Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2019

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, 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 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 to take advantage of the savings that my friend, Mr. Wittman, described.

Block buy purchases have been tremendously successful. The last block contract for Virginia class, the Block IV, the PEO of submarines, Dave Johnson, was always very proud of the fact that we got 10 submarines for the price of 9 because of using the advantages of bulk purchases, which anyone who shops in Costco knows exactly what he was talking about.

Again, that is a fact, that we achieved great savings by using the block buy purchase mechanism. So I certainly strongly support Mr. Wittman's efforts here.

Again, I note that the $49 million that Mr. Visclosky talked about is in the amendment that is 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 are really just talking about excess change orders, which, again, as the learning curve improves for carrier production, the Navy and the Armed Services Committee calculated would produce that kind of savings without inefficiencies and without doing harm to the carrier program.

So, again, I thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for supporting Mr. Wittman's amendment. I look forward to working together in terms of both committees to try to achieve the goals of a strong 355-ship Navy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan, straightforward amendment that funds long-lead materials to boost construction of Virginia-class submarines to three per year, starting in 2022.

This amendment comes in response to the adamant, persistent warnings of our combatant commanders in testimony before Congress--Admiral Harris of the Pacific Command and General Scaparrotti of the European Command--that submarines are their number one unfilled priority.

This appropriations bill, unlike the NDAA, which passed 351-66, unfortunately, does not give the Navy the tools to answer that demand signal.

Here is the reality: Today, the fleet has 52 subs. The two per-year build rate in this bill will result in a drop to 42 submarines in 2028, as shown on this chart from official numbers straight from the Navy, because subs are aging out faster than the two-per-year build rate can replace.

My amendment does answer the demand signal of the COCOMs, raising the build rate to three per year at the earliest possible window, based on Navy analysis of industrial base capacity that was submitted to Congress last February.

Mr. Chairman, right now, in real time, the next 5-year block contract is being negotiated, which will determine the Nation's submarine construction until 2023. If this amendment fails, Members should be crystal clear that our Nation cannot get that time back to magically add subs later. It takes 5 years to build an attack sub, and this year's bill coincides with block negotiations in a make-or-break moment.

The offsets to pay for this amendment were part of the NDAA that a bipartisan majority of us just passed on May 24 and do not--I repeat, do not--cut a single ship or plane from the base bill, despite some of the claims that are flying around regarding this amendment.

In particular, a last-minute DOD letter out yesterday about out-year impacts is pure speculation. We will talk about this more later.

I am proud to say that my amendment is supported by some of America's most distinguished Navy officers, the last two CNOs, Admirals Roughead and Greenert; the former Fleet Forces Commander, Admiral Robert Natter; and the former Commander of Sub Forces, Admiral Michael Connor; as well as the Navy League and the metal trades of the AFL-CIO.

Mr. Chairman, they understood the urgency expressed by other COCOMs. Now the question is whether Congress will rise to the challenge they threw down.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record letters from Admiral Greenert, Admiral Roughead, and the two most recent CNOs, Admiral Natter and Vice Admiral Connor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank Mr. Visclosky and Ms. Granger for the courtesy and, again, having parity in terms of the time. I realize this is an extraordinary situation. They have a lot of folks who want to take the opposite position, but this is a really good comity in terms of the field.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chair, 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 Seapower Subcommittee.

The last two times block contracts were being negotiated was in 2007 and in 2012. In both instances, the Congress plussed up the budget for submarine construction exactly the same way we are doing it in this amendment: by funding long-lead materials; advanced procurement; purchase of a reactor, which will be built in Ohio, by the way. 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. That is when we went from one- sub-a-year to two-subs-a-year production.

In 2012 we had a similar situation where the White House, the Obama administration, only requested nine subs in the next block contract, the block 4. Again, the two committees working together boosted that block authority in appropriations to get to 10 a year. Again, that was over the objections of the Department of Defense.

I realize we are going to hear a lot from my colleagues, my good friends, about Mr. Shanahan's letter that objects to my amendment. I would just say that that is not the first time we have heard that. Luckily, we have leadership in Congress which withstood those arguments. Otherwise, we would be in a worse predicament than we are today.

Again, follow past precedent. The 23 bipartisan amendment cosponsors and I strongly urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank both the chair and the ranking member for the time they have allotted.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source