Senate: Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief Act, 2005 - Conference Report
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND TSUNAMI RELIEF ACT, 2005--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued -- (Senate - May 10, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this urgently needed funding for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines fighting around the world. Specifically, I would like to thank my colleague and friend from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator COCHRAN, for his commitment to our Nation's Armed Forces.
I particularly want to express my support for the provision dealing with DD(X) destroyers. This bill includes a critical provision to prohibit the use of funds by the Navy in conducting a ``one shipyard'' acquisition strategy to procure next-generation DD(X) destroyers.
The Navy serves not only as a central pillar of our Nation's military strategy, but also as a symbol of American strength abroad. It is crucial that not only do we have the most capable fleet, but also that we have sufficient numbers of ships ..... and shipbuilders ..... to meet our national security requirements.
Unfortunately, the Navy has proposed to radically change the acquisition strategy for DD(X) destroyers in such a manner as to ensure that there is only one shipyard involved in major surface combatant production. If implemented, the Navy's ill-advised proposal to go forward with a ``one shipyard'' competition for DD(X) between General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works in Bath, ME, and Northrop Grumman Ship Systems in Pascagoula, MS, would jeopardize our national security and our industrial capacity.
We need to move forward with DD(X) at both shipyards, as originally planned. Holding a competition will inevitably delay DD(X) acquisition and increase the costs to taxpayers.
The fleet needs the capabilities of a DD(X) destroyer that will provide sustained, offensive, and precise firepower at long ranges to support forces ashore and to conduct independent attacks against land targets. These systems will provide a naval or joint task force commander with the multimission flexibility to destroy a wide variety of land targets while simultaneously countering maritime threats.
Moreover, DD(X) will take advantage of advanced stealth technologies, which will render it significantly less detectable and more survivable to enemy attack than the current class of ships. It will also operate with significantly smaller crews than current destroyers.
Conducting a competition for these ships, or implementing a ``one shipyard'' acquisition strategy further exacerbates the decline in America's shipbuilding employment that has shrunk by an overwhelming 75 percent since the late 1980s.
This supplemental appropriations bill continues to build upon the work many of my colleagues and I during the past several months to thwart the Navy's attempt to have only one shipyard capable of building DD(X)s. On March 1, I joined 19 of my Senate colleagues, in concert with Senator LOTT, to send a letter to President Bush expressing our strong opposition to any ``winner take all'' competition for DD(X).
We all agreed that any instability or delay in the DD(X) program at this time could lead to the permanent exodus of skilled men and women from the last remaining shipyards that produce our complex surface combatants. Construction of surface combatants at a single shipyard would affect the Navy's ability to keep costs lower in the long term.
The recently-passed Senate budget resolution included a sense of the Senate on the acquisition DD(X) that correctly emphasized that the national security of the United States is best served by a competitive industrial base consisting of at least two shipyards capable of constructing major surface combatants.
The Congress has spoken very loudly, and very clearly on this rapid change in direction. It is in our national interest to have two major surface combatant shipyards. This appropriations bill is good for the Navy, good for our shipbuilders, and good for our Nation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and funding for our men and women in uniform serving around the world.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov