{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgE2", "1994-12-20", 103, 2, null, null, "MR. GINGRICH IS RIGHT ON THE NEED TO BUILD THE ``SEAWOLF'' SUBMARINE", "HOUSE", "EXTENSIONS", "FRONTMATTER", "E", "E", "[{\"name\": \"Ronald K. Machtley\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", null, "140 Cong. Rec. E", "Congressional Record, Volume 140 Issue 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 150 (Tuesday, December 20, 1994)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n[Congressional Record: December 20, 1994]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]\n\n  MR. GINGRICH IS RIGHT ON THE NEED TO BUILD THE ``SEAWOLF'' SUBMARINE\n\n                        HON. RONALD K. MACHTLEY\n\n                            of rhode island\n\n                    in the house of representatives\n\n                       Tuesday, December 20, 1994\n\n  Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, since being elected to the House of\nRepresentatives in 1988, a year before the fall of the Berlin Wall and\nthe symbolic end of the cold war, I have paid particular attention to\nthe future of our national defense. I am proud of my service as a\nmember of the House Armed Services Committee. I have worked hard to\nensure that our men and women in uniform are trained and ready to fight\nand are equipped with the world's most modern and lethal weaponry.\n  Defense planning and budgeting is no easy business, especially with\nthe uncertainties the Defense Department now faces from new threats\nabroad and at home due to a constrained budget environment. We are\nalready seeing the first signs of a new, hollow Army, and I fear that\nwe will soon experience the same hollowness in our industrial\ncapability.\n  Like matters of troop readiness, the future of the Nation's defense\nindustrial and technological base is too important to be decided by\npartisan politics. As I leave the House of Representatives, I am\nconcerned about our ability to build the world's most quiet,\ntechnologically advanced, lethal, safe, and cost-effective nuclear\nsubmarines. I fear that the balance struck between our ability to\ndesign and engineer future submarines and the need to maintain even\nmodest production of present generation submarines will be wrecked with\nlittle regard for our own future defense requirements.\n  But I am encouraged by some recent statements of the gentleman from\nGeorgia, Mr. Gingrich, regarding the future of the Nation's submarine\nindustrial base and a vow to push hard for funding for SSN-23, the\nthird and last Seawolf attack submarine, and for its successor, the\nNavy's new attack submarine.\n  Mr. Speaker, if there is no objection, I would like to enter for the\nRecord an article from the October 16, 1994, New London Day headlined\n``Gingrich Endorses More Subs While Stumping for Munster.''\n  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia should be praised for his\nattention to matters of national defense during his tenure in the House\nof Representatives. As an Army brat, he knows first hand the importance\nof a ready military equipped with the most modern weaponry. Mr.\nGingrich has served on study groups at the Center for Strategic and\nInternational Studies and other think tanks. I expect that he will\ncontinue to be a strong leader on matters of national defense in the\n104th Congress.\n\n  It is clear from the article that the gentleman from Georgia has paid\nparticular attention to the future of the submarine industrial base as\nthe Nation develops and equips its post-cold-war military for the\nuncertainties of the next century. I was pleased to read that he told\nan audience in Connecticut that--\n\n       You can't allow our industrial base to collapse in the\n     defense area. * * * Developing the most acoustically silent\n     submarine in the world takes years of technical skill.\n       And if that base ever disappears, it will take us 20 years\n     to rebuild it.\n\n  The third and final Seawolf has been labeled an ``industrial base''\nsubmarine due to its crucial role in maintaining the vital submarine\nindustrial base. There is, Mr. Speaker, substantial military value for\nthe submarine missions of the 21st century to justify the cost of\ncompletion of SSN-23.\n  The environment of the 21st century will demand a highly adaptable\nattack submarine for: convert surveillance and intelligence collection\nin the coastal regions; covert insertion and recovery of Special\nForces; quick response, covert Tomahawk strike missions; antisubmarine\nwarfare against modern diesel-electric submarines owned by rogue states\nlike North Korea and Iran; and anti-SSSN capability against missile\nsubmarines in the event Russia or China comes under control of\nunfriendly or erratic leadership.\n  The Seawolf, designed to be the world's most advanced submarine, has\nmultimission capabilities that complement the less expensive new attack\nsubmarine and are much improved over those of the SSN-688I. The Seawolf\nhas greater weapons capacity, higher speed capabilities, more internal\nspace and a greater depth capability than the SSN-688I or the new\nattack submarine.