[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 74 (Monday, May 19, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6575-S6586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now proceed to consideration of S. 1050, which the clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1050) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2004 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.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that William
Buhrow, a legislative fellow in the office of Senator George Allen, be
granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Hamm,
of the staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations, be granted the
privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the fiscal
year 2004 defense authorization.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the staff
members of the Committee on Armed Services, majority and minority,
appearing on the list I send to the desk be granted the privilege of
the floor during consideration of S. 1050.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The list is as follows:
Judith A. Ansley; Richard D. DeBobes; Charles W. Alsup;
Kenneth Barbee; Michael N. Berger; June M. Borawski; Leah C.
Brewer; Jennifer D. Cave; L. David Cherington; Christine E.
Cowart; Daniel J. Cox, Jr.; Madelyn R. Creedon; Kenneth M.
Crosswait; Marie Fabrizio Dickinson; Gabriella Eisen; Evelyn
N. Farkas.
Richard W. Fieldhouse; Andrew W. Florell; Brian R. Green;
Creighton Greene; William C. Greenwalt; Carolyn M. Hanna;
Mary Alice A. Hayward; Jeremy L. Hekhuis; Ambrose R. Hock;
Gary J. Howard; R. Andrew Kent; Jennifer Key; Gregory T.
Kiley; Maren R. Leed; Gerald J. Leeling; Peter K. Levine.
Patricia L. Lewis; Thomas L. MacKenzie; Sara R. Mareno; Ann
M. Mittermeyer; Lucian L. Niemeyer; Cindy Pearson; Paula J.
Philbin; Lynn F. Rusten; Arun A. Seraphin; Joseph T. Sixeas;
Christina D. Still; Scott W. Stucky; Mary Louise Wagner;
Richard F. Walsh; Nicholas W. West; Bridget M. Whalan;
Pendred K. Wilson.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
McCain's legislative fellow, Navy Commander Edward Cowan, be granted
privilege of the floor during consideration of S. 1050.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see the distinguished Senator from
Michigan on the floor. I advise my good friend and partner on this
venture that I will proceed for some 10 minutes and then yield the
floor, on the assumption that he will proceed, and then I will resume
with the remainder of my statement.
On behalf of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased and honored
to bring the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 to
the Senate for consideration. The bill was reported out of the
committee with overwhelming bipartisan support. I may say, as a tribute
to excellent staff work and excellent work by the chairman and ranking
members of the subcommittees and, indeed, by the full cooperation of my
distinguished colleague, the ranking member, we achieved this markup in
what is regarded to be record time. I didn't keep the time, but I
certainly recognize that we did it in a very brief period; basically
over a 2-day period, where many times heretofore it has been 3, 4, and
5 days for markup.
I think the committee, both members and staff, were aware of the
tremendous support across this Nation by the people for the men and
women of the Armed Forces today and a recognition of the
responsibilities of the Congress of the United States--in this case the
Senate--to provide for those men and women of the Armed Forces.
Having said that, I believe that contributed to the swift action we
had on our bill in committee markup, and I anticipate--I say this
respectfully--in the Chamber a number of amendments will come forth,
but I believe we will be able to complete this bill in a relatively
short period of time, owing again to the support in the Chamber for the
men and women of the Armed Forces and the desire to have a strong bill
in place to go to conference with the House.
As we stand here beginning the debate on this bill today, over
300,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, Active Guard and
Reserve, and countless civilians who support them, are serving bravely
in not just the Persian Gulf region but Afghanistan.
It is remarkable. I want to mention the civilians. I recently said to
the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when we talked about the total
force concept, I remembered so well that that concept was originated
when Melvin Laird was Secretary of Defense and I was privileged to
serve as the Secretary of the Navy during the Vietnam war. I said to
Mr. Rumsfeld recently that we really ought to broaden the term ``total
force'' now to incorporate the many civilians who quite often are in
positions of personal risk and other situations not unlike those of the
men and women of the Armed Forces, right up on the point of the spear
of military action.
In my judgment, they are just as much a part of the total force as
the uniformed contingent, and I think the uniformed contingent would
want me
[[Page S6576]]
to state that. This total force is there to secure peace and freedom
for the people, specifically of Afghanistan and Iraq. Other men and
women in the Armed Forces, as we all fully recognize, are serving in
outposts and at sea across this world. How proud we are of our forces
who are deployed throughout the world. Some of those personnel are
assuming personal risks as great as those who have been fighting in
Afghanistan and in the Persian Gulf. All Americans are proud of the
Armed Forces of the United States.
We also want to pay recognition to the various nations that have
joined us in these military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and
around the world and that stand guard with us to enforce the principles
of freedom throughout this globe.
We are engaged in an international war on terrorism. The principal
battlefronts are Afghanistan and Iraq, but indeed there is no less of a
challenge in many other parts of the world away. Therefore, we are very
thankful to all those who make possible this total force in the cause
of not only combating terrorism but other military objectives we have
to fulfill in the cause of freedom throughout the world.
I will pause now a moment to reflect on perhaps the most serious
consequence of military life. I went back in history and gathered a few
statistics. We will, throughout the course of this deliberation in the
Senate, as we go about our daily responsibilities, have in mind those
who paid the ultimate sacrifice with their loss of life and those who
were wounded in the course of serving the cause of freedom in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places in the world. I went back in
history, and I would like to recite the following figures:
The total casualties in the Iraq campaign thus far have been
approximately 612, of whom 117 were killed in direct combat and 495
were wounded. A total of 151 have lost their lives as part of operation
Iraqi Freedom. In Afghanistan: Total casualties, 252, of whom 31 lost
their lives and 221 suffered wounds. I think it is important to bear
those casualty figures in mind as we think with reference to previous
engagements. Vietnam: 211,000 casualties, 58,000 killed, 153,000
wounded. Korea: 139,000 total casualties, 36,000 killed, 103,000
wounded. World War II: 1,077,000 casualties, 405,000 killed, 671,000
wounded. We still have missing. I know the Korean conflict alone has
some 8,000 American individuals who remain unaccounted for.
Whatever we do, we all join in mourning their loss and resolve to
forever remember their service. We care for their families as best we
can. We are blessed truly as a nation to have this new generation of
great Americans, those who have recently suffered as casualties in the
Afghanistan and Iraq operations, and indeed many others throughout the
world in other actions. This new generation of great Americans is so
committed to the traditions, mindful of the sacrifices of their
forebears, and they have performed their services in exemplary fashion
in keeping with the tradition of the military men and women who have
gone before them--indeed, their values and their ideals and likewise
the suffering of the families.
I will bet all of us here in the last few days have attended
graduations and spoken at them. I have been privileged to do them
myself. Each time I look at these young graduates, I say the casualties
in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere around the world are young men
and young women of the same age basically--from the years 18 through
24. Some are older, but basically those generations graduating today,
looking upon the joys of their college or university careers, should
pause for a moment to reflect on those who are elsewhere in the world
enabling them to achieve their goals and their respective graduations.
The stunning and very swift military success we had in Operation
Iraqi Freedom, achieving the military goals laid out in the plan
devised by the Commander, U.S. Central Command, General Tommy Franks
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in consultation with the joint staffs of
the coalition nations, and in approval with that of the President and
the Secretary of Defense primarily, and I expect to some extent the
Secretary of State--those achievements are a testament to the
dedication and professionalism of the men and women in the Armed
Forces. The precision and the skill with which recent operations have
been conducted are a tribute not only to their bravery and commitment,
and indeed their sacrifice, but also to the industrial base of America,
which is providing the weaponry, providing the means by which they pass
through each day, and the requirements for human existence and human
protection. So we pay tribute to that industrial base today, for the
American technology and ingenuity, which has made a definite
contribution to the welfare and the survival of the men and women in
the Armed Forces.
Those statistics I gave about earlier military engagements--obviously
high in contrast to the current losses--tell a story of how high-tech
weaponry can save lives--not just the smart bombs and smart ordnance
but indeed the very uniforms and protection devices the Armed Forces
wear today. We had, in the course of our update briefings, a visit by
several soldiers who came in and showed us the armored vests, the night
vision, the special scopes on their weapons. It is far different from
what this humble person witnessed in Korea, in World War II, and in
training commands. Today's weapons bear little resemblance to the basic
weapons that fought through the battles of World War II and Korea and,
to a lesser extent, Vietnam, because we had a transition of the basic
weapon in Vietnam. This is a magnificent tribute to the industrial base
of this country that has provided this weaponry. That is what this bill
is about: the need to have ever-changing technology to afford even
greater protection to the men and women of the Armed Forces as we face
the uncertain, unchartered, and unknown threats that face us in this
century.
