Sen. Cramer Delivers Opening Statement Criticizing Biden’s Inadequate Navy and Marine Corps Budget at Seapower Subcommittee Hearing

Source: United States Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND)

***Click here to download video. Click here for audio.***

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, delivered the following opening at a hearing to review the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2023 and the Future Years Defense Program.

“This is a critical time for our national security and the stakes are very high. Appropriately funding the Department of Defense in order to keep this Nation safe and defend our interests is the most critical Constitutional duty Congress performs and one I take very seriously,” said Senator Cramer. “But I must say, like last year, I am very concerned that President Biden’s defense budget request is inadequate — nowhere near enough to give our Navy and Marine Corps the resources, equipment and training they need. Quite simply, because this budget doesn’t keep up with inflation, it’s a cut. I am hopeful we can come together again to provide the Department with the real budget growth it needs to fund critical modernization, readiness, and personnel shortfalls.”

“The bottom line is this budget sends China and other potential adversaries the wrong message — that we’re not willing to do what it takes to defend ourselves and our allies and partners,” continued Senator Cramer

The hearing featured testimony on Navy and Marine Corps investment programs from Mr. Frederick J. Stefany, performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition; Vice Admiral Scott D. Conn, U.S. Navy Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfighting Requirements and Capabilities; and Lieutenant General Karsten S. Heckl, U.S. Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Combat Development and Integration.

Click Here to Watch

Full remarks as prepared for delivery can be viewed below. 

“Thank you Chairwoman Hirono. 

“This is a critical time for our national security and the stakes are very high. Appropriately funding the Department of Defense in order to keep this Nation safe and defend our interests is the most critical Constitutional duty Congress performs and one I take very seriously. To this end, I thank the Chairwoman for calling today’s hearing to examine Navy and Marine Corps programs in the President’s fiscal year 2023 budget request.

“But I must say, like last year, I am very concerned that President Biden’s defense budget request is inadequate — nowhere near enough to give our Navy and Marine Corps the resources, equipment and training they need. Quite simply, because this budget doesn’t keep up with inflation, it’s a cut. I am hopeful we can come together again to provide the Department with the real budget growth it needs to fund critical modernization, readiness, and personnel shortfalls.

“Regarding the President’s budget, I want to make three technical points:

  • First, we just received detailed budget justification material on Friday despite the budget being submitted a month ago. We need to get the NDAA done and this delay is not helpful;
  • Second, this year’s shipbuilding plan’s choose-your-own adventure format lacks coherence and the three different outcomes raise more questions than they answer; and
  • Lastly, the procurement of the amphibious ship LHA-9 is double-counted in this budget in contravention of the law. We need an explanation.

“More broadly, I am concerned about the state of our Navy and its downward trajectory. It seems to me that the Navy is dealing with the confluence of four key issues.

“First, President Reagan added a lot of ships to the fleet quickly – nearly a 600-ship Navy. 13 of the 24 ships proposed for decommissioning this year were procured in the 1980s. The Reagan-era ships are reaching the end of service life in large quantities, just as they were bought. Former Navy officials’ promises over the years to modernize and extend the service lives of many of these ships, or replace them with new ships, have not panned out.

“Second, the Littoral Combat Ship or LCS program was planned to be a major portion of our fleet with 55 of these ships in service by 2018. Instead, we have 24 LCS today. Unfortunately, this class has been plagued with problems from the start and a key reason for the program – the anti-submarine warfare capability, which was supposed to be operational 12 years ago – was cancelled altogether in this budget. Nine of the 24 ships proposed for decommissioning are LCSs. 

“Third, we need Navy shipbuilding programs that can scale up. There is a high opportunity cost in time and money for failure in Navy shipbuilding – that is a key lesson of the LCS, CG-X, DD-X and DDG-1000 programs. Just think, if the LCS plan delivered as promised, we would have a fleet of roughly 330 ships today with 55 LCS capable of hunting submarines, neutralizing mines and conducting surface warfare. Instead, we have 31 fewer ships and no small surface combatants that can hunt submarines.

“To this end, the new Constellation-class frigate program must succeed if we are to grow our Navy. Unfortunately, the lead ship won’t be finished until 2026 – 11 years after the last of our 51 Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates was decommissioned – which has resulted in an acute and continuing frigate gap in the Navy’s ability to escort convoys, hunt submarines, and defend high-value assets.

“Fourth, we need a consistent commitment from every Administration and Congress to provide steady and predictable funding to the Department of the Navy. As bad as the President’s 2023 request is, the projected cuts to shipbuilding in future years are worse with the LPD amphibious ship production line abruptly ending with no transition plan. This is simply unacceptable as it will both further shrink the fleet and starve our Navy shipbuilding industrial base, which is already barely hanging on.

“I also have concerns related to the health and trends for naval aviation and the extent to which this budget supports the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ force design, but in the interest of time I won’t belabor these now.

“The bottom line is this budget sends China and other potential adversaries the wrong message — that we’re not willing to do what it takes to defend ourselves and our allies and partners. And we should be worried about China for a multitude of reasons, but looking just at their Navy — their fleet surpassed our fleet size target of 355 ships two years ago and continues to steadily climb. Meanwhile, this budget proposes to shrink our Navy to 280 ships over the next five years. It just does not make sense.

“A few specific areas I hope to cover today include:

“Mr. Stefany, I’d like to discuss five shipbuilding issues to better understand how this subcommittee can be helpful.

“General Heckl, the Marine Corps appears to be aggressively pursuing air defense and missile systems in the Indo-Pacific. I’m interested in better understanding how these systems can both protect forward-postured Marines, as well as help combatant commanders deny maneuver space to an adversary.  I’m also interested in the Commandant’s requirement for amphibious ships.

“I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses today.”