Here is a winning recipe for a Navy budget:
- Start with a modest, new shipbuilding program.
- Pre-heat Congress with its first bicameral Republican majority in more than 40 years.
- Fill key chairmanships, including that of the Senate seapower and the House procurement subcommittees, with lawmakers from shipbuilding states and districts.
- Add $7 billion to the defense budget proposed by the Clinton administration.
- Scrape away a pesky requirement that ships be fully funded in the year authorized.
- Spice with a plan to share production of the new attack submarine between two bitter-rival shipyards.
- Thicken with destroyers and amphibious ships the administration wanted to keep on ice for several more years.
- Simmer months longer than normal.
Voila! It is a meal the Navy can savor in fiscal 1996 and hope for more in 1997.
“Boy, it was an amazing [year] for the Navy,” said a senior officer recalling his service’s share of the defense bill President Clinton signed 10 February, a year after his budget first arrived on Capitol Hill. “The Navy and Marine Corps got $3.4 billion of [a $6.9 billion] plus up,” roughly 50%. Why? “Congress liked our story, liked the approach we had taken, and believed we weren’t recapitalizing [the fleet] fast enough.”
Some congressional analysts give less credit to Navy salesmanship than to a combination of circumstances: a Republican Congress publicly committed to raising defense spending, a shipbuilding program clearly unfunded, shipyard advocates gaining the power to do something about it. For key lawmakers, helping the Navy modernize its fleet also means helping folks back home at a time when doing so through other federal programs is becoming more difficult.
When defense budgets were fat, and even as they fell sharply during the draw down, the Navy stood ready for more congressionally directed cuts with a list of expendable programs. With the current Congress inclined to spend more than the administration on defense, the Navy’s current list consists of ships and programs to add. The turnaround has budget officials sounding unusually upbeat.
"There is no threat on the Hill to Navy resources,” said a senior officer. Only a year ago he worried about the Navy losing the third and final Seawolf submarine. Today, not only is SSN-23 secure, but the Navy also got most of what it requested in the 1996 budget—plus a lot more: another Arleigh Burke (DDG-51)-class destroyer, thus returning to its plan to three ships in 1996; the final Wasp (LHD-1)- class helicopter/dock landing ship, LHD-7, which had not been budgeted for until 2001; and the first LPD-17 replacement for the LPD-4 amphibious trans- port/dock ship, arriving two years earlier than the administration had planned.
And ships added to the 1996 budget “are even more significant in the context of potential implications across the entire six-year defense plan,” said Ronald O’Rourke, a naval analyst for the Congressional Research Service. For example, moving the first LPD-17 forward two years could mean Congress intends to accelerate the full buy of the 12 ships in the class. That could add as many as four LPD-17s to the Navy’s near-term shipbuilding program.
Likewise, a deal struck over the New Attack Submarine (NSSN)—to allow General Dynamics’ Electric Boat Division of Connecticut and Newport News Shipbuilding of Virginia to build two each before embarking on full competition—adds two submarines to budgets in 1999 and 2001. But the change of pace is potentially more significant than it appears. By directing the Navy to build its first New Attack Submarine in 1998 and a second in 1999, Congress might be abandoning a practice from the late 1970s of requiring a “gap” year between the first and second ship of any class to work out design problems. Advances in computer-based design technology support the change. And if this standard no longer is necessary for submarine development, then why program a gap year in 1997 for the far less-sophisticated LPD-17 program?
With that logic, the Navy has moved two additional LPD-17s in 1997 to the top of its wish list, second in priority behind Congress adding another Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in 1998. “Frankly,” said the senior Navy officer, “I wouldn’t be surprised if, because of improvements in design capability. Congress didn't conclude the LPD-4 class is so badly on its last legs ... the Navy would be better served financially to accelerate completion of the 12-ship class.” Ideally, he said, the Navy could use an extra $3 billion in 1997 on top of the $4.9 requested for ship procurement.
