[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: December 20, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  MR. GINGRICH IS RIGHT ON THE NEED TO BUILD THE ``SEAWOLF'' SUBMARINE

                        HON. RONALD K. MACHTLEY

                            of rhode island

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 20, 1994

  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, since being elected to the House of 
Representatives in 1988, a year before the fall of the Berlin Wall and 
the symbolic end of the cold war, I have paid particular attention to 
the future of our national defense. I am proud of my service as a 
member of the House Armed Services Committee. I have worked hard to 
ensure that our men and women in uniform are trained and ready to fight 
and are equipped with the world's most modern and lethal weaponry.
  Defense planning and budgeting is no easy business, especially with 
the uncertainties the Defense Department now faces from new threats 
abroad and at home due to a constrained budget environment. We are 
already seeing the first signs of a new, hollow Army, and I fear that 
we will soon experience the same hollowness in our industrial 
capability.
  Like matters of troop readiness, the future of the Nation's defense 
industrial and technological base is too important to be decided by 
partisan politics. As I leave the House of Representatives, I am 
concerned about our ability to build the world's most quiet, 
technologically advanced, lethal, safe, and cost-effective nuclear 
submarines. I fear that the balance struck between our ability to 
design and engineer future submarines and the need to maintain even 
modest production of present generation submarines will be wrecked with 
little regard for our own future defense requirements.
  But I am encouraged by some recent statements of the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, regarding the future of the Nation's submarine 
industrial base and a vow to push hard for funding for SSN-23, the 
third and last Seawolf attack submarine, and for its successor, the 
Navy's new attack submarine.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is no objection, I would like to enter for the 
Record an article from the October 16, 1994, New London Day headlined 
``Gingrich Endorses More Subs While Stumping for Munster.''
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia should be praised for his 
attention to matters of national defense during his tenure in the House 
of Representatives. As an Army brat, he knows first hand the importance 
of a ready military equipped with the most modern weaponry. Mr. 
Gingrich has served on study groups at the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies and other think tanks. I expect that he will 
continue to be a strong leader on matters of national defense in the 
104th Congress.

  It is clear from the article that the gentleman from Georgia has paid 
particular attention to the future of the submarine industrial base as 
the Nation develops and equips its post-cold-war military for the 
uncertainties of the next century. I was pleased to read that he told 
an audience in Connecticut that--

       You can't allow our industrial base to collapse in the 
     defense area. * * * Developing the most acoustically silent 
     submarine in the world takes years of technical skill.
       And if that base ever disappears, it will take us 20 years 
     to rebuild it.

  The third and final Seawolf has been labeled an ``industrial base'' 
submarine due to its crucial role in maintaining the vital submarine 
industrial base. There is, Mr. Speaker, substantial military value for 
the submarine missions of the 21st century to justify the cost of 
completion of SSN-23.
  The environment of the 21st century will demand a highly adaptable 
attack submarine for: convert surveillance and intelligence collection 
in the coastal regions; covert insertion and recovery of Special 
Forces; quick response, covert Tomahawk strike missions; antisubmarine 
warfare against modern diesel-electric submarines owned by rogue states 
like North Korea and Iran; and anti-SSSN capability against missile 
submarines in the event Russia or China comes under control of 
unfriendly or erratic leadership.
  The Seawolf, designed to be the world's most advanced submarine, has 
multimission capabilities that complement the less expensive new attack 
submarine and are much improved over those of the SSN-688I. The Seawolf 
has greater weapons capacity, higher speed capabilities, more internal 
space and a greater depth capability than the SSN-688I or the new 
attack submarine.
  The civilian and military leadership of the Pentagon--the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff--all agree that the only way to preserve the nuclear 
submarine industrial base is to keep building submarines. Following 
detailed analyses and numerous studies, the Department of the Defense 
concluded that the most technologically and cost-effective path to take 
is the one it has embarked on: build the third and final SSN-23 Seawolf 
nuclear attack submarine in fiscal year 1996 and commence production of 
a the new attack submarine in fiscal year 1998.
  The submarine supplier base represents a fragile national security 
asset. It is large and diversified, but is rapidly contracting due to 
cutbacks in military spending and changed defense priorities. There are 
approximately 600 major equipment suppliers and a total base of almost 
3,000 companies when subtier and commodity suppliers are included. This 
nationwide network is made up of large firms that devote a small 
percentage of their engineering expertise and productive capacity to a 
small nich market, as well as small companies with such highly 
specialized products and skills that they are heavily--or even wholly--
dependent on submarine work for their survival.

  The importance of the supplier base is highlighted by the fact that 
shipyard costs account for about 35 to 40 percent of the total cost of 
a submarine; the remainder goes to hundreds of other suppliers for 
products and services furnished to the shipyard and the Navy.
  Many of the companies that make up the submarine supplier base have 
gone through significant, and in some cases drastic, downsizing and 
reorganization in their efforts to remain viable. Some have abandoned 
submarine work or gone out of business altogether. Others will follow 
before the shakeout in the defense industry runs its course.
  There is a great wealth of information available to all Members of 
Congress on the preservation of the submarine industrial base and the 
vast but fragile vender base around the Nation that supports submarine 
building. I would urge my colleagues--and all new Members of the House 
of Representatives--to call the Defense Department for a detailed 
briefing on this important matter of national security that affects all 
of our constituents.
  The gentleman from Georgia also spoke about the continuing Russian 
submarine production program. He stated: ``People need to be aware * * 
* that the Russians are continuing the momentum of their submarine 
research. So you just can't stop with this generation [of submarine]. 
We've got to continue to work on the kind of breakthroughs that will 
allow us to build a next generation submarine. That submarine would be 
built in Connecticut.''
  Much of the information about the continuing Russian submarine 
research and production programs--as well as the growing Third World 
Submarine threat--is classified and cannot be discussed publicly in any 
detail. I would encourage all of my colleagues and those newly elected 
Members of Congress to arrange a briefing with the Department of the 
Navy.
  While the gentleman from Georgia acknowledged that he had in fact 
voted for a rescission of SSN-22 and SSN-23, the second and third 
Seawolfs, during the Bush administration, he stated that his 
``presumption was that we'd come back and build number two the year 
after and number three the year after that,'' adding that, ``It's a 
flat falsehood to suggest I ever voted to zero out the Seawolf.''
  Mr. Speaker, there will be those who will oppose building the third 
and final Seawolf for purely political reasons. But as Mr. Gingrich 
knows, there is nothing political about ensuring the Nation's ability 
to first deter through strength any potential adversary, and if 
deterrence fails, fight and quickly win any conflict anywhere in the 
world. Preserving the nuclear submarine industrial base--first by 
buying the third and final Seawolf in fiscal year 1996 and then 
commencing production of the new attack submarine in fiscal year 1998--
is an integral part of our national defense.

