From left, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert and Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos testify before the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday in Washington, D.C. The hearing addressed familiar themes, including China's military rise and alternative energy use. (MCC Sam Shavers / Navy)
- Filed Under
The dangers of sequestration. Not enough ships. The rise of China. The efficacy of using alternative fuels in ships and aircraft.
Most of the topics brought up for discussion Thursday at the first congressional hearing on the U.S. Navy’s 2013 budget sounded a lot like last year, with the warning calls of drastic budget cuts in January thrown in.
“The thing I worry about every day is sequestration,” said Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. McKeon was referring to congressionally mandated defense cuts of more than $500 billion that will take place on Jan. 1, 2013, unless an alternative can be agreed on. “At what point do you start to do something about this?”
The Office of Management and Budget at the White House “has directed the department not to plan for sequestration,” said Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations.
“Sometime late this summer, if there is no other action, step one for us is to think about that strategy,” Greenert said. “But our direction has been not to plan for such an occurrence.”
“I think it is totally irresponsible to put you in position to not even think about it,” McKeon said. “It doesn’t look good that we will fix this.”
Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., chairman of the seapower subcommittee, almost sounded sympathetic to the problems of planning for mandatory, across-the-board cuts.
“I guess there isn’t really a way to plan for sequestration. You can’t plan for it administratively,” he said. “But I don’t sense a sense of urgency on The Hill to do something about it. Let’s make it clear for the records that this is intolerable.”
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the readiness subcommittee, was more colorful in his call for more ships. “Why aren’t you pounding the table asking for more ships?” asked Forbes, pounding the table.
Looking directly at Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, Forbes noted that of four recent policy speeches, three were on alternative energy.
“I understand that alternative fuels might help our troops in the field,” Forbes said. “But shouldn’t we refocus our priorities?”
“I have made it the priority of this administration to build the fleet,” Mabus said. “We have 36 ships under contract, all under fixed-price contracts.” The number of ships in the fleet has been growing under the Obama administration, he pointed out.
“But I’m comparing them to what the Chinese are building,” Forbes said.
Several Republican members took Mabus to task for his efforts to introduce alternative fuels into Navy and Marine Corps ships, aircraft and vehicles. Rep. Mike Conway, R-Texas, was particularly disdainful.
Alternative fuels will be “twice as expensive” as regular fuels, Conway said. “So $600 million for this initiative — you don’t have a better place to spend that?”
“I don’t know where you’re getting that figure,” Mabus responded. “I know what we are doing is making us a better military.”
“Biofuel is an important part, but it’s certainly not the only part,” Mabus said. “Things like solar and thermal are competitive today.”
“No, they’re not,” Conway said. “So you’re arguing before this committee that we’re better off paying four times more for fuel?”
“We would be irresponsible if we didn’t reduce our dependence on foreign fuel,” Mabus responded.
The Navy’s plan to decommission two amphibious ships, delay new replacements and plan for a fleet of 30 ships to carry Marines also came under fire, with Republican Reps. Rob Wittman of Virginia, Mike Coffman of Colorado and Steven Palazzo of Mississippi spending their question time on the issue.
“Hard choices were made inside this budget,” said Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps. Overall, he said, “I’m very pleased. But I’d like 50 ships.”
