National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (Senate - November 08, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. Let me begin my comments by paying tribute to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services and the able ranking minority Member. They have worked very hard with all who are privileged to serve under their leadership to craft this important bill.

In the interests of time, I will focus my remarks today on three particular provisions. First, those providing $9.1 billion for an essential shipbuilding priorities; second, the provisions offered by Senator McCain, which I am proud to cosponsor, to provide standards for the treatment of detainees; and third, the amendment I am pleased to join my colleague, the senior Senator from Maine, in offering having to deal with conveyances of closed bases.

This bill authorized $9.1 billion for shipbuilding. It also includes a provision to prohibit the use of funds by the Navy to conduct a one-shipyard acquisition strategy to procure the next generation DD(X) destroyers. Not only does this bill fully fund the President's budget request for the DD(X) program, but it also provides, at my request, an additional $50 million for advance procurement of the second ship in the DD(X) class at Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am understandably very proud of the skilled workers at Bath Iron Works and their contribution to our Nation's defense.

This authorization for DD(X) funding aligns the Senate-passed appropriations bill, and our bill parallels the appropriations bill with this funding.

The high priority placed on shipbuilding in the Senate's version of the Defense authorization legislation stands in stark contrast to the House Defense authorization bill which actually rescinds $84 billion in funds designated for Bath Iron Works, the detailed design work on the DD(X) I secured as part of the Defense legislation signed into law last

year. The House version also slashes funding for the DD(X) program contrary to what was proposed in the President's budget.

These misplaced priorities remain even when the former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Clark, has testified repeatedly that the Navy's requirements for the next generation destroyer are clear. I look forward to working with the other Members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services to resolve this important issue in our conference.

I now turn to the issue of the treatment of detainees. The vast majority of our troops carry out their dangerous and difficult missions with fairness, compassion, and courage. To them, the actions of those who have been accused of torture against detainees are demoralizing and make the difficult task they have been assigned immeasurably more difficult. Critics of abuse at detention facilities operated by the U.S. military have attributed this abuse not only to the criminal actions of individual military personnel--and, again, that is not the vast majority of our troops--but also to the lack of clear guidance across the U.S. Government for the treatment of detainees. Senator McCain's amendment provides that clear guidance. I am proud to be a cosponsor.

Finally, let me comment very briefly on the amendment offered by my colleague from Maine. It only adds insult to injury to require a community to have to pay for the property involved in a base closure. Surely we can work with our communities in a more cooperative way to enable them to pursue the economic development that is necessary to make a closed military installation a productive part of the community once again. It is the least we owe these communities struggling with base closures throughout the United States. I hope we can work out something on that amendment.

The bill before the Senate is a good one. I salute the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague and member of the committee, the Senator from Maine. The Senator has fought hard on behalf of her interests in that State. Indeed, the BRAC process, in some respects due to your efforts, was modified in the end to the interests of the State.

While I am not going to be able to support the Snowe-Collins amendment, nevertheless, in other areas the Senator made some progress. I thank the Senator for her work on the committee given her work on the Government Operations Committee. Nevertheless, the Senator finds time to attend our meetings and be an active participant. I thank my colleague.

I ask unanimous consent at the hour of 2:45 the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Inhofe amendment No. 2439, followed by a vote in relation to the Harkin amendment numbered 2438. I further ask that the Inhofe amendment be modified so it is a first-degree amendment, and that no second-degree amendments to the amendments be in order prior to the votes; provided further that the time from 2:15 to 2:45 be equally divided between Senators INHOFE and HARKIN. I further ask on an unrelated matter that Senator Stevens be recognized for up to 10 minutes of morning business following the two votes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/