[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 192 (Friday, December 14, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15598-S15619]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R.
1585. The report will be stated.
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.
1585), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, 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. Under the previous order there are 60 minutes
of debate equally divided.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following named staff members of the Committee on Armed Services be
granted the privilege of the floor at all times during consideration of
and a vote relating to this conference report.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Borawski, June M.; Brewer, Leah C.; Bryan, Joseph M.;
Caniano, William M.; Carrillo, Pablo E.; Clark, Jonathan D.;
Cohen, Ilona R.; Collins, David G.; Cork, Fletcher L.;
Cowart, Christine E.; Cox, Jr., Daniel J.; Creedon, Madelyn
R.; Cronin, Kevin A.; DeBobes, Richard D.; Dickinson, Marie
Fabrizio; Eisen, Gabriella; Farkas, Evelyn N.; Fieldhouse,
Richard W.; Forbes, Diana Tabler; Greene, Creighton;
Howard, Gary J.; Hutton, IV, Paul C.; Jacobson, Mark R.;
Kiley, Gregory T.; Kingston, Jessica L.; Kostiw, Michael V.;
Kuiken, Michael J.; Leeling, Gerald J.; Levine, Peter K.;
Maurer, Derek J.; McConnell, Thomas K.; McCord, Michael J.;
Monahan, William G.P.; Morriss, David M.; Niemeyer, Lucian
L.; Noblet, Michael J.; Parker, Bryan D.; Pasha, Ali Z.;
Paul, Christopher J.; Pearson, Cindy; Pollock, David;
Quirk V. John H.; Rubin, Benjamin L.; Rusten, Lynn F.;
Sebold, Brian F.; Seraphin, Arun A.; Smith, Travis E.;
Soofer, Robert M.; Stackley, Sean G.; Svinicki, Kristine L.;
Sutey, William K.; Wagner, Mary Louise; Walsh, Richard F.;
Wells, Breon N.; White, Dana W.;
Mr. WARNER. If the chairman would yield for a minute, I would invite
my colleagues on this side of the aisle on the Armed Services Committee
to indicate to me if they desire to speak. You have heard the
Republican leader urge that we move along as quickly as possible. But I
will try to accommodate all those who wish to speak within the 30
minutes allocated on this side.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I make the same request for Senators on
this side of the aisle. If they wish to speak during this brief period,
let us know. We will try to fit in as many as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I urge the adoption of this conference
report for the Defense Department. Every year since 1961 there has been
a Defense authorization bill enacted. This year conferees and staff
have worked extraordinarily hard, with bipartisan cooperation, and we
are proud to be keeping up our four-and-one-half decades-long tradition
with this conference report.
The great men and women of our Armed Forces are making the most
difficult sacrifices. They are putting their
[[Page S15599]]
lives on the line, they are giving up precious time spent with their
loved ones, they are driven by love of country and by the call of duty.
Our priorities on this bill are threefold: Care, readiness, and
management. First, care will guarantee our troops have the best health
care and support, both on the battlefield and once they return home.
Second, readiness will ensure our Armed Forces succeed, both in
ongoing operations and taking on new challenges in future missions.
And, third, management will provide oversight for defense contracts,
operations and processes, to ensure efficiency and maximize results.
First, caring for our troops and their families must always be our
top priority. Earlier this year, media reports and a joint hearing of
the Senate Armed Services and the Veterans' Affairs Committee exposed
totally unacceptable conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Further investigation revealed deficiencies in mental health care, in
transitioning from DOD to VA care, and in our responsiveness to the
needs of our veterans.
This conference report includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which would
address all these issues, ensuring our brave men and women receive the
best care possible whenever and wherever their health concerns are.
The Wounded Warrior Act brings new focus to the signature injuries of
the Iraq war, by establishing and funding comprehensive policies for
preventing and treating traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress
disorder, and other mental health conditions.
It provides for respite care and medical care for family members who
are primary caregivers for seriously injured servicemembers.
It requires the Department of Defense and the Veterans'
Administration to develop fully interoperable electronic health record
systems. The act initiates fundamental reform at the Department of
Defense and Veterans' Administration disability evaluation system, by
requiring use of the VA presumption of sound mental and physical
condition when men and women join the service, and it also requires VA
standards for awarding disability.
In both cases, that will benefit our men and women. This act requires
the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work together to
significantly improve the management of medical care, disability
evaluations, personnel actions, and the quality of life for
servicemembers recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred while
performing military duty.
A lot of Senators have been involved in this effort. I simply wish to
acknowledge a few. First of all, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, under
the leadership of Senator Akaka, has been very significant in bringing
this matter together, getting it through the Senate and now making this
part of a conference report. There are other Members whom I will
identify later who have been involved, but for the time being, thanks
are owed to many people for this Wounded Warrior Act.
Our report also includes a number of provisions to ensure that our
servicemembers and their families are able to maintain a high quality
of life. It authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all
uniform service personnel, half of a percent more than the President
proposed, and an expansion and improvement of education assistance and
support for family members. I will insert for the Record at the end of
my comments a much more lengthy list with specific details of the
improvements in compensation and quality of life for our uniform
personnel.
Second, readiness for our ongoing engagements, primarily those in
Iraq and Afghanistan, includes providing equipment, training,
technology, and the authorities our Armed Forces need to prevail in
combat today. For example, our report authorizes over $16 billion for
mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, MRAPs, to protect against the
threat of IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, consistent with the Department
of Defense's amended budget request responding to urgent operational
needs in the theater. Readiness also includes continuing to look ahead
to ensure that our Armed Forces are appropriately transforming to be
ready to meet emergent threats, to address long-term readiness. This
authorization bill increases investments in defense science and
technology programs for a total authorization of nearly $11 billion,
$142 million more than the budget request. It includes authorization
for a number of specific additions to our fleets of ships, submarines,
aircraft carriers, ground systems, and aircraft. Again, a longer list
will be inserted at the end of my statement.
The third priority is management. Sound management and oversight are
critical for us to ensure that every dollar spent on national defense
is spent wisely and that every initiative carried out by the Department
of Defense is done so efficiently and effectively. The conference
report establishes a chief management officer in the Department of
Defense and in each of the military departments to ensure for the first
time that these issues receive the continuous, top-level attention they
need and deserve. The conference report would also address a number of
specific management challenges that have arisen over the past few
years. It will require private security contractors operating on the
battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan to comply with Department of
Defense regulations on the use of force as well as orders and
directives from commanders. It will establish a commission on wartime
contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan to monitor reconstruction,
security, and logistics support contracts and to make recommendations
to improve the contracting process. It will also establish a special
inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, as we already have in
place in Iraq.
Further in the area of management, the Department of Defense has lost
its institutional capability to manage the hundreds of billions of
dollars it spends on goods and services each year. In recent years, we
have seen an alarming lack of acquisition planning across the
Department, the excessive use of time-and-materials contracts,
undefinitized contracts, and other open-ended commitments of DOD funds,
and a pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management
functions so necessary to protect the taxpayers' interests. Just last
month, the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in
Expeditionary Operations reported that systemic failures in the DOD
acquisition system have left the Department vulnerable to fraud, waste,
and abuse. These problems have been particularly acute in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but they are in no way limited to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The conference report includes the Acquisition Improvement and
Accountability Act of 2007 which would address these problems with the
most sweeping piece of Government acquisition reform legislation in
more than a decade. Among other things, it will tighten the rules for
DOD acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, components and
spare parts, to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns,
and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements.
For example, section 816 of the conference report requires the DOD to
review systemic deficiencies that lead to cost overruns on major
defense acquisition programs, and section 814 of the conference report
tightens data requirements applicable to contractors on such programs.
Further, it will establish a defense acquisition workforce development
fund to ensure that the Department of Defense has the people and the
skills needed to effectively manage DOD contracts. It will strengthen
statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on
waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts by providing for the first
time a private right of action in Federal court for contractor
employees who are subject to reprisal for their efforts to protect the
taxpayers' interests. A number of other management provisions will be
included in my remarks at the conclusion and made part of the Record.
The conference report identifies all funding provided for programs,
projects, and activities that were not requested in the President's
budget. For the first time the report identifies the names of Members
requesting such funding. This information was made available to the
general public in an electronically searchable format on the Armed
Services Committee Web site on December 7. I ask unanimous consent that
a letter I signed at the conclusion
[[Page S15600]]
of the conference certifying compliance with the requirements of rule
XLIV be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, December 7, 2007.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Leader: In accordance with the requirements of
paragraph 3 of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
I hereby certify, with regard to the conference report on
H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2008, that each congressionally directed spending item,
limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in
the conference report, or in the joint statement of managers
accompanying the conference report, has been identified
through a list including the name of each Senator who
submitted a request to the Committee on Armed Services for
each item so identified, and that such information was posted
on the Committee website at approximately 8:30 a.m. on
December 7, 2007.
In addition, the certifications received by the Committee
pursuant to paragraph 6(a)(5) of such rule have been posted
on the Committee website in accordance with the requirements
of the rule.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin,
Chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. A few other comments on some specific provisions. First,
the conference report includes a provision that would restore the
collective bargaining and appeals rights for Department of Defense
employees who are included in the national security personnel system. I
am pleased we were able to work out language on a bipartisan basis that
enables the Department of Defense to move forward with personnel reform
without denying its employees those well-established rights. The ball
is now in the Department of Defense's court to prove it can implement a
new performance management system in a manner that is transparent and
fair and can gain the acceptance of the Department's civilian
employees.
Second, the conference report includes a provision to improve and
expand the special immigrant visa program and expand priority 2
considerations under the U.S. refugee program to those Iraqis who have
assisted our efforts in Iraq and similar consideration for certain
highly vulnerable religious minorities in Iraq. I am pleased that the
conference report includes this provision.
I make note of one measure that will not be included in the
conference report, sadly, and that is the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of
2007. This critical legislation would have broadened Federal
jurisdiction to hate crimes motivated by gender, disability, sexual
orientation, and gender identity. I am deeply disappointed that the
House conferees were unwilling to include this provision in the
conference report and unwilling to put it to a vote as part of the
conference report in the House of Representatives. This provision has
my full backing; 60 of us voted essentially for this bill in a vote
before the Senate. I hope our colleagues will support it when we bring
it up for a vote at a future time.
Finally, I congratulate Senator McCain on his first conference report
as ranking member of the committee. I thank my dear friend Senator
Warner for continuing to be such a great partner, when Senator McCain
was understandably unavailable. This bill could not have happened
without Senator McCain and without Senator Warner. I also take my hat
off to Ike Skelton who chaired our conference. His even temper and
plain decency helped smooth a number of rough edges. I will include at
the end of my comments a list of the staff of the Armed Services
Committee who worked so tremendously hard to bring this annual bill to
the point where we now, hopefully, will see its adoption, see the
benefits for our troops and their families and our Nation.
I also want to add to the names of those who worked so hard on the
Wounded Warrior legislation Senator Patty Murray of Washington. She has
been a leader in this effort and I pay special tribute to her, along
with other Members who have worked so hard on the Wounded Warrior
legislation.
The conference report includes improvements in compensation and
quality of life for the men and women in uniform, in addition to the
3.5 percent pay raise for uniformed personnel, including: Authorizing
payment of combat related special compensation to servicemembers
medically retired for a combat related disability. Payment is equal to
the amount of retired pay forfeited because of the prohibition on
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability
compensation; reducing below age 60 the age at which a member of a
reserve component may draw retirement pay by 3 months for every
aggregate 90 days' service on duty under certain mobilization
authorities; enhancing reserve education assistance benefits, including
authorizing servicemembers eligible for education benefits under the
Reserve Education Assistance Program to use those benefits for 10 years
after separation, allowing separated servicemembers to regain
eligibility by rejoining a reserve component; and authorizing
eligibility for increased benefits by aggregating 3 years of qualifying
service or more; and extending the prohibition on an increase in
TRICARE fees for retirees and reservists and increasing funds for the
Defense Health Program; requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish
a Family Readiness Council and develop a comprehensive policy and plans
to improve the support for and coordination of family readiness
programs; and amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow
certain spouses and children of servicemembers residing under orders in
foreign countries to treat their time accompanying the servicemember as
residence in the United States for the purpose of satisfying
citizenship requirements.
The Walter Reed Hospital investigations made clear that we need to
improve the care we provide to our veterans, and especially to our
wounded warriors. Our Nation has a moral obligation to provide quality
health care to the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform and
are wounded or injured fighting our Nation's wars. This obligation
extends from the point of injury, through evacuation from the
battlefield, to first-class medical facilities in the United States,
and ends only when the wounds are healed. When wounds may continue to
impact a veteran for a lifetime, we have an obligation to continue to
provide quality care.
In an effort to better meet this obligation, the conference report
includes portions of the Senate and House passed legislation to improve
services for wounded warriors. This legislation reflects close
collaboration between the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans'
Affairs. Some of the Conference Report's provisions would: Require the
DOD and VA to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on improvements to
care, management, and transition of recovering servicemembers in an
outpatient status; expand treatment and research for traumatic brain
injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic eye injuries;
guarantee combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30 days of
their request; require the DOD to use the VA Schedule for Rating
Disabilities in determining servicemember disabilities; increase from 2
to 5 years the period during which recently separated combat veterans
may seek care from the VA; require the DOD to use the VA presumption of
sound condition in establishing eligibility of servicemembers for
disability retirement; and increase leave under the Family Medical
Leave Act for caregivers of seriously injured servicemembers from 12 to
26 weeks.
The conference report will ensure that our service men and women are
provided with the equipment, training, technology, and authorities they
need to prevail in combat, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Specifically, the conference report: Added over $16 billion for all
known Service and Special Operations Command requirements for mine-
resistant ambush protected, MRAP, vehicles that improve protection for
our troops exposed to the improvised explosive device, IED, threat in
Iraq and Afghanistan; funded over $4 billion for the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Office, JIEDDO, and directed JIEDDO to invest
at least $50.0 million in blast injury research and over $150.0 million
for the procurement of IED jammers for the Army; and authorized fiscal
year 2008 end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps of 525,400 and
189,000, respectively, which is an increase of 13,000 for
[[Page S15601]]
the Army and 9,000 for the Marine Corps.
The conference report also seeks to make sure tomorrow's service men
and women are provided with the equipment and technology they need to
prevail in future operations. To this end, the conference report
promotes the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of
the 21st century, including: Requiring the Secretary of Defense to
obligate sufficient annual amounts to develop and procure a competitive
propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter, JSF, program in order
to conduct a competitive propulsion source selection, and adding $196.9
million to the Joint Strike Fighter program in fiscal year 2008 for
this effort; authorizing construction for one Army High Speed Vessel
and five Navy Battle Force warships, including the first ship of the
CVN-21 aircraft carrier class; providing multiyear procurement
authority for Virginia class submarines, and adding $588 million in
advance procurement funding to support buying an additional submarine
in 2010; adding $300 million in advance procurement funding for 3 T-AKE
class supply ships, and $50 million in advance procurement for a tenth
LPD-17 class amphibious ship; adding $2.28 billion for procurement of 8
additional C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft; and adding $51
million to the budget request to provide increased space situational
awareness capabilities to address concerns raised as a result of the
recent Chinese kinetic anti-satellite weapons test.
Devoting modest resources and effort to sound management practices
ensures that our defense dollars are well spent. The conferees included
several provisions designed to enhance the management of the DOD.
Specifically, these provisions would: Provide that the Deputy Secretary
of Defense is the Chief Management Officer of the DOD, and establish a
full-time position of Deputy Chief Management Officer, with the rank of
Under Secretary, to ensure continuous top-level attention to the
management problems of the Department; strengthen oversight of
reconstruction activities in Afghanistan by establishing a Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, modeled after the
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; repeal the authority
of the DOD to establish a new labor relations system and restore
collective bargaining and appeals rights; and allow the Department to
continue efforts to develop and implement a new pay for performance
system, but only if the system is implemented in a manner that is
consistent with existing labor relations requirements; tighten the
rules for competition between Federal employees and private
contractors, to ensure that Federal employees are given fair
consideration for work to be performed for the Department of Defense.
