for men. This is not the best way to maximize the effectiveness of our armed services. While I appreciate the opening of combat career fields to women and the Department's emerging effort to ensure that combat equipment is designed and fitted for female servicemembers, I would submit that these are immediate-term solutions. Bluntly, the rate at which women leave the service is detrimental to its readiness. Some of the reasons for their departures are glaringly obvious and will be difficult to overcome because they will require cultural and significant policy changes. But I am pleased that the House Armed Services Committee in their fiscal year 2019 authorization bill has taken a step to establish a female retention baseline and developed ways to improve female retention. Initiatives like these will help the Appropriations Committee to better focus funding where it can be most effective. Specific to the bill, the chairwoman has provided an accurate summary, but there are a few areas I would like to highlight. This bill increases funding by almost $200 million above the budget request for several important environmental cleanup accounts. The subcommittee under Chairwoman Granger and previously under Chairman Frelinghuysen has been very proactive on emergency environmental issues, including those caused by firefighting chemicals. Those living on or near military facilities and everyone throughout our country should not have to worry about access to clean drinking water. Oversight of the management and expenditure of $674 billion is a core function of this subcommittee. As such, this bill contains several cuts to accounts that have large, unobligated balances or have under executed. The funds generated by those cuts have been invested in programs and initiatives that provide more benefit to our country and the warfighter. Unlike the recently debated and much-ballyhooed rescission bill, these are actions of real substance that will benefit the taxpayer. I believe good oversight is fostered by constructive and informed dialogue between the committee and the agencies. Oversight cannot be effective when proposals are presented at the last minute with the intention of forcing a decision. Oversight cannot be effective when complex changes to a program are first communicated to the legislative branch through the media. I have great respect for the service secretaries and chiefs, but there needs to be an improvement in the timeliness and quality of communication. The committee report to accompany this bill contains several sections encouraging the department as a whole and with a special focus on the Army to adhere to congressional direction, increased transparency for budget exhibits, and improve the quality and timeliness of communication. I am cautiously optimistic that the bipartisan budget agreement, which provided relief from the Budget Control Act, will provide a pathway for completing the fiscal year 2019 bills in a somewhat timely manner. However, the next two fiscal years present daunting obstacles to make it even more important to complete our work as soon as possible. Most obvious is the return of the BCA caps for fiscal year 2020, which if left unchanged will require the department's base funding to be reduced by $71 billion from the level provided in this bill. A reduction of that magnitude would cause great disruption. Inexplicably, multiple Congresses have managed to alleviate the budget caps for 7 of 8 years, but only after significant and protracted political theater. I know the senior leaders in the Pentagon are not taking chances and have begun to identify programs to cut in 2020 that will carry the least associated risk for the warfighter if these caps are not adjusted. Additionally, senior military leaders have testified that arresting the erosion of our military's competitive advantage requires real budget growth of at least 3 percent above inflation through 2023, and that increasing that competitive advantage would require even higher growth. I agree with the assessment that we need to make smart investments, but I do not believe a growth rate of that magnitude is sustainable. Unless we act responsibly on the revenue side of the budget and address entitlements in a meaningful fashion, the money will not be there. While we are on the floor today debating the funding for the DOD bill, we must consider that maintaining our competitive advantage in defense also requires other investments that we do not immediately equate with military matters. As only 29 percent of Americans aged 17 to 24 qualify for military service, investments in our youth, difficult-to-retain populations, education, and public health are equally important. Since fiscal year 2016, the annual funding level for the Department of Defense has increased by $100 billion. To put this into context, a $100 billion increase is larger than the annual budget for the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Transportation. It is greater than the combined annual budgets of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior. Finally, I remain concerned that while we have seen plenty of long- awaited, long-term planning and strategy documents generated by the Pentagon and the White House over the last 500 days, the bulk of our ongoing military operations continue to be authorized by legislation from 17 years ago. There have been four Presidential elections and eight congressional elections since 2001 and its Authorization for Use of Military Force. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in order any amendments on this matter. It is a shame that this Congress cannot muster the will to even talk about this important issue. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I, again, thank the chairwoman for her great effort and her true partnership, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the committee.