[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5511-5512]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 5512]]

this is that for 5 to 7 years you do not have another home port for a 
nuclear 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.

                          ____________________