The conferees also included the Acquisition Improvement and
Accountability Act of 2007 in the conference report. These provisions
would improve the management and oversight of the DOD acquisition
programs, and, specifically, would: Require the private security
contractors operating on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan to
comply with DOD regulations and rules on the use of force, as well as
orders and directives from combatant commanders regarding force
protection, security, health, safety, and interaction with local
nationals; establish a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan to study and investigate Federal agency contracting for
reconstruction, logistics support, and security functions in those
countries, and make recommendations as to how contracting processes
could be improved in the future; establish a defense acquisition
workforce development fund to provide a minimum of $300 million in
fiscal year 2008, and increasing amounts thereafter, to ensure that the
DOD has the people and the skills needed to effectively manage the
DOD's contracts; strengthen statutory protections for contractor
employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse on DOD
contracts by providing, for the first time, a private right of action
in Federal court for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal
for their efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests; and tighten the
rules for DOD acquisition of major weapon systems and subsystems,
components and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing,
cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance
requirements.
The conference report also includes a provision that would build new
flexibility into specialty metals requirements to ensure that the DOD
can acquire the weapon systems needed by our men and women in uniform.
In particular, the provision contains four new exceptions to the
specialty metals requirements: a new exemption for commercial, off-the-
shelf items; a new de minimis exception for items that contain
relatively small amounts, less than 2 percent by weight, of non-
compliant material; a new national security exception for items that
are needed by our warfighters; and a new ``market basket'' exception
for dual-use items. The exceptions for commercial, off-the-shelf items
and de minimis amounts of non-compliant material are particularly
important, because they apply to purchases by the Department and by
defense contractors and subcontractors at any tier, regardless of
whether the items acquired are systems, subsystems, assemblies,
subassemblies, or components. Because commercial items such as engines
and generators are built almost exclusively out of commercial, off-the-
shelf components, and any military-unique components are likely to
constitute less than 2 percent of the specialty metals included in the
final product, they too can now be purchased by DOD and its contractors
without the cumbersome need for a waiver.
In addition, the provision would eliminate the Anti-Deficiency Act as
an enforcement mechanism for specialty metals requirements, ensuring
that noncompliance can now be treated as a routine contract violation,
subject to appropriate contractual penalties, and not as a potential
criminal offense that precludes the acceptance of a product. Taken
together, these changes should reduce the inordinate amount of time and
effort that the Department has had to spend over the last 2 years
trying to enforce compliance down to the component level on major
weapon systems.
The conference report also included a number of other noteworthy
provisions, including: Requiring a report on Pakistan's efforts to
eliminate safe havens for violent extremists on its territory and to
prevent cross border incursions by those extremists into Afghanistan;
renewing authority for the Special Operations Command to provide
support to foreign forces, groups or individuals who are supporting or
facilitating ongoing military operations by U.S. special operations
forces; and expanding the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa program and
creating a priority 2 refugee category for those Iraqis who have
provided assistance to the United States and for certain highly
vulnerable Iraqi religious minorities.
In the area of nonproliferation and cooperative threat reduction, the
conference report: authorized an increase of $230 million to the amount
requested for the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs;
authorized an increase of $80 million for the DOD's Cooperative Threat
Reduction, CTR, Program; and expanded the CTR program to countries
outside of the former Soviet Union and adopted provisions that would
repeal all of the required annual certifications.
The conference report also authorized $9.8 billion for ballistic
missile defense, a net reduction of $597 million below the budget
request. The conference continued to focus on effective near term
capabilities against existing short and medium range threats by
authorizing an additional $120 million for such systems. Further, the
conferees authorized provisions to improve the budgeting, acquisition,
and oversight of missile defense programs, and to limit the use of
funds for construction and deployment activities for the proposed
European missile defense deployment until the governments of Poland and
the Czech Republic give final approval of any bilateral deployment
agreements negotiated with the United States, and Congress receives an
independent assessment of options for missile defense in Europe.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list of staff
members of the Armed Services Committee to which I earlier referred.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S15602]]
Staff Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
Borawski, June M.; Brewer, Leah C.; Bryan, Joseph M.;
Caniano, William M.; Carrillo, Pablo E.; Clark, Jonathan D.;
Cohen, Ilona R.; Collins, David G.; Cork, Fletcher L.;
Cowart, Christine E.; Cox, Jr., Daniel J.; Creedon, Madelyn
R.; Cronin, Kevin A.; DeBobes, Richard D.; Dickinson, Marie
Fabrizio; Eisen, Gabriella; Farkas, Evelyn N.; Fieldhouse,
Richard W.; Forbes, Diana Tabler; Greene, Creighton.
Howard, Gary J.; Hutton, IV, Paul C.; Jacobson, Mark R.;
Kiley, Gregory T.; Kingston, Jessica L.; Kostiw, Michael V.;
Kuiken, Michael J.; Leeling, Gerald J.; Levine, Peter K.;
Maurer, Derek J.; McConnell, Thomas K.; McCord, Michael J.;
Monahan, William G.P.; Morriss, David M.; Niemeyer, Lucian
L.; Noblet, Michael J.; Parker, Bryan D.; Pasha, Ali Z.;
Paul, Christopher J.; Pearson, Cindy; Pollock, David.
Quirk V, John H.; Rubin, Benjamin L.; Rusten, Lynn F.;
Sebold, Brian F.; Seraphin, Arun A.; Smith, Travis E.;
Soofer, Robert M.; Stackley, Sean G.; Svinicki, Kristine L.;
Sutey, William K.; Wagner, Mary Louise; Walsh, Richard F.;
Wells, Breon N.; White, Dana W.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I sincerely congratulate Chairman
Levin, the members of our committee, and our House colleagues for their
work on the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2008
National Defense Authorization Act. With provisions that authorize a
considerable pay raise for all military personnel, increase Army and
Marine end-strength, reform the system that serves wounded veterans,
and help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting and
procurement, this conference report undoubtably contains many important
elements that will help support our national defense and, in
particular, our servicemen and women. However, this conference report
also contains other provisions that are very problematic. In fact, so
flawed are those provisions that, despite all that is good in the
conference report--and there is much--I must--cannot support this
year's report.
In this year's conference report, and the accompanying bill, there
are $5.3 billion in earmarks. That does not even include about $330
million worth of military construction pork ``airdropped'' by the House
Appropriators despite having enacted ethics reform legislation just 2
months ago. Of that $5.3 billion, $2.3 billion came from the Senate and
$4.1 billion originated in the House. The disparity between the two
bills is unprecedented.
Almost half of the total amount of pork in this conference report,
and the accompanying bill, arises from a single provision that
authorizes the procurement of eight C-17 Globemaster aircraft that the
Defense Department states we neither need nor can afford. I should also
note that this conference report stripped out an important amendment
that called for all congressionally directed spending on new programs
and grants to be subject to full and open competition. In my view, the
massive pork spending in this conference report renders it a frontal
assault on this body's purported commitment to ethics and earmark
reform and, in my view, results in a inexcusable failure in our
obligation to the taxpayer.
The conference report also contains troubling provisions that will
likely fail to cure abuses in multiyear contracting, possibly weaken
the ability of the Department of Defense to waive protectionist
restrictions on the purchase of weapon systems containing specialty
metals, and allow the Air Force to precipitously retire fully-capable
aircraft just so it can buy new ones. Therefore, while many elements in
this conference report are undoubtably helpful, I regrettably cannot
sign it.
Clearly, the most egregious single item in this report is a provision
that authorizes the Air Force $2.28 billion to buy eight C-17
Globemaster aircraft. I note that the dollar amount associated with
this one provision, which originated in the House, nearly equals the
total amount of earmarks in this bill that arose from the entire Senate
side.
This provision is particularly problematic given that the Secretary
of Defense has consistently maintained that the Defense Department met
its strategic airlift requirements with the final purchase of C-17
aircraft authorized by the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act and,
therefore, simply does not need any more C-17 aircraft. In fact, during
deliberations with the conferees, the Defense Department conveyed
concern that continuing the C-17 production line would compete with the
Department's number one priority for strategic airlift, the
recapitalization of the aerial refueling tanker fleet. Reflecting that
view, the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2008 included no
funding for additional C-17 aircraft and, as it did last year, asked
for money to begin shutting down the C-17 production line.
In 2007, Congress allowed the Air Force to buy 10 C-17 aircraft above
what it actually needed. This year, in their collective wisdom, the
conferees have seen it fit to repeat that multibillion dollar mistake
by providing for a follow-on purchase, in the face of the
administration's admonitions. At the end of the day, this provision
does little else than subsidize the continuation of the contractor's C-
17 production line, which is nearing its end--a corporate handout at
its worst.
I am particularly concerned about this provision given that I have
uncovered compelling evidence of possible wrongdoing in the Air Force's
interaction with the contractor on the C-17 matter. That evidence
points to a disturbing level of effort--undertaken jointly by the Air
Force and the contractor--to undermine the current program-of-record
and support a procurement proposal for which there is no validated
requirement and which is not reflected in either the President's Budget
Request or even the Air Force's own Future Years Defense Program, FYDP.
In its rank aggressiveness, the evidence I found, and referred to the
appropriate authorities for further review, is not unlike some of what
I observed in the Boeing tanker lease scandal. From those authorities,
I understand that a review is pending. When faced with similar
circumstances concerning the Boeing tanker matter, we suspended
procurement activities until all related investigations were concluded.
Prudence requires that, at a minimum, we do the same here.
This conference report also includes authorization for 52 new
military construction projects totaling $328 million requested by
individual Members of the House that were not vetted or included in
either the House- or the Senate-passed National Defense authorization
bills for fiscal year 2008. On October 30, 2007, the House
Appropriations Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Subcommittee
slipped this bloated earmark list to the House Armed Services Committee
with no public review or semblance of transparency. And, in order to
maintain comity with the appropriators, the majority of defense bill
conferees, over my objections, decided to insert the authorizations
into our conference report. Not only is this is a classic example of
``parachuting'' or ``airdropping'' earmarks into a conference report in
the dead of night, which we ostensibly sought to stop with the
enactment of a new ethics law two months ago, it is also an abrogation
of our role as authorizers to fully vet each new matter we consider--
rather than blindly accept what the appropriators tell us. Despite the
rhetoric of a ``new day'' for accountability, allowing such practices
reflects that there is no transparency in this process. Regrettably,
the conferees appear content to hide behind parliamentary tricks and
mental gymnastics while knowing full well the spirit and intent of the
reform we sought to achieve earlier this year. Saying that over $300
million in pork construction projects can be added in conference means
that there is essentially no limit on how much a program or a project
can balloon during conference. This is a ``hog call'' if I've ever
heard one.
Senate amendment 828 to the Senate-passed Bill applied Federal
competitive bidding laws and regulations to congressional earmarks.
Rather modest in what it sought to do, that provision would not have
prohibited Members of Congress from earmarking defense dollars.
Instead, it simply would have ensured that taxpayers received the
advantage of a competitive process. Under that provision, a Member of
Congress in either body would have retained the prerogative to fund an
activity that he deems worthy, but a full and open competitive process
would be used to select the most qualified entity to undertake the
project. If an activity is important enough to require earmarking of
taxpayers dollars, that legislative proposal would simply have required
transparency and full and open
[[Page S15603]]
competition. Moreover, waiver authority was built into the provision to
allow the Department reasonable flexibility in its implementation. In
my view, that important provision should have been included in this
conference report.
The provision that I originally offered as an amendment to the Senate
version of the bill clarified how much savings would be required to
achieve under a multiyear contract before Congress could authorize that
procurement mechanism to buy the largest and most expensive weapon
systems. That clarification was important to help the Defense
Department use multiyear contracts responsibly to capitalize on mature,
well-run programs by buying at economically efficient rates--not to
insulate poorly performing systems from effective congressional
oversight. While the multiyear contracting provision in the conference
report is helpful, it contains language that allows the Department to
waive its stringent requirements in a way that eviscerates the
provision's underlying intent. In other words, the waiver provision
appears to create a loophole through which the Department can keep
chronically poorly performing programs ``on rails'' and away from
meaningful congressional oversight.
For some time now, I have been concerned about how the Air Force, in
particular, has been creating requirements for procuring new aircraft
by precipitously retiring older but reliable, platforms to bulk up buys
of new aircraft platforms. This has required this committee to
legislatively prohibit, in previous authorization bills, the retirement
of KC-135s, B-52s, C-5s, U-2s and C-130s. In this year's conference
report, we have unwisely relieved at least a couple of those
restrictions.
The Air Force's number one acquisition priority is to replace its
aged KC-135 fleet of tanker aircraft. The Air Force's original attempt
to replace that fleet led to the now infamous Boeing tanker lease
scandal, which resulted in jail-time for a top Air Force procurement
official and Boeing's chief operating officer.
This time, the Air Force intends to implement a ``comprehensive''
tanker replacement strategy, one component of which is the purchase of
a new, commercial-derivative tanker. On that component, two contractor
teams have submitted offers responding to a request for proposals,
which the Air Force is now reviewing. A contract may be awarded as soon
as late February 2008. Unfortunately, on the other two components of
the strategy--implementing a complementary commercial fee-for-service
program and re-engining some of its older KC-135s--the Air Force has
made no serious headway. Against that backdrop, I remain concerned that
the Air Force may simply maximize its desired purchase of new planes.
Several studies conducted by both the Air Force and independent groups
indicate that the current KC-135 fleet is viable for the intermediate
term. Given that taxpayers have made a significant investment in the
KC-135 fleet, the Air Force should not be permitted to precipitously
retire them simply because it wants to buy as many new tanker aircraft
as possible.
The ``Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC-135 Assessment Report''
cautioned that, before retiring KC-135s, the Air Force needs to conduct
destructive testing so it can proceed on an informed basis. However,
the Air Force has not complied with that recommendation. Nonetheless,
section 135 of this conference report allows the Secretary of the Air
Force to retire immediately 48 KC-135E tanker aircraft. It also allows
the Air Force to start retiring the remaining 37 KC-135E during fiscal
year 08 after contract award for the KC-X tanker replacement aircraft.
Once again, without reasonably restricting the Air Force's retirement
of KC-135s, we may have lost the ability to ensure that the Air Force
does not replace its current fleet of tanker aircraft by simply
maximizing its purchase of commercial-derivative aircraft a solution
that simply disregards the interests of the taxpayer.
A provision on the retirement of C-130 airlift aircraft is similarly
improvident. That provision, section 133, would repeal the requirement
in the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act that any C-
130E aircraft retired in fiscal year 2007 be maintained in a condition
that would allow recall of the aircraft to active service. Another
provision, section 134, would allow for the retirement of 29 more C-
130E aircraft in fiscal year 2008.
Without the Department's requirements for tactical airlift capability
well-defined, it would be premature to retire any C-130 aircraft, at
least until: (1) an Air Force Fleet Viability Board has conducted an
assessment of the C-130E/H fleet of aircraft; and (2) the results of
the Intra-Theater Lift Capability Study, ITLCS, phases 1 and 2,
identify the right mix and number of intra-theater airlift assets.
Therefore, I believe that we should not retire any more C-130 aircraft
until the Department determines what its intra-theater lift
requirements are and that aircraft already should not be stripped for
parts or destroyed until we have the results of the requirements
analysis.
This conference report also contains several policy provisions that
weakens the broad waiver authority that the Department of Defense
currently has with regard to weapon systems that contain specialty
metals. For a long time, I have tried to lessen the impact of, if not
entirely eliminate, ``buy America'' restrictions, including the Berry
amendment, in Defense Department purchases. Legislation restricting the
Department's purchases along those lines tend to direct spending for
the benefit of a particular entity or congressional district. So, I am
concerned that, with the specialty metals/``buy America'' policy
provisions contained in this conference report, we may have further
opened the door for more pork legislation in the future. Finally, as
those policy provisions were not in either the Senate- or the House-
passed defense bills, I question whether those provisions should have
been added in conference.
