National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 12, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, thank you.

Mr. President, I express my gratitude to the Senator from Georgia for his remarks.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2007, the bill that is on the floor. Passage of the bill is critical to ensuring that our military has the resources necessary to accomplish the demanding missions we have asked them to undertake around the globe.

I am privileged to chair, on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and to work closely with my colleague on the other side of the aisle, the ranking member, Senator Jack Reed. Together, we ensured that this year's National Defense Authorization Act would make a number of important contributions in the areas of combating terrorism, homeland defense, nonproliferation, and investments in defense science and technology.

I want to spend a few minutes highlighting the subcommittee's work as part of this larger Defense authorization bill. But before addressing those specifics, I commend Chairman Warner for his outstanding leadership of the Armed Services Committee in the time I have been in the Senate.

This markup, as has already been noted, is his last markup as chairman of the committee. But I am confident that Senator Warner will continue to contribute in many ways and play a key role in the work of the committee, even after he no longer is chairman. We are fortunate to have his expertise in the Senate, particularly on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I congratulate him for a job well done.

This bill builds on the President's budget request of $11.1 billion for science and technology by adding $362 million in authorization language to these important programs. This year's additional science and technology investment is focused on unmanned systems, energy and power, information assurance, combat medicine, force protection, transformational technologies, and basic research.

The bill sustains the committee's investment in research and technology to defeat improvised explosive devices, otherwise known as IEDs, that are having such a devastating effect on our troops and civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Reflecting a focus on transformational technologies, the bill directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a Department-wide unmanned systems policy, and to give preference to unmanned systems and vehicles in development of these new systems. The bill also directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a joint technology office to coordinate, integrate, and manage hypsersonic research, development and demonstration projects and budgets.

To support the Department's commitment to combat terrorism and to protect our homeland, this bill authorizes nearly $150 million above the President's budget request in this area. The bill adds $13.5 million for homeland defense research, equipment and operations, and $17.3 million to meet unfunded priorities of the Northern Command responsible for the area, including the continental United States.

The bill provides additional resources and authorities for the Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams, including adding $8.5 million for the development of a sustainment training program for the 55 congressionally authorized WMD-CSTs--Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams--and an additional $5 million to address equipment upgrades for the first 32 of those teams to ensure standardization of equipment for all teams.

The bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense to approve the deployment of these teams to Canada and Mexico, with the consent of appropriate authorities in each of those countries, and expands the types of emergencies for which the Secretary may prepare or employ these civil support teams.

The recent arrests of terrorists in Canada make it all too easy to imagine a circumstance in which we might want to employ these Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams beyond our borders when requested by our neighbors either to the north or to the south.

Reflecting the importance the committee places on information assurance and cyber-security, the bill requires the Department to report to Congress on progress in addressing a list of identified deficiencies in the area of cyber-security, information assurance, and network protection.

In recognition of the critical and growing role of Special Operations Forces in the global war on terrorism, this bill adds $102.4 million for Special Operations Command to address unfunded priorities, and includes a provision to enhance acquisition oversight for the Special Operations Command to make sure the dollars it does spend are spent well.

Our troops must be prepared for the possibility of a chemical or biological attack by terrorists at home or on the battlefield. Accordingly, the bill adds $68 million for chemical-biological defense, including $30 million to procure equipment to address shortfalls in National Guard units for chemical agent detection equipment and monitors, and $38 million for chemical and biological defense research, development, test, and evaluation programs to counter the threat of chemical and biological weapons.

In the area of nonproliferation and weapons of mass destruction threat reduction, this bill fully supports the President's budget request, authorizing $1.7 billion for the Department of Energy nuclear nonproliferation programs and more than $372 million for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. These important programs are preventing weapons of mass destruction from getting into the hands of terrorists.

Finally, the bill includes several provisions to extend and expand the Department of Defense counterdrug authorities, including those relating to support of Colombian efforts against terrorist organizations involved in narcotics activity; DOD support of the counterdrug activities of other U.S. Government agencies; and Department of Defense support of the counterdrug activities of other countries.

Before I conclude, I would like to spend just a couple minutes on a section of the bill with which I strongly disagree. The committee bill recommends a 1-year delay in the production of the Joint Strike Fighter. I share my colleagues' concerns and commitment to acquisition reform, and I am pleased that the committee bill contains many provisions to improve our acquisition process. We have to get acquisition costs under control if we are going to be able to procure the weapons systems our Nation needs to meet the threats of the 21st century. But I am deeply concerned that the committee's recommendation will undermine the Joint Strike Fighter Program in terms of cost increases and schedule slips.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program is the largest acquisition program in the history of the Department of Defense. There are legitimate questions regarding the level of concurrency between research and development and procurement in this program that have been subject to criticism by the General Accounting Office. The committee recommendations closely follow those recent GAO reports on the Joint Strike Fighter. But I would note that the GAO recommendations have not been subject to a business-case analysis. In fact, implementation of the General Accounting Office recommendations could likely cost more and result in further delays of the program.

In short, I am concerned that the committee recommendation of a 1-year production delay may be penny-wise and pound-foolish. For example, do we know how the proposed 1-year delay in production will affect the overall cost of the Joint Strike Fighter program? Do we know how the proposed 1-year delay in production will affect the Initial Operational Capability of the Joint Strike Fighter? And, finally, do we know how the proposed 1-year delay in production will affect our international partners?

These are questions raised at the committee level and I think still are deserving of good, solid answers. I strongly believe we need the answers to these questions before undertaking major changes in this important program. I am hopeful that as we move forward we can get the answers Congress needs in order to help, and not hurt, this important program.

I have highlighted those elements of the fiscal year 2007 national Defense authorization bill that were developed by the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. There are, of course, many other important provisions in this bill which my colleagues on the committee will have the opportunity to describe.

I urge all Senators to support the legislation and, in doing so, send a resounding signal of support to our men and women in uniform.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov