[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 36 (Monday, April 4, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3122-S3123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
USS ``JOHN F. KENNEDY''
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to inform the Senate I
am introducing a bill today that I will offer as an amendment to the
supplemental funding bill for defense which is supposed to come out of
the Appropriations Committee this week and will be coming then more
than likely to the floor next week. This supplemental appropriations
bill is a must-pass bill because it contains the funding for additional
expenses on the war in Iraq. As such, it becomes a vehicle through
which I can try to attach an amendment that would have a significant
policy effect upon our defense posture.
It is no secret that a number of us have joined in opposing the
Pentagon's plans to scrap one of our 12 aircraft carriers. The aircraft
carrier they have selected is the John F. Kennedy, which is home ported
at Mayport Naval Station, which is in Jacksonville, FL. Naturally, I
speak for the interests of Jacksonville and the State of Florida, but I
speak with a much larger vision about the defense interests of our
country.
For example, if the Pentagon, which I think has made a wrongheaded
decision on budgetary reasons--they think it is going to save them a
billion dollars when in fact it is not, but even so, if that were true,
in the middle of a war is not the time for us to be reducing our
ability to protect our forces around the world with these floating air
fields that we call aircraft carriers. And we only have 12. The
Pentagon is proposing to scrap one of the 12.
There is another reason. As a result of the announcement that was
made by the Navy this past Friday night after business hours, the Navy
is going through with the plans on the Kennedy by scrapping the plans
for rehabbing it in dry dock. It is not a surprise, but it is a
confirmation that it is the John F. Kennedy they are planning to axe.
The significance of this from a defense posture is that it leaves all
of our remaining carriers in the Atlantic fleet home ported in one
port--Norfolk, VA.
The significance of that is in testimony in our Senate Armed Services
Committee, over and over, four star admirals have come in front of us
and said: Don't keep all of your carrier assets in one place. Spread
them out.
It is no secret that when a terrorist is looking to do some damage of
closing up a port, particularly a port that is upriver such as Norfolk,
with some one or several carriers that could be in port, just sinking
debris in the channel could close up the port. That is not the defense
posture we want.
So there is no one who is in the uniformed military who thinks you
should not spread your assets. As a matter of fact, on the west coast,
on the Pacific fleet, we have three ports for aircraft carriers. The
response is: If you are going to scrap the Kennedy, which is a
conventional carrier, powered by oil, why not then take one of the
nuclear carriers and put it down at Mayport Naval Station and you have
achieved the same thing? That would be good, but it is going to take,
according to testimony in the Armed Services Committee, a minimum of 5
to 7 years before that could happen because of the environmental impact
statement that first has to be done and then, secondly, the
reconfiguring of the docks and the other facilities to be able to
handle a nuclear-powered carrier. The result of this is that for 5 to 7
years you do not have another home port for a nuclear
[[Page S3123]]
carrier on the east coast of the United States, and all of them are
home-ported in one place. That is not the defense posture the United
States should be in.
It is another thing to talk about the parochial interests, which I
represent, of Jacksonville and Florida. That is certainly an economic
hit because Jacksonville, even if they get a nuclear carrier--and by
the way, 5 to 7 years down the road it is another administration and
another Congress to make those decisions--but in the meantime,
Jacksonville doesn't have a carrier for 5 to 7 years, with the economic
hit that takes place and the Nation doesn't have its carrier assets
spread on the Atlantic coast of this country. That is not a position we
should have.
I am going to offer a compromise, since it seems that the Pentagon is
absolutely intent on scrapping--they call it mothballing--this carrier.
The compromise I am suggesting, and I talked to the Vice Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs just moments ago, is since the Navy and the Pentagon
have decided they are not going to rehab the John F. Kennedy in a dry
dock and save that expense, but the Kennedy can remain operational for
the next 3 to 4 to 5 years without being rehabbed in dry dock, let us
keep our assets dispersed on the east coast until these decisions are
made and the facilities are changed so we can spread our nuclear
carrier assets.
That does another thing for the defense policy of this country. There
is a question coming up in 2008, when the conventionally powered
aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk is scheduled to be decommissioned. She is
now home-ported in Japan because Japan, the Japanese Government, has
had a policy of not accepting a nuclear carrier. What happens if by
2008 the Japanese Government does not change the policy and will not
receive a nuclear carrier? Then we ought to have the John F. Kennedy
kept alive in an operational status where it can fill that role and,
over the course of the next 3 years coming up to 2008--and we are in
2005 right now--we will know the status.
From the standpoint of defense policy, No. 1, of spreading our
carrier assets, the compromise I am offering makes sense. No. 2, from
the standpoint of being able to respond quickly if we needed another
conventionally powered carrier in Japan, we would have a backup
conventional carrier in 2008 if the Japanese Government would not
receive a nuclear carrier. And, No. 3, it would not disrupt the lives
of all those Jacksonville families by suddenly abolishing one of our
carriers and all of the 5,000 sailors and their families and perhaps
other ships in the carrier battle group that would go away. It seems to
me it is the prudent defense policy thing to do.
I know if I offer this, if it is not being considered in the
Pentagon, that I am swimming upstream. But I think it is worth the
fight, not only as a Senator representing Florida but as a member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee; it is a matter of protection, of
the defense interests of this country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes, but then following my remarks
that the Senator from Tennessee be recognized for any remarks he might
have, and following the conclusion of his remarks that I might then be
recognized at that time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________