Another objectionable provision in the conference report would
establish a policy that future major combatant ships be nuclear-
powered, regardless of requirements, cost, or other considerations that
go into selecting a new ship class propulsion system. The Secretary of
Defense could only seek a waiver of this requirement if he determines
that nuclear propulsion for a future ship is not in the national
interest. If the next cruiser class, CG(X), is required to be nuclear-
powered as a result of this policy, its cost will increase by greater
than $1 billion and the ship will be delayed several years. The result
would be significantly increased cost, fewer ships, and delays in
fielding the next major surface combatant class of ships. At a time
when the Secretary of the Navy is doing all he can to reform how the
Navy goes about buying its biggest and most expensive weapon systems,
this provision is a move in the wrong direction.
The conference report also includes a provision that sets a very
dangerous precedent by in effect forcing the Department to take action
for the benefit of certain Members of Congress. Section 2846, entitled
``Transfer of jurisdiction, former Nike missile site, Grosse Ile,
Michigan'', mandates that the Department of Defense spend funds from an
account that has historically been guided by an objective assessment of
the risk to human health. This provision requires the Corps of
Engineers to clean up a site to a higher standard than the Army deems
necessary in Gross Ile, Michigan, so the property can be used as a
wildlife refuge. Let me be clear: I have nothing against refuges. But,
the Department of Defense has over 9,900 properties evaluated as
Formerly Used Defense Sites, FUDS, and must conduct cleanup projects at
more than 3,000 of them. The FUDS program costs the Department over
$250 million a year and is expected to cost the Department $18.7
billion when all said and done.
We simply cannot afford allowing individual Members of Congress to
move their pet projects to the top of the priority list, completely
disregarding the risk to health and safety of other more vital
projects. Clean-up should be based on the priority of risk, not
political muscle.
There was another conference decision which I believe may be very
detrimental to our role as an authorizing committee. Senate-passed
bill, Senate section 2811, ``General Military Construction Transfer
Authority,'' was intended to extend to military construction accounts
the current congressional review process for requests from
[[Page S15604]]
the Department of Defense for the reprogramming of funds between
accounts. Currently, for every funding account except military
construction, the Secretary of Defense notifies all four defense
committees of his intent to transfer funds from one account to another
during the year to better manage obligations. However, for military
construction accounts, the Secretary sends a notification only to the
House and Senate subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs. The Senate provision sought to extend that oversight
responsibility to our conferees on the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees. That was a good provision. It was included in our Senate
markup without question and was agreed to by both the House and Senate
staffs during conference.
However, at the last moment during conference deliberations, members
from the House Appropriations Committee persuaded my fellow conference
leaders to drop the provision for no substantive reason, other than it
would diminish the power of the appropriators. This capitulation is
very troubling. The provision was written in response to recent actions
by the Appropriations subcommittees that either held up military
construction reprogramming requests based on parochial interests or
approved reprogramming requests over the objections of this committee's
staff. In particular, we were concerned by the proposal made by the Air
Force to the Committees on Appropriations in January 2007 to use the
existing reprogramming process to carry out a ``new start'' military
construction project that had not been authorized by law--a clear
challenge to the role of the authorizing committees over new start
military construction.
The committee was also concerned that the appropriators in both
bodies approved a reprogramming in July 2007 for a military
construction project for which no funds were appropriated in fiscal
year 2007, as a favor to a particular Member--disregarding the policy
implications of the action. Also, earlier this year, the Senate
appropriators held up approval of two reprogramming requests for
projects in Virginia in order to force the Department to act on other
reprogramming requests. If this committee had equal authority, we would
have the ability to prevent such shamelessly parochial and
institutionally divisive behavior. Senate section 2811 would have put
an end to such activity between the appropriators and authorizers by
establishing equal footing with regard to reprogramming requests on
military construction projects. I am at a complete loss why it was
dropped from our conference agreement.
Again, while there is much in this year's conference report that is
very worthwhile and helpful to helping provide for the national
defense, the elements contained within it that move in the wrong
direction are too numerous, too large, and too costly for any Member to
ignore. With those elements in this conference report, I simply cannot
in good conscience tell the American people that this is our best--that
this conference report represents our best vision for the country on
matters that relate to, or affect, our servicemen and women and how we
secure our national security interests abroad. By declining to sign
this conference report today, I respectfully convey to the chairman and
my fellow conferees my belief that we can, and for the sake of both the
warfighter and taxpayer, we must do better.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues,
both in the House and Senate, for their tremendous bipartisan work on
the fiscal year 2008 national defense authorization bill.
The Congress has passed the national defense authorization bill every
year since 1959, and I have had the great privilege to have had a hand
in this annual piece of legislation each of my 29 years in the Senate.
This bill accomplishes the following: supports our troops deployed in
harm's way; bolsters the readiness of our Armed Forces; reforms the
acquisition practices of the Department of Defense; addresses the
problems in military medical care uncovered at Walter Reed and
elsewhere; provides needed equipment to protect our deployed forces;
and strengthens the quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and marines, and their families.
To care for those who serve in uniform, their families, and retired
veterans, this legislation authorizes $696.4 billion which includes the
base budget for fiscal year 2008--$507 billion--and the President's
emergency supplemental requests for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global
war on terrorism--$189 billion--made in February, July, and October.
It authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all
uniformed service personnel.
It continues the authorization to pay over 25 separate bonuses and
special pay critical to successful recruiting and retention.
It authorizes fiscal year 2008 end strengths for the Army and Marine
Corps of 525,400 and 189,000 respectively, which is an increase of
13,000 for the Army and 9,000 for the Marine Corps.
It includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which will improve health care
and benefits for recovering veterans, recovering servicemembers and
their families, and begin the process of reform of the Department of
Defense, DOD, and Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, disability
evaluation systems.
It requires DOD and Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a
comprehensive policy on improvements to care, management, and
transition of recovering servicemembers in an outpatient status.
It authorizes payment of combat-related special compensation to
servicemembers medically retired for a combat-related disability.
Payment is equal to the amount of retired pay forfeited because of the
prohibition on concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA
disability compensation.
It reduces below age 60 the age at which a member of a Reserve
component may draw retirement pay by 3 months for every aggregate 90
days' service on active duty under certain mobilization authorities.
It guarantees combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30
days of their request.
It includes several provisions to continue to provide best quality
health care to servicemembers and their families and provisions that
would enhance the ability of the services to attract health care
personnel.
It guarantees combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30
days of their request.
To ensure that servicemembers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are
properly equipped, this legislation adds over $17 billion for mine
resistant ambush protected--MRAP--vehicles that improve protection for
our troops exposed to the improvised explosive device, IED, threat in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
It funds over $4 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device
Defeat Office, JIEDDO.
It authorizes funds to procure ammunition, modernize ammunition
plants, and protect and enhance military training ranges.
To meet current and future threats to our country's national
security, this bill requires the DOD to develop a competitive engine
program for the Joint Strike Fighter and authorized $480 million for
this purpose.
It authorizes more than $13 billion for Navy shipbuilding.
It provides mulltiyear procurement authority for fiscal years 2009
through 2013 Virginia-class submarines, and adding $588 million in
advance procurement funding to support buying an additional submarine
in 2010.
It adds $51 million to the budget request to provide increased space
situational awareness capabilities to address concerns raised as a
result of the recent Chinese kinetic antisatellite weapons test.
It authorizes $220.4 billion to meet the operation and maintenance
requirements of the services to support combat operations and improve
the readiness of deploying and nondeploying forces.
To ensure for the effective oversight of Department of Defense
contracts, contractors, and acquisition workforce, this legislation
requires private security contractors operating on the battlefield in
Iraq and Afghanistan to comply with DOD regulations and rules on the
use of force, as well as orders and directives from combatant
commanders regarding force protection, security, health, safety, and
interaction with local nationals.
[[Page S15605]]
It establishes a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan to study and investigate Federal agency contracting for
reconstruction, logistics support, and security functions in those
countries, and make recommendations as to how contracting processes
could be improved in the future.
It strengthens oversight of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan
by establishing a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan
Reconstruction, modeled after the Special Inspector General for Iraq
Reconstruction.
It includes the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of
2007, which would improve the management and oversight of DOD
acquisition programs.
It strengthens statutory protections for contractor employees who
blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts by
providing, for the first time, a private right of action in Federal
court for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal for their
efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests.
To recognize the responsibilities and enhance the role of the
National Guard, this legislation includes the National Guard
Empowerment Act which authorizes promotion of the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau to the rank of four-star general and recognizes the
responsibilities and enhanced role of the National Guard.
Finally, to ensure the effective security and remediation of
Department of Energy sites, this act supports enhanced security at
Department of Energy, DOE, nuclear sites and the development of new
technology to promote environmental cleanup of DOE sites.
Madam President, this important bill will maintain our readiness and
support the military's transformation to meet the 21st century's
threats. I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation.
Madam President, I direct persons to the committee report, the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. On page 334
there appears a provision, section 1079, entitled: ``Communications
with the Committees On Armed Services of the Senate and the House of
Representatives.'' I will read a part of it to familiarize people:
The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the
director of a national intelligence center, or the head of
any element of the intelligence community shall, not later
than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair
or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House
of Representatives--
The Senate and the House provide certain information.
I worked with this provision at the time it was framed in our
committee, and I want to say for the record that it was never intended,
nor do I personally find any wording in this amendment, which would
include the daily brief provided to the President of the United States.
That is the exclusive property under executive privilege of the
President.
Madam President, I wish to add on that list on the Wounded Warrior
Senator Webb, who took a very active role in that.
Our respective leaders have asked us to keep this debate limited as
best we can. I know of only one speaker on my side who is seeking 5
minutes. I think our distinguished chairman covered the matter very
carefully as he always does.
It has been a privilege for me to participate in the preparation of
this conference report and to work on the other committee matters
throughout the year. As the chairman said, Senator McCain is on a
mission, a mission I happen to support strongly. I am happy to work
with Senator Levin instead of Senator McCain. His chief of staff,
seated next to me, Mike Kostiw, and I were in constant contact with
him, and in every way Senator McCain had hands on in the affairs of the
committee this year as ranking member in the preparation of this
report.
Senator McCain and I have known each other ever since I was Secretary
of the Navy. He was then in the prison camps. Shortly thereafter, when
he joyously returned home to a nation that welcomed him with open
heart, we have been friends ever since. It was quite logical for him to
ask me to work in his stead. This is the 29th year Senator Levin and I
have occupied these two chairs. Particularly the last 17 years, either
I have been chairman or he has been chairman or ranking member of the
committee. Our partnership is rather extraordinary. I anticipate he
will maintain and continue that strong effort to make this committee
what it is, nonpartisan in its function, in large measure, with Senator
McCain after my departure a year hence.
Again, I salute my good friend for his leadership as chairman this
year. He is always open to me and other members of the Republican side
of the committee to entertain their views very fairly and objectively,
thoroughly. And together with our superb professional staff, we have
managed to put together a very commendable bill for the Senate and now
this conference report for the whole of the Congress.
Having said that, I join in his recognition of Ike Skelton and Duncan
Hunter, the two partners we have worked with for many years on the
House side. This was his first year as chairman for Congressman
Skelton. We worked in the final stages of the preparation of this bill,
the four of us, on many key issues to resolve differences between the
House and Senate. Ike Skelton is an extraordinary leader. He has been
on that committee many years and has been about as long as we have in
the Congress. We are fortunate to have his services, as we do the
services of Senator Levin.
I yield the floor. The chairman may wish to recognize a speaker on
his side. Then I will recognize a speaker on our side.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, before I yield time to Senator Murray,
let me all too briefly thank my friend from Virginia. I treasure this
relationship. It has been extraordinarily meaningful to me and
important to me and our wives. We still have a year and a few months to
go and we will make fullest use of all that time. In the meantime, let
me extend my thanks to him and my appreciation for the friendship and
support he has always provided, not just to me but to every Member of
the Senate.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my good friend. I wish to add
our respective wives who have spent long hours waiting for us as we
have traveled so many times in these almost 30 years to places all over
the world together and left them at home, and many nights late
here. They have been a good team to support both of us.
Mr. LEVIN. Indeed, they have.
I thank the Senator for those comments, and I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Michigan and
the Senator from Virginia for their tremendous work on this
legislation.
I am glad we are considering this bill. And I have come to the floor
today to highlight a section of this legislation that's especially
important to me because it will make a huge difference in the lives of
our servicemembers and veterans--the Wounded Warriors Act.
The Wounded Warriors Act has already passed the Senate once on its
own. To ensure it passed Congress this year, it was added to this
Defense bill, too. It is taken longer than I had hoped to get to this
point. But today, I'm optimistic that we can pass this bill, and get
these much-needed improvements to our troops and our veterans soon.
This is a major step toward real change.
I want to talk about how we got to this point, and why this bill is
so necessary. This February, the Washington Post stunned us all with a
series of articles on the squalid conditions some of our servicemembers
were living in at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The articles described infestations of mice and cockroaches in some
Walter Reed facilities. They described moldy walls, and broken ceilings
in the rooms servicemembers were living in while they waited to get
care. And the articles described how many of our servicemembers and
their families feel trapped in a bureaucratic ``Catch-22,'' while they
try for months to work out their disability ratings.
I am proud that Democrats led a bipartisan effort in the Senate to
address these problems aggressively. The Wounded Warriors legislation
we have now is the result of a historic partnership between two of our
committees--the Veterans' Affairs Committee,
[[Page S15606]]
chaired by Senator Akaka, and the Armed Services Committee, chaired by
Senator Levin. I want to thank both Senators for their leadership on
this.
Together, we convened hearings, reached across the aisle, and crafted
legislation that will make sure that the men and women who have served
our country so honorably get the care they deserve when they come home.
The more we dug for information, the more we learned about the huge
problems we need to address. Last winter, when I visited Walter Reed
with our majority leader and other members of the Leadership team, the
servicemembers we talked to weren't just frustrated with their living
conditions. They had reached the end of their patience trying to
navigate a disability system, which made absolutely no sense to them--
or to us.
And the problem was not limited to servicemembers at Walter Reed. I
went home and met with servicemembers in medical hold in Washington
State--more than 200 people showed up. They, too, were angry and
frustrated with their situation. They told me story after story about
how they had to struggle to get their disability ratings and fight for
the care they needed.
It was clear from these meetings that the Defense Department and the
VA don't have a joint strategy for caring for servicemembers and
veterans, and that they use inconsistent ratings for disabilities.
Their paperwork doesn't even match. How you're rated as disabled by the
military is completely different than how you're rated by the VA.
The result is that our servicemembers get caught in the middle. They
get lost in the bureaucracy, while trying to get the treatment they
need to recover. Too often, our injured servicemembers are the ones
trying to figure out how to work out the transition. It's frustrating,
and it's completely unacceptable.
Other servicemembers told us that they have had to struggle to get
the right diagnosis for their injuries. Our military has long known
about the mental wounds that can be caused by war. But many
servicemembers still said they got little or no help to cope with
mental illness.
I talked to men and women who said they knew something was wrong.
They felt different. And they forgot little things--basic things. They
described not being able to find their keys after they put them down.
They couldn't remember their kids' birthdays. They couldn't even
remember what they'd done the year--or even the day--before.
One young man from a rural community in my home State of Washington
said he came home and felt isolated, unable to talk to his childhood
friends. He was 22, but he couldn't remember what he'd learned in
school just a few years ago. He said he didn't know who he was any
more, and he eventually tried to take his own life.
That young man had a traumatic brain injury. He had been around not
one--not five--not 20--but more than 100 explosions while he was on the
ground in Iraq. Even so, he wasn't screened for TBI when he was
discharged. No one asked how he was doing. And no one followed up when
he got home to ask how he was adjusting to civilian life.
This should not happen to any of our servicemembers who have served
us honorably. Yet that young man's experience is all too common.
