National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President, for cosponsoring the amendment.

Earlier today the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee came to the Senate floor and asked for Members to come forth with their amendments. I want to speak on my amendments as well as the underlying bill. But I want to begin by commending Senator Levin and Senator McCain for their superior work on this very important piece of legislation.

For this reason I rise in support of the fiscal year 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill represents a bipartisan commitment to ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform have the support they require to execute our Nation's military strategy and to defend freedom around the globe. The legislation will improve the operation of the Department of Defense, it will strengthen congressional oversight of the Department, and it makes fiscally responsible but very difficult choices in order to meet this year's budget caps. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important bill.

I am particularly pleased that this bill fully authorizes the Navy's budget request for shipbuilding. While shipbuilding accounts for fewer than $1 out of every $10 of the Navy's budget, it is a critical component to the strength of our national defense.

The Chief of Naval Operations has testified that a fleet of 400 ships would actually be required to meet the unconstrained demands of the combatant commanders. Due to budget constraints, however, the Navy aims for a fleet that equals 313 ships in the future, but today the Navy has only 285 ships. The DDG-1000 program, the DDG-51 restart, the Virginia Class submarine, and other ships in the shipbuilding budget will help to close the troubling gap between the requirements of the combatant commanders and the number of ships the Navy actually has.

I am particularly proud that the skilled workers of Bath Iron Works in my State are playing such a critical role in building the ships our Navy requires. Bath's excellent performance of delivering ships on time and on budget or under budget to the Navy continues. This year BIW delivered the USS Spruance to the Navy where the destroyer will serve in the Pacific fleet. In addition, BIW has completed more than 60 percent of the construction of the very first DDG-1000. This is a destroyer for which the Navy laid the keel for the ship 2 weeks ago.

So, Mr. President, consider the fact that 60 percent of the construction had been completed before the keel laying ceremony; this is a feat which is all that much more impressive when we consider that the rework rate for ship construction--and this ship is the first in its class of ships--has been less than 1 percent. That is an extraordinary record and a tribute to the high-quality work performed by the men and women of Bath Iron Works.

Last week the President made clear that the United States will not shrink from its role in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, two regions where forward presence and persistence depend on the ships of the U.S. Navy. At a time when the Chinese fleet is larger than our own and is expanding, now is certainly the time to reinvigorate rather than weaken our shipbuilding industrial base to build ships that are capable of operating in anti-access and area-denial environments.

In recent weeks Secretary of Defense Panetta has warned about the negative effect of sequestration on the fragile shipbuilding industrial base and his concern that under this procedure, which would involve automatic cuts that disproportionately fall on the Department of Defense, the Navy could shrink to the smallest force since 1915. Unfortunately, the Navy fleet is already the smallest that it has been since 1916 despite the escalating threats that we face.

So I want to thank Chairman Levin, Ranking Minority Member McCain, and the chairman and ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee as well for recognizing the importance of fully authorizing the President's request for shipbuilding.

This legislation also includes important acquisition reforms to ensure that taxpayers receive the best value for every dollar authorized in this bill. One provision requires the military services to determine if they can save money by performing service-life extension programs for nontactical vehicles and equipment rather than purchasing new gear.

The committee report also seeks to save taxpayer dollars by directing the Air Force to evaluate the annual fuel costs that would be incurred at each candidate base before the Air Force decides where to assign new aircraft, such as the KC-46A tanker.

In addition to providing better value to the taxpayer, the government procurement process should be fair, open, and entirely free from politics. I would hope that is the goal on which every Member of the Senate could agree. Last spring, however, the administration was considering a draft Executive order requiring Federal agencies and departments to collect information about campaign contributions and political expenditures of bidders before awarding any Federal contract. I would suggest to my colleagues that is the antithesis of sound procurement practices.

For the administration to even consider a change that would inject politics into the procurement process goes
in entirely the wrong direction. Such a move would create the perception that political support or opposition is somehow a consideration in selecting the winners and losers among businesses vying for Federal contracts.
To ensure that contracts are kept out of the procurement process, an amendment that I offered with Senators PORTMAN and BROWN was adopted by the committee with the wholehearted support of the chairman and ranking member, and I would note that it was adopted without opposition. Our amendment specifically prohibits the Department of Defense from collecting information about political contributions made by companies seeking to conduct business with the Federal Government.