Military strategists and historians will study the Afghanistan and
Iraqi military campaigns for years to come and will recognize them as a
total new chapter in military history in many ways. Without a doubt,
the U.S. military is the most capable military force in the world
today, a model of excellence and the standard by which others are
measured.
Senator Levin and I visited Afghanistan on Thanksgiving almost two
years ago, as those operations were just beginning to get underway. We
witnessed how small units, anywhere from 15 to 25 individuals, would
get in their helicopters and go in to the darkness of night, all
enlisted, save one officer, and perform extraordinary feats of heroism
and professional courage in achieving their objectives.
We witnessed it again, just weeks before the start of military
operations in Iraq, in its full measure, when we both visited Qatar and
Kuwait in February of this year.
It is precisely for this reason we must send a strong message of
support to our men and women in uniform by passing this important bill
this week. This bill contains much deserved pay raises and benefits for
our military personnel, for their families, needed increases in family
housing and quality of life projects on military installations, as well
as prudent investments in the equipment and technology our military
needs to deal with the future in uncertain and ever-changing threats.
I urge my colleagues to participate in the debate of this bill to the
fullest measure desired, to come forward with such amendments that they
may have to improve and strengthen this bill, and hopefully to gather
together and support the final and swift passage of this bill.
The President's budget request for defense for fiscal year 2004
continues the momentum of recent years in making real increases in
defense spending to sustain readiness and enhance the quality of life
for our military personnel and their families, and to modernize and
transform the U.S. Armed Forces to meet current and future threats.
The bill before us would provide $400.5 billion for defense, an
increase of $17.9 billion, or 3.2 percent in real terms, over the
amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003.
Since the beginning of the 108th Congress, the Armed Services
Committee has conducted 44 hearings and received numerous policy and
operational briefings on the President's budget request for fiscal year
2004 and related defense
[[Page S6577]]
issues. As a result of these deliberations, we identified six
priorities to guide our work on the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2004.
First, to enhance the ability of the Department of Defense to fulfill
its homeland defense responsibilities by providing the resources and
the authorities necessary for the department to assist in protecting
this Nation against all current and anticipated forms of attack,
primarily terrorist attacks, at home.
I mention at home, and I will repeat it several times because it is
so important, because our President has quite wisely put as his top
priority homeland defense. The Congress, and most particularly the
Senate, went through long debates about the creation of the Department
of Homeland Security which is now up and running.
Homeland defense, however, in my humble judgment, does not start here
at home. It starts on the farflung outposts of the world on land and at
sea where the men and women of the Armed Forces are serving. To the
extent they can deter, interdict, and defeat imminent threats to the
U.S., especially terrorist operations, it lessens the chances of that
operation finding its way to homeland USA--right here at home.
That is my definition of homeland defense, and this bill is
constructed to do everything we can to equip and protect those men and
women of the Armed Forces in their role of homeland defense beyond our
shores and, indeed, their role in homeland defense, those who are
stationed in the continental limits of the United States, Hawaii, and
Alaska.
Second, to continue our committee's commitment to improving the
quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces--Active,
Reserve, Guard, Retired--and their families.
Third, to provide the men and women in uniform with the resources,
training, technology, and equipment they need to safely and
successfully perform their missions both now and in the future.
Fourth, to sustain the readiness of our Armed Forces to conduct the
full spectrum of military operations against all current and
anticipated threats.
Fifth, to support the Department of Defense efforts to build the
innovative capabilities necessary to continue the transformation of the
Armed Forces to enable them to successfully confront future threats,
particularly by enhancing technological advances in areas such as
unmanned systems. That is an initiative on which this committee has
placed great emphasis for some several years now.
Sixth, and final, to improve the efficiency of the Department's
programs and operations to reduce the cost and time required to develop
and acquire the new capabilities and needed services in the entirety of
this bill.
I will yield the floor. This is a suitable point at which I can
return to my opening remarks. I assume my colleague from Michigan will
seek recognition.
I thank my colleague, Mr. President, for all his hard work, not only
on this bill but for the now quarter of a century we have been together
working on this committee. How many times we have been on the floor
together on our respective bills.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I look forward to many more times.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first, I congratulate Senator Warner for
shepherding the Defense authorization bill to the floor again. I do not
know how many times he has led the effort--I lost count--but each time
he has handled the very difficult duties with great fairness and, I
think, timely, perhaps with record dispatch. He is always efficient
and, it seems to me--and I agree with Senator Warner--this may set a
record in the committee, for many of the reasons our chairman
mentioned, including the determination that we be together totally as a
body in support of the men and women in the Armed Forces who are in so
many dangerous places in the world as we speak.
I also join Chairman Warner in commending all of the committee
members for their hard work; our staffs, for the long hours they put in
to produce this bill. As always, it is a complicated bill, a detailed
bill and, more than ever perhaps, a critically important bill.
As we begin the consideration of this bill this afternoon, our men
and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, both Active and Reserve who are
deployed in harm's way in many areas of the globe, are being subjected
almost daily to armed attack in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Our Armed Forces have demonstrated extraordinary military prowess.
Their success is a tribute first and foremost to their own skill,
dedication, and professionalism, and to the skill of their leaders. It
is also the result of the investments in national defense that many
administrations and Congresses have made over the years.
Our success on the battlefields of the future will depend on the
investments we make today to prepare, train, and equip our military.
The bill provides our Armed Forces with the means they need to meet
today's challenges and it makes the investments that will be needed to
respond to the challenges of this century.
It also continues the increases in compensation and quality of life
for our service men and women and their families.
Chairman Warner has described in some detail what is contained in the
bill, and I will not attempt to duplicate his summary, but I would like
to make a few general comments and point out a couple of matters where
there is a divergence of view within the committee.
This is a good bill. It is a balanced bill. It is balanced for many
reasons. It equips the Armed Forces to deal with today's threats and it
makes the investments necessary to transform our forces to meet the
threats of the future. It is balanced in that it does not prematurely
seek to apply lessons some may believe have been learned from Iraq even
before the Department of Defense has had an opportunity to study and
analyze that conflict and to report to us on what lessons they believe
have been learned.
In his briefing of Senators in S-407 on May 8, General Franks
specifically noted that it would take some time to identify the lessons
learned from Operation Iraqi Freedom, and we could do harm to our
national defense if we sought to apply the wrong lessons from those
operations or if we too speedily determined what, in fact, were the
lessons learned.
The bill is also balanced in that it seeks to incorporate those
provisions of the Department of Defense's transformation proposals that
provide appropriate flexibility for the operation of the Department in
a manner that preserves congressional oversight responsibilities. For
example, the bill contains provisions that would repeal dozens of
reporting requirements, establishes a new defense modernization account
to fund life cycle cost reduction initiatives. It authorizes a pilot
program to test new procedures for conducting public/private
competitions. It provides the Department with special pay authority to
help it fill critical positions.
It is also balanced because of the provisions it does not include.
The bill before us does not include provisions that would undermine the
ability of the uniformed military to provide independent advice to the
civilian chain of command, and to the Congress. It does not include
provisions which would undermine congressional oversight by repealing
the requirement that the Department of Defense provide us with basic
information on the costs, schedule, and performance of major weapons
programs.
The bill before us does not authorize the reorganization of the
Department of Defense without regard to statutory requirements or
establish a foreign military assistance program to be conducted by the
Department of Defense rather than by the Department of State. The bill
does not authorize the Department to move money from one program to
another without congressional authorization.
Perhaps the most pointed evidence of the balanced nature of this bill
is that it was reported out of committee with the unanimous support of
all of the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, a tribute to
the balance of the bill but also to the leadership of our chairman.
That does not mean there are not any provisions in the bill on which
there is disagreement, because there are. There are a number of areas
that are troublesome and on which I expect there will
[[Page S6578]]
be significant debate this week. For example, there are provisions in
report language that move us in the direction of developing new nuclear
weapons and modifications of current nuclear weapons. Current U.S. law
bans research and development of new nuclear weapons that could lead to
their production. The specific weapons covered by the ban are so-called
low yield nuclear weapons which have a nuclear explosive yield of 5
kilotons or less. Five kilotons is roughly a third the size of the
nuclear bomb that was used at Hiroshima which immediately killed an
estimated 140,000 people and left many more injured. The administration
has asked this ban be repealed. If the ban is repealed, the purpose is
to make nuclear weapons more usable.
As stated by Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, in testimony before the Subcommittee on
Strategic Forces of the Senate Armed Services Committee:
I have a bias in favor of the lowest usable yield because I
have the bias in favor of something that is the minimum
destruction. . . . I have a bias in favor of things that
might be usable.
The language approved by the majority of the Armed Services Committee
would repeal the ban on the development of low yield nuclear weapons.
Without this ban, there is no impediment in law to research,
development, testing, production, or deployment of new low yield
nuclear weapons.
The bill also provides the National Nuclear Security Administration
with funds the administration requested to continue work on a robust
nuclear earth penetrator. This effort would modify one of two existing
high yield nuclear weapons to create a nuclear weapon that will
penetrate rock. Both weapons being looked at for possible modification
are high yield nuclear weapons with yields approximating 30 and 70
times the nuclear explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb.
Without a requirement that that nuclear earth penetrator weapon be
authorized by Congress, there is no legal impediment to its
development, testing, production, or deployment.
At a time when the United States is trying to dissuade other
countries from going forward with nuclear weapons development, when we
strongly oppose North Korea pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation
treaty, and when we suggest that indeed we may use military force to
prevent North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, when we are
spending billions of dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons,
materials, and technology, these proposed actions by the administration
would send the opposite message we are trying to give to the world. We
are telling others not to go down the road to nuclear weapons, but
instead of being a leader in the effort to prevent the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, we are recklessly driving down that same road.
The United States should not follow a policy that we do not tolerate
in others.
In the area of ballistic missile defense, one of the problems lies in
what is not in the bill rather than what is in the bill. The missile
defense program continues to move along, spending billions of dollars
without performance criteria. Moreover, the Department of Defense has
cancelled plans for 9 of the 20 ground-based midcourse interceptors
that have been planned from 2003 to 2007. Surely we have an obligation
to test the limited ballistic missile defense and to understand the
extent to which it will or will not work. Yet one of the key tests the
Department proposed to cancel is the most significant test. It was
scheduled before the end of the fiscal year 2004. We restored that
funding in committee.
If we want a missile defense system that actually works, rather than
one that sits on the ground and soaks up money, we should not be
cancelling tests. The administration actually requested that
operational testing not be required on a limited missile defense
system. We refused that request and we struck the language the
administration had proposed. Again, thankfully, our bill restores an
intercept test with a missile defense program in 2004. More needs to be
done to assure that this system is tested adequately and proven to
really work. The rest of the canceled tests should be restored. There
will be debate on these and other areas relating to the Department of
Defense authorization bill.
I conclude by stating, again, the bill the committee has reported out
under the leadership of Chairman Warner is a good bill. His leadership
made it happen. I commend him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Michigan for his very fine statement, for his kind reference to the
chairman.
The committee's first priority was to enhance the Department of
Defense to fulfill its homeland defense responsibilities to combat
terrorism both at home and abroad. In these areas, this bill authorized
an increase of $400 million over the budget request, including $88.4
million for 12 additional civil support teams. Now, these are the teams
that join with the first responders should we have the misfortune of a
weapon of mass destruction, be it chemical, biological, or fissionable,
utilized in the United States. That is a very important initiative that
this committee has taken over several years now and the inclusion of
this in the budget represents our strong unequivocal support of this
program particularly by adding 12 additional teams, to get us closer to
the goal of a team in every State and territory.
Likewise, we added $181 million for the development and fielding of
chemical and biological agent detection and protection technology. In
addition, the committee supports the President's request of $9.1
billion for missile defense, a key component of homeland defense.
As we all know, our most valuable military asset is our people. We
will always fulfill our commitment to improve the quality of life of
the men and women in uniform and their families. This bill authorizes a
3.7-percent across-the-board pay increase for all uniformed service
personnel as well as a targeted pay raise of up to 6.25 percent for
certain senior noncommissioned officers and midcareer personnel. Those
provisions are necessary in order for the Armed Forces to compete with
the pay scales and the job opportunities in the private sector.
This bill also contains several key provisions to recognize unique
sacrifices of the members of the Armed Forces and their families,
including increases in the family separation allowance and hostile fire
pay, designation of assignment incentive pay for those stationed in
Korea, and approval of a ``high tempo'' allowance for those service
members deployed away from home for extended periods of time. We have
experienced this, particularly in the Navy.
I hope these provisions are acceptable to the Department of Defense.
We are still working our way through that at this particular time.
The services all try very hard to limit the time of deployment away
from home, particularly unaccompanied tours, for our service members,
but there are isolated cases where you simply go beyond those times.
One was recent, with a carrier setting one of the longest records in
contemporary history for the away-from-home deployment of a carrier and
its crew.
The administration requested $9 billion for military construction and
family housing due to pending realignments of overseas bases. This bill
contains adjustments to the administration program which resulted in
increased investment in installations in the United States and a
reduced but prudent investment in overseas locations that will be of
long-term value to the United States.
This bill contains an overall increase of approximately $400 million
in military construction, including increases of over $200 million in
quality-of-life projects such as barracks, family housing, and child
development centers.
Over the past several years, my colleagues and I have encouraged the
Department to increase procurement spending to a level that could
sustain the timely recapitalization, modernization, and transformation
of the Armed Forces. This year, the bill before the Senate authorizes
$75.6 billion in procurement funding, a $1.1 billion increase over the
budget request. Key procurement items include over $12 billion in
shipbuilding and conversions which will fund seven new ships just for
the year 2004. That is in keeping with the Chief of Naval Operations's
commitment to this body last year
[[Page S6579]]
that he, in conjunction with the whole Navy Secretariat, would increase
the number of ships--not a very large number, but it is an increase
over the past.
Further, we have the continued investment in aircraft programs, such
as $3.5 billion for 20 F/A-22 Raptor aircraft and over $2 billion for
11 additional C-17 lift aircraft; and over $1 billion for the Army's
lighter, high-mobility stryker combat vehicle.
Additionally, it is critical we invest in future capability. This
bill authorizes $63.2 billion for research and development, test and
evaluation, activities, an increase of over $1.3 billion over the
President's budget request. Key R&D funding items include $1.7 billion
for the future combat system, the Army's centerpiece of transformation,
$5.8 billion for development of various tactical aircraft, including
$4.4 billion for the continued development of the joint strike fighter,
and $10.7 billion for advanced science and technology initiatives, an
increase of over $500 million over the budget request.
This committee has strongly encouraged the Department to invest in
unmanned systems. This bill fully funds the budget request of $1.7
billion for major unmanned aerial vehicle programs and adds $130
billion to enhance unmanned technologies.
Together, the investments in procurement necessary to sustain current
capabilities and research and development needed to transform to a more
capable force would give the men and women of the Armed Forces the
equipment they need to deter threats, and if deterrence fails, to
prevail across the full spectrum of military operations both now and in
the future.
The sustained readiness of the Armed Forces is what protects America.
The success of recent military operations represents the real return on
added investments made by the Congress in recent years in training,
munitions, maintenance, and spare parts. As the force reconstitutes
after operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we must closely monitor
whether additional funds are needed for those items not covered by
supplemental funding to pay for these operations and to ensure the
overall readiness of the Armed Forces.
Readiness accounts funds were increased to address currently
identified shortfalls such as equipment maintenance and testing, depot
maintenance, technical assistance, corrosion control, and systems
testing as well as additional funding for Active and Reserve Forces to
accelerate fielding and replacing personal and field equipment.
Transformation of the Department of Defense will depend on effective
management and stewardship of DOD resources. This bill contains
numerous legislative provisions to improve the management of the
Department. Some of these provisions will streamline the acquisition
process, provide for greater personnel flexibility to manage the
acquisition workforce, and ensure that joint requirements can be more
rapidly achieved. Acquisition authorities to facilitate the war on
terrorism, and support contingency operations were extended, and
proposed new authorities will give State and local governments rapid
access to antiterrorism technologies and services available to the
Department. Again, that is another very important contribution to
homeland defense.
The Department of Defense and the Congress have been and must
continue to be good stewards of the environment. Military readiness and
prudent conservation can and must be complementary principles. This
bill assures access to military training ranges in a way that
safeguards the protection of endangered species and contributes to the
readiness of the Armed Forces.
Some will argue we have not covered all the subjects that were
brought before the committee. Indeed, the committee did delete a number
of items from the President's request, but that is the judgment that
the committee must render. We are an independent but coequal branch of
the Federal Government. While we have great respect for the President's
budget, some of those provisions were deleted from his budget and not
incorporated in this bill.
While I am proud of this legislation and the remarkable spirit of
bipartisanship that enabled our committee to move this bill to the
floor, we did have areas of disagreement within the committee, which
will be revisited during the floor debate.
With our Armed Forces poised on distant battlefields and countless
others standing watch at home, we are committed to providing the
resources needed for the men and women of the armed forces, and their
families. The Congress's past support for increased defense spending
has proven to be a wise investment. There is no greater evidence than
the successes witnessed on the battlefield of Iraq.
I strongly believe that this National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004 builds on the advances made in recent years. I urge my
colleagues to join me in sending a strong message of bipartisan support
for our troops at home and abroad: we honor your service, and we stand
with you now, and in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. I know the Senator from Massachusetts wished to speak. Is
Senator Collins ready to go? Perhaps the Chair could recognize whoever
is ready to go.
Ms. COLLINS. I was trying to defer to my more senior colleague but,
of course, I would be delighted to have the opportunity to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts,
who, as always, is extremely gracious, and the Senator from Michigan,
for allowing me to proceed, and the chairman of our distinguished
committee.
Madam President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2004
National Defense Authorization Act. As a member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation
to the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary efforts
in producing this bill. The mark-up of this legislation was conducted
in a true spirit of cooperation. While certain portions of this bill
engendered spirited debate, the points of controversy are relatively
few. It is tribute to both Senator Warner and Senator Levin that we
completed our mark-up in a remarkably short period of time.
This legislation includes authorization for the vital resources that
the young men and women in our military require in defending our
Nation. With terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, and our
troops helping the Iraqi people to rebuild their country, this
legislation will ensure that our military has the tools necessary to
fight, and ultimately win, the war against terrorism.
Since joining the Armed Services Committee, I have been a member of
the Personnel Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over military pay,
housing, and health care. In recent years, we have made tremendous
progress in improving the quality of life not just for our soldiers,
sailors, airmen, and marines, but also for their families. That is
important. The old saying goes: we recruit the soldier but we retain
the family. When our troops deploy, it's important that they have the
peace of mind that comes from the knowledge that their families have
good housing, quality health care, and a support network to help
address any problems.
I am proud that the legislation before us builds on the efforts that
we have made in previous years to ensure that our troops are the best
paid, best housed, and best equipped in the world. It includes a 3.7
percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed personnel, and
incorporates a targeted pay raise ranging from 5.25 percent to 6.25
percent for mid-career service members. We want to make an extra effort
to retain their expertise. It also authorizes a significant increase in
the rate of family separation allowance, from $100 per month to $250
per month.
There are two provisions affecting pay and benefits that I believe
are particularly important. Last month, along with the majority leader
and a number of my colleagues, I traveled to South Korea to meet with
our troops at Osan Air Force Base and in the Demilitarized Zone. I was
privileged to speak with two of my constituents, SS Jennifer Meuth of
Thomaston and MS Jay Mason of China. As I always do when I meet with
our troops, I asked if there was anything that the Congress could do to
support them. Without hesitation, both of them asked me to support the
establishment of Assignment
[[Page S6580]]
Pay for troops stationed in Korea. Our troops endure many hardships as
part of their service in Korea. Most are separated from their families,
the housing is often substandard, and they live under the constant
threat of North Korean aggression.
I am proud to say that the legislation before us mandates the payment
of $100 per month in assignment incentive pay to the brave men and
women serving our Nation in Korea. It is a tribute to the leadership of
Senator Saxby Chambliss and Senator Ben Nelson, who lead the Personnel
Subcommittee. Most of all, I want to thank Sergeants Meuth and Mason
for bringing this important issue to my attention.
The second provision that I want to highlight is a bill that I
introduced this year calling for an increase in what is called the
military death gratuity. Currently, when a servicemember is killed
while on active duty, his or her family receives a payment of $6,000,
usually within days after the death. While other long-term financial
assistance is provided to support the family, this payment helps the
survivors cover any short term expenses.
The bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 704, would increase this
amount to $12,000 and make it retroactive to September 11, 2001. So the
families of those troops killed in Afghanistan will receive this
additional benefit. The last time the Congress raised the death
gratuity was during that last gulf war over a decade ago. Recognizing
the importance of this issue, the Senate moved very quickly earlier
this year to pass my legislation as a free-standing bill. The House,
however, has not yet acted upon it. I am grateful to the Chairman of
the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator Chambliss, for incorporating this
increase in the death gratuity in the Defense Authorization bill.
I would also like to express my congratulations to Senator Talent,
the new Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee. The shipbuilding portion
of this year's Defense Authorization represents a significant turning
point. In previous years, the budget for ship construction proposed by
the Department of Defense has been inadequate to sustain a large enough
fleet to meet our Nation's requirements. The legislation before us
today recognizes the challenge, and provides critically needed
increases in shipbuilding funds.
It authorizes the construction of seven new ships, including three
DDG-51 destroyers. I am pleased to report that two of those destroyers
will be built at the world famous Bath Iron Works in my home State of
Maine. Certainly, it will take more than 1 year's progress to address
years of funding shortfalls. But this bill surely represents
significant progress.
The committee also recognized the importance of modernizing the DDG-
51 destroyers currently in the fleet. At my request, $20 million has
been allocated for a DDG-51 modernization program. This funding will be
used to examine ways to improve the effectiveness of these ships, while
at the same time reducing their manpower requirements. That in turn
will lead to lifetime savings for these ships. It will allow the Bath
Iron Works to explore initiatives aimed at ensuring that these
destroyers continue to be the backbone of our surface combatant fleet.
The seapower portion of the bill also includes $248 million for the
refueling and overhaul of the USS Jacksonville, a nuclear submarine
that had been scheduled to be decommissioned by the Navy. If this were
allowed to occur, the problem is that our submarine force would fall
below the levels recommended by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review.
Today, the requirements for submarines is increasing, especially given
the growing role that they play in intelligence gathering. This
refueling, which will take place at the Kittery-Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard, will add years of useful life to the Jacksonville. It is good
news for the Navy, and it is good news for the skilled workers at the
shipyard.
Without question, some aspects of the bill reported from the Armed
Services Committee are somewhat controversial, and I expect that they
will be debated fully here on the Senate floor. But the overwhelming
majority of this bill is the product of bipartisan consensus. There is
an agreement that we should spare no resources in ensuring that the
brave young men and women who proudly wear the uniform have the highest
quality training available, the most advanced equipment in the world,
and receive the best benefits we can offer. I am proud to say this bill
accomplishes those goals.
Again, I express my appreciation to our chairman and our ranking
member for their hard work and for their dedicated leadership. I am
very proud to serve with them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on behalf of the whole committee, I
express appreciation to our colleague from Maine. She no longer will be
subcommittee chairman on our committee because she is the full chairman
now of one of the major subcommittees of the Senate as a whole, but she
is very active.
I wonder if I might ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, the
issue of transformation by the Secretary of Defense was addressed in
the House and to some extent addressed by our committee. But basically,
the committee over which the distinguished Senator from Maine is
chairman has the primary oversight responsibilities. In the course of
the debate on the floor, I hope--if not now at some point--she will
give some guidance to me as to how this committee can address such
amendments as may be brought up in the context of responsibilities of
our committee. If she could find some time to consult with me on that,
I would be very appreciative, as will the Senator from Michigan.
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, if I could respond to the inquiry of
the distinguished chairman of the committee, during the past several
weeks, since the Secretary sent his plan to the Hill, my staff, in
close cooperation with other staff members on the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, including Senator Levin's committee staff and
others, have been working to see if we could reach consensus on a
proposal. Frankly, I believe the Secretary's initial proposal goes too
far. It is overreaching.
But there are certain authorities that would be extremely helpful to
the Secretary as he attempts to make sure we can reward civilian
employees with higher pay and streamline the personnel process. We came
up with a proposal. We are still assessing the import that the proposal
might have. In addition, there may be some procedural barriers in our
ability to bring forward the amendments. So we are continuing to work
closely to see if we can come up with a consensus. I hope to have an
answer shortly for the chairman.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague on this point. But
bear in mind that there are some in the House bill. We will have to
deal with them in conference.
To the extent we can have any interlocking on this bill with those
provisions of the House bill, which the Senator's committee and our
committee and the Senate as a whole feels should be incorporated into
the bill, it would be helpful to do that.
I think in general the Secretary of Defense is on the right track in
the sense that when you stop to think, today's military is so different
than it was 2 or 3 years or even a decade ago.
