National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing forth this amendment. This is tremendous talent and the entrepreneurial spirit across this country.

Mr. Chair, to ensure that we have the ability to take advantage of that great diversity, which is America's asset, it is so important to make sure that women entrepreneurs, minority entrepreneurs, are able to be in a position to supply and work with our United States military.

I am proud of the steps that the military, itself, has taken with regard to diversity, but we can do better on the entrepreneurial and business side.

As a former entrepreneur myself, I know how important it is to make sure that we develop the next great generation of American companies, American suppliers, that reflects not only the diversity of the military, but the diversity of the American people. That is the strength of our country, to make sure that women entrepreneurs, minority entrepreneurs, are empowered.

That is something that I know is a cause that the gentlewoman from Texas holds dear. It is a cause that I hold dear, and I hope that we can adopt this amendment to further that end.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is currently stated in permanent law the Navy, under law, must maintain at all times 11 aircraft carriers. That is an arbitrary restrictive requirement--perhaps, they should have more; perhaps, they should have less.

My amendment would simply grant the Navy the flexibility to choose their needs and requirements in a rapidly evolving world, setting the floor of 10 carriers, rather than 11.

It is important to point out that the Navy is currently operating under a waiver from this very law for 10 active carriers anyway. My amendment simply conforms the underlying law to the reality that already exists.

In some ways, this amendment is really about giving the Navy control over spending choices. Aircraft carriers are expensive. Everybody knows that. At its heart, this amendment is about empowering the Navy to help determine its own fate in evolving and how we can best put our sailors in the best position to combat present and future threats.

I don't think any of us in Congress can sit here today and see what the future of naval warfare is. We might see an open ocean conflict in 10 years, or we might see shallow waterways under duress in 30 years.

To be sure, carriers have played a historic role in establishing a naval dominance we enjoy today, but so did battleships of decades past. We can't let ourselves be mired in our past success, even though, today, we no longer have a single battleship in the force.

The point being, the threats of the next 30 years will evolve. Carriers likely will be an important part of that equation, but they are not a perfect tool for every threat.

As former Secretary Gates himself said:

Consider the massive overmatch the U.S. already enjoys. Consider, too, the growing antiship capabilities of adversaries. Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for 30 years when no other country has more than one?

I don't think we, as a political body, are here to answer that; but I think by removing the arbitrary limit that forces the Navy at all times--unless they have a waiver--to have 11 active aircraft carrier groups prevents the Navy from evolving with the times.

We face a number of threats, whether it is fighting ISIS in the Middle East or ongoing operations in Afghanistan or rising threats from Asia or global piracy, but it is clear these threats require a broad range of tools, not just the largest and most expensive tool that we can find.

Aircraft carriers are likely to remain necessary and are an essential tool of force projection. They help us maintain our status as the first station to arrive on the scene, and they are often the first persons on the scene in the conflict as part of carrier strike groups. All of the tools the Navy needs cost money. When you are looking at unmanned aircraft assets that can deploy from other types of ships, just as with the battleships of yesteryear, there was a time when our carriers were invincible. Naval experts aren't so sure anymore.

It is not that these challenges can't be overcome. We have faced challenges before, but requiring the Navy to keep 11 carriers for the next several decades in permanent law is an arbitrary minimum and limits the Navy's flexibility to make the critical spending decisions to maximize our national security.

We know we can't afford everything, certainly not if we play by the budget rules and caps that we, ourselves, have written, so let's not make this whole thing harder by arbitrarily requiring 11 carriers for political reasons rather than maximizing our national defense.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

At multiple points over the last 5 years, the Navy has only had 10 carriers. They actually had to request a waiver from the current law. This is ridiculous to put the Navy through this political decisionmaking process rather than a military decision process about the number of carrier groups that exist.

On a basic level, this idea of statutorily requiring weapons for future decades makes very little sense. Do we tell the Army, ``You need precisely X number of tanks for Desert Storm; therefore, you have to have `this many' tanks for the next 30 years''? Do we tell the Air Force, ``You need `this many' helicopters for Somalia; therefore, you have to have exactly `this many' regardless of changing threats or challenges or budgetary realities''?

That is exactly what this amendment will help change in order to give the naval force the flexibility it needs to meet the changing dangers of the world.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The Department of Defense is in the midst of a major reality check as the global threat changes, as budgets shrink, and as new technologies emerge, but where we go from here should be up to our naval experts, not Congress. At $14.2 billion apiece, one less carrier would allow the Navy to prioritize other programs, like increasing the capabilities of less costly, unmanned assets.

This amendment is about breaking down the walling off of defense spending for political reasons. We should be enabling those charged with our national defense to make the decisions they need to make for national interests. It simply doesn't stand up to the commonsense test that we would require in law an arbitrary number of carriers, so I urge the adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source