Think what a terrible position that would put contracting officers in. Right now they are just collecting information about the ability of a contractor--or a would-be contractor--to perform on the contract, information about the price they are bidding, and information about past performance. What kind of signal would it send to contracting officers if all of a sudden they are required to collect information about political contributions and expenditures? That would muddy the procurement process. It would imply that somehow political contributions are supposed to be considered in the contract award process when exactly the opposite must be the case.

Another area of particular concern to me is ensuring that our service men and women receive the health care they deserve, particularly as it relates to mental and behavioral health. While the rate of Active-Duty suicides did drop last year, it is very sad to know that almost twice as many Guard members and reservists committed suicide in 2010 compared to 2009. This is a tragedy that the chiefs of the military services, the Secretary of Defense, and the members of our committee are taking very seriously. We don't know enough about the factors why, but we do know that we need to provide better access to counseling and other services to our service men and women, to our reservists, to our Guard members, and to our veterans.

Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has had limited ability to allow its own civilian and contracted mental health professionals in one State to provide care to a patient in a different State. That is the result of complicated State licensing laws with which I am very familiar, having overseen the licensing of mental health professionals for 5 years in my career.

The result is that many in our military, particularly Guard members and Reserve members who live in rural areas where there is a shortage anyway of mental health professionals, must travel long distances to access care.

So the result is that, in many cases, they simply don't access care at all and don't receive the care, the counseling, or the assistance they need and deserve.

This bill includes the provision included at the request of Senator Begich, Senator Brown, and myself to expand access to mental health care providers for those individuals who have served.

This provision--our amendment--will allow mental health care professionals who have been qualified by the Department of Defense to serve members of the Armed Forces and our veterans using ``telehealth''--a capability the Army in particular has sought and believes would be very useful so services can be provided via videoconference, for example, to members who may be far away from the actual mental health professional.

The bill also includes provisions to increase protections for servicemembers who are victims of sexual assault. One in six women will be a victim of a sexual assault in her lifetime. Yet in the military, that terrible statistic is even higher--much higher, I regret to say. As many as one in three women leaving military service report they have experienced some form of sexual trauma.

The provisions that were included in the bill at the request of all the women of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as Senators Brown and Begich were based upon legislation Senator Kerry and I introduced to implement some of the overdue recommendations of the 2009 Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services.

Of the 91 recommendations made by this task force, only 26 have been fully implemented by the Pentagon as of May--only 26 of the 91 recommendations. There are a couple of these recommendations that are particularly important and have been included in the bill. These recommendations include providing victims with access to legal counsel and ensuring that each military unit has an adequate number of trained--and I emphasize the word ``trained''--victim advocates and sexual assault response coordinators.

The bill also requires the Department of Defense and the VA to implement a comprehensive process to preserve medical records and evidence related to sexual assaults. This has been a real problem. This process will protect victims' access to VA benefits and will help support the prosecution of their offenders. Finally, in this area, the bill modifies the Uniform Code of Military Justice as requested by the Judge Advocate Generals to improve the likelihood of prosecution of sexual offenders in the military.

While this bill does much to provide for our servicemembers and improve the processes of the Department of Defense, I believe we can further strengthen this bill, and I have offered three amendments with that goal in mind. First, I have introduced amendment No. 1180 with Senators Shaheen and Casey to address the serious threat posed to the American people by the missing portable anti-aircraft missiles from Libya. Our amendment requires an urgent intelligence assessment of the threat these missiles pose to the American people and our allies and it requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to mitigate this threat.

Former Libyan Dictator Colonel Qadhafi acquired more than 18,000 of these portable anti-aircraft missiles--one of the largest stockpiles in the world. Make no mistake, no one has an accurate accounting of where all these missiles have gone or where they are now. While the administration has sent teams to inspect and disable these missiles, where they know they exist, there is no comprehensive strategy in place despite very disturbing reports of Libyan militias refusing to disarm themselves and of terrorist groups seeking these weapons.