\n  The civilian and military leadership of the Pentagon--the Office of\nthe Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and the Joint\nChiefs of Staff--all agree that the only way to preserve the nuclear\nsubmarine industrial base is to keep building submarines. Following\ndetailed analyses and numerous studies, the Department of the Defense\nconcluded that the most technologically and cost-effective path to take\nis the one it has embarked on: build the third and final SSN-23 Seawolf\nnuclear attack submarine in fiscal year 1996 and commence production of\na the new attack submarine in fiscal year 1998.\n  The submarine supplier base represents a fragile national security\nasset. It is large and diversified, but is rapidly contracting due to\ncutbacks in military spending and changed defense priorities. There are\napproximately 600 major equipment suppliers and a total base of almost\n3,000 companies when subtier and commodity suppliers are included. This\nnationwide network is made up of large firms that devote a small\npercentage of their engineering expertise and productive capacity to a\nsmall nich market, as well as small companies with such highly\nspecialized products and skills that they are heavily--or even wholly--\ndependent on submarine work for their survival.\n\n  The importance of the supplier base is highlighted by the fact that\nshipyard costs account for about 35 to 40 percent of the total cost of\na submarine; the remainder goes to hundreds of other suppliers for\nproducts and services furnished to the shipyard and the Navy.\n  Many of the companies that make up the submarine supplier base have\ngone through significant, and in some cases drastic, downsizing and\nreorganization in their efforts to remain viable. Some have abandoned\nsubmarine work or gone out of business altogether. Others will follow\nbefore the shakeout in the defense industry runs its course.\n  There is a great wealth of information available to all Members of\nCongress on the preservation of the submarine industrial base and the\nvast but fragile vender base around the Nation that supports submarine\nbuilding. I would urge my colleagues--and all new Members of the House\nof Representatives--to call the Defense Department for a detailed\nbriefing on this important matter of national security that affects all\nof our constituents.\n  The gentleman from Georgia also spoke about the continuing Russian\nsubmarine production program. He stated: ``People need to be aware * *\n* that the Russians are continuing the momentum of their submarine\nresearch. So you just can't stop with this generation [of submarine].\nWe've got to continue to work on the kind of breakthroughs that will\nallow us to build a next generation submarine. That submarine would be\nbuilt in Connecticut.''\n  Much of the information about the continuing Russian submarine\nresearch and production programs--as well as the growing Third World\nSubmarine threat--is classified and cannot be discussed publicly in any\ndetail. I would encourage all of my colleagues and those newly elected\nMembers of Congress to arrange a briefing with the Department of the\nNavy.\n  While the gentleman from Georgia acknowledged that he had in fact\nvoted for a rescission of SSN-22 and SSN-23, the second and third\nSeawolfs, during the Bush administration, he stated that his\n``presumption was that we'd come back and build number two the year\nafter and number three the year after that,'' adding that, ``It's a\nflat falsehood to suggest I ever voted to zero out the Seawolf.''\n  Mr. Speaker, there will be those who will oppose building the third\nand final Seawolf for purely political reasons. But as Mr. Gingrich\nknows, there is nothing political about ensuring the Nation's ability\nto first deter through strength any potential adversary, and if\ndeterrence fails, fight and quickly win any conflict anywhere in the\nworld. Preserving the nuclear submarine industrial base--first by\nbuying the third and final Seawolf in fiscal year 1996 and then\ncommencing production of the new attack submarine in fiscal year 1998--\nis an integral part of our national defense.\n\n                     [From The Day, Oct. 18, 1994]\n\n         Gingrich Endorses More Subs While Stumping for Munster\n\n          minority whip's claim ``laughable,'' says Gejdenson\n\n                           (By Stan DeCoster)\n\n       New London.--U.S. Rep. Newt Gingrich, the controversial,\n     conservative Republican who hopes to be the next speaker of\n     the House of Representatives, on Monday declared himself to\n     be a major supporter of continued submarine construction at\n     Electric Boat.\n       Gingrich made the comments before attending a $100-a-plate\n     fund-raising luncheon at the Lighthouse Inn for Edward W.