President Obama's 2011 Budget to Expand Submarine Program

Courtney: Submarine funding included in Obama's budget
Norwich Bulletin
By MICHAEL GANNON
February 1, 2010
President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget request can be taken in “a very positive way” by advocates of the nation’s submarine program, according to U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District.

Speaking on a conference call Monday, Courtney said Obama’s defense appropriations request includes $5.4 billion for the construction and design of the Virginia-class submarine program. It also has an additional $730 million in research and design of the next generation of ballistic missile submarines, which would replace the Ohio class.

“This is something we were looking at very closely in southeastern Connecticut to see the administration’s commitment to the submarine program,” Courtney said.

Both expenditures, if approved by Congress this year, would mean more work for Electric Boat in Groton. Courtney echoed hopes expressed last week by Electric Boat and members of the Metal Trades Union that the projected increase in design work could allow for the retraining and transfer of many of the 434 shipyard workers who will be laid off beginning in April.

Courtney also said the Pentagon’s mandated Quadrennial Defense Review states a need for a fleet of 53 to 55 submarines in the future to carry out all projected tasks. That also would be good news for Electric Boat, as the figure is five to seven more than the 48 called for in 2006. Fiscal year 2011 is the first year the Navy will begin building two Virginias per year, one each at Electric Boat and Newport News, Va.

“Taken together, the need (for construction at Electric Boat) would be sustained well into the 2020s,” Courtney said.

He said that is good policy given both the versatility of the Virginia and strides being taken by China and other nations to augment their sub fleets.

In a statement issued by his office, U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., said defense dollars for Connecticut for such items as submarines and jet engines increases the investments in “the vital resources our soldiers, airmen and Marines rely on.”

Robert Hamilton, spokesman for Electric Boat, said it was too early in the process for the company to comment. Representatives from the Metal Trades Council and the Marine Draftsmen’s Association, the two major unions at Electric Boat, could not be reached for comment.


Submarines rate high in Obama budget
The New London Day
By: Jennifer Grogan
February 2, 2010

President Barack Obama released a defense budget Monday that supports building two submarines a year and investing in a new ballistic-missile submarine, even while slashing the funding for other weapons programs.

Local submarine supporters have worked for years to increase the submarine production rate from one to two per year.

"This is a budget that a lot of people have been watching closely," U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said Monday. "… Our questions have been answered, and in a positive way."

The Virginia-class submarine program will receive $5.4 billion, if the budget passes, for two submarines in fiscal 2011, for the advanced procurement of submarine components for two submarines in 2012 and in 2013, and for research and development.

Virginia-class submarines provide the Navy "with the capabilities to maintain undersea supremacy in the 21st century," the budget stated.

The Navy's budget documents, also released Monday, say that it will continue to buy two attack submarines per year through fiscal 2015.

About $700 million is included to continue developing a new ballistic-missile submarine to replace the current fleet of Ohio-class, or Trident, submarines. Last year's budget provided $495 million for the program.

Electric Boat is hiring designers and engineers to work on the ballistic-missile submarine design. EB and Northrop Grumman Newport News in Virginia currently build one submarine a year under a teaming agreement.

"In an era when the Department of Defense has to make a lot of tough choices, it's encouraging to see that at the highest levels there is such a strong recognition of the importance of submarines to national security," EB President John P. Casey said in a statement.

The proposed defense budget, $708 billion for fiscal 2011, includes $549 billion to fund basic defense programs, an increase of $18 billion over last year, and $159 billion to support overseas operations, primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Other weapons programs did not get the president's support. The Defense Department proposed concluding production of the C-17 airlift aircraft, delaying the command ship replacement program and canceling the CG(X) cruiser.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a statement that he was making "substantial changes to allocate defense dollars more wisely."

"It's definitely gratifying that in a year when every program is being microscopically examined, we still pass with flying colors," Courtney said.

The administration also issued on Monday its Quadrennial Defense Review report, the latest Pentagon reassessment of the military that shapes policies and programs. It states that there will be between 53 and 55 attack submarines and four guided-missile submarines from 2011 to 2015.

The Navy has said in the past that it only needed 48 submarines. Currently there are 53 attack submarines and four guided-missile submarines.

The Department of Defense has four priority objectives, according to the report - to prevail in today's wars, to prevent and deter conflict, to prepare to defeat adversaries and succeed in a wide range of contingencies, and to preserve and enhance the all-volunteer force.

The report, along with the budget, should bring "long-term stability for the workforce at Electric Boat," Courtney said. The Navy will need two submarines a year from EB and Newport News "well into the 2020s," he added.

Electric Boat notified 434 employees last week that they will be laid off in April. Casey announced the layoffs last month, attributing them largely to the fact that the Navy is only buying one submarine a year and the company does not have enough submarine maintenance and modernization work to keep the employees busy.

Some of the trades personnel the company plans to lay off could possibly be trained to fill some of the design jobs that will be available for the Ohio-class program.

Courtney said he contacted the Navy to see if any of the repair work that is being sent to the Navy shipyards could be diverted to EB, or if any of the affected employees could work at those shipyards temporarily.

"The one-submarine production rate that has hindered the ability of EB to maintain a stable workforce is going to be a thing of the past, with the QDR report today and the financial commitment the administration is making," Courtney said.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said submarines "play a vital role in our country's national defense and the administration's commitment to the workers of Connecticut is a testament to the confidence we have in their abilities."