Recently, Senator McCain and I had the opportunity at the World Economic Forum in Jordan to meet with the then-Acting Prime Minister of the Libyan Transitional National Council, and we asked him specifically about the issue of the Libyan militias all over the country. He was very forthright in saying he had been unable to bring them under a uniform control--a real issue. Unfortunately, he decided he needed to resign, in part due to that issue. The United States simply must make an accounting for these dangerous weapons that can be aimed to take down a commercial aircraft. This must be a priority in Libya and throughout the region. I appreciate the support Chairman Levin and Senator McCain have expressed for this amendment as well as the helpful suggestions from Senator Kerry, Senator Lugar, and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

I have also offered an amendment No. 1155 to allow physical and occupational therapists to enroll in the Armed Forces Health Professionals Scholarship Program. This program provides tuition assistance to critical health care professionals in exchange for service as a commissioned medical officer.

Unfortunately, while the need for physical therapists has grown during the last 10 years of war, neither the Department of Defense nor the military services have conducted a separate analysis of the current or future DOD workforce requirements for occupational and physical therapists, even though such an analysis was required by last year's Defense authorization bill.

My amendment would allow the military services to extend the same kind of educational benefits to physical and occupational therapists that are already afforded to physicians, dentists, physician assistants, and even veterinarians.

Physical and occupational therapists at the military's major medical centers serve approximately 600 wounded warriors every day on their road to recovery. More than 32,000 servicemembers have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, including many who have suffered very serious injuries and have had to have amputations, for example. Those injuries require significant physical therapy.

The idea for this amendment came directly from a visit I had with a wounded marine from Maine at Bethesda earlier this month. He was severely wounded by an IED in Afghanistan. He lost part of one leg and his other leg has a lot of shrapnel wounds. Both of his arms were wounded, and he has a traumatic brain injury as well. In short, he has very serious wounds that are going to require a very lengthy recovery period. But he has recently been moved into wonderful accommodations--his own apartment at Bethesda. His spirits are amazingly strong and upbeat.

But when I asked him if he had any concerns, he said while he praised the care he was receiving, there was a severe shortage of physical therapists and other trained clinical personnel to help him in what is going to be a very long recovery. He is expected to be at Bethesda for another 9 months. It troubles me that he believes there are not a sufficient number of physical therapists to help him and the other wounded warriors who are hospitalized at Bethesda.

While the Department of Defense reports that overall it does not face a shortage in these professions, both the Air Force and the Navy report shortages in physical therapists, physical therapy technicians, and occupational therapists. One out of every four physical therapist positions in the Active-Duty Navy is currently unfilled. So including these medical professions in this existing educational program would help meet this need.

I wish to point out, we are not authorizing additional or new funding. However, this is an important insurance policy against a shortfall of these medical professionals that will help the Navy and the Air Force fill vacancies. After all, it is these talented and committed professionals who are helping our wounded warriors return to living full and independent lives.

Finally, I have offered amendment No. 1158, a bipartisan amendment with Senators Begich, Manchin, and Chambliss, regarding the prohibition on the transfer of U.S.-held detainees to a country that has a confirmed case of a released individual who has returned to the fight. This is so needed.

I note this provision was permanent in the detainee amendment that was offered by our chairman and ranking member that was adopted overwhelmingly by the Senate Armed Services Committee during our June markup. Nevertheless, this provision was reduced to a temporary 1-year restriction in the current version of the bill in response to concerns from the administration.

I wish to point out that my amendment would only make permanent the prohibition on the transfer of American-held detainees to a country that has a confirmed case of recidivism. It does not change any of the other transfer provisions in section 1033 of the bill.

Let me make clear that I support the hard work Chairman Levin and Senator McCain have done to craft a permanent detainee policy that has a great deal of support on a bipartisan basis. While there may be genuine disagreement regarding other aspects of the detainee policy provided for in this bill, the amendment I put forth permanently establishing the commonsense policy that we will not return detainees to countries where they are returning to the battlefield should not be an issue that divides this body. In spite of the spirited and lengthy debate in committee on detainee policy, this particular provision in my amendment was not the subject of controversy.