As a result of our investigation, Democrats said, ``No more.'' It's
simply unacceptable that after fighting for our country, our
servicemembers have had to return and fight against our government for
the care they deserve.
By passing the Wounded Warriors Act, we are moving aggressively to
make sure that these men and women are treated well when they come
home. The Wounded Warriors Act lays out a clear path directing the
Defense Department and the VA to address shortfalls in the care of our
wounded warriors.
It requires the Defense Department and VA to work together to develop
a comprehensive plan to prevent, treat and diagnose TBI and PTSD. It
creates DOD centers of excellence for TBI and PTSD to improve our
understanding of these devastating injuries. If directs the two
agencies to develop a joint electronic health record so that critical
medical files aren't lost as our wounded troops move from battlefield
doctors, to medicals holds, and on to the VA.
The act requires the military and the VA to work together on
disability ratings. This is the first step toward bridging the gap
between the VA and the Defense Department. And it requires the military
to adopt the VA presumption that a disease or an injury is service-
connected when our heroes--who were healthy prior to service--have
spent 6 months or more on active duty.
The bill also addresses many of the horrifying conditions that our
troops found themselves in at Walter Reed and other facilities. It
ensures our servicemembers get adequate severance pay. And it can
provide medical care for the families of recovering servicemembers.
In addition to the Wounded Warriors Act, the Defense Authorization
bill includes important provisions passed by the Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee aimed at improving care for servicemembers once they
reach the VA system.
As you know, my colleagues on the Committee and I have worked hard to
get these improvements in place, so I want to take a moment to mention
them as well.
Under this bill we will require that an initial mental health
evaluation be-provided to veterans or returning servicemembers no more
than 30 days after they ask for one. We will extend the period of
eligibility for VA health care for combat veterans of the Persian Gulf
War and future conflicts. That time period will increase from 2 years
to 5 years after discharge or release. And we'll ensure improvements to
the quality of care for veterans with TBI by requiring age-appropriate
nursing care, and plans to help servicemembers recover and transition
back into civilian life.
While this bill is an important step toward providing our wounded
warriors with the level of care they deserve and have earned, it's by
no means the last step. Much work remains to be done by the DOD and the
VA. We in Congress will have to keep a close watch to make sure the
Defense Department and the VA are meeting the goals we've set out here.
And as a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I can assure you that I will be
doing just that.
I voted against going to war in Iraq. But I've said consistently that
no matter how you feel about the war, we have an obligation as leaders
to make sure that our men and women who fight for us get the care they
deserve. I'm particularly proud of the way Democrats moved to address
the problems facing our returning servicemembers, which clearly wasn't
a priority for the Bush Administration.
Democrats said: ``Not on our watch. Not any more.''
The Wounded Warrior bill provides real solutions for our troops and
veterans from the battlefield to the VA and everywhere in between. Our
servicemembers have always answered the call of duty, but for too long,
our Government has not answered theirs. I'm proud to say those days are
over. This bill is part of that commitment. Let's pass it today, so we
can get started on these improvements and provide the kind of care our
servicemembers and veterans deserve. As I said at the beginning of this
speech, this is a major step toward real change for our troops.
Nomination of General James Peake
While I have the floor, Madam President, I also want to take a minute
to say a few words about the nomination of GEN James Peake to be the
next Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
On Thursday, I joined with my colleagues on the committee and voted
in favor of his nomination. As we all know, there has been a vacuum at
the head of the VA for years now, and for the reasons I have already
laid out today, we need someone strong to lead this agency as we work
to change course there. I do not think we ought to dwell on the
mistakes of the past. I believe we do have to learn from them.
At his confirmation hearing, General Peake pledged to stand up and
put the needs of veterans above the political needs of the White House.
He can guarantee that I am going to hold him to his word because we owe
our troops nothing less.
[[Page S15607]]
After fighting for their country, too many have had to fight against
their Government to get the care and benefits they have earned. They
have had to contend with bureaucratic ineptitude, a massive claims
backlog, and wait times--just to name a few of the many problems at the
VA.
While I believe we shouldn't dwell on the mistakes of the past, I
believe we must learn from them. And I expect General Peake to learn
from the VA's past failures.
The veterans of this country deserve a Secretary who is an honest and
independent advocate for them--not an apologist for failed
administration policies. Yet one of the biggest mistakes made by
General Peake's predecessor was his blind political allegiance to the
President--at the expense of the veterans he was supposed to serve.
In his confirmation hearing, General Peake pledged to stand up for
the needs of veterans above the political needs of the White House. As
a senior member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the
MilCon-VA Appropriations Subcommittee, he can guarantee that I will
hold him to his word.
General Peake will be taking the reins at a critical time in the
agency's history. Many challenges lie in his path--from the enormous
task of streamlining and improving the military and veterans disability
systems, to implementing a joint electronic medical record; and from
reducing wait times for benefits, to caring for the large number of
returning veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic
brain injury.
These challenges require innovative solutions. They require a
Secretary who will roll up his sleeves and get to work. And they
require strong leadership. It will require action. And it will require
results. General Peake promised to do just that. We must all hold him
accountable--I know I will. If he fails to change the direction of this
agency, he will have to answer for it.
But I also pledge to work with him to get this right and put our
veterans first. We have a true opportunity to change course at the VA.
But the clock is ticking. With our troops fighting overseas and older
veterans accessing the VA in greater numbers, we are facing
unprecedented challenges.
As they say at the VA in my home State, ``business as usual'' isn't
an option. And I am hopeful that General Peake won't accept ``business
as usual'' either. I am hopeful that he will make sure we keep our
promises to the heroes who risked everything for our safety because we
owe them nothing less.
Madam President, I again thank the Senator from Michigan and the
Senator from Virginia for their tremendous leadership in making sure
our troops get all they need and, in particular, for the Wounded
Warriors Act, which will be historic when it gets passed and signed
into law and we can turn around to the men and women who served us so
well and say: We are working with you, not against you.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record, in a slightly different form, a list of the staff--
professional staff and several personal staff--on my side who have
helped in the preparation of the Senate bill and the preparation of the
conference report. While there is some redundancy, I think the Record
should reflect my specific appreciation to these many people who make
it possible for the chairman and ranking member to prepare these bills
and then the reports. So I have infinite respect and gratitude for each
of them.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Minority Staff Senate Armed Services Committee
Republican Staff Director: Michael V. Kostiwa.
Assistant to Staff Director: William M. Caniano.
Executive Officer: Christopher J. Paul.
Administrative Assistant for the Minority: Marie Fabrizio
Dickinson.
Minority Counsel: David M. Morriss, Richard F. Walsh, Derek
J. Maurer.
Investigative Counsel: Pablo E. Carrillo, Bryan D. Parker.
Professional Staff Members: William M. Caniano, Gregory T.
Kiley, Lucian L. Niemeyer, Christopher J. Paul, Lynn F.
Rusten, Robert M. Soofer, Sean G. Stackley, Kristine L.
Svinicki, Diana G. Tabler, and Dana W. White.
Research Assistants: David G. Collins, Paul C. Hutton.
Subcommittee on Airland: Minority Professional Staff
Members: Gregory T. Kiley (Lead), William M. Caniano.
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities: Minority
Professional Staff Members: Lynn F. Rusten (Co-lead),
Kristine L. Svinicki (Co-lead), William M. Caniano, Robert M.
Soofer.
Subcommittee on Personnel: Minority Professional Staff
Staff Members: Richard F. Walsh (Co-lead & Counsel), Diana G.
Tabler (Co-lead).
Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support: Minority
Professional Staff Members: Lucian L. Niemeyer (Lead), Bryan
D. Parker (Counsel), Derek J. Maurer (Counsel).
Subcommittee on Seapower: Minority Professional Staff
Members: Sean G. Stackley (Lead), Gregory T. Kiley.
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Minority Professional
Staff Members: Robert M. Soofer (Lead), Kristine L. Svinicki,
Gergory T. Kiley, Derek J. Mauer (Counsel).
Minority Professional Staff Members for:
Acquisition and Contracting Policy: Christopher J. Paul,
Pablo E. Carrillo, Bryan D. Parker.
Arms Control and Non-proliferation: Lynn F. Rusten.
Army Programs: William M. Caniano.
Budget and Reprogramming: Gregory T. Kiley.
Chemical-Biological Defense: Robert M. Soofer.
Chemical-Demilitarization: Lynn F. Rusten.
Civilian Personnel: Diana G. Tabler.
Combatant Commands: AFRICOM: Lynn F. Rusten.
CENTCOM: William M. Caniano/Dana W. White.
EUCOM: Lynn F. Rusten.
JFCOM: Kristine L. Svinicki.
NORTHCOM: Robert M. Soofer.
PACOM: Lynn F. Rusten/Dana W. White.
SOCOM: William M. Caniano.
SOUTHCOM: William M. Caniano.
STRATCOM: Robert M. Soofer.
TRANSCOM: Sean G. Stackley, Gregory T. Kiley.
Counterdrug Programs: Lynn F. Rusten.
Defense Security Assistance: Lynn F. Rusten.
Depot Maintenance: Derek J. Mauret.
Detainees and Military Commissions: William M. Caniano,
David M. Morriss, Christopher J. Paul, Pablo E. Carrillo.
Department of Energy National Security Programs: Kristine
L. Svinicki.
Environmental Issues: David M. Morriss.
Export Controls: Lynn F. Rusten.
Health Care: Diana G. Tabler.
Homeland Defense: Robert M. Soofer.
Information Assurance and Cyber Security: Gregory T. Kiley.
Information Technology: Gregory T. Kiley, William M.
Caniano.
Intelligence Programs: Derek J. Maurer, William M. Caniano.
Laboratories: Kristine L. Svinicki.
Military Construction and BRAC: Lucian L. Niemeyer.
Military Personnel and Family Benefits: Richard F. Walsh,
Diana G. Tabler.
National Military Strategy: William M. Caniano.
Missile Defense: Robert M. Soofer.
Navy and Marine Corps Programs: Sean G. Stackley.
Nominations: Richard F. Walsh.
Oversight Investigations: Christopher J. Paul, Pablo E.
Carrillo, Bryan D. Parker.
Readiness/Operations & Maintenance: Derek J. Maurer.
Science and Technology: Kristine L. Svinicki.
Space Programs: Robert M. Soofer.
Special Operations Forces: William M. Caniano.
Strategic and Tactical Aviation Programs: Gregory T. Kiley.
Test and Evaluation: Kristine L. Svinicki.
Personal Staff of Senator Warner: Sandy Luff, Sam Zega,
Scott Suozzi, Jennifer Cave.
Mr. WARNER. Now, Madam President, on this side, we have the Senator
from Oklahoma. I say to the Senator from Michigan, I understand, Mr.
Chairman, the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, wishes to
say a few words in support of the bill at the end.
Mr. LEVIN. As does the majority leader. If I could just introduce
this thought: We have three additional Members, we believe, who wish to
speak: Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator McCaskill. Those
are the ones we have so far on this side.
Mr. WARNER. Perhaps, Madam President, we should have the Chair inform
us as to the remainder of the time for each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chairman has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and
the ranking member has 23 minutes remaining.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first of all, let me thank both the
chairman
[[Page S15608]]
of the committee and Senator Warner, as well as Senator McCain, for
their work for the people who defend this country. I also would be
remiss if I did not thank their staffs. They have been highly
cooperative with my staff as we looked through several items.
This is a large bill. It is an important bill. I intend to vote for
it. But I have some heartburn, and I want to spend a few minutes
talking about it.
Last year, the Defense Department contracted out $110 billion without
the first competitive bid on either contracts or grants. When we
considered this bill in this body, we approved a competitive bid
amendment that would say: We are going to have competition for all of
these. We have $5.6 billion worth of earmarks in this bill, of which
none are competitive; there is another $12 billion of add-ons, of which
none are competitive--just in what we have done.
There is a difference of opinion among a few of us with a vast
majority of the others in terms of whether the President--whoever the
administration is--gets to direct priorities versus us directing
priorities. I understand that, and that is a fair debate.
Our position is that sometimes we know better. That may, in fact, be
the case. But this body passed an amendment that said we are going to
use competition on all these earmarks so that, in fact, the American
people get value, they get a better product at a lower price. That,
unfortunately, was taken out in conference. Senator McCain
wholeheartedly supported that amendment on this floor.
Now, why would we take that out? What is it that would say we don't
want to get the best value for our taxpayers' dollars when it comes to
$100 billion worth of spending? Why is that? Why would we do that?
We had a very simple process. We said: If you have an earmark and it
is something that needs to be done right now, all competitive
requirements for that are waived. It does not apply to anything in the
past. But for any new spending we earmark, we say: If it is not urgent
or unique, then we ought to spread it out to find out how we get the
best value for our money. We agreed to that. Then, when we got to
conference, we did not hold it.
Why did we not hold it? Why is it we do not want to have the winner
of competition of grants and contracts to be involved in getting better
value for the American people? Could it be we want to protect someone?
Could it be we do not want sunlight? The real answer is going to be
that yesterday the Accountability and Transparency Web site that we
passed went on line, and all of America is going to find out where all
this money is going. On this Web site, it shows if it was a directed
earmark without any competition whatsoever.
So why would we deny the American taxpayers now the ability to get
far greater value than what they are going to get because we want to
direct something somewhere? If we truly think it is the best thing--and
it is not urgent and it is not unique--and we want to say we want to do
it, good and dandy, but why wouldn't we want to do it at the best
value, at the best price for the American taxpayer? So we end up where
the American taxpayer is going to lose about $10 billion to $15 billion
this year through inefficiency and the lack of competitive bidding on
grants and contracts in the Defense authorization bill.
When I met with Tina Jones, the Comptroller, what we found out was
that what we label at $5.9 billion in this bill is really closer to $17
billion when you really work it all out. We started discovering this
when we asked the Department of Transportation to tell us what was the
impact of their earmarks.
The other amendment I have offered that has not been accepted by this
body--but should--is to do a study of our earmarks to see if we really
get value, if they really do turn something profitable. Do they really
give us something our military needs? What happens is this $110 billion
should have only cost us $90 billion.
Now, what does the difference mean? It means buying thousands more
MRAPs. It means buying more F-22s. But because we do not competitively
bid and because the conference committee did not keep this amendment,
the American taxpayer loses, our children lose. But, most importantly,
the warfighter loses because if we waste dollars that could have gone
to help them better, we disadvantage them in the job we have asked them
to do for us.
So I am going to keep offering this. I am going to make a big deal
about competition for getting Government contracts in this country,
based on quality and price. I am going to keep offering the fact that
we ought to assess what the effect of our earmarks is. Now, people
bristle at that. But if we are right that we know better than the
Pentagon and we know better than the generals and we know better than
the procurement officers, we at least ought to look at the results of
how we know best and see ``Did it turn out?'' instead of blindly
continuing to do the same thing without the knowledge of the effect of
what we did.
There are all sorts of other issues connected with this--parochial
issues, campaign issues, political issues--that are connected to
earmarks. But the most important issue that ought to be considered is
the warfighter. The second issue that ought to be considered is our
children. The fact is, we are hurting our children when we are not
efficient and proper with the American taxpayers' money.
I do intend to vote for this bill. It is very important for our
warfighters.
I do appreciate the chairman. I admire so much his relationship with
all those on the Armed Services Committee, the collegiality under which
he has worked on this legislation.
My admiration is not limited to the Members of the Senate; there is
the staff. They have been tremendously cooperative with us.
But this is a great question we need to ask. We fail to uphold our
oath when we don't spend money wisely. We fail the next generation. We
fail the principle of liberty that we have a Defense Department for in
the first place when we waste money.
I know there are a lot of other areas we can work on within the
Defense Department, but before we have any credibility about working on
the other money we waste, we ought to be sure we are clean in terms of
what we do. So the fact we are not going to look at what the results
were of the money that we directed, and that we are not going to have
true competition for about $150 billion this next year of grants and
contracts within the Defense Department says we are going to let down
the warfighter, says we are going to let down the next generation. To
me, my hope is in the future, we will embrace this transparency, this
idea that we ought to get the best value for every dollar we spend for
our Defense Department, and we ought to do it in a way that is
transparent so the American people can see what we are doing.
