[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 128 (Saturday, October 9, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10945-S10954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RONALD W. REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
2005--CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of
conference on the bill (H.R. 4200) and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The 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.
4200), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 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 the conferees on the part of both
Houses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration
of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in
the Record for Friday, October 8, 2004.)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Levin, and myself, I now ask unanimous consent that the
conference report be adopted and the motion to reconsider be laid on
the table, all with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this conference report represents the hard
work of many, many individuals. I first thank my distinguished ranking
member, Mr. Levin of Michigan, together with our subcommittee chairmen
and all members of the committee. This was truly a bipartisan effort
from start to finish. We achieved an extraordinary piece of
legislation. I am proud to say, at the request of the chairman, myself,
the bill is named the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
We do that in honor of our late President's extraordinary
contributions to the men and women of the Armed Forces in his capacity
as President and in his role as Commander in Chief at that time.
This conference report provides $420.6 billion for defense, an
increase of $19.3 billion above the amount authorized by Congress last
year. The report also authorizes an additional $25 billion for war-
related costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I am proud to bring the conference report for the Ronald W. Reagan
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 before the
Senate for final passage. I thank my ranking member and partner for
these 26 years, the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, for his
consistently constructive help and leadership in bringing this
important legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank our
subcommittee chairman and ranking members, and all committee members
for their hard work on this conference report. I am pleased that this
legislation report has the unanimous support of the members of the
committee.
I also want to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Skelton
for their leadership and teamwork in producing this conference
agreement.
No committee succeeds without a dedicated, professional staff, and I
believe our committee has one of the finest on Capitol Hill. I
particularly want to recognize the efforts of the Committee Staff
Director, Judy Ansley and the Democratic Staff Director, Rick DeBobes
in bringing this process to a successful conclusion. They have led a
great staff, all of whom deserve great credit and recognition. This
dedicated professional staff worked very long hours and helped the
members reach the agreements that are contained in the conference
report before us. I ask that the names of all members of the committee
staff be printed in the record following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. Warner. As we consider this conference report, we remain a nation
at
[[Page S10946]]
war against terrorism around the world. There is no doubt that we will
win this war because of the extraordinary Americans who volunteer to
serve the cause of peace and freedom. All Americans are in their debt,
and they and their families deserve our unwavering support. The legacy
of President Ronald W. Reagan, to whom we and the Nation paid our last
respects a few short months ago, is memorialized in this legislation. I
can think of no better way to honor the service and sacrifice of the
men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, than to provide
them with the pay and benefits they so richly deserve, and to give them
the equipment they need to carry out their critical missions on behalf
of our Nation, as President Reagan fought so hard to do when he was
President and their Commander-in-Chief.
This bill provides much needed benefits to those now serving in the
Armed Forces--Reserve and Active Duty--as well as addressing long-
standing needs of military retirees and veterans, and their families
who served this Nation so well. There were many contentious issues to
resolve--BRAC, Buy America, Tanker replacement, housing privatization
and TRICARE for Reservists, among others. We did resolve them, however,
and I am proud we have achieved our goal of concluding a conference
which sends a strong message of support to our men and women in
uniform.
As we stand here today hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and Marines, Active and Reserve, and countless civilians who
support them, are serving bravely around the world from the Persian
Gulf region and Afghanistan to Europe and North Korea. All Americans
are justifiably proud of what the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition
partners have accomplished in the global war on terrorism. We are ever
mindful that the defense of our homeland begins on the distant
battlefields of the world.
We must pause and remember that military success is not achieved
without significant sacrifice. No matter how well conducted, 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 safer. We mourn their loss and resolve to
forever remember their service. We give thanks to those who serve and
have served their Nation with distinction throughout our history. 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 such dedication and valor.
Without a doubt, the U.S. military is the most capable military force
in the world today, a model of excellence, and the standard by which
others are measured. The provisions in this conference report sustain
and improve on that excellence.
This conference report continues the momentum of recent years in
making real increases in defense spending--a 3.4 percent increase--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 $420.6
billion for defense, an increase of $19.3 billion above the amount
authorized by Congress last year. The conference report also authorizes
an additional $25. billion for war-related costs in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
There are many things contained in this conference report that are
important and of which I am very proud, but I want to highlight just a
few. First and foremost is the 3.5 percent pay raise for our men and
women in uniform, and a new healthcare benefit for reservists who serve
on extended active duty. Second, we have reached agreement on how to
proceed in procuring new aerial refueling aircraft in a prudent manner,
consistent with existing laws and regulations. Third, we have preserved
the 2005 BRAC round--a much needed review of our basing infrastructure.
This is critical for the efficiency and smart posturing of our Armed
Forces to meet future challenges.
There are many other important initiatives, such as housing
privatization, improved survivor benefits, funding for missile defense
and other weapons systems. These important initiatives and authorities
are contained in the conference report before you.
This conference report sends a clear signal to our citizens, and to
nations around the world, that the United States is committed to a
strong national defense. More important, this conference report 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 American people.
I thank my colleagues for their support of this conference report.
Exhibit 1
Committee Staff of the Committee on Armed Services
Judith A. Ansley, Staff Director
Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
Charles W. Alsup, Professional Staff Member
June M. Borawski, Printing and Documents Clerk
Leah C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings Clerk
Alison E. Brill, Staff Assistant
Jennifer D. Cave, Special Assistant
L. David Cherington, Counsel
Christine E. Cowart, Administrative Assistant to the Minority
Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Professional Staff Member
Madelyn R. Creedon, Minority Counsel
Kenneth M. Crosswait, Professional Staff Member
Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Chief Clerk
Regina A. Dubey, Research Assistant
Gabriella Eisen, Research Assistant
Evelyn N. Farkas, Professional Staff Member
Richard W. Fieldhouse, Professional Staff Member
Andrew W. Florell, Staff Assistant
Brian R. Green, Professional Staff Member
Creighton Greene, Professional Staff Member
William C. Greenwalt, Professional Staff Member
Bridget W. Higgins, Research Assistant
Ambrose R. Hock, Professional Staff Member
Gary J. Howard, Systems Administrator
Jennifer Key, Security Clerk
Gregory T. Kiley, Professional Staff Member
Michael J. Kuiken, Professional Staff Member
Maren R. Leed, Professional Staff Member
Gerald J. Leeling, Minority Counsel
Peter K. Levine, Minority Counsel
Thomas L. MacKenzie, Professional Staff Member
Michael J. McCord, Professional Staff Member
Elaine A. McCusker, Professional Staff Member
William G. P. Monahan, Minority Counsel
Lucian L. Niemeyer, Professional Staff Member
Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., Professional Staff Member
Cindy Pearson, Assistant Chief Clerk and Security Manager
Paula J. Philbin, Professional Staff Member
Benjamin L. Rubin, Receptionist
Lynn F. Rusten, Professional Staff Member
Catherine E. Sendak, Staff Assistant
Arun A. Seraphin, Professional Staff Member
Joseph T. Sixeas, Professional Staff Member
Robert M. Soofer, Professional Staff Member
Scott W. Stucky, General Counsel
Diana G. Tabler, Professional Staff Member
Richard F. Walsh, Counsel
Bridget E. Ward, Staff Assistant
Nicholas W. West, Staff Assistant
Pendred K. Wilson, Staff Assistant
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the
Senate Armed Services Committee and my good friend, Senator Warner, in
urging the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 4200, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We began work on this
bill with our mark-up in early May. Since that time, we have spent 5
weeks on the Senate floor and nearly 4 months in conference. This
conference agreement would not have been possible without the strength
and perseverance of Senator Warner.
