Archives

Flanked by ranking members of Congress and senior Department of Defense (DOD) uniformed and civilian officials, President Clinton signed a $289 billion defense-spending bill into law at a Pentagon ceremony on 5 October. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 represents the first step in a sustained increase in defense spending in more than a decade. The bill's provisions for a new and comprehensive pay package and full funding for military readiness and operations accounts enjoyed broad bipartisan political support.

"This bill is an expression of America at its best," Clinton said. "It's about putting the people of our Armed Forces first." Clinton voiced special appreciation to the men and women of the armed forces serving around the world--and to the members of both parties serving on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees who worked to make the bill a reality.

Key personnel-related provisions of the bill include:

• Increasing military pay by 4.8 percent and future raises that will exceed average private-sector raises;
   
• Increasing the reward for performance with targeted pay raises that will boost the pay of mid-career service members;
   
• Increasing the use of special pay and bonuses to retain highly skilled personnel; and
   
• Restoring retirement benefits by returning retirement pay to 50 percent of a member's base pay at 20 years of service.

Improved pay and compensation were top funding priorities for all branches of the armed forces as they struggle to meet recruiting and retention goals. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen stated that the FY 2000 spending bill reversed a 13-year decline in defense procurement. "We're renewing our commitment to give our warriors the weapons they need," Cohen said. "We are also renewing our commitment to tomorrow's readiness in terms of modernization."

Senate and House conferees on the Armed Services Committees reached agreement on the FY 2000 defense-spending bill in early August. In the House, all 36 Republican and Democrat committee conferees signed the bill's conference report--only the second time this has happened since 1981.

Warner: "Difficult Challenges"

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that congressional conferees were confronted with difficult challenges affecting U.S. security as they crafted the bill authorizing DOD funding for the year ahead--including a measurable decline in readiness, troublesome recruitment and retention problems, aging equipment, and newly emerging security threats. "Our forces, while performing with great distinction in the recent conflict in Kosovo and in numerous other deployments around the world, are simply overstretched," Warner said. "They are beginning to show the strains that come from overuse."

For selected naval programs, House and Senate conferees authorized:

• $751.5 million for advanced procurement of CVN 77, the transition ship from the Nimitz class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to the next-generation CVN(X) aircraft carrier. Conferees also fully authorized the president's request for aircraft carrier research and development, including $45.3 million for CVN 77 and $195.1 million for CVN(X);
   
• $2.7 billion for the procurement of three DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers. Conferees also authorized extension of the DDG 51 multiyear procurement contract to cover the final six ships in the class;
   
• $1.5 billion for procurement of the third and fourth San Antonio-class amphibious ships;
   
• Procurement of one Wasp-class amphibious assault ship and $375 million for its advanced procurement and construction (the president did not request these funds as the Navy planned to purchase the ship in 2005);
   
• $748 million for advanced procurement of the third Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine;
   
• $270 million (matching the president's request) for the next-generation surface combatant, the DD 21 land-attack destroyer. Conferees supported the Navy's program and acquisition strategy. Conferees also included $116.5 million ($15 million more than the president's request) to develop advanced munitions for the DD 21;
   
• $990.4 million for procurement of 12 MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft (two more aircraft than the president's request);
• $2.9 billion for procurement of 36 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike aircraft and a $15.2 billion multiyear procurement contract for 222 aircraft. Conferees also authorized $319.8 million for F/A-18 series modifications in support of the chief of naval operations' unfunded priorities list; and
   
• $121.2 million to accelerate development of the AAAV (advanced amphibious assault vehicle) and to advance the initial operational capability date from FY 2006 to FY 2005.

Rep. Floyd D. Spence (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that House and Senate conferees had targeted additional funding--more than $8 billion--for a variety of requirements that were not funded adequately in Clinton's FY 2000 defense-budget request, including quality-of-life, readiness, and modernization initiatives.

Addressing the full House of Representatives on 15 September, Spence noted that, despite the conferees' best efforts, they had not eliminated shortfalls, but simply struggled to manage them. "Absent a long-term, sustained commitment to revitalizing America's armed forces," Spence said, "we will continue to run the inevitable risks that come from asking our troops to do more with less."

