[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10756-10798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2514, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:


[[Page 10757]]

       A bill (S. 2514) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2003 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed 
     Forces, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 3899

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, momentarily, I will be offering an 
amendment on behalf of the majority of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee which addresses the Crusader artillery system program and the 
Army's fire support requirements.
  The amendment would do two things: First, it would take $475.6 
million out of the Crusader program and put the money into a separate 
funding line for Future Combat Systems research and development, the 
Army's armored systems modernization line.
  In terms of making sure this issue is very clear, it is essential to 
understand that the first action this amendment would take would be to 
move that $475 million from the Crusader program but keeping it in the 
Army's Future Combat Systems research and development program; that is, 
the Army's armored systems modernization line.
  It would do a second thing which was very important to the majority 
of the Armed Services Committee; that is, that it would require the 
Chief of Staff of the Army to conduct an analysis of alternatives for 
the Army's artillery needs and to submit his findings to the Secretary 
of Defense no later than 1 month after the date of enactment of this 
bill.
  Under this amendment, the Department would not be permitted to spend 
the $475 million until after the Secretary of Defense adds his own 
conclusions and recommendations to the Army Chief of Staff's report and 
forwards the report to the Congress. With his own decision, the 
Secretary of Defense would, under our amendment, be required to submit 
the recommendations of the Chief of Staff of the Army.
  They may be two different recommendations, as they were during the 
hearing that we had, where we had the Secretary of Defense saying the 
Crusader should be terminated immediately, and the Chief of Staff of 
the Army giving us the reasons he believed the Crusader system made 
sense in terms of modernization, made sense in terms of transformation. 
It was a very important hearing for all of us, including the Presiding 
Officer, who was present at that hearing.
  At that point, after that period had run--1 month after the date of 
enactment--the Secretary would be free to do a number of things: spend 
the money for future combat systems in that account or request a 
reprogramming to spend the money on other programs which address the 
Army's indirect fire requirements.
  So under our approach, we would accomplish two things, basically: 
One, we would make sure this money is spent for future combat systems 
essential to the Army; secondly, we would provide that the Army 
complete the analysis, which was truncated, which was interrupted when 
the Secretary of Defense, in early May, said it was his decision to 
terminate the system before that analysis could be completed.
  This was an analysis which was going to look at a number of very 
critical issues. The Army was looking at seven questions, questions 
which were critical to the survival of soldiers in our future. These 
are questions which could be life-and-death questions down the road. 
These are survival questions. These are questions which affect the men 
and women in the Armed Forces at some point down the road.
  How these questions are answered could literally make the difference 
between whether or not we prevail during a battle and what casualties 
are incurred during a battle at some time in the future.
  These were not just questions of affordability at which the Army was 
looking, these were questions of capability, of various alternatives. 
Four indirect fire alternatives were being analyzed by the Army. They 
were analyzing these alternatives in six different combat scenarios. 
And they were going to answer seven questions. Again, the answers to 
those questions are critically important to success in combat or to 
survive in combat.
  The majority of the committee objected to the termination of that 
analysis. Many people had concluded that Crusader ought to be canceled. 
Other people had concluded that Crusader should not be canceled. But I 
think where many of us--perhaps most of us--in the Armed Services 
Committee finally rested, wherever you tend to go or be on that 
continuum, for or against, that there is a middle ground here, where 
that analysis, which was underway by the Army, not only would help us 
determine whether we should leave Crusader, terminate Crusader, but 
would also help us determine where those funds should be spent as an 
alternative to Crusader.
  So this study became significant and relevant to both whether we 
leave our current path and to what new direction should we move. That 
is why the amendment, which I offered in committee, required that the 
Secretary of the Army be given a reasonable period of time to complete 
that analysis so that we would have the benefit of the Army's analysis.
  The Secretary of Defense would not be bound by it. The Secretary of 
Defense, after that analysis was completed, would have an opportunity 
to reach his own conclusions. They may or may not be the same. They may 
or may not be, as he has already decided, that we should leave Crusader 
and move to something else. But at least it would be based on an 
analysis which addressed such critically important questions as the 
Army was in the process of addressing--looking at all the alternatives, 
looking at the risks, looking at the benefits of approaching each one 
of those or utilizing each one of those alternatives.
  The committee approved this amendment by a vote of 13 to 6. And that 
is where it currently stands.
  The amendment which we adopted is not part of this bill. It is, in 
effect, going to be offered in a few moments as a proposed committee 
amendment. More technically stated, it is an amendment which I will be 
offering on behalf of the committee because, since this is a new bill 
which was filed, a committee amendment technically would not be in 
order. So it amounts to the same thing. But for those on the Armed 
Services Committee, they should be aware of the fact that this will be 
an amendment which I will be offering on behalf of the committee 
pursuant to the majority vote of that committee.
  In conclusion, the amendment would simply require the Department of 
Defense to undertake a reasoned analysis of all the alternatives, an 
analysis which the Army was in the middle of making, before making a 
final decision whether to terminate the Crusader program and, if the 
program is terminated, how the money should best be spent to support 
the Army's indirect fire needs. The objective is not to preserve a 
particular program or to advance a particular approach. It is simply 
intended to ensure a reasoned analysis of a potentially life-and-death 
issue. I hope we will adopt this approach.
  I understand my dear friend and colleague from Virginia, our ranking 
member on the Armed Services Committee, may be offering a second-degree 
amendment.
  Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration. I am authorized by the committee to send that 
amendment to the desk.
  I wish to make clear there is one very technical change in the 
amendment. I have stricken the words that are confusing, ``organic-to-
unit.'' Those words have been stricken from the amendment adopted by 
the committee. I have touched base with at least one key Senator on the 
committee who is very supportive of proceeding with Crusader. I have 
touched base with my ranking member on this issue. There is no 
objection to those words being stricken in a number of places to 
provide greater clarity.
  I ask that the amendment be immediately considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.

