National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--Conference Report

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to echo the comments and concerns we have heard in the last few minutes from my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee regarding this House-inserted language on our Nation's military depots, arsenals, and shipyards.

I wish to begin by saying to Chairman Levin how much I appreciate his assurances, as well as those of Ranking Member McCain, and Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith in the House, that there are no intended changes to the current law under this language. I think that is very important for us to say to our constituents so they are reassured.

I also appreciate Chairman Levin's commitment to examine this issue closely in the coming year to prevent any unintended consequences that this language might have on our Nation's industrial repair facilities, including the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which my home State of New Hampshire shares with Maine and which is very important to us in the Northeast and I think to our military capabilities.

With that said, I have to say I share the concern that has been expressed about the manner in which this language was inserted. While I understand that the House has been working on this issue for some time, including holding roundtable discussions at the National Defense University, I believe there is much more that should have been done.

On Friday, December 9, my staff was made aware that this language from the House could be included in the final NDAA report--a measure we have all been working on for the past 11 months. So along with six other members of the committee, I signed a letter that very day--so 1 week ago tomorrow--indicating our concerns and frustration over including such language without adequate Senate review or input. Despite the concerns expressed in our letter, the language was included.

On such an important issue as this, usually we have had a very collaborative, transparent process in our committee, on the Senate side anyway, and I appreciate that. I think that has been one of the reasons for the great success of Senator Levin and Ranking Member McCain in being able to get a bill out year after year on which there has been consensus agreement.

Unfortunately, that did not happen with respect to this language. As such, we now face a situation where the committee will need to spend a significant amount of time examining the language and its implementation over the next year to ensure no changes result.

The reason we as a nation maintain the 50-50 rule--where all maintenance work is split between the public and private sectors--is to ensure that in times of conflict, the Federal Government will have the critical capabilities necessary to repair our Nation's combat equipment.

Advanced technical repair work, such as the work done on nuclear submarines at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, requires highly skilled and specialized technicians. Any changes to the way we structure workload for these facilities has to be closely examined and should include input from the individual stakeholders who understand this issue best.

Generations of Americans have invested significant resources in our Nation's military to ensure our men and women in uniform have the most advanced equipment in the world to keep us safe.

I say to the chairman of the committee, I very much appreciate your assurance that we will continue to take a close look at this issue, including holding a hearing next year, if necessary. So I thank the Senator very much for his cooperation to work with us.

With that, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source