                     [From The Day, Oct. 18, 1994]

         Gingrich Endorses More Subs While Stumping for Munster


          minority whip's claim ``laughable,'' says Gejdenson

                           (By Stan DeCoster)

       New London.--U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich, the controversial, 
     conservative Republican who hopes to be the next speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, on Monday declared himself to 
     be a major supporter of continued submarine construction at 
     Electric Boat.
       Gingrich made the comments before attending a $100-a-plate 
     fund-raising luncheon at the Lighthouse Inn for Edward W. 
     Munster, the Republican who is trying to unseat U.S. Rep. Sam 
     Gejdenson, the Democratic incumbent in the 2nd Congressional 
     District.
       The Georgia Republican vowed to push for funding of the 
     third Seawolf in the next Congress as well as continued 
     financing of the attack sub that will succeed the Seawolf.
       ``You can't allow our industrial base to collapse in the 
     defense area,'' he said at a press conference. ``Developing 
     the most acoustically silent submarine in the world takes 
     years of technical skill. And if that base ever disappears, 
     it will take us 20 years to rebuild it.''
       Gejdenson called Gingrich's comments laughable, saying he 
     voted in 1992 to rescind funds for the second and third 
     Seawolf subs in support of then-President Bush.
       ``The 1992 vote was a referendum on the future of the 
     Seawolf submarine, plain and simple,'' Gejdenson said. ``We 
     won that referendum, no thanks to Newt Gingrich.''
       Gingrich, who is minority whip in the House, likely would 
     become speaker if Republicans gain enough seats in November 
     to claim a majority.
       He is traveling about the country in hopes of boosting the 
     chances of GOP candidates, especially those such as Munster 
     who are in competitive races. In a poll commissioned by The 
     Day and released Sunday, Gejdenson had the support of 42 
     percent of those expected to vote and Munster 33 percent. 
     David B. Bingham, the nominee of A Connecticut Party, lagged 
     behind with 9 percent.
       Gingrich had been expected to attend a Monday morning 
     fundraiser for Kevin Vigilante, a Republican congressional 
     candidate in Rhode Island. But Paul Moore, a Vigilante 
     spokesman, said they couldn't sell enough tickets to make the 
     event worthwhile.
       About 65 people attended the Munster luncheon.
       Inside the Inn, Gingrich met briefly with reporters, 
     talking mostly about the future of submarines. He carried a 
     letter for Munster, assuring the Haddam Republican that he 
     would seek to place him on the House Armed Services Committee 
     if he defeats Gejdenson, a 14-year incumbant.
       Gejdenson has been criticized by some in southeastern 
     Connecticut for not sitting on the committee, which 
     establishes defense and military priorities.
       Gingrich also defended the Republican ``Contract with 
     America,'' a compliation of Republican priorities that the 
     GOP promises would come to a vote within the first 100 days 
     of the 104th Congress. Munster has signed the contract.
       Gejdenson has charged the contract is nothing more than 
     ``Reaganism II'' that would provide tax breaks for the rich 
     and cut Social Security and Medicare.
       Democrats, according to Gingrich, refuse to say what they 
     would do to move America ahead.
       ``They don't like our contract,'' he said. ``But where's 
     theirs?''
       He said defense spending should be geared up, with some 
     estimates the Clinton White House is short-changing the 
     defense and military by $80 billion and $120 billion below 
     needed levels. Regarding submarines, he said:
       ``People need to be aware--that the Russians are continuing 
     the momentum of their submarine research. So you just can't 
     stop with this generation (of submarine). We've got to 
     continue to work on the kind of breakthroughs that will allow 
     us to build a next generation submarine. That submarine would 
     be built in Connecticut.''
       He acknowledged that he voted for a ``recission'' during 
     the Bush administration that included putting off the second 
     and third Seawolf subs.
       ``My presumption was that we'd come back and build number 
     two the year after and number three the year after that,'' he 
     said. ``It's a flat falsehood to suggest I ever voted to zero 
     out the Seawolf.''
       Gejdenson responded by issuing a partial transcript of 
     President Bush's recission notice. It stated; ``Dissolution 
     of the Soviet Union loading to a reduced threat, and the 
     vigorous pace of U.S. submarine construction in the past 
     decade, have eliminated the need for a new class of 
     submarine.''
       ``If,'' Gejdenson said, ``the president's recission package 
     would have passed, the Seawolf program would have been dead. 
     And EB would have closed its doors.''
       Gingrich said he regularly supported increased defense 
     spending while Gejdenson voted the other way.
       ``Gejdenson was voting to cut defense and get more for 
     Connecticut,'' he said. ``And in the long run, that's not 
     sustainable.''

                          ____________________