As I mentioned earlier, before the Senator from Maine joined us on
the floor, the total force today is not only the uniformed men and
women of the Armed Forces, they are very much part of the civilian
force. There are thousands of civilians over in the Iraqi situation and
in Afghanistan right now taking risks commensurate with those of
uniformed personnel and performing services to give infrastructure to
the military to do their missions.
The Secretary of Defense has to have some flexibility in how he
assigns and reassigns civilian personnel. I hope we could achieve some
measure commensurate with what the wisdom of the Congress enabled the
Secretary of Homeland Defense to have. It seems to me that is sort of
the bar at which we ought to look.
Might I inquire, does the Senator share views similar to the Senator
from Virginia?
Ms. COLLINS. I do. The Senator from Virginia has put it very well,
and I am eager to craft legislation--and believe we have done so--that
would give the Secretary the flexibility he needs for the Department to
have an efficient,
[[Page S6581]]
effective, and fair personnel system for the civilian employees. I
note, however, that the Department has some 700,000 civilian employees.
So we need to make sure we are doing this in an appropriate manner.
Some of the provisions submitted by the Secretary go far beyond the
authority that we gave to the new Secretary of Homeland Security.
So we are looking at it, and we have come up with draft legislation
language that we are sharing and have been sharing with the staff of
the Senator from Virginia and with other interested parties. My hope--
it may be a vague hope--is that we could have a consensus document that
would provide bipartisan support and the support of some of the
employee organizations. I don't know whether that is going to be the
case. But that certainly is my hope.
If I might make one other point, I simply point out the obvious to
all of us--that this legislation is the train moving through at this
point in time. The probability of its passage by the Chamber is quite
high. These provisions, as the Senator says, are of great concern to
those groups, whether they are union or other groups, that act on
behalf of the very courageous and wonderful cadre of civilians without
which we couldn't have a defense.
The likelihood of a separate bill moving forward at a later point in
this session has a question mark, which is obvious to my colleague from
Maine and my colleague from Michigan. To the extent we can reach some
consensus and attach it to this bill is the extent to which maybe we
can make some progress at this point in a timely likelihood of making
progress at this point in time.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, will the Senator yield before yielding
the floor just for a question?
First of all, I join my good friend from Virginia in commending the
Senator from Maine for her great work in both our committee and also as
chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee where she is doing an
absolutely superb job. Part of that job is to take a look at proposals
that are as far-reaching as the one that was very suddenly dropped upon
us by the Department of Defense.
This is a far-reaching proposal. We have had very little time, as
these matters go, to look at it. This Senate is a body which
deliberates over these kinds of changes. I would hope that we would,
No. 1, try to fashion a draft for consideration which would give
greater flexibility--and I know Senator Collins is working extremely
hard to do just that--but I also commend her for her caution, it seems
to me, in saying that we are going to put together a draft and then we
are going to propose it. Because there are some procedures which really
should be followed here to protect the men and women in our civilian
force, just the way we have those procedures for our uniformed forces.
The quality of life, which we talk about all the time and we try to
protect, is important, surely, for our uniformed men and women, but it
is also important for the civilians, and they are entitled to have a
proposal which they can look at, which they can comment on, and not one
which is just suddenly sprung upon them by the Congress, whether it is
the House, which acted very quickly on this far-ranging proposal, or by
the Senate.
So I want to just suggest that we try to arrive at something which
does give greater flexibility, but we do so in a way which shows the
kind of deliberation and the kind of consideration which this body has
been renowned for and which I know both my colleagues have been very
supportive of throughout their careers.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues. But before we
conclude this very valuable and important colloquy, I ask the Senator
from Maine, who speaks with such conviction if we are going try to do
something on this bill or is the thought that it is just not
achievable? Because we have an issue with the House right now.
And the question is, are we going to address that issue in part--
maybe not all, but in part--in such a way that we can do constructive
advancements in this field to assist the Secretary and the
administration in this enormous Department with a diversity of
responsibilities? Can we conclude we are going to give it a try, and
that would move it along pretty quickly? Because hopefully this bill
will be voted on early this week.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator from
Virginia, the chairman of the committee, we have been working for many
weeks. We do have a draft. We have had come forth from the other side
of the aisle some additional suggestions we are looking at and eager to
incorporate. I personally think it would be good to add something to
this bill because I think it would be good for the Senate to go on
record with its own version which differs from what was done in the
House.
So I think it strengthens the position of the Senate in conference
for us to put forth our own proposal since, as the Senator points out,
this issue is going to arise in conference given the House provisions.
So it is not as if it is going to be left to another day. We have
legislative language drafted. We have been meeting extensively during
the last few weeks. On Friday we received some additional suggestions
which we are looking at right now. I cannot predict for certain--I
realize time is short--whether there will be bipartisan support for the
final version, but there will be a version I am happy with. I do not
know if that will be sufficient, however.
Mr. WARNER. I will have one more word, but I yield--not necessarily
yield--to my colleague from Michigan if he wishes to reply to the
Senator from Maine.
Mr. LEVIN. I think one of the important words in the question asked
by the Senator from Virginia is the word ``constructively.'' I would
just add the word ``fairly.'' So if we can do something that is
constructive and fair for the people impacted----
Mr. WARNER. Right.
Mr. LEVIN. It seems to me we ought to give it a try. Those are
important conditions, in my book.
Mr. WARNER. Do you think the provisions the Congress provided for in
the Department of Homeland Security offer certain precedents we should
achieve in this legislation?
Mr. LEVIN. There were precedents of many varieties, some good, some
not so good.
Mr. WARNER. Well, as both my colleagues recognize, this will be, for
the distinguished Senator from Michigan and myself, our 25th
conference, and we know full well at this stage of deliberations on
this bill we cannot predict what is going to come out of conference,
nor can we take a stance that not one single one of these provisions
which are in the House bill will not survive the conference. So having
said that, time is of the essence, I hope, in the reconciliation of
views.
Ms. COLLINS. I thank the chairman. And again I thank the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments in
the exchange between the Senator from Maine and our chairman and
ranking member. I have heard through the outreaches of the Senator from
Maine there has been a good-faith effort to try to deal with this
issue. I am not carefully briefed on the various proposals, but at
least there has been an outreach by the Senator from Maine to try to
develop some common ground in this area. So I think this is important.
I think the seriousness with which she is addressing this issue, as
well as the chairman and the ranking member, is, of course, of enormous
importance because basically we are talking about the 650,000 to
700,000 civilians who work in the Defense Department. The basic concept
was the development of the civil service so that we were going to have
highly skilled, highly motivated, highly trained individuals who were
going to work for all Americans and not be working for political
parties, so to speak, not finding out, every time there is a change in
administration, there could be a change in the way they are compensated
for their work.
This is enormously important work. We are finding individuals who are
going to be involved in the selection of various weapons systems in the
whole areas of the development of command and control, communication,
and intelligence. The jobs of many of these civilians are enormously
important in terms of the security interests of this country.
[[Page S6582]]
So the caution which has been expressed by our chairman and ranking
member, as well as by the Senator from Maine, is entirely appropriate.
It is certainly reasonable to always try to find ways of strengthening
and improving the system. But we do come back to the question that this
was developed initially with all the kinds of challenges it is facing
now, with the concept that we would have highly motivated, highly
trained individuals, who would serve whatever administration was going
to be successful at the polls. I think that basic and fundamental view
is still a commendable one.
But I just want to indicate to the Senator, my friend from Maine,
that she has approached this as she does all issues, with an openness
and commitment and determination to try to make a very constructive
contribution, and she has certainly been reaching out to the Members.
So I am thankful for those efforts.
I am also concerned about contracting out, and that we are going to
find those with the best lobbying opportunities are going to be able to
get these contracts that are important and require high-quality work.
Mr. President, as we begin considering the fiscal year 2004 defense
authorization bill, I, too, congratulate Chairman Warner and Senator
Levin for their skillful leadership in preparing this bill. It does
reflect a thoughtful response to the ongoing and changing needs of our
military in these difficult years for our country, and it clearly
provides a strong national defense.
I also thank and commend Senator Talent for his leadership on the
seapower portions of the bill in his first year as the chairman of the
Seapower Subcommittee. It is a privilege to work with him on that
subcommittee, and I look forward to continuing that work in the years
ahead to make sure we are going to keep our Navy strong, and, of
course, the Marines strong as well.
In particular, this legislation contains numerous provisions to give
additional support to the men and women who serve the Nation so well in
the Armed Forces. Without their courage and their commitment, we could
never achieve the brilliant military successes of the war in Iraq.
