National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 -- (Senate - June 20, 2006)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise this morning to discuss the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill. I am glad it is on the floor. It is very important legislation, and it is arriving in a timely manner where we can dispose of it along with the other body and hopefully conclude in the next few weeks with a finalized Defense authorization bill.

I would also note that this is Senator Warner's last bill as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and I personally want to commend him and thank him for his leadership, not only as the chairman of this committee, but as a young sailor, a young marine, and a more mature Secretary of the Navy, and now a mature Member of the United States Senate. So thank you, Senator, for your leadership and friendship.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island. I appreciate his remarks, a Senator with a very distinguished military record of his own, and quite modest about it. But at some point I would love to have a colloquy with the Senator on why Rhode Island--we are talking about sovereignty and the formation of governments--about why did they hold out those many years before ratifying the Constitution? At some point, could the two of us have a colloquy about that?

Mr. REED. I would be happy to do that, in the future.

I would like to highlight some of the aspects of the bill which I think are very important. I have had the privilege of working with Senator Cornyn as the ranking member of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. It has been a real pleasure. He has conducted the committee with great efficiency and great cooperation. The staff has been particularly helpful on a bipartisan basis.

I am pleased to note that in the context of our deliberations, several important measures were included in this legislation. First, we have authorized an additional $400 million for science and technology programs. The original request sent by the Department of Defense was woefully inadequate. Science and technology is the key to our future on the battlefield as we match the skill and valor of our soldiers with the very best technology. We have to continue this investment. I am pleased that our legislation increases that item by $400 million.

Also, the bill includes language to require a report to Congress on the testing policies and practices that should be pursued with respect to rapid acquisition programs, spiral development programs, quick reaction fielding programs, and the testing for safety and survivability of deployed equipment. One of the weaknesses, I believe, with the present approach of the Department of Defense is a failure to adequately test and evaluate, and I think that failure has to be corrected and this report will, I hope, put attention on this issue and lead to positive results.

The legislation also urges the Department of Defense to identify and nominate an individual to serve as the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. This position has been vacant since January 2005. It is a critical position. This individual is the key independent personality in the Department of Defense to look at the testing and evaluation of new equipment. Without this position, the testing emphasis is woefully inadequate in the Department of Defense.

As we put new systems into the military, we have to ensure that these systems are adequately tested. Without an individual with that responsibility and that position and posture within the Department of Defense, we are not providing the appropriate personality and mechanism to do the job.

The bill also establishes the Joint Technology Office to coordinate all DOD hypersonics research programs in conjunction with NASA. The new office reflects an appreciation of the important role that these technologies can play in advanced air platforms, missile systems, and space systems. The committee's provision is an effort to ensure that millions of dollars being invested by the services and by DARPA in hypersonics are optimized and coordinated to enable this maturing set of technologies to reach operational capabilities at the highest possible rate and at the earliest possible time.

The bill also extends the authority for DOD to run technology competitions and awards cash prices to winners. This is a provision that DARPA uses very effectively.

The bill also authorizes more than $30 million in increases for research that supports defense manufacturing technology. A growing concern in the United States, in both the defense and commercial sector, is whether or not we have the capability to manufacture what we invent. This money will help us enhance our manufacturing abilities throughout the United States.

There is another area of the bill that I think is very important and that is the area that helps us protect this country from weapons of mass destruction. First, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program of the Department of Defense is fully funded with a budget request of $372 million. The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is one of the leading nonproliferation programs. It allows our Government to cooperate with other governments, principally those of the former Soviet Union, to reduce the availability and supply of the fissile material and potential access to nuclear devices.

Also, the nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy are fully funded at $1.7 billion. This funding is critical. One of the most obvious threats and the most grievous threats to face this country is the existence of nuclear weapons, particularly if they fall in the hands of terrorists. One very effective way to prevent this potential apocalypse is to ensure these weapons are fully under the control of a credible responsible party. In fact, in many cases we are destroying some of this material to prevent it from ever being used again.

The bill also includes an important waiver for the President with respect to the conditions that Russia must meet for chemical weapons destruction programs. It is important to continue to have these programs go forward. This waiver gives the President flexibility to continue these efforts.

In the areas of combating terrorism and homeland defense, the bill authorizes funding increases of about $150 million. Approximately $100 million of these funds are being used to fund the top eight unfunded requirements of the Special Operations Command. We all understand each of the components of the Department of Defense submit their requests. These eight elements were not funded under the prevailing budget. Our legislation would provide $100 million to do that and allow our special operators to continue to enhance their technology and their programs.

The increase will provide, I think, also, support for our Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. These are military teams that are organized in case of a weapons of mass destruction incident in the United States. They are critical. The original 32 teams played a key role. This would allow them to upgrade their equipment.

