-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to warn that we are moving closer to a yearlong continuing resolution, or a CR, that would have devastating implications for every Federal Agency-- particularly the Department of Defense.

We are 5 months into the fiscal year. Soon, the House will send over another stop-gap measure so we can avoid a shutdown for a few more weeks. When the short-term funding bill expires, the fiscal year will be halfway over. We need to get this work done.

As outlined last week, Democrats put a deal on the table months ago that gave Republicans what they wanted--more funding for defense than the $22 billion increase that President Biden sought and less money for nondefense programs than he requested. This should have been an easy deal for them to accept. Indeed, the defense funding number that Democrats are willing to agree to is the number that Republicans on the Armed Services Committee proposed this summer and that was incorporated into the National Defense Authorization Act. But even with that defense number in hand, our Republican colleagues continue to draw out negotiations, pushing us closer to a full-year continuing resolution that would fund defense at a level that is less than President Biden initially requested and about $37 billion lower than the level set out in the NDAA.

I think that is important. If the Republicans continue to reject a sensible agreement on an Omnibus appropriations bill, they will end up with a defense number that is less than what President Biden sent up, and what he sent up was harshly and vigorously criticized by the Republicans as being not only ineffectual but also somehow undermining our defense.

So it is very clear that we have to move quickly to make a full-year CR an impossibility and that we have to move and vote for an Omnibus appropriations bill. A CR for the full year will shortchange our military. It will disrupt the efficient operations of the Federal Government in the midst of international tension, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and a fragile economic recovery.

Let me focus on the Navy and Marine Corps for a moment. Like the other services, they would be hard hit. A full-year CR would lead to a shortfall of $4.4 billion from the level the President requested.

Even worse, the Navy estimates the impact could total more than $14 billion of misaligned funds because a CR prohibits any new starts and production rate increases. The military personnel accounts alone would be $1.6 billion below what the Navy needs, and that is the pay and benefits for our men and women in uniform. The Navy's Active-Duty end strength would be reduced by 23,000 sailors of its planned accessions. Almost half of the permanent change-of-station moves would be cut, and the Navy Reserves would also face a substantial reduction in its end strength.

A full-year CR could leave the training and readiness accounts for the Navy and Marine Corps about $2.5 billion short of what they need. This shortfall would reduce the services' flight operations by 10 to 20 percent for all units for 6 months. Reductions in ship operations will put training certifications for one carrier strike group and two expeditionary strike groups at risk, thereby impacting fiscal year 2023 deployments.

This shortfall would impact the scheduling of ship maintenance availabilities for five Virginia-class submarines and two aircraft carriers-- something that will ripple through the industrial base in future fiscal years.

For the Marines, maintenance availabilities for 12 of their landing craft would be deferred, including 6 landing craft air cushions and 6 landing craft utility. These deferrals would potentially impact their ability to support operational needs around the globe. If we don't keep our ships and amphibious vehicles maintained, they will not be ready nor reliable when they are needed in operations, thereby risking the safety of our servicemembers and impeding their ability to perform the mission.

These are just some of the operational impacts the Navy and Marine Corps would face under a yearlong CR.

A CR will also prevent the Navy from effectively modernizing and reinvesting in new programs. The Department of the Navy would not be able to execute 10 new procurement programs and 10 new research and development projects.

Additionally, 20 programs would not be able to increase their production rate as planned in the budget request. Perhaps most importantly, the CR would provide insufficient funding for the continued construction of SSBN-826, the first boat of the Columbia- class ballistic missile submarine program, which is replacing the aging Ohio-class submarines.

The Columbia-class program is vitally important to maintaining our strategic nuclear deterrence. I have seen the boat currently under construction in Rhode Island, the state-of-the-art hull cylinders and missile tubes. It is a formidable vessel, and it needs to stay on track.

A yearlong CR would also affect the advance procurement funding for the second, third, fourth, and fifth of the submarines of this class. Effectively, we would be disrupting the unavoidable replacing of aging Ohio-class submarines with the new Columbia class. All this would mean down the road eventually is just more expensive submarines.

We are already on a tight schedule to deliver SSBN-826 to meet the requirements of Strategic Command. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gilday has said that the Columbia class is the Navy's ``number one modernization priority'' and that it ``is a program with zero margin for delays.''

The impacts aren't limited to our undersea fleet. Under a yearlong CR, the Navy also wouldn't be able to purchase three additional surface ships--two of the TAGOS ocean surveillance ships and one ship to shore connector--and the Navy won't be able to start procuring materials in advance for the new frigate and the TAO fleet oiler.

The Marines will not be able to buy 7 more F35 Joint Strike Fighters, 20 more of the amphibious combat vehicle, nor additional quantities of the joint air-to-ground missile and Hellfire missiles. Instead of procuring six MQ-9A Reaper UAVS, the Marines will get zero.

There are many impacts to new research and development projects that cannot be started under a CR, and the Navy is very concerned about the shortfall in funding for the Conventional Prompt Strike Program. This missile, which is being jointly developed and produced with the Army, will provide Navy ships and Virginia-class submarines with a hypersonic weapon capability that is critical to our Nation's ability to deter conflict with China and with Russia. In order to make up this shortfall under a CR and keep this program on pace, the Navy would have to divert funding from other important R&D programs. It is one step forward and two steps back and in some cases may cause delays that are unrecoverable.

The Navy and Marine Corps also won't be able to start 17 military construction projects--new facilities that our sailors and marines need to do their jobs safely and effectively. This includes, among others, $321 million for two projects in North Carolina, $288 million for three projects in Virginia, $14 million for a project in Minnesota, $49 million for a project in Michigan, $558 million for eight projects in Guam, and $50 million for a project in Japan. This will clearly affect our ability to have a forward-operating presence in the Indo-Pacific region and to confront what the Secretary of Defense has called the pacing threat--China.

These are just some examples of the varied impacts and challenges the Navy and Marine Corps would face if there was a yearlong CR. I would encourage my colleagues to read the full testimony of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gilday, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Berger, which they submitted to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

These statements can be found online on the House Committee on Appropriations website at https://appropriations.house.gov/events/ hearings/impact-of-continuing-resolutions-on-the-department-of-defense- and-services.

In short, a yearlong CR will make us less competitive with our adversaries and less able to respond to the rapidly changing global landscape, and these are some things--these efforts are not something the Defense Department can do on its own. We need to fund our diplomats and our law enforcement and all Agencies of the Federal Government.

Indeed, we cannot afford to shortchange nondefense priorities. A CR will not adequately fund our Defense Department nor our domestic Agencies. Stating the obvious, we are still in the midst of the COVID- 19 pandemic. Are we truly willing to fund the NIH and the CDC and other public health Agencies at last year's levels? Are we willing to tell school systems to make do with the same funding levels for critical programs like title I? Are we going to cut funding for housing rental assistance? Are we willing to shortchange law enforcement, including the Capitol Police?

We need to get our work done. That begins with reaching an agreement that provides the funding Americans need on both sides of the ledger. A full-year CR is not an acceptable solution. I am hopeful that agreement is near. But no one should believe those who claim to support our national defense while threatening a yearlong CR, and no one should claim that our domestic needs are somehow unworthy of support as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source