47. Memorandum From the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (McIntyre) to President Carter1
SUBJECT
- Navy Shipbuilding Plans
In the 1979 Defense budget, you deleted advance funding for a medium-sized aircraft carrier (CVV). Further, you deferred a decision on whether any carrier should be built in the next five years, pending the completion of a Defense study of the issue. That study is to be completed by the Navy in February or March, 1978.
We recommend that you call Senator Stennis and Representative Price this week to obtain their support for your 1979 shipbuilding program and their advice on longer-range shipbuilding plans. Word of your decisions is leaking out, and some people may try an end run to the Committees to get a larger shipbuilding program. The House Armed Services Committee is especially likely to add a nuclear carrier (CVN), costing $2 billion and maybe the nuclear AEGIS ship (CGN) costing $1.1 billion. The Senate Committee may also be leaning toward adding a carrier.
To head off this potential budget threat, a commitment from Stennis and Price to await the results of the study would be useful. They should be made aware that final decisions for aircraft carriers have not been made. Further, they could be informed that after you review the Defense study with Secretary Brown, you will inform them of your decision. Without your personal commitment to these two gentlemen, the Congress is likely to develop its own five-year shipbuilding plan which will include one or more new nuclear carriers. If they believe the program is unacceptably low, you might want to consider adding $700 million and 2 DD–963 class destroyers to the 1979 program. These ships would be useful anti-submarine warfare assets. In addition, the Ingalls Shipyard in Mississippi, where they are built, is running out of work.
Because a carrier decision will not be made prior to completion of the Defense study, specific outyear shipbuilding plans should not be provided to the Congress with the 1979 budget. Current law, however, requires submission to Congress of: [Page 214]
- —
- 1980 authorization requests by May 15, 1978.
- —
- The Five-Year Defense Program for construction of nuclear-powered major combatant vessels and an update of the previous five-year shipbuilding plan concurrent with the budget submission.
We see two ways to proceed:
Option A: Submit a 1980 Authorization and a five-year plan with no new carriers. Submit an amended budget and five-year plan, in the spring, if you decide to proceed with a new carrier.
Option B: Submit a 1980 Authorization and a five-year shipbuilding plan that specifies total dollars but not specific ships. Provide a specific list of ships for 1980–1983 when a carrier decision is made this spring.
Option A has the advantage of providing Congress with a specific shipbuilding program while reserving the option of adding a carrier later if they desired. Its disadvantage is that it implies that you have already decided against building any new carriers.
Option B leaves the decision completely open and is consistent with the way military construction authorizations are handled. Its disadvantage is that some members of Congress might consider it contrary to the intent of the laws requiring submission of future-year shipbuilding information.
Recommendation: Option B, and that you call Senator Stennis and Congressman Price this week.
Decision: Option A _______
Option B _______2
Other: _______
- Source: Carter Library, National Security Affairs, Brzezinski Material, Agency File, Box 11, Navy Department: 6/77–12/79. No classification marking. Carter wrote at the top of the memorandum: “Jim—Price: ‘ok’ Stennis ‘ok’ J.” A stamped notation at the top of the memorandum reads: “The President Has Seen.”↩
- Carter indicated his approval of the recommendation by writing a checkmark and initialing next to “Option B.”↩