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

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate and share the comments made by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. I believe it is important. Having come here 15 years ago and having confronted the question of depots and how they operate, I was surprised to learn the intensity of the feelings and the difficulty of the issue.

We worked on it for some time, and for the most part, it has been quiet under Senator Levin and Senator Warner. We kind of worked out how this thing should be handled. I thought things were rocking along well and have been very disappointed that the House Members have taken an initiative at a point where we were told it was too late to make any changes in the process. That alters that understanding, and I am not comfortable with it.

I feel I have engaged in these issues. We have a depot in my State, and we should have given it better consideration. I do not believe it is correct, the language as it is. I do believe we need to make changes. So it is a concern that the delicate balance created by the current definition of ``core depot-level maintenance'' between government facilities and industry could be altered and at risk.

We have all worked on this issue for a number of years. We have a more efficient and productive model today than we had when I first came here because of a lot of hard work and intense effort. So that is a problem for me.

Another troubling element of this new definition is the potential treatment of commercial items. The notion that perhaps an engine or other major assembly of a major end item such as a tank or aircraft could be considered a commercial item and not part of our depot core mission is very problematic and would be contrary to the way we have been operating for many years.

I would like to point out that because of the hasty way this language came into the bill, we do not know the second- and third-level effects of this language. That in itself is another reason to make sure we get the policy right in a very deliberative and collaborative process.

I hope we have a solution that will work. I say to Chairman Levin and Senator McCain, the ranking member, I appreciate your willingness to work to correct the error in the process--and I believe there was a process error--and to ensure that due diligence is done as we work to codify the definition of ``core depot-level maintenance.''

So I look forward to your leadership in conducting subcommittee hearings, full committee hearings, working sessions, and whatever it takes to make sure we get the language right before we get to the markup and consideration of the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

I will conclude by saying we had some very important issues to deal with in the Defense bill. A lot of them were very difficult. Under Chairman Levin's leadership and Senator McCain, we either reached an agreement or reached an agreement not to agree, and moved the bill forward. I think it is over 50 years now that this bill has moved forward every year. I think it is something to be proud of.

The only real controversy that came out of it is this depot matter. So it sort of went against the way we felt we should operate, the way that has resulted in settlements of disputed issues and moving the bill forward. For that reason, I think it is appropriate we ask that this issue be redealt with next year.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source