[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 163 (Tuesday, November 11, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14417-S14441]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the conference report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1588), 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, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of conferees on the part of both Houses.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the Record of November 6, 2003)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. As chairman of the Committee on Armed Services of the 
Senate, together with my distinguished colleague from Michigan, the 
ranking member, we are proud to bring a conference report on national 
defense authorization for fiscal year 2004 for final passage.
  It is fitting that we consider this important legislation on Veterans 
Day, a day when our Nation pauses to honor those who serve in the Armed 
Forces, their families, and those who have gone before them, proudly 
defending our Nation's freedom.
  I was deeply moved earlier today by the number of Senators on both 
sides of the aisle who spoke out with a sense of reverence and respect 
on this Veterans Day, November 11, 2003.
  This bill provides much needed benefits to those now serving, and 
their families, in the Armed Forces, as well as addressing longstanding 
needs of military retirees and veterans. This has been an unusually 
interesting and somewhat lengthy conference. In my 25 years, I think 
Senator Levin and I

[[Page S14418]]

would indicate that it was quite a challenge, but I commend the 
distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Mr. 
Hunter, his colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri, 
Mr. Skelton, and above all my own partner of these 25 years, Senator 
Levin.
  We had many challenging issues to resolve. Among them, of course, the 
base closure issues commonly referred to as BRAC; another category of 
provisions with regard to trade commonly referred to as Buy America, 
and the concurrent receipt issue which was pioneered in the Senate both 
last year and again this year.
  We did resolve these issues. I say ``we,'' because, again, it was a 
partnership of the four of us working together for these several 
months. I am proud that we achieved our goals of concluding a 
conference which sent a strong message of support to our men and women 
in uniform and their families, wherever they are in the world today.
  An undertaking of this magnitude is ultimately a bipartisan effort. I 
am proud in my many years on the committee, together with Senator Levin 
we have carried on the tradition of our predecessors, Senators Nunn and 
Tower and Goldwater and Stennis and Jackson. These were men of enormous 
distinction. We are proud to have that reputation as a committee. It 
prevails to this day and I hope on into the future.
  I especially thank those who worked with me, all the members of the 
committee, not only my distinguished ranking member but the chairmen of 
the subcommittees and their ranking members. They all put in tireless 
efforts to make this bill possible. It is probably one of the largest, 
if not the largest money bill passed by the Senate, in terms of 
authorization. I readily salute and thank them for their many hours of 
work to make it possible.
  No committees succeed without a dedicated professional staff. I think 
the staff of the Armed Services Committee is envied throughout the 
Senate, again, for its bipartisanship, for its long hours and, in many 
instances, for its original thinking which Members accept and 
incorporate into their legislative creations.
  I especially want to recognize the efforts of the staff director of 
the Armed Services Committee, Mrs. Judy Ansley, and the Democratic 
staff director, Richard DeBobes, veterans of many years on the staff of 
Armed Services. Mrs. Ansley was my staff director when I was ranking 
member of the Intelligence Committee. She is an extraordinarily 
accomplished woman who proudly but humbly holds the title of the first 
woman in the history of the Senate to be the chief of staff of the 
Armed Services Committee. They have led a great staff of their 
subordinates, all of whom deserve--I wouldn't say equal credit, but 
nearly equal credit to the staff director and the Democratic staff 
director.
  This staff worked long hours and helped Members reach the agreements 
that are contained in the conference report before us. It is always a 
challenge to the staff when it comes to conference. They are always 
ready to step up and accept that challenge and help us produce this 
conference report.
  I believe it is a strongly bipartisan bill that serves the best 
interests of the men and women of our armed services and of our Nation 
today. I urge its swift passage to my colleagues.
  As we stand here today beginning this conference report debate, 
hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, active 
and reserve, guard, and countless civilians who have worked for many 
years in the Department of Defense and who support the troops--they 
collectively are serving bravely around the world, from the Persian 
Gulf region in Afghanistan, to Europe, North Korea, and on down as far 
as Australia, New Zealand, and that part of the world. All Americans 
are justifiably proud of what the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition 
partners have accomplished in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the global war 
on terrorism. It is far from over. But never let it be said those in 
uniform and their civilian counterparts have not done their duty.
  We are ever mindful the defense of our homeland begins on the distant 
battlefields. To the extent that we can contain the threats on those 
battlefields or those areas which are not battlefields but are 
potential battlefields, the less likely that we would experience a 
problem here at home--as we reverently refer to 9/11 in our history.
  As we begin this debate, we must pause and remember that military 
success is not achieved without sacrifice. Thankfully, Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and Enduring Freedom were remarkably swift in terms of days, 
weeks, and months. But no matter how well conducted those operations 
were, and are continuing, military victory does not come without 
sacrifice and loss. We extend our heartfelt sympathies to the families 
and loved ones of those who have lost their lives in these operations 
and in other military operations to make America and the world safe.
  I also pause to say we think foremost about those who have given 
their lives, but many have given their limbs. They have bodies which 
have been wounded. Those wounds, in some instances, are carried for the 
rest of their lives. So let us keep in mind those who suffer the scars 
of war and those families which lovingly nourish and care for them and 
will in the years to come.
  We mourn the loss of all of our soldiers and resolve to forever 
remember their service. In this month of Thanksgiving it is especially 
appropriate that we give thanks to those who serve and have served 
their Nation with distinction throughout its history.
  I wear the poppy in my lapel today. It is now distributed all across 
America for veterans organizations. It reflects on the sacrifices of 
World War I--the enormity of the casualties this Nation suffered in 
that war. I am always especially proud of my father, a young doctor who 
served in that conflict in France, in the trenches, and cared for the 
wounded.
  We are blessed to have this new generation of great Americans, so 
committed to American traditions, values, and ideals, carrying on the 
traditions of those who preceded them, with equal dedication, with 
equal valor. Without a doubt, the U.S. military is the most capable 
military force in the world today. We don't say that boastfully; we say 
it factually. It is a model of excellence and the standard by which 
others are measured. The provisions in this conference report sustain 
and improve on that excellence.
  Throughout its history, America has never gone forward from our 
shores, in harm's way, to try to take the land, the possessions from 
others. There have been instances where we have had to occupy for a 
period. But by and large, we have always gone, and most certainly in 
two of these conflicts today, the two principal ones--Iraq and 
Afghanistan--we are there solely in the cause of freedom.
  We must send a strong message of support to these men and women in 
uniform serving on the distant posts throughout the world, indeed the 
battlefields. They are bravely protecting our Nation here at home. By 
passing this important legislation today, we send that message. This 
conference report contains much deserved pay and benefits for military 
personnel and families, much 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 
successfully counter future threats. We must always be looking, not 1 
year, not 2, but decades in the future, to try as best we can to 
ascertain what is the threat to freedom here at home, to freedom 
abroad, and to fashion those weapons to enable the Armed Forces of the 
United States, together with coalition forces with which we have fought 
in World War I and World War II and on the battlefields of Korea and in 
the battlefields today, to give those weapons to those brave persons to 
use them in the cause of freedom.
  The conference report also makes significant improvements in the 
benefits for disabled veterans, as well as an important new benefit for 
members of the Reserve component who play such an important role in our 
national security.
  When I use the word ``Reserve,'' I include the reservists equally as 
the National Guard. Sometimes it is a confusing term for those who are 
listening. By no means do I exclude either the Guard or Reserve. It is 
a total force.
  I remember so well when I was privileged to serve in the Pentagon as 
Navy Secretary when Melvin Laird, the Secretary of Defense at that 
time, coined

[[Page S14419]]

the idea of having a ``total force'' and to discontinue the draft. It 
was a calculated risk, but we did it. It succeeded largely because 
there are many men and women of the Armed Forces today who are proud to 
say, ``We are volunteers'', or ``all volunteers.'' Fortunately, the 
National Guard and the Reserve have established themselves as a strong 
and equal partner in this total force concept.
  This conference report endorses the President's budget request for 
defense in fiscal year 2004. And I wish to commend the President and 
the Secretary of Defense and all of those who prepared this budget that 
came to the Congress. It is largely incorporated in the conference 
report before us today. That report continues the momentum of recent 
years in making real increases in defense spending to sustain 
readiness, enhance the quality of life of our military personnel and 
their families, modernize and transform the U.S. Armed Forces to meet 
current and future threats, and take care of our retirees and veterans.
  The conference report before us provides $401.3 billion for defense, 
including $74.2 billion for procurement, $63.4 billion for research and 
development, and $114.4 billion for current readiness. This is in 
addition to the $65.5 billion for the Department of Defense contained 
in the supplemental we just passed to sustain our forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world during fiscal year 2004. This 
conference report will authorize the Department's portion of the 
supplemental.
  I once again commend the very brave and courageous and determined 
President of the United States in going to the American people and 
saying these funds are necessary not only to protect our freedom but 
the freedom of peoples throughout the world wherever we can work with 
our coalition partners in achieving those goals.
  There are many provisions of this report that are important and of 
which I am very proud. I want to highlight just a few.
  First and foremost is the 4.1 percent pay raise for the men and women 
in uniform, and the extension of special imminent danger pay, family 
separation allowances, and other benefits for those in harm's way. We 
are asking a lot of our men and women in uniform and their families in 
these challenging times, and they have never failed to respond. Their 
pay raise and extension of combat benefits contained in this conference 
report signal our strong support to those troops and their families.
  For years, we here in Congress have been grappling with how to 
resolve the problem with concurrent receipts--an inequity that many use 
in our compensation system for disabled military retirees. By law, 
military retirees are prohibited from collecting both their hard-earned 
military pay and their disability pay. Last year, we were able 
to establish a new form of special compensation for military retirees 
with combat-related disabilities--so-called Purple Heart Plus. It was 
really conceived right in this very Chamber by a number of individuals, 
including Senator Levin, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, Senator McCain, 
and a number of other veterans who recognized that this was needed and 
that it was time. That was a start. We called it a beachhead. I am very 
pleased we have been able to expand on that beachhead in this 
conference report by extending the special compensation for combat-
related disabilities to military retirees with disabling conditions due 
to combat or combat-related operations, and by phasing in full 
concurrent receipt over 10 years for those retirees with disabilities 
rated at 50 percent or greater. This is a major step forward.

  I remember the day when there were three Senators standing right 
there in the well--Senator Reid of Nevada, my distinguished ranking 
member, Senator Levin, and myself--and at that time the Senate bill had 
a concurrent receipt provision in it; the House bill did not. By voice 
vote, we passed that amendment and put it in this bill. By virtue of 
that action--not just the three of us; I happened to be here at that 
moment, but many others who had worked this issue--that was the 
beginning, that was the engine that finally drew this train out of the 
barn and down the tracks to where we are today. I think it is a 
successful achievement. And many in this Chamber made it possible. The 
Senate had that provision in its bill.
  With respect to the controversial ``Buy America'' provisions, I 
believe the conferees reached a balanced compromise that shows our 
support for a strong U.S. industrial base without undermining our 
important defense cooperation and defense trade relationships with our 
allies.
  The conference agreement also removes several unnecessary barriers to 
defense trade which are contained in current law. The ``Buy America'' 
provisions have the full support of all relevant agencies and the 
administration. The final version went through many iterations.
  I commend the Director of the Office of Management and Budget who, 
working with the Chief of Staff of the White House, put this bill 
together in final form at the request of myself and others. With the 
President's goals clearly in mind, this revision was incorporated in 
this conference report.
  My colleagues and the distinguished chairman of the House Armed 
Services Committee did a great deal of work on this provision. He was 
tenacious in his desire to see that this bill contained provisions 
important to the preservation of our industrial base, and those goals 
were achieved at the same time in a manner that is consistent with our 
goals as a nation of free trade.
  A part of this conference report of which I am particularly proud is 
the provision which authorizes a program to begin replacing our aerial 
tanker fleet with new aircraft through a lease of no more than 20 KC-
767 aircraft and a multi-year procurement of an additional 80 aircraft. 
Extensive analysis by the General Accounting Office and the 
Congressional Budget Office indicated the multi-year lease pilot 
program proposed by the Air Force would be significantly more expensive 
than a traditional procurement. After a hearing before the Committee in 
September 2003, the Department was asked to examine alternatives where 
a fewer number of aircraft were leased, with the rest of the 100 
aircraft purchased under a multi-year procurement program. This 
examination confirmed that the fewer aircraft leased and the more 
aircraft purchased, the greater the savings. These findings have 
resulted in a conference agreement that will give the Armed Forces the 
modern equipment they need, but will save the American taxpayer over 
$4.0 billion over original proposals. This is a win for the Air Force 
and a win for the American people.
  The civilian personnel system of the Department of Defense has been 
in need of reform for some time. The Secretary of Defense had the 
vision to determine that this had to be revised subsequent to the just 
earth-shaking, dramatic event of 9/11. He made a very strong personal 
effort to achieve it, and I think this bill reflects upon his great 
credit and tenaciousness and those of his colleagues.
  We have included provisions in the conference report that will 
provide expansive new civilian personnel authorities for the Department 
of Defense. I am pleased we were able to provide the Secretary of 
Defense with the increased flexibility necessary to allow the DOD to 
respond to the new threats of the new century and the demands of the 
war on terrorism. While providing the new authorities, the conferees 
were sensitive to the concerns and the rights of the vital civilian 
employees of the Department of Defense. I have spoken on this floor 
many times, and rarely if ever have I omitted direct reference, because 
they are teammates--full teammates and partners--to the men and women 
who serve in uniform.
  The establishment of a national security personnel system which is 
authorized in this conference report gives the Secretary of Defense the 
flexibility he needs to manage the current civilian workforce and to 
transform--and I underline the word ``transform''; it is essential. The 
Secretary of Defense has been unfailing in his efforts to look into the 
future and to transform the Department of Defense to meet those 
changing threats that are on the rise and needs to do so to manage his 
workforce for the future while providing appropriate protections and 
appeals processes for the employees.
  I recognize the very hard work of my colleague, Senator Collins, my 
long-time friend in the House, Congressman Tom Davis, and indeed 
Senator Levin, who, together with Senator Collins in

[[Page S14420]]

the Governmental Affairs Committee, crafted a piece of legislation 
which was largely drawn as a model to follow in this instance. We did 
not measure up to all the goals in the Collins-Levin bill, but, in 
fact, we in large measure achieved a number of the goals of that piece 
of legislation.
  Balancing the readiness needs of the Armed Forces with the critical 
need to protect the environment is always a challenge and a risk. We 
have included provisions in the conference report to make modifications 
to both the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
which ensure realistic training opportunities for our military without 
unnecessarily endangering environmentally sensitive areas.
  There are many other important items in the conference report that 
deserve mention, from enhanced access to TRICARE for certain Reserve 
component members, and I particularly thank the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina, who is a leader on this issue. We needed increased 
spending for our special operation forces to continue investment in 
important homeland defense initiatives.
  The bottom line is this conference report is an extremely important 
piece of legislation that provides the resources to continue the global 
war on terrorism while safeguarding Americans here at home. It sustains 
the current readiness of the Armed Forces and provides resources to 
prepare them for the future.
  This conference report sends a clear signal to our citizens 
throughout the world, to nations all over, that the United States is 
committed to a strong national defense and to the freedom so richly 
deserved by nations throughout the world. More importantly, it sends a 
clear signal to our men and women in uniform, from the newest private 
to the most senior flag and general officer, that they have the support 
of the Congress and of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference report legislation 
that upholds the President's fundamental national security priorities 
and makes the right investments in future capabilities. It is 
imperative we send our President, our fellow citizens, and the world a 
message of resolve from the Congress--a national defense authorization 
conference report that provides authority to our Nation's leaders and 
our Armed Forces to protect our Nation and our vital interests around 
the world. It takes care of the troops, their families, and our 
veterans, who have all served so well in the defense of freedom.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Dole). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask the chairman if it might be all 
right, and Members of his side, as well as other Members on this side, 
if I give my remarks--they are fairly lengthy--and if I proceed for 5 
or 10 minutes and then yield to Senator Jeffords for his comments.
  Mr. WARNER. I readily accede to the request of my full partner in 
working on these matters for these 25 years. We will do that and that 
will accommodate colleagues who are waiting to speak, if you do not 
mind that the chairman was rather lengthy in his remarks. It was 
important that be done.
  Mr. LEVIN. I may actually be lengthier than the chairman.
  First, I thank the chairman for his brevity. I would then be happy 
before I complete my remarks to yield to other Senators who may be 
waiting. Since I will be here all the time, I can complete my remarks.
  I am pleased to join the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
and my dear friend, Senator Warner, in urging the adoption of this 
conference report. The conference on this bill took 147 days to 
conclude, making it the longest conference on a defense authorization 
bill in the history of our committee. The agreement would not have been 
possible without the strength and the perseverance of Senator Warner.
  This is a historic bill for another reason as well. This conference 
report includes two key Senate provisions that serve the fundamental 
needs of the men and women upon whom we now call and upon whom we have 
called in the past to fight our Nation's wars. These two provisions are 
the concurrent receipt provision added by the amendment of Senator 
Harry Reid on the Senate floor and the TRICARE provision added by the 
amendment of Senator Daschle on the Senate floor. Senator Warner's 
strong support was instrumental to the success on both of these issues. 
They simply could not have been achieved without the support of our 
chairman.
  On concurrent receipt, the conference report would phase in full 
concurrent receipt of military retiree pay and veterans disability 
compensation for all retirees with disability ratings of 50 percent or 
greater. Currently, military retirees who receive VA disability 
compensation have their military retired pay offset by the amount of 
their VA disability compensation. The conference report would also 
expand the combat-related special compensation we enacted last year to 
reimburse all veterans for combat-related disabilities for any retired 
pay forfeited because of the prohibition on concurrent receipt.
  I continue to believe it is unfair to require our disabled military 
retirees to forfeit earned retired pay in order to receive VA 
compensation for their service-connected disabilities. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, the conference provision on concurrent 
receipt will benefit approximately 225,000 disabled retirees.
  On TRICARE, the conference report would provide enhanced access to 
health care for members of the Guard and Reserve and their families, 
including TRICARE coverage that begins upon notification that a member 
of the Reserve component has been activated, TRICARE coverage that 
extends 6 months after release from active duty, and extended TRICARE 
benefits on a cost-share basis for members of the Reserve components 
and their families who do not have access to other health insurance 
coverage.

  The citizen soldiers of our Guard and Reserve willingly place 
themselves in harm's way for their country. This is the least we can do 
to recognize their courage and their patriotism.
  These two provisions address the fundamental needs of the men and 
women whom we now call upon and we called upon in the past to serve our 
country in uniform. They have something else in common, as well. Both 
of these provisions were included in the conference report despite the 
veto threat from the administration. On July 8th, the Secretary of 
Defense wrote to the conferees to state that providing these vital 
benefits to our veterans and to our Guard and Reserve would ``drain 
resources from important programs benefiting our military.'' The 
Secretary's letter stated if the President is presented with a bill 
``authorizing concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and 
veterans disability compensation benefits or expands TRICARE, then I 
would join other senior advisers to the President in recommending that 
he veto the bill.''
  As a matter of fact, as many will remember, the administration held 
up the enactment of last year's Defense authorization bill for several 
months and nearly stymied the bill because of the administration's 
opposition to concurrent receipt proposals similar to the language 
included in this year's bill.
  The conference report before the Senate today contains both of these 
Senate provisions. This year, as last year, Senate conferees stood up 
for what they believed in despite the opposition of the administration. 
This year, as last year, we stood with America's disabled veterans, we 
stood with America's Guard and Reserve. Unlike last year, the House 
conferees agreed to go along with us. It was the right decision. I do 
not believe the President would have vetoed our conference report over 
these issues last year and I am confident he will not do so this year.
  Again, I pay my respects to the chairman of our committee, because 
even though, as always, he is generous in giving credit to others for 
provisions in the bill, including his reference to Senator Reid which 
he accurately made, without his leadership these provisions simply 
would not be in this conference report. All of our veterans and all the 
men and women in our military are and should be in his debt for his 
leadership in this and so many other ways.
  This bill contains a number of other important provisions for our men 
and women in uniform. These include provisions that would increase 
military pay by 3.7 percent across the board,

[[Page S14421]]

with targeted pay raises for midcareer personnel, raising the average 
increase to 4.1 percent.
  It extends increased imminent danger pay and family separation 
allowances, authorizing a high tempo allowance of up to $1,000 per 
month for active and Reserve personnel who experience unusually high 
tempo. It doubles the death benefit to $12,000. It authorizes survival 
benefit plan annuities for surviving spouses of Guard and Reserve 
personnel who die during inactive duty training.
  It removes skill requirement limitations for reenlistment bonuses for 
members who reenlist in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Kuwait. It authorizes 
full replacement for household goods lost or damaged during military 
moves. It expands commissary use privileges for Guard and Reserve 
members and their families. It provides supplemental impact aid to 
assist schools with large numbers of children of military families.
  I am pleased the bill would increase authorized active duty end 
strength for the Army.
  Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that I be able to yield 
to our good friend from Vermont, and then I would offer others the 
opportunity to follow him if they wish. I can complete my statement at 
a later time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
Warner, and the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for the good work 
they have done in crafting this important piece of legislation.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator indulge the manager for 
a moment to make an inquiry?
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Please do.
  Mr. WARNER. To accommodate other Senators, I ask the Senator about 
how much time he wishes to speak.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I say 5 or 6 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Fine.
  Mr. WARNER. We may have differences of views, but it is important.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the chairman and also Mr. Levin, the Senator 
from Michigan, for the good work they have done. I appreciate the hard 
work that goes into these issues which I will be discussing.
  This bill provides important support for the men and women of our 
Armed Forces who are subject to hostile attack while attempting to 
bring stability and democracy to the people of Iraq.
  While I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq, I believe that 
this Defense authorization bill is very necessary. If I had my way I 
would have changed some of its provisions, but on balance the Senate 
negotiators have done a very admirable job of crafting an acceptable 
compromise on most of the defense issues.
  I am, however, quite displeased that the administration insisted on 
asking for language in this bill exempting the Department of Defense 
from provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act.
  First of all, the Defense authorization bill is not the proper place 
to have this debate. Discussions about these landmark environmental 
laws ought to take place in the broader context in our environmental 
protection legislation. However we made a good effort at crafting 
compromise legislation in the Senate bill. I was quite distressed that 
the House conferees refused to go along with this reasonable approach.
  In the 1950s, I was a gunnery officer on the USS McNair, a destroyer 
that participated in operations off the coast of Lebanon and had 
participated in actions to train our men in the service.
  I retired from the Naval Reserves as a captain. I am a veteran, and I 
am also an environmentalist. The two are not mutually exclusive.
  I understand firsthand that to be effective in the field, our 
soldiers, marines, pilots, and sailors must have the best possible 
training. I also understand that our country has an invaluable natural 
environment that we must protect as best we can.
  As part of the 2004 Department of Defense authorization bill, the 
Department of Defense submitted the Range Readiness Preservation 
Initiative.
  The RPPI created broad statutory exemptions for ``training 
activities'' of the DOD from five environment and resource laws: the 
Clean Air Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
and Liability Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the 
Endangered Species Act; and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  All of these laws, with the exception of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act, fall under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, of which I am the ranking member.
  The EPW Committee held hearings on this proposal, in this Congress 
and in the 107th Congress, and found that the provisions of this 
proposal were unnecessary because the DOD had authority for seeking 
exemptions from these laws for national security reasons under existing 
law.
  In particular, section 7-J of the ESA allows the law's requirements 
to be waived, at the request of the Secretary of Defense, for national 
security concerns.
  To date, no Secretary of Defense has ever needed to utilize this 
provision of the ESA. Despite this, the DOD authorization bill reported 
by the Armed Services Committee contained a provision amending the ESA 
to provide that an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
prepared by the Department of Defense could take the place of a 
critical habitat designation on DOD lands.
  The Endangered Species Act has dramatically protected the diversity 
of our Nation's natural environment. Many species, including the bald 
eagle, the symbol of the United States, simply might not be in 
existence today other than for the ESA. Each year, since 1999 the 
annual list of endangered plant and animal species has exceeded 1,200.
  The grizzly bear, eastern cougar, bighorn sheep, whooping crane, 
American crocodile, and five species of sea turtle are some of the more 
recognizable mammals, birds, and reptiles that are endangered but have 
been protected and need protection.
  The ESA protects these animals and their habitats, and the hundreds 
of other animal and plant species that are threatened or endangered 
across the 50 States. This past May, the Senate stood up for the ESA--
the Endangered Species Act--and changed the provision of the DOD 
authorization bill. We did that. We did our job. A majority of the 
Senate adopted an amendment to keep a balance between the needs of the 
Department of the Interior to protect species under the ESA and the 
Department of Defense's need to give our men and women in uniform the 
best and most realistic training possible.
  The amendment required the Secretary of the Interior to make a 
written determination that the management activities identified in the 
INPRM would effectively conserve the species within the lands covered 
by the plan, and the plan assured that adequate funding would be 
provided for the management activities.
  The day after that vote, the Senate overwhelmingly passed S. 1050, 
only to have its will overturned in this conference report. Supporters 
of the ESA exemption in this conference report will argue that the 
Pentagon's hands are tied when military training comes into contact 
with critical habitats of endangered species.
  This is not the case. As I stated earlier, exemptions exist under 
current law. In this conference report, the exemption of DOD from the 
critical habitat designations of the ESA will not allow for case-by-
case decisions and will make it give the Pentagon a waiver from 
endangered species protections, even when more conservation-friendly 
options may exist.
  The ESA provision in this conference report provides no assurance 
that the INRMP will provide conservation benefits to species.
  There is no definition about the kind of benefit that needs to be 
included in the plan or a requirement that the benefit be in some way 
equal to a critical habitat designation.
  Critical habitat designations are intended to protect habitat, 
address habitat threats and pave the way for future recovery of the 
species. None of those requirements are contained in the word benefit. 
I can only hope that is how the Secretary of the Interior will define 
benefit in the written determinations required under this new language.
  In addition, this conference report weakens the protections for 
marine

[[Page S14422]]

mammals. The conference report provides a weaker definition of 
``harassment'' of marine mammals that is the trigger for needing a 
Marine Mammal Protection Act authorization from the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service. This 
weaker provision is extended beyond military readiness to ``a 
scientific research activity conducted by or on behalf of the Federal 
Government.'' These activities do not have to be necessary for military 
readiness.
  Also, the requirement under the MMPA that any takings of marine 
mammals be limited to ``small numbers'' of marine mammals, or limited 
to a ``specified geographical region'' where similar impacts are to be 
expected has been removed. Another weakening of protections for 
species.
  My reasons for concern over the degree of DOD sensitivity to 
environmental dangers has been heightened by my recent work on behalf 
of Marines and their families from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
  Thousands of retired and ex-Marines and their families were exposed 
to highly contaminated drinking water over 20 years ago for long 
periods. It is now coming to light that this contamination caused many 
birth defects and childhood cancers. The extent of this tragedy could 
have been significantly lessened if the DOD had been more sensitive to 
environmental concerns.
  Therefore, I think it is a mistake to allow the Department of Defense 
to regulate its own environmental activities.
  When an endangered species becomes extinct, it is lost forever. That 
is a very serious and eternal consequence of poor, shortsighted 
environmental policy. National security is more tightly tied to 
environmental security than many in the Pentagon would acknowledge. We 
cannot afford to try out a bad policy when the consequences are 
irrevocable.
  I am opposed to changing the present requirement that DOD be 
concerned with both our national security and our environmental health. 
Because of my deep concern over these provisions, I must vote against 
this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I listened carefully to my colleague. I 
have the privilege of having served on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee for many years. The Senator referred to action taken by the 
committee when this issue was before it. Could he be more specific? I 
don't recall. He said the committee took certain actions. I am having 
difficulty recalling that the committee took an action.
  We had a hearing. I remember consulting with my colleague about the 
essential need to have the Vice Chiefs of Staff of all the three 
military departments which came before the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. And to the individual, they were consistent in their urging 
that the Endangered Species Act be changed in such a way to permit--and 
this is the key--only this amendment to apply to Government-owned land 
on military reservations. I remember that. But does he recall the 
committee having taken action?
  I think if you look back through your words, I listened very 
carefully.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, I will get back to the Senator from 
Virginia on that and provide him the information. I can't articulate it 
specifically right now, but I will get back to him with that 
information.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, if the chairman will yield on that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. My recollection is that on the Senate floor we did add a 
significant protection, a criteria before the Endangered Species Act 
would be ignored. That was under the Lautenberg amendment that we would 
require there be a conservation benefit provided as well as adequate 
funding provided if the Department of Defense was going to proceed.
  The Senator from Vermont's recollection relative to the committee 
perhaps refers to what we did on the Senate floor, which he also 
referred to in his remarks, where we did add important protection that 
was missing when the bill came to the floor, but a very close vote on 
the floor added that protection.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. That is correct. That protection was added.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am not sure if that is what the Senator was referring 
to.
  Mr. WARNER. I listened to the ranking member, the Senator from 
Vermont. The ranking member said that the committee decided thus and 
so. I don't recall an action having been taken by the committee on 
which I am privileged to serve with my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I will get back to you on that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Again, if the Senator will yield, I think actually in the 
committee we were unable to do what the Senator from Vermont had 
actually urged us to do and which I totally agree with. I thank him for 
his comments, which I share.
  I reach a different conclusion on how I will vote on the whole bill 
because of the other provisions in it, but I happen to agree with him 
in terms of his analysis on the Endangered Species Act and on the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act and the damage that I believe we have 
needlessly done to those statutes when we could have done some things 
which would have protected both the environment and the training of our 
forces.

  But in any event, I think that probably is what the Senator from 
Vermont is referring to, although I am not sure.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, he has offered to clarify the record. I 
believe at this time if we go from side to side, would that be 
agreeable to the Senator from Illinois? Could I inquire of the Senator 
from Texas the amount of time he desires to speak.
  Mr. CORNYN. If I may have 10 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I would like to have an opportunity to 
speak.
  Mr. WARNER. Then I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Texas 
have 10 minutes and the Senator from Illinois have 10 minutes, and that 
is to be followed by the Senator from Colorado for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield, Senator Akaka has been here as 
well. Perhaps after the Senator from Colorado, then the Senator from 
Hawaii would be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Absolutely.
  Mr. LEVIN. If we could add that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I extend my thanks and appreciation to 
the Senator from Michigan for yielding and allowing me to say a few 
words during his comments. Particularly I express my appreciation to 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia. The manner in which we have seen them navigate the 
traffic jam here on the floor this afternoon on this important 
legislation is indicative of the cooperative and collaborative effort 
that both the ranking member and the chairman have demonstrated 
throughout this lengthy process of reconciling not only coming up with 
a bill but reconciling the differences between the House and Senate on 
this important legislation.
  I rise to say a few words about the Defense authorization conference 
report that is before the body today. On Veterans Day in 1954, 
President Eisenhower called upon all Americans to not only remember the 
sacrifices of those who fought so valiantly but to rededicate 
themselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace.
  Today, almost 50 years later, we recall the dedication of all our 
veterans as we honor them on Veterans Day 2003. We take this time to 
honor them because they gave so much to all of us and to say a prayer 
for the men and women laboring overseas even now to spread the light of 
freedom to a land that was previously cloaked in darkness.
  We must always remember the old adage which is still true that 
freedom is not free but was bought and paid for by the sacrifices of 
generations that have gone before us and, indeed, even the present one.
  I can't help but think about my own father when I think about the 
sacrifices of generations that have gone

[[Page S14423]]

before, because he was a member of that greatest generation who at a 
young age flew in the Army Air Corps in a B-17 over Nazi Germany. On 
his 13th mission, he was shot down and captured by the enemy and 
imprisoned for 4 months in a German prison camp.
  Later, when General Patton and his troops came through and liberated 
him and his colleagues, my dad would return to this country, to Corpus 
Christi, Texas, where he met my mother and where they married and 
raised a family and really became, as I said a moment ago, what we have 
come to know as the greatest generation. We owe, indeed, everything we 
have to the contributions and the preservation of our freedoms that 
they made. It is they and others like them who, since that time, have 
fought in the cause of freedom that we honor today.
  I think it is altogether fitting that we consider this bill on 
Veterans Day because it accomplishes great things for all of the 
members of our Armed Forces, both active and retired, as well as their 
families. I have been amazed at how the senior Senator from Virginia, 
Chairman Warner, has navigated this important legislation through the 
difficult conference committee process. I know it was not easy. It has 
been my pleasure to work with and learn from him during the course of 
my service on the Armed Services Committee.
  This legislation authorizes more than $400 billion in budget 
authority for defense programs in fiscal year 2004. I strongly believe 
it is our duty to ensure that the U.S. military has the resources they 
need, whether it be the equipment, the facilities, or the training to 
do the job we have asked them to do, and to win the war on terror.
  In short, we must do whatever is required to maintain our military's 
status as the greatest fighting force on the face of the planet, even 
as we transform the nature of that force to face the challenges of the 
future.
  I am proud of the work that has been accomplished here in terms of 
providing an expanded entitlement to concurrent receipt to include 
thousands of more veterans. I believe it is indeed a major step in the 
right direction. Our veterans have more than earned this; they deserve 
it. I am glad this bill will expand the special compensation for the 
combat-related disabilities program to include all veterans whose 
disabling condition was due to combat or combat-related operations.
  I strongly believe we are honor-bound to keep our commitment to our 
men and women in uniform and that our support of them will not end when 
they leave active duty and go into retirement. No veteran should ever 
be left behind. I will continue to work in this body to make sure that 
Texas veterans, indeed all veterans, receive the benefits they so 
richly deserve.
  Our men and women in uniform, whether they be active duty or 
reservists, or members of the National Guard, are all doing a 
tremendous job fighting the war on terror. So I am especially glad to 
see that this bill provides for an average pay raise of 4.1 percent, 
provides enhanced access to TRICARE for members of the Reserves, and 
authorizes increased hostile fire pay and family separation allowances 
to continue.
  When someone leaves their home to fight for the cause of freedom 
abroad, we know it affects not just that soldier, or that sailor, or 
that marine, or that airman; it affects their entire community, it 
affects their friends, and it affects their families. So we must not 
think only of the service of the brave men and women who fight on the 
battlefield, but the sacrifices their families make at home. Of course 
we must remember, above all, those whose loved ones will not be coming 
back, who paid the ultimate price so others may live free.
  I especially acknowledge the hard work Chairman Warner and the senior 
Senator from Arizona did on the Boeing tanker lease. I believe they 
were able to achieve an excellent compromise, one that will save the 
taxpayers more than $4 billion. It is critical that, while we allocate 
needed funds to ensure our Nation's defense, we also spend the money in 
a careful and fiscally responsible manner. I believe they have 
accomplished that, and we will accomplish that by approving the bill 
today.
  Finally, I thank the conferees, and particularly the leadership, the 
chairman and ranking member, and others who have worked so hard, for 
including the bulk of the Military Citizenship Act, a bill I 
introduced, which will expedite the naturalization process for nearly 
37,000 men and women serving in our Armed Forces who are not U.S. 
citizens. It will reduce waiting times, waive normal fees, and require 
the Secretary of Defense to enact a policy that facilitates the 
opportunity for a member of the armed services to finalize 
naturalization, including the granting of high priority for emergency 
leave and transportation on military aircraft. I believe there is no 
better way for us to honor the heroism and sacrifice of those who risk 
their lives for our fundamental national values than to offer them a 
full opportunity to enjoy the blessings of American citizenship.

  In 1944, Winston Churchill spoke in the Royal Albert Hall to the 
veterans of another war, and he reminded them of the great and just 
cause they served. He said:

       We are joined together in this union of action which has 
     been forced upon us by our common hatred of tyranny. Shedding 
     our blood side by side, struggling for the same ideals, until 
     the triumph of the great causes which we serve shall be made 
     manifest. . . . Then, indeed, there will be a day of 
     thanksgiving, one in which all the world will share.