First, and most important, this bill is intended to improve the
quality-of-life programs our soldiers and sailors and marines and
members of the Air Force deserve in the areas of pay and allowance. It
recognizes the special sacrifice military service often requires from
the service members and their families.
For service members who are repeatedly deployed to assignments far
from their home bases, including Reservists and Guard personnel, the
bill authorizes a high deployment allowance, up to $1,000 a month in
additional compensation for the hardships imposed on them and their
families. The bill also continues support for the significant progress
made in the past 4 years in reducing out-of-pocket housing expenses by
improving the basic allowance for housing, and the bill also provides
for strong national defense in the years ahead by investing in
transformational technologies while ensuring that our military
capabilities do not suffer any gap during the needed modernization that
must take place in our forces.
My principal concern with this legislation involves the provisions
that authorize the fateful change of course in our longstanding policy
on nuclear weapons. Of all challenges our country has faced over the
past half century, the prevention of nuclear war is by far the most
important. It is no accident that in all the years and the half century
since World War II, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in any of the
conflicts that have taken place anywhere on Earth. Few in 1945 would
have predicted that extraordinary success, and few today would disagree
that the effective world leadership of the United States under
Presidents of both political parties on nuclear arms control throughout
those years has been primarily responsible for that success.
The danger today is that with the passing of the World War II
generation in our own country and nations throughout the world, a new
generation of leaders has been rising to power who did not live through
the dawn of the nuclear age themselves and for whom the mushroom clouds
over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are images from history, not vivid
recollections from their own lives. Greater vigilance is clearly needed
to continue the success of our nuclear arms control policy since 1945
and ensure that nuclear weapons are not used by any nation in the
future.
Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other nuclear
materials to other nations and to terrorists is the most urgent aspect
of that challenge today. We all pray the Bush administration will be
successful in the current negotiations with North Korea and that the
tenuous progress made in recent weeks will improve so a successful
conclusion can be achieved.
Many of us are increasingly concerned, however, that with Congress
and the Nation preoccupied over the past year with the war against
terrorism and the war in Iraq that the administration has been quietly
laying the groundwork for a far-reaching and highly dangerous U turn in
our longstanding policy against the first use of nuclear weapons.
Because of their unique and massive destructive power, nuclear
weapons have always been kept separate from other weapons as part of
our strong commitment to do all we can to see they are never used
again. The Bush administration's proposal to veer away from that
commitment should have been a wake-up call for Congress and the Nation
many months ago.
In the decade after the first two nuclear bombs were used in World
War II and the nuclear arms race began with the Soviet Union, nations
and peoples throughout the world began to realize both the danger posed
by the use of nuclear weapons and the danger from the testing of
nuclear weapons. To deal with those dangers, a remarkable series of
international treaties was proposed, negotiated, and approved that had
broad support in the world community, restrained the nuclear arms race
between the United States and the Soviet Union, and dramatically
reduced the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations.
An excellent chronology of the many significant events in the history
of nuclear weapons, beginning with the discovery of radioactivity in
1896, is available on the Web sites of the Global Security Institute
which was founded by our former colleague Senator Alan Cranston to
enhance our understanding of these issues. I urge Members of the Senate
to consult with it.
One of the landmark achievements in reducing the spread of nuclear
weapons was the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which came into effect
in 1968 and under which nuclear and nonnuclear nations alike agreed to
halt the development of these weapons. Currently 185 nations have
signed the extension of the NPT. The reason the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty has been so successful is the presumption that
nuclear weapons will not be used by the principal nuclear powers except
in the most extreme circumstances. For 25 years Republican and
Democratic administrations alike have emphasized our commitment not to
use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations. This assurance to other
nations that nuclear weapons will not be used against them has been a
major factor in avoiding nuclear war, slowing the nuclear arms race,
and preventing the proliferation of these weapons to other countries
and to terrorists.
Control of current nuclear stockpiles is especially critical. The
danger is very real that terrorists may be able to acquire nuclear
material or even nuclear warheads. Even before 9/11, Congress and the
administration had recognized this significant threat and, under the
leadership of our former colleague Senator Nunn and our colleague
Senator Lugar, we enacted a threat reduction program in 1991 to
safeguard and reduce the nuclear arsenals of Russia and other former
Soviet states. The Nunn-Lugar program has been effective in
deactivating or destroying literally thousands of nuclear warheads and
intercontinental ballistic missiles and hundreds of tons of fissionable
material. Nevertheless, we have done far from enough to prevent the
proliferation of these weapons.
Shortly before President Bush's inauguration, a task force reported
that the most urgent national security threat to the United States
today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable
material in Russia could be stolen, sold to terrorists, or
[[Page S6583]]
hostile nation states, and used against American troops abroad or
citizens at home. The 9/11 terrorists clearly demonstrated their
willingness and ability to cause catastrophic damage to America. Yet
the Bush administration continues to spend less on the Nunn-Lugar
program than we did before 2001.
In January of 2002, the administration released a nuclear posture
review that could take us in a new and far more dangerous direction.
The review blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. It
suggests that certain events might compel the United States to use
nuclear weapons first, even against nonnuclear nations. It also relies
much more heavily on a nuclear threat by America in dealing with the
difficult challenges we face in the world. The administration has even
indicated it might use nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or
biological attack. There is no justification for that kind of
escalation. Our conventional weapons are more than adequate to deal
with that threat. We gain no greater deterrence by threatening to go
nuclear. It makes no sense to break down the firewall we have always
maintained between nuclear weapons and other weapons and that has
succeeded so well for so long in preventing nuclear war. Other nations
have complied with this basic principle, too. A nuclear weapon is not
just another item in our arsenal, and it is wrong to treat it as if it
were. In fact, the Nuclear Posture Review specifically discusses
circumstances in which the United States might engage in the first use
of nuclear weapons, such as a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a
military confrontation over the status of Taiwan.
The administration also appeared to be considering the use of nuclear
weapons against Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. We reap what we sow. If
we brandish our own nuclear weapons, we only encourage other nations to
do all they can to develop their own.
It is ominous as well that the administration is asking the Nation's
weapons laboratories to consider the possibility of resuming nuclear
testing in order to protect our current stockpile and meet new
requirements in the future. They want funds in the budget to be used to
prepare for testing new nuclear weapons and to cut in half the time
needed to do so. They have asked the Department to consider global
strike capabilities with new nuclear weapons, which would have to be
tested as well. It makes no sense to abandon our moratorium on nuclear
testing. That moratorium has stood for over a decade, and it has served
us well.
The pending bill continues this dangerous shift in other ways as
well. Last year, the administration received $15 billion. The current
bill proposes another $15 billion this year to study the feasibility of
modifying existing warheads to create what they call a robust nuclear
earth penetrator, a bunker buster, with 10 times the size of the
Hiroshima blast, to be used to destroy hardened enemy targets buried
deeply underground. It is difficult to believe that any administration
in its right mind would propose such a weapon. A nuclear explosion in a
bunker could spew tons of radioactive waste into the atmosphere, with a
devastating plume that could poison huge areas in its path. Surely, if
there is any need for such a weapon, we can develop a conventional
weapon to achieve the purpose of the bunker buster.
In yet another far-out nuclear proposal, the Bush administration has
proposed to lift the current statutory ban on low-yield nuclear
weapons, which now prevents the development of weapons with yields
under 5 kilotons--about half the size of the Hiroshima blast. The
precision-guided conventional munitions and standoff weapons we have
today make these many nukes unnecessary. They would be no more
effective than conventional munitions and would be far more dangerous
to our troops and to our planet.
In the debate in recent weeks on tax policy, President Bush has
criticized the Senate and come out strongly against what he called
``iddy-biddy'' tax cuts. What we should be really against is iddy-biddy
nukes.
The hardliners in the Bush administration seem to believe that the
longstanding firewall between nuclear and conventional weapons is
obsolete and is making us more vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. They
claim that lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons will make
our own nuclear threat a stronger and more credible deterrent. That is
the last thing we need.
The clear and present danger of the administration's change in
nuclear policy is that it will encourage other nations to develop
nuclear deterrents of their own. The entire world will be at greater
risk that these weapons will be used--and used against us.
Unfortunately, the real debate on these all-important issues of
nuclear policy is only just beginning. Certainly, these issues demand
far more attention than Congress and the country have been giving them.
They have been eclipsed for too long by the war on terrorism and the
war against Iraq. We can ignore them no longer. We have an obligation
to our Nation and our people, and to all nations and all peoples, to
see that nuclear weapons are never used again.
In the debate in the coming days, I intend to offer an amendment to
maintain the firewall between conventional and nuclear weapons. It
strikes the provision repealing the prohibition on low-yield nuclear
weapons that was put in place in the 1994 National Defense
Authorization Act. That act prohibits research, testing, and
development on low-yield nuclear weapons, and there is no reason to
weaken it.
Some suggest we should compromise and allow at least a little
research. I say to the Senate, don't let the administration even start
down that road. Don't feed the nuclear addiction. It is essential to
continue to prohibit even the research on any such weapons. We do not
want our descendents, surveying a devastated planet, to say that in
this legislation the United States breached this firewall and took the
decisive, shameful step that led to nuclear war.
Unanimous Consent Request S. 923
Mr. President, our men and women in uniform are committed to
protecting the security of our Nation. They work hard and make
sacrifices every day. And they are willing to give their lives for the
country.
As many begin to return from Iraq and other places abroad, we owe it
to them to protect their economic security and the economic security of
our Nation.
These heroes are coming home to a failing economy--and for too many a
loss of jobs. Today, more than 18,000 veterans are out of work. These
are our Nation's fighting men and women, returning from Iraq, or who
fought in the last gulf war. We owe it to them to protect them and
their families' livelihood.
President Bush claims that tax cuts for the rich will create the jobs
these former service men and women need. But we tried the Bush
administration's approach in 2001, and we lost 2.5 million jobs.
Surely, we can do better for our returning troops who are now trying to
rejoin civilian life. We can do better for all Americans who are
without jobs in this recession.
Today, nearly 9 million Americans are unemployed--2.8 million more
than when President Bush first took office. This widespread
unemployment has touched so many American lives, and it often seems the
biggest in the face of those who have served their Nation in the Armed
Forces.
There is good news for some. The law requires employers to take back
reservists after their deployments. Many of the men and women currently
in or returning from Iraq will continue their service in our Armed
Forces. But too many recently discharged service members are facing the
same fate as millions of other Americans--they just cannot find jobs.
We have an opportunity to extend the benefits for these brave
Americans. We have an opportunity to make sure those ex-service members
who still cannot find work after 9 months--the long-suffering and long-
term unemployed--are not left without a safety net. They put years of
their lives into serving their country. Now unemployed after only 9
months, we are going to say: Sorry, you have been out of work too long.
We are going to stop your unemployment checks.
We must not, and we cannot, do that to these workers. We must ensure
that those long-term unemployed continue to receive unemployment checks
so they can meet their mortgages, put food on the table, and take care
of their children.
The American people understand fairness. They understand that with
[[Page S6584]]
one hand we are providing billions of dollars to the wealthiest
individuals in this country, and we ought to extend the other hand to
our hard-working men and women who played by the rules, worked all
their lives, and paid into the unemployment compensation fund. They
need that assistance now.
For 80,000 workers a week, unemployment checks will stop coming at
the end of this month if we take no action whatsoever--80,000 who have
paid into the unemployment compensation fund, which currently has in it
over $20 billion.
Unemployment benefits are a lifeline available for millions of hard-
working Americans. I urge my colleagues to put aside partisan politics
and join to assist the unemployed--just as we have during recession for
the past 50 years. We know the extension of unemployment compensation
has been supported by President Reagan, President Nixon, President
Eisenhower, as well as President Kennedy, President Clinton, President
Bush, and President Ford--all of them. In the 5 years in the 1990s when
we extended it, it had strong bipartisan support. Four of those votes
were in excess of 90 votes. We want to take that same kind of action.
We want to take it this evening before we go off for a Memorial Day
recess.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be
discharged from further consideration of S. 923, a bill to provide for
a 6-month extension of unemployment compensation, including 13 weeks of
benefits for the long-term unemployed--exhaus-
tees--and that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration;
that the amendment that is at the desk to remove the temporary enhanced
regular unemployment compensation provisions be considered and agreed
to; that the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SESSIONS. I object. We have only had a few moments to consider
this Mr. President. We did not know the request was going to be
offered. I register an objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hear the objection on the other side.
Action is needed in these several days. Some 80,000 of our fellow
citizens starting next week will begin to lose all of their coverage,
for which they have paid into the fund.
This is a deplorable situation certainly for those Americans, and I
think for all Americans. We are going to continue this battle
throughout this week and beyond. I have heard an objection voiced.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and look forward to
making some comments on the Defense bill. In previous years, I have
been honored to work with Senator Kennedy on the Seapower Subcommittee
when he was chairman, and when I was able to chair the subcommittee. I
will admit, he remained on message. We are on the Defense bill and
somehow we segued into unemployment benefits. I think we would do well
to stay on this Defense bill.
Briefly, Mr. President, we did talk about the nuclear posture of the
United States. President Bush has proposed a reduction in nuclear
weapons that is, in fact, reducing American nuclear weapons by one-
half. That is a good direction.
Oddly, we remain the only nuclear power in the world that does not
have the capacity at this point to build another nuclear weapon. Other
nations are either building nuclear weapons or have the capability and
have not eliminated it. First of all it would be unwise, in my view, to
freeze ourselves at a low number and never be able to increase it,
which simply sets out a target that any nation in the world, if they
could reach that number, would then be a nuclear power on parity with
the United States. We do not need to do that.
I think the President is wise to not renounce unequivocally that he
would never use a nuclear weapon before it has been used on us,
particularly when people have the ability to threaten us with
biological and chemical weapons that could cause even more loss of life
than a single nuclear weapon. We need to keep our poise here. The
President is reducing nuclear weapons. He is not expanding our number
of nuclear weapons. The Defense Department and the President have not
allowed the politically correct crowd or other groups to pressure him
into saying we would never use a weapon before it is used on us.
I believe this is a very good Defense bill. I remember when I came to
the Senate a little over 6 years ago, the defense budget was somewhere
around $290 billion. In 1991, our defense budget was $329 billion. We
went from $329 billion to $278 billion in the mid-nineties, a huge
reduction. We edged up only slightly in the last few years of the last
decade of the century. We were not where we needed to be.
I remember when we passed a budget a few years ago that topped $329
billion, the first time we had exceeded the defense budget in the early
1990s. During that period, we did two dramatic things; We reduced
personnel in the Department of Defense by 40 percent and delayed
confronting the bow wave of unmet recapitalization needs for our ships,
aging aircraft, and other equipment. We delayed doing that, as we
paired down our budget after the fall of the wall. It probably went too
far. Not probably, we did go too far. Had we maintained just a few
percentage points more of spending, we could have carried on the
recapitalization program that would have left us in a lot better
position than we are today.
One of President Clinton's Service Secretaries used that phrase, ``a
bow wave of unmet needs,'' needs that we were pushing off, which we
knew we had to address and we should have been addressing along the way
but which is building in front of us. Now we have to address those
needs, and I believe we are making progress.
This bill authorizes an expenditure of $400.5 billion in defense
spending. It is $17.9 billion more than last year. That is in real
terms, adjusted terms, a 3.2 percent increase. It is not a huge
increase, but it is a significant increase, and I think it has been
planned for and being managed by the Defense Department pretty well.
It includes some badly needed benefits for our service men and women.
The family separation allowance is up. Incentive pay for places such as
Korea are going to be up. Frankly, we did not do enough on Korea. It is
a special case that is unfairly impacting the finances, the careers,
and the lives of families when a person gets an assignment to Korea. We
can do better, and we need to do better. I am continuing to look at
that issue along with other Members such as Senator Dayton and others
in this body.
There is an increase in hostile fire pay. We increase the death
benefit for all personnel. We double it to $12,000. We should, and I
will be offering legislation to do a much better job of providing a
death benefit for the soldiers who represent the United States of
America in a hostile environment and who lose their lives in combat. We
have seen those who were victims of terrorist attacks receive a million
or more dollars in benefits. It is embarrassing how little the families
of our soldiers who answer the call to go into harm's way, who put
their lives at risk for our freedoms, get in benefits from the Federal
Government. The situation is better as far as the money.
We have demonstrated in the last conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan
that our military has modernized itself and is capable of innovation
and creatively utilizing advanced technologies to apply the maximum
pressure on our enemy, minimizing the risk to our own forces and
minimizing the risk to civilians and to the basic infrastructure of the
enemy nations that we are facing. It is a tremendous achievement.
I have pushed for transformation, and I think Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld is correct. We have to push and push to have the
transformation we want in our Department of Defense. It will not occur
if it is not being pushed from the top.
With regard to the Army, for example, we have made some tremendous
progress. Part of that progress is the quality of the leadership we
have in the military today. Those who watched the briefings and saw the
interviews of our men and women, the leaders in the military, saw the
high education level,
[[Page S6585]]
the technical expertise, and the leadership skill they have.
Our military officers do not just have undergraduate degrees today.
They have masters degrees in business, engineering, and technology.
They have management specialties. They have Ph.D.s. They are the finest
kind of leaders one would find in any business or any other competitive
enterprise in the country.
They do things such as study what happened previously. They call it
``lessons learned.'' That is a healthy thing in America. We are quick
to study our mistakes, and we learn from those mistakes.
I recall the book ``Black Hawk Down,'' the movie that was made about
the Somalian conflict, the mistakes that were made and the courage that
was shown. That report has been studied. That event has been studied
over and over again. It has gotten down to the most junior possible
officers in our entire military. They know that story. They know what
happened. They know the good things and they know the bad things.
Some might think that the author who wrote the book that was being
critical--I did not really think so. I thought it was truthful and
tried to be helpful. He has been invited to lecture our military forces
time and again on his insights as an outsider into what happened to
them. So we have an open and creative military. I believe that is the
strength of it.
One of our leaders said we do not want a war; we want to resist a
war, we want to avoid it at all possible costs, but when it can no
longer be avoided, we want to fight it with violence, we want to fight
it effectively, and we do not want it to be a fair fight. We want our
enemies to know beforehand we do not want it to be a fair fight. We
want to bring that force that we have to bear to win the war decisively
and quickly, for this is the best way to create a safe environment
afterwards and to preserve the lives of our service men and women. So
we are working on that. This is not easy. We utilize the incredible
technology that America develops. We utilize the management skills that
Americans possess, and they are utilized routinely in this country.
It is not easy to develop highly effective technology and, more
importantly, apply that technology effectively on the battlefield. We
have to make sure our 19-year-old Privates understand the capabilities
they are dealing with and be able to apply it, even though they may
have been in the military a year or less even. It is a tremendous
managerial task.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 2 minutes to
wrap up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection whatsoever. I am curious as to whether
we are under time limits.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is operating under time limits. The
minority has 26 minutes remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. That is fine with me. I am happy to yield. How much time
does my friend need?
Mr. SESSIONS. A couple of minutes would be fine. I did not know I was
on a time limit.
Mr. LEVIN. That makes two of us. So I am happy to yield some
additional time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. I close by saying how proud I am of the troops and our
defense capability. As one writer for the British magazine, The
Economist, said, not only do Americans spend more money on defense than
their European allies, they spend it more wisely. That is the reason
they are so capable in matters of defense. He also added that if the
Europeans were so afraid of the United States, why did they not spend
more on defense?
I will be speaking later on a few more issues such as the Airland
Subcommittee agenda, which I chair.
At this time, I express my appreciation to Senator John Warner, the
chairman of our committee, for his superb leadership, his understanding
of this country, his understanding of the defense needs of this
country, and his willingness to work for it.
I, likewise, express my appreciation to Senator Levin, the ranking
member. He is as capable, intelligent, and articulate as any Member of
this body. He understands these issues. Although we talk at times about
having differences of opinion, overwhelmingly the matters that went
through our committee went through with bipartisan support and
unanimous support.
I thank the Senator from Michigan for allowing me the extra time.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. 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. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year
2004 National Defense Authorization Act. As ranking member of the
Readiness Subcommittee, I have greatly enjoyed working with the new
subcommittee chairman, Senator Ensign, and I especially appreciate the
efforts that the Senator from Nevada has made to work through some of
this year's very difficult issues in a balanced and fair manner.
The readiness subcommittee is responsible for two areas that have the
potential to be extremely controversial, and I believe both have been
handled well.
First, we spent a fair amount of time in our committee reviewing
Department of Defense outsourcing policies. I continue to be troubled
by the administration's insistence on outsourcing quotas, arbitrary
timelines for conducting public-private competitions, and the use of
direct conversions in place of competitive processes.
Nonetheless, I support the provision in the bill which would
authorize a pilot program under which the Department of Defense could
test a new approach to public-private competition. The provision would
also require that any deadlines for public-private competitions
conducted by the Department of Defense be based on the resources
actually available to the department of conduct such competitions. I
believe that this provision strikes an appropriate balance.
Second, our subcommittee held two hearings on environmental issues
impacting military training and readiness. The administration has
offered a series of legislative proposals to exempt the Department of
Defense from some of our most important environmental statutes. I
believe that these proposals go much farther than is needed to address
the legitimate concerns of the military, and could do some real harm to
the environment.
The bill includes one provision on these issues, which would exempt
military lands from critical habitat designation if those lands are
covered by an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, or INRMP. I
am disappointed that the majority of the committee rejected my
amendment to this provision, which would have established a more
workable and precise test for the adequacy of INRMPs to address
endangered species. Nonetheless, I appreciate the thoughtful manner in
which Senator Ensign considered this issue and attempted to address my
concerns. While I do not support the provision that was included in the
bill, I believe that it is a significant improvement over the
administration's proposal.
I also have some reservations about the reductions that we have taken
in the operation and maintenance accounts, especially in the working
capital funds. I am particularly concerned about the changes we have
made within the Air Force working capital fund--as I understand it, the
transfer of funds included in the markup package may actually create
shortfalls of spare parts and harm readiness. I obviously hope that
this does not come to pass, and I hope that we may be able to reverse
some of these reductions as the bill progresses.
As always, this bill continues to support military construction and
family housing needs that are so critical to quality of life for our
service men and women. I believe that the package we have before us
today is a positive step toward this goal. I am concerned, however,
that our actions with respect to overseas facilities in particular may
be out of step with ongoing initiatives by the Department of Defense.
The reductions in this bill, which go beyond
[[Page S6586]]
those that the department itself recently proposed, undermine planned
efficiencies that would improve both quality of life and training for
Army forces who will remain in Germany. Currently, the department and
the combatant commanders are working closely to create a comprehensive,
integrated presence and basing strategy and to identify a new set of
military construction requirements for the next decade. Moving forward,
we must ensure that our decisions regarding military construction
overseas support these future requirements so that we continue to
support our servicemen and women to the best of our abilities.
Mr. President, I believe that the bill we have before us makes some
positive steps toward improving the readiness of our Armed Forces, and
I commend it to my colleagues.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. 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. WARNER. It is my understanding that the Senate, at the hour of 5
o'clock, will proceed to a rollcall vote and that the vote will be held
open for the period of 1 hour, until 6 o'clock; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. My distinguished colleague, the ranking member, and I
hope Members could come up to see either of us, if we are here--and if
we are not here, both staffs will be here--and indicate the possibility
that they may have amendments that will be forthcoming and the time,
say tomorrow, that would be convenient for them to bring up those
amendments.
Tonight we will be addressing some amendments after 6 o'clock. We
will resume with amendments in the morning. We have gotten excellent
cooperation from those desiring to offer amendments. But by midday
tomorrow, we should, at our respective caucuses, be able to give the
Senate some idea during the caucuses of the progress of this bill and
the likelihood of when final passage could be achieved. Am I not
correct on that, I ask my colleague?
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Virginia is, of course, correct.
I join with him in asking Senators to share with us or our staffs at
the 5 to 6 o'clock hour what amendment they would expect to be offering
either tonight or tomorrow.
I also point out, I believe--I want to make sure I am correct--the
vote that occurs at 5 will be the only vote today. I ask the Chair, is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct--the Senator will
suspend for a moment.
Mr. LEVIN. I thought that had already been agreed to. Am I incorrect
on that?
Mr. WARNER. In any event, Mr. President, there have been some rumors
to that effect.
Mr. LEVIN. I withdraw that. I thought an announcement had been made
and it would be, of course, inappropriate for anyone other than the
majority leader to make that announcement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A vote will occur at 5 o'clock.
Mr. WARNER. There is nothing in the Record as to post-6 o'clock as to
further votes tonight. That is the case until we hear from the majority
leader; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order concerning votes.
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me confirm the vote that will be
between 5 and 6 is the only vote tonight.
Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished assistant leader.
Mr. LEVIN. The distinguished whip came to the floor just in time to
save my reputation. I very much appreciate that.
Mr. WARNER. With respect to amendments, I urge colleagues to look at
the daily calendar in which the reference is made, on the covering
page, to the order with regard to this bill and the proviso:
Provided, That all first degree amendments be relevant and
that any second degree amendment be relevant to the first
degree amendment to which it is offered.
There are restrictions on the subject matter. We want to cooperate
with our colleagues. But it is very clear that this is the order that
has been adopted by the Senate.
I yield the floor.
____________________