National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 14, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. I thank the Chair.

I rise in strong support of the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation provides essential resources to our troops, whether they are engaged in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, in training and service at home, or in deployments in other countries around the world. I thank my colleagues, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senators WARNER and LEVIN, for putting together an excellent bill and also for their strong commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.

Through the leadership of Chairman Warner and Senator Talent, the Seapower Subcommittee chairman, the legislation before us strengthens our Nation's shipbuilding program by authorizing construction of eight new ships and by providing $12.1 billion in shipbuilding moneys, an increase of $1.5 billion above the President's request. This legislation wisely focuses on the declining size of the Navy fleet and takes significant strides toward strengthening the shipbuilding program. It also provides some much needed stability for the industrial base that will be called upon to build and sustain the current force and the future fleet.

The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Mullen, has put forward a 313-ship long-range Navy shipbuilding plan that is a genuine effort to address longstanding congressional concerns that Navy shipbuilding has been inadequately funded and has lacked stability from year to year. Past instability has made it difficult for shipbuilders to plan their businesses. That degree of instability, coupled with less-than-economic production rates, has contributed to significant cost growth in naval shipbuilding programs. The CNO's plan, combined with more robust funding from Congress, will begin to reverse the dangerous decline in Navy shipbuilding.

I am pleased that this bill provides full funding for the DD(X) destroyer program, including split funding of the first two ships' detailed design and construction. The DD(X) is so important to our future national security. This ship will have high-tech capabilities that currently do not exist on the Navy's surface combatants. These capabilities include far greater offensive and precision firepower, advanced stealth technologies, numerous engineering and technological innovations that will allow for reduced crew size and thus help to reduce the lifecycle cost of the ship and sophisticated, advanced weapons systems such as the electromagnetic rail gun.

Constructing the first two DD(X)s in 2007 and 2008 will contribute to the sustainment of our Nation's highly skilled shipbuilding workforces, including the employees at Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. I am very proud of these highly skilled workers and their contributions to our Nation's defense. Split funding between the first two DD(X) ships is a key component of the CNO's 313-ship plan and will make an important contribution to stabilizing a critical naval shipbuilding program, allowing for a more steady plan for the fragile dual-source service combatant shipbuilding industrial base, and achieving long-term program affordability through stability and other ongoing Navy and industry initiatives.

Split funding for the DD(X) also supports cost-effective construction activities at both of our shipbuilding yards that concentrate on surface combatants. That will help stabilize and preserve two shipyards in order to meet future Navy requirements. If there were ever any doubt about the need to have two shipyards capable of constructing surface combatants, surely those doubts were put to rest by the extensive damage that Hurricane Katrina caused at the Ingalls Shipyard. We simply cannot afford to have only one shipyard that is capable of responding to the needs of our Navy for capable advanced surface combatants. That is why it is so critical that our procurement strategies recognize that and are developed and designed to sustain both yards.

In doing so, we are helping the Navy meet its needs. Our naval fleet has been declining for far too many years. This bill will take a significant step toward stability and meeting the requirements that exist.

The high priority placed on the DD(X) program in the Senate version of the Defense authorization bill stands in stark contrast to the House Defense authorization bill that recommends full funding for the procurement of only one DD(X) and does not adopt the critical split funding approach. Failure to support the budget for two DD(X)s would exacerbate the production gap facing BIW in Maine and would pose a significant risk to the DD(X) program that the CNO has so strongly endorsed and that the committee has consistently supported. Navy officials testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that authorizing only one DD(X) in fiscal year 2007 would result in the following negative consequences.

First, it would cause significant program delay and disruption. Second, it would increase program costs. Third, it would have a negative impact on the shipbuilder industrial base. Fourth, it would defer the planned competitive contract awards from 2009 until at least 2011. And, finally, it would force the Navy into a lead-follow scenario that would require an additional $450 million in shipbuilding funds. Approval of split funding is, therefore, critical to moving the DD(X) program forward. It strives to keep both DD(X) shipbuilders on an equal footing during this key transitional period.

Furthermore, the House version of the DOD authorization bill recommends reducing the overall DD(X) program to only two ships, a significant decrease from the Navy's requirement for a minimum of seven DD(X)s as part of the 313-ship plan. At one point a couple of years ago, the Navy said it actually needs 12 DD(X)s. I still believe the military requirements suggest that that is the accurate number. But for the House committee to slash the number of ships under this program to two would seriously jeopardize our national security. I hope we will proceed with the Senate's much better plan to proceed with a minimum of seven DD(X) ships.

I am also pleased that the committee agreed to my request for $25 million in funding to accomplish planning and engineering for the modernization of the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke destroyer class. This program, which has been in effect in the past few years, is already showing significant promise of significant savings to the Navy by applying some of the technology that is being developed for the destroyer of the 21st century, the DD(X), and backfitting the DDG. This has the potential, for example, to reduce crew size on the retrofitted DDGs by about 30 to 40 sailors. That certainly is significant as well.

The Senate's fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill also includes funding for other important defense-related projects that benefit Maine and our national security. For example, it includes additional funding for the Mark V fast patrol boat that is being developed at a shipyard in Maine, in conjunction with the University of Maine. It also provides $2 million to the University of Maine's Army Center of Excellence in order to continue the design and testing of lightweight ballistic panel tent inserts made from composite materials. These potentially lifesaving panels protect our troops from insurgent attacks when they are sheltered in temporary dining or sleeping facilities in hostile environments. This is particularly important to the State of Maine because we lost National Guardsmen in Iraq who were eating in an unprotected mess tent. Had we had those composite ballistic inserts for this tent, truly, I believe, lives and injuries would have been saved and avoided.

The legislation also authorizes $9.6 million for the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and Drydock Waterfront Support Facility in Kittery, ME. This will replace the current submarine support center that is more than 60 years old and poorly designed for current use.

This legislation also provides much needed funds for other national priorities. The legislation authorizes incentive payments for civilian health care providers who provide services to TRICARE beneficiaries in rural and medically underserved areas. I know that is a concern of the Presiding Officer as well. Any of us who represent rural States realize how difficult it is to ensure an adequate supply of health care providers.

It also follows on the Senate's action earlier this year by repealing provisions of the Survivor Benefit Plan that require the offset of military retirement annuity payments by amounts received for dependency and indemnity compensation. It authorizes acceleration of the effective date of the paid-up provision from October 1, 2008, to October 1, 2006, for retirees who reach age 70 and have paid premiums for 30 years.

Finally, let me again, since the distinguished chairman is now in the Chamber, commend him for his extraordinary leadership and dedication to the men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces. We are very fortunate to have such a talented and committed chairman and ranking minority member as we do on this committee. I am very proud to be a member. I offer my full support to the important legislation before us.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov