Ed. Note: Senator Reed was the Banquet speaker.
Thank you very much, John. I noticed a certain sensitivity to the military academy at West Point. I’ll just forget about that. I am delighted to be here. This is a great assembly of true patriots who support our men and women, particularly in the submarine service, and thank you all for that.
I want to thank Admiral Donald and Rear Admiral Padgett for in- viting me to this event. Let me also recognize all the distinguished flag officers, both active duty and retired, that are here. I felt a little lonely with all these Naval Academy graduates, but I’m glad to see that General Dick Cody (ph) is here. Dick was our vice chief of staff in the Army. I was Dick’s section leader at West Point when he was a plebe. Back around 1970, if you said Dick was going to be a general and I was going to be a senator, people were wondering what we were doing in our free time. But, Dick thanks for being here.
Let me also recognize this evening’s honorees: Mr. Dan Tyler, Ad- miral Powell Carter, Vice Admiral Dan Cooper and Vice Admiral Ron Thunman. It is fitting that the Naval Submarine League call attention to the selfless service of both civilians and uniformed personnel, and thank you all for your dedication and service to our submarine forces and to our nation.
The theme of this year’s symposium is “U.S. Submarines Getting Faster.” Over the past two days you’ve discussed the current state of our submarine forces, the acquisition outlook, the advancement of new technologies and the challenges ahead. As with the beginning of any new administration, there have been many uncertainties about prospec- tive nominees, budget details, and program plans, so moving fast on any of these items, much less getting faster, can be a challenge.
But despite the turbulence in Washington and around the world, I’m proud to say that our submarine forces continue to be the reliable point of the spear in so many different ways. And the submarine builders con- tinue to efficiently construct these platforms and vessels with an absolute devotion to giving our men and women in the submarine service the best possible vessel they can build. And I would argue that in many respects the submarine community is already going faster, much faster than any other Navy acquisition program and other service programs. We’re be- ginning to see the delivery of two Virginia submarines a year. No less important, the Navy has been modernizing existing submarines at a fast- er pace by applying open architecture to combat and sonar systems.
On a personal note, I’ve been very, very pleased to have been at a keel laying and a christening just this year for two Virginia-class sub- marines. But I think even with this success we have to – and you have been the last several days – asking where do we go from here? First, you have to consider the threats, how they’re evolving and the importance of maintaining the superiority and technological edge that we enjoy, partic- ularly in the undersea domain.
The increased threat from North Korea — and I was there about two weeks ago on the DMZ and at Camp Humphries — that threat and other provocations across the globe, have re-emphasized the importance of maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent through all aspects of the triad, particularly with our stealthy submarine fleet. We also know that near- peer competitors like Russia and China are investing heavily in their maritime capabilities, particularly their submarines. They are seeking to expand their operational reach.
And then we have asymmetrical challenges from state and non-state actors like piracy and swarming attacks. These continue to challenge our surface combatants. We should also not take for granted our advantages in stealth technology as we recognize our adversaries are coming clos- er to emulating what we do well, and indeed infiltrating our protective shield.
One of the areas obviously we’re going to have to think about is the Arctic – and I can remember the Life Magazine photo of the Nautilus crashing through the Arctic Ocean. We all know now the Arctic will be within years a major artery of international commerce. We have to think about how we deploy there too.
So we have a full range of threats and in each and every one of these threats the submarine is critical, both attack submarines and our ballistic submarines. Given these threats, you have to look seriously at our sub- marine force structure. The president has directed Secretary Mattis to conduct an overarching review of defense policy and programs. We’re still awaiting the results of that review, but we all have great confidence in Secretary Mattis. He is an extraordinary Marine and civil servant.
President Trump’s long term plans for defense spending were fore- shadowed in the campaign when he talked about a 350-ship Navy as his goal. The chief of naval operation’s force structure assessment is calling for 355 ships, including 66 attack submarines. Achieving this goal of 66 means adding 18 attack submarines to our previous force structure of 48, and I think there’s a strong consensus across the board in both Houses, both parties, that the submarine is a system that we have to invest in more.
It’s an appreciation of all the things that I’ve mentioned, the stealth, the ability to operate in the waters that other platforms can’t operate in. This is a far cry from the good old days way back when the Navy thought 34 submarines were enough. We are in the business of trying to develop more submarines. But if the goal is 66 or even a number around that, the whole industrial base, including builders and suppliers, need to be ready to respond to these increases.
In fact, you’re going to have to get faster. We’re going to have to accelerate, there is no question, and particularly the submarine forces of the United States Navy. As I said, more and more of my colleagues, more and more defense theorists, are recognizing the value and power of submarines.
If we were doing two boats a year, that would get us to 66 except for the fact that we weren’t building many submarines in the ‘90s. From 1991 to 2000 we built the Connecticut, the Jimmy Carter, the Virginia and the Texas. My baptism of fire was walking in in 1991 and discover- ing the Seawolf program was going to be cancelled and we were in big trouble.
Fortunately, with a bipartisan effort, we were able to extend Seawolf to begin Virginia, and that has kept us going. But we’re going to see a lot of boats, as you know better than I, that are going to be retired in his de- cade. We have a pace of acceleration to a higher number at a time when we’re losing ships as they retire. So we’re going to have to do a lot to right-size the submarine force.
I understand that now we have to have the will and the muscle to get the resources to do it. We have to have significant investments in our manufacturing infrastructure, and in our workforce, and we are begin- ning to do that. But again, we’re going to have to really pick up the pace, so your message of being faster is right on the money.
In fact, as we all know, we’re going to have to begin to reset our in- dustrial base. We did it for two ships a year, and now I hope we’re going to do it for more. That means budget, and it means, how do we respond?
I am working very, very hard with my colleagues not only on the authorization committee, but I’m one of two people who also serve on the defense appropriations subcommittee, to make sure we have the re- sources necessary in the ’18 budget to keep going faster, particularly to expand our industrial submarine base. I must confess, though, that some- times Congress is a hindrance, not a help. We have — and this is some- thing that I’ll indulge in some self-criticism – we have notoriously been delaying budgets. That causes chaos in the services, not just the Navy.
I will never forget when I was with Senator McCain having a hearing and Admiral Richardson sort of routinely mentioned that the Navy plans to do nothing in the first quarter of any fiscal year. That is not the way to do business. I know my colleague John McCain is committed, and we all are, to get back into a regular order where we can produce appropriations and budgets on time, or at least within a safe margin of error.
We also have to recognize that the Budget Control Act caps are un- tenable. We do. I am more and more confident that in the next few weeks we are going to move on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to raise the caps sufficiently so we can fund adequately defense needs. One of the prob- lems with the BCA is that it created this arbitrary delineation between defense and non-defense, instead of national security and something else. As a result, on the non-defense side is State Department, Homeland Security, and these functions. So we really do, if we’re thinking of na- tional security, have to raise both caps. Otherwise, we won’t have the diplomats, we won’t have the Homeland Security officials that we need, among other things. That, I think, too, will happen.
We also have to recognize that in order to build our industrial base, it’s not just about money to buy steel and to provide resources to the contractors, but we also have to train individuals. That means the Depart- ment of Labor, another one of those non-defense items, has to be able to help out with training program. I’m very pleased that in my home state of Rhode Island, Electric Boat has partnered with a local school system and the Community College of Rhode Island to build a very innovative training facility for young people who want to be welders and sheet met- al workers. They are being supported by money that we obtained and gave to the state, and they have deployed it very wisely.
So we are in a situation now where we have to keep moving forward. We also recognize that one of our greatest assets, and I’ve said this re- peatedly because it’s true, is the submarine. One of the reasons it’s our greatest asset and one of the reasons, frankly you’ve made my work a lit- tle easier, is because in terms of acquisition programs there’s no program better than the submarine program.
They’re delivering the Virginia-class on time, typically ahead of schedule. We haven’t seen some of the huge cost over-runs in other pro- grams, and that is a tribute to so many people in this room. Thank you for that. We have to do better, though, because the demands are greater and the resources are always less than what we’d like to see ideally.
We also have to understand something else. It’s not just the new con- struction. I was really shocked when the CNO came over and talked to me about submarines that couldn’t leave port because they lacked their diving certification and that they needed overhaul. In fact, the situation has gotten so bad that 15 boats have been idled for 177 months awaiting access to dry docks. So not only do we have to build new ships, we have to put the resources in and creatively make sure that we can keep our existing fleet operating successfully through maintenance.
Again, we are committed to the submarine. We are also not just com- mitted to the Virginia-class. We understand we have to have the Ohio- class replacement, the Columbia-class submarine. It’s particularly the case in terms of the overall renovation of our nuclear triad.
The first leg that is being dealt with is the submarine. I think that makes sense because it’s the least vulnerable part of our triad. We’re beginning to build the Columbia-class. The first ship is scheduled for delivery in 2031. We’ve got to stay on that schedule, and that will be an arduous effort by both the contractors and by the Department of the Navy and practically everyone in this room.
The Navy has made the Columbia their number one priority. I think that makes a great deal of sense and we support that priority. To improve resources for the Columbia, because it is a rather big ticket item, back in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 I created something called the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund.
The fund has allowed the Navy to do things they couldn’t do oth- erwise. For example, after the Navy did a very rigorous review of costs with respect to the Columbia they authorized the contractor to build the Common Missile Compartment for all the Columbia-class boats using continuous production methods, not waiting as we typically do to autho- rize each ship each year, etcetera. The estimated savings over the 12 boat program is about $200 million. That’s good for us and good for the Navy and good for the nation.
And we’re looking for the Navy to identify other candidates for this type of acquisition and funding. That’s something I think that is actually critical.
We have 3,600 workers at Quonset Point in Rhode Island and we have many other Rhode Islanders who work at Groton. Together with Newport News — which has been an extraordinary partner and I thank them — we have, as I said, made the submarine the premier example of good sound solid acquisition.
It is, as I said also, the system that we need the most, given the world that we look at today. You have been a big part of that. I can remember, again hearkening back to 1991 when we were scrambling to see if the Seawolf would survive, meetings of the Submarine League, meetings of the submarine industrial base, with everyone coming together. That effort allowed us not only to preserve our construction, but also to put us in a position where now we are really moving out faster and faster, as your conference this week indicated.
I thank you for that. I will take a few questions. There’s only one topic I won’t talk about, and that’s Army football.
Once again, thank you for your courage, your patriotism, your ser-
vice and your commitment. Indeed, one of the things that unites all of us, and even in these tempestuous times in the House and Senate, is the realization, I hope, that what we do ultimately affects the lives and welfare of young men and women who are wearing the uniform of the United States. Many in this room, practically all, like myself, who had the privilege of wearing that uniform, we respect and honor those young men and women.
