[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 146 (Wednesday, November 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10858-S10874]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FISCAL YEAR 2003--
CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4546, the
Department of Defense authorization bill; that there be 75 minutes of
debate equally divided and controlled between Senators Levin and Warner
or their designees; that upon the use or yielding back of time, without
any intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote on
adoption of the conference report; that upon adoption of the conference
report, Senator Santorum be recognized to offer a unanimous consent
request; and that following the disposal of that, the Senate resume
consideration of H.R. 5005, with Senator Thompson recognized to offer a
substitute amendment; and immediately upon the reporting of the
Thompson amendment, Senator Lieberman be recognized to offer an
amendment to the Thompson amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object--and I shall not object--
is it the assistant Democratic leader's intention to have a rollcall
vote on the DOD authorization?
Mr. REID. We had a request from that side of the aisle to have the
rollcall vote.
We do not have a rollcall vote request.
Mr. NICKLES. To my knowledge, that request has been withdrawn.
For the information of our colleagues, it may well be possible to
pass the Department of Defense authorization bill by a voice vote.
Mr. REID. That sounds good. We have a number of Senators who have
other things to do. That would be helpful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the conference report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the House to the amendment of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 5010), to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military activities
of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to
prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the
Armed Forces, and for other purposes, having met, have agreed
that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the House, and agree to the same with an amendment, signed
by a majority of the conferees on the part of both Houses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of
November 12, 2002.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, we are pleased to bring to the floor the
conference report on the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003. The conference report would not have been
possible without the dedicated work, over many months, of the members
of our committee on both sides of the aisle, particularly our
subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who bore the brunt of the
workload in bringing this bill to this point.
I particularly thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator Warner,
the ranking minority member, soon to be chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, for the absolutely essential role he has played throughout
this process. Right up to the last minute, we were not sure we would
get a bill. Senator Warner was able to help us accomplish that and get
us to that goal line that we finally think we will cross. I thank him
for that.
Mr. WARNER. It was a team effort, Madam President. I thank my
distinguished chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. This conference report is named after Congressman Bob
Stump, who will be retiring, in honor of all the work he has done, for
the dedication of his entire congressional career supporting our men
and women in uniform. The bill is deservedly named in his honor. Of
course, Ike Skelton on the House side, the ranking member of the House
Armed Services Committee, made an absolutely essential contribution as
well.
Last month, we passed H.J. Res. 114 that authorized the President to
use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be
necessary and appropriate to defend the national security of the United
States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all
relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions in that regard.
It has been widely reported that the United States has already
started the prepositioning of forces and supplies in anticipation of
possible military action against Iraq in accordance with this
resolution. As we stand poised on the brink of possible military
action, hopefully action that will not be necessary but nonetheless
possible military action, this bill will provide the men and women in
uniform with the tools they need and the pay and benefits they deserve.
[[Page S10859]]
For instance, this bill approves a significant military pay raise,
including an across-the-board pay raise at 4.1 percent, with an
additional targeted pay raise for midcareer personnel that would result
in pay raises ranging from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent. The bill will
authorize a new assignment incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month to
encourage service members to volunteer for hard-to-fill assignments. It
will authorize $10.4 billion for new construction of military
facilities and housing, which is an increase of about $740 million
above the requested level. The bill will add more than $900 million to
the Navy shipbuilding account. It will authorize an increase of $42
million in funding for the U.S. Special Operations Command. It provides
an increase--and we are talking about increases above the requested
budget level from the administration, but when I make reference to
increase, that is the reference I am making. Here is a reference of
more than $100 million for defense against chemical and biological
weapons, in addition to approving the budget request of $1.4 billion
for such efforts. We approved $2 billion which was requested for force
protection improvements to DOD installations around the world and in
order to help address shortfalls in the Department's high-demand, low-
density assets, including the EC-130 Commando Solo aircraft and the EA-
6B electronic warfare aircraft fleet.
Depite all of these important provisions, we came very close to not
having a conference report this year, because of the opposition of the
White House to a single provision that was included in both the
authorization bills passed by both the Senate and the House of
Representatives. This provision would permit retired members of the
Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive both
military retired pay earned through years of military service and
disability compensation from the Department of Veterans' Affairs based
on their disability. Currently, military retirees who receive VA
disability pay have their military retired pay offset by the amount of
their VA disability pay.
Both the House and Senate versions of our bill included provisions
phasing in the payment of both military retired pay and VA disability
pay to qualifying military retirees, although the Senate provision was
more generous and more expensive than the House version.
In June, the Office of Management and Budget issued a Statement of
Administration Position indicating their opposition to authorizing
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability pay. As a
result of this veto threat, the House conferees then decided that they
would not accept even their own concurrent receipt provision. The House
conferees took this position despite the fact that the House voted 391
to 0 to instruct the conferees to agree to the Senate position on
current receipt in conference.
When it became clear that the President's veto threat would make it
impossible for us to achieve a conference report containing either the
Senate concurrent receipt provision or the House concurrent receipt
provision, we had the choice of giving up on the defense bill for the
year, or finding an alternative that would be acceptable to the White
House and the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives.
With the yeoman services and the extraordinary efforts of Senator
Warner, we finally agreed to include a provision that would authorize
an enhanced special compensation for certain military retirees with 20
years of service equal to the amount of retired pay forfeited because
of the receipt of veterans' disability compensation.
That is just a part of what we tried to accomplish. I commend Senator
Reid of Nevada and others who have fought so hard for this provision.
There are many members of our committee and many Members of this
Chamber who have really tried for years to address this concurrent
receipt problem. We moved the ball forward perhaps 20 yards this year.
It is, as I think Senator Warner has described, a beachhead. We are
glad we were able to do this much. But it is disappointing that the
veto threat that was hurled at us by the Office of Management and
Budget made it impossible for us to do even more, despite all of our
efforts.
Again, I thank Senator Warner. Without some provision on this
subject, frankly, this bill would not have been brought back to the
floor. We had to make some progress on this issue before we could, in
good conscience, bring a bill back to the floor.
But I emphasize it is just some progress. It is not anywhere near
what the Senate did. It is not even close to what the House did. But it
is clearly better than not making any progress at all.
The special compensation that is provided for in the bill would be
available to retirees who incur a disability attributable to an injury
for which a Purple Heart was awarded--that is one group--regardless of
the percent of disability, and the other group is a service-connected
disability rated at 60 percent or higher that was incurred as a result
of any of four circumstances: Either the result of armed conflict,
while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under
conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war. Any of
those four circumstances, if the disability is rated at 60 percent or
higher, will result in the special compensation being made available to
our veterans.
These disabilities are sometimes called ``combat-related''
disabilities for short. But that is really a misnomer. It is actually
misleading to call certain of them ``combat-related disabilities''
because the categories are far broader than simply combat-related.
I see Senator Reid on the floor. Again, I extend my thanks to him.
Without his driving concern on this issue of concurrent receipt, we
would not have been able to even advance the bill to the 20-yard line
at which perhaps we are right now. It is progress--but minimal
progress. Again, it was the only way we could obtain this bill. We
would not have gotten to this point without the tenacity of Senator
Harry Reid. There are others who joined with him over the years. But it
is that persistence which has gotten us to this point.
Mr. REID. Madam President, will my friend yield? I know there is
limited time.
I want to say very briefly this compromise only affects up to 15,000
veterans. But having said that, 15,000 people deserve it as much as
anyone deserves anything in the world. They are going to get help. That
says a lot. There are hundreds of thousands of other people which the
original legislation would have helped. We are going to work on that
later.
I say to my friend, the chairman--and the soon-to-be chairman--how
much I appreciate their tenacity. We have worked this bill over the
years. We have received, frankly, no help from the House in years past.
I am happy. And I congratulate the President for easing off on his
statement that he was going to veto this legislation if there was
anything in it for concurrent receipt. I appreciate the President
backing off. I wish he would have allowed us to have everything. He
didn't. But I take what we have gotten, and I am happy we have what we
have.
I say to those 15,000 veterans that I introduced the first
legislation. But this has been a team effort. We have worked very hard
to get to this point. It is a large step forward.
I say for the third time this will help 15,000 people, most of whom
are Korean and World War II veterans--and a sizable number of Vietnam
veterans also, of course. But it is for mostly World War II veterans. I
am so happy. I wish we had more.
But I want to say to my two friends who are here on the floor that
this is important legislation. It is landmark legislation.
I underline and underscore what I have said in the past about the two
managers of this legislation. They could have caved in a month ago, and
we would have had a Defense authorization bill, and we could have
shouted at the hilltops about this legislation. They did not do that
because of this issue. I applaud and commend both of them for sticking
to a matter of principle. That was correct. Words cannot adequately
convey how strongly I feel about the two of them for sticking with it.
I am not on the committee. I couldn't comment. I couldn't be there to
give a speech. I didn't have an opportunity to issue a written
statement. That is how our conferences work. But the two of them did
what they had to do. These 15,000 people owe it all to them.
[[Page S10860]]
I have heard some people say we can't afford to take care of our
veterans. We can afford to take care of our veterans. This is a
tremendous step forward. We are taking care of our veterans.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I might again say how much the two of
us--Chairman Levin and I--appreciate the strong support of Senator Reid
throughout particularly this year, building on what he did last year,
to see that this issue was kept at the very forefront of our
legislative objectives with the annual authorization bill.
I say to my good friend that when the group of us gathered with the
President's Chief of Staff at the White House, we were there with Mr.
Principi, the chief of the Veterans Administration, the rough
calculation was that there are about 33,000 who will be embraced with
the formulation we have included in this bill. I think, as you say, and
as I have said, it is a beachhead.
Mr. REID. That is even twice as good as I thought. That will amplify
my remarks, that 30,000 is twice as good as 15,000.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I can assure also the Senator from Nevada
that even though he might not physically be on the Armed Services
Committee, he was very much present every step of the way even when he
wasn't present. Everyone is very much aware of his effort here, and of
Senator Bob Smith's effort. Senator Hutchinson was extremely active,
too. Senator Wellstone, of course, on this kind of veterans issue, was
deeply involved.
Mr. WARNER. We should include Senator Max Cleland. Very definitely,
he worked very hard.
Mr. LEVIN. I will also mention the role of Senator Cleland, Senator
Carnahan, and others on this issue on the Armed Services Committee in a
few moments. Again, I thank the Senator for that.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, Senator Reid and I and Senator Levin in
our colloquy are discussing the importance of this bill including a
provision on concurrent receipts. Following the election, recognizing
that I would become chairman at the appropriate point in time when the
chairmanships are established formally, that I make an effort to try
and reconcile the differences and get a provision in this bill because,
give or take a few, I would think almost all 435 Members of the House
of Representatives, in the course of their campaigns, had a colloquy
with their veterans on this subject.
I know from experience on the Senate side, those of us 30 plus who
were up for reelection this time and others seeking election had to
address this issue and respond to our veterans. Therefore, I felt it
was a matter of principle for the Congress of the United States not
just to rely on campaign rhetoric, but to include in this very historic
bill a provision directed at compensation for those veterans we deemed
formed that category deserving of added funds.
I was privileged to work on drafts. I have showed them to our
distinguished chairman. While he had views that were somewhat different
on this issue in the course of the deliberations, without his final
acknowledgment to agree with me that this was as much as we could
achieve, we would not be here today. It was a joint effort, I say to
the chairman, and he encouraged his colleagues to sign the conference
report as I encouraged our colleagues.
I went to the White House with Congressman Duncan Hunter who was
standing in for Chairman Stump in the final days of the conference
negotiations. We were joined by Secretary Principi and the Deputy OMB
Director, Mrs. Dorn. We met with the President's chief of staff, and in
due course worked out what I felt was the best compromise we could
achieve.
I wish to say I felt the White House was very cooperative--Mitch
Daniels, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the chief
of staff, and others. Mr. Principi was exceedingly helpful. I had
several days before I joined him at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to
read the names of those who bear witness to freedom and their
sacrifices on that wall. It was interesting, as we were sitting there
on that cold twilight afternoon, I had a little piece of paper, and we
were sketching out the framework of what the two of us felt could be
achieved. So I thank Mr. Principi for his efforts.
Duncan Hunter was just a tremendously strong working partner
throughout this entire deliberation. I thank those individuals, and
certainly Mr. Card, who is the President's chief of staff, for at some
point in the meeting saying: That's it, we're going to do it.
