Rep. Randy Forbes is the chairman of the influential House Armed Services subcommittee on seapower and projection forces, returning for a second term.
The Virginia Republican’s district stretches to the edge of U.S. Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, home of four of the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers and dozens of the amphibious ships, submarines, cruisers and destroyers that make up the U.S. Atlantic fleet.
In February, lawmakers received a fiscal 2016 budget request for the Navy from the Obama administration that was a 180-degree turn from last year’s White House request. The fiscal 2015 request called for the retirement of an aircraft carrier and the early mothballing of 11 cruisers, which Forbes’ committee rejected. This year, lawmakers were generally pleased with the request, which fully funds the Navy and tacks on spending for nine new ships.
However, the requests are part of a defense bill that is $35 billion over the mandated sequester-level caps, meaning that unless Congress raises the caps or votes to end sequestration, the Navy would lose most of this additional spending.
Forbes was first elected in 2001, and prior to his chairmanship of the Armed Services’ seapower subcommittee, he headed the readiness subcommittee. He spoke with the Washington Examiner about the budget difficulties facing the Navy and threats facing the U.S. An edited transcript of the conversation follows:
Washington Examiner: In your view, what is the most difficult challenge facing the Navy today?
Forbes: The lack of predictability. The Navy is being asked to do long-term planning [to face future threats] but it’s been given budgets that don’t have any long-term predictability to them. Second, we’ve got to turn the curve lines around [by ending sequestration and increasing spending on the Navy] so that the dollars they have will be adequate for what our commanders will be requiring of them over the next several years.
Examiner: In President Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget request, the Navy came out as a “winner” — more people and more ships — but those gains can’t happen without a lift in sequestration caps. Are you still feeling confident that the armed services committees can convince non-defense committee members to raise the caps?
Forbes: I think what’s important is when non-defense members look at our defense needs – if we ask them how much they want to spend, it is not as persuasive as if you ask them what it takes to defend the U.S. Then, clearly the answer you see is that we can’t do it on these budget caps.
Examiner: What about reports that the fiscal conservatives on the budget committee are not amendable to raising the caps? What kinds of additional outreach are you planning?
Forbes: I can’t say that’s what I’ve been hearing. We are in the process of formulating some responses to make sure those caps are lifted. It would be incredibly dangerous for us as a nation if we [only] go to the [sequester cap] limits.
What [policymakers] need to ask is – what are they willing to give up? Are they willing to give up the Strait of Hormuz [because sequester cuts would limit the U.S. Navy’s ability to guarantee freedom of movement there.] The CIA has said if we do, gas prices will go up to $7.50. Are they willing to give up the underwater cable, where 96 percent of banking transactions happen? Or our shipping lanes? If the answer is “no,” then it’s just math to see what you need to defend it.
Examiner: Would you consider any other modifications to sequestration, such as providing commanders more flexibility within the caps?
Forbes: None of that can solve the curve line problem. There’s nothing you can do within those curve caps to move us out of the crisis we are in in national defense.
Examiner: You’ve previously mentioned that the fiscal 2016 budget is overall a reflection of the priorities your committee has set for the Navy. Are there any major tweaks you would want to make to the president’s 2016 request?
Forbes: We want to sustain the Tomahawk production line and make sure numbers they have given us are adequate numbers. We need at least enough to sustain our production lines, around 196.
Examiner: At what point would the sea-based deterrence fund need to be funded to be in place in time for the first Ohio-class replacement submarine?
Forbes: The sea-based deterrence fund is like a savings account. Once it’s set up, the longer you wait to start putting money in, the more difficult it is going to be. I hope we start sooner rather than later – if not, we are going to need such a big amount it will be more and more difficult to get those dollars.
Examiner: The fiscal 2016 budget request funds nine ships, including $1.4 billion for three Littoral Combat Ships. You’ve previously mentioned your hesitation with the ship given that its mission continues to be modified. If other tradeoffs can’t be found and there’s not enough political support to raise the spending caps, would you consider a pause on Littoral Combat Ship funding to apply the funds elsewhere?
Forbes: Right now – if you look to the subcommittee as a whole, some members are very supportive of [Littoral Combat Ships] for parochial reasons, but I think the subcommittee will be a good honest referee for that program, and ask good questions to make sure the Navy is sure it is a platform that fills its mission. I think there are still some questions lingering out there that members need to have answered before members support the LCS 100 percent. We’ll continue to monitor that program.