[[Page 10758]]

  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3899.

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reallocate an amount available to the Army for indirect 
                             fire programs)

       On page 26, after line 22, add the following:

     SEC. 214. REALLOCATION OF AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR INDIRECT FIRE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Reduction of Amount for Crusader.--Of the amount 
     authorized to be appropriated by section 201(1) for the Army 
     for research, development, test, and evaluation, the amount 
     available for continued research and development of the 
     Crusader artillery system is hereby reduced by $475,600,000.
       (b) Increase of Amount for Future Combat Systems.--Of the 
     amount authorized to be appropriated by section 201(1) for 
     the Army for research, development, test, and evaluation, the 
     amount available for research and development for the 
     Objective Force is hereby increased by $475,600,000. The 
     amount of the increase shall be available only for meeting 
     the needs of the Army for indirect fire capabilities, and may 
     not be used under the authority of this section until the 
     report required by subsection (d) is submitted to Congress in 
     accordance with such subsection.
       (c) Reprogramming of Amount for Indirect Fire Programs.--
     Upon the submission to Congress of the report required by 
     subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may seek to 
     reprogram the amount available under subsection (b), in 
     accordance with established procedures, only for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Payment of costs associated with a termination, if any, 
     of the Crusader artillery system program.
       (2) Continued research and development of the Crusader 
     artillery system.
       (3) Other Army programs identified by the Secretary 
     pursuant to subsection (d) as the best available alternative 
     to the Crusader artillery system for providing improved 
     indirect fire for the Army.
       (d) Reporting Requirement.--(1) Not later than 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chief of 
     Staff of the Army shall complete a review of the full range 
     of Army programs that could provide improved indirect fire 
     for the Army over the next 20 years and shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Defense a report containing the recommendation 
     of the Chief of Staff on which alternative for improving 
     indirect fire for the Army is the best alternative for that 
     purpose. The report shall also include information on each of 
     the following funding matters:
       (A) The manner in which the amount available under 
     subsection (b) should be best invested to support the 
     improvement of indirect fire capabilities for the Army.
       (B) The manner in which the amount provided for indirect 
     fire programs of the Army in the future-years defense program 
     submitted to Congress with respect to the budget for fiscal 
     year 2003 under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, 
     should be best invested to support improved indirect fire for 
     the Army.
       (C) The manner in which the amounts described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) should be best invested to support 
     the improvement of indirect fire capabilities for the Army in 
     the event of a termination of the Crusader artillery system 
     program.
       (D) The portion of the amount available under subsection 
     (b) that should be reserved for paying costs associated with 
     a termination of the Crusader artillery system program in the 
     event of such a termination.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit the report, 
     together with any comments and recommendations that the 
     Secretary considers appropriate, to the congressional defense 
     committees.
       (e) Annual Updates.--(1) The Secretary shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees, at the same time that the 
     President submits the budget for a fiscal year referred to in 
     paragraph (4) to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31, 
     United States Code, a report on the investments proposed to 
     be made in indirect fire programs for the Army.
       (2) If the Crusader artillery system program has been 
     terminated by the time the annual report is submitted in 
     conjunction with the budget for a fiscal year, the report 
     shall--
       (A) identify the amount proposed for expenditure for the 
     Crusader artillery system program for that fiscal year in the 
     future-years defense program that was submitted to Congress 
     in 2002 under section 221 of title 10, United States Code; 
     and
       (B) specify--
       (i) the manner in which the amount provided in that budget 
     would be expended for improved indirect fire capabilities for 
     the Army; and
       (ii) the extent to which the expenditures in that manner 
     would improve indirect fire capabilities for the Army.
       (3) The requirement to submit an annual report under 
     paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to budgets for fiscal 
     years 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008.