It is interesting, earlier that day Mr. Principi and I had attended
an early meeting at the White House with the President when he
addressed a number of veterans. I remember in the front row were a
number of Congressional Medal of Honor veterans. We had some veterans
from the United Kingdom, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the
Chief of Staff of the Air Force and others were present.
It was a very moving statement by our President acknowledging this
Nation's eternal gratitude to generations of veterans who made possible
our life today in these United States, our quality of life, our
freedom.
It seemed to be an appropriate time to bring up with the President
this issue once again, and he said: We are going to take a good look at
it, and that they did. So I am most grateful. Actually, it was not that
day, for that day I left that meeting at the White House and went up to
Maine to participate in the christening of a destroyer to honor John
Chafee, a United States Senator whom the Presiding Officer and I held
in the greatest esteem and affection. It was the day following the
White House meeting.
I refer to this as a beachhead, and I do so respectfully because
throughout this deliberation, in total fairness, we are faced with an
extraordinary demand on the Department of Defense now, and particularly
the men and women who are currently in uniform, as well as the Guard
and Reserve. We are in the course of transitioning in the roles and
missions, the equipment, and the training of our military departments
to meet the threat of terrorism today. Therefore, the utilization of
dollars from the United States taxpayers that go to the Department of
Defense has to be prioritized against that threat today.
The dollars involved in this we estimate to be perhaps as much as $10
billion over 10 years. That is a considerable factor to take into
consideration in the competition for these dollars.
I, speaking for myself, am ever mindful of the rising public debt
necessitated in large part by this war on terrorism.
So in fairness to the President and his advisers who looked at this
issue and have looked at it for some period of time, there are other
factors that had to be considered. In the final analysis, I believe,
with the help of the chairman and others, we crafted the best possible
compromise we could get. I thank the distinguished chairman once again.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time, may I ask the Chair, is
remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-three and one-half minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Are 10 minutes exhausted?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. I yield myself 5 additional minutes.
There are a number of other important initiatives in this bill we
will enact into law shortly. Here are just a few of them.
In the area of missile defense, the conference report, such as the
Senate bill, authorizes the President to reallocate $814 million,
should he choose, from missile defense expenditures which, at least to
some of us, appears to be unjustified or duplicative in combating
terrorism. And he can reallocate the $814 million to the effort to
combat terrorism. Again, that is left to his discretion. But this bill
does, this year, require that he identify whether or not he has made
that choice.
The bill also would ensure better oversight and management of missile
defense programs in a number of ways. We are going to require
programmatic information on ballistic missile defense programs with the
budget justification materials that come to Congress.
We are going to require the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the
so-called JROC, to perform a review of the cost, schedule, and
performance criteria for ballistic missile defense programs so that the
validity of those criteria in relationship to military requirements can
be assessed.
[[Page S10861]]
We are going to require the Department of Defense to establish a more
disciplined process for the evolutionary acquisition and spiral
development of major defense acquisition programs, including missile
defense programs, by issuing guidance and instituting a process for the
approval of acquisition plans.
Second, in the area of nuclear weapons, we have taken a number of
steps to ensure that the Department of Defense and the Department of
Energy do not take any precipitous actions to develop new nuclear
weapons.
First, we rejected a House provision that would have repealed the
current law prohibiting the research, development, and production of
low-yield nuclear weapons.
Second, we included a Senate provision that would require the
Secretary of Energy to specifically identify any funds requested for
new or modified nuclear weapons. If there is such a request, it cannot
be buried in some other subject. It has to be identified as such in the
budget material.
Third, we prohibited the Secretary of Energy from spending any funds
for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator unless and until the Secretary
of Defense submits a report setting forth the requirements for such a
system and the employment policy behind such a system, as well as the
potential for conventional alternatives to that Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator.
And we prohibited the use of any funds authorized in the bill for
nuclear-tipped missile defense interceptors.
We have a number of initiatives to ensure that the resources our
taxpayers provide for national defense are spent wisely. Some of these
initiatives include a major initiative based on the recommendations of
the Defense Science Board and the Department of Defense Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation to address budget shortfalls and
organizational shortcomings in the Department's test and evaluation
infrastructure that have led to inadequate testing of major weapons
systems.
We have advanced last year's initiative by the committee to improve
the way in which the Department manages its $50 billion of services
contracts, which we anticipate will save $600 million.
We included a provision that will address the Department's inability
to produce reliable financial information and to achieve $400 million
of savings by deferring spending on new financial systems that would be
inconsistent with a comprehensive financial management enterprise
architecture that is currently being developed by the Department.
We also have required, in this bill, that the Department establish
new internal controls to address recurring problems with the abuse of
purchase cards and travel cards by military and civilian personnel.
In the area of efforts to combat terrorism and to lessen the danger
posed by weapons of mass destruction, we have taken the following
initiatives:
A title of the bill sets aside $10 billion to fund ongoing operations
in the war against international terrorism during fiscal year 2003.
This is a very important provision in the Senate bill. It was very
important to the administration that we not use those funds for some
other purpose. We did not. This will be the subject of the later
appropriation, but, nonetheless, we set aside that $10 billion fund for
the ongoing operations in the war against terrorism.
Next, we fully funded the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program, including funding for the destruction of chemical weapons in
Russia. And we fully funded the proliferation preventions at the
Department of Energy.
We took an important step to give the President greater flexibility
to waive any of the conditions precedent to carrying out that CTR
program or the Freedom Support Act programs for three fiscal years. So
now the President can proceed with the Comprehensive Threat Reduction
programs even if they do not meet technical criteria for spending that
money if it is in the national interest that he do so.
He has that waiver authority under this bill for 3 years. He has not
had it before. This is an important addition to the fight against
proliferation, particularly of chemical and biological weapons.
In addition, and finally, we addressed a number of very difficult
environmental issues. The conference report includes, first of all,
some environmentally sound provisions that we adopted in the Senate.
Two of these provisions would authorize the Department of Defense to
enter into agreements with non-Federal entities to manage lands
adjacent to military installations and to create buffer zones between
training areas and the surrounding population. Those are two provisions
which will help protect the environment.
A third one requires the Department to strengthen its program for the
acquisition of procurement items that are environmentally preferable or
are made with recycled materials.
We also, in the environmental area, succeeded in removing two ill-
advised House provisions. One would have exempted some DOD activities
from the Endangered Species Act. That is not within the jurisdiction of
our committee. We were able to obtain the removal of that provision.
And the other provision which we were able to remove would have
provided special exemptions from environmental controls for the
training range in Utah.
We were able to modify a House provision which authorized the
exemption of certain Department of Defense activities from the
provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. That was a highly
controversial action on the part of the House. We were able to obtain
some important concessions in the conference relative to that
provision, including an agreement to structure the provisions so that
the Department of Interior will be required to exercise its regulatory
powers over the Department of Defense activities impacting migratory
birds and to require appropriate actions to mitigate the impact of
Department of Defense actions on migratory birds.
I hope and believe that the tradeoff that we made in dropping the
endangered species provision and the Utah provision and getting a
modification of the migratory bird provision was a sound one. I believe
that we made some real progress, given the point that we were starting
with in the Senate, which was facing all this language on the House
side, which we had to either remove or to modify, as well as preserving
our own provisions which were very supportive of environmental
protection.
I was very disappointed that we were unable to include a Senate
provision that would repeal the statutory prohibitions on the use of
Department of Defense facilities for legal abortions so that military
women overseas could get a legal abortion, at their own expense, in a
DOD medical facility overseas. This was a provision that, if we were
able to maintain it, would have led to a veto of this bill.
Again, we faced the House conferees who were determined that there
would be no bill if this provision was in it. So now we continue for
another year what I consider to be the absurdity of forcing women who
are obtaining a legal abortion to come home. These are women in the
military, committed to the service of their country, who are going to
be required, for another year, until we face this issue again next
year, to return home to obtain an abortion, which is legal, which they
have chosen to obtain.
I find this to be an unconscionable provision in our law. And we are
going to continue to try, to the best of our ability, to change that
provision. But this year we did not prevail, did not succeed, and we
would have faced a veto of this bill. The Office of Management and
Budget was very clear in a letter that they would recommend the veto of
this bill if the Senate provision, which removed this impediment to
legal abortions, at their own expense, by women who are serving this
Nation--if that, in fact, prevailed, there would have been a veto.
Madam President, our Armed Forces are ready to help keep the peace,
to deter traditional and nontraditional threats to our security and our
vital interests around the world. And they are prepared to win any
conflict decisively. The success of our forces in Afghanistan is a
tribute to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the investments in
national defense that Congress and the Department of Defense and
administrations over time have made for many years.
The investments in previous years, indeed in previous decades, in
equipment, in treating our personnel properly, in raising morale, in
readiness--
[[Page S10862]]
these investments by prior Congresses, by this and prior
administrations, have paid off. And future success on the battlefield
will likewise depend upon the success of Congress and the Department to
prepare and to train and to equip our military for tomorrow's missions.
So as we stand on the brink of possible conflict in Iraq, the
conference report builds on the considerable strengths of our military
forces and their record of success by preserving a high quality of life
for U.S. forces and their families, by sustaining readiness, and by our
efforts to transform the Armed Forces to meet the threats and the
challenges of tomorrow.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I, once again, thank the chairman for
his service. We have been together now for 24 years on the Senate Armed
Services Committee. And, given the results of the recent elections, we
will be here for another 6.
When I yielded the chairmanship 2 years ago, thereabouts, Senator
Levin just moved one place over. Now I will just move back to that one
place. We have conducted the affairs of this committee in a very
spirited way, but I think it reflects as high a degree of
bipartisanship as can be achieved in this magnificent institution, the
Senate.
I commend the chairman, and I commend him for this bill. He has
worked long and hard on it, with me at his side, together with our
respective Members. It is a good bill, a very good bill.
(Mr. JEFFORDS assumed the Chair.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia. I had
no doubt he would be back. I am glad to see him back. We kept the chair
warm for him. The gavel will be handed over with--I will not say with
unmixed feelings because, obviously, there are mixed feelings, but I
cannot think of anyone I would rather hand the gavel to, if it is not
on our side of the aisle, than my dear friend from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, we, as a Nation, were astonished, once again, in the
past few days to see the face of Osama bin Laden and hear the remarks
he (allegedly) made. I am not here to in any way lend credence to the
validity of this, but nevertheless, those in the position to determine
will eventually determine the validity of that piece of tape. But it
did bring home to America the threats that this Nation faces and the
fact that we, under the leadership of a brilliant President, are
engaged in all-out war, together with our allies and others, in a war
on terrorism. This bill is an essential building block in that war.
Questions were raised in the course of our deliberations on this
bill: Can we as a Nation afford, can the military take on the
obligation to engage the enemy of terrorism in the worldwide effort
and, at the same time, if it is necessary--and I repeat, if it is
necessary--to use force against Saddam Hussein and his regime--not the
people of Iraq, but Saddam Hussein and his regime? And I say this bill
provides that measure of support such that our President, in his role
as Commander in Chief, can conduct the full range of options militarily
necessary to protect this Nation, be it from terrorism or the possible
use of force in Iraq.
That brings me to another point. As we all watch the developments in
Iraq and, indeed, today, very interesting developments, I stop to think
we would not as a free world be in the position of having this new
resolution from the United Nations had it not been first and foremost
for the courageous leadership of our President who, over a period of a
year or more, has been constantly reminding the world, not just our
citizens, of the threats from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass
destruction, and the need to address those threats.
Wisely, he sought to go to the United Nations where he put forth that
historic speech. Had it not been for the vision, the foresight, and the
commitment of this President, we would not be seeing today the
unfolding of what I hope will be a successful resolution of the
destruction of the weapons of mass destruction now possessed by Saddam
Hussein without the use of force.
The second factor in achieving the action by the United Nations was
the fact that the men and women in the U.S. military are trained, are
ready, and would respond to the Commander in Chief's order, if that
were necessary, to resolve this critical worldwide issue by the use of
force. They are ready. Saddam Hussein knows that. So I salute the men
and women of our Armed Forces who are as much responsible for what we
hope will be the successful resolution of this issue pursuant to the
most recent resolution of the U.N. It is just as important a factor as
the deliberations of the U.N. itself and indeed the valiant efforts of
our President, and I wish to acknowledge that.