Let me give a little more background on why it is necessary. In September, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that the recidivism rate of transferred Guantanamo detainees continues to increase. Twenty-seven percent of transferred detainees--released from Guantanamo to another country is what I am talking about--up from 25 percent last year, are believed to have rejoined the fight, rejoined the cause of terrorism.

Of the 599 detainees who have been released from Guantanamo, there are 161 individuals confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities. Half of those cases have been confirmed by the intelligence community, which is an increase of 5 percent of confirmed cases from March 2009 to October 2010. I believe it is likely, as further intelligence is developed, that the rest will be confirmed--those suspected cases are likely to be confirmed as well.

Former detainees who were previously mid-level enemy combatants are not simply returning to be another fighter armed with a rifle, although that, too, is clearly unacceptable. According to Michael Vickers, the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, former detainees are advancing in the leadership ranks of al-Qaida and its affiliates.

For example, Said al-Shihri was released from Guantanamo in 2007 to Saudi Arabia. He participated in a so-called rehabilitation program but then traveled to Yemen. Within 2 years of his transfer, he was involved in planning an attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen in September of 2009. He also became a deputy in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the terrorist group responsible for the attempted Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempted package bombs last year. In fact, AQAP is considered by most intelligence analysts as the entity posing the most danger to our homeland.

There are other cases as well. There is a case where one of the detainees who was released to Afghanistan in 2007 told American officials, prior to his transfer:

I [just] want to go back home and join my family and work in my land and help my family.

Instead, after Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul was released by the Afghan Government in 2008, he went back to fighting. Press reports indicate this former detainee was promoted as a top deputy in the Taliban and put in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan in 2009. In fact, Newsweek reported that roadside bomb teams under his direction have caused more than half of NATO's 160 deaths in Afghanistan in the first 5 months of this year.

Muhammad al-Awfi was also released from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia in 2007. After leaving a rehabilitation program in 2008, he too fled to Yemen. Not long after, he appeared in a video announcing the formation of AQAP. There are other examples as well--example after example after example--of detainees who have been released from Guantanamo and who have returned to the fight.

We need a permanent provision to deal with the recidivism threat. As hopeful as I am that the national defense authorization bill will be passed each and every year--and there is a great record of the Armed Services Committee in that regard--there is no guarantee that legislation will be passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. In fact, we are already 3 months into this fiscal year, and we are weeks from having a Defense authorization bill signed into law, despite the heroic efforts of the leaders of the Armed Services Committee.

Ten years after these wars began, it is clear when we transfer detainees to some countries they may well rejoin the fight against our country and our allies. It is time for Congress to establish a permanent policy in the Defense authorization bill that we will not transfer detainees to countries where there have been confirmed cases of released detainees returning to the fight. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do exactly that by supporting this bipartisan amendment.

Finally, the people of Maine have a proud history of contributing to the defense of our country. Members of the Maine National Guard have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Active-Duty soldiers, marines, airmen, and sailors from our State. The Air Guard unit in Bangor continues to perform critical refueling missions for aircraft headed overseas, as it has done since 9/11/2001. Many of the sailors who are deployed serve on 1 of the 101 ships currently underway that were built at Bath Iron Works or on submarines repaired, overhauled, and refueled at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME.

From the Maine Military Authority and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Center in Limestone to the Pratt & Whitney plant in North Berwick, ME, from cutting-edge composite and renewable energy research at the University of Maine to the innovative high-tech firms throughout our State, Mainers have faithfully supported our national defense with ingenuity, innovation, and superior craftsmanship.
The investments authorized in this bill support these efforts in Maine and other States throughout the country, and they will continue to ensure that our extraordinary military remains the best trained and the best equipped in the world.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to thank the committee chairman for his extremely generous remarks. It has been a great pleasure to serve with him on the Armed Services Committee, and I very much appreciate his outstanding leadership.

Senator Levin and I actually go way back to when I was a staffer on the Governmental Affairs Committee. I was a staff director of a subcommittee on which he was the ranking member and chairman. It went back and forth with Senator Cohen. It has been a great honor and pleasure to serve as his colleague during these past 15 years. So I appreciate his comments.

I thank the Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source