  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                Amendment No. 3900 To Amendment No. 3899

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, this is an amendment that was considered 
by our committee. The chairman has stated very accurately the facts. 
The vote was 13 to 6. I happen to have been in the six. I would like to 
explain the background.
  The President sent to the Congress a document entitled ``Department 
of Defense Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Amendment, Crusader Termination, May 
2002.''
  The operative message is on page 4. It says as follows: Department of 
Defense Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Amendment for Crusader Termination, 
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army. Justification: The 
Department of Defense has decided to terminate the Crusader Artillery 
System Program. This action will support development of objective force 
indirect fires and network fires. Crusader funding can be used to 
accelerate the development and fielding of indirect fire platforms such 
as the high mobility artillery rocket system and precision munitions 
such as Excalibur Projectile Precision Guided Mortar Munitions and 
Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (unitary). Certain selected 
technologies developed within the Crusader program will have 
application to future artillery programs. These changes should boost 
long-term capabilities.
  When this arrived in the Congress, it provoked, understandably, 
considerable concern. The Senator from Oklahoma, I am sure, will 
shortly address those concerns. He has been fully involved throughout 
this. I commend him for bringing to the attention of the chairman and 
myself the need to address this very carefully within the committee as 
a separate item. That was done, as I stated and as the chairman stated. 
The committee action represents such consensus as a vote of 13 to 6 
represents.
  In my capacity as ranking member of the committee, I have an 
obligation to work with the Secretary of Defense and to determine the 
extent to which we can arrive at the budget amendment request sent by 
the President. I have done that in such a manner as to develop an 
amendment, which I will shortly send to the desk, in the second degree 
to the amendment offered by the chairman. This amendment was drawn 
after careful consultation with the Secretary and other members of the 
Department of Defense through several sessions yesterday. I think it is 
a very fair compromise and hopefully will be adopted by the Senate.
  I represent that the amendment I have devised reaches the same basic 
goals as enunciated in this justification forwarded to the Congress by 
the President. At the same time, my amendment recognizes the important 
contributions by the chairman and others in drafting the committee 
amendment. I, too, join the chairman in expressing concern about what I 
call ``due process'' accorded the Department of the Army in the course 
of reevaluating this Crusader system at the direction of the Secretary 
of Defense, which to some degree was done prior to the forwarding to 
the Congress of this budget amendment.
  The chairman--and, indeed, I and others--believed the Army should be 
given the opportunity to fully explore, as the chairman stated, the 
reasons for either continuing Crusader or pursuing other avenues 
leading to the goals enunciated in the budget amendment.
  Therefore, my amendment carefully preserves--at least I have 
endeavored to do that--the portions of the chairman's amendment which 
enable the Army to perform those important analyses, forwards them to 
the Secretary of Defense, and then the Secretary is to take certain 
actions.
  The basic difference between the chairman's amendment and my 
amendment is that my amendment eliminates the reprogramming, a series 
of four reprogrammings which are required when a matter of this 
importance is brought to the Congress. It is

[[Page 10759]]

my judgment--and I think the Secretary of Defense--that we should as 
quickly as possible, to save dollars and in every other way, remove the 
delays incorporated in moving to a new system for the U.S. Army with 
regard to its very important indirect and network fires.
  The four reprogramming actions have the possibility of delays built 
in, plus the fact that, for whatever reason, one of those four 
committees could block the action. I believe with the consideration 
being given in the Senate today, the consideration that will be given 
in a conference between the House and the Senate, assuming the 
amendments are adopted, that we will have given proper congressional 
oversight of the decision by the President and the Secretary of Defense 
to stop the Crusader program terminating and proceed with moving in 
accordance with the justification I have outlined. So for that purpose 
I now send to the desk an amendment in the second degree and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3900 to amendment No. 3899.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To substitute a notice-and-wait condition for the exercise of 
                        authority to use funds)