Congress also played an important role by passing a strong resolution
in support of the President; a resolution authorizing the use of force
against Iraq. The militaries of the U.S. and our allies stand by, ready
to use force if necessary, pursuant to that authorization by the
Congress.
I think this bill should remove any doubt of our commitment to fight
terrorism, to use force if it becomes necessary in Iraq, and to defend
the interests of Americans and our allies throughout the world.
An undertaking of the magnitude of this bill is ultimately a
bipartisan effort. Our committee has a long tradition of
bipartisanship. Senator Levin and I have served under Chairman Stennis,
Senator Goldwater, Senator Tower, Senator Nunn, and now the two of us
are privileged to have that responsibility, I as ranking member, and
Chairman Strom Thurmond, who is now present on the floor, all of whom
tried to have the highest possible bipartisanship in this committee.
Our chairman and I have continued that tradition.
When it comes to the welfare of the men and women of the armed
services, when it comes to the importance of the security of this
Nation and the recognition by our allies that we stand to support them,
we should have, and do have, that degree of bipartisanship.
Consequently, there are many people deserving of recognition and thanks
who have kept that tradition.
I especially want to thank my chairman for his leadership. I want to
thank all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members for their
tireless efforts in ensuring that our troops have the tools they need
for peace to accomplish such missions as they may have to undertake.
At this point, I would like to pay special tribute to three
Republican Members of our Committee who will not be returning next
year. Senator Strom Thurmond has proudly served as a Member of the
Senate Armed Services Committee since January 14, 1959, during the
Eisenhower Administration. During nine successive Administrations,
Senator Thurmond has provided a steady hand, sage advice and strong
support for our men and women in uniform. He also had a distinguished
military career, leading members of the ``Greatest Generation'' ashore
on the beaches in Normandy and rising to the rank of Major General in
the Army Reserve. He is a true American hero, and he will be missed in
the years ahead. Senator Bob Smith has been a Member of the Committee
since 1991, serving most recently as the Chairman of the Strategic
Subcommittee from 1997-1999. A distinguished Navy veteran who served in
Vietnam, Senator Smith has been a champion of veterans issues, joining
Senators Reid and Hutchinson in the efforts on concurrent receipt. And
finally, Senator Tim Hutchinson has made significant contributions
during his four years of service on the Committee. As the Chairman and
then Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator Hutchinson
has been committed to improving the quality of life of our military
personnel. He joined me in crafting legislation--TRICARE for Life--to
ensure that we meet our commitment to our military retirees to provide
them with health care for life. In addition, he has been instrumental
in ensuring significant pay raises for the military for four
consecutive years and major improvements in educational benefits. They
have all been valuable Members of the Committee and they will all be
missed.
No committee succeeds without a dedicated professional staff. I
especially want to recognize the unwavering leadership of Judy Ansley
of the minority staff, who will soon be moving over to become chief of
staff of the
[[Page S10863]]
majority, and of David Lyles who likewise will shift his desk a slight
distance and continue the partnership that these two magnificent
professionals have, as well as the wonderful service they render to the
Senate, and indeed our country.
I also want to thank Peter Levine, counsel to both sides. He is good,
and we call on him. Fortunately, we do not have to pay his salary out
of our allocation, but we get the full measure of his brilliance.
Each of them have a marvelous professional staff. I would like to
recognize each of them individually. On the Republican staff: Chuck
Alsup, David Cherington, Marie Dickinson, Ed Edens, Brian Green, Bill
Greenwalt, Gary Hall, Carolyn Hanna, Mary Alice Hayward, Bruce Hock,
George Lauffer, Patty Lewis, Tom MacKenzie, Ann Mittermeyer, Joe
Sixeas, Leslie Stone, Scott Stucky and Dick Walsh. On the Majority and
non-designated staff: Dara Alpert, Ken Barbee, Mike Berger, June
Borawski, Leah Brewer, Chris Cowart, Dan Cox, Madelyn Creedon, Mitch
Crosswait, Rick DeBobes, Brie Eisen, Evelyn Farkas, Richard Fieldhouse,
Daniel Goldsmith, Creighton Greene, Jeremy Hekhuis, Gary Howard, Drew
Kent, Jennifer Key, Maren Leed, Gary Leeling, Mike McCord, Tom Moore,
Cindy Pearson, Arun Seraphin, Christina Still, Mary Louise Wagner, Nick
West, and Bridget Whalen. So I pay my respects, for they deserve credit
and recognition.
The conference report before the Senate represents an important step
forward in ensuring the readiness of our Armed Forces, protecting our
homeland, and ensuring success in the ongoing global war against
terrorism. During this critical time in our history, with our Nation at
war and preparing, together with the United Nations, to meet the
threats posed by Iraq--I should say posed by Saddam Hussein, not posed
by the people of Iraq--it is essential that we provide our President
and the Armed Forces with the vital resources they need to defend our
Nation to fight the scourge of terrorism both at home and abroad, and
to prepare for future threats.
I use the word ``home'' purposely because in my lifetime, I have seen
incredible transition, the focal point being 9/11. I look upon the
armed services of the United States as one of the greatest assets the
American people have, and we should constantly look for ways in which
they can, within the legal framework of our laws, be a full partner
with those who are entrusted with our homeland defense. I am not just
speaking of the Guard, the Reserve and others, but I am talking about
the security forces, the police, be they Federal, State or local, the
people who provide medical assistance, the people who provide all types
of assistance in the event of a problem at home. We have to continue to
strengthen and move in that direction, again within the framework of
the laws.
As President George Washington stated in his first inaugural address
to Congress on January 8, 1790, and I quote:
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means
of preserving the peace.
That is what this bill is about, to be prepared. We can all take
pride in this legislation. It represents the bipartisan work of all
committee members in both Chambers to support our men and women in
uniform, and their families.
I want to commend Chairman Stump, ranking member Ike Skelton, and
Duncan Hunter. They were marvelous working partners in the House for
the chairman and I to conclude this conference. This bill is named in
honor of Chairman Stump, a World War II veteran who lied about his age
and joined the Navy when he was 15 years old and saw combat before his
18th birthday. I guess that is one of the reasons that generation, of
which I am a very small and modest part having come into the tail end,
is referred to as the greatest generation.
Chairman Stump exemplifies that name: The greatest generation. The
fact that this legislation is named in his honor is a fitting tribute
to that true patriot.
I believe the Presiding Officer served in the House of
Representatives at one time with Chairman Stump.
I also want to thank Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton for their
unwavering efforts.
Our President sent the first signal to strengthen defense by asking
Congress to increase spending, a very considerable increase in this
legislation. This conference report sends a further signal to our
citizens and to nations around the world that the United States is
committed to a strong national defense. More importantly, this
conference report sends a clear signal to our men and women in uniform,
from the newest private to the most senior flag or general officer,
that we are clearly behind them and we support their efforts around the
world, and we are behind their families.
We must always pause to remember that the men and women in the Armed
Forces rely first and foremost on the support they receive from their
loved ones.
I want to thank the Department of Defense. I have had very cordial
and strong working relations with Secretary Rumsfeld--we go way back
together in the Nixon administration--as well as the Deputy Secretary
of Defense and others. I think he has put together a good team. Yes, we
do battle with them. We did battle with them on concurrent receipts,
but in the end they swung in and gave us the technical advice to write
this particular section on concurrent receipts in a way that creates a
very special class of deserving career veterans, career military
veterans.
To reiterate, I am proud to join Chairman Levin in recommending this
conference report to the Senate. This has been a long and difficult
conference; but, we have achieved our goal of providing for our men and
women in uniform.
An undertaking of this magnitude is ultimately a bipartisan team
effort. Our Committee has a long tradition of bipartisanship.
Consequently, there are many people deserving of recognition and
thanks. I especially want to thank my friend and colleague of 24 years
in this Chamber and on the committee, Chairman Carl Levin, for the
leadership he has shown in bringing this conference to a successful
conclusion. I also want to thank all of our subcommittee chairs and
ranking members for their tireless efforts in ensuring our troops have
the tools they need to accomplish their missions. No committee without
a dedicated, professional staff. I especially want to recognize the
unwavering leadership efforts of David Lyles, Judy Ansley, and Peter
Levine in bringing this process to a successful conclusion. They have
led a great staff, all of whom deserve great credit and recognition.
The conference report before the Senate represents an important step
forward in ensuring the readiness of our armed forces, protecting our
homeland, and ensuring success in the on-going global war against
terrorism. During this critical time in our history, with our nation at
war and preparing--together with the United Nations--to meet the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein, it is essential that we provide our President
and our armed forces the vital resources they need to defend our
Nation, fight the scourge of terrorism at home and abroad, and prepare
for future threats.
As President George Washington stated in his first annual address to
Congress on January 8, 1790:
To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means
of preserving the peace.
We can all take pride in this legislation. It represents the
bipartisan work of all committee members--in both Chambers--working
together to support our men and women in uniform, and their families. I
especially want to thank Chairman Bob Stump for his efforts this year
and congratulate him for his outstanding work on behalf of our men and
women in uniform for the 26 years he has served on the House Armed
Services Committee. The fact that this legislation is named in his
honor is a fitting tribute to a true patriot. I also want to thank
Congressmen Duncan Hunter and Ike Skelton for their unwavering efforts
to ensure we have a strong defense authorization act for our nation.
Our President sent the first signal by asking Congress to increase
defense spending. This conference report sends a further signal to our
citizens, and to nations and around the world, that the United States
is committed to a strong national defense. More importantly, this
conference report sends a clear signal to our men and women in uniform,
from the newest private to the most
[[Page S10864]]
senior flag officers, that we are clearly behind them and we support
their efforts around the world.
The conference report before us contains the largest defense increase
in over 20 years--an increase of $45.0 billion over the fiscal year
2002 appropriated level. The good news story associated with this much
needed increase is that it has the full, bipartisan support of the
Congress. While there are always minor disagreements over how some of
the money in this bill should be allotted, there was no dissent about
the need for this significant increase in the top line for defense.
This is a remarkable display of unity behind our President, so
important and fitting with our Nation at war.
In line with the request of the President, the conference report
significantly increases the major defense accounts over the Fiscal Year
2002 appropriated levels:
It increases spending on military personnel by over 14 percent
including a 4.1 percent pay raise for our servicemen and women.
The bill increases the procurement account by over 20 percent. This
will enable our military departments to procure the equipment they need
to replace aging and heavily used assets, as well as to buy the things
they need to protect our facilities, infrastructure and people in these
increasingly uncertain and dangerous times.
Additionally, the bill increases spending on research and development
by almost 17 percent, ensuring that critical investment is being made
to develop the capabilities we need in the future to deter and defeat
emerging threats to our national security.
The bill also sets aside a $10.0 billion reserve fund, as requested
by the President, to pay for ongoing and future military operations in
the global war on terrorism.
The threats to our nation and the ongoing war on terrorism demand
this increased investment in national security, both now and in the
future.
The bill contains many key provisions which will improve the quality
of life of our men and women in uniform, our military retirees, and
their families. In addition to the 4.1 percent pay raise I mentioned
earlier, additional funding is included for facilities and services
that will greatly improve the quality of life for our service personnel
and their families, both at home and abroad. This legislation also
contains key provisions that will better organize the Department of
Defense to support the critical homeland defense mission, including:
creation of an Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence;
authorization to add an Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland
Defense; and, a requirement that the Secretary of Defense establish at
least one Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Team within every
state and territory.
One of the most difficult issues facing the conference was how to
ensure that our military retirees, who have incurred disabilities,
receive a measure of military compensation.
Concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability pay is as complex an
issue as I have dealt with in my 24 years on this committee. Here is
how I view this issue: success in certain military operations requires
extensive planning, establishment of a ``beachhead,'' and then long
term effort to determine the equities and priorities for the future.
We have crafted such a ``beachhead'' in this conference report--I
call it ``Purple Heart-Plus-Others.'' The provision in this conference
report provides substantial recognition and compensation for those who
were injured in combat, that is, all those with disabilities resulting
from injuries for which they received the Purple Heart. In addition,
those retirees most severely disabled in combat related operations, in
preparation for combat, and in performing hazardous service, that is,
those with disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater, would receive
additional compensation. We will rely on the Secretary of Defense to
exercise his discretion to further define the nature of this service.