The bill also authorizes about $70 million to fund two of Northern Command's highest unfunded priorities. Included among these priorities are interoperable communications to facilitate the support of civilian authorities. This is an obvious need after Hurricane Katrina. When we go back--I am sure my colleagues are in the same position--to our home States we hear a persistent cry from fire and police officials that they need interoperable communications to talk amongst themselves and to talk to other levels of command.

The bill also creates a senior executive position within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict to provide management oversight for SOCOM's acquisition programs. One of the lacking elements in SOCOM's organization is an acquisition specialist. This bill would put in a person with those skills, so they can facilitate the acquisition and development of new technology for our Special Operations Command.

The bill also includes an authorization for the Department of Defense to use counterdrug funds to support U.S. assistance to the unified counterdrug/counterterrorism military campaign in Colombia. Last April, I was in Colombia and I had the opportunity to meet with President Uribes. I was encouraged by what he has done and what the people of Colombia have done. I also visited with our military personnel and civilians working to help the Colombian military personnel who have been working to fight narcoterrorism and strengthen democratic governance in Colombia, and I was extremely impressed with what they have done since my last visit in 2000. I believe, as we support the Colombians in their efforts, we will make a significant contribution to stability in that region.

Finally, with respect to our efforts on the Emerging Threat Subcommittee, I note the bill includes authorization for incentive clauses in some of our chemical demilitarization contracts. This authority is intended to provide a more efficient way to close some of our chemical weapons facilities and to meet international deadlines.

All of these efforts were the result of the close cooperation of Senator Cornyn and the staff with respect to the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.

Let me now turn to an issue of increased importance in the last few days and that is missile defense. We are all anxiously observing what is going on in North Korea--the intelligence suggesting that the North Koreans are preparing to launch a long-range ballistic missile.

This bill contains language that I think recognizes a need to continue to develop a missile defense system and to do so in a way that can assure its effectiveness. The bill would authorize additional funding for systems that we know are working and are extremely valuable, including the Aegis BMD system and the Patriot/PAC-3 system. I note the Patriot system is our only system that has actually intercepted a hostile missile, and that additional support for this system is more than justified. I also note that the Patriot system was rigorously tested and was subject to operational testing before it was fully deployed.

The largest single missile defense funding increase which is authorized by this bill is $115 million for additional integrated flight tests for the Ground-based Mid-course Defense system, the GMD. I think it is very important to focus in on operational testing of this system. One of the shortcomings of the whole program for developing our missile defense system has been a rush, in many cases, to failure, not taking the steps to test the system or not designing tests that are operationally significant. In that respect, we have spent a lot of money but we have yet, I think, to fully and effectively deploy the ground-based mid-course system.

We have to recognize that after three successive intercept flight test failures, the Missile Defense Agency is taking some steps which I think are encouraging. They created an Independent Review Team and a Mission Readiness Task Force to analyze these failures and recommend improvements to the GMD program.

Again, one of the persistent criticisms I had was that the system was rushing pell-mell forward without stopping to evaluate the mistakes that have been made and then planning for a thorough and exhaustive system of tests. Therefore, the effort was just to put something in the ground, not to ensure that missile system would work adequately.

MRTF, the Mission Readiness Task Force, recommended that four ground-based interceptors be diverted from planned operational deployment--essentially sitting in the ground being described as operational, but frankly I don't know anyone who would give that a high probability of success--to using these missiles for ground tests. I think that is a step forward in terms of development the system.

These recommendations were accepted by the Missile Defense Agency and the Defense Department. Again, I think a recognition of a new pragmatism and realism on the part of the Missile Defense Agency, something that is more than overdue. We need more testing to ensure the GMD system will work, and I think the legislation we have before us will signal and encourage such testing.

The bill would also include a provision that would require the Department to submit to Congress each test and evaluation plan approved by the Director of Operational Tests and Evaluation under Section 234 of last year's National Defense Authorization Act. Again, this provision is designed to help improve testing and to show the emphasis that the Congress places on this testing.

Finally, the bill includes a provision that would extend the requirement to have the GAO assess the missile defense program. The GAO plays a very valuable role as an outside objective observer on the progress of missile defense.

We have to invest in a missile defense system, but we have to do it wisely. We have already seen where the effect of other budget priorities, principally Iraq, has even caused the administration to move money away from their original plans in missile defense. I believe we cannot afford to waste money in this regard. We have to invest it wisely. Part of that wise investment means having an adequate, thorough, exhaustive operational testing program to make steady progress, rather than to rush to failure.

I would like to turn to another topic which is of concern to myself, and that is the shipbuilding program. Since 2001, most of the focus of the Department of Defense and Congress, indeed, of the Nation, has been on our land forces, the Army and Marines. They are engaged in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq and doing a magnificent job. They are bearing the burden of a very difficult combat situation.