       Beginning on page 2, strike line 7 and all that follows 
     through line 5 on page 3, and insert the following:

     ``development for the Objective Force indirect fire systems 
     is hereby increased by $475,600,000. The amount of the 
     increase shall be available only for meeting the needs of the 
     Army for indirect fire capabilities, and may not be used 
     under the authority of this section until 30 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to the 
     congressional defense committees the report required by 
     subsection (d), together with a notification of the 
     Secretary's plan to use such funds to meet the needs of the 
     Army for indirect fire capabilities.
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of Defense may use the amount available under such 
     subsection for any program for meeting the needs of the Army 
     for indirect fire capabilities.''

  Mr. WARNER. The administration is on record as opposing any action to 
stop the Defense authorization process which would block the 
President's determination to terminate the Crusader program. For that 
reason, I have developed this alternative, which has the support of the 
administration.
  The discussions I have had over the past several days with the 
Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary, the Secretary of the Army, and 
others, have lead to this compromise, which would, with minor 
modification, make the Levin amendment acceptable to the 
administration. So the Levin amendment survives if modified by the 
Warner second degree in a document that is acceptable to the 
administration.
  The second-degree amendment does not alter the intent of the original 
amendment by Senator Levin. The chairman, quite properly, has concerns 
with the process, as do I, which was followed to terminate the Crusader 
program. The chairman believes the Army has not been given ``due 
process.'' I concur in that. My amendment would not alter the part of 
the Levin amendment which addresses this issue.
  Under the provisions of my amendment, the underlying Levin amendment 
would still do the following:
  Transfer the $475 million for the Crusader field artillery system to 
a budget line for the Future Combat Systems to be used only for the 
purpose of developing indirect fire capabilities for the U.S. Army; 
provide the Army time to conduct an analysis of alternatives to address 
its requirement for indirect fire capabilities; require the Chief of 
Staff of the Army to submit recommendations to the Secretary of Defense 
on several issues, including the best way to allocate funding for 
fiscal year 2003 and beyond, to address Army indirect fire support 
requirements; require the Secretary of Defense to forward the Army 
Chief of Staff's report to the Congress, and to make recommendations 
regarding the best way to meet the Army's requirement for indirect fire 
support.
  I want to make it clear, the Secretary of Defense has the final 
authority.
  My amendment differs from the Levin amendment in one key way. The 
Levin amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to seek reprogramming 
approval to transfer funding from the Future Combat System budget line 
to those lines which would support the Army's indirect fire 
requirement, as a result of the review conducted under the Levin 
amendment.
  The Warner amendment would replace that formal reprogramming process 
with a simpler ``notice and wait'' procedure.
  Under my amendment, the Secretary of Defense would notify the 
Congress of his intention to transfer funds to support the Army's 
indirect fire requirements. The transfer would be effective 30 days 
after notification.
  This approach will allow the Congress to retain oversight over this 
important issue but remove the ``one member'' or one committee veto, 
which is sometimes the result of the reprogramming process.
  At this time, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, the reason this amendment--with or 
without the second degree--is so critical is that the decisionmaking 
process that has been used here has been so defective and denies the 
Army, the public, and the Congress critically important information 
relative to the need for future artillery systems. That information 
should have been available prior to the decision of the Department of 
Defense. Instead, there has been a zigzag decisionmaking process. That 
zigzag decisionmaking process should not have been followed because it 
leaves us without answers to the critically important questions about 
relative risks under various scenarios, under various kinds of 
combinations of artillery systems.
  I want to go through just a bit of that to give a flavor as to why it 
is so important that this analysis of the Army be reasonably completed 
and not be truncated or terminated a few days after it was supposed to 
begin in May.
  This field artillery system, called Crusader, which is an advanced 
field artillery system, has been under development since 1994 to be the 
Army's next-generation self-propelled howitzer and artillery resupply 
vehicle.
  There has been criticism of the Crusader program outside of the 
Department of Defense, and that is to be welcomed. It is always to be 
considered when we get that kind of criticism of a system. Congress 
should consider that criticism, and we have. But until very recently, 
the civilian and military leadership of the Defense Department 
consistently and strongly supported the Crusader program in testimony 
before the Congress.
  The fiscal year 2003 budget that was submitted by the President for 
the Department of Defense was submitted on February 4 of this year. 
That budget and the authorization bill that is before us included $475 
million in continued research and development funding for the Crusader 
program.
  On February 28, General Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army, 
testified before the Congress that:

       Crusader's agility to keep up with our ground maneuver 
     forces--its longer range, its high rate of fire, its 
     precision . . . and the addition of Excalibur--would bring 
     the potential of a precision weapon . . . with the platform 
     and the munition being brought together, [and] would be a 
     significant increase to the potential shortage of fires that 
     we have today. Excalibur itself will not solve the problem. 
     And Crusader is very much a part of our requirement.