  Coming up to the current time in Iraq, of course, we know the fight 
is ongoing and there is still much to be done. But the difference our 
Armed Forces have made in such a short time is undeniable.
  Less than a year ago, the idea that the Iraqi people could ever live 
in freedom was nothing but a dream. Now the vision of a free, 
prosperous, and peaceful Iraq is in sight. The day of thanksgiving is 
not here yet, but it is coming.
  Thanks to the leadership of President Bush and the professionalism 
and patriotism of our Armed Forces, and the sacrifices of their 
families, it is coming soon.
  One out of every 10 active-duty military personnel calls Texas home. 
I am honored to represent them, along with the senior Senator from 
Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. I am proud--and I know we are both proud--of the 
work that has been done on this Defense authorization bill to serve 
their needs while enhancing our national security. I wish our brave men 
and women in uniform godspeed and look forward to the day when these 
young men and women can stand beside veterans of past wars as living 
examples of selflessness and courage for the cause of freedom.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from the Lone 
Star State, Texas, who rightfully can take pride in his services on the 
Armed Services Committee. He was most eloquent on behalf of the men and 
women of the Armed Forces, and indeed I appreciate his comments. I 
thank the Senator.
  I believe we are under an order to proceed to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, first, may I say to the Senator that he 
has been working with me on a rather serious problem in the military 
regarding a helicopter. I commend him on taking those initiatives.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I express my gratitude to the chairman 
for those remarks and also for his service to the Senate and the 
country. As chairman of the committee, with his able ranking member, 
Senator Levin of Michigan, they have produced an extraordinary bill at 
an extraordinary time.
  To think we are now appropriating record amounts for our military 
defense is appropriate as America faces an act of war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and literally commitments around the world. I know this 
bill is controversial in some respects. It includes in it a provision 
which I urged in the earlier debate on another bill. That is an 
increase in the combat pay and family separation allowance for those 
currently in harm's way, those involved in fighting and waging these 
wars.
  I think that is the right thing to do. This committee was doing the 
right thing by including it so our men and women in uniform at least 
have some peace of mind that they know while they are facing imminent 
danger, while

[[Page S14424]]

they are separated from their families, we are going to try to give 
them additional assistance.
  I join the Senator from Vermont in his earlier remarks. There are 
elements about this bill that trouble me. I understand by his remarks 
that they were elements urged by the House conferees, not the Senate 
conferees. I honestly agree with him. There is no reason why we should 
ever have to sacrifice our environment or the treasures of nature to 
protect America. In those rare situations where national security 
demands it, there is a law that allows for it. But this bill, 
unfortunately, goes a step too far, allowing the Department of Defense, 
I am afraid, to have a waiver from environmental requirements that is 
not necessary and, frankly, could endanger the environmental security 
in the name of national security. We could have done better. I hope we 
address this issue in the future.
  There are two specific areas I would like to address that are touched 
by this bill, but not directly. They relate to the men and women who 
are currently fighting for this country and risk their lives even as we 
meet. It is appropriate on Veterans Day that we would be debating this 
bill. Our hearts go out to not only the men and women in uniform, but 
to all their families who worry and pray and hope the day will soon 
come when their loved ones return home.
  I worry about what is becoming of the profile of America's military 
because it is changing. This bill acknowledges it, but we have to 
continue to acknowledge it. More and more we are dependent on the Guard 
and Reserve to perform important military functions of our Government.
  Currently, about one out of every five fighting persons in Iraq is a 
member of a Guard or Reserve unit. With the callup that is anticipated 
in just a few months, that percentage will change dramatically. Over 40 
percent of the people on the ground in Iraq fighting for America will 
be members of Guard and Reserve units. That is a dramatic departure 
from where we were just a few years ago in the Persian Gulf war when 
the Guard and Reserve played an important, but limited, role. Now the 
Guard and Reserve play a much larger role. Senator Warner of Virginia 
alluded earlier to the concern I have, about the equipment and 
treatment of the Guard and Reserve who are activated, particularly in 
light of the tragic incident just a few days ago when an Army Chinook 
helicopter was shot down, killing 16 of our soldiers. Included among 
them was the pilot Brian Slavenas of Genoa, IL, who will be buried 
tomorrow.
  I looked into this and was concerned that the appropriate equipment 
had not been committed to this Guard helicopter unit, a unit which 
comes from both my State of Illinois and the neighboring State of Iowa.
  What I learned after an extensive investigation is that, in fact, 
when the 106th unit was activated to be sent overseas, it was 
represented they were fully operational and ready to fight. In fact, 
only 3 of the 14 helicopters had the necessary equipment to defend 
against shoulder-fired missiles.
  When this was discovered, efforts were made to equip the other 
helicopters as they were being sent overseas, with some success but not 
complete. In fact, once they arrived in Kuwait in position to go into 
Iraq, further efforts were made by their commanding officer, Colonel 
Palumbo, and others to make certain they had the appropriate equipment.
  During that period of time when equipment was being secured for these 
helicopters, they were flying dangerous missions. It troubles me. 
First, they should not have been activated fully operational when they 
were not. It should have been discovered at an early point. Second, it 
troubles me that they were flying on dangerous missions without the 
necessary protective equipment.
  I understand the requirement of war sometimes makes those risks 
necessary, but considering what we know now about the shoulder-filed 
missiles and the ordnance ammunition on the ground in Iraq, I think 
extra precautions should have been taken to equip all of these 
helicopters before they were put in harm's way.
  I trust that will be the standard to follow in terms of helicopters 
and that literally all Guard and Reserve units will receive the 
necessary equipment, the same equipment as Regular Army, before they 
are called into action.
  That will be my standard and one I would like to hold this Department 
of Defense to, in cooperation with this committee.
  The last point I wish to make is this: Several weeks ago this Senate 
considered an amendment I offered to the $87 billion emergency 
supplemental bill asking the Federal employees who are activated in the 
Guard and Reserve be held harmless in terms of their salary and income 
while they serve; that we at least provide for them as much money from 
the Federal agencies they are leaving as they would have made if they 
had stayed home.
  This is not a radical idea. Dozens of States, local units of 
government, and private companies do this already across America, but 
we don't do it for Federal employees, despite the fact that of the over 
1.2 million Guard and Reserve people in America today, 10 percent work 
for the Federal Government. Of those who are currently activated, 
23,000 are Federal employees called away from their jobs and away from 
their families and homes to serve overseas.
  By a vote of 96 to 3, we accepted this provision saying that, yes, 
the Federal Government would treat our activated Guard and Reserve 
employees the same as State and local governments already do. Then the 
bill went to conference. Sadly, on a partisan rollcall vote that 
provision was stripped out of the bill. Many of the same Senators who 
have come to the floor talking about their devotion to our veterans 
were not there when we needed them to keep this provision in our 
conference on the $87 billion appropriations.
  I say to my colleagues on the floor, I am going to offer this 
Reservist Pay Security Act of 2003 again and again. To all my 
colleagues who stand proudly behind the men and women in uniform, let 
their votes reflect it. Let their votes reflect that we will treat our 
Federal employees as State and local government already treat their 
own. That is only fair.
  As America becomes more dependent on the Guard and Reserve, it is 
only right and just that we stand behind not only the men and women in 
uniform, but their families so that their income is sustained while 
they are serving our country and risking their lives.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Delaware 
has a comment. He is trying to catch a train this evening and wants to 
take 1 or 2 minutes to comment. I ask unanimous consent that we let him 
speak, if it is OK with the chairman.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I certainly want to accommodate our 
colleague from Delaware. He has been a stalwart on defense. He was a 
naval aviator when I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy. I am 
happy to accommodate him, I say to my Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think we all appreciate that accommodation. I ask that 
accommodation be made without taking time away from the Senator from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I inquire of my colleague from Delaware, 
how much time does he desire?
  Mr. CARPER. Two minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Take up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the chairman, and I thank 
Senator Levin and my other colleagues who graciously have given me a 
few moments.
  We have been reminded during the course of the Afghanistan war and 
the conflict in Iraq of the need for our ability to deliver large 
numbers of personnel, equipment, and weaponry to the front. We deliver 
a lot of those items by sealift, and we deliver a good deal of it by 
air. Some 30 percent of the equipment going into Iraq comes through 
Dover Air Force Base. The aircraft that fly a lot of that equipment are 
C-5As and C-5Bs.
  Several of us on the floor this evening have facilities that either 
have C-5s already operating out of them or will. There is a provision 
that has been agreed to in this conference report

[[Page S14425]]

which I think is worth touching on because I think it is of critical 
importance. The issue is how do we best provide for cost-effective 
airlift in the 21st century.
  We have created an air bridge between this country and other fronts, 
including Iraq and Afghanistan. The air bridge includes C-5As and B's, 
it includes C-17s, and it includes C-130s in the theater. C-5As were 
built in the 1970s. C-5Bs were built in the 1980s, and the C-17s are 
literally being built today. The C-130s, some are old and some actually 
quite new. The C-5As that were built in the 1970s are believed to have 
a useful life on their wings and their fuselages for probably another 
40 years. The same is true of the C-5Bs which are somewhat newer than 
the C-5As.

  The House of Representatives had language that said that before we 
retire indiscriminately, prematurely, C-5As, we should allow a process 
to go forward which was agreed to in the earlier Defense authorization 
bills. In those earlier Defense authorization bills, we said we wanted 
the Air Force to install avionics modernization packages in three C-5s, 
along with reengining three C-5s, the hydraulic systems, new landing 
gear systems, new engines in one C-5A and two C-5Bs, and before we 
retire prematurely any more C-5As we should first go through that 
process on those three planes and flight test them in order to find out 
if those changes to the aircraft actually raise the aircraft readiness 
performance of C-5As and C-5Bs.
  I thank the chairman and Senator Levin for agreeing to the House 
language, so that now we will go forward. The Air Force will have the 
opportunity to install both the avionics modernization package and the 
reengining package in one C-5A and two C-5Bs. The Air Force will have a 
chance to fully test those packages before we retire any additional C-
5As.
  There is report language in the Senate version of this bill that also 
says we need to update our estimate for what we need for airlift going 
forward in this 21st century. I think when we take that language and 
put it with the provision that says we are not going to prematurely 
retire any C-5As beyond the initial 14 that have been earmarked for 
early retirement, that gives us a very good package and one that I 
think enables us to better determine how do we cost-effectively provide 
airlift in the 21st century.
  Again, I express my thanks to the committee and to our friends in the 
House for agreeing to this compromise. I think it is a good position 
for us, for the Air Force. I think it is a very good position for us 
who are interested in trying to find out how do we provide cost-
effective airlift in the 21st century.
  Again, I thank my friend from Colorado, Senator Allard, for yielding 
and the chairman and ranking member for allowing me to speak these 
words.
  Mr. LEVIN. If Senator Allard would yield for 15 additional seconds.
  Mr. ALLARD. I would be glad to yield for 15 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I commend the Senator from Delaware. His leadership on 
this issue is what really led to the result which was achieved, which 
he so accurately described. We have taken a logical step. The House 
approach to it was surely the lift that was needed, but the Senator 
from Delaware added a great deal to it and brought to our attention 
repeatedly this issue. I am glad the result is as satisfactory as it 
is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I thank the Chair and note in a public 
way that it is an honor and privilege to serve with the Chair on the 
Armed Services Committee. I think it is entirely appropriate that the 
Chair is having an opportunity to preside in the Senate at the time 
when we have this important legislation affecting the armed services 
personnel. The Chair is a hard worker on the Armed Services Committee.
  I rise to discuss the conference report for fiscal year 2004, the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. Before I discuss those 
provisions that I think deserve this body's attention, I believe it is 
important to note how difficult this particular conference was.
  In fact, it is only because of the patience and perseverance 
exhibited by the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia that we 
even have an authorization bill. Senator Warner has worked tirelessly 
over the last 4 months to come up with a compromise bill that this body 
could approve. He acted with integrity and poise despite the 
difficulties. I commend him for his efforts and thank him for his 
commitment to the Armed Services Committee and to our men and women in 
uniform.
  I believe it is appropriate for this body to consider this important 
legislation today. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who have 
kept this country free and preserved the peace are owed a debt of 
gratitude by all others who have the privilege of living in America.
  We in America are blessed with freedoms unattainable in any other 
countries, rights inconceivable elsewhere, and liberties guaranteed by 
our way of life. Our grandfathers fought in World War I hoping their 
sons would never have to. Our fathers again fought in World War II, 
Korea, and Vietnam keeping the same hope alive. We have recently fought 
in Iraq, Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and now again in Iraq. We hope 
that as we battle the war against terrorism, we can see the end of war 
as we know it and never have to send our sons and daughters into harm's 
way again.
  Until that time, though, the least we can do to respect their service 
is honor them on Veterans Day. The least the Senate can do is approve 
this legislation which will do much to ensure our men and women in 
uniform are well equipped, well trained, and well provided for.
  The conference report before us authorizes $401 billion for the 
Department of Defense and Department of Energy nuclear weapons 
programs. It also authorizes multiyear incremental procurement funding 
for the Air Force's planned acquisition of 100 tanker aircraft, which I 
will discuss in greater detail momentarily.
  The first priority of this bill is to address many of the quality-of-
life issues facing our troops today. It includes an average 4.1 percent 
pay increase and provides higher targeted raises for midcareer service 
members. The agreement also expands the benefits provided for disabled 
military retirees. Veterans who are more than 50 percent disabled or 
receive their disability during combat operations will now be able to 
currently receive retirement pay and disability compensation.
  On top of this, the bill authorizes certain special imminent danger 
and separation pay through next year. I support these benefits and 
believe they will greatly assist those who are courageously serving our 
country.
  Now I will turn to provisions in this bill relating to our country's 
military service academies. Since last January, I have been heavily 
involved in addressing the allegations of sexual assault at the U.S. 
Air Force Academy. This fine institution, which has produced thousands 
of outstanding Air Force officers, has been seemingly besieged by a 
culture of indifference.
  Over the last 10 years, dozens of female cadets have been sexually 
assaulted but only a few have reported the crime and even fewer have 
received the kind of support and assistance needed to overcome such a 
traumatic experience.
  In fact, some victims said they were punished for reporting a sexual 
assault and many feared they would be punished if they did report the 
crime. Nearly 65 female cadets came to my office and met with me and my 
staff. I cannot express enough my admiration for their willingness to 
tell their stories and for their determination to change the climate at 
the academy.
  I have also been very pleased by the Air Force's response to these 
allegations. Immediately after I notified the Air Force, Secretary 
Roche and General Jumper ordered a comprehensive investigation. This 
investigation discovered a systemic lack of coordination of activities 
and information, inadequate command involvement, considerable cadet 
reluctance to report sexual assaults, and failed gender climate 
surveys.
  The investigation led to the Air Force's agenda for change, new 
leadership at the academy, and a renewed emphasis on sexual assault 
prevention and response. Earlier in the year, Congress also created an 
independent panel to look into these allegations. That

[[Page S14426]]

panel, headed by former Congresswoman Tillie Fowler, found that Air 
Force headquarters needed to better oversee the activities of the 
academy, that the board of visitors needed to be more involved, and 
that the Department of Defense inspector general's office should fully 
investigate the role former academy and Air Force headquarters 
officials played in creating the climate that permitted these assaults.
  Both the Air Force's investigation and the Fowler Commission 
recommended a number of important legislative changes. I am pleased 
many of these changes have been incorporated in the legislation before 
us. For example, each service Secretary must now prescribe a policy on 
sexual assault that promotes awareness of the crime, informs cadets of 
procedures for reporting, and describes procedures for disciplinary 
action. Perhaps more importantly, each service is now required to 
conduct an annual assessment on the effectiveness of the school's 
sexual assault program.
  These assessments will help academy and headquarters leaders, as well 
as the Board of Visitors of each academy, in their effort to measure 
whether these programs are working.
  The bill also includes a requirement for an Air Force study on the 
permanent professors and gives the Air force the authority to appoint a 
dean from an expanded pool of candidates.
  I would like to take a moment to thank the chairman, Senator Warner, 
for his assistance in addressing these problems. From the beginning, 
Senator Warner worked with me to encourage the Air Force to 
appropriately respond to these allegations. His interest and dedication 
to fixing this problem were instrumental and invaluable. I have deeply 
appreciated his counsel and his willingness to devote the Committee's 
time to this issue.
  As chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces with oversight 
over national security space, strategic weapons, ballistic missiles, 
and nuclear weapons, I would like to take some time to discuss some 
important provisions in this conference report relating to these 
issues. Before I do so, though, let me first thank Senator Bill Nelson, 
the ranking member for the strategic forces subcommittee, for working 
so closely with me throughout the year. While we did not agree on every 
provision, his assistance and contribution helped make this a better 
bill.
  Let me now address several specific provisions.
  With regard to enhancing U.S. national security space capabilities, 
the conference report establishes a policy that states that the Nation 
will have an assured space launch capability, promotes the development 
of an effective space cadre, and authorizes additional funds for space 
control initiatives.
  With regard to protecting our country from a ballistic missile 
attack, the conference report authorizes $9.1 billion for ballistic 
missile defense research, development, and procurement. Specifically, 
the report authorized an additional $100 million for ground-based mid-
course system and $90 million for the PAC-3 Patriot terminal missile 
defense system.
  With regard to improving the Department of Defense intelligence 
gathering capability, the conference report requires the Secretary of 
Defense to establish an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
council to develop a roadmap to fully integrate the ISR efforts of the 
military services. The report also prohibits the National Imagery and 
Mapping Agency from spending more than 10 percent of its commercial 
space imagery budget on other important but unrelated projects.
  Lastly, the conference report includes a number of provisions that 
will greatly improve our ability to deter a possible nuclear attack. 
One provision repeals the ban on research and development on low-yield 
nuclear weapons. Another requires the Secretary of Energy to achieve 
and maintain the ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within 
18 months. Finally, the report authorizes $21 million for advance 
concept initiatives, of which $15 million is directed toward continuing 
a study on the robust nuclear earth penetrator.
  I again wish to commend Senator Warner, his staff director Judy 
Ansley, and the rest of his staff for their outstanding work on this 
conference report. I understand that this was one of the most difficult 
conferences in which Senator Warner has ever had to participate. I was 
particularly impressed by the way he addressed the Air Force's proposed 
lease of 100 tanker aircraft. Like many other Members, I was greatly 
troubled by the budget implications of this lease. Senator Warner's 
compromise agreement will get the Air Force the tankers it needs while 
saving the American taxpayer nearly $4.0 billion. I supported the 
compromise and see it as another example of Senator Warner's 
determination to do what is best for our men and women in uniform.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished and very valued colleague of 
the committee, Senator Allard, for his remarks and his work on this 
bill.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Chairman. It has been a delight working with 
him.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished ranking member and I are 
trying to work out accommodations for a number of Senators. The Senator 
from Hawaii will speak next, followed by the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. LEVIN. Senator Byrd is here and has been waiting. I want to see 
if we can figure out how to accommodate also Senator Dayton, I believe, 
tonight.
  Mr. WARNER. Let me suggest the following. I will not ask for 
unanimous consent.
  Mr. LEVIN. And perhaps Senator Nelson.
  Mr. WARNER. I suggest our leadership, together with the managers of 
the bill, consider that, following Senator Collins, then we could go 
into a period of morning business and give Mr. Byrd the time he is 
seeking, and then Senators could come over as in morning business, 
speak on behalf of the bill, and ask their statements be printed in the 
colloquy prior to the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are going to check with Senator Nelson at this point to 
see what his intention is. We believe Senator Bill Nelson wants to come 
tonight. Whether it is morning business or the bill, that should not be 
consequential although perhaps for some reason it might be. I want to 
finish my remarks also. Senator Pryor we want to accommodate in the 
morning, as we have spoken about. Perhaps we can work all this out as 
Senator Akaka has the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I have been notified Senator Sessions is on the way to 
bring his important contribution to this bill.
  At this time I ask those Senators anxious to work with this tentative 
agreement to so advise the managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Hawaii is 
recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I fully support our men and women who have 
served and are currently serving in our Armed Forces. As the ranking 
member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and 
Management Support, I have worked with my colleagues to ensure that our 
military members are provided with appropriate resources and equipment 
to successfully accomplish their mission. I wish to state my 
appreciation for being a member of this committee, and to thank the 
Senator from Virginia for his leadership. I commend the Senator from 
Michigan for his guidance and leadership as well, and I also wish to 
thank my subcommittee chairman, the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, 
for working with me on readiness issues.
  I also commend the committee members of both sides of the aisle, and 
also subcommittee members, for a job well done.
  I am delighted to work with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, 
chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, as we deal with some of 
these issues.
  I rise today, however, to express my disappointment with the outcome 
of the conference report on several issues. I am particularly concerned 
with the DOD civilian personnel system. We worked on this issue very 
hard in the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and came up with a 
bipartisan approach that the committee endorsed with a 10-to-1 vote. 
Our approach would have provided DOD important new flexibility to 
manage its workforce, but it would have done so in a manner that 
preserved important safeguards for DOD employees.

[[Page S14427]]

  This balanced approach was supported by a substantial majority of the 
Senate conferees. Unfortunately, we understand that there was stiff 
opposition from the House conferees and the administration, which 
insisted that the Secretary of Defense be given unilateral authority to 
decide what protections, if any, would be available to Federal 
employees. We were able to win some significant concessions. The 
conference report includes Senate provisions that would preserve the 
right of individual employees to appeal adverse personnel actions to 
the Merit Systems Protection Board and the courts; direct DOD to 
maintain current funding levels for civilian pay; provide specific 
guidance on the implementation of a pay-banding system; and require DOD 
to work with the Office of Personnel Management on the implementation 
of the new system.

  With these protections built in, I would like to be in a position to 
support the civilian personnel provision. Unfortunately, I cannot, 
because of the outcome on the issue of collective bargaining.
  Unlike the Homeland Security Act, this conference report would not 
authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive Chapter 71 of title 5, 
which governs collective bargaining. These provisions remain in full 
force and effect for DOD. However, the conference report does authorize 
the Secretary of Defense to establish ``a labor relations system for 
the Department of Defense to address the unique role that the 
Department's civilian workforce plays in supporting the Department's 
national security mission.''
  In general, the new labor relations system established by the 
Department must be consistent with Chapter 71, since Chapter 71 remains 
in effect. In a few areas, however, the conference report would 
specifically override Chapter 71. For example, the conference report 
states that the new labor relations system ``shall provide for 
independent third party review of decisions, including defining what 
decisions are reviewable by the third party, what third party would 
conduct the review, and the standard or standards for review.''
  By giving the Secretary of Defense the authority to decide who 
reviews disputes, the issues to be reviewed, and the standard of 
review, this bill appears to hand one party the final say on all labor 
and management issues. This language is inconsistent with the concept 
of good faith bargaining between equals.
  At the same time the administration has asked us to establish a new 
National Security Personnel System, it continues to pursue an 
aggressive outsourcing agenda and to strongly resist cost of living 
increases for Federal civilian employees. I am deeply concerned that 
the administration's agenda of taking away employee's rights, giving 
away their jobs, and cutting their pay could have a real demoralizing 
effect on the DOD workforce that has done so much for our national 
security for so long.
  I am also disappointed by the outcome of the conference on 
environmental issues. In the past, our committee has worked on a 
bipartisan basis to ensure that DOD behaves in an environmentally 
responsible manner, without being unduly hampered by environmental 
requirements when it conducts essential military activities. This year, 
the administration worked with the majority in both Houses to force 
through a series of provisions exempting the Department from basic 
environmental laws.
  In particular, this conference report would amend the Endangered 
Species Act to exempt defense lands from critical habitat designations 
without establishing appropriate environmental safeguards, as the 
Senate bill would have done. It would authorize DOD to conduct 
activities that have a significant potential to harm large numbers of 
marine mammals without even applying for a permit and having the 
appropriate regulatory agencies review the proposed activities. It 
would exempt Fort Huachuca in Arizona from the requirement for 
cumulative impact analyses under the Endangered Species Act. And it 
includes language, which is not in either bill and not in the 
jurisdiction of our Committee, that would direct the Army Corps of 
Engineers to issue new rules making it easier for private citizens to 
avoid their obligation to preserve wetlands.
  The military service chiefs have testified before our committee that 
our armed forces are more ready today than they have ever been before. 
That is because the military services have gone the extra mile to find 
constructive ways to comply with applicable laws and regulations with a 
minimum impact on training and readiness. It takes hard work with 
regulators and impacted communities on a case-by-case basis to achieve 
these solutions, but the payoff comes in the credibility the department 
has earned as a good neighbor and a faithful custodian of the public 
lands.
  I am concerned that the exemptions included in this bill could begin 
to undermine the trust and cooperation on environmental issues that we 
have worked so hard to build between the military and civilian 
communities over the years.
  Finally, this bill includes deep cuts to essential military 
operations and maintenance accounts that I believe are misguided. 
During the committee's markup and floor consideration, I voiced my 
concern that the proposed reductions in the military services' working 
capital funds were so drastic that they may harm military readiness.
  The working capital funds are a complicated but crucial financial 
tool the military services use to ensure adequate supplies of spare 
parts, both now and in the future. Deep cuts to those accounts cause 
fluctuations in prices that units do not have the funds to pay for, 
which puts readiness in jeopardy and is a disservice to the men and 
women that serve. I am pleased that this bill represents a slight 
improvement from the large reductions taken in the Senate bill, but 
remain concerned about the almost $1 billion the conference report 
takes out of working capital fund accounts.
  I was also disappointed by the $150 million reduction in base 
operating support taken from the Air Force; these funds are critical to 
the upkeep and maintenance of Air Force bases. Without them, basic 
repairs will be foregone and service members' quality of work and life 
will suffer. This is not the right message to send to our air men and 
women as they continue to make huge sacrifices for our Nation.
  I am pleased by the military construction provisions that we were 
able to include in the conference report. In support of our defense 
infrastructure as well as the quality of life for our service men and 
women, this year's bill includes $9.7 billion for military construction 
in the U.S. and overseas, $5.7 billion will fund mission-critical 
projects which support important activities such as training, 
deployment, and ongoing operations. An additional $1 billion will fund 
family housing projects which will directly impact the quality of life 
for our servicemen and women and their families.
  Although this year's bill funds many essential construction projects 
worldwide, it also makes significant cuts to numerous overseas projects 
requested by the Department, specifically in Germany and Korea. Final 
decisions have not yet been made regarding our overseas presence, and 
the reductions in this bill potentially send the wrong message to our 
U.S. forces fighting overseas. We ensure that we continue to support 
our men and women overseas to accomplish their missions and that we 
offer them the quality of life they deserve.

  Again, I strongly support the men and women who serve in our Armed 
Forces. I also support the 750,000 Federal employees who play a crucial 
role in ensuring that our Armed Forces have the equipment, training, 
and resources they need to accomplish their mission. I believe it is 
imperative that DOD work closely with communities surrounding military 
installations and training ranges to achieve a positive working 
relationship based on mutual trust, understanding, and respect. For 
these reasons, I am greatly disappointed with the outcome of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Before Senator Collins is recognized, I thank Senator 
Akaka for his statement and, more importantly, for his service on the 
committee as ranking member of the Readiness and Management Support 
Subcommittee. That subcommittee has

[[Page S14428]]

some of the most difficult issues which we have had to deal with this 
year; a number dealt with in ways I did not particularly agree with, 
either. As the Senator from Hawaii indicated, he had concern on a 
number of them, as well. Without his service on that subcommittee, we 
would have had many more problems than we ended up having. We are very 
appreciative and grateful for the service he provided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I have 
concluded my remarks and the senior Senator from West Virginia has 
concluded his remarks that the Senator from Georgia, Senator Chambliss, 
be recognized for 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me begin my remarks this evening by 
commending the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. Both Senator Warner and Senator Levin care deeply 
about strengthening our national defense and about supporting the men 
and women who wear the uniform. It has been a great pleasure to work 
with both of my colleagues. I particularly appreciate their work on 
what was an extremely challenging conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  Personally, I have very mixed feelings about this conference 
agreement, but on balance I believe it deserves our support. For 
example, it provides much-needed support for naval shipbuilding, it 
provides a pay raise and improved health care benefits for our men and 
women in uniform, it provides real progress in providing concurrent 
receipt to our disabled veterans. It has many provisions that are 
absolutely essential, particularly in this time of war.
  On the other hand, I am disappointed, for example, with the 
environmental provisions that have been included in this conference 
report. I felt the Senate version of the DOD authorization struck a far 
better balance than the provisions in the House bill, or even the 
compromises that are included in this conference report. I believe it 
is a false choice to say we have to sacrifice environmental protection 
in order to allow our troops to get the training they need. I much 
preferred the Senate version in this regard.
  What I most want to comment on tonight are the Civil Service 
provisions that have been included in this legislation. The primary 
goal of our Federal personnel system should be the recruitment and 
retention of the highest quality workforce to serve the citizens of the 
United States. Unfortunately, the current antiquated system does not 
always achieve that goal. It has become too cumbersome for agencies to 
hire good employees, particularly those with specialized skills or 
expertise. It has become too difficult to reward outstanding workers, 
and it has become almost impossible to remove poor performers. Clearly, 
reforms are needed.
  Earlier this year, the Department of Defense delivered to Congress a 
far-reaching proposal to restructure the Department's civilian 
personnel system. Unfortunately, the Department's proposal went too far 
and it did not include important safeguards to protect good employees.
  To strike a better balance, I worked hard with several of my 
colleagues, including Senator Levin and Senator Voinovich, to craft an 
alternative that would give the Department of Defense the authority it 
needed to create a more responsive system while providing vital 
protections for the civil servants who work for the Department. The 
stakes in this debate were very high because the Department employs 
some 735,000 civilian employees. That is approximately a quarter of the 
entire workforce. So we needed to get this right. We needed to come up 
with a system that was more flexible but that was also fair to the 
civilian employees of the Department.
  Title 5 of the United States Code sets forth the rights and the 
duties of Federal workers and defines their relationship with 
management. It is a series of laws committed to the jurisdiction of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee which I am privileged to chair. I take 
our responsibility for these laws very seriously. In fact, I would have 
much preferred for this matter to be addressed through the normal 
committee process. Indeed, the Governmental Affairs Committee, as 
Senator Akaka mentioned in his remarks, approved a carefully drafted 
bill by a vote of 10 to 1. This was a bipartisan bill that Senator 
Levin helped to craft, along with Senator Voinovich and myself. It had 
the cosponsorship of several members of the committee including Senator 
Akaka, Senator Sununu, and several others.

  Unfortunately, the House acted to include this issue as part of the 
Defense Department authorization bill and thus that prompted the 
resolution of this important matter in conference.
  This conference agreement, while by no means perfect, is a reasonable 
compromise to the challenge of modernizing an outdated system while 
protecting employees' rights. It is not as I would have drafted it. It 
does not represent fully the compromise so carefully crafted in a 
bipartisan manner by the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee 
of jurisdiction. But we have included several important safeguards in 
this conference report.
  For example, employees subject to adverse personnel actions will have 
an independent appeals process and an independent third party will 
resolve collective bargaining disputes. These are two essential reforms 
that were not included in the Department's original proposal.
  Another very important provision in this bill has to do with the 
collective bargaining rights of the Department's employees. The 
Department of Defense has repeatedly claimed it has no desire to waive 
the collective bargaining rights of its employees. Indeed, the bill 
before the Senate specifically states the Department does not have the 
authority to waive the chapter of title 5 that governs labor-management 
relations. Thus, I fully expect the labor relations system developed by 
the Department will abide by the principles enumerated in chapter 71, 
such as the duty to bargain in good faith--a duty that applies to both 
labor and management, incidentally--and the prohibition against unfair 
labor practices.
  Furthermore, the Department's ability to change employee management 
relations sunsets in 6 years, providing an additional check, another 
safeguard, on the Department as it develops its labor relations system. 
We put in specific language to require collaboration with the 
representatives of employees to make sure this is a collaborative, 
rather than a confrontational, process.
  In addition, the final bill does not include the unilateral waiver 
authority sought by the Secretary which would have enabled the 
Department to waive the process for developing the system in the 
interests of national security.
  This actually was originally proposed by the Department and was a 
completely unilateral waiver that would have allowed the Secretary to 
waive virtually all personnel laws and regulations. I am pleased we 
have not included that authority. I do not think it is necessary, and 
it is contrary to the spirit of developing a modern personnel system in 
a collaborative way with the employees of the Department.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee will keep a very close eye on the 
Department of Defense as it develops the regulations to implement the 
new national security personnel system to ensure a collaborative 
process that will lead to a modern, effective, and fair personnel 
system. Senators Levin, Voinovich, Sununu, Stevens, Akaka, Lieberman, 
and Chambliss, and I will work together with our colleagues who care 
about this issue on both committees to ensure that the Department 
creates a system that is consistent with the merit system principles 
afforded to other Federal employees.
  The Office of Personnel Management will also play a crucial role in 
the development of the system. And I trust that the Department will 
make every effort to use the expertise of Director Kay Coles James and 
her staff.
  Finally, I thank Senator Levin, who has worked so hard on this issue. 
As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and as 
the senior member on the Governmental Affairs Committee, he, more than 
any other Member in this body, has unique experience and expertise 
which he brought to bear on this issue.
  I also pay tribute to the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner, 
who was very gracious in deferring to my

[[Page S14429]]

strong interest in this area. He did allow and encourage me to take the 
lead in what were difficult negotiations with the administration and 
the House on this issue.
  In the end, the product is not the one I would have preferred, but it 
does represent a reasonable approach and one that I hope will be 
successful in creating a modern, fair, and efficient personnel system 
for the Department of Defense.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Byrd will yield for 
just one moment.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am glad to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Collins. In her usual 
modest way, she has given much too much credit to others for something 
on which she deserves the lion's share of the credit, which is an 
outcome which is not what either she or I would have preferred but is 
far closer to that outcome than would have been the case but for the 
persistence and--I will add the word here--courage of one of our 
colleagues; that is, Senator Susan Collins of Maine.
  The rights are protected here that are essential to employees that 
will lead to greater collaboration between employees and the Defense 
Department because of her tenacity. I salute her for it and commend her 
for it.
  It was a pleasure to work with her, on a bipartisan basis, in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee on the bill to which she has referred. 
Her outline of what was accomplished is indeed an accurate outline. I 
will have more to say about that later. But in the meantime, I express 
my gratitude to her. I think all of us, those of us who were even 
unaware of the outcome in any detail, will someday understand the 
contribution Senator Collins has made to the personnel relations in 
this Government, particularly in the Defense Department.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I begin by thanking the distinguished 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the equally distinguished 
Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, for their courtesies and 
accommodations to me on this occasion and on innumerable, innumerable 
previous occasions as well.
  We are now in the sixth week of fiscal year 2004 and the Congress has 
only presented the President with 4 of the 13 appropriations bills. The 
third continuing resolution under which most of the Government is 
operating expires on November 21. Regrettably, the Senate has yet to 
approve 3 of the 13 bills. The House and Senate Republican leaders have 
expressed their intent to move to what has become known as an omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  I hope that the Senate does not once again fall prey to this monster 
known as an omnibus. An omnibus is a legislative creation without a 
mother or a father. It is more like a Frankenstein creature--a being 
patched together from old legislative body parts that don't quite fit.
  And just as Dr. Frankenstein was quite surprised by the results of 
his creation, so may we be startled by the results of ours. Hastily 
drafted legislation, as Senators in this body well know, often has 
strange and unintended consequences. This omnibus would include at 
least three and as many as seven bills. It would be at least a $130 
billion ``Frankenstein'' of a bill, and no one knows what other 
appendages would be attached to it as the Republican leaders rush to 
close out this session of Congress.
  Under the cloak of a continuing resolution, the House has already 
passed just such a $190 billion omnibus bill that would fund 9 of the 
15 Departments.
  In accordance with the Constitution, revenue bills must originate in 
the House of Representatives and, by custom, most appropriations bills 
likewise originate in the House, but under the guarantees of the 
Constitution, as those guarantees flowed from the Great Compromise of 
July 16, 1787, the Senate has the right to amend those revenue and 
appropriations bills, as in all other bills.
  The House can open the door to legislation on an appropriations bill, 
but if the Senate is denied the opportunity to consider amendments, or 
is severely limited in the number of amendments which it may consider, 
Senators are thereby denied the opportunity to offer amendments of 
their own and the potential for the achievement of truly good 
legislation in the final result, is, accordingly, lessened. The 
people's right to representation in the Senate would be denied and the 
likelihood of legislative errors in the final product is increased.
  I believe creating an omnibus bill would be a grave mistake. The 
Framers saw the Senate as a powerful check against an overreaching 
executive. If free and unlimited debate is bridled and the right of 
Senators to offer amendments is hindered or denied, is not the Senate's 
power to check the executive accordingly diminished?
  Sadly, the House and Senate have resorted to omnibus bills many times 
in recent years. In January of this year, Congress produced a monstrous 
11-bill omnibus. For fiscal years 1996, 2000, and 2001, we produced 
omnibus bills that contained five bills each year. In fiscal year 1997, 
we had a six-bill omnibus, and in fiscal year 1999, we had an eight-
bill omnibus. Every one of these massive bills, written in the 
compressed environment of a threatened Government shutdown, resulted in 
the White House being at the table, writing our appropriations bills 
with us.
  Which party commands the White House at a given time should really 
make no difference as to how we conduct our duties in the writing of 
appropriations bills. We are here to work with, but also to act as a 
check on the occupant of the White House, and to reflect the people's 
will. We are not performing that watchdog function when we invite the 
White House behind closed doors.
  I stood in this Senate and decried the omnibus bills during the last 
administration. I do so again today. I deplore this process. Through 
this process we, in effect, circumvent the supreme law of the land. We 
circumvent the Constitution. Just as I expressed to the Senate during 
the Clinton administration, by producing omnibus appropriations bills, 
we blur and we blend the very clear lines of the separation of powers 
set out in our national charter. Instead we cook up an unsavory soup 
which will be force-fed to the American people in order to avoid a 
completely avoidable Government shutdown.
  Between fiscal year 1986 and fiscal year 2003, 25 appropriations 
bills were incorporated into omnibus appropriations legislation without 
having first been considered by the Senate. For example, the Labor-HHS-
Education and Foreign Operations bills were included in omnibus 
legislation four times each without having ever been considered by the 
Senate. The people are certainly entitled to a full debate when it 
comes to deciding how to spend their tax dollars. After all, it is 
their money, isn't it. We heard that cry over and over again during the 
tax cut debate. May I observe that it is the people's money in an 
appropriations bill as well.
  Some may believe that we have had so many omnibus bills in the last 
decade that defaulting to an omnibus bill has become an inevitable part 
of the legislative process. I stand here today to tell the Senate that 
this is not the case. In the 7\1/2\ years that I chaired the 
Appropriations Committee, from 1989 to 1994 and in 2001 and 2002, I 
never resorted to an omnibus bill to complete the 13 bills. What it 
takes to avoid the omnibus is the will and the drive to stand up for 
the rights of all Senators to debate important legislation and to 
complete all 13 appropriations bills.
  I commend Senator Ted Stevens for his valiant efforts to move the 
appropriations bills forward this year. I know that he would prefer 
that the Senate debate the remaining bills as freestanding bills. The 
situation that Chairman Stevens finds himself in is not of his making.
  I must ask our leaders, why are we not considering appropriations 
bills the rest of this week? Why was the Senate in recess the week of 
October 6? Why was the Senate in recess for the entire month of August? 
Why is the Senate taking 3 days this week to debate judicial 
nominations?
  I am pleased that the Senate leaders have allowed the Senate to 
debate the Transportation-Treasury bill, Foreign Operations and 
Agriculture bills. However, I remain concerned that there

[[Page S14430]]

will be an effort to fold all of the remaining conference reports into 
an omnibus bill along with a polyglot of unknown authorization bills 
and the White House will dictate the contents of the bill.
  I am concerned that once again the leadership will dictate to the 
Appropriations Committee that we include legislative matter in the 
omnibus bill that were not considered in the appropriations bills when 
the bills were before the House or Senate. There are already rumors 
swirling that the FAA conference report, the Water Resources 
Development bill, the Internet Tax Moratorium bill, and the healthy 
forests bill will be dropped into the omnibus. In 1999, the Senate 
reinstituted rule XVI, concerning legislating on an appropriations 
bill. In 2000, the Senate reinstituted rule XXVIII in order to avoid 
the insertion of new matter in conference reports. I hope our leaders 
will not allow these critical rules, which protect Members' rights to 
debate, to be abused.
  In the past, before rule XVI and rule XXVIII were reinstituted, 
omnibus bills were used to enact scores of such measures, such as 
Medicare givebacks legislation, a tax extenders law, Community Renewal 
Tax Relief, Immigration Reform legislation, and debt collection 
legislation. We should not travel this dark and pot-hole-riven road 
again.
  I am also concerned that the Senate has been passing bills 
with promises of spending on critical programs that will prove to be 
pure fantasy. The Senate approved $1.3 billion for veterans medical 
care on the Iraq supplemental and in conference, what happened? It 
disappeared, just like that. Houdini was there. The Senate, by a vote 
of 63-31, approved $1 billion to implement election reform legislation 
that the President signed last October 2002 but he underfunded in his 
budget. However, the Transportation-Treasury conferees have not been 
given any additional allocation to fund this increase. The Senate 
approved a $289 million increase for global AIDS, but the conference 
has been given an allocation that will force them to reduce the Senate 
Foreign Operations bill by $1.2 billion. The Labor-HHS-Education 
conferees are being told that they have to cut the Senate bill by $765 
million. I hope the Senate will not fall back on an across-the-board 
cut on all programs to pay for these requirements. The bills are 
already lean. Across-the-board cuts will hurt veterans programs, 
homeland security programs, transportation programs and education 
programs.

  Last Spring, this Senate approved a budget resolution that put tax 
cuts first. We knew at that time that the budget resolution would 
explode our deficits by placing tax cuts for the wealthy at the front 
of the line and funding for critical veterans programs, education 
programs and homeland security programs were at the bottom of the pile. 
Now that decision is coming home to roost. I fear that the Senate will 
soon be asked to sweep the bad news into a single, omnibus bill and 
ship it down to the White House.
  I call on our leaders to reject the easy allure of the Frankenstein 
omnibus. We should debate each of the remaining bills and send the 
President all 13 bills for his consideration, for his signature or for 
his veto. The Senate is the upper house of a separate branch of 
government, with institutional safeguards that protect the people's 
liberties. We should not fall prey to the omnibus. We should not allow 
enactment of massive, monstrous, omnibus appropriations bills to turn 
Senators into legislative automatons.
  The Senate should rise up and reclaim its full constitutional powers 
by insisting that we will work whatever amount of time it takes, for 
whatever number of days of the week it takes, to take up and pass all 
appropriations bills. We should never again revert to using an omnibus 
appropriations bill, which will likely come before this Senate in the 
form of an unamendable conference report. We should insist on a full 
debate on all of the remaining appropriations bills and send the 
President 13 regular appropriations bills.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
conference report on the fiscal year 2004 National Defense 
Authorization Act. I believe this legislation does a tremendous amount 
of good for the men and women in our Nation's military and their 
families, for America's veterans, and for our country's efforts in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  I say a special thanks and congratulations to the Chairman from 
Virginia, Mr. Warner, as well as the Ranking Member, Senator Levin of 
Michigan, for their bipartisan spirit in the preparation of the 
original bill that came out of committee and passed on the floor of the 
Senate, as well as the preparation of the conference report, which we 
will soon conclude. Senator Warner and Senator Levin showed strong 
leadership throughout the process.
  I also wish to point out one particular thing that we in the 
Personnel Subcommittee tried to address. It is pretty obvious, as we 
look back at the current conflict in Iraq and the recent conflicts that 
have taken place around the world, that we are calling more and more 
upon our Guard and Reserve to serve on a regular basis. It is incumbent 
upon us that we do more to equalize the status of the Guard and Reserve 
and the Active Force.
  As the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, knows, he and I have 
conducted a number of hearings around the country relative to the 
treatment of children of military families, including the Guard and 
Reserve. We want to make sure that we are providing all the support 
necessary for our Guard and Reserve as well as our Active Force to make 
sure that military families have the kind of quality of life we want 
them to have and that they expected to have when they signed up for 
military service.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on 
Armed Services, I am proud of the significant actions that we and our 
House colleagues have taken in this legislation to help ease the burden 
for the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who serve our 
Nation.
  Specifically, the conference report authorizes an average 4.15 
percent pay raise for service members and a higher, targeted pay raise 
up to 6.25 percent for mid-career personnel.
  The conference report reduces service members' out-of-pocket housing 
expenses and it authorizes payment of special pay for positions of 
unusual responsibility and of a critical nature for our Reserve 
component, in order to ensure that Reserve and Guard personnel serving 
in command positions are recognized for their important contributions.
  The report authorizes continued payment of special pay and bonuses 
for both Active Duty and Reserve personnel. Payment of increased rates 
of the family separation allowance and special pay for duty involving 
hostile fire and imminent danger at the higher monthly rates designated 
earlier this year are continued.
  The conference report also provides enhanced access to TRICARE for 
members of the Reserve components and their families, and in a 
meaningful gesture of support for the invaluable contribution of our 
selected Reserve, it provides full commissary access for National Guard 
and Reserve personnel.
  I want to particularly thank these Members of the Senate--Senators 
Landrieu, Graham, Allen, Alexander, and others--who have worked very 
closely with this Member of the Senate, to ensure that the equalization 
of the Guard and Reserve with the active force continues to move in the 
right direction. As we ask our military men and women and their 
families to do more and more, it is only right that we continue doing 
all we can for them. This important legislation continues to ensure 
that we have the best trained, best prepared, and best equipped troops 
in the world.
  I am very pleased that this conference report includes an agreement 
on concurrent receipt, which I believe is long overdue and is directed 
at the most deserving disabled military retirees. The conference report 
would extend concurrent receipt for all disabled veterans rated 50 
percent and higher phased in over the next 10 years. It would also make 
special compensation for combat-related disabilities available to every 
disabled military retiree--Active and Reserve--whose disability was 
incurred as a result of combat or combat preparation causes.

[[Page S14431]]

  In my 8 years in the House, prior to coming to the Senate this year, 
Congressman Mike Bilirakis of Florida, was the champion of concurrent 
receipt. I commend him for his hard work on the House side and his 
diligent efforts in ensuring that concurrent receipt is finally coming 
to be a realization. We have had the support of the chairman, and the 
ranking member, as well as Senator Reid, who has been active on this 
issue. It is something that is long overdue, and it is time we gave our 
veterans the just reward they deserve.
  American veterans have made great sacrifices so that we may live in a 
safe and secure America. Military retirees who incurred disabilities 
because of their long and faithful service should no longer have to 
incur the offset of their retired pay. I view this provision as a 
historic step in the right direction to help this important class of 
veterans.
  Last year, at the conclusion of the fiscal year 2003 authorization 
bill, the distinguished chairman said that what we did then with 
respect to concurrent receipt was a step in the right direction and 
that we would do more. To his credit, and the credit of the ranking 
member, we are now following through with that commitment and moving in 
the right direction. This is a huge step and we will continue to look 
after our nation's disabled veterans in the future.
  The conference report includes a provision that will enhance the 
process for achieving posthumous citizenship for deceased, non-citizen 
service members that was sponsored by myself and Senator Zell Miller, 
my colleague from Georgia. This legislation was inspired by the 
dramatic story of Diego Rincon of Conyers, Georgia, a non-citizen 
member of our Armed Forces who was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq. 
This provision will instruct the Government to take steps immediately 
to facilitate and expedite the process of naturalization following an 
immigrant soldier's death. Diego Rincon is a true American hero and 
this legislation ensures that he will be honored as one.

  Included in the conference report is authorizing language to delay 
the decommissioning of Navy and Marine Corps Reserve aviation squadrons 
like those at the Naval Air Station Atlanta. This provision, which was 
also included in the final version of the fiscal year 2004 Defense 
Appropriations Act, prolongs the life of aviation squadrons at NAS 
Atlanta by preventing the Navy from decommissioning squadrons until the 
General Accounting Office completes a review of the Navy's plan for 
tactical aviation integration. This measure restricts funds to be used 
to decommission aviation squadrons until February 1, 2004.
  Senator Miller and I have worked hard all year to delay the 
decommissioning of the aviation squadron at NAS Atlanta and I am 
particularly pleased we were successful in postponing these decisions 
until the General Accounting Office conducts a thorough review of the 
Navy's plans for tactical air integration to ensure that it is done 
wisely and in a way that ensures the Navy's missions can be met long 
term. NAS Atlanta Reserve fight squadrons stand ready with great 
professionalism for a speedy deployment to critical missions around the 
world. This provision ensures NAS Atlanta will continue contributing to 
the Navy's crucial missions and war fighting ability.
  This legislation also authorizes the lease of up to 20 aerial 
refueling aircraft by the Air Force and extends authority for the Air 
Force to purchase up to 80 tanker aircraft through a multi-year 
procurement effort. This agreement will allow the Air Force to begin 
recapitalizing their tanker fleet in a fiscally responsible manner and 
save taxpayers approximately $4 billion over the original Department of 
Defense proposal.
  This particular provision, Mr. President, has not been without 
controversy. I commend my colleague, Senator John McCain, for pointing 
out to the committee several important discrepancies in the process 
leading up to this tanker provision. The chairman and the ranking 
member held several hearings on this subject and, for the right 
reasons, we were able to restructure this lease arrangement so that not 
only will our men and women in the military benefit from the provision 
in the conference report, but the taxpayer will benefit as well.
  The Defense Authorization Act includes several other military 
programs that greatly benefit Georgia, as well as the country as a 
whole. For instance, it includes: Funds to authorize the Air Force to 
begin re-engining J-STARS aircraft. It includes $3.5 billion for 22 FA-
22 aircraft, the next tactical fighter jet for the U.S. Air Force; $336 
million for five C-130 aircraft, as part of a multi-year buy 
arrangement; $931 million to convert two Trident ballistic missile 
submarines into guided missile submarines, one of which will be 
stationed at Kings Bay Naval Base in Georgia; $2.1 billion for 11 C-17 
aircraft, under, again, our continuing multi-year contract, which, for 
the first time in the history of the United States Air Force, we have 
operated in a businesslike manner from a procurement standpoint; $19.7 
million to accelerate the C-5 aircraft avionics modernization programs; 
and an important provision aimed at ensuring that Army or Air National 
Guard personnel may effectively command Active Duty personnel when they 
are entrusted with command of a unit composed of both active duty and 
Guard personnel. This provision will directly benefit the command 
relationships and operations of the 116th Air Control Wing at Robins 
Air Force Base that flies and operates J-STARS aircraft.
  Mr. President, I believe this conference report does a tremendous 
amount of good for our Nation and, most importantly, for the brave men 
and women who are serving our Nation overseas and at home. I urge my 
colleagues to support the conference report and again, I commend 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their strong leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia, first, for his work throughout the year on this bill. I 
listened very carefully. He reflects a lot of hard work in his 
comments. I thank him for his service on this committee.
  We are basically rotating. The distinguished ranking member has 
yielded his slot at this time to the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama. But after that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Michigan be recognized for such time as he desires to complete his 
comments on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before the Senator starts, we urge any 
other Senators to kindly contact the managers because in consultation 
with the leadership, we are proceeding to conclude this debate.
  Mr. LEVIN. While the chairman is on that point, Mr. President, I 
understand there will be two more Senators in addition to me on this 
side tonight who will have remarks on the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. I know of an additional Senator, 
the Senator from North Carolina, who I believe will be coming over very 
shortly. That will be three Senators we know of desiring to make 
remarks. I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TALENT). The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, it has been a great honor and a thrill 
for me to serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee under the 
leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Levin. They are the great 
professionals in this Senate. At the beginning of our Conference there 
were very difficult and challenging issues that looked as if they could 
not be settled, and reasonable minds could not reach an accord. But, as 
Senator Warner and Senator Levin continued to pursue the issues and 
worked hard on them, realizing that we had a goal and a responsibility 
to pass this FY04 Defense Authorization Bill, the conferees managed to 
reach agreements which I believe are sound.
  The bill before us today is a good step forward for America, for the 
strength of this country's defense, and for the men and women in 
uniform.
  Today is Veterans Day. Some said we should not be here, but I think 
it is quite appropriate that while our soldiers are in the field today, 
not taking a holiday in Baghdad, or in Tikrit or Mosul or in Basra or 
across the border in Afghanistan, we in the United States Senate have 
work to do with regard to our Defense bill. It is quite appropriate we 
are here today and moving forward, providing for a 4.1 percent

[[Page S14432]]

pay raise, and higher pay raises for certain specialities and for mid-
grade personnel.
  We continue today to see good things in our military which is fast 
approaching a transformed military. All of us are watching very closely 
those changes and the recruiting and retention figures of our forces, 
but to date the numbers look good in both categories.
  I met earlier today with a United States Army Lieutenant Colonel from 
the 173rd Airborne Brigade at Walter Reed who was injured last month in 
Iraq and is now recuperating from his combat wounds. He told me when 
his battalion were taking the highest casualties, they also had the 
highest reenlistment rate. He said his soldiers, his young men, are 
warriors and he made that statement with the greatest passion. He was 
so very, very proud of them. You could sense it and see it in his eyes.
  I express my appreciation to Senator Warner and Senator Levin for the 
great work they have done. I thank Judy Ansley, our committee staff 
director; Bruce Hock and Tom MacKenzie, who helped me so much on the 
Airland Subcommittee I chair. All in all, we have had a good year and 
made great progress. We have such talented professional, decent, honest 
men and women who lead and our part of our armed services staff.
  I want to make a particular note of appreciation for Archie Galloway 
on my staff. Archie is a retired Lieutenant Colonel, a Ranger. He 
served in the 101st Airborne Division. He has been a constant adviser, 
friend, and counselor on these issues. He really helps me to do what is 
best for America as we moved forward on these issues.
  I am also very proud of our Guard and Reserve units and the men and 
women who serve in them. I served 13 years in the Army Reserve. Alabama 
has a tremendous National Guard and Army reserve presence and 
capability. These soldiers are serving with distinction. I believe the 
reserves will soon have 40 percent of the personnel in Iraqi theater.
  I visited Iraq last August and visited two of the three Alabama 
National Guard MP units assigned around Baghdad. Almost half of the men 
and women in our Alabama MP units are full-time professional police 
officers, sheriff's deputies, and State troopers in their public life 
back home in Alabama. They are superbly qualified for the job and the 
challenges ahead of them. They are taking risks every day working with 
the local Iraqi police trying to identify, prosecute, and arrest people 
who are committing terrorist acts. They are trying to knock down crime 
throughout the country of Iraq and they are doing a superb job.
  I would like to briefly mention the job our Airland Subcommittee 
accomplished during this year and during the conference. Of the $401 
billion provided by this bill, the Airland Subcommittee managed 
approximately $25 billion in procurement and $15 billion in research 
and development (RDT&E). We took our tasks very seriously. These are 
very large sums of money, in two very important accounts. We worked 
hard on each issue. Airland responsibilities extend to all the 
transformational issues in the military, large and small. Most notable 
is the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS). The Army's goal is to create 
a new, more versatile, capabilities based system that can operate in 
the future across a wide variety of mission areas. Even though the Army 
will be reporting in three different lines in the future, the work 
continues and must continue to its inevitable conclusion.

  Time is short, relatively speaking, for the transformation to be 
accomplished. Rogue states and more capable adversaries loom on the 
horizon. We need to constantly ask ourselves: Is our military, the one 
which exists today, perfectly configured to meet this threat or can we 
continue to transform it and make it better able to meet the threat in 
the future?
  Secretary Rumsfeld is a man who believes in asking tough questions 
about the future and taking the action today that will transform our 
military for the future. People have different ideas as to precisely 
how to achieve that goal. But, I believe this Congress and this 
Secretary of Defense, and I believe this President of the United 
States, are committed to making sure we succeed.
  I was at a NATO conference in Europe not too long ago. The French 
rapporteur who was reporting on the war in Iraq for the conference 
shared some thoughts with us. He said the thing they learned most, and 
it was most clear during the war in Iraq, is that a well-trained, 
disciplined, technologically advanced military will defeat a much 
larger military not so advanced. That fact is absolutely clear.
  We used 500,000 troops in the first Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, 
just to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. In Operation Iraqi Freedom 
(OIF), we defeated the entire Iraqi Army with less than 250,000 troops. 
We now have about 130,000 troops in Iraq. We have coalition support 
from the British and numerous other countries, but our personnel now 
are at about 130,000.
  In Afghanistan, we were able to bring down the Taliban Government 
together with coalition forces. That cruel government was harboring and 
supporting al-Qaida and was also providing the training grounds for 
them to attack the United States. We defeated Taliban and al-Quaida 
forces with, I recall, no more than 4,000 troops US forces on the 
ground, using high-tech air support, special forces, and employing 
special operations of all kinds. We all know the story of the soldier 
on horseback talking to a B-52 at 35,000 feet calling in 2,000-pound 
bombs to within 30 feet of any spot he needed to hit. That is a new 
kind of warfare. That is truly transformational. We need to adjust to 
it and make sure we are fully prepared to handle the next phase of 
emerging technologies, the next phase of emerging training 
opportunities, and the next phase of initiative our men and women in 
uniform bring to the battlefield.
  There are a lot of things in the bill which we all are proud of 
tonight. The concurrent receipt progress we have been trying to make is 
a big step in this legislation, and there are a number of other 
benefits for our military men and women that are important.
  As a result of my visits earlier today and last month to Walter Reed, 
we discovered a problem impacting families when a soldier is facing 
imminent death. The military tries often to retire that person because 
they can receive better benefits. It is awfully grim, unpleasant, and 
wrong to bring a family into that situation. In this bill we fixed that 
process with a modifying provision. Some of the things being forced 
upon our military families in an imminent death situation are no longer 
required. Our doctors and our soldiers no longer have to call families 
to discuss imminent death retirement measures; rather, they can 
concentrate on the necessary lifesaving measures which are so 
important.
  We also have better benefits in this bill for our soldiers who are 
killed in combat.
  Within the Airland Subcommittee jurisdiction, I would just mention a 
few things that I think are quite significant as we go forward. We have 
$705 million for the joint direct attack munition for the Navy and Air 
Force. This is the famous JDAM. These were the bombs I mentioned 
earlier that can hit within 30 feet of a target using a global 
positioning satellite (GPS) guidance system. We need plenty of these 
munitions. JDAMS are the bread and butter of our Naval and Air Force 
bombers today. I believe this bill has gone a long way toward ensuring 
that we have adequate supplies to meet the challenges in the future.
  Frankly, if we err however, we ought to err on the side of having far 
too many JDAMS. We should not have anything less than absolutely what 
we need at any given time to defend the just interests of the United 
States.
  We moved forward on the FA 22. This new aircraft is so important. 
There was a challenge earlier this year however. We challenged the 
contractor. The Subcommittee was not happy with the progress the 
contractor had been making. We had program hearings and DOD testimony. 
We heard from witnesses and then we proposed reductions to the program. 
In the end, we ended up reducing the FA 22 program by $160 million. We 
already believe, from the time those hearings took place in the early 
part of the year, that the contractor is making good progress in 
dealing with the problems and issues that were previously plaguing the 
program and slowing it down. We believe they are going

[[Page S14433]]

to continue to make good progress. I hope so. If not, we will be 
challenging them again next year.
  We also dealt with the Boeing tanker lease. That was a matter Senator 
McCain raised early this year. He challenged the way the Department of 
Defense and the Air Force were planning to fund 100 new Boeing 767 
aircraft. He believed that the way that was being handled was not good 
for the taxpayers. So we went through a long process of debate, IG and 
GAO evaluations of the funding process. In the end, the committee 
concluded that the program, as proposed by the administration, was not 
the best way to fund these aircraft.
  We therefore came up with a program to lease 20 767's and go forward 
to purchase the remaining 80. This change in procurement and leasing 
will save, we believe, $4 billion dollars. I salute Senator McCain for 
his leadership on this effort, and I also appreciate the great work of 
both Senator Warner and Senator Levin in reaching this new plan that I 
believe will work to the benefit of the Air Force and the taxpayers.
  Another of the subcommittee issues addressed the fleet of HUMVEES 
found throughout the force structure. One of the things I learned in 
August while visiting units in Iraq is that many of the Humvees 
utilized for moving our soldiers around the battlefield are the light 
skinned, unarmed, and vulnerable Humvee models which are quite 
susceptible to small arms fire. This bill provides additional monies 
for the up-armored version, as they call it, Humvee.
  Just this morning I was at the Walter Reed Army medical center 
meeting with PFC Chris Busby a military policeman from Alabama. He had 
severe injuries to his lower leg and one of his arms. He said he was in 
his Humvee, had his arm and his leg out the door, and a mortar round 
exploded nearby. It injured his arm and leg. He told me, without my 
asking: If I had not been in an up-armored Humvee, I may not be here 
today. Grenades, mines, and all of those are less effective against an 
up-armored Humvee. We need more of them, particularly in an environment 
such as Iraq.
  We also provided funds for friend-or-foe equipment to try to avoid 
friendly fire problems. We also provided $60 million for the EA6B 
aircraft outer wing panels. I discovered after talking with senior Navy 
officials that we are having problems with these aircraft from stress. 
These funds will do a lot to fix the operational deficiencies of those 
planes.
  We also provided $70 million for 7 UH60 Blackhawk helicopters. There 
are many more proposals and line items in this bill that I think will 
help make this a stronger and more vigorous nation and will make our 
military the best. What we need simply is this: We need the best 
trained military in the world. We need to give them the best equipment 
that exists in the world. We have both of those at this moment. We need 
even better equipment. We need even better training. If we maintain 
that momentum, if we maintain our commitment to research and 
development and to the utilization of new technologies where ever 
possible and we apply these capabilities and that desire to the modern 
battlefield our soldiers will remain the best military force the world 
has ever known.

  I am so proud of our men and women in uniform. When I meet them in 
the hospital, or talk to them after they return home, or when I meet 
with them in Iraq or Afghanistan or Kosovo, or aboard a ship at sea or 
at a base here in the United States, I find that they are so highly 
motivated and committed to serving this country. They believe so deeply 
in the causes of our country. They are committed incredibly to helping 
the Iraqi's achieve a better life.
  They are not just there to fight wars. They deeply want the Iraqi's 
to do better, to have a government that is free. Would that not be a 
good thing? Not just for us, and not just for the Iraqi people, but for 
the whole world. Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have any Saddam 
Hussein's in the world? Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have 300,000 
people in mass graves that we are now uncovering in Iraq--the people 
Saddam Hussein slaughtered as a result of one of the most brutal 
regimes the world has ever known? He is gone now and we have an 
opportunity to step forward and create a government that allows the 
Iraqi people an opportunity to progress and succeed in the future. That 
is what we hope will happen. It is indeed a difficult time. Nobody 
knows what the future will bring, but I believe we will be successful 
because I am putting my confidence in the men and women who are serving 
our country around the world tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Sessions for his service on 
our committee. He is one of the members of our committee who works 
extremely hard. I have traveled with him. I did not travel with him the 
last time he made reference to, but I know how committed he is to the 
men and women in our service. That is shown every day here, but it was 
also shown to me very dramatically on the trip we were able to take 
together, and we thank him. I know, more importantly, the men and women 
in the Armed Forces thank him for that commitment.
  The Senator from New Jersey is in the Chamber. I am wondering if he 
might like to go next. Approximately how long does he plan on speaking?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would say probably less than 10 minutes, but if I 
am allowed 10, that is fine.
  Mr. LEVIN. If that would be all right with the chairman, I understand 
Senator Dayton is on his way and he would also like 10 or 15 minutes. 
Then I would try to make my remarks with an additional 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. On this side, the Senator from North Carolina will soon 
be in the Chamber to take up a position in the queue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for 
permitting me to say a few words at this point.
  I rise to speak on language in the Defense authorization conference 
report that was added by conferees. It waters down two of our 
environmental laws significantly. There are two sections of this 
conference report to which I strenuously object. One ignores the will 
of the Senate with regard to protecting endangered species and the 
other represents the greatest single rollback of marine mammal 
protection in the last 30 years.
  Last May, the Senate passed an amendment which I developed with 
Senator Jeffords to protect endangered species on Department of Defense 
lands. Before my amendment, the Senate bill effectively exempted the 
Department of Defense from complying with the Endangered Species Act, 
but my amendment instituted a reasonable two-step approach to protect 
endangered species without impeding military readiness or ability. That 
amendment was passed by the Senate. We need these protections and we 
know they work.
  There are only 2 species that have been on the endangered species 
list that have gone extinct after being put on that list while over 600 
species not on the list have gone extinct during that time. Look at the 
comparison: Two which failed to survive because they were on the list, 
and 600 which failed to survive because they were not protected.

  The American people have spoken on this issue. We ought to listen to 
them. A Zogby poll earlier this year learned that 85 percent of 
registered voters believe the Defense Department should follow the same 
environmental laws as everyone else. Unfortunately, most of the Senate 
language was stricken by the conferees. What remains will not, in my 
opinion, provide adequate protection for threatened and endangered 
species. But what is worse, new language is contained in this report 
that could have disastrous consequences for populations of whales and 
other marine mammals off our coasts.
  Ironically, in the State of New Jersey, which has a lot of coastline 
for the size of the State, we have a marine mammal stranding facility. 
People voluntarily go out into the water, get a dolphin, or they will 
get even a whale occasionally. They will bring it to shore and figure 
out a way to nurse it back to health and get it back in the sea. We 
treasure those, as every one of us should, because they are part of the 
ecology. Where they go ultimately, I think it is fair to say, the human 
race goes.
  A rider was attached by the conferees that would allow marine mammals 
to

[[Page S14434]]

be casually harassed, injured, and killed by activities ranging from 
sonar exercises to the testing of underwater explosives. Ironically, it 
comes just as the committees with jurisdiction and expertise over 
marine mammals have begun their work on reauthorizing the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act.
  Once again, the conferees chose to add language that was not 
authorized by either House. We are seeing this on a too regular basis--
language that is debated, discussed, and voted upon goes one way. It 
goes into conference. The conference committee, then composed of 
Members almost principally, almost exclusively of the majority party, 
decides they do not want to listen to what was sent over from the 
Senate or what was sent over from the House. If they disagree with it, 
they change it and the administration contributes to that. It is 
outrageous.
  I have been part of this body for nearly 20 years and this is not how 
the Congress used to make law. We cannot look backward. We are where we 
are, but it is not a good turn of events.
  That is what has happened. The conferees add their own language. It 
extends exemptions to the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the House 
language to apply not only to military activities but to all 
Government-funded research--a change that could be easily exploited by 
industry groups.
  Under this act, there will now be no limit to the numbers of marine 
mammals the Department of Defense could kill or harm and no limit to 
the range of coastal habitat its activities could impact.
  I am very much aware the leadership on the Armed Services Committee, 
under the chairman from the State of Virginia and the ranking member, 
our friend from Michigan, also has these same concerns. In particular, 
Virginia is a coastal State. They worry about what happens on their 
coasts. They worry about the sea life that is there, as well as the 
condition of the habitat. Virginia has some fairly strict requirements 
to make sure there is not a lot of damage done to the sea environment.
  The rider that was developed would essentially give the Pentagon a 
categorical exemption to the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act.
  The Department of Defense receives 38 percent of all permits under 
the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Well over one-third of these permits 
will now be exempt from efforts made to limit the harm done to marine 
mammals. I am very disappointed these provisions have been included in 
the conference report.
  I can tell you a few other people who are disappointed. They are my 
grandchildren and my children. They love the sea, and they love what 
lives in the sea. I have a child who lives in Florida, a daughter with 
two kids. They know what the marine mammal life is about. They are very 
conscious of the fact that people should not hurt them, harm them. I 
say that because that is the human relationship. It is the human 
experience.
  I saw a picture of one of my granddaughters swimming with a dolphin. 
I thought I probably wouldn't like to be there seeing her do it, but 
she had a smile on her face. I think even the dolphin had a smile on 
its face. But we care about these issues. It is a pity to stand here 
pleading for a reinstitution of provisions that were in the bills 
before they got to the conference committee, that either have been 
eliminated or have been added without the approval of either body.
  It is disappointing to see these provisions have been included in the 
conference report. For decades, DOD has managed to find common ground 
with its training and its environmental goals. These riders do not 
honor our military; they do not honor the will of the American people; 
and they do not honor the living creatures with whom we share our 
planet.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if we could establish order for 
Senators to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be helpful to the Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have been going back and forth. Senator Reid is ready 
to proceed for a couple of minutes. I wonder whether Senator Dole might 
allow him, for 2 minutes, given his responsibilities, to go first. Then 
we would go to Senator Dole, then back to Senator Dayton. Would that be 
all right with all the Senators?
  Mr. WARNER. I think we see the distinguished leader wishing to 
comment. Before we close out on that UC----
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could have 30 seconds before we file 
that. Let me thank Senator Lautenberg for his comments and assure him 
one of the reasons this conference lasted I think longer than any 
conference in history, 147 days, was because of those two environmental 
provisions which, until the end, many of us fought very hard against.
  The House prevailed. There would not have been a conference report, 
basically, if we had just refused to give in on this. Ultimately we did 
not have the votes on this side to carry on in that particular course 
of action. But I assure the Senator from New Jersey I, as one Senator, 
agreed with his comments. The provisions that were in the House bill, 
however, ultimately prevailed. That is what happens with some of these 
conferences. We basically win some and lose some, and as far as I am 
concerned we lost on this one, and so did the world.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will simply add to my colleague's 
accurate description that there was some mention you didn't 
particularly like the way it was written in conference. In fact, it was 
not. It was provisions adopted by the House. There were just a few 
words of modification in the conference.
  Mr. LEVIN. The chairman is correct on that. I concur with our 
chairman. This problem is not the one we have run into recently as much 
as it is a problem of a very great difference between the Senate 
provision, which the Senator from New Jersey helped to author, and that 
of the House. His amendment was a very important amendment and put us 
on the right track. But we ran dead on to the House provisions. In this 
case it was the House provisions versus the Senate provisions, rather 
than additional provisions in conference which were the problem.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the manager and ranking member of the 
committee. But I say to my friend from Virginia, sometimes it is just a 
few words here and there that make all the difference in the way things 
come out.
  I know there is a consciousness between the two distinguished leaders 
on the Armed Services Committee that the environment could have been 
and should have been protected as we planned it and as we discussed it. 
But we are where we are. I hope there will be a time in the not too 
distant future when we will be able to realize we have done some damage 
and change that.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, first, I want to express my appreciation to 
not only the managers but also to Senator Dole and Senator Dayton for 
allowing me to speak out of order.
  There is so much rhetoric about the acrimony between the Republicans 
and Democrats in the Senate. Whatever is written, it is exaggerated. 
There is so much that happens in this body based on the work of the 
Senators. There is no better example of that than the Senator from 
Virginia and the Senator from Michigan. They have worked together for 
many years on this most important committee. They do it in a bipartisan 
fashion. They have done, I really do believe, an exemplary job of 
bringing this bill to the Senate.
  This conference was long, grueling, and hard. But there are a lot of 
conferences which we have been unable to complete. This one has been 
completed, even though it deals with the most important aspect of our 
country--its national security.
  I want the Record to be spread with the fact that so much goes on in 
this body as a result of the goodwill of leaders, but the two members 
on this committee are exemplary. You can't find better leaders. They 
are Members who have set aside their personal preferences on many 
occasions for the good of the country--I shouldn't say on ``many'' but 
on most occasions--for the good of the country. They come from 
different approaches on what should be in a bill, but when it all boils 
down, they do what is best for the country.
  I have told both of these Senators that I feel good for my 
grandchildren as a result of the fact that every night these men are 
responsible for what takes place in the Senate dealing with

[[Page S14435]]

the U.S. military. I say that without equivocation, and without 
hesitation.
  There are a lot of good things in this bill. But the thing I want to 
talk about--and others can talk about other aspects they think are 
important--is concurrent receipt. We started on this journey a number 
of years ago. It was a lonely journey. I worked hard to focus attention 
on this issue. Attention has been focused not by me but by veterans 
throughout America. Because of them, we are at the point where we are 
now.
  The negotiations on this issue alone in this bill were grueling. I 
had contacts with both managers of this bill over the months. It was 
difficult to arrive at a point where we now are; that is, people who 
are 50-percent disabled will be able to draw both their retirement 
pension and their disability benefits. That is tremendous. Of course, 
that is something we all wanted to accomplish. But it costs a lot of 
money, and we are going to do more in the future.
  I want the two managers of this bill to know how much I personally 
appreciate the work they have done on this particular aspect of the 
bill. But I speak for veterans communities all over America, saying 
this is a tremendous bit of work to be able to arrive at this point; to 
think that we would be here talking about a 50-percent disability and 
receiving all of their benefits. A few years ago, it would not have 
been possible but we are there.
  My admiration to the two managers of this bill goes even further. It 
didn't go unnoticed last night as I was spending a lot of time on the 
floor that to my right was my friend from Michigan who was with me for 
the last several hours of my little odyssey. He and I were here alone. 
I appreciated that very much.
  For the two managers, good work for America.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I appreciate the expressions of the 
distinguished assistant minority leader. But he is so accurate about 
the veterans groups. They are all experienced lobbyists. Somehow I 
don't look upon them exactly as lobbyists. They are by and large all 
veterans. They very conscientiously reflect what is felt by Americans 
in their hearts with regard to veterans. They translate that feeling 
into legislation.
  This was a long, long trail across rough terrain over many years. But 
I must say to my good friend from Nevada that had it not been for his 
steadfast and always unheralded leadership we would not be here tonight 
with this provision in this bill. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I could ask Senator Dole to yield for 
just 1 additional minute, I want to thank the Senator from Nevada for 
his leadership in this area, and for his kind remarks. But let it be 
very clear. The Senator from Nevada has led the fight on this 
concurrent receipt issue. Two-hundred and twenty-five thousand retired 
disabled veterans are going to now be able to receive their disability 
benefit as well as their retirement compensation because of his 
leadership. There are others, obviously, who participated. There always 
are. The Senator from Nevada is very generous in sharing that credit.
  Surely our chairman, Senator Warner, deserves a great deal of credit, 
as others here deserve credit, along with Senator Reid. I know Senator 
Warner will agree with me. As he just pointed out, Senator Reid has 
truly been a leader in this effort. It would not have happened without 
his leadership. There are 225,000 veterans and their families out there 
tonight who will receive this benefit which they have earned and 
deserve who otherwise would not have received it.
  I am sure the President will sign this bill, even though at one time 
it was suggested that the Secretary of Defense would recommend a veto. 
I can't believe that will now, in fact, happen. I thank the Senator for 
his leadership.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may simply add, if the Senator will 
indulge me, because this is a very important point about the work that 
was done on concurrent receipt. In the final analysis, the 
administration came to fully support it and worked with us.
  I also salute Senator McCain who was tireless in his efforts on this 
very legislation through the many years I have worked on it with him 
and others.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I have great respect for Chairman Warner 
and Ranking Member Levin for their exemplary work on this conference 
report which will go so far toward improving our Nation's defenses and 
giving our men and women in the Armed Forces the resources they need. 
It is a great privilege to serve with these two outstanding leaders on 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  For the thousands of North Carolinians serving overseas, this bill is 
most important for them and for their families. One of the most 
fundamental duties of the Federal Government is to provide for the 
common defense. As I have said so often, if our young men and women are 
being called into harm's way, they must have the best equipment, the 
very best training, and the highest morale. With this bill, we are 
giving them just that.
  This legislation provides a 3.7-percent pay raise to all of our 
uniformed service personnel, and it continues the family separation 
allowance that helps provide much needed dollars for spouses and 
children when their loved ones are deployed.
  There is a provision to continue special pay for duty in hostile fire 
or imminent danger. I am also pleased that the housing needs of our 
military personnel and their families are so strongly supported in this 
bill. The legislation will provide much needed improvements in housing, 
especially for our bases back in North Carolina.
  TRICARE is also expanded for Reserve components under this 
legislation, something that is so desperately needed at a time when we 
are relying so heavily upon our Reserve Forces. This means our 
reservists and their families will get the health care and medical 
attention they need.
  This legislation remembers our veterans who deserve so much for their 
committed service to our country. It is unfair for disabled veterans to 
pay for their own disability compensation. Legislation enacted last 
year restored benefits to retirees with disabilities who were awarded 
the Purple Heart or were severely disabled by combat-related 
activities. It was a good beginning.
  The legislation before us now goes further by allowing special 
compensation to be extended to all military retirees whose disabling 
condition was due to combat or combat-related operations.
  Additionally, concurrent receipt will be phased in over the next 10 
years for those retirees with noncombat-related disabilities of 50 
percent or greater. And the fight is not over. Our next step is to work 
to find a solution that meets the goal of full concurrent receipt for 
all military retired who are eligible for disability benefits.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will continue 
to keep this a priority.
  I am also pleased to see the multiyear procurement for the F-18 Super 
Hornets in this bill. This is the first step toward basing this new 
mission in North Carolina. Soon it will bring over 1,000 new jobs to 
eastern North Carolina where they are desperately needed.
  The legislation also authorizes $11 billion for the defense science 
and technology program, including $797.6 million for the critical, 
high-payoff science and technology programs. Many of these 
transformational technologies will be coming from new innovative 
businesses in North Carolina as well as from our exemplary university 
system.
  It also increases by more than 30 percent the funding for special 
operations to include over $61 million for weapons systems, 
psychological operations capabilities, and enhanced intelligence. And 
we all know how much we have relied on our brave and daring special 
forces literally on the front lines in the war on terror.
  The committee worked long and hard on the various ``buy American'' 
provisions, particularly the Berry amendment, which I am so pleased 
remains strong. At a time when we are all concerned about manufacturing 
jobs, I am glad we are going to take a good hard look at our industrial 
base to make sure that we give our troops the best equipment for years 
to come.
  At Seymour-Johnson and Pope Air Force Bases, at Cherry Point Marine

[[Page S14436]]

Corps Air Station, and Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune, I was deeply moved 
by the dedication, the commitment, the patriotism of the members of our 
Armed Forces and their families. They make me proud and thankful to be 
an American. I am honored to have had the opportunity to work on this 
legislation and give something back to our men and women in uniform.
  This is a good bill. It goes a long way toward strengthening our 
military, protecting our military families, and caring for our 
veterans. I applaud the committee for its work and urge my colleagues 
to support this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues in 
support of this conference report, the national defense authorization 
bill for fiscal year 2004. At the outset, I express my appreciation and 
my utmost respect for the two outstanding leaders of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, Chairman John Warner from Virginia and Ranking 
Member Carl Levin from Michigan.
  When I was preparing to join the Senate 3 years ago, I asked two of 
my distinguished Minnesota predecessors, former Senator and Vice 
President Walter Mondale, former Senator David Durenberger, and my 
long-time friend and then-colleague-to-be, the late Senator Paul 
Wellstone, for their advice on committees to seek assignment. All three 
enthusiastically recommended the Senate Armed Services Committee for 
two primary reasons: First, it is of paramount importance with 
responsibility to assure this Nation's overwhelming military 
superiority now and forevermore; Second, the unparalleled opportunity 
to serve under, work with, and learn from the two incomparable 
committee leaders, Chairman Warner and former chairman, now ranking 
member, Levin. The advice of my fellow Minnesotans was prescient in 
both respects.
  For all the attention that is given to this body's partisan 
differences and discord, what are usually overlooked, though 
fortunately much more prevalent, are the bipartisan professionalism, 
mutual respect, and shared commitment to do what is best for America, 
for all of America. That ethic is what predominates in the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. It begins with the personal conduct and 
professional relationship of these two extraordinary public servants 
and national leaders, John Warner and Carl Levin.
  At any time in our Nation's history, but especially during the 
unprecedented circumstances of the last 3 years, since the September 
11, 2001, attack, the two wars that followed and are still ongoing in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, our Senate and our Nation are exceedingly 
fortunate in the leadership of these two outstanding men, Chairman John 
Warner and Ranking Member Carl Levin. They have also led members on the 
Armed Services Committee, on which I am proud to serve, to pass 
legislation, first in the Senate with overwhelming bipartisan support 
and now in the conference with the House, with President Bush's 
civilian defense leadership and with our Nation's military command, 
Chairman Richard Myers and the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who 
serve this country with such great distinction.
  As George Washington said in 1793, in his fifth annual address to 
Congress: ``If we desire to avoid insult, we must be able to repel it. 
If we desire to secure peace, it must be known that we are at all times 
ready for war.''
  The succeeding 210 years have proven President George Washington's 
wisdom and the imperative that we follow that advice. With this 
legislation, we have continued that bipartisan commitment and upheld 
that most sacred trust, the protection and safety of our fellow 
citizens across this great Nation and, so much as humanly possible, 
throughout this world.
  The final bill before the Senate authorizes $401.3 billion in budget 
authority for fiscal year 2004 with additional funding authorized for 
the acquisition of 100 tanker aircraft. The Defense appropriations 
measure, which this body has passed, which will come back in conference 
reports that we will pass again with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
will obligate most of that funding, which does not count the $67 
billion in the recent supplemental appropriation for ongoing military 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which means that, in total, in 
fiscal year 2004 we will spend over $500 billion for our national 
defense and military operations.

  Some of my constituents would say that is too much. Some would say it 
is too little. It is unquestionably a great deal of money. As a great 
former Senator and colleague and member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Max Cleland, would say, $500 billion does not go as far as 
it used to.
  But freedom is not free. Today, on Veterans Day, as we honor the 
brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives, their bodies--as 
Senator Cleland did--we are reminded once again that freedom is 
priceless and ever more expensive.
  But the results in Iraq and Afghanistan should assure our Nation that 
the money we have spent has been well worth it and well spent. It has 
saved American lives in those theaters and it has saved the lives of 
other people in the world. It has protected the world from some of the 
most evil forces imaginable and from that most awful of possible 
occurrences, a nuclear catastrophe.
  My fellow citizens should recognize that we are not, all of us, 
together, paying that price. We are borrowing it and passing most of 
the costs of its repayment to our children and our grandchildren. The 
projected fiscal year deficit for the Federal budget for the same 
fiscal year 2004 which we have just begun is estimated to exceed $500 
billion. That happens to be approximately the expenditure for our 
national defense. It is not right to single out defense spending as the 
cause of that deficit. It is right, in fact, to single out everything 
as the cause of that deficit.
  Regarding our spending and our tax policies, which the Concord 
Coalition, a coalition of business men and women and previous leaders 
of this Nation, recently called the most reckless fiscal policy in this 
Nation's history--4 years ago, in fiscal year 2000, the total Federal 
revenues coming from the personal income tax, the corporate tax, the 
excise tax, the estate tax, and the capital gains tax equalled, for the 
first time in 40 years in our Nation's history, the expenditures other 
than Social Security and part of Medicare which we call the on-budget 
expenditures, which include all of our expenditures for national 
defense, military operations, intelligence, and other ongoing 
activities.
  For this fiscal year just completed, 2003, those revenues amount to 
only two-thirds of those expenditures. And next year, if projections 
hold, revenues will be even less than two-thirds of those expected 
expenditures.
  I regret we live in a world where this much money must be spent on 
our national defense. I would rather we could spend the money on 
special education for all of our children, who are now still being left 
behind, and that it could be spent on student aid for our young adults, 
who are going tens of thousands of dollars into debt just to complete 
their undergraduate and postgraduate education.
  I wish the money could go to buy prescription drug coverage for our 
senior citizens and other Medicare recipients that would be as good as 
what the Members of Congress receive. I wish we could provide health 
care to the 44 million Americans who receive no health coverage at all. 
I wish we could rebuild our highways and improve our mass transit 
systems, add to our bridges, and advance our infrastructure.
  There is so much else we can do for the betterment of our citizens, 
but, unfortunately, there can be none of these homeland improvements 
without improved homeland defense. We cannot achieve national 
prosperity for all of our citizens if we do not first and always 
achieve national security for all of our citizens.
  As I said, the experience of the last 3 years should assure all 
Americans that those national defense dollars are being well spent and 
that we are well served, well protected as a result.
  In Afghanistan, the United States military accomplished, in 10 weeks, 
what the old Soviet Union could not accomplish in 10 years: the routing 
of the Taliban and the restoration of the beginning of a new 
government, a government of the people of Afghanistan.
  In Iraq, it took only 3 weeks for the United States forces on the 
border to

[[Page S14437]]

occupying Baghdad, the nation's capital. The difficulties that have 
occurred since then have not been the result of failed military 
strategy or its execution but, rather, the failure of securing the 
peace to catch up with winning the war.
  Our Armed Forces, our fellow Americans--our sons, our daughters, our 
brothers, our sisters, wives, husbands, mothers, and fathers--in the 
words of the motto of the U.S. Army's Second Division, which I visited 
in April with Senate Majority Leader Frist, and others of my 
colleagues--are ``second to none.'' The U.S. military is second to 
none. It is the best, the bravest, the most accomplished, intelligent, 
and patriotic armed forces anywhere in the world, anywhere in the 
history of the world.
  I am especially proud, as a Minnesotan, of our State's and other 
States' reservists and National Guard men and women, who are now--many 
of them--on active duty serving in their second or even third tour of 
duty in recent years. They deserve our gratitude, and, more than that, 
they deserve our ongoing support.
  It is very important, as others have noted, that this authorization 
provides for a significant pay increase for our Active Forces. It 
establishes, for the first time, the coverage on health care to some of 
the members of the Reserve and National Guard, those who do not 
presently have the opportunity to obtain that health coverage through 
their private employers, to be covered not just when they are on active 
duty--which they increasingly are--but year-round.

  I viewed, on Sunday night, the ABC televised report that said of the 
reservists and the National Guard men and women presently serving in 
Iraq, only 54 percent indicated they would reenlist, which is 
understandable, given the severe circumstances they are experiencing 
there, as the chairman and ranking member and others of us, including 
myself, experienced briefly last July in that country.
  I would expect that with the opportunity to return to home and 
families, that percentage would increase, but it underscores how 
imperative it is we create incentives for these courageous men and 
women, and for their families, and for their employers. They undergo 
the sacrifices that they must to be in the Ready Reserve and to step 
in, in these times of national emergency. We need to provide health 
coverage for them and for their families.
  I salute the chairman and the ranking member and Senator Graham of 
South Carolina, who also spearheaded this measure in this Senate, who 
has assured me this is the first step toward securing, hopefully next 
year, complete coverage under the Federal health care system for all of 
our reservists and National Guard men and women because it is the right 
thing to do, it is the humane thing to do, and it is the best thing we 
can do to offer them a reason to reenlist, to stay a part of keeping 
this Nation as strong as it must be.
  They are taking awfully good care of us. It is imperative that we 
take as good care of them as we possibly can. The same measure of 
standard should apply to our veterans who have served us formerly who 
are now moving on in years.
  I note, as others have, with great appreciation, the outstanding 
efforts of the Senate Democratic assistant leader, Harry Reid of 
Nevada, who has championed the concurrent receipts for all of our 
veterans who have suffered disabilities, who reach the age where they 
also are eligible for Social Security and other retirement benefits.
  Why they should be penalized, unlike anyone else in the private 
sector or the public sector, is beyond me--those people who have served 
and who have paid the price with their own physical infirmities, 
wounds, sometimes maimings.
  Today I was at the Korean War Memorial with a group of Minnesotans, 
some of whom could not walk and were in wheelchairs--amputees because 
of the wounds they suffered fighting for this Nation's freedom and the 
security of the world in Korea over half a century ago. Why they should 
be penalized now in their older years for that service, for what they 
earned, and what they paid for with the price of their own bodies, is 
somewhere where we still, as a nation, have fallen short in our 
responsibility to them.
  To phase it in, with all due respect to all of us who made this 
effort--but against the fervent opposition, which I do not understand, 
of the administration, to immediately correcting this injustice--to 
phase it in over 10 years, to me is unconscionable--indefensible and 
unconscionable.
  We have put tax relief for the wealthiest people of this Nation in 
place and made it retroactive. We have tax relief coming in and out and 
in and out and back again within the same 10 years we are talking about 
phasing in this deserved benefit--earned benefit--for our injured 
veterans of America.
  That is another critical task that I know this body, which passed it 
overwhelmingly last year--and the efforts of the chairman and ranking 
member of this committee, if they had been able to prevail, would have 
been applied fairly and immediately to all of our disabled veterans. 
But it is a task that all of us must undertake again next year.

  There are important measures in this legislation that benefit the 
State of Minnesota, as other States. What is most important is that 
this is a measure that benefits our entire country.
  I would say again that the bipartisan spirit of the committee, of the 
Senate, with regard to national defense, both before but particularly 
during most of the 3 years I have been in the Senate, which has 
included the post-9/11/2001 era, has been probably my proudest 
participation in the Senate because we are first and foremost, all of 
us, Americans.
  Even those disagreements that sometimes preoccupy us, that capture 
the headlines, that seem to be the description of this great body, are, 
in fact, as our distinguished Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, has 
reminded us regularly, the noise of democracy.
  It is because we can all stand in this body and express our views and 
agree or disagree, hopefully, respectfully, with one another. 
Regardless, that we can do so, and go home to our families, to return 
the next day to offer our best judgments and ideas, again without fear 
of incarceration or execution or obliteration--that is what is 
priceless about this Nation. That is what this bill is intended to 
preserve.
  I believe that the committee, and the conference committee, the men 
and women serving in our Armed Forces, the civilian leadership of this 
country under President Bush and his civilian defense leadership, the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the command of the military of this country, 
for whom I have felt the greatest respect and regard--I think our 
fellow Americans can sleep well tonight with the knowledge that they 
are being well protected.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I express my appreciation to the 
distinguished Senator from Minnesota for his work on our committee 
throughout the year. He volunteered to travel to Iraq with our CODEL, 
and he is ready to pick up the burdens at any time he is requested. I 
thank him also for the respectful way in which he referred to our 
former colleague whose seat he proudly holds today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me join Senator Warner in thanking 
Senator Dayton, first for the very overly generous comments he made at 
the beginning of his remarks. They are obviously very warm and very 
much appreciated. The references he made to the former colleagues of 
ours are particularly important personally to both Senator Warner and 
to me, and we are very grateful for them.
  Senator Dayton has brought to our committee and to this body a very 
great passion, not just for Minnesota--although Lord knows that passion 
is there for issues that affect Minnesota, including his Guard and 
Reserve that are so close to his heart--but also the defense issues 
that affect every citizen of this Nation. Perhaps typical of him was 
the way in which he identified, with a number of other colleagues, a 
problem for the service men and women who are coming back on leave from 
Iraq and who are dropped off at Baltimore Airport and have no way to 
get to their homes. Senator Dayton joined a few others in this body to 
make sure in that supplemental appropriation we would get them home, 
not just to our shores but to their own personal homes.

[[Page S14438]]

  That is the kind of personal approach he takes toward issues, a 
combination of great passion and tenacity and forthrightness and 
directness and guts and courage, taking on a lot of tough issues, but 
also a very personal approach. We are very glad he is on the Armed 
Services Committee and grateful for the contribution he makes to our 
committee.
  If the chairman has no other matter, I thought what I would do is 
very briefly continue with a few comments. I began a rather lengthy 
statement I was going to make about the Defense authorization bill, and 
I have a few additional comments.
  Where I left off a couple hours ago was making reference to the fact 
we increased the Active Duty end strength of the Army in this bill by 
2,400. That is a small number, given the demands we are placing on our 
troops, but at least it gets us on the right road. Senator Jack Reed 
worked hard for this increase. Senator Warner and I in conference did 
the best we could, given the circumstances we faced and the limits we 
had to deal with. But Senator Reed was determined we would do what it 
is clear to all of us we must do and consider more of, which is to take 
a look at the huge demand we are placing on our troops, take a look at 
the sustained callups of our National Guard and Reserve components 
since the Vietnam war.
  We now are watching them more and more deployed for extended periods 
and repeated deployments of the same Guard and Reserve units. We have 
to address this issue. There are many ways to do it, but one of them is 
to take a look at increasing the end strength of our Active-Duty 
people. We decided we would start this year with the Army where the 
greatest crunch has been felt. That 2,400 personnel increase authorized 
by this bill again is a relatively small increase given the demands on 
our troops, but it is an important statement of where this committee 
is.
  We are also pleased the conference report includes a proposal which 
Senator Kennedy and others were very instrumental in proposing which 
would serve to expedite the naturalization of lawful permanent 
residents serving in the military, and their families. These are men 
and women in uniform who willingly put their lives at risk to preserve 
our freedoms. They deserve nothing less than full participation in 
those freedoms as citizens.
  The expedited and naturalization of lawful permanent residents who do 
serve in the military, and also for their families, has been championed 
by Senator Kennedy and a number of other colleagues of ours. That 
provision is in our bill.
  This conference report also addresses the Air Force proposal to 
lease, rather than buy, 100 new tanker aircraft. The Senate Armed 
Services Committee spent many hours trying to gauge the severity of the 
problems with the existing Air Force tanker fleet and the urgency of 
the requirement to replace those aircraft. In my view, the Air Force 
was deficient in the case they tried to make that there is an imminent 
risk to the fleet, but the Air Force did show a long-term requirement 
for tankers that will ultimately require the fielding of replacement 
aircraft.
  At the same time, the Government Accounting Office, the Congressional 
Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service all raised 
serious questions about whether the lease proposal presented by the Air 
Force was in the best interest of the taxpayers. According to these 
independent analyses, the tanker lease proposal was likely to cost the 
taxpayers as much as $5 billion more than a traditional purchase of the 
same aircraft on the same schedule.
  After considering these issues, Senator Warner put forward an 
alternative approach under which the Air Force would lease 20 tanker 
aircraft and purchase the remaining 80 aircraft contemplated in the 
original lease agreement. I supported this creative approach. It would 
reduce the acquisition cost for aircraft by more than $4 billion 
dollars, while allowing the Air Force to acquire the full 100 aircraft 
that they say they need.
  In order to help the Air Force with its funding problems, we agreed 
to authorize incremental funding of the 80 aircraft purchase, so that 
the Air Force can budget for aircraft construction costs in the year 
the costs are incurred, rather than obtaining full budget authority at 
the time the order is placed. Incremental funding is not generally a 
good idea, but it is a significant improvement over the lease approach 
originally proposed by the Air Force in this case.
  I want to specifically point out the very creative role of Senator 
Warner in coming up with a solution which I was proud to support. This 
is his creative solution to a real problem. We have a need for new 
aircraft. The problem is the resources were not there for them. The 
right way to do this is purchase, not lease. We did the best we could 
to make it clear at the same time we acquire these aircraft, we want to 
do it with minimum damage to the usual procurement rules which require 
a purchase rather than a lease of equipment of this kind.
  I was also pleased the conference report includes a Senate provision 
authorizing the expansion of the cooperative threat reduction program 
of the Department of Defense and the nonproliferation programs at the 
Department of Energy, outside of the former Soviet Union. That was the 
change we were able to make. This is the basically flowering of the 
Nunn-Lugar program. Senator Lugar, of course, who is still in this 
body, is the one who has promoted and prodded and pressed us to do 
this. He has been absolutely right on this program. They have proven to 
be important tools in helping to reduce the proliferation risk from 
nuclear, chemical, and biological materials in the former Soviet Union.
  We give the President the authority which the President requested to 
continue the destruction of chemical weapons in Russia. It fully funds 
CTR programs. But at the request of the administration, with full 
support of Senator Lugar, who really was a leader in this, and the full 
support of our chairman and our committee, we have now for the first 
time, using the authorities in the agreement, allowed the President to 
use these cooperative threat reduction funds from the Department of 
Energy Materials Protection and Control Program to meet emerging 
threats in other parts of the world. It is no longer limited now to the 
former Soviet Union.
  Again, Senator Warner's total support of this change was instrumental 
in making it happen.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it certainly 
was his leadership on those issues, the CTR, the expansion. Truly, I 
joined you, and felt strongly about them. We were steadfast when the 
four of us finally got into the conference and settled those points.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the chairman.
  Finally, I am pleased that the conference report includes a Senate 
provision authorizing the expansion of the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
program of the Department of Defense and the nonproliferation programs 
at the Department of Energy outside the Former Soviet Union. These 
programs have proven to be important tools in helping reduce 
proliferation risk from nuclear, chemical and biological materials of 
the Former Soviet Union. This conference agreement also provides the 
President with the authority he requested to continue destruction of 
chemical weapons in Russia, and fully funds the CTR programs.
  As we have all come to appreciate, however, the risk that nuclear, 
chemical and biological materials and knowledge will proliferate is not 
limited to Russia and the other States of the former Soviet Union. For 
the first time, using the authorities provided in this agreement, the 
President will be able to use CTR funds, and funds from the Department 
of Energy, DOE, Materials Protection and Control program, to meet 
emerging threats in other areas of the world.
  I had previously expressed my gratitude to Senator Collins for her 
extraordinary leadership in this effort. Her assessment on the floor is 
one I join.
  The House bill contained a provision, based on an administration 
proposal, that would fundamentally alter the Federal Civil Service 
System by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to waive certain 
provisions of law governing employee performance, pay and allowances, 
labor relations, hiring and firing, training, pay administration,

[[Page S14439]]

oversight and appeals. The House provision included few legislated 
procedures and processes for the new civilian personnel system, other 
than the requirement that the new system be ``flexible'' and 
``contemporary''.
  The Federal Civil Service System was established more than a century 
ago to replace a patronage system that was characterized by favoritism, 
and abuse. While reform and streamlining of that system is a reasonable 
objective, it is equally important that we do not allow those abuses to 
resurface. The House bill would not only have provided the greatest 
shift of power to the executive branch in memory, it would also have 
put us at risk to some of the abuses of the past.
  Senator Collins and I worked together closely to fashion a bipartisan 
bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee that would provide the 
Department of Defense the new personnel flexibility that it needs, 
while preserving important protections for individual employees. Our 
bill was approved by the Governmental Affairs Committee in early June 
and became the basis for our negotiations in conference with the House.
  The bipartisan approach that Senator Collins and I took on this issue 
met with opposition from the administration at every turn. At times, it 
appeared that some of our opponents were less interested in enacting 
sound human capital provisions than they were in providing as much 
power as possible to the Secretary of Defense.
  Nonetheless, we were able to build some important protections into 
the legislation that is included in this conference report. These 
include provisions from the Collins-Levin bill that would: preserve the 
right of individual employees to appeal adverse personnel actions to 
the Merit Systems Protection Board and, if necessary, the courts; 
ensure that the new personnel system cannot be used as a basis for 
reducing the amount of money allocated to civilian pay 
accounts; provides specific guidance and direction on the 
implementation of a pay-for-performance system; ensure that the Office 
of Personnel Management will play a central role in developing a new 
personnel system for the Department of Defense; and provide for the 
orderly phase-in of the new personnel system.

  The outcome on collective bargaining issues was more of a mixed bag. 
I believe that the right of employees to participate in labor 
organizations of their choosing, and to engage in collective bargaining 
through such organizations, is a fundamental one in our society. This 
view does not appear to be shared by the White House or the Department 
of Defense.
  Nonetheless, the collective bargaining provisions that Senator 
Collins and I were able to negotiate on this bill are substantially 
better from our perspective than comparable provisions included in the 
House bill and the Homeland Security Act.
  The Homeland Security Act authorize the Secretary of Homeland 
Security to waive any and all of the provisions of Chapter 71 of Title 
5, which governs labor-management relations for Federal employees. This 
waiver authority gives the Secretary of Homeland Security complete 
authority to establish any new labor relations system he may choose, 
with virtually no statutory limitation. The House bill would have 
provided the same authority to the Secretary of Defense.
  This conference report does not include any authority to waive the 
requirements of Chapter 71. On the contrary, as the Chairman of the 
House Government Reform Committee pointed out on the House floor last 
week, this bill specifically lists the provisions of Chapter 71 as 
being non-waivable. The bill before us states, and I quote, ``Any 
system established [under this provision] shall . . . not waive, 
modify, or otherwise affect'' Chapter 71. This means that the 
Department of Defense, unlike the Department of Homeland Security, 
remains subject to the collective bargaining requirements of Chapter 
71.
  The conference report also states that, notwithstanding the provision 
preserving the full force and effect of Chapter 71, the Secretary ``may 
establish and from time to time adjust a labor relations system for the 
Department of Defense to address the unique role that the Department's 
civilian workforce plays in supporting the Department's national 
security mission.''
  These two provisions must be read together and both must be given 
meaning. The first provision states that Chapter 71 may not be waived 
or modified. The second provision states that the Secretary may 
establish a unique labor relations system. For both provisions to have 
meaning, the unique labor relations system established by the Secretary 
must be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 71. For example: 
Section 7102 of Chapter 71 states that each employee shall have the 
right to form, join, or assist any labor organization to engage in 
collective bargaining with respect to the conditions of employment 
through representatives chosen by employees. The unique labor relations 
system established by the Secretary must preserve this right.
  Section 7105 states that the Federal Labor Relations Authority FLRA 
shall determine the appropriateness of units for labor organizations 
representation and supervise or conduct elections within such units. 
Nothing in the conference report gives the Secretary of Defense any 
authority to waive or modify this requirement imposed on an independent 
Federal agency.

  Section 7111 requires an agency to accord exclusive recognition to a 
labor organization if the organization has been selected as the 
representative by a majority of the employees in a bargaining unit. The 
unique labor relations system established by the Secretary must 
preserve this right.
  Section 7114 states that a labor organization which has been accorded 
exclusive recognition as the exclusive representative of the employees 
in the unit represents and requires an agency to bargain in good faith 
with such a labor organization. The unique labor relations system 
established by the Secretary must preserve this right.
  Section 7116 provides that it shall be an unfair labor practice for 
an agency to interfere with, restrain or coerce employees or to refuse 
to consult or negotiate in good faith with a labor organization. 
Nothing in the conference report gives the Secretary of Defense any 
authority to waive or modify this requirement.
  Section 7118 authorizes the General Counsel of the FLRA to 
investigate allegations that any person has engaged in unfair labor 
practice. Nothing in the conference report gives the Secretary of 
Defense any authority to waive or modify this requirement applicable to 
an independent federal agency.
  Unfortunately, the conference report does provide for exceptions to 
the applicability of Chapter 71. In this regard, the conference report 
specifically provides that the labor relations system established by 
the Secretary ``shall provide for independent third party review of 
decisions, including defining what decisions are reviewable by the 
third party, what third party would conduct the review, and the 
standard or standards for that review.'' It also states that national 
level collective bargaining shall ``be subject to review by an 
independent third party only to the extent provided'' under this 
process. This language appears to preclude the appeal of such issues to 
the Federal Service Impasses Panel under section 7119 of Title 5.
  While I was disappointed by the decision to include language limiting 
the review of collective bargaining decisions, the preservation of 
other rights under Chapter 71 makes this provision far preferable to 
the personnel provisions in the House bill or the Homeland Security 
Act. Senator Collins' commitment to this issue has ensured that 
Department of Defense employees will have far greater protection under 
the National Security Personnel System than they would otherwise have 
enjoyed. I commend her for her steadfast determination to make this 
provision as balanced and as fair as possible.
  Several of the environmental provisions in the bill go far beyond 
what is needed to address the legitimate needs of the Department of 
Defense.
  The first of these would exempt defense lands from critical habitat 
designations without establishing a suitable alternative environmental 
safeguard. Both the House bill and the Senate bill recognized DOD's 
interest in greater flexibility for military training by allowing the 
use of an ``Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan,'' INRMP, 
adopted by DOD to protect endangered species in lieu of a critical 
habitat designation, which would be far

[[Page S14440]]

more restrictive. However, the Senate bill included a threshold test--
used by the past two administrations--before an INRMP could be approved 
as a substitute for a critical habitat designation. The House bill 
contained a much less careful approach.
  In the course of the conference, we offered a long series of possible 
compromises on the threshold test. We suggested that DOD at least show 
that the INRMP provided a ``reasonable benefit'' for endangered 
species, or ``appropriate protection'' for endangered species--flexible 
tests that would have given the administration broad discretion to 
balance military readiness concerns against environmental protection 
concerns.
  We were met with a complete stone wall. We were told that while the 
Pentagon would of course be ``reasonable'' and take ``appropriate'' 
steps, these words could not be put into statute. Any adjective, we 
were told, would subject the Department of Defense to ``litigation 
risk.'' Of course, the only standard that raises no litigation risk is 
a standard that imposes no obligation. That appears to be the course 
that is administration has chosen when it comes to environmental 
issues.
  Similarly, on the Marine Mammal Protection Act, I believe that the 
Navy has some legitimate concerns about the application of the current 
statute, but I was concerned that the language in the House bill went 
too far in trying to address those concerns. As I read that language, 
the Navy would not even be required to seek a permit under the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act unless its activities would disturb marine 
mammals populations to such a significant extent that there are 
reproductive or survival implications for the species. If for some 
reason this weren't enough, and a permit wasn't granted, the provision 
would allow the complete exemption of activities that would have an 
even greater adverse impact on marine mammals.
  I offered to work with the Navy to try to reach agreement on more 
balanced language that would still address the Navy's concerns. The 
Navy initially encouraged such discussions, but the Department of 
Defense soon began to reject any change to the House language. As was 
the case with the Endangered Species Act, the Administration rejected 
every proposal that could have garnered broad bipartisan support in 
favor of an approach that would impose virtually no obligation at all 
on the Department of Defense to be environmentally responsible. I am 
concerned that this approach could result in real and unnecessary harm 
to marine mammals and a serious backlash against the Navy--which could 
undermine critical readiness activities in the long run.
  Finally, I am disappointed by the outcome of the conference on 
nuclear weapons issues. In my view, this conference report takes the 
United States in a dangerous new direction that marks a major shift in 
American policy, is inconsistent with our longstanding commitment under 
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and undermines our argument to 
other countries around the world that they should not develop or test 
nuclear weapons. With this legislation and related actions over the 
past 2 years, the Bush Administration appears to be moving to change 
the traditional thinking about nuclear weapons, to make nuclear weapons 
more usable, and to see them as just another capability. Or, as a 
recent article in the New York Times Magazine suggests, to make the 
unthinkable--thinkable.
  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 Bush administration asked that this ban be repealed. This 
conference agreement would do so.

  There is some satisfaction that the conference agreement includes 
language adopted on the Senate floor, which would require specific 
congressional authorization before the administration may engineer, 
test, produce or deploy a low-yield nuclear weapon. However, this 
requirement is a poor substitute for current law, which imposes a 
complete ban on the development of such weapons.
  This conference report would also authorize the Bush administration 
request to continue work on a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, RNEP. As 
with low-yield nuclear weapons, the Administration would be authorized 
to proceed with research, but would be required to obtain specific 
authorization to engineer, test, produce or deploy the RNEP. The RNEP 
program would modify one of two existing low 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 that are approximately 30 and 70 times the explosive power of 
the Hiroshima bomb.
  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's pulling out of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty, and when we are spending over a billion 
dollars to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons material and 
technology, these actions would send a terrible message. 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. In short, the United 
States is following a policy that we do not--and should not--tolerate 
in others.
  This is an area where many of us have been deeply troubled by the 
direction of this administration because it would seem at the same time 
we are trying to dissuade other countries from going forward with 
nuclear weapons development, when we strongly oppose North Korea's 
pulling out of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and when we are 
spending over $1 billion to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons 
material and technology, the actions we are taking here send the wrong 
message, which is continuing to go down a road of considering new and 
doing research on new nuclear weapons and modernization of nuclear 
weapons.
  We put something of a lid on it by specific language which the 
chairman introduced on the floor, which I very much supported and which 
requires that before we move to a development stage in any new weapon, 
that there be a specific authorization by the Congress that does give 
at least some protection, some certainty that we will not move to the 
development stage of a new modernized nuclear weapon without thorough 
consideration of the Congress. That, at least, is some constraint on 
that development.
  Finally, again, I thank our chairman for bringing this bill to the 
floor. It has taken tenacity and patience and all the other wonderful 
qualities he has to make it possible. He has a wonderful way of being 
inclusive and open in a way that is appreciated by everybody. It has 
been noted on the floor many times in the last few hours.
  I also thank our ranking minority members, as well as the other 
members of our committee who chair the subcommittees, for all the 
support they have given to this bill throughout the year. It took a 
long, long time for this bill to come to the floor and, finally, for us 
to come up with a conference report. We have a truly talented group of 
members on our committee.
  Of course, as the ranking member, I focus on the other ranking 
members of the subcommittees, but I know I speak for Senator Warner in 
thanking all of the members of our committee. He has already thanked 
all the members of the committee for their work this year.
  I thank our staff for their hard work, including Judy Ansley, Rick 
DeBobes, Chuck Alsup, Ken Barbee, Mike Berger, June Borawski, Leah 
Brewer, Jennifer Cave, David Cherington, Chris Cowart, Dan Cox, Madelyn 
Creedon, Mitch Crosswait, Marie Fab Dickinson, Brie Eisen, Evelyn 
Farkas, Richard Fieldhouse, Andy Florell, Brian Green, Creighton 
Greene, Bill Greenwalt, Carolyn Hanna, Jeremy Hekhuis, Bridget 
Higgins, Bruce Hock, Gary Howard, Andrew Kent, Jennifer Key, Greg 
Kiley, Maren Leed, Gary Leeling, Peter Levine, Patty Lewis, Tom 
MacKenzie, Sara Mareno, Ann Mittermeyer, Lucian Niemeyer, Cindy 
Pearson, Paula Philbin, Lynn Rusten, Arun Seraphin, Joe Sixeas, Christy 
Still, Scott Stucky, Mary Louise Wagner, Dick Walsh, Nicholas West, 
and Kelley Wilson.

[[Page S14441]]

  We could not have come to this position without our staff. If I can 
single out Rick DeBobes' work in particular, I know Judy will forgive 
me. This is his first year as staff director on our side, and Rick's 
work has been nothing less than extraordinary. It is exactly what we 
have come to expect from him.
  I must also note Peter Levine, because of his continuous work. I 
probably should not single out anybody other than Rick, but I think all 
the members of the staff on this side will also understand why I single 
out Peter, in addition to Rick DeBobes, for the kind of work they have 
given this committee this year.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I take note that 
Peter Levine is here and he has been referred to on our side as the 
damage control expert, and he is very effective in these areas.
  I must inquire of my distinguished colleague, was the long hand of 
David Lyles felt in this program, the former staff director of Senator 
Levin for these many years? I somehow see the fine hand of David Lyles.
  Mr. LEVIN. His influence continues. He is now my chief of staff on my 
personal staff. He takes, of course, a major interest in this area, as 
he always has. I am sure Rick and Peter and all the others would say 
having David on my personal staff is a big plus.
  Mr. WARNER. It is a big plus to us, also. I take this opportunity to 
thank all of the staff members listed by my good friend and colleague, 
Senator Levin.
  Mr. President, I want to reach across the aisle, while nobody is 
looking, and shake hands with my colleague. We have worked together 
these 25 years and we are a pretty good team. It is a sheer joy to work 
with him.

                          ____________________