This conference report will promote the national defense, improve the
quality of life of our men and women in uniform, and make the
investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. First
and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in
compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and
their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing
military operations around the world.
Mr. President, we all know that our Armed Forces today are deployed
in harms' way around the world. As we stand on the Senate floor today,
more than 130,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are engaged in
taking on an aggressive insurgency and winning the peace in Iraq, with
tens of thousands more supporting the war effort
[[Page S10947]]
from outside the country. At the same time, our military continues to
bear the brunt of the continuing effort to stabilize and rebuild
Afghanistan, keep the peace in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai, and
contain the threat of North Korea--while also preparing to execute
other missions in support of the national military strategy.
It has been clear to many of us for some time now that the Army and
Marine Corps are simply stretched too thin, and that additional troops
are badly needed to meet our worldwide commitments. I am pleased that
this bill takes an important step toward that objective by increasing
the active duty end strength of the Army by 20,000 and the active duty
end strength of the Marine Corps by 3,000.
I am also pleased that the bill before us contains much of the
amendment offered on the Senate floor by Senator Daschle and Senator
Graham to provide expanded TRICARE benefits for the National Guard and
Reserve members who have made so many sacrifices and contributed so
much to our nation over the last three years. In particular, the
conference report would:
Make permanent the temporary authority for free TRICARE health care
coverage for National Guard and Reserve members and their families up
to 90 days before a mobilized service member reports for active duty
and for 180 days after release from active duty; and
Authorize a new TRICARE benefit for Guard and Reserve members and
their families when the member is not on active duty.
Under this provision, National Guard and Reserve members who are
mobilized would be authorized, upon release from active duty, to enroll
in TRICARE Prime for 1 year for every 90 days spent on active duty.
This is the least that we can do for these brave men and women.
The bill would take a number of other important steps to improve the
lives of our men and women in uniform. For example, the bill would:
Authorize a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for military
personnel;
Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty
subject to hostile fire or imminent danger;
Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of the family separation
allowance;
Improve the Survivor Benefit Plan by eliminating the reduction in SBP
benefits for surviving spouses over age 62, phased in over 3\1/2\
years;
Ensure fair treatment of our disabled veterans by repealing the
phase-in of concurrent receipt of retired pay and VA disability pay to
military retirees with service-connected disabilities rated as 100
percent; and
Authorized a new program of educational assistance to members of the
Selective Reserve, based on the GI Bill.
The bill would also directly address a number of specific problems
and issues that have arisen in the course of our continuing operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
First, the bill would provide our Armed Forces new flexibility to
respond to changing circumstances on the ground by authorizing the use
of up to $300 million for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in
Iraq and Afghanistan, under which commanders may use funds for small
humanitarian and reconstruction projects; authorizing the use of up to
$500 million for assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan military or
security forces to enhance their ability to combat terrorism and
support U.S. or coalition military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
and authorizing the Special Operations Command to expend up to $25
million of existing funds to provide support to foreign forces,
irregular forces, groups, or individuals, engaged in supporting or
facilitating ongoing military operations by the United States special
operations forces to combat terrorism; establishing a new rapid
acquisition program to enable the Department of Defense to quickly
acquire equipment needed by a combatant commander to eliminate
deficiencies in equipment that have resulted in combat fatalities; and
raising the thresholds for the use of streamlined acquisition
procedures outside the United States in support of contingency
operations.
Second, the bill contains important language from amendments offered
by Senators Durbin and Leahy on the Senate floor, reaffirming the
prohibition against subjecting any person in the custody or under the
physical control of the United States to ``torture or cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.'' These
provisions send an important message to the world that the United
States will not permit, condone, tolerate, or encourage the kind of
behavior so graphically depicted in the photographs from Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. We all know that the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib
and elsewhere have undermined the hard work and sacrifices of our
military and tarnished the image of our armed forces. The provisions
included in the conference report reaffirm that we are a Nation of laws
and send the message that Congress will not accept mixed messages or
ambiguous statements on the fundamental issue of human rights and
dignity.
The bill contains several other important provisions addressing
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These include:
A provision originally written by Senator Dodd, which authorizes
reimbursement of service members and their families for purchases of
body armor and other protective equipment at a time when the Department
of Defense did not have sufficient protective gear in Iraq to protect
our men and women in uniform; a provision addressing deficiencies in
the oversight and management of contractors on the ground in Iraq, and
requiring the issuance of specific guidance and regulations to enhance
the safety of contractor employees and improve coordination between our
armed forces and the contractors who are there to support their
rebuilding efforts; and a provision reauthorizing and extending the CPA
Inspector General to ensure that we have continuing oversight over
fraud, waste and abuse in the expenditure of funds for the rebuilding
of Iraq.
The conference report also includes a number of provisions that will
help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other
federal agencies. These include: the Collins-Levin amendment permitting
federal employees to be heard, for the first time, in bid protests
appealing the results of public-private competitions; a provision that
would extend the authority for energy savings performance contracts for
an additional 2 years, enabling federal agencies to save hundreds of
millions of dollars through improved energy efficiency; a provision
that should help resolve the controversy over the Air Force's proposed
lease of tanker aircraft by prohibiting the Air Force from entering a
lease and instead requiring the use of a traditional multi-year
contract; a provision that would require the Department of Defense to
develop and implement a business enterprise architecture to gain better
control over its finances; and a provision directing the Secretary of
Defense to develop policies and regulations to discourage other
countries from imposing ``offset agreements'' in defense trade, and
thereby undermining our defense industrial base.
Finally, I am pleased that the conference report contains a series of
provisions that will establish a workers' compensation-like program for
nuclear workers who have cancers and other occupational-related
injuries. The program will be administered by the Department of Labor
and establishes a compensation scheme for both employees and survivors.