Two conditions on Capitol Hill appear to have sparked the Navy’s budget victories last year. First was the elevation of key Republican lawmakers from shipbuilding regions. For example:
- Representative Duncan Hunter from San Diego, home of National Steel and Shipbuilding Company, which builds auxiliary ships, became chairman of the military procurement subcommittee of the House National Security Committee. The shipyard expects work from the LPD-17 program.
- Representative Bob Livingston, representing a district containing Avondale Shipbuilding near New Orleans, became chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Avondale builds sealift ships and will compete for the LPD-17.
- Mississippi Senators Trent Lott and Thad Cochran saw their influence rise to the benefit of Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, which builds the LHD and DDG-51s. Senator Lott, Senate majority whip, is a senior member of the seapower subcommittee. Senator Cochran is second-ranking Republican on the defense appropriations subcommittee.
- Virginia Senator John Warner, senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services’ seapower subcommittee, helped broker the deal that gives Newport News shipbuilding a slice of the New Attack Submarine contract.
- Senator William S. Cohen of Maine, new seapower subcommittee chairman, pushed to restore the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer buy to three per year. The contract is divided between Bath Iron Works Corporation in Maine and Ingalls in Mississippi. By year’s end. the Senate seapower subcommittee was so flush with members aiming to beef up Navy programs that colleagues referred to it the “shipbuilders committee.” Political consciences must have been soothed, however, by the Navy’s obvious needs. “The shipbuilding budget stood out as one that was really low compared to perceived requirements,” said Mr. O'Rourke.
Even Defense Secretary William Perry expressed satisfaction with the way Republicans pumped more money into his defense plan. At a March press conference unveiling his 1997 budget. Secretary Perry said the extra $7 billion Congress approved for 1996 went, for the most part, to real needs, not pork. “If there’s more money put in the [ 1997] defense budget,” he said, “I would urge it be done the same as last year,” not by creating programs, but moving “forward programs already in the budget.”
Congressional enthusiasm for shipbuilding was so strong that lawmakers abandoned the practice of requiring full funding of major weapon systems in the year in which authorized. After running out of cash, committees in effect pulled out their credit cards. They authorized both a third Arleigh Burke destroyer ($700 million) and completion of the last Seawolf ($800 million) with funding to be determined later.
The Pentagon barely flinched, however. During deliberations on the 1997 budget packages. Defense Comptroller John Hamre did find money somewhere to accommodate completion of the Seawolf and stuck it into the Navy’s account. He told the Navy to find its own money for the extra Arleigh Burke destroyer, which it did. “We squeezed everything else to come up with the resources,” said the senior Navy officer. "The bad news is we couldn't find the resources for 1998” to raise the number of destroyers purchased in that year from two to three. “I hope Congress will express its genuine concern about [the administration] screwing around with the build rate and maybe give us some help.”
Seapower chairman Cohen, in an hallway interview, said the Senate indeed is “looking for greater stability” in shipbuilding. That means “more surface combatants.” He also wants more towed-array sonar capability on the ships. “But essentially,” he said, "the Navy has a pretty good program.” The big challenge comes in several years when it still faces a “bow wave” of modernization needs that can only be met with a “dramatic” rise in procurement dollars. Chairman Cohen said. “Will members be willing to support that?” Chairman Cohen is not sure.
A second condition in Congress that aided Navy shipbuilding last year, say some Capitol Hill insiders, was the existence of relatively weak chairmen for the Senate Armed Services and the House National Security Committees. Senator Strom Thurmond, 93, and Representative Floyd Spence, 68, both of South Carolina, failed to impose the level of discipline on subcommittees that predecessors such as Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) had done. This became obvious when House and Senate conferees took different shipbuilding priorities into final defense bill negotiations last September and emerged—three months later—accommodating both camps, authorizing more ships without sufficient dollars to pay for them.
