Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Representative Forbes and myself that would strike section 8055, a provision that prohibits modifying the command and control relationships between U.S. Fleet Forces Command and the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Importantly, this amendment directly aligns with guidance provided by the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson, in his ``A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority,'' released just 5 months ago. In that guidance, Admiral Richardson advocated for examining the organization of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, U.S. Pacific Fleet, and their subordinate commands, with the end goal of clearly defining operational and wartime demands and generating ready forces to meet these demands.

Further, this amendment would allow our Navy to conduct an internal review and amend its organization and direction as needed to create organizational effectiveness. The Navy has advocated for this opportunity, and granting their request would streamline processes and support the Navy's efforts to become a greater fighting force than ever before.

Finally, this amendment eliminates redundant expenditures on Naval organizational structure and provides opportunities to redirect funds toward bolstering fleet readiness.

This amendment is consistent with the FY 2017 NDAA that passed the House by a vote of 277-147. Specifically, section 910 of the House- passed FY 2017 NDAA reduces component commanders to the grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral. This amendment grants our Navy the latitude it needs to effectively organize its own commands in order to meet our Nation's maritime defense demands.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that, when the Navy asks for the ability to reduce its organizational structure to make itself more efficient to do the things that it needs to do to indeed fulfill the role in the Asia Pacific, maybe we ought to do what the Navy asks for us to do.

I am certainly an advocate for streamlined organizational structure and not more organizational structure. I think that this actually gets at that. It allows the Navy to perform its mission there in the Asia Pacific, allows that realignment to happen, but allows it to do so in a modernized organizational structure that the CNO is asking for. To me, that just makes sense. That is why I am strongly in favor of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, again, I would say that, based on the direction from the CNO and his directives of how the Navy is looking to reorganize itself to make sure that it has the ability to maintain maritime superiority--this came out just 5 months ago--to me, it makes perfect sense for us to be able to do that. It is to enable the Navy do the things that it needs to do.

We have a modern Navy that needs the flexibility to make sure that it brings all of its assets forward, especially in the Asia Pacific, with new challenges there for our surface fleets, for our submarines, and for our aircraft carrier strike groups there. This, to me, is a needed change to make sure that the Navy can become more efficient organizationally to be able to get the job done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source