National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, I thank the leaders of the Armed Services Committee. I know the Presiding Officer serves on that committee so he is well aware of the extraordinary work and service done by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed and our colleagues on the committee who have cooperated so collegially, in a bipartisan way, to produce a defense bill that supports our military men and women and their families and, more importantly, supports the United States of America in continuing to be the greatest and strongest power ever on the planet.
I want to talk about some of the specifics of that measure but first want to honor the 17 sailors who perished on the USS McCain and USS Fitzgerald. Two of them were sailors from Connecticut, and I want to pay tribute to ET2 Dustin Doyon of Suffield and ST2 Ngoc Truong Huynh of Watertown, CT. They were true patriots. Their families should be proud of them. All of Connecticut celebrates their extraordinary service and sacrifice to our Nation, even as we are struck by the grief and share the sadness of their families as best we can.

I know we also feel we owe it to them, their families, and all families of the men and women in uniform to be safe. The investigation is proceeding into the circumstances surrounding the crash that caused their deaths. I will be interested, and I hope that investigation will be expedited.

The NDAA is a vital measure that preserves our national security in an uncertain era of unprecedented threats and delivers support necessary to sustain our servicemembers and our national defense. A number of the provisions I helped craft in this measure will improve opportunities for veterans, military sexual assault survivors, help with the Ukrainian soldiers, and extend the Afghan special immigrant visa program. Those measures, among others, I am proud to have participated in crafting and supporting.

This year's bill invests billions of dollars in submarines, helicopters, and the Joint Strike Fighter engine, all produced by Connecticut's highly skilled and dedicated workforce.

The bill includes over $8 billion for Virginia and Columbia class submarines, including over $1 billion above the President's request for Virginia funding and full funding for the Columbia class program following a successful amendment I led to secure our undersea superiority and grow Connecticut jobs. Nothing is more important to our national defense than our undersea superiority. The stealth, strength, and power of our submarine force is vital to our national security.

The measure also includes $25 million for undersea research and development partnerships which Electric Boat and the University of Connecticut are well poised to take part in.

This defense measure provides, as well, $10.6 billion for 94 Joint Strike Fighters across the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, adding 24 above the budget request submitted by the President. Those 24 are necessary, and they are important now.

It includes $1 billion for 48 Army Black Hawks, $1.3 billion for six Marine Corps CH-53Ks--two more than requested--and $354 million for the Air Force Combat Rescue Helicopter Program.

Today our Active and Reserve components are deployed together in Afghanistan, and the National Guard brings unique capabilities to the fight. I am very proud of the Connecticut National Guard. I am proud to be a supporter, to work to protect and secure their vital mission as they work for us.

This year's NDAA authorizes $7 million in military construction for a new base entry complex, bringing the 103rd Airlift Wing into compliance with the Department of Defense's antiterrorism and force protection requirements to support their C-130 mission.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

For these reasons and many others, this bill keeps faith with our military men and women. It secures our national defense. It provides the assurance going forward that we will remain as strong as we need to be as the world's only superpower, guaranteeing not only our own freedom but that of others around the world.
As we consider amendments on the floor, I urge my colleagues to reject the new BRAC proposal that was introduced by Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed as McCain amendment No. 933. With all due respect, I support the intent. Again, I thank them for all of their work on this bill, as it has been an extraordinary accomplishment to bring it this far and to, hopefully, within the next few days, get it over the finish line. The intent is good. Our military is capitalizing on future savings where they exist, and it must continue to do so. Base closings will be necessary, as that is a stark fact of life, but I cannot support the BRAC effort they have proposed.

The BRAC amendment would set in motion a long and time-consuming and convoluted base closure process. Connecticut is all too familiar with that process. We had a near-death experience with our base not all that long ago. It was an experience that should sound alarm bells not only for Connecticut but for other States my colleagues represent. As a Senator who represents one of the last military bases in New England, I am deeply concerned that there may be harm to civil-military relations and harm to our national security that will be caused by closing bases in our region.

The first obligation of Congress is to do no harm to these military bases. Connecticut has seen this process before. It took almost a decade for the Connecticut Air National Guard to be assigned the C-130 flying mission that was the outcome of the last BRAC round. To carry out this mission, the Connecticut Air National Guard began deploying in support of operations in the Middle East this year.

I know personally about that BRAC process. I was involved in the BRAC Commission proceedings, and afterward I was involved in literally suing the Secretary of Defense to preserve the flying mission of our base at the Air National Guard in Connecticut. Closing that base to the Air National Guard, to the C-130, or to other planes like it would have been a disgraceful outcome, but we succeeded in reaching a result, through settlement, that preserved it.

The submarine capital of the world, also known as the ``First and Finest Submarine Base,'' is in Connecticut. The fate of that base, the Naval Submarine Base of New London, was unnecessarily put in jeopardy in 2005 as it endured unnecessary questions over its viability and military value that delayed investments and the homeporting of submarines there. Given the importance and prominence of our submarine fleet today, as well as the $17 million since 2005 that the State has invested in this base--$17 million invested by the taxpayers of the State of Connecticut--it is inconceivable that we would close this asset. It is home to 16 submarines as well as to a submarine training school.

BRAC is long on unrealized returns and short on increased readiness.

In 2005, BRAC was anticipated to cost $21 billion and save over $35 billion in the next 20 years. In reality, costs have ballooned to $35 billion, and savings will be less than one-third of what was initially projected--just $10 billion. That is the 2005 BRAC verdict; that it costs more than it saves. Simply put, BRAC cuts capabilities, and we can never get those capabilities back. At a time of global uncertainty and an expanding threat environment, we should be investing more, not less, in our readiness.

As a first step, I would welcome an independent study on where excess capacity exists today, but I am concerned that this amendment sets into motion a BRAC authorization before Congress is provided with the justification for doing so and where and how it should be set in motion. I am concerned this amendment employs a force structure baseline that has not been adequately assessed by the Department of Defense. That force structure baseline is the lifeblood of our future military, and moving forward without it provides a distorted view of where excess capacity may exist.

The BRAC amendment eliminates the independent commission that was previously designed by Congress in an effort to take politics out of the process. I deeply respect my colleagues who support this measure, but I have no confidence that they will be able to set aside the impact closures will have on their individual States. Let's be very blunt.

This measure will exacerbate the role of politics in this process, not diminish it.

While an independent commission is by no measure completely above politics, removing it will aggravate the roles that parochialism and politics play in deciding the future of military installations. Under the rules of the Senate, this body stripped itself of the ability to even make requests for individual military construction projects at specific bases. It follows that deciding the fate of entire military bases should also be a power we keep from ourselves.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, for our own sake, as Members of a body that should support our national defense, keep it as free as possible from politics and parochialism, and make sure we insulate it as much as possible from the currents and forces of special interests. I admire and respect the time and effort our committee leaders have devoted to this amendment. If it is defeated, I will work with them to address the issues I have outlined. Base closing must be considered. There are bases that can and should be reduced and perhaps completely eliminated, but I cannot support the BRAC amendment before us, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Again, I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, and the ranking member, Senator Reed, for all of their great work on this very important measure, which I hope will be passed shortly.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source