The House National Security Committee also showed a strange mid-course correction on Seawolf. At first, it refused to authorize final funding. To the Navy’s surprise, that opposition began to melt by mid-year and support for Seawolf never wavered in the Senate. An amendment by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) to kill the third ship was soundly defeated by a 70-30 tally.
By then, supporters of Newport News Shipbuilding had changed legislative strategy. Rather than oppose the Seawolf, they campaigned to win a solid slice of the New Attack Submarine contract. Senator Warner led efforts to shelve President Bill Clinton’s plan to have Electric Boat build the first two boats, in 1998 and 2000. arguing that it would put Newport News at a severe disadvantage in competing for follow-on contracts.
While the Senate pressed for competition, the House National Security Committee examined the New Attack Submarine’s capability and cost and found it wanting on both counts. According to a Congressional Research Service report by Mr. O’Rourke, the Russians have “about a half dozen” improved Akula-class submarines that are quieter than the best Ohio-class submarines in service. The United States will regain an advantage, but only a narrow one, when the first Seawolf is commissioned this year.
"In the past, we had enough of a margin we could absorb surprises,” said a Hill staffer. The narrowed capability gap, he said, motivated Representative Hunter and colleagues “to put their foot down and say ‘We’ve got to do better.’”
The submarine package that finally emerged from the extended conference committee answered Senate concerns about competition and House demands for lower costs and improved capability. Electric Boat will build the first and third submarines in 1998 and 2000; Newport News will build the second and fourth in 1999 and 2001, followed by a winner-take-all competition. Each boat must be more capable and less expensive than the previous one, using something called “technology insertion.” That means incorporating whatever improvements in technology are available when the next boat is built. The Navy much prefers this to Representative Hunter’s original call for four "prototype” submarines. Still, the requirement to lower costs while raising capability is “an extremely tough challenge,” said one budget analyst.
When Representative Hunter first pushed for a more capable attack submarine, Navy officials suspected he actually wanted to kill the program and use the money to buy more B-2 bombers. With defense dollars tight, said a Navy officer, some lawmakers “like a paper submarine better than steel.” Yet as the months passed, Representative Hunter “worked so hard flogging us about technology insertion, I think he’s sincere.” Some Democrats remain skeptical. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a protector of Electric Boat, said the Senate has “always felt the Navy was doing everything it could to make sure the New Attack Submarine had the best new technology.” Building four prototypes, he said, “is very costly and ultimately unnecessary." But Senator Lieberman called the agreement reached last year “a turning point” for the submarine program. Not only did the third Seawolf survive but also the battle over the New Attack Submarine is over, at least for a time. "There was obviously some geographic disagreement about where they should be built, but we’ve come to an understanding,” Senator Lieberman said. “It will create predictability for both, yards. It gives the government the benefit of competition. It gives the country... these extraordinary new attack submarines.”
In a spirit of cooperation. Senator Lieberman noted how the Navy’s 1997 budget proposal does not include $400 million in funding for Newport News Shipbuilding’s first NSSN. "I’ve told John Warner I’m going to fully support the effort to get that funding,” he said.
Senator Chuck Robb (D-VA) said he preferred “true competition" starting with the first New Attack Submarine, but “pure politics” from New England lawmakers prevented it. “This clearly is a compromise that will cost taxpayers. But it will cost less, in my judgment, than sole-sourcing for the duration of the program.” During their first session as the majority in Congress, Republicans learned that, like Democrats, they hold widely disparate views on defense issues—from the need for more B-2s to the appropriateness of discharging service people who test positive for the HIV virus. Turns out “there are lots of different flavors of Republicans out there, only one of which is the pro-defense Republican,” said one congressional staffer. “They're a more pluralistic party on defense than one might have thought.”