Danzig: "Significant Bills"

Faced with projected budget shortfalls in its readiness and operations accounts, Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig and Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jay L. Johnson plan to reduce planned shipbuilding to avoid further cuts to personnel and real-property maintenance funding. Addressing a U.S. Naval Institute symposium in Virginia Beach, Va., on 29 September, Danzig acknowledged that the Navy had "some significant bills to pay." He said that he and Johnson had decided it was preferable to pay for them from future procurement funding rather than to accept Navy staff recommendations to make the cuts in personnel programs.

"My reaction--and the CNO's--was the same," Danzig said. "Do we really believe that people are our most important asset? If we do, then we don't want to take these cuts these ways--because in the end, it will be on their [sailors'] backs."

Danzig declined to provide details, but a Pentagon official confirmed for Sea Power that budget pressures have forced the Navy to cut three ships and 42 aircraft from the FY 2001 to 2005 time frame to save $4 billion. Said to be included in the reduction are one DDG 51 guided-missile destroyer in FY 2005, one Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarine in FY 2003, and two ADC(X) logistics ships in FY 2001 and 2003. One of the ADC(X) ships reportedly will be added back to the shipbuilding plan in FY 2005.

U.S. Joint Forces Command Established in Norfolk

Asserting that the United States stood at a pivotal point in its history, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen presided at a 7 October ceremony at Virginia's Norfolk Naval Base to redesignate the U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM) the U.S. Joint Forces Command.

In his remarks to senior military officers and guests, Cohen said that the Joint Forces Command's mission would enable the United States to prepare for new challenges to its national security during the 21st century. "It's ... a time of new fears, when at least 25 countries either have, or are in the process of acquiring and developing, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and the means to deliver them," Cohen said.

Since the end of the Cold War, USACOM had expanded its traditional mission of providing a transatlantic link to NATO by placing a stronger emphasis on joint (multiservice) training and operations. The command's redesignation continues that trend. It will be responsible for supplying the other U.S. joint combatant commands with combat-ready forces, to develop joint doctrine and warfighting tactics, and to support U.S. domestic agencies in the event of an attack on U.S. soil. "Our arms, as well as the eyes, must look to the future," Cohen asserted.

The Joint Forces Command's mandate is to accelerate opportunities for the armed forces to gain joint-warfighting training and experience, to leverage lessons learned in combat operations and training, and to recommend changes to joint doctrine that would improve the warfighting capability of the armed forces.

The new command also is assigned the mission of providing military assistance to U.S. civil authorities responsible for dealing with the consequences of incidents involving weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) within the continental United States, its territories, and possessions. To fulfill that mission a standing Joint Task Force for Civil Support, reporting to the Joint Forces Command, will plan for and integrate the Defense Department's support to the lead federal agency that is assigned "consequence management" during a WMD incident. The new Joint Task Force (JTF) will be commanded by a two-star general officer (to be selected from a reserve component of the armed forces) and be supported by a headquarters staff of 36 personnel. 

 
Snowe: "Asking the Fleet To Do More With Less"

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), chairwoman of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Seapower, recently described her outlook on shipbuilding and the Navy's budget for Sea Power.

Sea Power: From your perspective as chair of the Senate's Subcommittee on Seapower, what is the most important aspect of the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Conference Report?

SNOWE: The most important seapower aspect of the Conference Report focuses on the achievement of Congress in fully authorizing or increasing the authorizations for the Navy's major air, surface, and undersea-warfare programs. The combined Navy and Marine Corps procurement accounts, for example, receive $19 billion, approximately one billion dollars above the administration's request. And we added $251 million to Navy R&D [research and development] programs for a total of $9.61 billion.

Each of these procurement and research initiatives will speed the evolution of the fleet from an open-ocean battle service to a more flexible combat organization with improved capabilities to strike inland enemy targets and to operate in shallow waters. This transition is essential for the Navy to deter or to prevail in conflicts across the unpredictable spectrum of 21st-century challenges to our national security.

Conferee approval of the president's request for six new-construction ships in FY 2000 poses a real risk that the fleet will fall below 300 ships. How seriously do you view this concern?