"I hope that these investments as well as the continuing development of the first nuclear missile submarine in decades will help avert layoffs of Electric Boat's hard-working men and women in our state," Dodd said in a statement.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said he was "proud that Connecticut workers do so much to keep our nation safe."

Washington Post: A very productive Congress, despite what the approval ratings say

By Norman Ornstein, Washington Post
Sunday, January 31, 2010; B02

When President Obama urged lawmakers during his State of the Union speech to work with him on "restoring the public trust," he was hardly going out on a limb. The Congress he was addressing is one of the least popular in decades. Barely a quarter of Americans approve of the job it's doing, according to the latest Gallup/USA Today poll, while 58 percent said it was below average or one of the worst ever, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey last month.

It's not hard to find reasons why Americans are down on Capitol Hill, and why President Obama's approval rating has dropped below 50 percent in many polls. A year into the 111th Congress, unemployment remains at 10 percent, and many Americans are struggling to get by -- even as they've watched Congress bail out banks and coddle the same bankers now salivating over massive new bonuses. At the same time, the public has had a front-row seat to the always messy legislative process on health care and other issues, and this past year that process has been messier, more rancorous and more partisan than at any point in modern memory.

There seems to be little to endear citizens to their legislature or to the president trying to influence it. It's too bad, because even with the wrench thrown in by Republican Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts, this Democratic Congress is on a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66, and Obama already has the most legislative success of any modern president -- and that includes Ronald Reagan and Lyndon Johnson. The deep dysfunction of our politics may have produced public disdain, but it has also delivered record accomplishment.

The productivity began with the stimulus package, which was far more than an injection of $787 billion in government spending to jump-start the ailing economy. More than one-third of it -- $288 billion -- came in the form of tax cuts, making it one of the largest tax cuts in history, with sizable credits for energy conservation and renewable-energy production as well as home-buying and college tuition. The stimulus also promised $19 billion for the critical policy arena of health-information technology, and more than $1 billion to advance research on the effectiveness of health-care treatments.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has leveraged some of the stimulus money to encourage wide-ranging reform in school districts across the country. There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

Any Congress that passed all these items separately would be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress did it in one bill. Lawmakers then added to their record by expanding children's health insurance and providing stiff oversight of the TARP funds allocated by the previous Congress. Other accomplishments included a law to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, a credit card holders' bill of rights and defense procurement reform.

The House, of course, did much more, including approving a historic cap-and-trade bill and sweeping financial regulatory changes. And both chambers passed their versions of a health-care overhaul. Financial regulation is working its way through the Senate, and even in this political environment it is on track for enactment in the first half of this year. It is likely that the package of job-creation programs the president showcased on Wednesday, most of which got through the House last year, will be signed into law early on as well.

Most of this has been accomplished without any support from Republicans in either the House or the Senate -- an especially striking fact, since many of the initiatives of the New Deal and the Great Society, including Social Security and Medicare, attracted significant backing from the minority Republicans.

How did it happen? Democrats, perhaps recalling the disasters of 1994, when they failed to unite behind Bill Clinton's agenda in the face of uniform GOP opposition, came together. Obama's smoother beginning and stronger bonds with congressional leaders also helped.

But even with robust majorities, Democratic leaders deserve great credit for these achievements. Democratic ideologies stretch from the left-wing views of Bernie Sanders in the Senate and Maxine Waters in the House to the conservative approach of Ben Nelson in the Senate and Bobby Bright in the House, with every variation in between. Finding 219 votes for climate-change legislation in the House was nothing short of astonishing; getting all 60 Senate Democrats to support any version of major health-care reform, an equal feat. The White House strategy -- applying pressure quietly while letting congressional leaders find ways to build coalitions -- was critical.

Certainly, the quality of this legislative output is a matter of debate. In fact, some voters, including many independents, are down on Congress precisely because they don't like the accomplishments, which to them smack of too much government intervention and excessive deficits. But I suspect the broader public regards this Congress as committing sins of omission more than commission. Before the State of the Union, the stimulus was never really sold in terms of its substantive measures; it just looked like money thrown at a problem in the usual pork-barrel way. And many Americans, hunkering down in bad times, may not accept the notion of "countercyclical" economic policies, in which the government spends more just when citizens are cutting back.

Most of the specific new policies -- such as energy conservation and protection for public lands -- enjoy solid and broad public support. But many voters discount them simply because they were passed or proposed by unpopular lawmakers. In Massachusetts, people who enthusiastically support their state's health-care system were hostile to the very similar plan passed by Congress. Why? Because it was a product of Congress.

Well before Sen.-elect Brown's Bay State upset, it was clear that a sterling legislative record in the first half of the 111th Congress did not guarantee continuing action in 2010 or beyond. And now, Democrats' success at keeping 59 senators in line means little if they cannot find someone on the other side willing to become vote No. 60. With Republicans ebullient over the Massachusetts election, the likelihood is that they will feel vindicated in their "just say no" strategy, Obama's leadership lectures notwithstanding.

If the midterm elections in November turn out to be more like 1994, when Democrats got hammered, than 1982, when Republicans suffered a less costly blow, the GOP will probably be emboldened to double down on its opposition to everything, trying to bring the Obama presidency to its knees on the way to 2012. That would mean real gridlock in the face of a serious crisis. Given the precarious coalitions in our otherwise dysfunctional politics, we could go quickly from one of the most productive Congresses in our lifetimes to the most obstructionist.

And voters would probably like that even less.

Norman Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the co-author of "The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track."