|
Defense
Defense Budget *
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
* Anthrax Vaccine Immunization
Program * Non-Proliferation
* Tactical Nuclear Weapons and the
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) * Supporting
Sikorsky
Defense
Budget
While I have opposed defense budgets in the past, I voted
for H.R.
2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, because these are different times. Our
country is at war and the brave men and women of our military
deserve the full support of every American. I want to be certain
we're providing them with every resource they will need in
the difficult months and years to come. The bottom line is
the war against terrorism, for the moment, trumps any budgetary
concerns I have.
On June 20, 2005, I voted for H.R. 2863, which passed the
House by a vote of 398 to 19. This legislation provides $363.7
billion for regular for regular Department of Defense programs,
which is about $4 billion below the Administration request,
and $45.3 billion in emergency funds for operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan.
You may be interested to know H.R. 2863 includes a 3.1 percent
pay raise for the brave men and women of our military, and
provides sufficient funding to increase the size of the Army
and Marine Corps. I am also pleased H.R. 2863 includes substantial
funds for force protection, including an additional $1.2 billion
is provided for personnel force protection items and gear
for troops in the field, such as body armor.
I supported H.R. 2863 because it addresses our military's
needs and modernizes our armed forces for the 21st Century,
but have opposed budgets that simply increase spending without
fundamentally examining our changing national security needs.
As the Chairman of the Government Reform Subcommittee on
National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations,
which has oversight jurisdiction over the entire Department
of Defense, I have seen first hand the needs of our military.
We need to do a better job attracting new enlistees and maintaining
the necessary level of reenlistment. Our soldiers, sailors,
pilots and Marines are overworked and underpaid. We need to
cancel the procurement of expensive, unnecessary weapon systems;
close unnecessary bases and depots, at home and overseas;
and require our allies, particularly Europeans, to pay their
fair share of stationing U.S. troops in their countries.
Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC)
I am thrilled the BRAC Commission voted 7 to 1 on August
24, 2005, to keep Sub Base New London open. It's important
to know that the Sub Base -- a center of excellence - will
continue to serve our nation with distinction. The Commission
submitted its final report to the Administration on September
8, and President Bush concurred with the Commission report
and forwarded it to Congress on September 15.
Over the last year I worked with Republicans and Democrats,
senators and my colleagues in the House, federal, state and
local officials to demonstrate to the BRAC Commission that
the Department of Defense (DoD) substantially deviated from
the law by including the base among its recommendations for
closure.
In June, I toured the Sub Base with BRAC Commissioners who
would ultimately be voting on its fate, and in July attended
a hearing in Boston before the BRAC Commission. During this
hearing Team Connecticut made its case that closing the New
London Submarine Base would have a negative impact on our
nation's defense and a significantly detrimental impact on
our state's economy. In addition, along with the Connecticut
Congressional delegation, I sent a number of letters to the
BRAC Commission to support New London's case.
The Commission's overwhelming vote indicates Team Connecticut
did its job explaining that in placing New London on the list
for closure, the Department of Defense (DoD) overlooked significant
costs and downplayed substantial capabilities of the sub base.
The Team also did an excellent job in helping the Commission
fully understand the synergy between the military base and
the local educational and industrial organizations nearby,
particularly Electric Boat.
I will continue to support all efforts to keep the New London
Sub Base open and providing its important mission to our nation's
security.
Anthrax
Vaccine Immunization Program
To date, the Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats, and International Relations, which I chair,
has held six hearings on various aspects of the Department
of Defense's force-wide Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program
(AVIP). For more information on the findings and recommendations,
please reference the subcommittee's report.
To learn more about other investigation's being conducted
by my subcommittee, click here.
Non-Proliferation
As the co-chairman of Congress's Bipartisan Non-proliferation
Task Force, I am concerned about the potential misuse of nuclear
weapons. One of the most important non-proliferation tools
we have is the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program,
commonly known as Nunn-Lugar. The Nunn-Lugar program, which
I strongly support, has effectively assisted in the dismantlement
of former Soviet strategic offensive arms.
I am the lead cosponsor of H.R.
665, the Omnibus Nonproliferation and Anti-Nuclear
Terrorism Act. CTR provides Russia and other countries with
assistance in transporting, storing, and dismantling nuclear,
chemical, and biological weapons. H.R. 665 establishes an
Office of Nonproliferation Programs in the Executive Office
of the President and provides funding for a comprehensive
inventory of Russia's stockpile of strategic and non-strategic
nuclear weapons. This legislation also repeals specified restrictions
on the use of Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program,
and would allow funds to be spent outside the former Soviet
Union.
I am also an original cosponsor of H.Con.Res. 133, the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) Enhancement Resolution, because the United States
must demonstrate its support for strengthening the NPT, which
is a hugely important international agreement. This resolution
reaffirms Congressional support for the objectives of the
Treaty, expresses support for strengthening the NPT and affirms
its support for the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
The PSI recognizes that all states that have a stake in controlling
the proliferation of weapons and should cooperate to stem
their transport by sea, in the air, or on land. Proliferators
have become increasingly aggressive in the trade of illicit
materials. It is critical the United States serve as a global
leader in countering the actions of those who could spread
these tools of destruction.
The bottom line is the global threat of nuclear and other
weapons of mass destruction cannot be reduced without stronger
international support and cooperation.
I am committed to the cause of nuclear non-proliferation.
Some might call nuclear disarmament a pipe dream, but I truly
believe that our planet should not be condemned to exist forever
with the specter of complete nuclear annihilation hanging
over it. We owe our children and grandchildren a safer world
than the one we have created.