Covered employees would receive the compensation benefits, as well as
medical benefits under the provisions. The total amount of compensation
under the provision would be capped at $250,000. Also included are
provisions that would extend to uranium miners the opportunity to seek
this workers' compensation-like benefit. Employees can elect to apply
for this benefit or they may choose to remain in their individual
state's workers' compensation system.
Mr. President, this is a good conference report, but no conference
report is perfect.
I strongly disagree with a provision in the bill that would attempt
to transfer from the Department of Defense to the Treasury the
responsibility to provide the funding for military health care.
Programs do not become ``free'' just because they are moved outside the
Defense budget. That is why this provision was strongly opposed by the
[[Page S10948]]
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.
I am deeply disappointed that the House conferees refused to accept
important Senate provisions addressing hate crimes. Acts of violence
and bigotry based on factors like race, religion, national origin,
gender, sexual orientation, or disability can undermine our nation's
fabric by placing in question our continuing commitment to acceptance
and diversity. The Kennedy-Smith hate crimes bill would address this
problem head-on. The Senate has now passed the hate crimes bill on two
separate occasions, and each time, the House has refused even to
consider the provision on the merits.
I am equally disappointed that the House refused to include the Boxer
amendment on abortion. Under the law as it stands today, Medicare funds
may be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest, but Department of
Defense funds may not. This kind of discrimination against women who
put their lives on the line for their country is incomprehensible to
me.
I am disappointed that, faced with a veto threat, we were able to get
less than half of the provisions that we wanted to codify sound
practices in public-private competition of work currently performed by
government employees.
Finally, I am disappointed that this conference report includes a
House provision reducing the authority of the base closure commission
to address bases not recommended for closure or realignment by the
Secretary of Defense.
Despite my concerns about these issues, I will vote for this bill
because it contains so many other provisions that are so important for
our national defense and for our men and women and uniform. At a time
when our armed forces are under hostile fire in Iraq and Afghanistan,
it is vitally important that we enact a defense authorization bill that
provides the training and equipment that our military needs and the
compensation and benefits that they deserve.
I would like to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
Senator Warner, once again for the effective leadership that he
provided in bringing this bill through conference and back to the
Senate floor. Senator Warner's inclusiveness and openness in the way he
manages the Committee and the conference have resulted in a far better
bill than we would otherwise have had.
I would also like to thank the minority members of our Committee for
the able work that they have done in support of this bill throughout
the past year, starting with hearings in the Spring, and continuing
through mark-up, floor deliberation, and conference. We have a truly
talented group of members, whose dedication to the national defense
shows in their work.
I would be remiss if I did not also mention the work of our dedicated
committee staff, on both sides of the aisle. It is the hard work of
this staff--under the able leadership of Judy Ansley and Rick DeBobes--
that has made this bill possible. Rick and Judy and the staff have been
working literally around the clock for the last month to put this
conference report, and I think that the Senate owes a debt of gratitude
to every one of them.
On the Majority staff Judy Ansley, Chuck Alsup, June Borawski, Leah
Brewer, Alison Brill, Jennifer Cave, David Cherington, Marie Dickenson,
Regine Dubey, Andy Florell, Brian Green, Bill Greenwalt, Bruce Hock,
Gary Howard, Jennifer Key, Greg Kiley, Tom MacKenzie, Elaine McCusker,
Lucian Niemeyer, Stan O'Connor, Cindy Pearson, Paula Philbin, Ben
Rubin, Lynn Rusten, Katie Sendak, Joe Sixeas, Rob Soofer, Diana Tabler,
Dick Walsh, Bridget Ward, Nick West, and Kelley Wilson.
On the Minority staff Rick DeBobes, Chris Cowart, Dan Cox, Madelyn
Creedon, Mitch Crosswait, Brie Eisen, Evelyn Farkas, Richard
Fieldhouse, Creighton Greene, Bridget Higgins, Mike Kuiken, Maren Leed,
Gary Leeling, Peter Levine, Mike McCord, Bill Monahan, and Arun
Seraphin.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, while I support Senate passage of H.R.
4200, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005, and will not object to its passage, I am nevertheless
concerned with language appearing in section 1225, ``Bilateral
Exchanges and Trade in Defense Articles and Defense Services Between
the United States and the United Kingdom and Australia.'' My concerns
are shared by the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Biden.
We maintain an amicable and beneficial working relationship between
the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees. In many years
past, we opposed efforts by the Armed Services Committee to legislate
on matters under our Committee's unique jurisdiction. Last June, we
offered an amendment to the defense authorization bill because we
understood that our own authorization bill would not proceed, and that
the Senate Armed Services Committee supported all of the provisions we
offered. We also sought to provide a response to certain provisions in
the House defense authorization bill.
The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner,
introduced Senate Amendment 3429 to S. 2400, the Senate version of the
defense authorization bill, on June 7, 2004. This amendment was
identical to language in our committee's bill that provided exceptions
to the requirements in subsection (j) of section 38 of the Arms Export
Control Act regarding the content of any bilateral agreement that would
waive International Traffic in Arms Regulations--the ITAR, 22 CFR 120-
130--export license requirements for transfers of defense items or
defense services to the United Kingdom and Australia. This legislation
would have, in the case of the agreement with the Government of
Australia, excepted the agreement from section 38(j)(2)(A) and, in the
case of the agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom,
excepted that agreement from the requirements of section 38
(j)(1)(A)(ii), (2)(A)(i), and (2)(A)(ii). The administration supported
that language, and so did Senator Warner when he offered our language
on his bill.
The issue of the ITAR exemption agreements is a complex and important
topic and, unfortunately, has become a major irritant in our special
relationship with the United Kingdom. Perhaps more unfortunately, the
bill the Senate will pass today will include not our language but
rather language that may be prejudicial to U.S. interests on several
grounds.
First, the bill no longer provides the exceptions we sought.
Enactment of this provision may therefore make any future efforts to
obtain such statutory exceptions for these most important allies all
the more difficult. The Senate will now have effectively endorsed the
House position. This may well harm our bilateral relationship with the
United Kingdom.