  ``The bottom line''--quoting General Shinseki's testimony to our 
committee on March 7--``is we need it.'' That is referring to the 
Crusader.
  Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz recently testified in 
response to a question of whether we need Crusader as follows:

       I think we need some of it, a lot fewer than the Army had 
     planned on. We have cut the program by almost two-thirds. And 
     they have done a lot to cut the size and the weight of the 
     system.


[[Page 10760]]


  Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz said the following:

       But I am not one of those people who think that I can bet 
     the farm on not needing artillery ten years from now.

  He summarized:

       And I think this [Crusader] is the best artillery system 
     available.

  That was just a few days before they reversed field. Something 
changed dramatically in the attitude of the senior civilian leadership 
of the Defense Department toward the Crusader program in just a matter 
of a few weeks.
  The first change of course actually came in late April. The media 
reported--and I was told personally--that the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense would be reviewing the Crusader and other weapons systems 
during the program review process leading up to the fiscal year 2004 
budget, and that a decision on the program would be made around 
September 1. This was documented in the recent Army IG Report on The 
Release of Crusader Talking Points to Members of Congress, which noted 
that prior to April 30, the Defense Guidance indicated that a Crusader 
alternatives study would be completed no later than September of 2002.
  Then came the second change of course. On May 2, Secretary Rumsfeld 
told the press that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz and Under Secretary 
Aldridge had ``advised the Secretary of the Army that they wanted a 
study within 30 days that would look at a specific alternative that 
would assume Crusader was canceled.''
  On May 2, the Secretary of Defense told the press that within 30 days 
a study would be looking at alternatives to Crusader.
  Secretary Rumsfeld went on to say it was his impression that ``when 
the study comes back, a final decision would be made.'' In other words, 
no final decision until the 30-day study period was completed.
  The same day, May 2, Under Secretary Aldridge also told the press:

       We'll brief the deputy secretary in 30 days, and then we'll 
     make a decision is this the right plan or may not be the 
     right plan. We're allowing the Army to tell us if that is in 
     fact the case, being as objective as possible . . . so we 
     have a basis for an analytical judgment based on rational and 
     objective criteria.

  That is Under Secretary Aldridge on May 2. Thirty days, so we have 
rational and objective criteria.
  Less than a week later comes change of course No. 3. On May 8, before 
the 30-day study is completed, Secretary Rumsfeld announces:

       After a good deal of consideration, I have decided to 
     cancel the Crusader program. We still do not have any study 
     based on rational and objective criteria to support that 
     decision, and that zigzag decisionmaking process did not end 
     with the decision to terminate the program.

  On May 16, the Armed Services Committee held a hearing on the 
proposed termination. At that hearing, the Secretary of Defense 
testified that the Crusader money be spent ``to accelerate a variety of 
precision munitions, including GPS-guided rounds for all U.S. 155-
millimeter cannons, as well as adding GPS guidance and accuracy to 
upgraded multiple-launch rocket system vehicles and the more mobile 
wheeled version of this system, the high mobility artillery rocket 
system, or HIMARS.''
  The Secretary also testified that the Department would maintain key 
pieces of Crusader technology for use in the Army's Future Combat 
System.
  At the same hearing, the Chief of Staff of the Army testified he 
could not comment on the Secretary's proposed alternatives to the 
Crusader program because he had not had the opportunity to analyze 
those alternatives or to review any analysis that may have been 
conducted by the Secretary's office.
  Nonetheless, the Department of Defense formalized these alternatives 
in a budget amendment that was submitted to the Congress on May 29. 
That budget amendment provided $195 million for the artillery component 
of the Army Future Combat System; $115 million for other aspects of the 
Future Combat System; $165 million for precision artillery and other 
initiatives unrelated to the Future Combat System.
  Even after the committee had its hearing, the Department of Defense 
and the Army continued to provide the committee with inconsistent 
information.
  On May 22, the Army informed the committee that it would cost $385 
million if termination were delayed until early next year. On June 5, 2 
weeks later, the Department of Defense informed the committee that it 
would cost $584 million if the termination were delayed until early 
next year. We have a $200 million difference, about an 80-percent 
increase in costs in just a matter of 2 weeks.
  On May 22, the Army informed the committee that it would cost $290 
million to terminate the Crusader program immediately.
  On June 10, we were told the termination costs could be reduced to 
less than $100 million if the Department entered into a bridge contract 
to transfer Crusader technologies to the Future Combat System and made 
a commitment to follow on FCS contracts with the Crusader contract.
  It is possible, Madam President, that the Department's budget 
amendment takes the right approach for the future of the Army. It is 
possible. But this kind of ad hoc decisionmaking, this zigzag change of 
course, is not the way in which we should make decisions which are 
life-and-death decisions for the people we put in harm's way and could 
be life-and-death decisions, indeed, for whether or not this country 
wins a battle in the years ahead.
  It is important we take this step back and conduct the reasoned 
analysis before deciding how to proceed. My amendment would provide for 
that analysis to be completed.
  The second-degree amendment of the Senator from Virginia also 
provides the same time period, as I understand it, for this reasoned 
analysis to take place. The difference between these amendments--and I 
have not yet decided, because I have not had an opportunity to read the 
exact language of the amendment of the Senator from Virginia, as to 
what my position will be on his second-degree amendment. But as I 
understand the difference, it is whether or not, after the analysis is 
completed by the Army, after there is a recommendation by the 
Department of Defense, there is either a period where there would be a 
request for reprogramming or whether there would be a 30-day wait 
period without that reprogramming process.
  That difference may sound more significant than it really is. The 
reason is that under the language of my amendment, if reprogramming is 
not adopted, the money is nonetheless required to be spent in the 
Future Combat System budget line. It will not be spent for Crusader 
unless there is a reverse in decision relative to Crusader, a reversal 
by the Secretary of Defense.
  As I understand the language--and I want to study it--in the second-
degree amendment, the 30-day period would be provided so that if a 
decision were made by the Secretary of Defense following the completion 
of this objective analysis, there would be 30 days available for the 
Congress to act to reverse that decision should it choose to do so.
  In either event, under either the first-degree amendment or the 
second-degree amendment, if the Secretary of Defense decided after 
receiving the Army analysis that he did not want to finish Crusader 
under either the first-degree amendment or the second-degree amendment, 
there would not be funding for Crusader. So there is no difference in 
that sense. Under both amendments, if the Secretary's decision 
following the analysis is not to complete Crusader, the money will not 
be spent to complete Crusader. The difference is more subtle than that.
  I yield the floor to give others a chance to speak. I want an 
opportunity to study the language in the second-degree amendment. I 
thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished chairman. He 
very accurately cited that my amendment embraces the corrections of the 
study requirement and the actions by the Chief of Staff of the Army is 
identical to his.
  I share the concerns of the Senator from Michigan. He recited in 
accurate detail a process which he characterized as zigzag.

[[Page 10761]]

  Again, my amendment in no way dislodges the goal by the chairman to 
have that work done by the Army. Then it goes to the Secretary of 
Defense. Where we differ is in what takes place after the Secretary of 
Defense has made his decision.
  I listened carefully, and the Senator said if we go the reprogramming 
route, if I may pose a question, then the money will be spent, but my 
understanding is if one of those committees fails to act, that money 
essentially is parked for an indefinite period of time; am I not 
correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. It would be in the Future Combat System line which most of 
that money would be spent even under the proposal of the Secretary of 
Defense, his budget amendment, for the Future Combat System.
  Under both approaches, if the decision of the Secretary of Defense, 
following the completion of the Army analysis, is not to proceed with 
Crusader, the money will not be spent for Crusader.
  There is no difference between our approaches, as I understand it. 
The difference would be that under our amendment, he would seek 
reprogramming. If any of the four committees did not grant them 
reprogramming, then the money would not be spent on Crusader. It would 
have to be spent within the Future Combat System.
  Mr. WARNER. At what point in time would that expenditure take place?
  Mr. LEVIN. Immediately.
  Mr. WARNER. I will come back and define that later, but I think it is 
important other colleagues address that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I have enjoyed listening to the debate 
so far, and I rise very briefly today in support of the chairman's 
underlying amendment to terminate funding for the Army's beleaguered 
Crusader mobile artillery system. I support the decision of the 
Secretary of Defense to cancel this program. Last month, I actually 
introduced legislation that would terminate the Crusader, saving the 
taxpayers an estimated $10 billion over the life of the program.
  I commend the Secretary of Defense for his efforts to transform our 
military to meet the challenges of the 21st century and beyond, and 
agree that the cold war era dinosaurs such as the Crusader should be 
terminated.
  The centerpiece of the Crusader system is a 40-ton, 155-millimeter, 
self-propelled howitzer designed to fire heavy artillery shells long 
distances to target enemy tanks and other armored vehicles on the 
battlefield.
  Each system has two support vehicles. Our military is seeking to be 
able to deploy rapidly, obviously, to anywhere in the world, but the 
Crusader apparently is not conducive to such rapid deployment. 
According to a recent New York Times editorial:

       If the Army was still facing the Soviet Union across 
     Central Europe or contemplating battle against a similar 
     military power in the coming decade, the Crusader would be 
     indispensable. But the threat has changed and the Crusader 
     program, with a price tag of $11 billion, is not needed and 
     should be cancelled.

  An editorial in our leading newspaper in Wisconsin, the Milwaukee 
Journal Sentinel, calls the Crusader a gold-plated weapons system and 
argues the Crusader is too expensive for a time when even a war-engaged 
Pentagon must make serious choices about how to spend its money.
  I agree that it is past time the Pentagon reorient its thinking and 
its spending requests toward the threats of the 21st century and away 
from the cold war. Cancelling the Crusader is a step in the right 
direction.
  The chairman's amendment would transfer the $475.6 million allocated 
for the Crusader program into a Future Combat Systems line item within 
the Army's research, development, testing, and evaluation account.
  In addition, the Army Chief of Staff would be required to prepare a 
report on alternatives to the Crusader program and submit it to the 
Secretary within 30 days of the enactment of this bill. This report 
would include an analysis of the Army's future artillery needs.
  I urge the members of the Armed Services Committee and the 
Appropriations Committee to exercise strict oversight of any 
reprogramming request that may be submitted as a result of the Army's 
report. I agree with the chairman of the committee that we should be 
careful about how the $475.6 million that is shifted into the Future 
Combat Systems account is allocated. The Future Combat Systems account 
should not be treated as a blank check. It should not be used as a way 
to revive part or all of the Crusader program. We should scrutinize 
carefully how these funds will be spent.
  I urge my colleagues to support Senator Levin's underlying amendment, 
and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is interesting to follow Senator 
Feingold because both of us have raised plenty of questions about what 
we consider to be waste in the Pentagon budget, and I will be 
relatively brief. I strongly support Chairman Levin's amendment because 
I think it corrects serious flaws in the process by which the 
Department of Defense summarily decided to terminate the Crusader 
without any prior consultation with the Army or the Congress. That is 
what bothers me the most.
  I have long been a critic of wasteful and unnecessary defense 
spending, particularly when it diverts needed resources from pressing 
operational and readiness needs of our Armed Forces. I also strongly 
believe in fair, transparent, and informed Government decision-making, 
which did not occur in the decision to cancel the Crusader.
  For me, this is as clear a kind of question as we can have before us. 
The Army has stated for over a decade that there is need for an 
indirect, long-range, rapid-fire system to support ground troops, the 
very purpose for which the Crusader was developed. Far from being a 
cold war system, the Crusader's development began in 1995, after the 
cold war ended and Iraq was defeated. The program is on schedule, on 
budget, and the system's weight has been cut substantially. As a 
result, the Bush administration's original fiscal year 2003 budget 
request was for full funding for the Crusader.
  Three Defense Secretaries, three Army Secretaries, three Army Chiefs 
of Staff, and numerous officers of the field have given testimony in 
support of the system. In the last few months, a parade of 
administration officials have testified, including Deputy Defense 
Secretary Wolfowitz, to congressional defense committees supporting the 
Crusader. Yet 2 months after the testimony by top Army brass, the 
Secretary of Defense abruptly cancelled the program.
  The Secretary's abrupt decision to terminate the Crusader was made in 
secret and without consultation with even high-level Army officials. It 
clearly did not follow the normal review within the Pentagon and looks, 
by its speed, designed to avoid normal scrutiny by Congress. We cannot 
give up that oversight.
  The decision was made without consultation with the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, without consultation with the Army, and without consultation 
with Members of Congress. An argument can be made one way or another 
ultimately about this weapons system, but for any weapons system I 
would like to see a careful review process. I think that is critically 
important.
  The decision to halt the program and the President's subsequent 
request to reallocate funds--not to just reduce funds but to reallocate 
funds--was an extraordinary flip-flop in the administration's position.
  I will not apologize for being concerned about potential job losses 
in Minnesota should the program be cut. I recently met with workers and 
officials at the United Defense Industries plant in Minnesota. The 
point is: Maybe, like it or not, a decision will be made, upon a 
careful review process, that this weapons system makes no sense. Maybe 
the decision will be made, with a highly skilled workforce, that there 
can be other uses made with other technology and that indeed all kinds 
of decisions can be made and different directions can be taken. I do 
not know.

