[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 To my knowledge, that request has been withdrawn.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?

                          ____________________