Second, the language of section 1225(b) states: ``The Secretary of
State shall ensure that any license application submitted for the
export of defense articles or defense services to Australia or the
United Kingdom is expeditiously processed by the Department of State,
in consultation with the Department of Defense, without referral to any
other Federal department or agency, except where the item is classified
or exceptional circumstances apply.'' This language could do great harm
to our government's ability to provide necessary and complete
interagency review of munitions license applications. The phrase
``without referral to any other Federal department or agency'' is new
law, and it far exceeds what wisdom would dictate. Under this language,
the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would not be allowed
to review any case not involving classified defense items, unless it
met an ``exceptional circumstances'' standard. The vast majority of
defense exports to the United Kingdom and Australia that are governed
under the ITAR are not classified items, and while the Foreign
Relations Committee supports expeditious consideration of munitions
license applications for these allies, we are concerned by provisions
that could deny our government the ability to effectively staff and
review license applications.
This concern is heightened by the fact that the provisions of section
1225 apply to all arms exports to the United Kingdom and Australia,
irrespective of end-user. The bilateral agreements negotiated with the
United Kingdom and Australia take a different approach. They afford
relief from export license
[[Page S10949]]
requirements for certain unclassified exports, rather than merely
expedited processing, but they also are limited in their application of
a waiver to a finite group of U.S.-approved end-users. That limit is a
sensible accommodation of U.S. national security concerns, and it is
difficult to understand why the National Defense Authorization Act
conferees decided to ignore it.
I fully expect that the Foreign Relations Committee and the House
International Relations Committee will revisit this issue next year in
an effort to correct the failings of the measure that is now before us.
Section 133
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to review with my colleague
Section 133 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005. Under the leadership of Senate Armed Services
Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin, Congress has agreed
to amend Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2004 by expressly prohibiting the Air Force from using
previously granted authority to acquire, through a lease or purchase,
Boeing 767 aircraft for use as aerial refueling tankers.
This provision succeeds in accomplishing Chairman Warner's primary
objective, as he stated in this chamber on October 23, 2003, to put the
tanker replacement program back into a traditional budget, procurement,
and authorization track. In other words, the Air Force's program to
modernize its tanker fleet must be subject to the aerial refueling
analysis of alternatives, the aerial refueling portion of the Mobility
Capabilities Study, a new aerial refueling validated capabilities
document and operational requirements document in accordance with all
applicable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instructions, and the
express approval of a Defense Acquisition Board in full accordance with
Department of Defense regulations.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona is correct. Section 133
specifically revokes the authority previously granted under Section
8159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2002, to the Air Force to lease aircraft for use as tankers. The
conferees expressed their intent very strongly on this issue in
eliminating all references to leasing aircraft throughout Section 135.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chairman for clarifying the intent of the
legislation with respect to the prohibition on leasing tanker aircraft.
Now, let's turn to what authority Section 133 grants with respect to
purchase of tanker aircraft.
Mr. WARNER. Section 133 bars the Air Force from executing a contract
for the multiyear purchase of aircraft specified under Section 8159,
that is, general purpose Boeing 767 aircraft that would be modified as
an aerial refueling aircraft. Section 8159 would have precluded full
and open competition.
Mr. McCAIN. The Chairman is correct. This means that, under Section
133, the Air Force may not acquire, either by lease or purchase, Boeing
767s without full and open competition. In other words, any program to
acquire tankers must start from the beginning, as the Senator properly
stated last year, on a traditional budget, procurement, and
authorization track.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona is correct. I thank him for that
clarification.
Mr. McCAIN. One last question. Have we obtained an opinion from the
Congressional Budget Office as to how it would score the acquisition of
tankers under Section 133?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, we have. The Congressional Budget Office would score
this provision as a traditional procurement program which would
expressly require the Air Force to pay for each tanker in the year it
is purchased.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I am grateful to the gentleman from
Virginia for his leadership in this 3-year odyssey. I remind my
colleagues that three out of the four defense committees that were
required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so
without so much as reading the contract for that $30 billion
procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee that
put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. That having
been said, the final chapter on the tanker lease program cannot be
closed until those among Air Force leadership who engaged in misconduct
are held accountable.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his steadfast
leadership and vigilance on this critical issue. There could be no
doubt as to the gentleman's sincerity in always protecting the
interests of taxpayers and the warfighter.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, it is reprehensible that the GOP House
leadership demanded the removal of the hate crimes provision from the
Defense Authorization Act.
The provision had solid support in both the Senate and the House.
Under the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Gordon Smith, the
Senate approved it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in
July by the nearly 2-to-1 bipartisan majority of 65 to 33. Eighteen
Republicans joined all the Democrats in approving this measure. Last
week, by a vote of 213 to 186, the House instructed its conferees to
support this provision in the conference report on the bill.
The hate crimes provision is an essential response to a serious
problem which continues to plague the nation. Since the September 11
attacks, we've had a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes
committed in our country against Arabs and Muslims--murders, beatings,
arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001,
anti-Muslim incidents were the second highest-reported hate crimes
based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes.
Nevertheless, under current law, the Justice Department has to fight
these vicious crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Outdated pre-
9/11 restrictions limit Federal jurisdiction in hate crimes based on
religion. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation are not even covered
by the law. How can House Republican leaders say they're fighting a war
on terrorism, when they're not prepared to fight it here at home?
Clearly, President Bush is worried about his right-wing base in the
coming election, and the implication is obvious that the White House
sent word to its Republican allies in the House--block the hate crimes
provision, even if blocking it denies the clear will of the majority.
The carefully selected White House candidate for the Senate in
Florida used the hate crimes issue to smear his opponent in the
Republican primary in August. Former Congressman Bill McCollum, a
respected law-and-order Republican, was smeared as ``anti-family'' and
``the new darling of the homosexual extremists'' and lost the primary--
because he supported the hate crimes legislation. There is nothing
``anti-family'' or divisive about the hate crimes bill. It protects all
victims of hate-motivated violence: citizens of all races, all
religions, all sexual orientations. No one is left out.
Sadly, the despicable smear against Congressman McCollum in Florida
is only one example of the vicious campaign tactics used by Republicans
this year. In West Virginia and Arkansas, the Republican National
Committee has sent out flyers suggesting that ``liberals'' want to ban
the Bible. My colleague Senator Robert Byrd aptly described it as a
``desperation tactic'' and ``an insult to the intelligence of voters''
in his State.
In Oklahoma, the National Republican Senate Campaign is running a
race-baiting advertisement on television attacking Democratic Senate
candidate Brad Carson's record on immigration by showing images of
Hispanic farm workers and African Americans receiving welfare dollars.
We've seen such campaign appeals to racism and bigotry before in this
country. Most of us hoped we would never see them again.
When President Bush condones outrageous tactics like these, how can
he claim with a straight face that he's lived up to his campaign
promise to be a uniter, not a divider?
The administration is wrong to have ordered its allies in the House
to block our bipartisan hate crimes provision. However, this is not the
end of our battle. We will be back again and again, and we will
continue to bring this legislation up every opportunity we can until it
is signed into law. It's heartening to know that we may soon have a
President who will sign it--a President who is honestly committed to
uniting, not dividing, the country.