\n     Munster, the Republican who is trying to unseat U.S. Rep. Sam\n     Gejdenson, the Democratic incumbent in the 2nd Congressional\n     District.\n       The Georgia Republican vowed to push for funding of the\n     third Seawolf in the next Congress as well as continued\n     financing of the attack sub that will succeed the Seawolf.\n       ``You can't allow our industrial base to collapse in the\n     defense area,'' he said at a press conference. ``Developing\n     the most acoustically silent submarine in the world takes\n     years of technical skill. And if that base ever disappears,\n     it will take us 20 years to rebuild it.''\n       Gejdenson called Gingrich's comments laughable, saying he\n     voted in 1992 to rescind funds for the second and third\n     Seawolf subs in support of then-President Bush.\n       ``The 1992 vote was a referendum on the future of the\n     Seawolf submarine, plain and simple,'' Gejdenson said. ``We\n     won that referendum, no thanks to Newt Gingrich.''\n       Gingrich, who is minority whip in the House, likely would\n     become speaker if Republicans gain enough seats in November\n     to claim a majority.\n       He is traveling about the country in hopes of boosting the\n     chances of GOP candidates, especially those such as Munster\n     who are in competitive races. In a poll commissioned by The\n     Day and released Sunday, Gejdenson had the support of 42\n     percent of those expected to vote and Munster 33 percent.\n     David B. Bingham, the nominee of A Connecticut Party, lagged\n     behind with 9 percent.\n       Gingrich had been expected to attend a Monday morning\n     fundraiser for Kevin Vigilante, a Republican congressional\n     candidate in Rhode Island. But Paul Moore, a Vigilante\n     spokesman, said they couldn't sell enough tickets to make the\n     event worthwhile.\n       About 65 people attended the Munster luncheon.\n       Inside the Inn, Gingrich met briefly with reporters,\n     talking mostly about the future of submarines. He carried a\n     letter for Munster, assuring the Haddam Republican that he\n     would seek to place him on the House Armed Services Committee\n     if he defeats Gejdenson, a 14-year incumbant.\n       Gejdenson has been criticized by some in southeastern\n     Connecticut for not sitting on the committee, which\n     establishes defense and military priorities.\n       Gingrich also defended the Republican ``Contract with\n     America,'' a compliation of Republican priorities that the\n     GOP promises would come to a vote within the first 100 days\n     of the 104th Congress. Munster has signed the contract.\n       Gejdenson has charged the contract is nothing more than\n     ``Reaganism II'' that would provide tax breaks for the rich\n     and cut Social Security and Medicare.\n       Democrats, according to Gingrich, refuse to say what they\n     would do to move America ahead.\n       ``They don't like our contract,'' he said. ``But where's\n     theirs?''\n       He said defense spending should be geared up, with some\n     estimates the Clinton White House is short-changing the\n     defense and military by $80 billion and $120 billion below\n     needed levels. Regarding submarines, he said:\n       ``People need to be aware--that the Russians are continuing\n     the momentum of their submarine research. So you just can't\n     stop with this generation (of submarine). We've got to\n     continue to work on the kind of breakthroughs that will allow\n     us to build a next generation submarine. That submarine would\n     be built in Connecticut.''\n       He acknowledged that he voted for a ``recission'' during\n     the Bush administration that included putting off the second\n     and third Seawolf subs.\n       ``My presumption was that we'd come back and build number\n     two the year after and number three the year after that,'' he\n     said. ``It's a flat falsehood to suggest I ever voted to zero\n     out the Seawolf.''\n       Gejdenson responded by issuing a partial transcript of\n     President Bush's recission notice. It stated; ``Dissolution\n     of the Soviet Union loading to a reduced threat, and the\n     vigorous pace of U.S. submarine construction in the past\n     decade, have eliminated the need for a new class of\n     submarine.''\n       ``If,'' Gejdenson said, ``the president's recission package\n     would have passed, the Seawolf program would have been dead.\n     And EB would have closed its doors.''\n       Gingrich said he regularly supported increased defense\n     spending while Gejdenson voted the other way.\n       ``Gejdenson was voting to cut defense and get more for\n     Connecticut,'' he said. ``And in the long run, that's not\n     sustainable.''\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1994-12-20-pt1-PgE2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 26.923933066427708, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}