Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization Budget Request

Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower Holds Hearing on FY2004 Defense Authorization Budget Request for Navy and marine Corps Development and Procurement

COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all I want to congratulate you on your chairmanship and admit for the record that I'm insanely jealous that you rather than I in the chair of the Seapower Subcommittee. But, I look forward to working very closely with you to ensure that our Navy has the resources it needs. I've enjoyed working with both Admiral Clark and General Hagee. I very much appreciate the commitment to much-needed shipbuilding that is in this budget.

And, General, I want to tell you that on Saturday I attended a memorial mass for two marines from Maine who lost their lives in the helicopter crash the very first days of this conflict. The presence of the Marines who attended this mass meant so much to the family. And when the marine presented the folded flag to the mother of the helicopter Captain Obben (ph) who was killed, there was just not a dry eye in the entire church. It was extremely moving. And, I know that the participation of the Marines meant a great deal to the family. So, I just wanted to pass that on to you.

Our thoughts are all with the troops in the Persian Gulf and we support you wholeheartedly.

CLARK:

Thank you, Senator.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

WARNER:

Would the chair yield me just a moment to clarify for the record that this distinguished Senator from Maine would be in that chair had it not been that her peer group saw fit to have her be the chairman of a full Senate Committee, the Government Operations Committee. And, under our rules, quite appropriately, we like to distribute the opportunities among the members. But, I didn't want you to think that the chairman passed you over.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that clarification.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral Clark, I want to, again, reiterate my thanks to you for your good work in putting together the budget request for this year. And, in particular, for funding shipbuilding at a level that will help to remedy some of the deficiencies of the past and put the Navy on the road to recapitalization. There are, however, still challenges that face us. In particular, I have concerns about the procurement of the major surface combatants in the coming years. As I understand it, the Navy will cease construction of the DDG-51 destroyers after 2005 and only fund four DDX destroyers during the 2006 to 2008 timeframe. And, as you are well aware, to sustain the industrial base, four vessels over a three-year period just doesn't make it. It really is totally inadequate. And, at the same time, I think a lesson that we've learned from the last couple of years is the Navy is going to continue to face increased mission requirements.

The problems still a few years off and I realize that. But, I think it's critical that we start talking about it now. What are your thoughts on addressing that gap to make sure that we are sustaining the industrial base as we transition from the DDG to the DDX?

CLARK:

Well, I believe Secretary Young's done a magnificent job in working the industrial base issues and the partnerships that have occurred with the ship swap concept and has made it a reality. And the support of the Congress made those moves possible. And I think these are all things that are out in front of us. And there are some unknowns, Senator. You know, the first unknown is, you know, with the advent of missile defense, do we have our numbers right? How quickly with CGX come online? What will be the impact on this for the DDG, the numbers of DDG's and the cruisers that we have? And, I will tell you that some of those are unknown at the present time. And we're going to have to continue to review those.

I feel good about where we are in the '04 line. There's no doubt about the fact that we are going to have to continue to work that. And if major focus has, you know, as we're working the '04, the '05 submit now as we're up here talking about '04, this is all—these are important issues that we're having to address as we put together the next cycle.

Having said that, it is my conviction that clearly the industrial base is a critical issue for the United States Navy. What makes our future possible is the industrial base. And, so, these numbers and the transition between DDG's and DDX have to be managed very carefully. And, so, the best answer I can give you is that a pledge that that will be done from a standpoint of where my role in the process and as the requirements state, or as opposed to the acquisition executive, making the case for a healthy industrial base.

With regard to the out years, now for the—this is the third year that I've come and talked to you about the issue of the importance of an investment stream that is leveled so that we create better partnerships with industry. One of the things that I'm very proud of in this submission is that you can see that the leadership in the Navy department are reaching toward and for the goals that we have talked about now, this for the third year, that we have to have 12 -- we need to reach the point where we have at least $12 billion in new ship construction so that we can have the kind of Navy that we're
dreaming about.

And what I'm really pleased with is that you see in a progression, a growth, the growth in this year is not hypothetical. It's real. It's not where I want to be yet. You know, we haven't reached the objective, but we are reaching toward that objective in a constructive way. And when we have that kind of level investment stream, we will be able to partner more effectively with industry so that the sizing the industrial base and maintaining the industrial base is going to be a much more productive effort.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Admiral. We've talked often that given the rapidly declining size of the fleet that it's critical that the Navy take every opportunity to maximize the life of vessels that can still provide use that can still provide useful service. In your unfunded priority list includes funds to—or a request for funds that would provide for the refueling of the SSN699, the USS Jacksonville. In the past some people have suggested that the Navy, perhaps, has been too quick to decommission submarines and that has contributed to the decreased force structure that we have today.

What value would the Jacksonville bring to the Navy should funded be made available by this committee so that it could be refueled as opposed to decommissioned?

CLARK:

Well, this is the kind of—this falls, Senator, falls in the category of, in my opening statement, talking about the tough decisions that a person has to make. There are several categories where I had to make judgments like this. The recommendation to decommission the baseline one cruisers was totally and completely an affordability issue. The decision to not refuel of the submarines is an affordability issue. But, this issue and this decision was driven in part by the decision also to invest $4 billion in the reconfiguration of the TRIAD submarines and creating SSGN's. And, so, if you go back and look at this over time, when I got this job there were five submarines that were not in the program to be refueled. And, so, we have reached out and we have pulled some of those into the category that they are now in a program for engineering and refueling overhauls. And, so, we've made the point about total numbers. I've stated often and before the whole committee you asked me if I still believed in 375 and I do believe that that is the right objective to reach toward.

I'm a great believer that capability in individual platforms is even more important than numbers. But, numbers has this quality all of its own. It defines the places that you're going to be able to be. So, Senator, the bottom line is those decisions were made because of affordability reasons. I do not have the resources to retain those ships or the refuel those submarines.

COLLINS:

Finally, Admiral Clark, I'm going to ask you for the record, since I know we want to give our colleague from Rhode Island a chance to get his questions in before the vote. But, for the record, I'm going to submit a question on the increasing role of the Navy in missile defense. I'm very interested in the comments you've made, both orally and in your written testimony. And I would like to explore that with you in a written exchange.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.