[[Page S10950]]
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the
conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2005, for reforming the Energy Employee's Occupational Illness Act,
EEOICPA, and ensuring that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program,
RECA, receives additional mandatory funding to pay the workers whose
claims were originally subject to additional appropriations.
I view the reform of EEOICPA's subtitle D as particularly
significant. From November 2003 through March 2004, the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee held three hearings on this program. These
hearings determined that the current program's subtitle D was not
paying injured atomic workers. Subtitle D relied on the DOE to
determine causation with a subsequent referral to State compensation
systems. Typically these State compensations not only add add
additional delay to the process but they are adversarial in nature
because insurers can contest the claim against a sick and dying worker.
As a result of these three Senate hearings, there was a bipartisan
effort by 20 Senators to move subtitle D from the Department of Energy
to the Department of Labor, where EEOICPA's subtitle B is administered.
The Department of Labor specializes in providing worker compensation,
so it only seems reasonable to consolidate the program there.
Originally, the Senate's proposed reform of subtitle D required the
Department of Labor to adjudicate each claim according to the workers'
respective State compensation standard. This compensation procedure,
while insuring that the original intent of EEOICPA remained intact, was
determined by the conferees to be too hard to administer. In my view,
and it was stated in the March 2004 hearing, the proper course of
action to pay these sick workers was to use a uniform standard funded
from a mandatory account similar to subtitle B.
The conference report's version of EEOICPA's subtitle D takes the
right approach. Instead of a compensation scheme tied to each State as
in the Senate proposal, the conference report chooses a uniform payment
schedule according to disability and lost wages, for both living and
deceased persons. Most importantly, subtitle D is funded out of the
subtitle B mandatory account so it does not end up like the RECA
program in lacking the necessary compensation funds once a positive
determination is made. I am also pleased that the language contains the
ombudsman provision, even though it is only authorized for three years.
The ombudsman will report to Congress on the transition from the
Department of Energy to the Department of Labor, and whether the intent
of the reform language is adhered to, which is the quick compensation
of sick workers.
I would like to thank the many Senate staffers listed below who held
together as a group for the past seven months; their names are found at
the end of this statement. Through this strong bipartisan effort, more
was accomplished than any by any single member. I hope this effort sets
a tone for other endeavors that we pursue in Congress.
Elizabeth Bellville, Office of Senator DeWine;
Catherine Boland, Office of Senator Voinovich;
David Cherington, Senate Armed Services Committee;
Doug Clapp, Office of Senator Murray;
Madelyn Creedon, Senate Armed Services Committee;
Angela Becker-Dippman, Office of Senator Cantwell;
Ken Ende, Office of Senator Murkowski;
Jonathan Epstein, Office of Senator Bingaman;
Holly Fechner, Health Education and Labor Committee;
Tom Horgan, Health Education and Labor Committee;
Kurt Kovarik, Office of Senator Grassley;
Kate Kimpan, Office of Senator Bunning;
Pete Lyons, Energy and Natural Resources Committee;
Sara Mills, Office of Senator Reid;
Beth Stein, Office of Senator Harkin;
Kristine Svinicki, Office of Senator Craig;
Katie Swaney, Office of Senator Talent;
Kim Taylor, Office of Senator Bunning;
Jason Unger, Office of Senator Reid;
Dan Utech, Office of Senator Clinton;
Tim Valentine, Office of Senator Alexander;
Karina Waller, Office of Senator Stevens;
Jenny Wing, Office of Senator Harkin;
Portia Wu, Health Education and Labor Committee.
Again, my thanks to the Chairman and Ranking members of both the
House and Senate Armed Services Committees for ensuring that these
innocent atomic workers, who helped win the cold war, clean up its
former nuclear sites, and continue to maintain our nuclear deterrent,
are adequately compensated for the injuries they sustained working at
DOE's nuclear facilities.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of the
conference report on HR 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2005. This legislation funds over $420 billion for
defense programs, which is a 3.4 percent increase or $20.9 billion
above the amount authorized by Congress last year.
While I am pleased that we are able to act on this legislation prior
to adjourning for the elections, I would be remiss if I did not mention
that once again, the Defense Appropriations Act has been signed into
law prior to final action on the Defense Authorization Act. The
responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be
distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for the
policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its
programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate
funding based on policies provided by authorization bills. In reality
however, the Appropriators' function, has expanded dramatically, and
the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision
making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the
authorizing committees. I hope next year we will succeed in passing the
authorization measure prior to the appropriations measure.
The men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces put their lives on the
line every day to protect the very freedoms we Americans hold dear. It
is our obligation to provide key quality of life benefits to the
members of our military. Great strides will be made by this bill
towards accomplishing that goal. For example, this Conference Report
authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military
personnel. It repeals the requirement for military members to pay
subsistence charges while hospitalized, and adds $7.8 million for
expanded care and services at the Walter Reed Amputee Patient Care
Center. Also, included in the conference report is a permanent increase
in the rate of family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250
per month as well as a permanent increase in the rate of special pay
for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month
to $225 per month.
We continue to be increasingly reliant on the men and women of our
Reserve forces and National Guard. In fact, around 40 percent of all
the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are composed of National
Guard and Reserve forces as well as nearly all of the ground forces in
Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. Many of these soldiers and sailors leave
behind friends, families, and careers to defend our nation.
Accordingly, it is the responsibility of policy makers to ensure we
look after the needs of these patriots. Included in the conference
report is the authorization for full medical and dental examinations
and requisite inoculations when reservists mobilize and demobilize as
well as a new requirement for pre-separation physical examinations for
members of the reserve component. This provision is critical to
maintain and, in some circumstances, increase the readiness of the
total force.
In the Senate version of this legislation, we passed an important
amendment to authorize an increase in the size of our Army by 20,000
and size of our Marine Corps by 3,000. I am very pleased this provision
was included in the conference report. This increase is absolutely
vital in our Army's ability to carry out its mission in the global war
on terror. There is no shortage of evidence supporting an increase in
Army endstrength. Recently, the Army pulled 3,600 troops out of South
Korea to fill critical needs in Iraq. The Department of Defense should
be able to move troops around as needed to address critical needs.
However, in this case, we are sacrificing our readiness on the Korean
peninsula because we do not have enough solders serving in the Army.
After returning home for a short period of time, soldiers and Marines
are
[[Page S10951]]
already making preparations for their second tour in Iraq or
Afghanistan in as many years. This is not good for morale, this is not
good for retention, this is not good for readiness, and this is not
good for the soldier's families. Eventually, recruitment will be
seriously affected by these trends.
