Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor Opening Statement Oversight Hearing On Navy Destroyer Acquisition Programs
July 31, 2008
"The hearing will come to order.
"Good morning. This may very well be the most important hearing this subcommittee has held since our hearing last January on the procurement of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles. I thank the Members of the subcommittee for their attendance on this very busy legislative day.
"Because this is such an important topic we are discussing today, the Ranking Member and I extended an invitation to other Members who are not members of this subcommittee to attend. In accordance with the Rules of the House, I ask unanimous consent for our colleagues to participate with us today. Hearing no objection, our colleagues will participate in regular order after all Members of the subcommittee have had the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses. Because of time constraints and the number of Members who wish to ask questions, the clerk will maintain the 5 minute clock during the question and answer period.
"When the Ranking Member and I first called for this hearing, the purpose was to ensure that all of the facts associated with the capabilities and procurement costs of the DDG 1000 and the capabilities and procurement costs of the DDG 51 were discussed in open session by a variety of expert witnesses. We envisioned a hearing that would clear the air of rumor and lay out all the facts without championing any 'side' in the debate.
"Much has changed in one month's time. Last week the Secretary of the Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations announced they would stop the DDG 1000 destroyer class at two ships and re-start the procurement of DDG 51 class destroyers. They propose 8 ships in the 5 year plan beginning next year.
"Predictably, this announcement from the Navy has generated a firestorm here on Capitol Hill. There are Members who are opposed to the decision and Members who support the decision. There also appears to be significant efforts by certain defense contractors to shore up support for the DDG 1000 and have Congress overturn the Navy decision.
"So, we still need a hearing to clear the air on mission capabilities and costs of the two destroyer programs. But now I presume our Navy witnesses, particularly VADM McCullough who is the senior officer in the Navy charged with developing future platforms and technologies, will attempt to educate us on the reasons the Chief of Naval Operations has decided that he can best support the interests of national security with continuing the line of DDG 51 class ships than he can with building the small class of highly capable, but very expensive DDG 1000 destroyers.
"This subcommittee was, and is, concerned with cost estimates for the DDG 1000. But let me be very clear - this subcommittee did not recommend canceling the DDG 1000 as we have been accused in the press. What this subcommittee recommended, and the full House adopted in May of this year, was a pause to the third DDG 1000 while the development of technologies and true costs of construction became known on the first two ships. This subcommittee also recommended allowing the option of returning to DDG 51 class destroyer procurement if the Navy could prove it was in the best interest of the nation to do so. The report accompanying our bill clearly states that the funding provided in the FY 09 National Defense Authorization Act could be used for either DDG 1000 advance procurement or DDG 51 advance procurement.
"I would like to make my position clear: I want the Navy to have the finest, most capable fleet in the world. I want the Navy to have a sufficient number of ships with the capabilities needed to counter next generation threats. I don't think we have enough submarines, and this subcommittee has worked in a bipartisan manner to allow the Navy to increase the production of submarines, my friends Joe Courtney of Connecticut and Rob Wittman of Virginia were instrumental in that effort. I don't think we have enough amphibious assault ships for our expeditionary forces and with the support of the Ranking Member we have authorized an additional LPD to the Navy fleet.
"And finally I don't think we have the correct balance in our surface combatant force. I understand the history of the DDG 1000, it grew out of the DD 21 program and became the poster child for 'revolutionary change' in ship capabilities in the Rumsfeld era. The question before the Congress is simple: does this ship have the correct capabilities the Navy needs for the future? Does the Navy ever envision shore bombardment again? If not, why design a ship which is sized for a gun that won't be used? In this day of precision guided munitions and air dominance the idea of a World War II type of naval bombardment support needs to be debated.
"This leads us to the DDG 51, the finest destroyer in the world today. A ship that is capable of multiple missions, from anti-submarine warfare to cruise missile strike warfare to area air defense with its Aegis weapons system is the premier workhorse of the fleet. And perhaps most important, the ship is capable of serving in a ballistic missile defense role, which the DDG 1000 cannot do. Fifty three of these ships are currently in the fleet, nine more are in various stages of construction.
"But if the Navy wants to build more of them, we need more information. Information not just about cost targets for new ships, but information on the total concept of support for the entire fleet of destroyers. The modernization program for destroyers is just as important as the construction program. We can never allow the decommissioning of vessels like we did with the first five Aegis cruisers because they could not be modernized to meet the new threat. So I am interested in the DDG 51 modernization program also. I question why the Navy is not modernizing these destroyers at a faster rate, and doing the modernization in the construction shipyards which have the expertise and experience to do the major modifications effectively and efficiently. I would like to know how we can use the technologies developed for the DDG 1000 weapons system and propulsion system and back fit them into the DDG 51's during a modernization period.
"So there is lots to discuss, the Navy has a tough road ahead. There are still some pretty large hurdles here in the Congress that they need to jump. Hopefully this hearing will allow the Navy the opportunity to explain their side of the issue.
"We have two panels of experts today to walk us thorough all these issues. I have requested that VADM McCullough give the subcommittee a brief tutorial on the capabilities of both vessels at the beginning of his testimony. Members will also find a side-by-side description of the ships in the memorandum prepared by the staff.
"We need to get this right. We need to get the Navy on a stable path of building ships and then build them at the time and at the cost that is projected. Our shipyards and the contractors who support them deserve to know what we expect them to do and when we expect them to do it. But more importantly, we need to give our naval commanders the capability they need to defeat our current and potential enemies.
"So I believe this debate needs to focus on the capabilities of these ships. I remind my colleagues, and the public, that numbers of ships is in itself a significant capability. The full Congress must weigh the capabilities of the ships, the costs associated with the ships, and the effect on the nation's national security industrial base when making the final decisions to proceed or not proceed with either destroyer program.
"I am happy to acknowledge our first witnesses today. The Secretary has again sent to us the 'A' team. Ms. Allison Stiller is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Ship Programs in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition. VADM Barry McCullough is the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for the Integration of Resources and Capabilities.
"Our second panel also consists of witnesses well known to this committee. Mr. Ron O'Rourke is a senior analyst in naval affairs with the Congressional Research Service, Dr. Eric Labs conducts independent ship cost analysis with the Congressional Budget Office, and Mr. Paul Francis heads the maritime analysis branch at the Government Accountability Office.
"I thank all the witness for being with us today and now yield to my friend from Maryland for any comments he may wish to make."
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