In both cases, those career retirees who have a certain degree of
disability would receive the same amount of compensation--under a new,
special compensation program--as if we had removed the prohibition on
concurrent receipt.
We all know that this is a complex issue and an emotional issue.
Inaction is not an option. We must establish our ``beachhead'' today. I
commit to holding early hearings next year to fully establish a body of
fact on this issue. I see great merit in establishing a Presidential
commission that can objectively examine the many issues related to the
adequacy of compensation provided to our disabled veterans. I await the
views of the veterans to be expressed at hearings.
It is important to note that this conference report supports and
fully funds virtually all of the priorities established by the
Department of Defense for the development and procurement of major
weapons systems, including the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-22, the
Army's Future Combat System, and unmanned aerial vehicle programs. I
remain committed to supporting investment in technologies that will
enable us to field significant numbers of unmanned aerial and ground
combat vehicles, as soon as feasible.
In addition, I am pleased that the conference was able to add $229
million to the CVN(X) aircraft carrier to restore the original
development and fielding schedule for this essential program. The
carrier has proved its worth again and again in the global war on
terrorism--a war which has relied extensively on carrier-based assets.
This bill supports acceleration of this important program.
The world as we knew it changed forever on September 11. We lost not
only many lives and much property that day, but we also lost our
uniquely American feeling of invulnerability. But, from our darkest
hour, our nation has quickly emerged stronger and more united than
ever. Our President has rallied our country and many nations around the
world to fight the evil of terrorism, and to confront those who
threaten peace and freedom around the world.
As we conclude the 107th Congress, our nation is at war. U.S.
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, together with their coalition
partners, are engaged on the front lines in the global war against
terrorism, with a mission to root out terrorism at its source in the
hopes of preventing future attacks. We are now faced with the
possibility of war with Iraq, if the current U.S. led U.N. efforts
fail.
Our armed forces have responded to the call of duty in the finest
traditions of our nation, and they are prepared to protect our security
in future conflicts. It is critical that the Congress keep faith with
our troops by providing the resources and capabilities our President--
our Commander-in-Chief--has requested.
Homeland security is now, without a doubt, our top priority. We have
a solemn obligation to protect our nation and our citizens from all
known and anticipated threats--whatever their source or means of
delivery. Our President, George W. Bush, has promised our nation that
homeland security is his most urgent priority. The fiscal year 2003
budget the President submitted reflected this priority.
The conference report before us funds the urgent security needs of
our nation by doubling the funding for combating terrorism at home and
abroad, in supporting the President's request for missile defense, and
investing in new technologies to detect weapons of mass destruction and
to deter their development.
I urge my colleagues to support this conference report that upholds
the President's fundamental national security priorities and makes the
right investments in future capabilities. It is imperative that we send
our President, our fellow citizens and the world a message of resolve
from the Congress--a National Defense Authorization Conference Report
that provides the resources and authorities our Nation's leaders and
our armed forces require to protect our Nation and our vital interests
around the world.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me again thank my dear friend from Virginia. I yield 5
minutes to the Senator from Hawaii. If the Senator needs additional
time, it will now be available.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
conference report to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003. I thank my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, for his support
and cooperation. It is truly an honor to work
[[Page S10865]]
with him as we both seek to advance the readiness of our armed forces.
I also commend Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their tireless
efforts during a challenging conference.
As the chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and
Management Support, I want to highlight a few provisions in the
conference report which enhance the readiness of the men and women in
our armed forces. The bill protects the $10 billion the President
requested for operating costs of the ongoing war on terrorism. Fully
funding this request reinforces our country's commitment to continuing
the war on terrorism, and it also means that in so doing we will not
have to rob funds from the operation and maintenance accounts needed to
fund all of our other critical ongoing defense activities such as
training and maintenance.
Conferees also took actions to ensure that our forces can continue to
make the most prudent use of existing training assets. To do this, we
authorized exemption of the Department of Defense from the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act when training events result in incidental takings, but
required DOD to take appropriate actions to avoid any unnecessary
takings. We also authorized the Department of Defense to enter into
partnerships to purchase land, or easements on land, that would protect
training ranges, and provided $7.2 million for improvements to those
ranges.
While the conferees believed that this change to the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act was necessary to protect readiness in light of recent court
actions, the conferees did not believe the administration made the case
that the exemptions it sought from the Endangered Species Act for the
Department of Defense were warranted. I continue to believe that when
the Department's training needs for land, sea and air space conflict
with other needs in our society, whether it is protecting the
environment or accommodating the surrounding civilian populations, our
focus should be first and foremost on ensuring that all parties
involved work together in a spirit of cooperation.
To help to address longer term readiness challenges, the conferees,
continued our efforts from last year to enhance the Department of
Defense's coordination of anti-corrosion programs. Studies estimate
that corrosion costs the Department up to $20 billion annually, and
that corrosion continues to be a serious maintenance challenge and
manpower drain. We therefore recommended that DOD designate a senior
official to oversee anti-corrosion plans and policies, and added over
$10 million to fund those efforts and other anti-corrosion testing,
research, and product applications.
In an effort to continue efforts to improve the quality of life,
conferees authorized the requested increases to improve the buildings
where servicemembers live and work, and added an additional $740
million in military construction funding, which will be enough to
maintain the level of investment in our facilities at last year's
level. Included in this amount is over $700 million in funding
specifically dedicated to enhancing the security of our installations.
To improve DOD management, the bill includes a number of provisions
to expand DOD's authority to acquire major weapon systems more
efficiently. With respect to services contracts, we built on last
year's legislation requiring improved management of the $50 billion DOD
spends annually on services by establishing specific goals for the use
of competitive contracts and performance-based contracting. These goals
should help ensure that the Department of Defense achieves contract
services savings through specific management improvements rather than
through program reductions. The conference report also requires DOD to
develop a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture,
and addresses recurring problems with the abuse of purchase cards and
travel cards by certain military and civilian personnel.
I also want to mention an issue of significant importance to the
people of Hawaii--the cleanup of the island of Kahoolawe. I commend the
Navy and the State of Hawaii for working to resolve a number of
challenges. I am pleased about the Navy's commitment to continue
clearance efforts until November 11, 2003, and its continued efforts to
meet the intent and goals of the memorandum of agreement between the
Navy and the State of Hawaii signed in 1994.
While I am disappointed that the conference report does not include
the provisions passed by the Senate with respect to concurrent receipt,
I believe the conference report strongly supports the readiness of our
forces, both now and in the future. I urge my colleagues to support
this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his invaluable service
to our committee as well as his statement. He has been the chairman of
our Readiness Subcommittee and has done it with a wonderful spirit and
great success. I thank him. We do not know what the subcommittee
structures will look like next year, but hopefully he will continue to
be a valuable part of our committee. I thank him for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, how much time is allotted on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes is available.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am very pleased with this defense
bill. I congratulate Chairman Levin. He is a master leader in the
Senate. His skill at managing complex matters is very well known. He
works with all members of the committee, Republican and Democrat. We
are able to reach agreements that sometimes would not be reached, and I
believe he has guided us in a good way. I also appreciate the
leadership of the ranking Republican, Senator John Warner, a man who
has given his life to the defense of this country, served it ably in so
many different capacities, and all the members of the committee and all
the staff. Particularly, I note Archie Galloway on my staff who has
worked tirelessly on this effort, a retired colonel infantry combat
veteran who does a great job for me.
Money will not tell us everything, but we have the largest increase
in spending on this defense bill in over 10 years, nearly a $50 billion
increase. That is very healthy in light of the significant declines our
Defense Department has suffered since the Gulf War in 1991. After the
Berlin wall fell and after the Gulf War, we went into a significant
reduction in our spending, virtually 40-percent reduction in personnel,
and cuts in many different areas. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, some reductions were appropriate. Most experts would say today
we went too far, that we forgot we needed to transform our military,
and we forgot to meet the new challenges and to utilize the new
equipment and technologies available to make our soldiers more
effective, less at risk, able to target enemy troops and not hit enemy
civilians, as has happened in previous wars. I am afraid we did not
invest enough in the last decade in these efforts.
Within the last several years we moved aggressively forward. When I
came on the committee our defense budget was under $300 billion. This
year it will hit $393 billion, I believe, nearly $50 billion more than
just last year. This allows us to continue to provide quality pay
raises and personnel benefits for our men and women in uniform. These
efforts have strengthened their ability to make a career of the armed
services. Moreover, we authorized incentive income pay of up to $1,500
per month to keep key personnel in key positions, the kind of thing we
need to do to maintain the most proficient military in the world.
I have been a critic of our spending habits, thinking we have cut our
defense too much. To the American people, let me say we need not
underestimate the strength and capability of today's military. Ours is
clearly the greatest military in the history of the world. We are much
more technologically oriented and as a result, we need personnel who
serve longer, who have trained with the newest equipment, who
constantly train with our best aircraft, weapons, night vision
equipment, and communication systems--all the things that allow them to
place the maximum possible threat and force on the enemy, while
protecting the lives of our own soldiers
[[Page S10866]]
and innocent civilians as much as possible. We have done a tremendous
job. They are exceptional military men and women. There is no Army,
Navy, Air Force, or Marine unit in the world that can compete with
ours. They are the best there is, perhaps the best that have ever been.
We should be very proud of them.
It allows the President, in times like this, to talk plainly to the
United Nations and talk firmly to the Taliban in Afghanistan. It allows
the President to speak directly to Saddam Hussein, and Saddam Hussein
knows and the Nations around the world know his are not idle threats.
We have the capability to carry out any commitments we make in terms of
military force. I am pleased with where we are. We are making great
progress.
I mentioned a few things that are important in this budget. Progress
was made on concurrent receipt. In over 100 years we have not had
additional benefits, other than tax advantages, for disabled veterans.
This bill takes a big step forward with the ``Purple Heart Plus''
compromise and will be the first step we have made in that direction. I
am pleased with this first step.
This will be the fourth year in a row we have had a significant pay
raise, a 4.1 percent across-the-board hike and higher for other pay
grades. I am pleased with that.
We have $10.4 billion for new military construction for facilities
and housing for our personnel, many of which are below standard.
Frankly, we can do a better job, in my view, of providing quality
housing. I visited military houses and found out what they cost. They
spend almost as much on them as private housing in the suburbs in
Alabama and other places that seem to cost less or no more. We need to
improve the quality of our construction as we go forward in the future.
We added $900 million to the Navy shipbuilding accounts. I was the
ranking Republican on the Ship Seapower Subcommittee, serving with
Senator Ted Kennedy, the Chairman. We were pleased in the end that our
Navy did not take hits. At one point, it looked like that might occur.
We are pleased that the shipbuilding account finally came in with a
healthy number. This allows us to move forward for such things as
refueling and nuclear submarine, refueling and developing nuclear
submarines, providing additional advanced procurement for the CVN next
generation of aircraft carrier, providing additional payments for prior
incurred shipbuilding costs that we had obligated for the DDG-51 class
destroyer, and LPD-17 class amphibious ships. We made some real
progress there. We need to continue this transformation.
At one point or another, we may disagree with Secretary Rumsfeld's
views regarding one weapons systems or another weapons system. But I
think few of us can honestly disagree and ought to do nothing other
than support his firm and clear determination--supported by the
President of the United States--to transform our military to move us
from a cold war configuration to a configuration that helped us meet
the challenges we had in 1991 with Iraq, as we have had in Kosovo, as
we have had in Afghanistan, and as we might have in the future in Iraq.
We need to transform our military forces to do that.
We sometimes accuse the military of being stubborn, and slow to
change. I would say that is true of our institution, the Congress. It
is also true of the military. But our military is the most
transformable, the most committed to change, and the most committed to
the introduction of new technology of any military in the history of
the world.
I am, all in all, very pleased with the leadership in our military
today and their commitment to bring on board as soon as possible new
ways of conducting warfare that protect our people, that put threat on
the enemy, and that protect innocent civilians. I think we are doing
well. I am very pleased with that.
The President has made clear that this Nation--the strongest military
power in the world--is the single power capable of protecting its own
forces and that of its allies in the most difficult areas of the world.
How much more difficult could you find it to protect American forces
than in Afghanistan? He is committed to doing that.