Additionally, the Army recently announced a new stop-loss policy.
While, I certainly recognize the Army's authority and necessity to
issue stop loss orders, their issuance in this instance is yet another
reason why we need to increase the size of the Army. For all the
benefits in group cohesion that results from extended tours, the Army
will be facing a serious crisis when it comes time for these soldiers
to reenlist on their own accord. I am concerned about the effect that
these stop-loss orders will have on the morale of our Army. While I
still do not believe that we need a draft, we do need to increase the
size of the Army to carry out important defense missions.
Once again, I am disappointed that the development of this
legislation lent the opportunity for the annual buy America battle. In
a similar fashion as last year, the Senate had to beat back a provision
in the house version of the legislation that sought to protect
parochial interests at the cost of our defense industry and American
jobs. It seems as if every year, we fight the same fight in conference.
I am pleased that once again, the Senate prevailed over the
protectionist leanings in the House.
As I have stated countless times before, we need to provide American
servicemen and women with the best equipment at the best price for the
American taxpayer. By following this simple philosophy, we will protect
both the men and women in uniform, as well as our domestic defense
industry.
The international considerations of buy America provisions are
immense. Isolationist, go-it-alone approaches have serious consequences
on our relationship with our allies. Our country is threatened when we
ignore our trade agreements. Currently, the U.S. enjoys a trade balance
in defense exports of 6-to-1 in its favor with respect to Europe, and
about 12-to-1 with respect to the rest of the world. We don't need
protectionist measures to insulate our defense or aerospace industries.
If we enact laws that isolate our domestic defense industry, our allies
will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to
greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be
seriously undercut. Critical international programs, such as the Joint
Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be terminated as our
allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship.
The Senate also successfully defeated an amendment during Senate
consideration and again in conference aimed at crippling the upcoming
BRAC round. BRAC has taken on a new significance in the war against
terror. There has not been a time in recent memory when it has been
more important not to waste money on non-essential expenditures. To
continue to sustain an infrastructure that exceeds our strategic and
tactical needs will make less funding available to the forces that we
are relying on to destroy the international network of terrorism. I am
once again pleased that the Senate put the good of the Department of
Defense over parochial interests and protected the upcoming BRAC round.
The Department of Defense has come out with very fair and reasonable
criteria used to select what bases are chosen for BRAC. I have every
confidence the Secretary of Defense will carry out this round of BRAC
in a just and consistent manner. Sooner or later surplus bases must be
closed. Delaying or canceling BRAC would only make the process more
difficult and painful than necessary. The sooner the issue is
addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go
toward defense modernization and better pay and benefits for our hard
working service members.
I understand that some of my colleagues are concerned about the
potential negative effects a base closure may have on their local
economy. But let me point out that previous base closure rounds have
had many success stories. For example, after England Air Force Base
closed in 1992, Alexandria, LA, benefitted from the creation of over
1,400 jobs--nearly double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S.,
about 60,000 new jobs have been created at closing military bases. At
bases closed more than 2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs
have been replaced. This is not to say that base closures are easy for
any community, but it does suggest that communities can and will
continue to thrive.
Another issue of considerable diverse views during conference
deliberations concerned the aerial refueling tanker lease program. I
would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to praise the
leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner and
Ranking Member Levin for their steadfast vigilance during the three-
year odyssey on the Air Force's failed Boeing 767 tanker program. I
remind my colleagues, again, that three out of the four defense
committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease
100 tankers, did so without so much as reading the contract for the $30
billion procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services
Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee that
put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. And lest one
thought otherwise, the Boeing 767 tanker investigations in the
Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Office of Inspector
General and the U.S. Senate are continuing and expanding.
Under Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2005, the Air Force may not enter into a sole-source
multiyear contract for the lease or purchase of Boeing 767s. Indeed,
the Conference Report makes clear that, at the end of the day, the Air
Force's plan to modernize or update its fleet must be subject to full
and open competition and the traditional budget, procurement and
authorization track. The conference report brings the Air Force's plan
back to square one.
The bottom line here is this. The aerial refueling tanker provision
in the defense authorization bill does much to inject much needed
sunlight in a program that has largely been insulated from public
scrutiny. In so doing, this provision, that was adopted, directs the
Air Force to begin--anew from the beginning--in its program to
modernize its tanker fleet. The Air Force will have to now fully
consider the Congress's direction, prohibiting the retirement of KC-
135E tanker aircraft, as a worthwhile alternative to updating tankers
through KC-135E to R conversions. The tanker legislation in this bill
ensures that any effort by the Air Force to modernize and replace its
fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the
Air Force. That having been said, the final chapter on the failed
tanker lease program cannot be closed until those among Air Force
leadership who engaged in misconduct, are held accountable.
I also would like to thank the chairman and ranking member, as well
as Senators Dodd, DeWine, and Hollings for their assistance in
reauthorizing the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program through
Fiscal Year 2009. This program uses a competitive, merit-based review
process to give grants directly to local fire departments for
equipment, training, and fire prevention programs. Our nation's
firefighters must be prepared to respond to a myriad of threats, and
this legislation will help ensure that they are adequately trained and
equipped to meet them.
Mr. President, Americans are blessed with nearly limitless freedoms
and liberties. In exchange for all our country gives to us, it does not
demand much in return. Yet throughout our history, millions of people
have volunteered to give back to their nation through military service.
The selfless acts of courage and sacrifice made by the men and women in
our armed services have elevated our nation to the greatness we enjoy
today.
America is defined not by its power but by its ideals. One of the
great strengths of the American public is the desire to serve a cause
greater than our own self interest. All too often, our younger
generations are accused of selfishness and an unwillingness to
sacrifice. I disagree. I see generations of people yearning to serve
and help their fellow citizens. Each year, thousands of our young
Americans decide to dedicate a few years or even a full career to
[[Page S10952]]
protecting the rights and liberties of others. They often do this with
very real risks to their lives. They volunteer to do this not for
profit, nor for self promotion, but out of a sense of duty, service,
and patriotism.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the fiscal
year 2005 national Defense authorization conference report.
I acknowledge the leadership of the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr.
John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in bringing this
bill to final passage. Of course, I must also recognize the ranking
member, Senator Carl Levin. I had the privilege of working with them on
the committee for several years and I can attest that each year they
work together tirelessly to pass the Defense authorization bill because
they understand how absolutely vital this legislation is to the
effectiveness and well-being of our Armed Forces.
For that matter, I also recognize every Senator on the committee for
their efforts because this conference report authorizes the equipment,
the training, and the operational funds necessary to support our troops
who are right now operating across the globe to make our Nation and the
world more secure.