SNOWE: I am gravely concerned about the risks associated with a fleet of less than 300 ships. The risks are manifested in high operating tempos that affect ship readiness, retention of our Sailors and Marines, and the regional commanders' ability to provide the forces required to support the National Security Strategy. At the current construction rate of six or seven ships per year, the total fleet size would fall substantially below 300 vessels after 2005. The testimony of acquisition and warfighting requirements officials before the Seapower Subcommittee last spring clearly established the fact that if the Pentagon cannot build a minimum of eight new ships per year over the next two decades, it will face a 53-ship deficit in the 2020s.

In addition, the Subcommittee received a written plan from the CNO's [chief of naval operation's] office anticipating the construction of eight ships per year through 2004 and nine per year starting in 2005. Our Subcommittee will hold future administrations accountable for budgeting the necessary funds to sustain this 300-vessel plan.

The CNO has said that there is mounting evidence to suggest that the Navy's 1997 QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] level of 305 ships is not likely to be sufficient in the future. Do you agree?

SNOWE: I strongly agree with Admiral Johnson [Adm. Jay L. Johnson] that evidence stemming from deployment rates and emerging regional threats should prompt the Navy to consider whether it needs more, not less, than 305 ships. Indeed, I want to explore this very issue in a future hearing of my Subcommittee. Two factors, however, lead me to think that we may need more than this number in the future. First, a fleet of 305 ships would represent the lowest naval force level since the end of World War II. Yet Navy and Marine Corps contingency deployments overseas have swelled to one every five weeks during the 1990s.

During the entire Cold War period, when the service [Navy] had a minimum of 490 and a maximum of 1,100 ships, nonwartime deployments occurred only once every 11 weeks. So we have asked the fleet to do much more with less.

Second, in the age of littoral warfare in shallow, coastal waters, the Navy may have to undertake contingency or wartime missions in several locations at once. Think about some of the key operational sites where the fleet has operated over the last decade--in the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Adriatic, the Straits of Taiwan, the Sea of Japan, and off both the eastern and western coasts of Africa. With an average of 53 percent of all ships and submarines forward-deployed or underway on any given day, we must make sure that Sailors and Marines have the assets to project our power around the globe and to receive the proper retraining and rest between foreign tours.

Could you elaborate on the rationale behind the conferees' direction to the Department of Defense to detail a long-range shipbuilding plan to carry out U.S. national security strategy?

SNOWE: Over the last few years, it became apparent to the Subcommittee that the total fleet size would fall far below 300 ships by the second decade of the next century if the average 1990s procurement rate of six or seven ships per year did not increase to at least eight or nine. At the same time, Seapower Subcommittee witnesses testified this year that intensified contingency operating tempos have strained resources and personnel even under the current level of 324 ships. Not only does the build rate have to increase to eight to nine ships per year, [but] they must also be the correct platforms to replace the capabilities of the aging fleet while incorporating new technologies and warfighting requirements.

Each administration tends to view shipbuilding in six-year increments called the Future-Years Defense Plan. However, because of the upcoming requirements to replace large numbers of ships built 20 to 25 years ago, which are among the many competing DOD acquisition programs, the significant unit cost of ships, and the relatively long lead time of five to seven years to build ships, the conferees agreed that a long-term vision of ship acquisition requirements, budgets, and risks is required. Therefore, the conferees agreed to require the secretary of defense to submit, by February 1, 2000, a long-range shipbuilding plan including requirements, funding, and associated risks through fiscal year 2030.

What priorities and goals have you set for next year?

SNOWE: My highest priority is to help the Navy realize the goal of deploying new precision surveillance and firepower ships over the next 10 to 15 years within a finite budget. This objective requires new techniques to lower the cost of operating a vessel over the course of its service life. I'm hopeful that by next year the Navy can provide Congress with a more specific strategy on how it will use two of the most promising ways to lower operational costs: the configuration of ships to significantly reduce crew size and the consideration of life-cycle costs in all vessel components and subsystems. Certainly, inherent in this mission will be the Navy's effort to sustain a fleet of appropriate size. 
 

USCG Sets Record for Cocaine Seizures