GovernmentExecutive.com

The Senate on Thursday appeared on the verge of passing an amendment to the fiscal 2006 supplemental appropriations bill that would allow the Navy to retire the historic USS John F. Kennedy, a 38-year-old aircraft carrier last deployed in 2004 to support operations in Iraq.

The amendment, sponsored by Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., would lift a prohibition in the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill barring the Navy from proceeding to retire the Kennedy, a cost-saving move that would reduce the carrier fleet to 11 ships.

During floor debate on the supplemental package this week, Warner argued that keeping the diesel-powered carrier running costs the Navy $20 million in operations and personnel funds each month. Those funds "are sorely needed elsewhere by the Navy," he said.

Budget concerns prompted Warner to reverse course in February on his opposition to the Kennedy's retirement, a plan he helped block last year.

Warner has explained his change of position by saying the money needed to overhaul the Kennedy would be better spent growing the size of the overall Navy fleet from 281 ships to 313. Warner based his decision largely on the Pentagon's recent Quadrennial Defense Review, which affirmed a need for only 11 carriers in the foreseeable future.

"In the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to safely operate and deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in modernizing the naval force," Warner said.

As a former Navy secretary, Warner told senators Thursday he would be the last person to retire a ship. But he said he would defer to the Navy that the time to retire the Kennedy had come.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who pushed language blocking the retirement last year, might oppose the amendment. But it is believed the Navy might assuage bad feelings if it makes Mayport, Fla., the Kennedy's home, a future home port for a nuclear-powered carrier.

Warner introduced the carrier language as a stand-alone bill in February. If it becomes part of the supplemental, it might entice the Navy to retire the Kennedy during the current fiscal year, another aide said. Or, the Navy might hold off taking the carrier out of service until fiscal 2007 -- as outlined in the service's fiscal 2007 budget request -- and conduct limited maintenance until then.

A Navy spokesman would not comment on the pending language.

With the carrier's days probably numbered, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., addressed the Senate this week to laud the ship, named after his late brother and known affectionately by its crew as "Big John."

"It is bittersweet to know she will be retired, but the people of Massachusetts and the Kennedy family are very proud of her service and know she holds a special place in the hearts of the Navy and the nation," Kennedy said.

COMMENTS

• Regarding the retirement of the USS John F. Kennedy -- that ship is not diesel powered as you reported. It has conventional steam power. Perhaps you meant diesel-fueled ... all non-nuclear U.S. Navy ships burn diesel fuel whether they have steam boilers, gas turbines or diesel engines. That said, I was on the Kennedy in the late 1980s, and she was not in very good mechanical shape then. Probably way overdue for decommissioning. Terry Ryan Posted May 4, 2006 9:24 AM
• "Warner argued that keeping the diesel-powered carrier running costs the Navy $20 million in operations and personnel funds each month. Those funds "are sorely needed elsewhere by the Navy” come on John you think we are totally stupid? There is no personnel savings in retirement of the JFK! The personnel still will be in the Navy and still paid for by my taxes (of debt financing that our kids will pay for). " . . .Would be better spent growing the size of the overall Navy fleet from 281 ships to 313. Warner based his decision largely on the Pentagon's recent Quadrennial Defense Review." This is the same ridiculous planning document (Quadrennial Defense Review) that said we had a budget that supported tow major wars to fight simultaneously in two different regions. The Congress and everyone else is now questioning if we can afford to fight in two second rate wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. Even Colin now questions if there were enough troops used in Iraq. Remember that Colin was the military lead that developed the Quadrennial Review and the budget to support U.S. involvement in two wars at the same time! Are we still supposed to listen to this guy? This is a perfect example of why we need term limits on elected officials. In Colin’s case we also should apply them to political appointee positions as well! Taxpayer Posted May 1, 2006 7:41 AM
• "Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who pushed language blocking the retirement last year, might oppose the amendment. But it is believed the Navy might assuage bad feelings if it makes Mayport, Fla., the Kennedy's home, a future home port for a nuclear-powered carrier." Nelson obviously does not believe in transparency for government transactions! He should allow retirement of the aircraft carrier and push to have his district receive a cash subsidy to use as it wishes. Why only buy votes from those who remain employed with the running of the aircraft carrier at my expense! Taxpayer Posted May 1, 2006 7:44 AM