It also reflects the service and sacrifice of our troops by making a
solid investment in their quality of life by increasing their pay and
enhancing educational and health care opportunities for our active duty
military members, our National Guard and Reserve troops and their
family members. And that is only right, for today we are asking a great
deal of our gallant young men and women as they guard our Nation at
home and abroad and, of course, risk their lives every day to restore
freedom and prosperity to the oppressed peoples of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
This legislation also recognizes that we owe a continuing debt to
those who have served honorably by continuing to work on full
concurrent receipt for those with a service connected disability, the
same benefit available to every other retired Federal employee, the
ability to collect full retirement pay and disability entitlements
without offsets. Last year we made great strides in addressing the
disparity by which disabled military retirees have their pension
benefits reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of disability
benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And this
bill goes even further by removing disabled retirees, who are rated as
100 percent disabled, from the 10-year phase-in period. Thanks to this
bill, those retirees will be authorized for full concurrent receipt
effective January 2005.
This bill also finally corrects an inequity to those who have doubly
sacrificed for our Nation, survivors of those who served this Nation
well and honorably. First, they sacrificed each day as their loved one
defended our Nation and they again sacrificed when they laid their hero
to rest. And how did we repay them, by reducing their survivor benefit
payment by over 30 percent once they reached age 62.
In the first session of this Congress, I sponsored S. 451, along with
46 cosponsors, a bill to correct this inequity. My colleague, Senator
Landrieu, sponsored a similar measure for the same reasons. This year
we worked together during the debate to include an amendment that would
provide survivors relief from this ``widow's tax.'' I am very pleased
to note that the conferees also recognized the unfairness of this
reduction and approved a provision that will, over the next 3\1/2\
years, raise the percentage of the annuity available for survivors from
35 percent after age 62 back to the 55 percent they were collecting
before their birthday.
This bill provides $420.6 billion for Defense programs in fiscal year
2005, an increase of $19.3 billion above the amount authorized by the
Congress last year. In addition, the conferees authorized $25.0 billion
for additional war-related costs for Operations Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom, including more than $2 billion for force protection
measures, including armor, munitions, communications and surveillance
programs.
In particular, this bill also provides a little over $10 billion in
an area that is critical to the security of the Nation, our
shipbuilding capacity. It has become more and more apparent that as we
engage the forces of terrorism around the world we have become
increasingly dependent on the ability of our Navy to not only deliver
troops and munitions to the fight, but to act as the sea base from
which our forces can operate without restrictions virtually anywhere in
the world.
Yet, as a former chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I remain
concerned about the Navy's shipbuilding program, particularly with
respect to the surface combatant force. As part of the 2001 Quadrennial
Defense Review, the Navy and DoD approved a plan for maintaining a 310-
ship Navy including 116 surface combatants, cruisers, destroyers and
frigates. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the Navy's surface combatant
fleet had fallen to 106 ships and the Navy has notified Congress that
by the end of fiscal year 2004, it was their intent to reduce the force
of surface combatants to 103 ships.
Therefore, I am encouraged that this authorization provides $3.6
billion for the construction of three DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class
destroyers for it is these ships, along with cruisers and frigates,
that provide protection to the carriers and amphibious ships deployed
to the Persian Gulf and around the world to prosecute the war on
terrorism. Moreover, it adds $100 million for the DDG in service
modernization program to begin the insertion of advanced technologies
that will dramatically reduce operation and support costs to the fleet
and mitigate the risk of back-fitting these technologies on older
ships. Above all, we must pursue every path necessary to provide
technologies to our sailors that will ease their workload, enhance
their training opportunities and increase the survivability of their
ships.
However, this is the last planned funding for the DDG-51 acquisition
program, and the next generation of surface combatants, the DD(X) and
the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, are being funded in the research and
development accounts. Although this authorization provides $1.5 billion
for the continued development of the DD(X), including an additional
$84.4 million for the detailed design of the second DD(X) and $350
million for the continued development of the LCS in the RDT&E accounts,
there is a looming gap in the shipbuilding and conversion, Navy account
for surface combatants.
Without a focused effort on the part of the Navy to commit and invest
in a robust surface combatant program, I am concerned not only about
the ability of the Navy's surface combatant force to maintain current
operating tempos but the continuing viability of our shipbuilding
industrial base. Many have noted that in spite of Congress' efforts to
stabilize the workload in our surface combatant shipyards, the Navy's
changing construction profile is undermining those efforts.
I urge the Navy to heed the stated concerns of Congress, especially
those of us with shipyards facing an uncertain future and do everything
in their power to stabilize their shipbuilding accounts both in terms
of budget and in schedule.
Importantly, this bill sets aside $66.5 billion in the research and
development accounts to develop the advanced technologies our troops
will use to maintain their technological superiority over their
adversaries. Significantly, conferees authorized $11.2 billion for the
critical science and technology programs which brings us close to the
goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense budget to invest in the
``seed corn'' of our future military capability.
Much of that S&T investment will be executed at universities and
colleges throughout America. For example, the University of Maine
system has been on the forefront of the development of advanced
engineered wood structures and composites. The bill provides funds so
the university can develop the advanced lightweight structures the Army
needs to meet the requirement to establish forward operating bases for
our expeditionary forces in the far-flung regions of the world.
In addition, this bill also authorizes continued research at the
University of Maine into the structural reliability of fiber-reinforced
polymers composites in ship assemblies that will help define and
ultimately control the significant property variations found composite
plates used in Navy ship construction.
[[Page S10953]]
I am deeply disappointed that the House provision to delay the 2005
BRAC round by 2 years was not maintained in this bill because I believe
fervently that closing domestic bases at a time we are engaged in a
global war is not in the best interests of our Nation.
During the Senate debate on the fiscal year 2005 authorization bill,
I and my colleagues, Senators Lott, Dorgan and Feinstein offered an
amendment that would have delayed the 2005 Base Realignment and Closing
Process, BRAC, for 2 years in order to focus on a closing process for
our overseas military installations because we believed that the Nation
must reassess its current overseas force structure and adjust it to
meet the threats of today. Unfortunately, our amendment was narrowly
defeated by a vote of 47 to 49.
Since then, the President has announced a force restructuring that
includes the closure of several overseas military facilities and a
redeployment of troops and assets back to the United States. This is
exactly the reason we offered our amendment and I continue to strongly
believe that until our global defense posture is defined and our
foreign basing requirements are thoroughly understood, closing our
domestic bases is premature and ill-advised.
Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to
the men and women in the armed forces and their families through the
enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it
includes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.5 percent for all military
personnel. It also contains a number of provisions that will directly
aid the families of service members. For example, the bill removed the
existing funding limitations on the military housing privatization
authorities, which will allow the military services to continue to
partner with the private sector to provide the highest quality housing
for military members and their families in the shortest amount of time.
This authorization rightly recognizes that our Reservists and
National Guard troops play an increasingly vital role in the war on
terrorism, and extends to them expanded benefits in critical areas such
as medical care and special pay rates. The bill approves permanent
eligibility for up to 90 days of TRICARE coverage for Reserve members
and their families prior to mobilization, and 180 days of transitional
health benefits for Reserves, active duty members, and their families
when the member separates from active duty service. It also authorizes
a new program of educational assistance to members of the Selected
Reserve, providing varying amounts of aid depending on the length of
time they were mobilized.
Overall, this authorization provides the men and women of our armed
forces with the equipment they need to accomplish their mission, the
quality of life they have earned and security for their families. For
these reasons, I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to
pass this conference report unanimously because in a time when our
Nation is facing unprecedented security challenges and dangers, we can
do no less.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small
Business and Entrepreneurship, I express my views on the Conference
Report for H.R. 4200, the fiscal year 2005 DOD Authorization Act.
Defense authorization legislation typically contains a variety of
provisions pertaining to government contracting, and these provisions
have a significant impact on the ability of small firms to compete for
Federal procurement dollars. Small businesses will find that this
report contains both positive and negative provisions.
First, I express my deep disappointment with the decision of the
Conference Committee to remove from the act the legislative language
requiring consideration of small business interests by the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy's advisory panel on reform of government
contract laws, extending the panel's term, and specifically requiring
the panel to reports its findings to the Congressional small business
committees. I originally proposed this language as Senate Amendment No.
3273. It was adopted unanimously by the Senate and codified in Section
805 of the DOD Authorization Act.
The work of this advisory panel, like its predecessor panels, is
critical to the long-range direction of acquisition reforms. This
panel, authorized by Section 1423 of the fiscal year 2004 National
Defense Authorization Act, was to emphasize the study of commercial
practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of
acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and the
use of Governmentwide contracts. In making appointments to the panel,
the administrator for Federal Procurement Policy was required to
consult the agency heads as well as the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees, Governmental Affairs Committee, and House Government Reform
Committees. The panel's authorizing legislation required it to prepare
a written report with recommendations and to submit this report to
these named Committees along with the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Administrator, or OFPP.
Curiously, the panel's mandate was silent with regards to small
business contracting, even though the Federal Government is committed
by law to the goal of awarding 23 percent of all prime contracts to
small businesses. My amendment, as adopted by the Senate, responded to
this glaring omission by extending the panel's reporting period,
requiring the panel to make recommendations on assuring small business
participation in Government contracting, and directing the panel to
submit its report to the House and Senate Small Business Committees.
Because of President Bush's strong support for small business
contractors, the policies of Section 805 had solid backing from the
administration. Over the summer, I wrote to the White House and
requested that small businesses be represented both in the composition
and in the work of this panel. In reply, OFPP Acting Administrator
Robert Burton responded that, ``Based on your suggestion, I will ensure
that senior level representation from the Small Business Administration
will serve on the panel. Moreover the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy will request the panel to specifically address small business
contracting and subcontracting issues.''
Some recent changes to Federal procurement laws have had the effect
of decreasing competition, accountability, and transparency in the
procurement process while increasing the barriers to entry faced by
small business contractors. Section 805 was designed to address this
unfortunate trend, and I believe it should not have been removed.
I am particularly disappointed the conference report contradicts the
public position of the administration that small business interests
deserve consideration in formulating Federal procurement reforms by the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy advisory panel. However, let me be
clear: the Conference Committee's decision to remove Section 805 does
not overrule the commitment of the OFPP administrator and does not
prevent the Senate Small Business Committee from closely monitoring the
work of the panel and holding in-depth oversight hearings on its
report.
In addition, I find unfortunate the choice to permit exemption of the
entire landscaping and pest control industries from the application of
the Small Business Act. Adoption of this provision was not marked up by
either the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship or
the House Committee on Small Business.
I also regret the conference committee's decision not to authorize
transitional counseling on federal procurement opportunities at the DOD
and the Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Our veterans,
especially service-disabled veterans, deserve immediate assistance.
However, I am encouraged that the Conference Committee directed the
Comptroller General to conduct a study on this subject. I am also very
pleased that HUBZone and service-disabled veteran-owned small
businesses can now participate in the DOD Mentor-Protege Program,
preserved the parity between the small business reserve threshold and
the simplified acquisition threshold in future threshold adjustments
for inflation, limited the period of multi-year task order contracts to
10 years, protected small businesses engaged in the DOD satellite
procurement against arbitrary changes, and refused to adopt changes to
source selection criteria which may have favored large businesses over
small contractors.
[[Page S10954]]
In conclusion, I again commend President Bush and Acting OFPP
Administrator Burton for the administration's continued steadfast
support of small business-friendly procurement policies. I look forward
to continuing to work closely with the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to
Senators Warner and Levin for their expert guidance for moving this
huge piece of legislation through the Congress. This will now go to the
President of the United States.
One of the provisions in this legislation is so important to me--more
important to 40,000 100-percent disabled Americans. Those who are 100-
percent disabled will receive the concurrent receipts immediately. We
had a 10-year phaseout. That will no longer be the case.
That was not easy, but it is really wonderful because, first of all,
those 40,000 are either disabled, unable to work at all and, frankly,
the vast majority of them may not live 10 years to receive their
benefits. This is so important that these most dedicated members of our
armed services, who are 100-percent disabled, will receive these
benefits immediately.
I appreciate very much the work of the chairman and ranking member,
Senator Levin.
I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Harkin. Senator
Harkin basically had a hold on the work we do around here, meaning he
was going to slow everything up. Senator Harkin is a veteran himself.
He understands that this is not something which needs to be held up.
I want the Record to be spread with the appreciation of the four
leaders for Senator Harkin's cooperation in this matter to allow this
bill to go to the President right now.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in that. Senator Harkin was
actually a Naval aviator. We have discussed that distinguished part of
his career many times.
I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. He very quietly
works on issues. I can remember a year ago we stood in this well when
we weren't able to achieve that goal, the distinguished Senator from
Nevada himself--I think Senator McCain was very active and Senator
Levin. We said: All right. This year we can't get it, but next year we
will. Through the Senator's absolute resolute determination that was
accomplished. He did it for a category of veterans who are well
deserved of this recognition by the Congress and the American people
for their services.
I thank the Senator.
____________________