Date: 1981-12-04
Speaker: ROBERT C. BYRD (democrat)
Chamber: S

Mr. Presidenl I yield myself such time as I may re quire. Mr. President. I am offering a senseoftheSenate resolution on the American Navy. It has been obvious for a number of years that disturbing trends have beset our maritime capability. Our shipbuilding capacity has diminished over the years. Our commercial carriers cannot compete effectively with foreign carriers without subsidies. both in construction and operations. Our fighting naval forces have decreased steadily. Today we have about 450 active naval vessels: 10 years ago we had about 700. In the meantime. the Soviet Union has changed the missions. composition. and size of Its navy. The Soviet Union has about 1.000 combatant ships. well over double the U.S. number. Their forces are not strictly comparable to our own. They have not built the formidable aircraft carrier that we have. Nevertheless. they have built a "bluewater" navy. able to operate on a sustained basis In the farflung waters of the globe. They have steadily increased operations In our back yard. the Caribbean. and have slowly but surely developed a naval relationship with Cuba. They have formidable fleets in the Mediterranean. North Atlantic. and Pacific Oceans. I think all Senators will agree that unmatched naval forces are not a luxury for the United States. We are an islanid nation. our principal allies in the NATO alliance all lie across the ocean. we have vital commitments in the Fahr East. we are trying to establish a viable naval presence In the Persian Gulf. Our Navy has many functions. Traditionally. It has had to safeguard the sea *lanes for American and free world commerce and assure continued access to raw materials essential to the health of the Western economies. It has had to fulfill many military assignments. Including serving as a viable -leg of our strategic Triad. preparedness to engage any eniemy naval force successfully. and conducting various operations In support of our diplomatic and military commitments around the world.. These functions are now being supplermented with new taskings to project effective and sustainable forces in new rareas of the globe. newv environments and not always with the nearby support of reliable allies. In the face of these traditionally demanding requirements and newv taskSings. It was clear that renewed attention -to the state of our Navy has been in Sorder. I thought. Mr. President. that the y very dramatic testimony of our new Snaval leaders during the opening months -of the present Congress would bring some t needed chlange. Both Navy Secretary SLehman and Chief of Naval Operations -Admiral Hayward testified to an alarming deterioration of capacity in our o Naval Forces. Admiral Hayward. for Instance. stated in Senate testimony on February 5. 1981. ethat: 0 ror the first time In anyones recollection. 6t the U.S. Navy Is unable fully to meet Its peacetime commitments. He said that: our margin of comfort Is totally gone. We are operating at the ragged edge of adequacy when It comes to our globally disposed Naval Forces. We have been able to manage only because our forces have not been subjected to the added stress of combat anywhere In the world. The theme was that we have too few battle groups to cover too many commitments. too many oceans. too many contingencies. He went on to say that: The situation today Is so murky one cannot. with confidence. state that the U.S. possesses a margin of superiority. If we do. It Is so cloudy and tenuous as to be unreliableboth as a deterrent and as assuranice of our ability to prevail at sea In R conflict with the Soviets. The Secretary of tile Navy testified that over the last few years. the Soviet Union has built almost three times as many major warships as we. "During this period. they have conlstructed at least 18 classes of surface warships and submarines. In comparison. we are presently building seven. three of which derive from a single design." The result of the steady imbalance of effort between us and the Soviets in thi area leads to the cssessment by the present Secretary of the Navy that "after more than a decade of these adverse trends. I believe that our former narrow margin of superiority is gone. I believe that in some circumstances the Soviets can militarily interfere. with our adcess to vital requirements simultaneously and can reasonably be judged able to prevail in at least some of those areas." It is true that the American Navy still possesses considerable advantages over the Soviet Navy. We still have greater than a twotoone advantage in total tonlnage. Our ability to operate is far superior In many important respects. Perhaps most importantly. we carry our air cover with us on our carriers. But the Soviet Navy also possesses advantages that we do not have. For instance. 15 sorts of surface warships and submarines carry at least one kind of cruise missile. Soviet strategy seems designed to seize and secure Initiative with a single killing salvo. Missilecarrying surface ships and submarines. moving without tactical formation. could trigger surprise preemptive strikes. We do not as yet have an effective defense against this threat. Soviet naval developments are moving rapidly and should not be underestimated. Recently. the Soviets have launched a giant 30.000ton ballistic missile submarine. dub~bed the "Tyohoon." one that is far bigger than its U.S. counterpart. the 18.000ton Trident. U.S. naval analysts have been repeatedly surprised by the size and ambitious designs of the vessels that are now fleshing out the Soviet Navy. They have also deployed the worlds deepestdiving. fastest and only titaniumhulled submarine. Indeed. intelligence sources have been quoted in the public press that the Russian submarinebuilding complex Is the world s largest. producing at a rate of six to eight boats every year. We produce less than half that. If they are behind in aircraf t carriers. they will not be behind Indefinitely. Although they have nothing to match our fleet of 12 superearriers. they have already launched two smaller carriers. which are about onethird the size of our own. and are scheduled to commisSioni two more within the next 3 years. They handle vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. a development some of our naval experts in the Senate believe the United States ought to investigate for our own carrier forces. The administration stated on many occasions that one goal. one benchmark that we could use to revitalize our Navy. was to increase the pace of shipbuilding so that we had -at least the midnimumn number of naval units available to try to meet our many commitments more adequately -and without straining our resources to the bitter end. The administration talked about a 6000ship Navy. Indeed. published reports Indicated a 700ship Navy was being looked at by sometime in the 1990s. According to a report in the Washington Star on March 28. 