John Kasich of Ohio, chairman of the House Budget Committee, fought as hard as any liberal Democrat to root out waste in Defense programs to produce a balanced budget by the year 2002. Republican Senator McCain of Arizona opposed not only the Seawolf but also acceleration of the LPD-17 and building four variations of the New Attack Submarine. “We’ll probably get down to two and have competition,” he said before a recent hearing. “But in the meantime we’ll waste billions. If I sound cynical, it’s ’cause I am.”
Naval aviation barely caused a stir in Congress last year. While the Navy rolled out its first F/A-18E/Fs, lawmakers added six F/A-18C/D fighters to the administration’s 12-plane order. It also approved the remanufacture of eight, rather than four, AV-8B Harriers for the Marines.
Some Senators support a proposal from Lockheed to build a naval variant of the F-117, called the AF-117X. It would complement the F/A-18E/F Hornet with some stealth capability. The AF-117X could be fielded before the Joint Strike Fighter (formerly known as JAST) enters the fleet. The Navy so far is not interested. It has come around, however, to the Air Force and Marine Corps view that the Joint Strike Fighter can be smaller than the “big bomb truck” first sought by the Navy, a congressional staffer said.
The Republican push for a balanced budget nearly led to a public-relations disaster between Congress and career service members. By mid-summer, the House had voted to cut future retirement benefits for active duty members with 15 or more years of service. Red-faced Republicans on the House National Security Committee later held a hearing to rescind their vote, lamely blaming the Clinton administration for not doing enough to stop their own folly.
“You had a lot of staffers in new positions, responsible for organizing hearings, getting bills through Congress. Many hadn’t done that before,” said one congressional analyst. Republicans acquitted themselves a little better with military retirees in resolving the COLA-equity issue with federal civilian retirees.
While last year's congressional session was one of the longest on record, this year’s could be one of the briefest. It began almost a month late, yet lawmakers hope to send a defense bill to the White House by the August recess. There is no time for much beyond basic budget hearings. Major defense issues ripe for reexamination, such the appropriateness of force structure goals under the administration’s 1993 Bottom-Up Review, will be delayed for at least another year. If Republicans retain control of Congress, Senator Thurmond and Representative Spence could see their chairmanships challenged.
Republicans are promising to add about $13 billion to Clinton’s 1997 defense budget request of $242.6 billion, including more money for shipbuilding as well as ballistic missile defense and Army and Air Force weapons modernization. Even some Democrats, such as Senators Lieberman and Robb, question whether the administration’s projected budgets for the Navy are robust enough. Senator Robb said the Bottom-Up Review called for a plateau of 346-ships, yet there is only “money in the pipeline for about a 300-ship Navy.” Senator Lieberman also questioned the speed of planned modernization. But for 1997, he said, “you will be hard pressed to hear the Navy side say any of their priority programs. . .is not being funded.” Navy officials agree, but remain anxious over how the budget pie gets divided. Some question the degree of fiscal restraint Defense and Congress are imposing on other services, particularly the Army. “There’s nothing fair about resource allocation in the Defense Department,” said the senior Navy officer. “Defense doesn’t have the stomach to enforce discipline." The Army, for example, “routinely underprices its military personnel and O&M [operations and maintenance] accounts,” forcing it to divert funds from weapons modernization. Defense Secretary Perry, in turn, routinely gives the Army more money for weapons, but much of it still gets diverted to personnel and O&M, this officer contends. “That tells me Army force structure is too large for its budget.” Deployment of 20,000 soldiers to Bosnia no doubt relieves pressure on the Army to downsize, the officer conceded. But “long term, and maybe as early as 1998, this country is going to have a debate on what kind of a military capability it wants and how big it is going to be.” When that occurs, he said. Congress will look at the pace of Navy and Marine Corps operations, at their forward posture throughout the world, and decide “we're going to be the force of choice.”
Meanwhile, another budget year like the last one would be just fine.
Mr. Philpott, a former editor and senior writer for the Navy Times, writes the monthly column “Point' of Interest" for Proceedings.