Sometimes we may wish it were not so. But my own personal view is
that there will be continual challenges around the world and that the
wise and proper surgical application of military power can save lives,
promote peace, and promote economic prosperity around the world.
Indeed, this Nation has the opportunity to help lead the world out of
what could be a disintegrating chaos of independent states--many of
them rogue nations--and into a more stable environment, and promote
peace and prosperity for everybody in the world.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will conclude by saying this budget
moves us in that direction.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Alabama have whatever time he may need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I will take a couple more minutes. I thank Chairman
Levin for his courtesy as always.
But we are at a point where this Nation will have the need from time
to time to utilize force around the world to protect our just and
legitimate national interests. We don't need to do that recklessly, or
arrogantly, or without careful thought. But at times we will be able to
help defend our just national interests and at the same time promote
peace and prosperity in the world. That is a high calling. I think it
is falling to us at this time in history.
I am pleased that we are not only strengthening our defense budget,
but that we are strengthening it intelligently. We are strengthening it
with technology. We are training our personnel. We are keeping our good
men and women longer, so they can become even more proficient in
operating our ships, our command centers, our missiles, and so forth.
I am also pleased that we did maintain the President's request for
funding for national missile defense. That is a key ingredient in our
Nation's defense in the decades to come. We made that commitment in
this bill also. I feel good about it.
Again, I would like to thank Senator Levin for his leadership, the
staff for their work, and Senator Warner for his leadership and
support.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes fifteen seconds.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend from
Alabama for his very fine presentation as well as for his kind words
about me. I enjoy working on the committee with the Senator from
Alabama. He has always been willing to listen and try to work out
issues. There are all kinds of issues that come up--thank God, rarely
on a partisan basis--complicated issues that have to be worked out. He
has worked not only on the Seapower Subcommittee but on the full
committee to address those issues. I am grateful for that
participation.
Senator Thurmond was on the floor a few minutes ago. It reminded me
that this will be, of course, his last term. No Senator serving today
can appreciate what this body will be like when Strom Thurmond leaves
this year. He has served longer in this body than any other Senator in
history. His 48 years in the Senate span the terms of 10 Presidents of
the United States. He keeps pictures of all 10 of those Presidents on
his wall in the office.
When I joined the Armed Services Committee in 1979, Senator Thurmond
by then was on the committee already 20 years.
His love for and dedication to the U.S. military goes back even
further, though, to his commission as an Army Reserve second lieutenant
of infantry in 1924 at the age of 21. He served with distinction in
both the European and Pacific Theaters in the Second World War,
receiving numerous decorations that include the Legion of Merit, the
Bronze Star medal with ``V'' device, the Army Commendation Medal, the
Belgian Order of the Crown, and the French Croix de Guerre. He landed
in a glider on Normandy with the 82nd Airborne Division on D-Day and
went on to win 5 battle stars. In 1959--the year that he joined the
Senate Armed Services Committee--Senator Thurmond was promoted to major
general in the U.S. Army Reserve.
During Senator Thurmond's tenure on the Armed Services Committee, our
[[Page S10867]]
Armed Forces have faced challenge after challenge in Western Europe,
Vietnam, the Middle East, the Caribbean basin, the Persian Gulf, the
Balkans, and Afghanistan. Through it all, Senator Thurmond has
persevered in his unwavering support for our men and women in uniform.
His steadfast commitment to our national defense has been a rock upon
which they could all rely and has helped ensure that our military has
always been ready to answer the call whenever and wherever needed.
Senator Thurmond served as chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee in the 104th and 105th Congresses. I had the honor and
pleasure to serve as his ranking member in 1997 and 1998. I know from
personal experience how seriously Senator Thurmond treated his duties
as chairman and how hard he worked to be fair and even-handed with
every member of the committee. I am sure that I speak for all of our
colleagues in saying just how much we appreciate not only the
commitment that Senator Thurmond brought to his duties as chairman, but
also his lifelong dedication to the defense of our Nation and to the
welfare of the men and women in uniform.
He came to the floor a few minutes ago just to check things out--
basically to satisfy himself that this Defense authorization bill was
moving along. So he made the effort to come to the floor just to see
for himself that things were OK.
I left the floor momentarily to just go out and thank him for coming
over and to wish him well on behalf of the entire committee and the
Senate, as we will not be seeing too much more of him because he is
going to be moving on hopefully to other adventures.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I was going
to add that Senator Thurmond, at the age of 99 and soon to be 100, was
at the Republican Conference luncheon today. And here it is, a quarter
to 6, and he just left the floor a few minutes ago. He has been fully
engaged all day today. He is a true American.
I remember my first foreign trip with him to China. They respect age
in China. So we were well respected. We went out to a Chinese Army
military base. They asked him to review the troops. I was standing
there--this Senator from rural Alabama--watching the famous Strom
Thurmond troop in front of a group of Chinese Communist troops.
Afterwards, I told him, ``I never thought I would ever see that,
Strom.'' I never thought I would have been there.
He is a remarkable man, a thorough expert in military affairs, and an
absolute patriot. I thank Senator Levin for recognizing his service to
our country.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could yield myself 5 additional
minutes--if I am not taking the time of colleagues who are waiting to
speak--to ask unanimous consent to add a word or two.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Michigan will
yield, I was hoping the chairman planned for further discussion because
I would like a few moments myself to speak in favor of the Defense
authorization bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Why don't I finish with a comment about Senator Thurmond
and then yield to the Senator from Connecticut. We are going to be here
anyway.
I have one other comment about Senator Thurmond, and then I will
yield the floor.
My first trip with Senator Thurmond wasn't to a foreign country. It
was to California. I will leave it at that.
(Laughter.) But he was only, I guess, 75 years old because it would
have been 24 years ago.
I remember we were staying at a military base. We were studying a
number of issues. I had just joined the Armed Services Committee. And I
heard somebody, at about 5:30 or 6 in the morning, below my window
running. I was trying to figure out who was up at 5:30 in the morning
running. I knew it was a military base, but still 5:30 is a little
early. That was Strom Thurmond running.
He was and is someone who really has put a lot of emphasis not just
on his own health but on the health of his colleagues. How many times
did he lean over to me, in the Armed Services Committee, and ask, are
you watching your diet or are you getting exercise?
Here is a man who is really concerned that his colleagues would take
care of themselves. I don't think any of us did the exercising he did
and watched our diet quite the way he does, but, at any rate, he will
be missed for all kinds of reasons.
The Senator from Connecticut is ready to speak. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend and colleague from
Michigan.
Mr. President, I rise today to support the Defense authorization bill
and to thank the chairman of our committee, Senator Levin, for his
leadership in this effort, obviously supported, in a very strong
partnership, by Senator Warner, the ranking member, and other members
of the committee of both parties.
It is particularly important we pass this bill now, not only because
our forces are preparing for the possibility of combat to remove the
threat Saddam Hussein represents, but also because this proposal has
important provisions that will lead to transforming our military to
ensure it is even more capable of protecting the American people in the
uncertain and dangerous future ahead of us.
I do want to give credit to Senator Levin, who really has earned the
gratitude of every American for his dedication and commitment not only
to our national security in general but to the men and women in our
Armed Forces. He has certainly ably explained the important provisions
in this bill.
Obviously, there will soon be a transition in the leadership of the
committee. Senator Warner, I presume, will return as chairman. The fact
these two colleagues have worked so well and so productively across
party lines should give us all a sense of encouragement and hope about
the work of this committee in the future.
I have been particularly proud to have been able to have worked on
some provisions I believe will improve the readiness of our military in
the years to come, and that will help our military become a more
important part of the national homeland security team.
It has been a great honor to serve on the Armed Services Committee
and to have worked with Senator Levin and Senator Warner in the actions
they have taken, particularly to improve the compensation and quality
of life of our military.
I have also had the privilege, for the last year and a half--and I
should say thanks to the occupant of the chair--to have served as the
chair of the Airland Subcommittee, working very closely with Senator
Santorum of Pennsylvania as my ranking member. We have now spent two
sessions of Congress, as chair and ranking member, alternating our
roles. I am particularly proud of the work our subcommittee has done
with the full committee in providing additional resources to accelerate
the Army's future force and to fully resource the combat aircraft that
will serve as the backbone of our air forces and ensure our continued
dominance of the air far into the future.
It has also been good to work with Senator Santorum and others on
provisions that will permit more timely transition of promising leap-
ahead technologies from research to full utilization, and to require
the Department of Defense to fully assess its role in homeland
security, each of which are parts of the Defense authorization
legislation that is now before the Senate.
I worked with fellow members of both parties on the committee on a
controversial matter that has reached resolution. It is a resolution
that is unsatisfactory, but I know we have to move ahead with it; that
is, the efforts to redress this longstanding inequity of a double
standard that has allowed all Government retirees except our military
retirees to receive both their full retirement pay and the disability
compensation they are entitled to. Our original provision would have
allowed all military retirees to draw both full-retired pay and any
disability compensation they are entitled to.
To me, this is an issue of fundamental fairness. As Senator Levin has
explained, we were forced by administration opposition to scale back
the provision with regard to military retirees.
The compromise now in this conference report greatly reduces the
number of retirees who will be able to draw both benefits I have
described and
[[Page S10868]]
that they are entitled to. It does authorize an enhanced special
compensation only for military retirees with 20 or more years of
service who incurred a qualifying combat-related disability. That means
any rate of disability attributable to an injury for which the retiree
was awarded the Purple Heart, or a service-connected disability rated
at 60 percent or higher incurred as a direct result of armed conflict,
while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under
conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war.
This, unfortunately, does not cover all the retirees who should be
eligible. It greatly reduces the number who will be covered. It is a
step forward, and a significant step forward, for those who will
benefit, but I hope--and I would guess that members of both parties on
the Armed Services Committee join in the hope--in the years ahead,
beginning next year, we continue to extend the number of retirees who
are entitled to receive both retirement pay and disability compensation
but do not, and to reach the point where all of them, in fact, receive
it. That seems to be our moral responsibility in this case, and we are
not yet fully meeting it.
Bottom line, this is a critically important, otherwise not just
adequate but adequate to the special needs of the moment, authorization
bill. We are, after all, a nation at war. We forget that sometimes
because our enemy does not have the normal attributes of enemies in
war. They are not able to be seen on a battlefield massing their
troops. They are not in ships at sea that we can observe. They
certainly are not in the conventional military aircraft. But they are
out there. They are plotting. They are planning. They are arming in
conventional and unconventional ways to do us damage.
This authorization bill will continue to provide the men and women
who serve us in uniform, and those civilians who support them, the
resources they need to keep us not only defended but the mightiest
Nation in the history of the world.
I thank Senator Levin, Senator Warner, and all the members of the
committee for the work they have done on this legislation. I look
forward to supporting this conference report.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
customs service
Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator
Baucus on provisions in the homeland security bill pertaining to
commercial operations of the Customs Service.
Mr. BAUCUS. This is a very important topic. As my good friend will
recall, the Finance Committee held a hearing on this issue last July,
which we followed up with a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. We stressed the importance of
preserving the revenue collection and trade facilitation functions of
the U.S. Customs Service, even as that agency moves into a Department
with a national security focus. I would be pleased to engage in a
colloquy on this topic with the Senator form Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate the Senator's recalling our hearing of
last July. I would note that following the hearing and our letter to
the Committee on Governmental Affairs, we worked closely with that
Committee and with the Administration to develop text that would keep
intact the commercial functions of the Customs Service. That text has
evolved. I note that the bill now before the Senate provides, as a
general matter, for the transfer of Customs Service functions and
personnel to the new Department of Homeland Security. Notwithstanding
that, authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury relating to
customs revenue functions are to remain with the Secretary of the
Treasury unless delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security. My
understanding is that this exclusion from transfer pertains to
authorities now exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury to issue
revenue regulations developed by the Customs Service, and authority to
provide oversight and supervision of the Customs Service in this area,
especially with regard to policy matters.
Mr. BAUCUS. I share the Senator's understanding on this point.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I note that, technically, the bill allows even revenue-
related authorities to be delegated. However, it is my understanding
that a wholesale--or even a large-scale--delegation of such authorities
is not contemplated by this legislation.