1981: Secretary Weinberger was considering a plan that could Initiate the most ambitious U.S. shipbuilding program since World War IlaL program aimed at Increasing the Navys Pleet to between 700 and 80D shipb within 15 years. According to that article. by Mr. John Fialka: A Navy source said that. In light of the growing Soviet naval threat. the 700- to S00. ship Navy is under serious consideration. He said: The 600ship Navy was merely used. as a "benchmark."~ the minimum the Navy o ught to hasve. The Secretary of the Navy and others Indicated that a 600ship Navy. at least. would be a goal worth pursuing. Mr. President. we do not have any real concept of what kind of Navy this administration Is contemplating. How many ships? What kind of ships? Yes. we have a few ideas. We have endorsed the concept of bringing battleships out of mothballs as new multimission platforms. We are endorsing new supercarrier construction. But the details of* the longrange naval plan have simply not been. made available. Mr. President. the details of such a plan are legally required to besubmitted every year with the administrations budget submission. The legal requirement was laid down in 1977 in the Department of Defense Authorization Act. section 808. The Secretary of Defense must. according to that section. submit his revisions of the 5year naval ship new construction and conversion program "concurrent with the submission of the Presidents budget." Each year. this 5year revision has not been submitted to the Senate. by the Present administration. so far as I am aware. That is understandable. to some extent. The new administration needed time to get going. But It is now December. A new budget cycle is about to begin. I hope that we have not established a precedent here. We expect to receive the administrations plan with the new budgetwe would like to -have it right now. But 1 year of grace in this area should not be taken as carte blanche to never give the Senate any sensible longterm Plan in the -naval area. A 600ship Navy is an adequate goal to start with. Some say it is too ambitious. Certainly It should be somewhat flexible because new designs will inevitably bring different numbers of types of ships. according to the needs and requirements of the new commitments we are entering in~to in the world. But as an approximate number to shoot for. 600 has generally been regarded as a good strong goal. I am concerned that instead of moving toward that goal. however. we are not making any progress at all. The rhetoric concerning the need for new ships has not been matched by the hard realities in this bill. This bill provides for $9.2 billion in shipbuilding funds. I do not fault the subcommittee. The administrations revised budget request asked for some $1 billion less than that. But put this in perspective. Studies done in the Senate indicate that the funds needed to achieve a 600ship Navy by the year 1992 would amount to about $25 billion per year. every year. Even If we were to defer our 000ship goal to the year 2000. more than $18 billion per year would be needed. This is if the general mix of ship types that are currently In our Inventory Is carried forward. I think we should be creative. we need new designs. but we certainly need many more of the general types of ships that we are currently operating. I we are to achieve the goal of a 600ship Navy by 1992. the annual cost in 1982 constant dollars. according to the Armed Services Committee staff study. will be about $25.5 billion. of which about $19.5 billion would have to be dedicated to battle group and convoyrelated ships. and $6.0 billion to strategic submarines. amphibious and support ships. If we are to stretch our 600ship goal to the year 2000. then about $18.5 billion per year would be needed. of which $12.5 billion would go to the battle group and convoyrelated ships and $6.0 billion to strategic subs. amphibious. and support ships. We could go Into considerable detail on this. but there are some very serious problems which must be overcome to reach our goal. The aircraft carrier inventory. for instance. will require 11 replacements or service life extensions In 13 years. a very ambitious and expensive program. Second. the nuclear attack submarine building program will have to be Increased from the present rate of 2 to 5 per year. Third. the cruise guided missile destroyer forces present a very formidable challenge. To meet the 1992 schedule. we would have to build 10 per year versus the current rate of 3. How much is in the bill before us for Navy shipbuilding? The figure Is $9.2 billion. This is only about onehalf the money needed if we want a 600ship Navy by the end of the century. The current administrations program is not substantially different from the previous program. Last year. we authorized 18 new construction Navy ships. 11 of them combat ships. This year. It is 17 new construction ships. 8 of them combiat ships. m~ Well as the refit of 2 battleships. For a 600ship Navy. we would need somewhere around 25 battle group and convoyrelated ships alone. not counting submarines. amphibious ships and supporting ships and aircraft. The resolution I am offering is very straightforward. It recognizes the expanding commitments we are calling upon our Navy to make. its multitude of roles. and expresses support for an expanded Navy of approximately 600 ships by at least the year 2000. which is a flexible goal depending on new designs and the specific details of our naval missions as they evolve to meet new contingencies. It asks the Secretary of Defense to comply with the law in submitting his new changes to the naval shipbuilding program concurrent with the administrations budget submission. This is a modest resolution. The goal endorses the program we all believe reflects the administrattions thinking and lias. broad congressional support. It asks that the necessary details be provided to the Congress as Is mandated by the law. I ask for the adoption of the amendment. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment in the following fashion: Line 24. after the words "Authorization Act of 1976." strike the remainder of line 24. the entire line 25. the entire line 26. and the words on line 27 "fiscal year.".