Rep. Scott Rigell has been on the move.
Just in his third term -- he's vowed to serve only six -- the Virginia Republican has already moved from the House Armed Services to the Appropriations Committee -- and is now eyeing a seat in the next Congress on the coveted Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.
The retired Marine Corps Reservist has the largest concentration of service members of any congressional district and is the only Virginia congressman on the House Appropriations Committee, following the retirements this year of Democrat Jim Moran and Republican Frank Wolf.
In a sitdown interview with POLITICO in his Capitol Hill office, Rigell discussed the ever-pressing appropriations issues, the war against the Islamic State, the looming threat of more military base closures, the Ohio-class replacement submarine and other issues. Here are some edited excerpts:
You've advocated for Congress to take up a resolution to authorize the war against the Islamic State. Is there any hope for those efforts?
The probability is low, very low, close to nil. It's unfortunate. It certainly is not a partisan matter.
You moved this year from the Armed Services Committee to the Appropriations Committee. What was that like?
My chief of staff told me that he thought I would really enjoy my work on Appropriations. And I was so busy with my work on HASC that I didn't really have time to process it. I didn't really know what he meant by that. I know now. It's essentially the breadth of issues that are coming before Appropriations. It's a much smaller committee. And the range of things that we're covering and addressing, even within the subcommittees on the committees that I do serve on, it's fascinating. And I have really enjoyed my work. We know, of course, the work that's being done on Appropriations is very important because ultimately that's where the allocation of scarce dollars is being determined, so there's an intense level of interest in this matter.
Do you agree with the assessment that HASC makes a lot of noise but Appropriations is where the real power is?
You're putting me in a tough spot right there. I'd say this, that both committees are certainly essential. I am deeply grateful for the time that I spent on House Armed Services. But there is something about the ultimate decision as to whether a dollar is deposited into an account or not. It's one thing to make an authorizing decision. But, to either fund or not fund something, there's a substantive difference in that. And I think we needed someone from the Commonwealth. There had been someone from the Commonwealth on Appropriations since '79.
Are you going to push for a spot on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in the next Congress?
Yeah, I'm going to work hard to move over. But let me say, I'm fully focused on the committee assignments that I do have. I'm grateful for them. It's important work.
You're an advocate for term limits and have committed to serving no more than six terms. If you had a spot on HAC-D, and it took you four terms to get there, is that really what's best for your constituents?
I am a believer in term limits. I advocate for that. I sense that 12 years, which would be the equivalent of two terms for a U.S. senator, I believe that that's proper. Me self-limiting to six -- I don't think that it's in any way inhibited my service here. It's not in any way affecting my decision-making. It certainly isn't affecting leadership's decision-making about my ability to serve. There are many many good years ahead.
There was a fight this year between authorizers and appropriators over funding for the Navy Ohio-class replacement submarine, with the authorizers prevailing in their amendment to establish a defense-wide account to fund the new sub. Where do you come down?
As an appropriator, as I looked at what that account would have done, and, frankly, what it would not have done -- it would not have added $1 to the shipbuilding program. It wouldn't have that direct effect. It wouldn't have made the cost of a submarine any less. We all believe in the program. But I believe that we have the mechanisms in place with the current structure.
Will authorizers have to fight each year to get appropriators to put money in that account?
Absent some fundamental change in how we view things on Appropriations, I'd say the answer to that is yes. In all likelihood, this will continue to come up. But what we're on agreement on, and I think importantly, is the need to fully fund our national defense initiatives and the procurement programs.
Would you like to see negotiations with the White House for a budget deal to replace the Budget Control Act spending caps?
As of today, I would fully support the complete cancellation of an August recess unless and until these issues are resolved.
Could you support a deal that had new revenues?
I could not only support it. I've said that we as Republicans need to consider it as part of a comprehensive plan. This is a very sensitive subject, and it needs to be said in the same breath from me that we've had massive tax increases since I've been in office. That said, let's say for example, a hypothetical, if we had a 10-to-1, I mean a legitimate 10-to-1 or 15-to-1, that is a reduction in expense to one dollar in revenue, would we categorically object to that? This is one reason I told [anti-tax advocate] Grover Norquist, after several conversations, that I'm completely de-linking my office from his organization and from that pledge. Mathematically, it's not defensible.
Congress seems to be getting a little more open this year to the idea of another round of base closures. What's your take?
The fundamental problem that I have is the embedded costs that are associated with closures. We've got to do what's right for our country and put what's best for our country ahead of all else, and that means the potential of absorbing a hit locally if that's what's best for our country. And I think representatives need to be willing to do that. I come to this place mindful of that and also my strong need to be an advocate for the 2nd District.
When we close a base, we're not just putting some chain around it and just buttoning it up and letting the vines and the grass grow. We have got so many requirements and unnecessary regulations through the EPA and other federal agencies -- these things have to be restored to like their original pristine environment. There are millions and hundreds of millions of dollars that have to be put into this. The value proposition of that has not been made to me -- that is, that we're really saving money.