Mr. BAUCUS. I agree with the Senator from Iowa. This bill should not
be read as permission for the Secretary of the Treasury to undertake a
wholesale or large-scale transfer of revenue-related authorities to the
Secretary of Homeland Security. That would be an abdication of the
responsibility that this bill assigns to the Secretary of the Treasury.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator from Montana. I also would note
that the issue of Customs' revenue functions is dealt with differently
in this bill than in the draft bill originally sent to Congress by the
Administration. In the Administration's draft bill, all Customs
functions would have been transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security without any further action by any government official. That
is, no Customs-related authorities would have been retained by the
Secretary of the Treasury. Would the Senator from Montana agree that
this contrast further supports the point that the bill now before the
Senate is not intended to give the Secretary of the Treasury blanket
permission to engage in a wholesale or large-scale transfer of revenue-
related authorities to the Secretary of Homeland Security?
Mr. BAUCUS. I fully agree with the Senator's observation. The
Congress has taken a different approach from the one originally
proposed by the Administration. Under the approach in this bill,
significant revenue-related authorities remain at the Treasury
Department. It would not make sense to take this different approach if
the result would be a wholesale delegation of these authorities after
enactment. Accordingly, the bill should be interpreted as establishing
a presumption that those authorities should not be delegated in the
absence of a compelling reason for their delegation. Moreover, while
delegations in this area are indeed allowable under the legislation, it
is fair to conclude that they will be scrutinized closely by those of
us responsible for these provisions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate this colloquy, and I thank the Senator for
engaging in this colloquy on a very important topic.
migratory bird treaty act
Mr. JEFFORD. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague
Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee, in a colloquy on a
provision relating to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is one of our nation's oldest wildlife
protection laws. Before this law was passed in 1918, many migratory
birds were on the brink of extinction. However through international
coordination and domestic conservation programs, the MBTA has succeeded
in restoring many species of migratory birds. This law is within the
jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee which I
chair.
As the Chairman is aware, the conference report before us today
contains an exemption for the Department of Defense from incidental
takings of Migratory Birds related to military readiness activities. I
think it is unfortunate that this provision was included, however, I
know Chairman Levin worked tirelessly on this and many other difficult
tissues in conference, and I thank him for his efforts.
While I am concerned that these provisions were never subjected to
scrutiny in the committee of jurisdiction, I have yet to agree that
these provisions, or any other provisions affording special treatment
to the Department of Defense, are necessary. For years our military has
efficiently and effectively trained for conflict in full compliance
with environmental laws. Our defense agencies have taken pride in their
stewardship of the environment. I applaud Chairman Levin for rightly
insisting that these provisions not be included in the Senate DoD
Authorization bill.
I would like to confirm my understanding of these provisions with
Chairman Levin who was a principal negotiator of this legislation.
First, it is clear in Subsection (d) that the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior to prescribe regulations for the incidental
taking of migratory birds during military readiness activities is
limited to the Secretary's authority under section 3(a) of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
[[Page S10869]]
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct. This authority must be consistent with
the authority in section 3(a) of the Act, and in no way changes our
obligations under the Migratory Bird Treaties.
Mr. JEFFORD. I would also like to point out that the Department of
Interior has a mandatory obligation to promulgate regulations to permit
the incidental taking of migratory birds by DOD within one year of the
enactment of this Act. Subsection (d) of the provision clearly provides
that ``not later than the expiration of the one-year period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Interior
shall exercise the authority . . . to prescribe regulations to exempt
the Armed Forces for the incidental taking of migratory birds during
military readiness activities.''
Mr. LEVIN. Yes, it is quite clear that the Department of Interior has
a statutory obligation to promulgate regulations within one year.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Also, according to subsection (b), in the one-year time
period between the enactment of this Act and the promulgation of
regulations by the Department of Interior, the Secretary of Defense
must, ``identify measures to minimize and mitigate . . . any adverse
impacts of authorized military readiness activities on affected species
of migratory birds.'' Is it the Chairman's understanding that DOD has a
mandatory obligation to implement these measures?
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct, the Secretary of Defense must not only
take measures to minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on migratory
birds, they must also ensure that such measures are implemented.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Finally, according to subsection (b), in the time
period in which the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (d)
are in effect, the Secretary of Defense must, ``identify measures to
minimize and mitigate . . . any adverse impacts of authorized military
readiness activities on affected species of migratory birds'' and
``monitor the impacts of such military readiness activities on affected
species of migratory birds.'' Is it the Chairman's understanding that
these minimization and monitoring measures must be addressed in the
regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (d), to ensure that
those regulations are consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act?
Mr. LEVIN. That is correct, the regulations must prescribe measures
to minimize, mitigate and monitor impacts of military training
activities on migratory birds, so that the regulations are consistent
with section 3(a) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The two key changes
made by the conferees to the House provisions: (1) require the
Department of the Interior to exercise its regulatory authority over
DOD activities impacting migratory birds and (2) require appropriate
actions to mitigate the impact of DOD actions on migratory birds. The
Senate conferees agreed to accept the provision only because of these
changes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 4546, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Overall, the
House and Senate Armed Services Committee Conferees have produced a
bill which is deserving of approval and is generally supportive of the
brave servicemen and women in our armed forces, in terms of training,
pay, family quality-of-life benefits, and providing modern equipment
and weapon systems.
Building upon evaluations and recommendations regarding growing
readiness and modernization problems throughout the services, the
Conference Committee has done an admirable job of addressing some of
the more pressing issues contributing to the multiple problems that
have been brought to Congress' attention over the past several years.
Unfortunately, there are areas that the Conference Committee did not
adequately address. First and foremost is Concurrent Receipt. It was
tremendously important to me that the Senate version of the defense
authorization bill and report would authorize, at a minimum, payment of
retired pay and disability pay for all military retirees with
disabilities, a practice known as Concurrent Receipt. For the past
eleven years, I have offered legislation on this issue. This matter is
of great significance to many of our country's military retirees,
because it would reverse existing, unfair regulations that strip
retirement pay from military retirees who are also disabled, and costs
them any realistic opportunity for post-service earnings.
While I commend the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the Armed Service
Committees for going further in addressing a longstanding inequity in
the compensation of military retirees' pay, this bill does not go far
enough and falls far short of the much broader provision that was
included in the Senate, or even the House. However, it was important
that a compromise was reached with regards to Concurrent Receipt. The
defense authorization bill provides many critical quality-of-life and
pay benefits for our servicemen and women. Foregoing a defense
authorization bill because full Concurrent Receipt was not included
would be wrong because I believe we would be hurting an even greater
number of servicemembers who are currently serving, reservists who have
been mobilized in support of Operations Noble Eagle and Enduring
Freedom, and their families who endure long periods without a spouse or
parent during periods of training or deployment. More must be done on
Concurrent Receipt. More will be done.
The compromise legislation, in effect, de facto Concurrent Receipt
would increase payments under legislation I previously introduced in
1999, Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Military Retirees, in
an amount equaling the monthly disability compensation prescribed by
the VA for disabling conditions of that percentage.
Eligible recipients would include those military retirees with 20-
years military service who have a disability, 10 to 100 percent, that
is a result of an injury for which the member was awarded the Purple
Heart; or have a 60 percent or more combat-related disability to
include disabling conditions incurred as a result of armed conflict,
including, PTSD, Agent Orange, and Persian Gulf War disease; while
engaged in hazardous service such as atomic veterans; under conditions
simulating war such as military training; or caused by an
instrumentality of war like accidents involving military equipment.
Again, while this legislative compromise will provide critical help
to an additional 35,000 disabled military retirees, it is not good
enough to only correct this injustice for a select few no matter how
deserving.
We must do more to restore retirement pay for those military retirees
who are disabled. I have stated this before, and I am compelled to
reiterate now; retirement pay and disability pay are distinct types of
pay. Retirement pay is for service rendered through 20 years of
military service. Disability pay is for physical or mental pain or
suffering that occurs during and as a result of military service. In
this case, members with decades of military service receive the same
compensation as similarly disabled members who served only a few years.
This practice fails to recognize their extended, more demanding careers
of service to our country.
This is patently unfair, and I will continue to work diligently to
correct this inequity for all career military servicemembers who are
disabled.
Fully enacting concurrent receipt, for all who deserve it, is the
next step to ensuring that we recognize the military service of those
military retirees who by no fault of their own become disabled during
their career military service.
Another disappointing action was the removal of language I sponsored,
modifying the calculation of back pay for persons who were approved for
promotion as members of the Navy and Marine Corps while interned as
prisoners of war during World War II. Last year's Defense authorization
bill authorized back pay to World War II veterans who were not promoted
on time due to the arcane Navy Department rules of the early 1900s.
Unfortunately, when the law was changed, an adjustment for inflation
was not taken into account. While these men received the back pay they
deserved, it was not adjusted for inflation. A simple fix to this
problem would be to take into account changes in the Consumer Price
Index. Though included in the original version of this year's Defense
Authorization Act, the language was removed from the final version of
the legislation.
[[Page S10870]]
I also am disappointed that the Conferees dropped the Senate Armed
Services Committee's recommendation submitted by the Administration to
waive certain buy America restrictions. The Senate authorized the
Secretary of Defense to waive domestic source or content requirements
for close defense allies that provide reciprocal treatment for our
defense products. ``Buy America'' restrictions divert necessary funds
to ensure our military is properly equipped. An additional $5 billion
can be saved per year by eliminating ``Buy America'' restrictions that
are protected by the Berry amendment that only undermine U.S.
competitiveness overseas. Every dollar we spend on archaic procurement
policies, such as ``Buy America,'' is a dollar we cannot spend on
training our troops, keeping personnel quality of life at an
appropriate level, paying full concurrent receipt, maintaining force
structure, replacing old weapons systems, and advancing our military
technology.
Although I have shown that there are numerous examples of why this
bill is far from perfect, I am putting my reservations aside to support
the final passage of the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense
Authorization Act Conference Report. I feel that taken as a whole this
legislation represents a step forward for our Nation's military.
The bill contains a package of benefits for servicemembers and their
families that would go a long way toward addressing the readiness
problems facing all the services. It includes a 4.1 percent across-the-
board pay raise for all active and reserve servicemembers, with an
additional targeted pay raise ranging from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent
for sergeants, petty officers and chiefs.
Military pay, by almost all accounts, has fallen considerably behind
civilian pay. Arguments can be made as to the precise pay differential,
and at which pay grades and mission areas the gap is greatest, but
there is no credible argument as to whether or not we need to address
the issue of compensation.
Additionally, the Committee approved a provision that would authorize
a new assignment incentive pay of up to $1,500 per month to encourage
servicemembers to serve in difficult-to-fill assignments, like Korea or
the Persian Gulf region.
The Committee approved a significant legislative provision directing
the Secretary of Defense to review personnel compensation laws and
policies, including the Reserve retirement system, to determine how
well they address the needs of Guard and Reserve servicemembers. This
provision is particularly noteworthy since the Secretary of Defense
recalled nearly 95,000 Reserve Component servicemembers for Operations
Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle. Oftentimes the collective memory of
our active duty, including active duty reserve servicemembers, is short
and a comprehensive examination of reserve force policies, if done
right, will help address waning retention of reservists and continued
support by employers of reservists.
I forcefully endorse the Conference Committee's inclusion of an
amendment that will direct the Secretary of the Air Force to obtain
specific authorization and appropriation to lease 100 Boeing 767 tanker
aircraft that was previously approved by the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act of Fiscal Year 2002.
Many Senate Armed Services Committee Members expressed concern that
the payment of leasing of major weapon systems, aircraft, vessels, and
combat vehicles, should not come from critical funds providing for
readiness spending, such as training, spare parts, flying hours, and
maintenance of weapons systems and barracks. There appeared to be a
sense of agreement that any lease for major weapon systems should
instead be funded from the procurement accounts.
During posture hearings, the Service Secretaries and Chiefs confirmed
that readiness unfunded requirements still exist and submitted lists to
meet their readiness requirements. Robbing ``Peter to pay Paul'' so
that Air Force Secretary Jim Roche can modernize the tanker fleet is
questionable at best and several reports by the GAO, OMB and CBO bear
this out. I will not take the time of this body today to again
articulate the reasons why Secretary Roche's and the Appropriations'
Committee Boeing 767 leasing scheme is a rip-off of the taxpayers as I
have stated on the floor of the Senate in the past. However, servicemen
and women will someday look at this lease of aerial tankers and wonder
how Congress was duped into agreeing to a provision that was so costly
and in the end irresponsible.