I thank the Senator from Virginia for giving me this time. I thank
the majority leader for creating an opportunity for us to at least have
some time to discuss this bill. Discussions such as these are important
to the American public. My challenge is to the chairman of this
committee: Next year, let's make up for this. Let's truly put
competition first. Let's get great value for our children and for our
warfighters. We can do it. We won't stop anything that is needed now.
We won't stop anything that is unique. But those things that are not
pertinent to the here and now, that are going to come in the future, we
ought to get great value for. We know we don't. The IG report said we
don't. There is tons of information we have that says we are not
getting great value.
With that, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for giving me
the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think it is important for the colloquy
that the Senator and I are now having that the copy of the amendment
that was once in the bill and deleted be put in the Record at this
point. Does the Senator have it with him? If we could do that, that
would be helpful.
Mr. COBURN. I will make certain it is placed in the Record.
I so ask unanimous consent.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S15609]]
amendment no. 3044
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of earmarks for awarding no-bid contracts
and non-competitive grants)
At the end of subtitle B of title VIII, add the following:
SEC. 827. PROHIBITION ON USE OF EARMARKS TO AWARD NO BID
CONTRACTS AND NONCOMPETITIVE GRANTS.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) Contracts.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, all contracts awarded by the Department of Defense
to implement new programs or projects pursuant to
congressional initiatives shall be awarded using competitive
procedures in accordance with the requirements of section
2304 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
(B) Bid requirement.--Except as provided in paragraph (3),
no contract may be awarded by the Department of Defense to
implement a new program or project pursuant to a
congressional initiative unless more than one bid is received
for such contract.
(2) Grants.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, no funds may be awarded by the Department of Defense by
grant or cooperative agreement to implement a new program or
project pursuant to a congressional initiative unless the
process used to award such grant or cooperative agreement
uses competitive or merit-based procedures to select the
grantee or award recipient. Except as provided in paragraph
(3), no such grant or cooperative agreement may be awarded
unless applications for such grant or cooperative agreement
are received from two or more applicants that are not from
the same organization and do not share any financial,
fiduciary, or other organizational relationship.
(3) Waiver authority.--
(A) In general.--If the Secretary of Defense does not
receive more than one bid for a contract under paragraph
(1)(B) or does not receive more than one application from
unaffiliated applicants for a grant or cooperative agreement
under paragraph (2), the Secretary may waive such bid or
application requirement if the Secretary determines that the
new program or project--
(i) cannot be implemented without a waiver; and
(ii) will help meet important national defense needs.
(B) Congressional notification.--If the Secretary of
Defense waives a bid requirement under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary must, not later than 10 days after exercising such
waiver, notify Congress and the Committees on Armed Services
of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(4) Contracting authority.--The Secretary of Defense may,
as appropriate, utilize existing contracts to carry out
congressional initiatives.
(b) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2008, and
December 31 of each year thereafter, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report on congressional
initiatives for which amounts were appropriated or otherwise
made available for the fiscal year ending during such year.
(2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall include with respect to each contract, grant, or
cooperative agreement awarded to implement a new program or
project pursuant to a congressional initiative--
(A) the name of the recipient of the funds awarded through
such contract or grant;
(B) the reason or reasons such recipient was selected for
such contract or grant; and
(C) the number of entities that competed for such contract
or grant.
(3) Publication.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1)
shall be made publicly available through the Internet website
of the Department of Defense.
(c) Congressional Initiative Defined.--In this section, the
term ``congressional initiative'' means a provision of law or
a directive contained within a committee report or joint
statement of managers of an appropriations Act that
specifies--
(1) the identity of a person or entity selected to carry
out a project, including a defense system, for which funds
are appropriated or otherwise made available by that
provision of law or directive and that was not requested by
the President in a budget submitted to Congress;
(2) the specific location at which the work for a project
is to be done; and
(3) the amount of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available for such project.
(d) Applicability.--This section shall apply with respect
to funds appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal
years beginning after September 30, 2007, and to
congressional initiatives initiated after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to assure my colleague from
Oklahoma that this is a matter I personally have discussed with Senator
McCain many times. He would hope that the committee in the coming year
would address, once again, the amendment and the ramifications
therefrom.
I think that is the intention, is it not, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry. I was distracted.
Mr. WARNER. I think the committee will once again revisit this
subject with the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Virginia, but let me also thank the
Senator from Oklahoma. The subject of competition is one which many of
us have put in decades of effort on. As a matter of fact, I remember
when Senator Bill Cohen of Maine was sitting a few desks from where you
are now standing, a decade or so ago. On a bipartisan basis at that
time we adopted the Competition In Contracting Act and did a lot of
good over time. Gradually, over time, I think there has been some
fraying in it.
The Senator points out some very significant issues. We are always
happy to work with him on issues. We don't agree with everything he
says, but on much of what he says and on his point, his major point, we
do agree, in terms of the critical importance of competition. There are
some provisions in this bill which the Senator from Oklahoma inspired--
many of them. A number of those come from that passion of his to
improve competition. It is in the section on acquisition reform. We
thank him for his effort in that regard. I also thank him for his very
personal comments about me.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator and I join the chairman.
I was going to grant from our time allocation 5 minutes to the
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. LEVIN. We very much appreciate that courtesy, as always.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment
that the Congress is taking up the conference report on the Defense
bill without the hate crimes provision. I commend Chairman Levin for
his strong leadership in our efforts to have it included as part of
this measure. Despite his efforts, and the strong support of Majority
Leader Harry Reid, it is an extraordinary missed opportunity that we
are not able to send the hate crimes bill to the President before the
end of the year.
The inclusion of the hate crimes provision in the Defense bill was
appropriate. Our military stands for America's ideals and fights for
America's ideals. At a time when our ideals are under attack by
terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to
demonstrate that we practice what we preach, and that we are doing all
we can to root out the bigotry and prejudice in our own country that
leads to similar violence here at home.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and
liberty. They are on the front line fighting against evil and hate. We
are united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the
world. We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism
here at home. We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles
here at home. We should not shrink now from our role as the beacon of
liberty to the rest of the world.
If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and
justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. The
hate crimes bill would have advanced those values and goals, and we are
committed to getting it enacted. It is long past time for this measure
to become law.
We are now facing a time when the FBI reports that hate crimes are on
the rise, and there has been a sharp increase in the number of hate
crimes reported against Hispanics--at the highest levels since the
reports were first mandated by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act,
demonstrating the real societal impact of anti-immigrant campaigns.
The Southern Poverty Law Center also reports that hate groups are on
the rise. Since September of this year, when thousands of Americans
marched for civil rights in Jena, LA, there have been more than 50
noose incidents across the country. Just a few weeks ago, the New York
Times included a chart reflecting the ``Geography of Hate'' across
America. Over the last 2 years, it shows that nooses have been sighted
in many different States.
This terrifying symbol of racism and prejudice has even appeared
recently on schoolyards and college campuses, creating fear in their
whole communities. Apparently, we have not succeeded in adequately
teaching the lessons of America's long history of discrimination.
Education is an important part of prevention, but we also need strong
national legislation to punish
[[Page S15610]]
those who engage in hate-motivated violence and to expand Federal
resources available to investigate and prevent these vicious crimes.
As my colleagues here in the Senate know, Senator Gordon Smith and I
have been fighting this battle for a long time. Just a few months ago,
the hate crimes provision was adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-
39 as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It's not the
first time that the Senate voted to pass this bill. In 2000 and 2002, a
majority of Senators voted to pass this legislation.
In 2004, we had 65 votes for the bill and it was adopted as part of
the Defense authorization bill. But that time, like this time, it was
stripped out in conference. Twice in the last 2 years, Chairman Conyers
has succeeded in getting the House to vote to pass this legislation--
but, once again, the House and Senate have not come together to get
this bill done.
We have been in this battle for nearly a decade, and we will continue
to press ahead. It is long past time to stand up for the victims of
these senseless acts of violence--victims like Matthew Shepard, for
whom this bill is named, and who died a horrible a death in 1998 at the
hands of two men who singled him out because of his sexual orientation.
Nine years after Matthew's death--9 years--we still haven't gotten it
done. How long are we going to wait?
This year, with Matthew Shepard's mother Judy at our side, we were
filled with hope that finally this would be the year that we would get
this bill to the President's desk. A broad and growing coalition of 210
law enforcement, civic, disability, religious and civil rights groups
support the bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of
Police, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the
National Sheriff's Association, the Human Rights Campaign, the National
District Attorneys Association and the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights.
Over 1,400--1,400--clergy from a broad spectrum of religious
traditions from across the country have come together to support the
Matthew Shepard Act. These leaders of America's religious communities
have called on Congress to stand united against one of the worst forms
of oppression: violence based on personal characteristics and identity.
Together, we must work together to create a society in which diverse
people are safe as well as free.
We will continue to fight to protect the rights of our fellow
citizens, and not let a veto threat stop us from doing the right thing.
We are not giving up. We will continue to push to get the bill through
the Congress next year. I remain hopeful that the President will hear
our call and that he too will finally support this much-needed measure.
Hate crimes are an appalling form of domestic terrorism that cannot
and must not be tolerated anywhere in our country. We have made
progress over the years, and our focus now should be to strengthen
protections for hate crimes so that all Americans will be protected
under the law. No Americans should feel that they are second class
citizens because Congress refuses to protect them against hate crimes.
I am looking forward to voting for this conference report. At the
outset I want to express a view that I know all of the members of the
Armed Services Committee feel, and that is great respect for our
chairman, Senator Levin, and Senator Warner, who has been past chairman
of the Armed Services Committee and has a lifetime of commitment in
terms of the security of our Nation and to the betterment of our Armed
Forces. We are grateful for their leadership, and the country should
be. I am also very grateful for their help and assistance, along with
my colleague and friend Gordon Smith, for a provision that was included
in the Defense authorization bill but which has been subsequently
dropped, and that is the hate crime legislation we had added which had
been included at other times as well in the Defense authorization bill.
It was included in the year 2000, in 2002, and now, by a vote of 60 to
39, was included in this legislation.
This legislation is to make sure our troops are going to be the best
trained, the best led, and the best equipped. Also, the very serious
efforts that have been made in terms of the health care that has been
pointed out by the Senator from Washington and other various provisions
of enormous importance.
What we are interested in doing is giving the support to our
frontline troops. We ask ourselves: What are they doing? What is their
task? Their task is fighting terrorism and fighting evil overseas--
fighting terrorism and fighting evil overseas so that we are going to
be safe and secure. It does seem to me if they are fighting against
terrorism and evil overseas and they are fighting for American values
overseas, they ought to also be fighting for American values here at
home. The values here at home are to fight the terrorism and evil that
exist here at home in terms of hate crimes--hate crimes--the types of
crimes that are devoted and focused on individuals because of who they
are. The kind of crimes that hurt not just the individuals but
communities; the kind of crimes that have expanded significantly over
the period of recent years.
America is a better America by not tolerating hate crimes. America is
a better America when we are fighting hate crimes in the best way and
with all of the tools we possibly can. We had that legislation. It was
included. We had good debate on the floor of the Senate. We had
bipartisan support for the hate crimes legislation. That same concept
had been passed as an individual bill in the House of Representatives.
The same concept was included in instructions from the House of
Representatives 3 years ago that we should accept it. But this time,
the House of Representatives refused to address it and we have seen
that provision withdrawn. I think it was a significant and important
mistake.
I wish to give to those who are committed to that program, that
effort to try and deal with the problems of violence in America. We
have all seen the challenges of violence in these past weeks. As the
Southern Poverty Law Center reports, it is taking place in schoolyards
and communities all over our Nation. This is violence caused by hatred,
by people that are targeting individuals of different color skin,
different races, different ethnic backgrounds, different sexual
orientation.
So at another time we will bring this issue back to the floor of the
Senate. We want to give the assurances of those who have been a part of
this whole march which has taken place over the period of years since
1968 with the killing of Dr. King--this has been a continuing march. We
haven't stopped. We will not yield. We will not give in.
I am grateful to the Senator from Virginia for yielding me this time.
We will ultimately prevail. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from
Massachusetts. He has been a strong, hard-working member of our
committee these many years, and I was happy to accommodate him with
time.
On my side, the distinguished Senator from Georgia has indicated he
would not seek to speak. There is one remaining Senator, I understand,
the other Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. When he appears, I
will recognize him for the purpose of making a few remarks.
IRAQ SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA HOLDERS
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am so pleased that Chairman Levin
included in the conference report a critical component of the original
Iraq Refugee Crisis Act, which would defray the cost of transportation
and provide prearrival admissions assistance and up to 8 months of
postarrival resettlement assistance to those Iraqis who come here on
Special Immigrant Visas or SIVs. SIV holders are those individuals
whose lives may be in jeopardy because of their support for the
American mission. My staff has learned that there is an effort by the
administration to limit the scope of the assistance provided to these
brave Iraqis. I know when Senator Smith and I introduced similar
language as an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health & Human
Services, and Education appropriations bill, we certainly intended to
provide Iraqi SIVs with the full array of benefits normally provided to
refugees by the U.S. Government, the State Department's Bureau of
Population, Refugees, and Migration as well as the Health and Human
Services Department's Office of Refugee Resettlement.
[[Page S15611]]
With this effort in mind, I want to be sure the conferees and the
author of the Iraqi Refugee Crisis Act, the Senator from Massachusetts,
had the same intent when including the provision in the conference
report accompanying H.R. 1585, the Department of Defense authorization
bill. I would also ask my colleague from Oregon if he agrees with me.
Mr. SMITH. Yes, I concur with Senator Cardin; it was indeed our
intent that Iraqi SIVs receive the full array of admissions and
resettlement assistance offered to refugees. I also want to thank the
conferees for including this important provision.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to echo the comments of my
friends from Maryland and Oregon. The original Iraq Refugee Crisis Act
included language similar to the conference report and the Cardin
amendment to the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill.
As the original author of the legislation, I can assure you it was my
intention to provide Iraqi SIV recipients with the full array of
benefits available to refugees. Moreover, SIV recipients are not to be
counted against immigrant caps, nor are they counted against U.S.
Refugee Admissions Program caps.
Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank my friends from Massachusetts, Maryland
and Oregon for their support. As I have said before, the United States
has a special responsibility to assist those individuals fleeing Iraq
and particularly to those individuals who assisted the United States.
In the case of this legislation, it is the intent of the conferees to
provide Iraqi SIVs the full array of benefits traditionally provided to
refugees as described by my friend from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. I would like to thank the chairman for that important
clarification. I also know that despite the provision of benefits, it
was never my intent that these SIVs would be counted against immigrant
or U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps set by the administration
through consultations with Congress and would like to clarify whether
this was also the intent of the conferees?
Mr. LEVIN. My friend from Maryland is correct: despite provision of
benefits, these SIVs, due to their special status, are not to be
counted against immigrant or refugee caps. Does my friend from
Massachusetts concur?
Mr. KENNEDY. I do. SIVs are not to be counted against immigrant or
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps set by the administration through
consultations with Congress.
Mr. CARDIN. I would like to thank Chairman Levin and Senator Kennedy
for making the intent clear on this issue. I know these clarifications
will mean a great deal to the Iraqi men and women who have been so
critical to our mission in that country.
Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I was pleased to vote in favor of
passage of the conference report on the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This significant legislation will provide
much needed funding for the brave men and women currently serving in
our armed forces and includes critically important language addressing
the needs and care of returning servicemembers.
The provisions dealing with care at VA are a direct outcome of the
close collaboration that has occurred between the Veterans' Affairs
Committee and the Armed Services Committee. It was a pleasure to work
with Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee and others on this
key legislation to help our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. It
contains provisions drawn from legislation which was reported by the
Veterans' Affairs Committee to the full Senate in late August,
legislation that we have been seeking final passage of for many months
now.
