National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would like to voice my concerns regarding two provisions included in the conference report, sections 321 and 327. These provisions constitute a major rewrite of depot policies and laws.

These sections have not been sufficiently vetted. They could potentially hurt competition in acquisition programs, harm our public depots, and cause unintended consequences that could significantly affect not only depots, but also the private sector industrial base and the thousands of employees in both sectors.

In February, the Logistics Management Institute, LMI, delivered a report to Congress making recommendations to modify the depot statutes. Both Armed Services Committees asked DOD to offer input on the LMI study, but the Department did not do so.

The Senate held DOD to account in the committee report accompanying this very bill, which states:

The committee is concerned that a lack of Department of Defense input regarding the findings and recommendations of the LMI study does not provide Congress with a comprehensive view prior to enacting legislation that could have unintended consequences.

But even without DOD input, the House went ahead and included changes to depot provisions when it passed its bill in May.

The Senate-passed bill also included a provision to prohibit any change to the definition of depot maintenance until after the Defense Business Board conducted its own study as well.

Given the concern identified by the Senate Armed Services Committee and the requests for additional fact-based analysis, you can imagine my alarm when I learned that such a rewrite was being considered for inclusion in the conference report.

What surprised me even more was that the proposed rewrite differed significantly even from the provision in the original House-passed bill.

The Senator from Oklahoma, Senator INHOFE, and I voiced our concerns about this in a meeting of the conferees. After that, six Senators and I sent a letter to the leadership of both committees warning of the unintended consequences of including these provisions in the conference report. I ask unanimous consent to have our letter printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. The two provisions raise a number of unanswered questions, questions that remain unanswered by the advocates of these provisions, and which could lead to significant consequences for public and private sector components of the industrial base. Let me share two examples.

First, the provision expands the definition of depot maintenance to include the installation of modifications and upgrades to end-items--a measure potentially harmful to competition.

There is a concern that the Army may be required by this provision to direct work related to the Modernized Expanded Capacity Vehicle, MECV, program to the public sector without a full and open competition allowing experienced private entities to bid.

It is my view that the MECV is much more than a modification to a weapon system because it is an acquisition program. I understand this view is shared by the Army, which has consistently said the source selection for the MECV will be full, open, and fair.

Those who have invested in this program deserve to know that this language does not restrict competition or introduce, in any way, an incentive to favor the public or the private sector as it relates to acquisition programs, and the MECV program in particular.

While depot maintenance work is an important component of both the public and private sector industrial base, Congress has consistently supported a strong core requirement at the depots for national security reasons. For example, vital submarine overhauls, refueling, and maintenance work are performed at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, ME.

It is unclear if the ramifications of the conference report will lead to work flowing away from our public depots, thus jeopardizing the government's core repair capability.

I would ask the chairman to closely reevaluate these provisions to ensure that the two concerns I described, as well as the concerns of other interested Senators, are fully addressed.

This process should allow Members adequate time to reach out to interested parties and a committee hearing to understand the ramifications of these legislative changes to the defense industrial base.

I would also ask the chairman to commit to modifying or repealing these provisions, if necessary, in next year's NDAA.

I would also ask the chairman to ensure that any future proposals pertaining to these sensitive issues be addressed in a more inclusive and deliberate manner.

Finally, given the uncertainty and confusion surrounding these critical depot issues, I would hope that the Department of Defense would exercise much care and refrain from making dramatic changes in its policies.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source