I fully support the Conference Committee's inclusion of the
``National Call to Service Act,'' which provides for strong incentives
to encourage young Americans to enlist in the Armed Services.
The Committee adopted provision is the military component of the
``Call to Service Act,'' introduced by Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) and
myself, which also expands civilian service opportunities in AmeriCorps
and SeniorCorps and in other service organizations.
This is a very significant boost to a bill that will give Americans
concrete opportunities to serve in causes greater than self interest.
By encouraging more military enlistments, this legislation could
greatly assist our war against terror.
Under the ``National Call to Service Act,'' individuals who volunteer
to serve under this new program would be required to serve on active
duty for 15 months in the Armed Services after completion of initial
entry training and could complete the remainder of their military
service obligation by choosing service on active duty, in the Selected
Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve. The reserve obligation
could also be fulfilled by serving in a civilian national service
program such as the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps.
In return for service, the legislation provides the choice of
incentives including a $5,000 bonus, repayment of a student loan up to
$18,000, an educational allowance under the Montgomery GI Bill.
At this time of national challenge, Americans are yearning for
opportunities to serve. I hope Congress will expeditiously take action
on this entire legislation to create more options in both the areas of
military and civilian service.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate my belief in the importance
of enacting meaningful improvements for active duty and Reserve service
members. They risk their lives in Afghanistan and elsewhere to defend
our shores and preserve democracy, and we cannot thank them enough for
their service. But, we can and should pay them more, improve the
benefits for their families, and support the Reserve Components in a
manner similar to the active forces. Our service members past, present,
and future need these improvements. We also cannot continue with this
``business as usual'' mindset. We must reform the Department of Defense
and not fall prey to the special interest groups that attempt to warp
our perspective and misdirect our spending. We owe so much more to our
men and women in uniform who defend our country. They are our greatest
resource, and I believe they are woefully underrepresented. We must
continue to do better.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense authorization
bill was in conference for nearly 16 weeks. This bill, which creates
the policies and programs that will guide the Department of Defense
during this fiscal year, is the counterpart to the defense
appropriations bill, which was passed by Congress and signed into law
last month. After the President challenged Congress to make the defense
budget a priority, why did it take so long for Congress to complete
action on the defense authorization bill?
This bill has wide support in the Senate, having originally been
passed on June 27, 2002, by a vote of 97 to 2. So the bill is not so
divisive that controversy among Members of the Senate could have
delayed its completion.
The chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee,
Senator Levin and Senator Warner, worked diligently during this
extended period of time to be able to produce a defense authorization
bill for this year. They cannot be blamed for it taking so long to
completing conference on the bill.
The true reason for the delay was the myopic veto threats that
emanated from the White House over provisions in the Senate- and House-
passed bills that would have expanded benefits to disabled veterans.
The reason the White House opposed these benefits is clear: the
President's advisors were
[[Page S10871]]
only looking at the bottom line. It just does not make sense that we
can pass a defense budget that will spend a billion dollars a day
during the next 12 months, and we can spend more than a billion dollars
a month on military operations in Afghanistan, but when it comes to
providing benefits to disabled veterans, suddenly we do not have the
money.
The veterans' benefit that was proposed in the Senate version of the
Defense authorization bill would allow an individual with a disability
who retired from the military after 20 years of service to receive the
full amount of his military retirement pay and his veterans' disability
pay, without reduction from either. Under current law, these two
payments are offset, in effect forcing these individuals to pay for
their own disability checks.
The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, has authored a bill to correct
this situation. I am one of 82 cosponsors of that bill. The House
version of this bill has 403 cosponsors. These bills are of the highest
priority to a great number of veterans' groups and of great importance
to thousands of disabled veterans around the country. Despite such
broad support, the White House veto threats torpedoed the full
expansion of these benefits in the Defense authorization bill.
The conference report to the Fiscal Year 2003 Defense authorization
bill that we will soon vote on contains a limited expansion of benefits
to some veterans, depending on their level of disability and how their
injuries were inflicted. It is well short of what veterans deserve.
I will vote in favor of the conference report, however, because the
bill makes improvements to a number of other programs that are
important to the men and women who serve our country in uniform. The
Defense authorization bill provides for an across the board pay
increase, creates new bonus payments for hardship assignments, and
reduces housing costs for military families. The bill also authorizes
$10.4 billion for military construction, which includes funding to
replace dilapidated housing at military bases throughout the United
States. This bill will help to improve the quality of life of those who
now serve in the military.
Although this bill does not make enough progress in getting veterans
the benefits that they have earned, the passage of this Defense
authorization bill will not be an end to that issue. There is strong
support in Congress to allow disabled veterans to receive the full
amount of their military retired pay and their disability compensation,
and I am certain that this issue will be raised again.
In the meantime, I urge the thousands of veterans who contacted me in
support of expanding these benefits to let the President know how
important this issue is to you. No veteran should doubt who is
responsible for killing this proposal. Veterans and their families
should hold the President accountable for his stand against benefits
for disabled veterans.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep
disappointment that the Murray/Snowe amendment was dropped, once again,
in conference.
The Murray/Snowe amendment would guarantee that women serving in our
military overseas have access to safe, affordable and legal abortions.
This amendment passed the Senate on a 52 to 40 vote. A similar
amendment also passed in 1996 and was dropped in conference. Once
again, reproductive health care needs of women were abandoned behind
closed doors.
The DOD authorization bill before us today will ensure that our men
and women in the armed forces have the equipment and resources they
need to protect us. Every day our service men and women work overtime,
often in hostile, dangerous environments to protect our citizens and to
secure the freedoms and values we cherish. They deserve our full
support.
Suprisingly, as the women of our military, fight for our freedoms
overseas, they are actually denied some of these freedoms during their
service. Here at home, women have the right to chose. They have
constitutionally-protected access to safe and legal reproductive health
services. But, this is not the case for women serving overseas. The
Murray/Snowe amendment would have ensured that women serving in the
military are not forced to check their rights at the U.S. border.
Under current restrictions, women who have volunteered to serve their
country are not allowed to exercise their legally guaranteed right to
make their own reproductive health decisions simply because they are
serving overseas.
These women are committed to protecting our rights as free citizens,
yet they are denied one of the most basic rights afforded women in this
country. Our amendment would not, and let me stress does not require
any direct federal funding of abortion related services. The amendment
would have required women to pay for any direct costs associated with
an abortion in a military facility. The Murray/Snowe amendment does
not, and again let me stress does not, compel a medical provider to
perform abortions. All branches of the military allow medical personnel
who have religious or ethical objections to abortion not to
participate. Finally, this amendment would not have changed or altered
conscience clauses for military medical personnel. This is an important
and critical women's health issue. Women should be able to depend on
their base hospital and military health care providers to meet all of
their health care needs, including reproductive health. To single out
abortion-related services could jeopardize a woman's health.
Opponents of this amendment have argued that the military does ensure
access for women. Under current practices, a woman who requires
abortion related services can seek the approval of her commanding
officer for transport back to the U.S. as unscheduled leave: not
medical leave, but unscheduled leave.
In addition to the serious risk posed by delaying an abortion, this
policy compromises a woman's privacy rights by forcing her to release
her medical condition and needs to her superiors. This policy also
forces women to seek abortions outside of the military establishment in
foreign countries. Many women have little or no understanding of the
laws or restrictions in the host country and may have significant
language and cultural barriers as well.
In this country, we take for granted the safety of our health care
services. When we seek care in a doctor's office or clinic, we assume
that all safety and health standards are adhered to. Unfortunately,
this is not the case in many other countries.
In addition, many of our military personnel serve in areas that are
hostile to women's reproductive rights and choices. In some countries,
women can be severely punished for seeking abortion-related services or
family planning. This is the environment that many women face.
Regardless of one's view on abortion, it is simply wrong to place
women at risk. This amendment would have required the women to pay the
full cost associated with the abortion. It would prohibit any direct
federal funding.
Ensuring that women have access to safe, legal and timely abortion
related services is an important health guarantee. It is not a
political statement. It is essential that women have access to a full
range of reproductive health care services. That's why the Murray/Snowe
amendment was endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists, the Americans Medical Women's Association, Physicians
for Reproductive Choice and Health, Planned Parenthood of America,
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and the
National Partnership for Women and Families.
As we send out troops into the war on terrorism to protect our safety
and freedoms, we should ensure that female military personnel are not
asked to sacrifice their rights and protections as well. Allowing
extreme ideology to dictate military health care policy is simply
wrong. Women have suffered a major set back today. Dropping the Murray/
Snowe amendment sends the wrong message to our military servicewomen.
It is simply wrong to deny women their basic rights behind closed
doors.
I will not give up. I will be back again to fight for this important
reproductive health care protection. Eventually, we will do the right
thing and enact the Murray/Snowe amendment.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, this week our Nation honored our veterans;
the men and women who have served
[[Page S10872]]
the United States with distinction. Although we take one day of the
year to recognize what veterans have done for us, it is understood that
we are in constant debt to those who defended our country's liberty. It
is said that ``Freedom is not free''. There is a cost, and this cost
has been paid by America's veterans. They have sacrificed for our
country, and increasingly for our world. Around the globe, from Asia to
Europe to the Middle East to right here at home, the millions of men
and women who have served in our armed forces deserve as much honor and
respect as we can give them.
Knowing this, there is not one member of this body who would not want
our veterans to receive benefits that they have earned. Unfortunately,
the House and the Senate have chosen not to give full concurrent
receipt to our veterans, and for this reason I did not sign the
Conference Report to the Defense Authorization. While I applaud the
inclusion of a special compensation for some categories of war
veterans, I believe that more work needs to be done and I will continue
to push for these benefits in the future.
The withholding of my signature to the Conference Report should not,
however, be seen as my disapproval for the entire bill. In fact,
overall I am very pleased with the outcome of the defense authorization
for this year. I believe that the work we have done will continue to
ensure that our men and women in the armed forces have access to the
tools they need to perform their critical missions across the globe.
Also, we should not overlook the impact that increasing basic pay will
have on our military personnel, any commitment that Congress shows to
our armed services in this regard is a positive gain for the American
people.
As I have stated on this floor many times before, it is abundantly
clear more and more each day how important missile defense is to our
country. The development of this program is central to homeland defense
and the protection of our friends, allies and deployed forces against
threats that are serious and growing. The authorized levels of funding
for critical ballistic missile defense systems and their components is
an outstanding accomplishment for this Congress. As the ranking member
of the Strategic Subcommittee, ensuring full support of missile defense
is my most important priority and it will continue to be as we begin
work in the 108th Congress.
The Defense authorization conference also provided for a number of
developmental programs critical to space-based systems and
technologies. The Network, Information, and Space Security Center will
facilitate cooperation for protecting information and information
systems, which is becoming increasingly important in the face of
cyberterrorism threats from around the world. The Center for
Geosciences is a leading-edge environmental research center
continuously improving weather forecasts for our military forces around
the world. TechSat 21 will demonstrate the technical and operational
feasibility of microsatellites, a truly transformational approach to
space-based systems. And finally, the GPS Jammer Detection and location
System will enable our military commanders to rely on GPS and GPS-
supported systems such without the threat of interference or jamming by
the enemy.
One of my particular interests for several years has been the use of
commercial imagery to help meet the Nation's geospatial and imagery
requirements. I do not believe that the Department of Defense has been
aggressive enough either in crafting a strategy or in providing funding
for this purpose. I am gratified that we have included a substantial
increase for commercial imagery acquisition, and some very helpful
words in report language that I expect will drive the Department toward
establishing a sound relationship with the commercial imagery industry.
Closer to home, I know that my constituents in Colorado are pleased
that we not only fully funded the Rocky Flats Environment Technology
Site and its cleanup activities but also added an extra $18 million for
included security costs at the site. I also appreciate the support of
the new Department of Energy environmental cleanup reform initiative
that will incentivize cleanup sites to do their important work faster
and more efficiently. The accelerated cleanup initiative will reduce
risk to the workers, communities and the environment, shorten the
schedule by decades, and save tens of billions of dollars over the life
of the cleanup.