A substantial portion of these provisions seek to address what has
become the signature wound of this conflict: traumatic brain injury.
While attempting to meet the immediate needs of veterans with TBI for
high-quality care at VA and subsequent rehabilitation in their
communities, it would also provide VA clinicians with increased
resources to develop the expertise and the capacity to meet the
lifelong needs of these veterans.
First, VA would be required to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation
and community reintegration plan for each veteran with TBI, to be
implemented by a team of clinicians with appropriate expertise. The
veteran, or the veteran's caregiver, would also have the opportunity to
request a review of the rehabilitation plan, to ensure adequate
responsiveness to individual concerns. These provisions stem from
testimony from family members and advocates at the Veterans' Affairs
Committee's March 27, 2007, hearing on transition issues and care for
returning servicemembers.
Second, to better meet the need of veterans who reside in areas that
are not close to any of VA's five major polytrauma centers, the
provisions in this bill would authorize the use of non-VA facilities,
when VA lacks the capacity to provide treatment or the veteran lives
too far away to make VA treatment feasible. VA's lead polytrauma
centers have significant expertise in rehabilitative care, but in other
locations specialized rehabilitative care is frequently unavailable in
VA facilities.
Third, veterans with severe TBI often end up in nursing home care.
This bill would require VA to provide ``age-appropriate'' care to these
younger veterans who are severely wounded but who sometimes end up in
end-of-life care environments. Additionally, the bill would give VA
providers the ability to work with the Defense and Veterans Brain
Injury Center to conduct research and treatment to potentially ``re-
awaken'' some veterans with more severe TBI, who may still be able to
achieve some level of cognitive recovery.
Finally, in response to the needs of veterans with TBI who are unable
to manage routine activities of daily living, this bill would require
VA to establish programs to maximize veterans' independence, quality of
life, and community reintegration. It would also establish an assisted
living pilot program for those with TBI. This would expand options to
assist veterans who might otherwise be forced into institutional long-
term care.
One of the cornerstones of this section of the bill extends the
period of automatic eligibility for VA health care. Under current law,
any active-duty servicemember who is discharged or separated from
active duty following deployment to a theater of combat, including
members of the Guard and Reserve, is eligible for VA health care for a
2-year period. This bill would extend the period to 5 years.
A greater period of eligibility is essential for two primary reasons:
protection from budget cuts and ensured access to care for issues that
may not be apparent immediately upon separation from active duty, such
as invisible wounds. In recent years, veterans with lower priority
ratings have been denied care due to budget delays and cuts through the
legislative and appropriations process. Combat veterans deserve 5 years
of guaranteed health care immediately following discharge.
Two years is often insufficient time for symptoms of PTSD and other
mental illnesses to manifest. These invisible wounds are often not
apparent until 3 or 4 years after discharge, and servicemembers
frequently delay treatment until their issues become serious. Studies
indicate that up to 30 percent of OIF/OEF veterans will require some
form of mental health or readjustment service. Over 1.5 million
Americans have served in those theaters of combat, and about 750,000
are currently eligible for VA health care. Extended eligibility will
smooth their transition to civilian life.
To further improve a timely response to veterans' mental health
needs, this bill would require VA to provide a mental health
examination within 30 days of the veteran's request. Senator Obama has
done excellent work on this provision, and I thank him for his efforts.
Past wars have shown that delaying mental health care makes recovery
far more challenging.
In addition, this bill improves outreach to members of the National
Guard and Reserves. The Reserve forces have been used in the current
conflicts on an unprecedented scale. It is essential that VA include
them in their outreach efforts upon demobilization. This bill would
specifically include them in VA's definition of outreach. This change
acknowledges the central role played by the Guard and Reserve.
In addition to the vital veterans-related legislation included in
this bill,
[[Page S15612]]
as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chairman
of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support, I am pleased
that this bill provides troops with the equipment and facilities they
need, as well as strengthens the oversight and management of the
Defense Department. This includes the incorporation of the Acquisition
Improvement and Accountability Act and the establishment of a full-time
Chief Management Officer and Deputy Chief Management Officer. I am
especially pleased that the conference report repeals the Department of
Defense's authority to establish a new labor relations system under the
National Security Personnel System, NSPS, and restores collective
bargaining and appeals rights. The original NSPS legislation stripped
Federal employees of their basic rights and protections. I so
vehemently opposed these provisions that I voted against the Defense
Authorization conference report creating NSPS. I am glad that Congress
has decided to restore these fundamental rights and protections to
employees who work every day to secure our Nation.
Once again, let me congratulate the members of the House and Senate
for their passage of this bill and I urge the President to sign this
crucial legislation into law.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the conference report on the fiscal year
2008 Department of Defense authorization bill now before the Senate
includes some significant mileposts of progress for the National Guard.
Those sections of the bill come directly from the National Guard
Empowerment Act of 2007, a bill that I sponsored along with Senator Kit
Bond of Missouri, my fellow cochair of the U.S Senate National Guard
Caucus. Well over half of the Senate--a significant portion of the
National Guard Caucus--cosponsored the empowerment bill. Working with
the Nation's Governors, key National Guard-affiliated organizations,
and the Adjutants General of the United States, we make notable headway
in this bill on several issues that go to the core of the Guard's
missions, preparedness and our national defense.
This legislation clears away organizational cobwebs in the Department
of Defense and changes the Pentagon's structure to better reflect the
vital role and responsibilities of the Guard. More importantly, we
direct the Department of Defense to begin the urgently needed process
of tapping into the National Guard's extensive experience in homeland
defense issues--expertise the Defense Department has previously
ignored.
To give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle, especially in decisions
affecting the Guard, the legislation elevates the Chief of the National
Guard from the rank of lieutenant general to the rank of general,
making the Chief the prime military adviser to the Secretary of Defense
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The National Guard
Bureau becomes what is called a Joint Activity, still closely
affiliated with the Department of the Army and the Air Force, but now
more like other joint agencies like Combatant Commands and the Defense
Intelligence Agency, capable of communication across the Department.
To focus the Defense Department more on homeland defense, the bill
requires that the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Northern Command come
from the ranks of the National Guard, and it requires the Department of
Defense to develop a plan in conjunction with the Guard to deal with
homeland defense situations.
These reforms are tangible progress for the Guard, and there is a
pressing need for them. The National Guard is a keystone to our
Nation's defense, ready to carry out missions at home and abroad. The
Guard is ready to serve as the primary reserve to both the Army and the
Air Force, while taking the lead in providing military support during
emergencies situations at home. It would take a long time even only to
list the missions accomplished by the National Guard since September 11
in carrying out their assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan or to respond
to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
Despite all the Guard's achievements on our behalf, the force often
has gotten second-class treatment in the Department of Defense. The
Guard has to beg and scrape and rely on the tender mercies of others
for every piece of equipment they need to do the jobs they are asked to
do, and they have to fight to be included in the long-range planning
and budget and policy discussions that directly affect the Guard, its
missions, its people, its equipment and its other needs. The Guard
works extremely closely with state emergency responders, and they have
special authorities and experience in working within the domestic
United States. But despite this special expertise and these special
authorities, does the Pentagon listen to and learn from the Guard's
ideas and knowledge about domestic defense? Sad but true, the answer is
no.
I wish we could have gone even further in this legislation. Dropped
during floor debate here in the Senate was a section of the Empowerment
bill to make the Guard Bureau Chief a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff. That would improve the quality of advice to the Secretary of
Defense and the President on domestic defense matters. Another
provision, removed in conference with the House, would give the Guard a
separate budget for procuring homeland defense-related equipment, as
well as the ability to work with states to identify gaps in emergency
response capabilities. Another clearly warranted section of our bill
would have ensured that our Adjutants General, who command units from
the both the Army Guard and the Air Force Guard, receive joint credit
for their experience. That would create a greater pool of candidates
for the senior positions that we have opened up in this bill. The
institutional objections we heard to these provisions ranged from the
weak to the unreasonable. But regrettably, in this case they carried
the day.
We did make clear progress. The joint activity provision, to take a
less prominent example, is highly significant. The phrase ``joint
activity'' means exactly how it is used in the Goldwater-Nichols Act:
an organization that performs joint missions under the auspices of the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, or the commander of a Combatant or a Combined Command. The
National Guard Bureau has now basically been given a legal license to
work not only with the two services--the Army and Air Force--but also
with a variety of unified commands, the Joint Staff, and the Office of
the Secretary of Defense. The National Guard Bureau now will have
similar organizational standing as that granted to other joint
activities such as, among many other organizations, the Joint Staff or
the Defense Logistics Agency.
This coalition of National Guard supporters--which goes far beyond
the sponsors and co-sponsors to the Governors, the Associations, and
many others--must keep pushing. If we are to have a national security
structure that is as effective as the American people need and deserve
it to be, we must ensure that the Guard's voice is heard loud and clear
in key deliberations. We must ensure that the Pentagon takes the
military support mission seriously. We should consider re-introducing
the portions of the Empowerment legislation that have not yet been
enacted. To keep a laser-like focus on domestic defense, we must take a
careful look at other Defense Department organizations involved in
domestic defense, like U.S. Northern Command.
I know that Senator Bond joins me in thanking the Nation's Governors
for their stalwart support of the empowerment bill, as well their
unstinting energy in working with us on another successful effort on
behalf of the Guard, the similarly successful effort to repeal the
recent changes to the Insurrection Act, turning back an unjustifiable
expansion of a President's power to use the military for law
enforcement. This provision of this Defense authorization bill was
drawn directly from legislation that I introduced with Senator Bond,
which this year was the subject of a hearing by the Judiciary
Committee.
Associations like the Adjutants General Association of the United
States, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States were
there every step of the way, keeping their members informed and
bringing enormous energy to this effort.
Special thanks go to Representatives Gene Taylor of Mississippi and
Tom Davis of Virginia who led a vigorous,
[[Page S15613]]
companion effort on the House side, as well as Senators Carl Levin of
Michigan, John McCain of Arizona, and John Warner of Virginia for
leading the Senate negotiations.
We owe the deepest thanks to the almost 500,000 members of the
National Guard. Their ability to balance their full-time jobs with
their family responsibilities and Guard commitments is simply
remarkable. They are indispensable to our national security structure,
at home, and abroad. Their sense of pride, professionalism and duty
represents the very best qualities of our military and our country. I
am simply in awe of what they have done to protect this Nation, and I
know the whole Congress and the country share this heartfelt gratitude.
Throughout this whole process, we have been guided by the fact that
the Guard is always there for the people of the United States of
America. Our part is easier than theirs: We cannot afford to let our
Guard down. The Guard Empowerment provisions of this bill will help us
honor that commitment to the men and women of the Guard.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I commend the conferees for including
the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act as part of this conference agreement.
I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member for supporting this
needed provision, and I also appreciate the support of Senators Smith,
Hagel, Biden, Brownback, Lieberman, Leahy, Snowe, Voinovich, Feinstein,
Collins, Obama, Dole, Menendez, Mikulski, and Clinton, who joined in
sponsoring the original amendment when it was adopted by the Senate by
voice vote during our debate on this bill.
The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act requires the Secretary of State to
establish a refugee processing program in Iraq for Iraqis threatened
because of their association with the United States. Applicants must
demonstrate they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Iraqis who
will now be able to apply directly to the United States rather than
going through the United Nations referral system,--include: Iraqis who
were or are employed by or worked for the United States Government in
Iraq; Iraqis who were or are employed in Iraq by a media or
nongovernmental organization headquartered in the United States, or by
an organization that is closely associated with the United States
mission in Iraq and that has received U.S. Government funding through
an official documented contract, award, grant, or cooperative
agreement; and Iraqis who are members of a religious or minority
community with close family members in the United States.
The act allows the Secretary to suspend in-country processing for
periods of 90 days, with a report to Congress on the reasons for any
suspension.
In addition, the act makes available 5,000 special immigrant visas
each year for the next 5 years for Iraqis who have worked for the U.S.
Government in Iraq and are endangered as a result. Applicants must have
a positive recommendation or evaluation from a senior supervisor and be
approved by the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq or his designee. The provision
sunsets after 5 years. These visas, because of their special status,
are not counted against immigrant caps nor are they counted against
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps.
Under the act, Iraqis granted special immigrant visa status are
eligible for 8 months for the full array of benefits traditionally
provided to refugees by the State Department's Bureau of Population,
Refugees, and Migration and the Health and Human Services Department's
Office of Refugee Resettlement. The provisions under the act would
defray the cost of transportation and provide prearrival admissions
assistance and up to 8 months of postarrival resettlement assistance to
those Iraqis who come to the U.S. on special immigrant visas. Senators
Cardin and Levin are the primary authors of this provision and, have
spoken eloquently for it.
The act also allows reapplication by Iraqis in the United States who
have been denied asylum, in part, because conditions in Iraq changed
after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government.
In addition, the act directs the Secretary of State to designate a
high-level special coordinator at the Embassy in Baghdad to handle
issues related to Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. The
coordinator will be responsible for overseeing in-country processing of
refugees and special immigrant visa applicants, and will have authority
to refer persons directly to the U.S. refugee resettlement program.
Similar positions would be designated in the American embassies in
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
The act also requires the Secretary of State to consult with other
countries about resettlement of refugee populations and to develop
mechanisms in countries with significant populations of displaced
Iraqis to ensure the refugees' well-being and safety. U.S. financial
assistance would be provided in such cases to help meet the cost of
caring for the refugees and protecting them.
These measures are urgently needed to address the immense human costs
of the war in Iraq and its tragic effect on the millions of Iraqis--
men, woman, and children--who have fled their homes and often their
country to escape the violence.
A significant number of courageous Iraqis have worked with the
American military, the staff of our Embassy, or with American
organizations to support our mission in Iraq. Their support and loyalty
have cost too many lives already, and their families have often been
forced to flee their communities or even their country because of the
danger.
The target of the assassin's bullet is on their back, and we owe them
enormous gratitude. But instead of giving them needed help and
protection, we have too often offered only bureaucracy and dubious
hopes.
Regardless of where we stand on the war, Congress is united in
believing that America has a fundamental obligation to assist Iraqis
who have courageously supported our forces and our efforts in Iraq and
whose lives are in peril as a result. The provisions in the agreement
are a long-needed attempt to fulfill our commitment to them.
Despite the clear and present danger faced by many Iraqis because of
their ties to the United States, their religious affiliation, or their
work with media, nongovernmental or humanitarian organizations, the
vast majority of Iraqi refugees must go through a long and complicated
referral process of approximately 8 to 10 months, in which the United
Nations serves as an intermediary outside Iraq. This act cuts through
much of that redtape.
Obviously, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United
States. But we need to keep faith with the Iraqis who have worked so
bravely with us and for us and supported our mission in Iraq, and whose
lives are in serious danger now because of it.
A few months ago, I had the honor of meeting SGT Joe Seemiller, a
young man who is haunted by the military motto, ``Leave No Man
Behind.'' Sergeant Seemiller is dedicated to helping the translator he
was forced to leave behind in Iraq. On countless occasions, his
translator helped to avoid serious American and Iraqi casualties. He
braved innumerable death threats and the horrific murder of his
brother. Finally, he had to flee to Syria, where he waited more than 2
years for the opportunity to be resettled in the United States.
The Refugee Crisis Act, makes clear that America has a fundamental
obligation to assist Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of their
close ties to our Nation. I look forward to working with the
administration in the months ahead to implement this important
humanitarian legislation.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I want to take the
opportunity to applaud the leadership of the Senate Armed Services
Committee for their efforts on the Defense authorization conference
report. Chairman Levin and the ranking member, Senator McCain, have
done a Herculean job of working through the hundreds of conference
issues in this bill with the House companion bill. The work and effort
of all parties involved is one of the shining examples of the Congress
working together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort to support our men
and women in uniform.
As a signatory to the conference report, I support this bill. There
is much to like in this bill. We provide necessary benefits to keep our
recruiting and retention on the right track. This
[[Page S15614]]
bill includes a 3.5-percent pay increase for uniformed service
personnel, establishes a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, prohibits the increase in TRICARE fees for retirees and
reservists, increases the grade of the Chief of the Guard Bureau from
lieutenant general to general. The bill also includes an increase in
Active Army and Marine Corps end-strength, increases funding for Mine
Resistance Ambush Protected vehicles, increases funding for cooperative
threat reduction program efforts, and provides authorizations for
critical military construction projects.
In addition, as a response to the problems from the Walter Reed
incidents reported earlier this year, we provide a comprehensive
Wounded Warriors Act as part of the authorization bill. The Wounded
Warrior provisions would require the Department of Defense, DOD, and
the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to jointly develop a
comprehensive policy on improvements to care, management, and
transition of recovering servicemembers, require DOD to develop a
comprehensive plan to treat traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress disorder and authorize respite care and other extended care
benefits for seriously injured servicemembers.
While I support this conference report, I want to point out one
provision in particular that I have concerns with. This particular
issue, as I have expressed to the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, is a section of the bill that would require that
prescriptions dispensed through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program be
procured at or below Federal ceiling prices. As I understand it, it is
the intent of the language and the intent of the conferees not to
modify the current master agreements. I hope that this clarification is
appropriate, and I wanted to briefly point this out.
Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this report. We
as a Senate can be proud of this bill. Mr. President, I believe that
this is good legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to adopt this
Defense authorization conference report.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I wish to applaud the chairman and
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin
and McCain, respectively, on passage of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
Specifically, I would like to express my gratitude to the bill
conferees for their inclusion of four amendments that I authored and
which were unanimously adopted by the Senate during its consideration
of this bill. These provisions will increase oversight of our country's
economic and security assistance to Afghanistan by creating a Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, section 1229; help
victims of state-sponsored terrorism to achieve justice through the
U.S. courts, section 1083; prevent military health care fees through
the TRICARE program from rising, sections 701 and 702; and increase
accountability and planning for safety and security at the Warren Grove
Gunnery Range in New Jersey, section 359.
First, I was proud to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Coburn,
Dodd, Hagel, Feingold, Webb, and McCaskill, in creating a Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. I wrote this
legislation because I believe that while a democratic, stable, and
prosperous Afghanistan is important to the national security of the
United States and to combating international terrorism, I am concerned
that we are not achieving all of our goals there. The United States has
provided Afghanistan with over $20 billion in reconstruction and
security assistance. However, repeated and documented incidents of
waste, fraud, and abuse in the utilization of these funds have
undermined reconstruction efforts. I therefore believe that there is a
critical need for vigorous oversight of spending by the United States
on reconstruction programs and projects in Afghanistan.
I would like to emphasize that the Government Accountability Office
and the departmental Inspectors General have provided valuable
information on these activities. However, I believe that the
congressional oversight process requires more timely oversight and
reporting of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. Oversight by
this new Special Inspector General would encompass the activities of
the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the United
States Agency for International Development, as well as other relevant
agencies. It would highlight specific acts of waste, fraud, and abuse,
as well as other managerial failures in our assistance programs that
need to be addressed.
This new position will monitor U.S. assistance to Afghanistan in the
civilian and security sectors, as well as in the counternarcotics arena
and will help both Congress and the American people better understand
the challenges facing U.S. programs and projects in that country. I am
pleased that this provision has been included by the conferees.
Second, this bill includes my legislation to provide justice for
victims of state-sponsored terrorism, which has strong bipartisan
support. I believe this legislation is essential to providing justice
to those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists and is an
important tool designed to deter future state-sponsored terrorism. The
existing law passed by Congress in 1996 has been weakened by recent
judicial decisions. This legislation fixes these problems.
In 1996, Congress created the ``state-sponsored terrorism exception''
to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, FSIA. This exception allows
victims of terrorism to sue those nations designated as state sponsors
of terrorism by the Department of State for terrorist acts they commit
or for which they provide material support. Congress subsequently
passed the Flatow amendment to the FSIA, which allows victims of
terrorism to seek meaningful damages, such as punitive damages, from
state sponsors of terrorism for the horrific acts of terrorist murder
and injury committed or supported by them.
Congress's original intent behind the 1996 legislation has been
muddied by numerous court decisions. For example, the courts decided in
Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran that there is no private
right of action against foreign governments--as opposed to
individuals--under the Flatow amendment. Since this decision, judges
have been prevented from applying a uniform damages standard to all
victims in a single case because a victim's right to pursue an action
against a foreign government depends upon state law. My provision in
this bill fixes this problem by reaffirming the private right of action
under the Flatow Amendment against the foreign state sponsors of
terrorism themselves.
My provision in this bill also addresses a part of the law which
until now has granted foreign states an unusual procedural advantage.
As a general rule, interim court orders cannot be appealed until the
court has reached a final disposition on the case as a whole. However,
foreign states have abused a narrow exception to this bar on interim
appeals--the collateral order doctrine--to delay justice for, and the
resolution of, victim's suits. In Beecham v. Socialist People's Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya, Libya has delayed the claims of dead and injured U.S.
service personnel who were off duty when attacked by Libyan agents at
the Labelle Discothque in Berlin in 1986. These delays have lasted for
many years, as the Libyans have taken or threatened to take frivolous
collateral order doctrine appeals whenever possible. My provision will
eliminate the ability of state sponsors of terrorism to utilize the
collateral order doctrine.
Another purpose of my provision is to facilitate victims' collection
of their damages from state sponsors of terrorism. The misapplication
of the ``Bancec doctrine,'' named for the Supreme Court's decision in
First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba,
has in the past erroneously protected the assets of terrorist states
from attachment or collection. For example, in Flatow v. Bank Saderat
Iran, the Flatow family attempted to attach an asset owned by Iran
through the Bank Saderat Iran. Although Iran owned the Bank Saderat
Iran, the court, relying on the State Department's application of the
Bancec doctrine, held that the Flatows could not attach the
asset because they could not show that Iran exercised day-to-day
managerial control over Bank Saderat Iran. My provision will remedy
this issue by allowing attachment of
[[Page S15615]]
the assets of a state sponsor of terrorism to be made upon the
satisfaction of a ``simple ownership'' test.
Another problem is that courts have mistakenly interpreted the
statute of limitations provision that Congress created in 1996. In
cases such as Vine v. Republic of Iraq and later Buonocore v. Socialist
People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the court interpreted the statute to
begin to run at the time of the attack, contrary to our intent. It was
our intent to provide a 10-year period from the date of enactment of
the legislation for all acts that had occurred at any time prior to its
passage in 1996. We also intended to provide a period of 10 years from
the time of any attack which might occur after 1996. My provision
clarifies this intent.
My provision also addresses the problems that arose from overly
mechanistic interpretations of the 1996 legislation. For example, in
several cases, such as Certain Underwriters v. Socialist People's
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, courts have prevented victims from pursuing
claims for collateral property damage sustained in terrorist attacks
directed against U.S. citizens. My new provision fixes this problem by
creating an explicit cause of action for these kinds of property
owners, or their insurers, against state sponsors of terrorism.
Finally, in several cases the courts have prevented non-U.S.
nationals who work for the U.S. Government and were injured in a
terrorist attack during their official duties from pursuing claims for
their personal injuries. My provision fixes this inequity by creating
an explicit cause of action for non-U.S. nationals who were either
working as an employee of the U.S. Government or working pursuant to a
U.S. Government contract.
I also want to make special mention of the inspiration for this new
legislation. On October 23, 1983, the Battalion Landing Team
headquarters building in the Marine Amphibious Unit compound at the
Beirut International Airport was destroyed by a terrorist bomb killing
241 marines, sailors, and soldiers who were present in Lebanon on a
peace-keeping mission. In a case known as Peterson v. the Islamic
Republic of Iran, filed on behalf of many of the marine victims and
their families, the U.S. District Court ruled in 2003 that the
terrorist organization Hezbollah was funded by, directed by, and relied
upon the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Information and
Security to carry out that heinous attack. The judge presiding over
this case, Judge Royce Lamberth, referred to this as ``the most deadly
state-sponsored terrorist attack made against United States citizens
before September 11, 2001.'' In September of this year Judge Lamberth
found that Iran not only is responsible for this attack, but also owes
the families of the victims a total of more than $2.6 billion for the
attack. Congress's support of my provision will now empower these
victims to pursue Iranian assets to obtain this just compensation for
their suffering. This is true justice through American rule of law.
Third, this Defense authorization bill includes my provision to
prevent proposed increases in enrollment fees, premiums, and pharmacy
copayments for TRICARE, the military community's health plan. The
principal coauthor of this provision is Senator Hagel.
Both career members of the uniformed services and their families
endure unique and extraordinary demands and make extraordinary
sacrifices over the course of 20-year to 30-year careers in protecting
freedom for all Americans. I believe they deserve the best retirement
benefits that a grateful nation can provide. Proposals to compare cash
fees paid by retired military members and their families to fees paid
by civilians fails to adequately recognize the sacrifice of military
members. We must be mindful that military members prepay the equivalent
of very large advance premiums for health care in retirement through
their extended service and sacrifice.
The Department of Defense and our Nation have a committed obligation
to provide health care benefits to Active Duty, National Guard,
Reserve, and retired members of the uniformed services, their families,
and survivors, that considerably exceeds the obligation of corporate
employers to provide health care benefits to their employees.
Ultimately, the Department of Defense has options to constrain the
growth of health care spending in ways that do not disadvantage current
and retired members of the uniformed services, and it should pursue any
and all such options as a first priority. Raising fees excessively on
TRICARE beneficiaries is not the way to achieve this objective.
Finally, I thank the conferees for including my amendment to require
increased oversight and accountability, as well as improved safety
measures, at the Warren Grove Gunnery Range in New Jersey. I wrote this
provision with Senator Menendez because a number of dangerous safety
incidents caused by the Air National Guard have repeatedly impacted the
residents living nearby the range.
On May 15, 2007, a fire ignited during an Air National Guard practice
mission at Warren Grove Gunnery Range, scorching 17,250 acres of New
Jersey's Pinelands, destroying five houses, significantly damaging 13
others, and temporarily displacing approximately 6,000 people from
their homes in sections of Ocean and Burlington Counties in New Jersey.
My provision will require that an annual report on safety measures
taken at the range be produced by the Secretary of the Air Force. The
first report will be due no later than March 1, 2008, and two more will
be due annually thereafter. My provision will also require that a
master plan for the range be drafted that includes measures to mitigate
encroachment issues surrounding the range, taking into consideration
military mission requirements, land use plans, the surrounding
community, the economy of the region, and the protection of the
environment and public health, safety, and welfare. I believe that
these studies will provide the type of information that we need to
ensure that there is long term safety at the range, both for the
military and the surrounding communities.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I oppose the fiscal year 2008 Defense
authorization conference report because it does nothing to end the
President's misguided, open-ended Iraq policy, which has overburdened
our military, weakened our national security, diminished our
international credibility, and cost the lives of thousands of brave
American soldiers.
There are certain provisions of the report that I support strongly,
including a pay raise for military personnel. I am pleased that the
conference report contains a number of provisions I supported,
including Senator Webb's amendment creating a Commission on Wartime
Contracting to examine waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan,
including the misuse of force by private security contractors, and
Senator Lautenberg's amendment to create a Special Investigator General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
But on balance, I cannot vote to support a conference report that
defies the will of so many Wisconsinites--and so many Americans--by
allowing the President to continue one of the worst foreign policy
mistakes in the history of our Nation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield--what do I have, 9 minutes left?
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Levin of Michigan and
Senator Warner of Virginia. This is a big piece of work and it took
them a long time and a lot of patience and a lot of skill. It is
voluminous and contains so much of importance for our national security
defense, and I thank them and their staffs for the extraordinary job
they did.
A word of disappointment before I go into more praise. Troops to
Nurse Teachers is a program Senator Warner and I talked about 2 years
ago. We had hoped to include it in this bill. We passed it in the
Senate, and we lost it in conference. The idea, of course, is to take
retired military nurses and move them into nursing faculty positions,
because we have such a shortage in our Nation of nurses. For reasons I
can't explain, our good idea turned into a study. Let's hope the study
turns into a program that brings us more nurses, whom we desperately
need.
[[Page S15616]]
Let me say a word about my vote on this bill. Everyone will have
their own reason for supporting this bill. My reason is a young soldier
named Eric Edmundson. Eric Edmundson, from North Carolina, had been in
the Army about 6 or 7 years, was a victim of a traumatic brain injury
in Iraq, brought out to Walter Reed, went through numerous surgeries,
suffered some very debilitating and tough injuries. The VA system tried
their best, sent him to Richmond without the kind of results that the
family or Eric wanted to see. They told the family his only recourse
was to go to a nursing home--a nursing home--at the age of 26. His
father said: No way. My son is not going to a nursing home. His father,
Ed Edmundson, quit his job. He and his wife started this crusade to get
Eric into the best hospital they could find in America. He ended up in
the Rehab Institute in Chicago, paid for by the Federal Government
after a long battle. Then, after months of heroic rehabilitation, on
the day of his discharge Eric Edmundson walked out of that hospital. I
was there that day. I looked at the tears in the eyes of his family,
his wife, saw his little baby girl, and realized that we cannot give up
on these wounded warriors.
I introduced a bill and commended it to Senators Levin and Warner and
thanked them personally for including it in this legislation. This bill
is going to mean that we make extraordinary efforts, as we should, to
stand behind these veterans and give them the very best care they can
possibly receive. With that kind of care, many of them can be restored
to the life they deserve.
We also need to start monitoring those who come into the military
service on the issue of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress disorder to establish cognitive tests as baselines so some of
the subtleties of their injuries that aren't discovered for years can
be discovered. To go to Walter Reed now to the amputation unit and find
the average soldier telling you that he in Iraq has experienced at
least 60 concussions that they felt--even if they didn't personally
harm them; they walked away from them thinking nothing of it, it is
cumulative. It can come back to haunt them. I went to barracks with
Senator McCaskill and we visited units and soldiers who went through
this. We know this is an ongoing concern and an ongoing obligation, and
this bill recognizes it.
I salute all of those who made this possible for the passage of this
bill; the inclusion of the Wounded Warriors Act, the traumatic brain
injury bill I worked on. They say you get a lot done around Congress if
you don't care who takes the credit. I am glad this bill passes. Even
though the one I introduced with my name didn't, the major parts of it
are included. My vote on behalf of this is for Ed and Beth Edmundson,
who did everything in their power for their son, and to Eric Edmundson,
his wife Stephanie, and his little daughter Gracie.
They are the ones who brought this to my attention and the ones I
will be thinking of when I vote today.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Durbin, for his passion on this issue, this brain injury problem, which
is bedeviling us. We have now incorporated the original screening so we
know where people are who come into the service. This bill has his name
on it as a cosponsor and has his spirit and effort incorporated in it.
That is a most important thing. We thank him.
Senator Byrd may want to speak.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I spoke to our friend from West Virginia.
He said he will not speak now. He also wants to expedite this bill. On
our side, it could be that Senator Inhofe may appear for a minute or
two.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator McCaskill will ask to be
recognized. How many minutes do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Three minutes 48 seconds. The
other side has 5 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Without even asking, I know Senator Warner would be happy
to yield a minute or two of his remaining time if she needs it.
I thank Senator McCaskill. She has been intrepid on so many issues,
including the ones we talked about on mental health. She brings a
background to the committee which is unique in terms of oversight. We
are grateful she is on our team.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have to express how lucky I have
been this year to learn from two titans of bipartisan leadership in
this body. If the rest of the Senators would emulate Senator Warner and
Senator Levin, America would be better off. I thank you for the
incredible lesson I have had at your knee this year. I also thank
Congressman Ike Skelton, a giant from Missouri, who, with his gentle
smile and steely resolve, helped shepherd this bill through.
I want to point out a few of the many provisions that are in here--
the ones put in with my auditor's hat on:
First, stronger provisions about the definitization of contracts. We
cannot hold contractors accountable unless we tell them what we want,
we are clear about what we want, and then we demand that we get it.
That is important.
Second, the training of military personnel about contracting. My dad
peeled potatoes in the Army in World War II. We are never going to have
soldiers doing that again; we are going to hire people to do that. We
have to make sure we are getting value for that. That means the
military needs to know how to oversee these contracts.
As Senator Levin mentioned, whistleblower protection for the
employees of the contractors. Many of them are Americans first, and
they want to tell us the bad things that are going on within these
contracts. We need to give them the same protection Government
employees have for whistleblowing. This legislation accomplishes that,
and it will do great good for the American taxpayer in terms of
protecting our military.
Finally, the provision that, as freshmen, we are most proud of--
Senator Webb and I worked very hard on the Contracting Commission. I
think over the next 2 years this country will have an opportunity, in a
bipartisan way, to provide a high-profile look at contracting and how
we can do it better. It is important that we get this right. As Harry
Truman said, nobody should be allowed to profit off the blood, tears,
and the deaths of the men and women who serve us so bravely. It is very
important that we get this done.
I thank the Senators for the opportunity to speak for a few moments,
and I appreciate so much their willingness to work with myself and
Senator Webb, the two freshmen on my side on the committee this year.
I am pleased to be supporting the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense
Authorization Act, a critical bill in setting policy for the Department
of Defense. However, I unfortunately must note my deep disappointment
with some of the content of the legislation.
I have and will continue to oppose the practice of adding extensive
numbers of ``earmarks'' to Federal spending measures. I believe this
practice is fiscally irresponsible. And it is earmarks in this
legislation that once again proves disconcerting to me.
I am aware that a series of unfortunate decisions by House leadership
resulted in the House passing several appropriations measures,
including the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs funding measure,
before consideration of earmarks sought by House Members was completed.
This subsequently resulted in the exclusion of Military Construction
earmarks for House Members when the National Defense Authorization Act
was taken up and passed by the House. The decision of House leaders to
later add House earmarks to the Military Construction accounts in the
Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations conference
produced a dilemma for authorizers, who had not yet reached a
conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act.
Ultimately, in order to maintain proper order in the legislative
process, authorizers chose to add the House Military Construction
earmarks to their conference agreement. I find this terribly
unfortunate and, frankly, unacceptable. But, in light of the special
circumstances under which it took place, I have decided not to oppose
the Defense Authorization Act.
I am pleased that the conference report states the disapproval by
authorizers of the process that led to adding these earmarks. I am also
pleased that a strong commitment has been made to not engage in such a
practice again. I also note, as does the conference report, that the
authorized projects have
[[Page S15617]]
previously been considered and voted on in the House so there has been
a degree of public vetting of these projects. Finally, I am pleased
that the National Defense Authorization Act contains no other earmarks
added in this offensive manner.
In closing, I fully recognize that this legislation contains many
provisions critical to today's fighting men and women and to our
national security, ranging from a well deserved pay raise to the
funding of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. I am proud to
have been a part of developing this legislation and applaud Chairman
Levin and Chairman Skelton for their efforts. I am also particularly
pleased with the inclusion of vital measures that I worked especially
closely on, from extensive acquisition reform and contracting
accountability measures to a host of new protections and programs for
America's wounded warriors. Our troops deserve this legislation, but it
is my hope that the Congress will utilize a better process in achieving
it in the future.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask now that the remainder of my time be
given to the Senator from Oklahoma.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend from
Virginia and also the chairman of the committee. They have done a great
job in getting this bill up, and I was concerned that we weren't going
to get to it today. That wouldn't have been a good message to send.
I think we have a good authorization bill, although I think there are
some shortfalls. I am encouraged by the funding levels we are
authorizing for the F-22, the F-35, the KC-X, and the Future Combat
System--although with the Future Combat System we did take a cut of
about $205 million. That is something I hope we will be able to get
restored next time. It is interesting that a lot of people don't
realize how important the Future Combat System is. We have not had a
major renovation in transformation on the ground in decades. I do
believe that cut needs to be restored, and I think we can work on that
in the future.
I am further encouraged that the bill authorizes a 3.5-percent
across-the-board pay raise. I believe that is very important at this
time, as is the authorization of funding for Afghanistan and Iraq. I
will be going there again in about 3 weeks. Every time I go, I see the
great successes they are having, and I get very excited. However, while
we have authorized something that is adequate in this case, the
appropriations aren't there yet. I think it is vital that we get this
done immediately.
There are other areas I want to concentrate on next time. I think the
Train and Equip Program is one of the best things we have, the program
expanding the IMET Program, where we would be able to train a lot of
the military officers of other countries, primarily countries that are
found in Africa and others. There was a time when we thought that in
our IMET Program we were doing them a favor by allowing them to come
and be trained by us. But now I think we understand that if we don't do
it, other countries will. There is no better way to ensure the
allegiance of countries than to train them. I think that needs to be
improved.
I hope we will get to the point where we recognize that if we in the
United States want to have the best of everything--I am talking about
the best lift programs, strike programs, ground programs--we are going
to have to really do a better job at the top line. We went through 100
years in this country of spending 5.7 percent of our GDP on military,
and it went down, at the end of the nineties, to about 2.7 percent. It
is now hanging at about 3.6. I think the expectations of the American
people are that we should have the best of everything to do that. We
are going to have to increase the top line. I believe we will be able
to address that in the next session.
I am glad the bill is here today. I look forward to getting this
passed and sending the message to our very courageous fighting men and
women that help is on the way.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WARNER. On our side, the distinguished Republican leader is the
sole remaining speaker. I understand he will be coming to the floor
shortly.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we will close with thanking all of the
members of the committee for their work. On our side, we have a couple
of old lions, Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, and our wonderful
freshmen, Senators McCaskill and Webb, who led the way to give us a
Commission on Contracting. All of the members made major contributions.
Since I am sitting in front of Senator Byrd, and I have 3 seconds
left, I pay my personal respects to the longest serving member of our
committee as well as, obviously, the senior Member of the Senate. I
wanted to look that wonderful Senator in the eye and express the
gratitude of this body and of our committee for what he contributes to
both the Senate and the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague in
paying tribute to our distinguished leader, Senator Byrd. I remember
the years when we served under him as majority leader. He always let
the Armed Services Committee get whatever time it needed on the floor
to handle our bills. And then, of course, through all these many years,
I pleaded with him to reunite West Virginia and Virginia, bring them
back as one mighty State again. I indicated I would yield my position
to the Senator and retire into oblivion and let him become the
distinguished Senator. He has not accepted my request.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no similar request by this Senator
to reunite Ohio and Michigan, by the way.
I also thank Senator Jack Reed, who has meant so much to the
Committee and to me personally over the years.
Mr. WARNER. That is true.
I also thank the Republican leader for the support he has given me
and Senator McCain in leading the work of our committee, together with
our members. I thank each and every one of those members, some of whom
are on the floor now prepared to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at the outset, this the penultimate DOD
authorization bill for the distinguished Senator from Virginia. What a
leader he has been on defense issues for his 30 years in the Senate. He
will have an opportunity to do one more before he rides off into the
sunset, much to our regret.
I also would like to congratulate Senator Levin for his work on this
important conference report, which is, indeed, a bipartisan
achievement. I was particularly pleased to see that the committee
provided full authorization for the supplemental funding for our troops
in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was pleased to see the committee recommended
no policy changes to the Petraeus plan.
The Wounded Warriors legislation, which we passed earlier in the
year, is also included. The Wounded Warriors bill is vitally important
to our men and women in uniform and important to the people of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
So I thank the managers of the conference report. This is an
important accomplishment for our men and women in uniform, who we can
all agree are deserving of this body's full support and our deepest
gratitude.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the proud history of America's Armed
Forces, I fear that the Bush years will be known as a rare, even a dark
time.
At a time when we call upon our troops to face new challenges and
great dangers, our President stretched them thin and neglected their
protection and care, in many instances. Military readiness levels have
dropped to levels not seen since Vietnam. Tours of duty keep getting
extended. We are so bogged down with over 160,000 troops in Iraq that
we cannot adequately respond to the grave and growing challenges
elsewhere, such as bin Laden, who remains free to taunt and threaten
us; his al-Qaida network, which is more powerful than ever; like
Afghanistan, where the gains of the past are now backsliding, the drug
trade is rampant, and violence is on the rise; Pakistan, where the path
toward democracy is wavering significantly.
It will take years to recover from the mismanagement of the military
in the
[[Page S15618]]
past few years by our Commander in Chief.
Today, we can take steps that will make our country safer, aid the
fight against terrorism, and provide our heroic troops with the care
and support they deserve.
Mr. President, my ability to express my appreciation, admiration, and
affection for Senators Levin and Warner--I am incapable of doing that.
To me there are no two finer Senators whoever served this body. There
are no two Senators who have done more for our armed services. They not
only take care of those who are now fighting for us, they take care of
those who have fought for us in wars passed.
I certainly am going to miss Senator Warner. He has another year with
us. That is good for Nevada, it is good for Virginia, and it is
wonderful for our country. He will contribute significantly to the
well-being of the Senate and our country during the next year. Senator
Levin is someone I lean on all the time. He is a person who understands
what legislation is all about, probably more than most all of us. There
is no one who can look at a piece of legislation and make an analysis
of what is good and bad about that legislation. It doesn't matter if it
is a matter dealing with our military or a matter dealing with
something important to his State or, as far as that goes, if there is
something important dealing with my State and I want a real good
analysis of it. I don't turn to my staff; I turn to Carl Levin. I say
to these two fine gentlemen that I speak not only for this Senator, but
I speak for all Senators.
They, and all of us, understand rebuilding our Armed Forces must
begin with a sufficient number of troops, but today the military is
struggling to meet its recruiting goals. We are taking people into the
military when we would not have thought of taking them into it a few
years ago--people not graduating from high school, people with criminal
records. That is why this Defense authorization bill provides funds to
speed the growth of the Army from 512,000 to 547,000, an increase of
35,000, which is so important, and the Marine Corps, from 180,000 to
202,000, an increase of 22,000, both of which are significantly above
the goals set by President Bush.
We also go beyond the President's request for $1 billion for the
strategic readiness fund and add $1 billion to replace equipment for
Guard and Reserve that has been sent to Iraq. Every natural disaster
exposes the depleted capacity of our Guard and Reserve, and this bill
begins to make that right.
This Defense bill also refocuses our military by saying there will be
no permanent bases in Iraq. We need not be seen as an occupying force
in Iraq. In a couple months, we will begin the sixth year of that war.
We don't need permanent bases in Iraq.
This legislation has important language addressing potential waste,
fraud, and abuse by establishing a Commission on Wartime Contracting.
This is so important.
It beefs up our counterterrorist operations along the Afghan-
Pakistani border to help fight al-Qaida and capture bin Laden, an
effort that has been abandoned, it seems.
Last, but not least, it honors our brave troops who have given so
much and receive sometimes so little in return. We start by giving
everyone in uniform an across-the-board 3.5 percent pay increase. Those
in uniform did not join to get rich; they joined to serve our country.
This pay increase, as I said, will not make them rich. They did not
enlist to get rich. They joined the military to serve this great
country. Though a 3.5-percent increase certainly will not make them
rich, it will help them make ends meet and help their families to do
the same as they face the burden of a husband, wife, mother or father
serving an extended tour of duty someplace in the United States or
around the world.
This pay raise didn't come from President Bush. He opposed it, or I
should say part of it. It comes from Congress. We provide care and
support for our troops when they are back home because our commitment
to them must not end when their combat tours end.
The Wounded Warrior Act is in this bill which will improve health
care and benefits for recovering veterans, servicemembers, and their
families.
Senator Patty Murray directed me and a number of other Senators to go
to Walter Reed. She knew what was there. It was early in the morning,
but it was a trip that any time of the day would have been beneficial.
What we learned there was the basis of the Wounded Warrior legislation
led by the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray.
The American people will, for many years in the future, be indebted
to her for this legislation, and I appreciate very much the managers of
this bill placing this important legislation in it.
I am especially pleased this bill has two provisions I have worked on
for years. These two fine managers continue the improvement. The first
will expand eligibility for combat-related special compensation for
disabled veterans whose combat wounds force them into medical
retirement before attaining 20 years of service. The three of us have
worked on this issue for many years. This is very important. Current
law requires these wounded veterans to fund their own disability
compensation. We end that practice and do right by these heroes.
The second provision will restore equity for disabled retirees that
the VA has rated as unemployable. This is the only group of 100 percent
disabled retirees who still suffer the unfair disability offset from
their retired pay. This legislation will right that wrong.
I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment that there
were not enough votes in the House to pass the hate crimes portion of
the bill. There is a longstanding history of addressing hate crimes and
actually hate violence in Defense authorization bills. It was only
right and proper that we again did it this year.
The hate crimes portion would have made America a safer, better
place. It would have given State and local law enforcement agencies the
tools they need and want.
At a time we fight for equality across the globe, we ought to ensure
equality in America. This issue will not disappear. We will keep
fighting to give all Americans protection from hate violence.
Despite this setback, this is a bill that all 100 Senators can
proudly support. At times of unprecedented challenges throughout the
globe, this legislation will make us safe. At a time when we see a lot
of waste, mismanagement, and misplaced priorities on the part of this
administration and the people with whom they choose to do business, it
reaches for a higher standard of integrity. That is what this
legislation does.
At a time of tremendous strain on men and women in uniform, this
legislation sends a strong message that we honor them, we respect them,
and will always stand by them. I urge all my colleagues to send that
message today by overwhelmingly passing this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time consumed today
be counted postcloture. I thought consent was ordered last night that
took care of this issue. If not, I hope can have this approved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished colleague
from Nevada for his thoughtful remarks. While we may have differences
on the course, direction, and policies, I don't know of any Senator who
comes to the floor and can speak with greater sense of compassion on
behalf of the men and women who wear the uniform and their families and
those who have borne the brunt of this conflict, not only in Iraq but
in Afghanistan and other places.
I also ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Virginia, Mr.
Webb, be granted 2 minutes. He worked with Senator Murray on the
Wounded Warrior Act. I knew him very well when he returned from
Vietnam. He served on my staff as a young Marine captain. Had it not
been for what he suffered in that war, he might still be in the Marine
Corps today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Senator is recognized, I wish to
thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, obviously for the comments he
made about me, which were extremely meaningful to me and will be
memorable to
[[Page S15619]]
my family, although they will discount it hopefully somewhat. I also
thank him for his leadership in this body and for the way he has fought
for so many causes, not just for our veterans but our troops. Year
after year, he is on this floor improving the situation for those who
have been badly wounded, retired, and disabled. Without that effort,
the progress we have made in the last few years simply could not have
happened. I thank him.
I am glad Senator Webb was able to get to the floor. I have already
thanked him for his work on the Commission on which he and Senator
McCaskill led an effort, a Commission on contracting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and there are so many other areas in which he is involved.
I am delighted he was able to get to the floor for a few minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I do not want to take up too much time on
the floor. All the salient points have been made, and I know the Senate
is anxious to vote.
First of all, I echo the comments about the majority leader. He has
to stand up and take a lot of hits on behalf of all of us. I know of no
one who is more highly and sincerely motivated.
It has been a pleasure to work with the chairman, Senator Warner, and
Senator McCain on the Armed Services Committee. I am also on the
Veterans' Committee. We were able to work with both committees on the
Wounded Warrior project.
I would like, very briefly, to give a special thanks to Senator
Warner, my senior Senator from Virginia, for having stepped forward on
this wartime contracts commission and brought it to fruition after
Senator McCaskill and I had spent a lot of time working on it and were
in a situation where we didn't know if it actually was going to get
into the bill. It was Senator Warner stepping forward and ironing out a
few of these provisions and leading the Republican side that made that
possible.
Obviously, I am very strongly in support of the bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator
from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 433 Leg.]
YEAS--90
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--3
Byrd
Feingold
Sanders
NOT VOTING--7
Biden
Boxer
Clinton
Dodd
Inouye
McCain
Obama
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________