National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

Statement

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Madam President, I rise today to discuss the National Defense Authorization Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators McCain and Reed, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I commend their continued bipartisan leadership and collaboration on behalf of our servicemembers and our national security.

As someone who served in the U.S. Marine Corps and also served on the House Armed Services Committee, I understand the importance of Congress's fulfilling its constitutional duties to our men and women in uniform.
This legislation is important for our country. It is also important to my neighbors. That includes Hoosiers serving on Active Duty, in the Reserves, and in the Indiana National Guard, as well as their families.

It also helps Hoosiers working at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane, Crane Army Ammunition Activity, and Defense Finance and Accounting Service in Indianapolis to perform their important work, which is essential to our servicemembers.

Now, for the last 55 years, Congress has passed the NDAA. Given the threats our country confronts, it is important that we once again pass this legislation and provide our troops with the training, weapons, and support they need to accomplish their missions and return home safely.
But that is not enough.

Congress must pass Defense authorization and appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year, stop the habitual use of continuing resolutions for the Department of Defense, and end defense sequestration once and for all. I stand ready to work with Senators of both parties to achieve these objectives.

I am committed to doing my part, and that is why I voted to end debate on this legislation last week and why I will support further advancing the bill today, despite the fact that we weren't able to debate and vote on amendments here on the floor.

Today, I will only note that I have introduced a couple of bipartisan amendments related to Saudi Arabia's actions in Yemen. These are amendment Nos. 585 and 1081. I believe this issue deserves consideration by the full Senate, and I look forward to speaking at length on this issue again in coming days.

I share the frustration of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed regarding the lack of floor debate and substantive votes, and I hope the Senate can do better next year. I think each Senator, the Americans we represent, and the troops who protect us are right to expect better.

Now, with that said, I applaud Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for working to include over 100 noncontroversial amendments in this bill.

I am proud of the fact that the Defense bill we are going to vote on--and, hopefully, pass--this evening includes three amendments important to Hoosiers that I introduced and for which I worked with the committee to include. I would like to quickly mention two of them and then spend a little more time on the third.

The first provision is amendment No. 793. This provision would press the Department of Defense to implement Government Accountability Office recommendations or explain why they aren't doing so.

Now, let me explain why this is so important. Our Nation confronts challenges and threats of extraordinary scope. Yet the resources we have are limited. That means we need to ensure that the Department of Defense is operating as efficiently and as effectively as possible with the money the taxpayers provide. That is what our national security demands and what U.S. taxpayers are right to expect.

So when a respected organization such as the GAO, our Federal Government's auditor, conducts independent and rigorous analysis and identifies key areas for improvement within DOD, Congress and the Pentagon should take it seriously.

Here is the problem. As of this morning, there were 1,008 open GAO recommendations, including 75 priority recommendations that DOD alone has failed to address fully. Now, some of these priority recommendations relate to missile defense, ship maintenance, military readiness, servicemember healthcare, and financial management, and some of these open recommendations go back to 2009 and even earlier.

There may be a few of these recommendations in which DOD has a persuasive justification for not implementing GAO's recommendation, but I believe the burden of proof should be on DOD to either implement GAO's recommendations without delay or justify to Congress why they believe the recommendation should not be adopted. That is essentially what my provision would do.

I look forward to working with the leaders and staff of the Armed Services Committees to ensure that this important provision is included in the final legislation.

I would also like to highlight a second amendment, amendment No. 882, that I introduced and worked to include in the bill that we will soon vote to adopt. This provisions would require the Navy to conduct and provide to Congress a comprehensive review of U.S. maritime intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting capability, also known as ISRT.

In light of growing Chinese and Russian maritime capabilities, this report would require the Navy, among other things, to identify specific capability gaps and specific areas of risk when it comes to ISRT, as well as offer solutions and resources that are needed to address those capability gaps and areas of risk. The review will help to ensure that the United States retains the naval supremacy necessary to keep vital shipping lanes open, deter aggression, and defend our national security interests.

Now, lastly, I would like to highlight amendment No. 821. I introduced it and worked with the committee to include this in the bill, and I want to thank Senator Donnelly for cosponsoring my amendment.

On January 27, the President issued a memorandum that emphasized the need for a ``modern, robust, flexible, resilient, ready, and appropriately tailored nuclear deterrent.'' This memorandum reiterated the longstanding and bipartisan consensus that deterring a nuclear attack on our country and on our allies depends on our ability to maintain a strong, nuclear deterrent.

Our nuclear deterrent includes three legs, also referred to as the nuclear triad, consisting of submarine-launched ballistic missiles, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and long-range bomber aircraft. Now, each of these legs offers an important and complementary capability making clear to any potential aggressor that a nuclear attack on the United States would be suicidal and, thereby, deterring such an attack in the first place. Perhaps that is why Secretary of Defense Mattis, referring to the deterrence of potential aggressors, said just last week: ``If I wanted to send the most compelling message, I have been persuaded that the triad . . . is the right way to go.'' Now, the challenge is that, in just the next two decades, essentially all of our Nation's nuclear delivery systems and all of our nuclear weapons will need to be refurbished or replaced.

According to a February 17 study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that could cost a total of $400 billion over the next decade. That is an enormous cost during a period when our Department of Defense has many other modernization bills coming due. Consequently, we must identify opportunities to minimize costs while not sacrificing capability.

So consistent with that fact, on January 31, Secretary Mattis issued a memorandum calling for an ``ambitious reform agenda, which will include a horizontal integration across DOD components to improve efficiency and take advantage of economies of scale.'' Consistent with that memorandum and the memorandum of the President, my amendment would require the Office of the Secretary of Defense, working with our Navy and Air Force, to submit a report to Congress on the potential to achieve more value; that is, enhanced nuclear deterrence at a lower cost by integrating elements of acquisition programs related to modernization and sustainment of the nuclear triad.

If we can improve efficiency and program management, cost, and schedule by increasing integration, colocation, and commonality between the strategic deterrent programs of the Navy and the Air Force and their associated systems, technologies, and engineering processes, then we should do so.

Back home in Indiana, the skilled workers at Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane have supported the Navy Strategic Systems Program for more than 60 years. Crane is the largest DOD supplier to the Strategic Systems Program. Crane provides the Navy's only organic high- reliability, radiation-hardening capability. Crane also serves as a leader in trusted microelectronics. What is less well known is that Crane provides important support to the Air Force's ICBM Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Program. More importantly, there is good reason to believe that Crane can dramatically increase its level of support to the Air Force's strategic programs.

That is the kind of joint collaboration between the Air Force and the Navy my amendment envisions. By breaking down stovepipe barriers between our military services, by eliminating unnecessary duplication, and by looking for commonsense opportunities for joint cooperation, we can keep our country safe and save money in the process. That is not only a win for Crane, it is a win for the Navy, it is a win for the Air Force, it is a win for taxpayers, and it is a win for the safety and security of every American.

That is why I look forward to working with the leadership and staff of the Armed Services Committee to include this amendment in the final bill.

I thank Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed for their work and tireless leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee and for your work to bring the National Defense Authorization Act to this point.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source