Let me make it very clear that I chose not to sign the Defense
Authorization Conference Report because of our failure to include the
full Senate provision for concurrent receipt, but I strongly support
the bill for providing the technology and resources our military men
and women need to protect our national security.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to address a number of
issues in the Defense authorization bill. I am voting for this bill
because it contains many provisions critical to fighting the war on
terror and it provides pay raises for the men and women of our
military. But it fails to rectify a longstanding inequity for disabled
military retirees. It's wrong that disabled retirees are forced to pay
for their own disability benefits. While this bill ends the penalty for
some 30,000 retirees, there are more than half a million veterans out
there who still are forced to pay for their own disability benefits.
For the many good things we have in this bill, I'd like to thank
leadership of our Chairman, Senator Levin, and Ranking Member, Senator
Warner. Americans can be assured of their devotion to the security of
our nation and the welfare of the men and women in uniform around the
world today serving in harm's way.
I would also like to say I am grateful for the opportunity to have
served on this committee for two years with the Senior Senator from
Georgia, Max Cleland.
Max Cleland has been an inspiration making countless sacrifices
during his lifetime of service to our Nation. I have turned to Senator
Cleland again and again over the years on the most challenging issues
confronting us--from the war on terror to the welfare of our service
members and their families, our military retirees and our veterans.
Deep within the chest of Senator Max Cleland beats the heart of an
American Soldier, an American who has given much in the defense of
freedom; an American who has much, much more to give. I know that I
will call upon my friend and colleague again and again, no matter where
he is, when I need the clear insight and straightforward counsel of a
soldier.
This has been a very important year in American history. We have
learned much about the dangers that confront our Nation at home and
around the world. We have learned much about the capability of our
Armed Forces to confront and defeat these dangers. I am confident we
will win the war on terror, there can be no question among the American
people, or in the minds of our friends and enemies.
This bill goes beyond the President's request and beefs up our
arsenal with additional warships, better fighting aircraft and improved
security at our military bases.
This is a strong bill for our service members and their families.
This bill provides for important increases in pay, bonuses, special
pays, medicare care and family housing.
This is a major piece of legislation that lays the foundation for how
this Nation will prosecute the war on terror at home and abroad; how
this Nation will transfer its military for the dangers that may
confront us in the future; and, how this Nation will care for the
soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, and their families, that put
themselves in harms way everyday.
I would like to highlight two provisions in this bill, for which I am
grateful for the support of my colleagues in the Senate and the House's
conferees.
Earlier this year, the Defense Department acknowledgement that Navy
ship defense and vulnerability experimentation during the Cold War,
known as Shipboard Hazard and Defense or Project SHAD, used chemical
and biological agents that exposed sailors unwittingly to potentially
lethal toxins.
While the military necessity of anticipating, understanding, and
mitigating the vulnerability of our fleet to gas attack is
indisputable, using our sailors, intentionally or not, as human guinea
pigs is reprehensible.
A provision that I sponsored and included in this bill (Section 709)
directs
[[Page S10873]]
the Department of Defense to submit to the Congress, within 90 days, a
comprehensive plan for the review, declassification and submission to
the Veterans Administration all medical records and information
relating to the SHAD project. Subsequent reports are required every six
months allowing the Congress to evaluate the Defense Department's
progress in executing the plan.
We owe this level of effort to the sailors that may have been exposed
to potentially toxic agents and get them the medical care to which they
are entitled.
I also sponsored a provision included in this bill, Section 583, that
requires the Department of Defense to provide the Congress a report,
classified and unclassified, on their progress toward resolving the
fate of Navy Captain Michael Scott Speicher. Captain Speicher is the
only American still unaccounted for from our war with Iraq nearly
twelve years ago. In that time, the Defense Department has painfully
mismanaged the search for and subsequent classification of Captain
Speicher.
Section 583 of the bill requires the Defense Department to report to
Congress not later than 90 days of enactment, and every 120 days
thereafter, providing specific details on their efforts to resolve the
fate of Captain Speicher. We need to give American service members the
certain knowledge that we are not a nation that casually or negligently
abandons its military men and women during or after a conflict.
I share the hope of so many of Captain Speicher's shipments, friends
and family that we will one day know his fate. I am proud to have
sponsored this provision and expect that the Defense Department's
efforts will reflect the Nation's interest in bringing peace and
comfort to all.
There is also heartbreak in what we were not able to do in this bill,
especially for our military retirees. This bill fails to repeal the
prohibition on the concurrent receipt of retired pay and disability
compensation, as we had provided in our Senate version of the bill.
Instead we have a compromise acceptable to the President who is
unwilling to pay the cost of correcting the injustice of requiring our
military retirees to pay for their own disability compensation.
This is an intolerable disappointment for the hundreds of thousands
of military retirees and their families hurt by the policy. We failed
them again and I am deeply disappointed.
It has been clear to all that President Bush has worked hard against
the interests of our military retirees in this instance. And, with the
help of the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense and the
Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, he's got what he
wanted, controlling federal spending on the backs of our retired
veterans.
I would have preferred that we as a Congress had done the right thing
and passed the Senate version of the bill giving our retired military
authority to receive their full pay and disability compensation.
I would have preferred that we had passed full concurrent receipt as
eighty-two Senators and 403 members of the House have already agreed to
support as cosponsors on separate legislation.
I would have preferred that we had passed full concurrent receipt and
forced the President's veto. I would have proudly voted to override a
veto and fix the injustice once and for all. And, I believe an override
could have been easily achieved.
Sadly, this effort was lost in the partisan, election engineering of
this Administration, the civilian leadership in the Defense Department,
and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives. For
weeks we have delayed resolution of this issue in this bill in order to
avoid forcing the President to take an action contrary to the interests
of veterans.
Hopefully, veterans will quickly learn that there are those of us who
truly care about meeting our obligations to them; and, they do have a
place to go where their voices will be heard, where America's promises
will be kept, and where their needs will be met.
I am ready to take up this fight in our next session. I am proud to
represent the interests of our veterans and our military retirees. I am
also proud to represent the interests of our retirees' surviving
spouses, military widows, and their children. We have a lot of work to
do correcting some of the injustices created over the years with
conflicting and inconsistent benefits policies that seem to be
concentrated in our Armed Services and Veterans programs. I look
forward to taking up these challenges and working with my colleagues to
rationalize and simplify our benefits systems so that we keep our
promises to those who have given their all to the Nation.
I would like to close with a quintessentially American expression of
what we need to do by President Teddy Roosevelt, ``A man who is good
enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a
square deal afterward.'' I believe that there should be at least
eighty-two of my colleagues in this chamber who will agree with this
and be willing to make it a reality next session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that all time has
expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. REID. The chairman of the committee wishes to enter a statement
in the Record that will take less than 5 minutes. I would only state
there are a number of Senators who wish to attend the service for
Senator Wellstone and his wife, which begins at 7 o'clock, so I would
hope everyone can keep that in mind and we can move forward with this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. My understanding is there is no need for a rollcall vote
on this bill.
Mr. President, just two additional moments I appreciate taking here.
One relates to Senator Cleland.
Senator Cleland has been a true champion of the men and women who
serve our country in uniform. He is directly responsible for a great
deal of important legislation, including the transferability of GI bill
benefits to a military member's spouse and children. This was a major
retention initiative.
Secondly, this year he led the effort for a new special assignment
incentive pay to encourage military members to serve in hard-to-fill
positions.
This year he warned us that our military services are too small to
meet our ongoing and growing commitments, and he is proving to be
prescient in that regard because of the needs we see for our military
services in the way in which they are involved in so many parts of the
world.
But in addition to his role on the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator
Cleland continually reminded us of the pitfalls of committing U.S.
Armed Forces to conflict without clearly defined objectives supported
by the Congress and the American people.
Senator Cleland's careful and thoughtful approach to national
security has been appreciated by every member of the Armed Services
Committee, every Member of this body. His advice and his judgment are
going to continue to be needed by us individually, and we will be
calling upon him. His indomitable spirit has inspired us, and it will
continue to do so.
Senator Carnahan has been a valued member of the Armed Services
Committee for the last 2 years. She was able to quickly get up to
speed. She played an important role in the committee's deliberations on
a wide array of issues.
She had a particular interest, and had a significant impact, in a
number of areas, including Reserve health care and counterproliferation
programs.
In the area of Reserve health care, Senator Carnahan played a key
role in extending the period during which Reservists remain eligible
for military health care after being released from active duty, and in
initiating a review of alternative means for providing health care to
the Reserves.
In the area of counterproliferation, Senator Carnahan played a key
role in developing legislation to improve our nonproliferation programs
to address the problem of radiological weapons and so-called ``dirty
bombs.''
She has always been a strong advocate of efforts to expand these
programs to countries outside of the former Soviet Union. Her
thoughtful,
[[Page S10874]]
balanced approach to legislation will be missed on our committee, and
her good and gentle nature will be missed by every Member of this body.
Finally, Senator Bob Smith and Senator Tim Hutchinson were key
members of our committee.
I take this opportunity to recognize the contribution that Senator
Bob Smith has made to the work of the Armed Services Committee and the
national security of this country over his 12 years of service on this
Committee.
Most recently Senator Smith has served as both the Chairman and
Ranking Member of our Strategic Subcommittee where he was a strong
advocate of national security space programs, ballistic missile defense
programs, and the modernization of our strategic nuclear triad. He did
not limit his work on the Committee to the work of one or two
subcommittees, however. He made it a point to involve himself in the
whole range of issues that came before the Committee and the
Committee's deliberations and conclusions were always improved by his
involvement. This past year for example, he worked very hard on the
issue of concurrent receipt for our deserving veterans.
Every member of the Armed Services Committee will miss Senator
Smith's thoughtful advice and collegial approach to national security
issues in the next Congress.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize and thank
Senator Hutchinson for his service on the Armed Services Committee for
the last 6 years. In particular, I would like to recognize his service
as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Personnel Subcommittee.
Senator Hutchinson demonstrated great leadership in helping our
military recruiters. He was a major player in enacting TRICARE for
Life, significantly increasing the pay of our troops, and reducing the
out-of-pocket housing expenses for military personnel not able to live
on a military installation. In response to requests for help from
enlisted recruiters, he initiated legislation that ensures that
military recruiters have the same access to secondary school students
as is provided to colleges, universities, and other potential
employers.
Our service members and our Nation have greatly benefitted from
Senator Tim Hutchinson's service here in the Senate on the Armed
Services Committee. We thank him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make a few
remarks about Senators Smith and Hutchinson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. I join with Senator Levin in his high compliments of
Senators Cleland and Carnahan. Both have served this committee
exceedingly well.
Bob Smith is a true American patriot. He loves his country. He served
in the Navy. He was a history teacher. He came down here with a ``Mr.
Smith Comes to Washington'' view of the highest possible values he
could bring to bear. He loved the Defense Department. He gave it
extraordinary interest. He was a top leader in national missile defense
and high technology defense. He was a leader on the Strategic
Subcommittee and chaired it for a number of years.
He was a champion for lost POWs. No Senator in this body spent more
time and effort fighting to make sure every single prisoner of war of
the United States was recovered or we knew about. He led on the Mike
Speicher case, the missing pilot in Iraq.
Tim Hutchinson came in with me. I love Tim and watched him lead in
this body year after year. He was a tremendous contributor to the Armed
Services Committee. He chaired the Personnel Subcommittee. In that
subcommittee, he fought hard to improve the pay, benefits, and living
conditions of our men and women in uniform. He also fought successfully
to break down the barriers where some of our colleges would not let
military recruiters come on campus to recruit. He led a tough battle to
change some of those laws.
He was a leader, as was Senator Smith, in the concurrent receipt
battle to make sure our veterans who have been injured and disabled
received better compensation.
I thank Senator Levin for mentioning these Senators at this time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, as Senator Warner did, I add my thanks to
our staffs: David Lyles, chief of staff on the Democratic side; Judy
Ansley, taking the same responsibility on the Republican side. We are
deeply in debt to them and to their entire crew which works with them.
Without our staffs, needless to say, we could not even come close,
not just procedurally, not just mechanically, to accomplishing this
goal of a conference report, but also for the wisdom, the advice they
give us on substantive issues as well which is so important to us.
I don't know of anybody else who wants to speak. I don't know of a
request for a roll call. I yield the floor and hope we can adopt the
conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the conference
report?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, what is the business now before the Senate?
____________________