National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. AKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say that I understand the importance of trying to control spending in this government, and I am very much thankful to the gentleman from Arizona to be wanting to do that.
The concern that we have is that when you take a look at where we are in terms of our military right now, we have some very big problems. Just standing back away from it and looking at it for a little bit, if you say, how many troops do we have, how many ships do we have, how many aircraft do we have, and you compare where we are today with where we were 20 years ago, in 1990, we have half of what we had in 1990.
So we have reduced our military in half. We have the same number of ships today as what we had in 1916.
Now, one of the reasons for paying attention to earmarks was so that we would pay more attention to doing a good job of oversight. This committee has really worked hard at oversight. We have identified areas where we think the Pentagon was wrong, where the President was wrong, and we have taken that money out. Now we are going to be punished for taking it out by having it taken away.
The point of the matter is we are redirecting the money, but we are allowing a certain amount of flexibility. The places where this money has got to be spent are, first, ballistic and cruise missile defense. This is a very, very big deal for the Navy. The Chinese have very high-speed cruise missiles. We have to be able to defend against them.
Navy shipbuilding, we have already talked about that. We have the same number of ships as we had in 1916.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from California has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. McKEON. In the time I've been in Congress, as the gentleman said, our military has basically been cut in half, and yet we are fighting two wars and half of a third. And Ronald Reagan said that during his lifetime he never saw us get into a war that we were overprepared for. We cut back after every war. This is the first time I have seen us trying to cut back during wartime.
I ask that we defeat the gentleman's amendment. As well intended as it is, we need the money for the defense of this Nation.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 63 OFFERED BY MR. ELLISON
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 63 printed in House Report 112-88.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 616, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 13 on page 617.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 276, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment that will cut $150 million in unnecessary defense funding.
Congress must reassess our budgetary priorities. We should not be in the business of needlessly increasing defense spending while simultaneously cutting spending for critical services that Americans depend upon. Without my amendment, Congress will needlessly approve $150 million for the LHA 7 amphibious warship program. Now, let me be clear. I'm not against such a program in its own right, but I am against authorizing this funding for FY12 because the Government Accountability Office and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower said we shouldn't do it. And they have very good reasons for coming to that conclusion.
First of all, according to the Government Accountability Office report, which I have in my hand and I intend to submit into the Record, these funds won't even be used in fiscal year 2012. The report states that contractor delays and labor shortages ``will likely have implications on the ability of the shipbuilder to start construction of LHA 7 as currently planned.''
If we do not authorize these funds, our national security will not be harmed. The GAO reports that FY11 funds already appropriated will be sufficient to cover the costs of the program and expenses for LHA 7 in FY12. As the report makes clear, and I quote again, Madam Chair, ``most of the construction costs for LHA 7 will not be incurred until fiscal year 2013.''
Given the GAO's recommendation, the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower did the right thing. They cut funding for the LHA 7. However, that funding was reinstated in the full committee. Given that the funds will not even be able to be used in FY12 due to contractor delays, why was $150 million reinstated in the full committee? Well, I can tell you that a Republican gentleman from Mississippi sits on the Armed Services Committee, and he represents a district on the coast with a very large shipbuilder in it.
Let's review momentarily. At a time when Congress is cutting critical heating assistance programs, education, and health care, why should it authorize defense spending for work that military contractors aren't even prepared to do?
Without my amendment, Congress is set to increase funding for the LHA 7 warship at a time when we are slashing critical domestic spending programs that Americans count on.
This is a commonsense amendment, Madam Chair, and it follows that the GAO and the Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower said we should do. We should cut $150 million for the LHA 7 warship program. I'll leave it to you and your imagination as to why the funding was reinstated at the full committee.
I urge my colleagues to reassess our budgetary priorities and authorize funds for when they can actually be used. Spending should not be authorized prematurely, especially when Congress is cutting other critical programs.
LHA Replacement, Shipbuilding and Conversion (SCN), Fiscal Year 2012--Line 3041
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The LHA program will provide the functional replacement for the LHA 1 Class ships which are reaching the end of their extended service lives. The program is to ensure that the amphibious fleet remains capable of Expeditionary Warfare well into the 21st century and provide for an affordable and sustainable amphibious ship development program. LHA 6, the lead ship, was authorized in fiscal year 2007. Fabrication of LHA 6 started in January 2008 and it is currently scheduled for delivery in October 2013. The Navy requested funding for the first follow-on ship, LHA 7, in its fiscal year 2011 budget request and requested an additional $2018.7 million in fiscal year 2012 to fully fund the ship. The Navy awarded an advance procurement contract for LHA 7 in June 2010, and planned to award the construction contract in November 2010.
[Dollars in millions] Fiscal year
2010 2011 2012
Funding/Request $169.5 $942.8 $2,018.7
Potential Reduction $2,018.7
Source for Funding/Request: Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Estimates for Shipbuilding and Conversion programs (P-1); Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-10 .
REASON FOR REDUCTION
The Navy's fiscal year 2012 shipbuilding and conversion budget request for LHA 7 could be reduced by $2018.7 million because the funds are premature to program needs. The Navy expected to award a contract for construction of LHA 7 in November 2010--at the start of fiscal year 2011--but the contract award has been delayed and is unlikely to occur until fiscal year 2012. While the Navy currently plans to begin construction of LHA 7 in May 2012, it is likely that construction will be delayed. Ongoing shipyard labor shortages have resulted in schedule delays on LHA 6 and will likely have implications on the ability of the shipbuilder to start construction of LHA 7 as currently planned. Given the delay in contract award and the likelihood that the start of construction may slip, the program will not need the majority of funding until fiscal year 2013. Fiscal year 2011 funding will be available in fiscal year 2012 to ensure that the shipbuilder can purchase materials necessary to meet its build schedule--activities originally scheduled to take place in fiscal year 2011. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 authorized the Navy to split funding for LHA 7 construction over fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Should Congress choose to take the suggested action, LHA may need multiyear contracting authority that includes fiscal year 2013.
The Navy anticipated awarding a contract for LHA 7 construction in November 2010--at the start of fiscal year 2011. To date, the Navy has not yet awarded a contract--a delay of at least rive months. According to the Navy, it received the shipbuilder's proposal in April 2011. The program office reported that they would like to award the contract by the end of fiscal year 2011--5 months or less after receiving the shipbuilder's proposal--but acknowledged that they would most likely award a contract in fiscal year 2012. By comparison, the construction contract for LHA 6 was not awarded until over 14 months after receiving the contractor's proposal. Program officials believe that the construction contract for LHA 7 will take less time to negotiate than the lead ship. However, even if the Navy reduced the time to award to 7 months, half the time required to negotiate the LHA 6 contract, the award would still occur in November 2011--in fiscal year 2012 and a full year later than planned.
Further, it is likely that the start of construction for LHA 7 will be delayed past its current estimated date of May 2012 due to ongoing shipyard labor shortages. Delivery of LHA 6 has been delayed twice primarily as a result of labor issues. The most recent delay, announced in the fiscal year 2012 budget, pushed delivery of the ship from April to October 2013. Program officials reported that the shipyard is currently drawing down labor, but will have to increase labor resources to meet the increased shipyard demand starting in fiscal year 2013. However, the shipbuilder may have difficulty effectively increasing labor resources to meet the needs of Navy programs. In addition to the LHA class, construction of LPD 26 and LPD 27 is expected to begin in late 2011 and 2012. The program office acknowledged that the construction start date for LHA 7 may slip past its current estimate, and some Navy estimates put construction start in early 2013. The actual construction start date will be negotiated as part of the LHA contract award.
Since activities originally planned to take place in 2011 will most likely occur in 2012, 2011 funding should be sufficient for the program through 2012.
PROGRAM OFFICE COMMENTS
The Navy indicated that it strongly disagrees with GAO's assessment of the LHA(R) program and the proposed reduction of fiscal year 2012 funding. The Navy believes it can award the contract by the end of this fiscal year, in August or September 2011. According to the Navy, construction will start as currently planned in May 2012, as it has worked with the contractor to mitigate construction schedule risk by using the advance procurement funds to buy long lead time materials. According to the Navy, a reduction to fiscal year 2012 funding would impact the program's ability to procure required Contractor Furnished Equipment, disrupt the ship's engineering and production schedule and cause significant disruption in the industrial base. The Navy believes there is significant risk that fiscal year 2011 funds would not cover required expenditures if the second increment of funds were not appropriated until fiscal year 2013. According to the Navy, failure to procure government furnished equipment systems as planned will negatively affect the unit cost of these systems for LHA 7 and other platforms. The Navy also states that the entire shipbuilding plan for fiscal year 2013 and later years would be impacted by a delay of LHA 7 funding.
GAO RESPONSE
Although the Navy believes it can award a construction contract for LHA 7 within four to five months, past experiences negotiating contracts with the shipbuilder have taken considerably longer. As we stated previously, the LHA 6 contract was awarded 14 months after the Navy received the initial proposal from the shipbuilder. While the Navy indicates that it has mitigated construction schedule risk by procuring long lead time materials, there is still significant risk of construction delays associated with ongoing
labor shortages and a projected increase in shipyard demand starting in fiscal year 2013 due to construction on multiple ship programs. The shipbuilder has been unable to effectively manage labor resources on LHA 6. Ongoing labor shortages increase the risk that the shipbuilder will remain unable to meet increased shipyard demand in fiscal year 2013, which increases the likelihood that construction start of LHA 7 will also be delayed.
In its comments, the Navy indicated concerns about having enough funding to acquire equipment and materials for LHA 7. However, program officials previously reported to GAO that fiscal year 2011 funding will cover materials and that the program was waiting for the construction contract award before placing some orders for materials. The program has already received $169.5 million in advance procurement money to acquire long lead time materials, and received $942.8 million in fiscal year 2011.
The program can use this money to purchase materials as planned. Most of the construction costs for LHA 7 will not be incurred until fiscal year 2013. Accordingly, the fiscal year 2012 budget request could be reduced by $2018.7 million.
At this time, I would yield 1 minute to the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Adam Smith.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment. I think it's really important to understand what's going on here. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The original purpose for this money, it was $200 million, it was determined to no longer be valid for all the reasons that were stated. They couldn't spend the money. But we had $200 million floating around, and they hate to give back $200 million in the Defense Committee, so they grabbed $150 million of it and simply designated it, broadly speaking, to shipbuilding. We do this a lot. Mr. Flake spoke about this in the other amendment. And I understand there are Members who are concerned about the top line within the defense budget and holding it.
I think it's important where we spend the money. We have to have a reason to spend it. We just have to say, well, there's $150 million. We would kind of like to have it because who knows? We might need it at some point.
We can't afford that in our current deficit environment, to simply set aside $150 million. I know we're going to talk about shipbuilding. I heard about it a little bit before. Yes, we have fewer ships than we had in 1916. I would submit that our Navy today is vastly more capable than our Navy back in 1916 because our sheer numbers of ships is not the only factor that matters. It kind of matters what their capabilities are.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Throughout the bill--and we have an amendment coming up after this that is the same sort of thing. There is a lot of money in the defense budget that gets appropriated, and then for whatever reason we find out we can't actually build what it was intended for, and then we just hold on to the money because we might use it later. That is not an efficient way to spend money.
And I'm sorry. The deficit does matter to our national security. As has been quoted earlier, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that our deficit, in fact, is the number one threat to our national security. So we have to save money where we can. Clearly, this is a place where we can save money.
I urge support for the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALAZZO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Minnesota's amendment. Put simply, the gentleman's amendment would further delay the funding of a ship that our Navy and Marine Corps wants and needs.
LHA 7 is a part of the next generation of large deck amphibious assault ships, just similar to the USS Kearsarge, which just returned after an 8 1/2 -month-long deployment to where they participated in strikes in Libya and humanitarian assistance and other missions. This America class amphibious assault ship will be serving our country and providing a vital mission capability for years to come.
The President's very own 2012 budget request included $2 billion for the second year of incremental funding for LHA 7. Previous Congresses have supported this ship and her procurement, and further delays to this funding are opposed by this administration, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the House Armed Services Committee.
My colleague mentioned, by the way, the GAO report. The Navy strongly disagrees with the GAO report that the gentleman has pointed to. The Navy has the shipbuilder's proposal in hand and at this point is working to complete negotiations to get this ship under contract this year, which may happen as soon as August.
The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have all endorsed a minimum naval fleet of 313 ships, of which 33 of those ships are going to be amphibious in nature. If the gentleman's amendment were to become law, the contract for this amphibious ship could be delayed. The ship's delivery to the fleet would be delayed, and the overall cost of the ship would go up.
It seems to me, as a Member of Congress, that we need to support programs and policies that enable our men and women in uniform to get the best possible equipment at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. The gentleman's amendment does just the opposite.
This amendment also jeopardizes American jobs. Nearly 3,500 shipbuilders depend on the ship for work. Cuts to this ship's funding, delays in contracting, and political gamesmanship put these jobs at risk.
Furthermore, the gentleman's amendment provides absolutely no cost savings. It just forces the Navy to budget more for the ship next year, and overall it increases the cost to the taxpayer. This amendment does not just delay LHA-7; this amendment potentially delays our next aircraft carrier, our next submarine, and our next destroyer.
Finally, the gentleman's amendment is not good for the taxpayer, and it is not good for the Navy or the Marine Corps. Previous Congresses have endorsed the procurement of this ship, the administration and the Navy have endorsed the procurement of this ship, and American jobs depend on the procurement of this ship.
I urge my colleagues in the House to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the chairman of the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee.
Mr. AKIN. As the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, we have taken a good look at LHA-7, and this is an absolutely essential ship. Nobody is arguing that point. It is a large deck amphib assault.
What has happened, though, is that the Marine Corps decided that they wanted to put a well deck in the original design, which has caused some additional negotiations and slowed things down a little bit. But the point of this amendment is to strip $150 million away from this project. That is a very big problem. It is a big problem because next year we have got an aircraft carrier to build, a nuclear-powered submarine, and a destroyer, and this money needs to come from the budget this year in order to keep the LHA-7 on track.
As we have talked about earlier this evening, we are in a bad position in terms of number of ships in the Navy. LHA-7 is critical, it is important, and stripping $150 million does tend to threaten the project, or at least push it off, and then you have to try and fund it in a year when we don't have the funds because we are building a bunch of other ships. So what this does is it guarantees that LHA-7 is going to proceed, but we have to allow enough time for the negotiations.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. AKIN. No, I don't yield.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri controls the time.
Mr. AKIN. The point of the matter is that LHA-7 has to go forward, and we have to make sure that we have the funding. As soon as the negotiations are finished between the Navy and the contractor, then we can move ahead on this project. So the $150 million is important. The exact timing of when it is going to be spent is in question, but the necessity to have the money is not in doubt. That is why we oppose this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source