Experts and Celebrities Join to Discuss Non-Proliferation
and the Limits of Unilateralism
Tactical Nuclear
Weapons and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP)
I do not support the development of tactical nuclear weapons.
In my judgment, the potential risks far outweigh the limited
benefits in moving forward with this type of weapons research
and development.
On May 6, 2005, I joined 127 of my colleagues in writing
to Representative David Hobson, Chairman of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, requesting
the elimination of funding for the RNEP and all other funding
for new nuclear weapons. In our letter, we wrote:
The United States faces a serious national security threat
from the proliferation of nuclear weapons materials and technologies,
most notably in North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. We believe
the pursuit of new nuclear weapons such as the RNEP sends
a dangerously mixed signal to the rest of the world and erodes
our nonproliferation credibility.
On May 24, 2005, I voted for H.R.
2419, the Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 06) Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act, which passed the House
by a vote of 416 to 13. I am pleased this legislation contained
no funding for the RNEP.
During consideration of H.R. 4200, the Fiscal Year 2005 (FY
05) National Defense Authorization Act, I voted for an amendment
offered by Representative Ellen Tauscher to transfer $36.5
million from development of the RNEP to increase both intelligence
capabilities to get at hard and deeply buried targets and
to improve conventional bunker-busting capabilities. While
the Tauscher amendment was defeated by a vote of 204 to 214,
I am pleased no funding was provided for this project in FY
05.
The RNEP is intended to destroy hardened and deeply buried
targets, such as chemical and biological weapons caches. In
my judgment, conventional weapons are better suited to this
task because they avoid key logistical and political impediments.
The RNEP would inevitably result in the atmospheric dispersal
of radiation, jeopardizing our own forces in the field, as
well as noncombatants in the vicinity. Use of RNEPs or any
other tactical nuclear weapons would thus be likely to slow
down, rather than enhance, progress on the battlefield.
I am also concerned by a report released in April 2005 by
the Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and
Other Weapons of the National Research Council, a branch of
the National Academy of Sciences. According to this report,
casualties from an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon "would
be equal to that from a surface burst of the same weapon yield."
The result will be thousands of deaths depending on the population
density of the attacked site.
Developing and testing a new tactical nuclear weapon would
increase the perception that nuclear weapons are as usable
as any other part of a nation's arsenal. If we proceed with
the development of these weapons, other nations with far less
conventional capability will surely seek to deter a U.S. attack
by developing their own weapons of mass destruction, most
likely chemical and biological weapons.
Proceeding with RNEPs would also undermine the global nonproliferation
regime. The obvious targets for these weapons are non-nuclear
weapon states that, as it happens, are party to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The United States and other
nuclear weapon states pledged not to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear states as an inducement to extend the NPT indefinitely.
RNEP development would undermine the credibility and value
of these assurances.
Supporting
Sikorsky
Assisting Sikorsky helicopter has been one of my highest
priorities.
The Navy's decision in January to select the EH-101, built
by an international consortium, to be the next Marine One
helicopter was an outrage. While I am extremely disappointed
with this decision, I believe Sikorsky's future remains bright
and will continue to work overtime with the Connecticut Congressional
delegation to support the company and the men and women who
build the best helicopters in the world.
Prior to the Navy's announcement, the Connecticut delegation
and I took every opportunity to support Sikorsky's VH-92 helicopter
with the Department of Defense and the Administration. We
wrote to President Bush in June 2003 in support of the only
all-American entry -- the VH-92 -- and did so again in November
and December 2004. We spoke on several occasions with top
Navy officials, including Secretary Gordon England and Assistant
Secretary John Young, and Defense Department Deputy Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz in support of Sikorsky. It is clear to me the
Navy was satisfied with the company's past performance, and
in my judgment there was no reason to have switched to a foreign-made
helicopter.
In several meetings with Navy officials, we have learned
the EH-101 was selected because of its larger cabin size and
likelihood to be completed on schedule and at a lower cost.
We also learned Sikorsky's VH-92 outperformed the EH-101 in
safety and performance. It blows me away that safety and performance
were not given more weight in the decision process, and I
made this concern very clear to Navy and Defense Department
officials.
I am deeply concerned the President's helicopter will not
be made by an all-American team as Sikorsky was offering.
I am an original cosponsor of H.R.
459, the Marine One Made in America Act, which
would require Marine One to be wholly manufactured in the
United States from parts wholly manufactured in the United
States. Allowing the overseas manufacture of critical parts
for this helicopter may present a security risk, harms the
ability of U.S. manufacturers to compete with the European
helicopter market and is an affront to the tremendous job
Sikorsky has done in serving the past 10 U.S. presidents.
In September 2004, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee
on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations,
I requested the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine
how the Department of Defense assesses compliance with its
own policy directives requiring persons associated with Presidential
Support Activities meet the highest security clearance requirements.
The GAO's final report is expected in September, and I will
continue to investigate whether the Marine One contract adheres
to all Department of Defense clearance requirements.
You may be interested to know, on May 5, 2005, I voted for
H.R.
1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief
Act, which passed the House by a vote of 368 to 58. I also
voted for H.R. 2863, the FY 06 Defense Appropriations Act,
which passed the House by a vote of 398 to 19. H.R. 1268 included
5 Blackhawk variant helicopters and H.R. 2863 included 83
Blackhawk variants, which will all be built by Sikorsky in
Connecticut. I will continue to work to support the purchase
of these helicopters, as well as Sikorsky's other contract
competitions with the Air Force and Marines.
|
