Hearing Of The House Armed Services Committee - China: Recent Security Developments, Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee - Issues Affecting Naval Force Structure

Statement

Hearing Of The House Armed Services Committee - China: Recent Security Developments, Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee - Issues Affecting Naval Force Structure

Chairman Gene Taylor

"Good morning and welcome to the first of many hearings which this subcommittee will undertake on issues affecting the Navy and the Marine Corps. Today's hearing is in advance of the budget submission which is due to arrive to Congress on the first of February. There is a reason we are meeting prior to that date; I do not intend for this subcommittee to ever be a "rubber stamp' of the Department's request no matter which political party occupies the White House.

"As long as I have the honor to be the chairman of this subcommittee, it is my intention to ensure that the American people have the right to witness these issues debated in open session, and to work with all Members of this subcommittee, to recommend an authorization that ensures our Navy and Marine Corps have the ships, aircraft, and equipment they need to do the job they are asked.

"Today is just the first day of the process of arriving at those recommendations. I felt that it was important to start the legislative season with an examination of alternatives of restoring the Navy fleet to the numbers necessary to meet our national security needs. To that end, I have requested our witnesses discuss a wide range of issues affecting Navy force structure, particularly in light of the President's decision in October that the Navy plays a much larger role in theater ballistic missile defense. I personally agree with that decision.

"Having been around awhile, and witnessing the incredible amount of equipment we left behind in places like Panama, I understand that when we base our forces in a foreign land, we are always just one election away from being asked to leave. The move to a sea based BMD capability makes sense to me. Our Navy does not need permission to operate on the high seas.

"However, the Navy and this subcommittee need to remember the "Rule of Three's', which is that to always have a unit forward deployed, you typically need three such units. In the case of destroyers and cruisers I would think it may be as many as four to one. The operational concept of how the Navy intends to fill this task set out by the President will, I am sure, be the subject of a future hearing, likely in coordination with Chairman Langevin's Strategic Forces subcommittee.

"I don't think our Navy is large enough to do the job they are asked to do. But numbers alone are not the answer- which type of ship and in what number is more important than just the quantity. Currently I don't think we match-up well in either total or type of ship quantities.

"There are some who say we don't need our amphibious forces; I disagree. Maneuver from the sea is the only guaranteed access that we can count on; I think we need more, not fewer, amphibs.

"There are those who say we don't need 11 aircraft carriers; I disagree. Those battle groups have done more to maintain the peace in the world for the last 60 years than any other force we maintain. We change that capability at our peril.

"I am convinced we do not have enough fast attack submarines. These boats kept the Soviet Navy in check during the entire cold war and they will keep any other adversary in check as we proceed into this century.

"I am also convinced we do not have enough surface combatants. The evidence is everywhere; we have carriers operating without escort and Amphibs transit in the Strait of Hormuz without an ASW capable ship in company because the escort is off chasing pirates or guarding oil platforms.

"We have a looming need to replace the capability of the Ohio Class strategic missile submarines, but doing so may cripple the Navy shipbuilding budget in the later part of this decade.

"In addition to the hard facts of types of ships and numbers of ships, there are other matters that need debate. This Congress was perfectly clear in the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act that the next generation of cruiser has a nuclear power system for electrical power generation and propulsion. That action was taken based on a clear and present threat that our access to fuel could be restricted and leave the fleet without the ability to conduct major combat operations. It appears that the Navy has decided to cancel the cruiser program. I certainly expect the subcommittee will be evaluating that decision as we go forward.

"My last major concern is the Ohio submarine replacement. I expect to have a standalone hearing on this issue due to its significant importance to our national security. I want to make sure that we have identified the right ship and the right missile before we make a 40 year commitment to a program.

"These are all hard problems to tackle and I look forward to open debate with my colleagues in the coming weeks and months. I am always open to suggestion from the Members of this committee for hearing topics and look forward to their input.

"Today we have three very distinguished experts in Navy acquisition and policy. Dr. Eric Labs is senior naval analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His independent cost analysis of ship construction has proven very helpful to this committee over the years. Mr. Ron O'Rourke is senior research analyst at the Congressional Research Service and routinely provides the Congress with in-depth and well researched papers on capability, cost, and options for future procurement. Finally, Dr. Loren Thompson is the President and Chief Operating Officer at the Lexington Institute. Dr. Thompson has appeared before this committee before and his insight is always helpful."

"For full disclosure, the United States Navy was invited to send representatives to testify today. Secretary Mabus had agreed to do so, with the stipulation that the witnesses would not discuss the upcoming budget submission.

"Subsequently, my understanding is that Secretary Gates denied the Navy permission to testify. While I think we would have had a better hearing with them, I am satisfied that our panel today will have a frank and open discussion on the best way to rebuild our fleet.

"Now I would like to call on the gentleman from Missouri, my friend and partner on this subcommittee, the Honorable Todd Akin."

Source