However, our Navy is still a vital element in our national defense. Its importance will continue to loom significant in the future. The CNO has stated that he needs $13.5 billion each year for at least the next decade to recapitalize the fleet. With this funding, the Navy must also build approximately 11 ships per year to maintain a 313-ship fleet.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. As I stated, the Chief of Naval Operations indicated he would need approximately $13.5 billion each year for the next decade to recapitalize the fleet. However, the President's budget request only includes 7 ships in fiscal year 2007 versus the 11 that the Chief needs to maintain the 313-ship fleet. Seven ships in fiscal year 2008. In 2009 the suggestion is they move up to nine ships. But those plans have been delayed before.

This shipbuilding level simply cannot sustain the fleet. My greatest concern is with respect to the construction level of submarines. While many believe that the need for submarines has diminished with the end of the Cold War, the demand for these unique assets has never been greater.

Last week I was with Senator Dodd and Senator Inouye for the christening of the USS Hawaii, our newest Virginia Class attack submarine at Groton, CT. Admiral Roughhead, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, pointed out submarines are his most demanded asset. They are the one ship that is constantly requested by commanders throughout the Pacific to do the tasks that are necessary to defend the Nation.

This is true in our global war on terrorism as we need the ability for stealthy insertion of special operations troops. We need to be able to recover these troops, we need to have the capacity to strike with precision-guided Tomahawk cruise missiles. All of these are capabilities of the submarine fleet.

Back in March of 2004, Admiral Bowman, who was then the Director of the Navy's Nuclear Propulsion Program, suggested to me that the Navy was only able to meet about 65 percent of the combatant commanders' submarine requirements with the current fleet of 54 boats. In 2003, Vice Admiral Grossenbacher, then commander of the Naval Submarine Forces, estimated we needed 70 submarines to meet the request of all of the commanders. These are requests that will simply not be met if we drop our submarine fleet below certain limits.

In addition, we understand that China is developing a very robust submarine fleet. Today, China's submarine fleet is estimated at a number of approximately 60 boats. In 2004 and 2005, 12 new submarines joined the Chinese fleet. New nuclear-missile-attack boats are coming on line, and China has one of the largest modern diesel submarine fleets in the world. Clearly, there is a need to prudently react to the growing underwater prowess of China.

Presently, the U.S. Navy has 282 ships, including 54 attack submarines. In the fiscal year 2007 long-range plan for construction of naval vessels, the Navy expressed the intent to maintain 313, but only 48 attack submarines. Recall recently there were requirements for up to 70 submarines--at least discussion of 70 submarines--or 54 submarines; 48 attack submarines are currently in the plan. The Navy is in danger of not even being able to put to sea 48 attack submarines at current build rate.

Right now the Navy is currently procuring one Virginia class attack submarine per year, and a ninth is in the budget for this year. However, under the original plan drawn up by the Navy in 2003, production of two boats per year was supposed to begin in fiscal year 2007. Now the procurement of two per year has been pushed back to fiscal year 2012.

If the Navy is able to implement its plan and begin building two attack submarines per year in fiscal year 2012, the attack submarine fleet will still drop below 40 before it begins to increase again. If the 2-per-year procurement keeps getting pushed off to the left--it has already happened 10 times where it has been pushed back--the submarine force would drop as low as 28.

I think we all agree that 28 is a number that cannot be justified in terms of the demand and in terms of this effort. We have to do quite a bit to move up the construction of two submarines per year.

First, the report language accompanying this bill states: ``The Committee does not understand the continuing delays in increasing the [submarine] construction rate'' and directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit a detailed plan for lowering costs and defining goals and benchmarks for the Virginia class production program. I believe this language will help compel the Navy and the industry to redouble their efforts to increase the construction rate--and that is vitally important.

Second, I am pleased to know that this legislation includes $65 million for R&D for the Virginia class submarines.

This R&D is I think critical not only to improve the capabilities of these ships but also to continue to engage in the design force which is part of the human capital in our submarine industrial base.

Also, I note that the bill includes $10 million for funding to begin design work on the successor to the Ohio class ballistic submarine. This design work is essential to continue our ability to produce a follow-on generation of attack submarines but also ballistic submarines.

I think this is absolutely critical.

Let me turn to another point with respect to our Army; that is, end strength.

I am pleased to see that this bill authorizes an Active-Duty Army end strength of 512,400, which is 30,000 over the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request.

The act also authorizes an Active-Duty Marine Corps of 180,000, which is 5,000 over the President's budget request.

I think it is important to maintain the end strength of the Army.

I think it is a result of the efforts of Senators Lott and Talent and myself on the budget resolution, where we actually moved $3.7 billion to accomplish this.

Let me make one final point, if I may.

The Army end strength is a critical issue. I think we have to note, at this time but also at a later date continue to note, that recruiting is becoming a critical issue for the U.S. Army. According to the information I have, the U.S. Army, in the first three-quarters of the year, has recruited to a level of 40,000. That means in the final quarter the Army is going to have to recruit 40,000 soldiers to meet their goals. That is much higher than they have ever done in the last few years.

We have a recruiting problem that is beginning to emerge.

I will devote additional time on this subject at a later time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov