Rep. Rob Wittman: “U.S. presence is the way that we deter bad behavior”

Click Here for Audio Version

Frank Gaffney: It is a delight always to have a chance to talk with the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s Readiness Subcommittee. His name is Rob Wittman, he represents the people of the first district of Virginia, where we’ve caught up with him today I’m very pleased to say. He brings uncommon intelligence to the business of national defense and it is a subject on which I know he’s passionate and we’re deeply appreciative of his leadership. Congressman welcome back, good to have you with us sir.

Rep. Rob Wittman: Frank it’s an honor and privilege to be back with you.

FG: You know I thought of you immediately when I saw the other day a report that indicated that of the ten aircraft carriers that we have in the fleet these days, we only have five of them ready to be at sea and engage in operations, and none of them at the moment is assigned to the Middle East. At a moment when, for reasons you know better than I, there is a lot of ferment taking place; as the Chairman of the Shipbuilding Caucus, as a member of the Sea power Subcommittee, as well as the Chairman of the Readiness Committee, what do you make of this state of affairs Congressman, the adequacy of our carrier battle groups to the tasks we’re giving them?

RW: Well we absolutely need to have a full complement of eleven aircraft carriers Frank. Today, as you know, we only have ten, which requires that sometime not have a presence in certain critical areas of the world, and obviously having a carrier in CENTCOM, in the Central Command, which would be there in the North Arabian Sea in that area I think is critical. When we have these periods of really short duration but still an absence of U.S. presence there. It does create a challenge and it’s one of those things that we talk about constantly about the continued need to build aircraft carriers. It’s our forward presence as we reduce base structure around the world, the only way we project more presence is with those aircraft carriers, so it’s important to make sure we stay on track building new ones. The Gerald R. Ford will be delivered to the Navy in 2016, but remember it will take that carrier a little short of four years before it becomes operational and that’s because it’s the newest carrier in a class, and a lot of testing has to go in to make sure when it goes on deployment it’s ready to go, so that also elongates the time where we’re going to effectively with ten carries, and we have what is called a “2 + 3”, that is two carriers, four deployed, one in the Central Command, one in the Pacific Command, and then three ready to go incase and then they rotate on what’s called tier readiness, so in order to have the ability to surge, if necessary, you have to have eleven, because you always have one that’s going under the refueling, one that’s undergoing significant shipyard work, and time too for the sailors to rest and then they have to retrain and get back, so you know folks looking to go gosh why with eleven carriers do we only have you know it would be six for deployed there, but now with ten we only have we only have five. That’s the challenge it creates for us and the world doesn’t wait around and say you know we’ll wait for a carrier to come out of yard. You know we see things happening in the South China Sea, in the North Arabian Gulf, all those areas around the world. These threats continue and U.S. presence is the way that we deter bad behavior, but also can respond in many ways to keep things from accelerating to points where it becomes very problematic for us.

FG: Yeah and I wanted to ask you about the South China Sea Congressman Rob Wittman, because of course this is a place where we’re seeing what I think has to be regarded as provocative behavior by the Chinese, as they’re manufacturing islands, and fortifying them, and then declaring them to be basically keep out zones. Whether their anxious to have the resources or to control navigation through very important waters as you know. Talk about what it mean for us not to have a regular presence, let alone a permanent presence, in those water to contest and as you say to deter possible bad behavior.

RW: Well you know we have to have a presence their Frank and we do have agreements with countries in the region, from Australia to Singapore, and you know I’ve visited the Philippines a number of times. They have a strong desire to have a U.S. Navy presence there. They want to improve the Subic Bay facilities so that we can birth ships there. They understand the importance of U.S. naval presence within that particular area, and it’s the only way that we can realistically contest as you said the areas that China claims for itself. They’re taking islands, the Spratly Islands, that belong to the Philippines, reclaiming those islands which means they’re pumping sand, building large land structures out of which are just tiny out croppings of land in the South China Sea, and from that they’re improving those islands, so they’re putting facilities on there that can support ships. There’s only one reason you do that and that is to be able to project that power into the Pacific. What we have to do is to contest that area under the International Treaty of the Seas. Those islands are not considered sovereign territory, so we can sail our warships within 12 miles of the borders of those islands, and we must do that because absent that, we then capitulate to China and what they will claim is, well nobody is contesting our claim therefore it is, and we must understand that China is going to be aggressive. Their going to push the limits of what they believe their claims to be, even if it’s counter to international law and the United States is the only country I think on the face of the earth that can successfully contest China’s claim in that area and that means naval presence, and as you know one of the things I’ve advocated for is a robust Navy, and we don’t have enough ships now to have presence and to counter these threats around the world and you know it’s not just China. It’s Russian presence now especially with their new class of nuclear submarines, so those threats continue to materialize around the world.

FG: We’re going to be talking momentarily with Bill Gertz who’s been breaking stories about a new submarine drone. Let me ask you about one other issue in your large portfolio. The Natural Resources Committee is another that you serve on. President Obama, of course since we’ve last talked, has decided to the block the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline in the United States. What are your thoughts on the implications of that decision, and will Congress try to overturn it?

RW: Well I know Congress will take every effort to allow the Keystone Pipeline to be built, although it is an executive permitting process that allows that to happen, but I think there are some actions Congress can take at least in the meantime to keep the issue in the forefront of people’s minds. It’s hard for us to circumvent the decision that’s made by the President, but it doesn’t mean that we can continue to keep it in the forefront, and hopefully the next president will look at this differently. I think it’s very problematic Frank. It’s problematic from an economic standpoint, an economic impact that it has in the United States. There’s a safety issue there, we know that that oil can still come to the United States. It can come here on rail cars and we’ve seen in recent history some of the disasters that have happened with the transportation of petroleum products on rail cars, so there’s a safety issue there, and of course I would also argue an environmental issue there, with it being much less safe to transport it by rail car then it would be by pipeline. There’s an energy independence component of that to make sure that we have the ability to produce energy for this nation to meet our demands and a close partner like Canada that’s willing to sell oil to us rather than countries in the Middle East to me it makes strategic sense, to have that not only with Canada as a partner but to have that petroleum that we need in this country, and refine it here to make sure that we are less dependent on oil from nations that don’t like us.

FG: I couldn’t agree more. Congressman we have less than a minute with you. I just wanted to ask going to what might happen to that oil if we don’t bring it here. Is it will go to China it might be used in a way that is even more damaging to the environment then it would be the case here. One of the things that is of course in play at the moment, speaking of carriers, is Ash Carter, the Secretary of Defense, has suggested that the Trans Pacific Partnership would be worth a carrier to the United States military, because it will keep China out and help shore up our position in the Pacific. Have you taken a position on the TPP and what do you make of that particular line of reasoning?

RW: Well Frank, as you know recently the TPP has become available for us to read and I am going through it but I can tell you in my beginning examinations of that, I have deep deep concerns and reservations about the TPP, and Frank the only thing that replaces an aircraft carrier is an aircraft carrier and while Ash Carter may make assertions of what an agreement route might do there’s nothing that replaces that sovereign four and a half acres of U.S. sovereignty other than a United States aircraft carrier.

FG: Amen we need more of them. We appreciate again what your trying to do to make sure the ones we have are ready and the ones that we need are getting built. Congressman Rob Wittman, of the first district of Virginia, keep up that good work sir, God bless you and we’ll talk with you again very soon.