[[Page 10762]]

What I do know is these workers are owed fairness and decent treatment 
by the Government. They deserve their day in court. Minnesota firms and 
workers who are most affected by this decision should have a chance to 
make their case within the normal transparent policy process, not a 
closed process, not a secret backroom process, which is all we have 
seen so far.
  I need to repeat that point. I have taken all kinds of unpopular 
votes on all kinds of weapons systems, and at the end of the day if I 
am convinced there is not merit to this, then that is the way I will 
vote. But there has not been any careful review process. There has not 
been any analysis of: How much does it cost to cancel? What do we get 
from the investment? What are the alternatives? Where is the money 
going to be spent?
  We can hardly blame men and women, a highly skilled workforce, for 
saying to me or to any Senator or anybody who represents them: At least 
call for a decent, fair, thorough, and rational review process. This is 
our skilled work. We are proud of what we do. We believe the weapons 
system has great merit, but, Paul, we understand.
  When I went to visit people, I said: You know my positions. But they 
are saying: At the very minimum, we deserve our day in court. There 
ought to be a careful review process. There cannot be a 180-degree 
turn, with the Secretary of Defense announcing the program is 
cancelled, period. Senator Levin's amendment is all about process. 
Process sounds boring. Senator Levin's amendment is about fairness. It 
is about fairness. I hope it will get strong support.
  Responsible defense spending decisions, especially those that have 
decades-long consequences, ought to be made only after a careful 
analysis and consideration of the need to have U.S. forces as well 
equipped and as well trained as possible. That is what happens to some 
Members critical of the expenditures and weapons systems. We are 
accused of being weak on defense. That is not the point. The point is, 
there is not any Senator here who does not want our Armed Forces to be 
well trained and well equipped. The question is what weapon systems 
make sense and how best do we do the job.
  The Pentagon so far offered scant evidence to viable alternatives to 
the Crusader. It seems clear the alternatives they have vaguely 
suggested--largely missile and precision-guided munitions programs in 
the early stage of research and development--will not adequately 
replace the capabilities of the Crusader. I want the case made before 
we cancel a program and throw people out of work.
  Further, they could cost more, with a higher risk they could not be 
delivered on time. The cost of the termination alone of the Crusader is 
estimated to be $285 million.
  In short, colleagues, the administration has failed to provide to 
Congress with any comprehensive analysis of alternatives in terms of 
technology, readiness, operational effectiveness, costs, and 
deliverability. The Levin amendment is not putting this off forever. It 
is not: postpone, postpone, postpone. Rather, it is saying we ought to 
have the careful review process.
  Whether it is this weapons system or any weapons system, this 
amendment is all about setting an important precedent if we are going 
to carry out our responsibilities for careful review. We have invested 
$2 billion in the Crusader. The Pentagon owes the American people, at 
the very least, an open and transparent review before it abruptly 
cancels an otherwise good artillery system. We have invested $2 
billion. Perhaps the case can be made this system should be canceled; I 
am not so sure, but that is beside the point.
  The point is, Where has there been an open and transparent review of 
this weapons system? That is something that we request. That is a 
matter of elementary fairness and also a matter of the way we ought to 
be making these decisions.
  The Levin amendment is an important and positive step forward out of 
the mess. It requires the Army Chief of Staff to conduct a serious 
study of the best way to provide for the Army's need for indirect fire 
support. At the same time, it provides the Secretary of Defense, 
following the study, a full range of options. These include 
termination, to continue funding of the Crusader, to funding 
alternative systems to meet the battlefield requirements.
  This is a pretty reasonable amendment. If instead the Senate passes 
an amendment that immediately terminates the Crusader program, it will 
validate an unacceptable decisionmaking process by our Government, by 
our Pentagon. It will also lead to the loss of the Crusader scientific 
and engineering team and its technology. This would occur without 
saving our Government anything in termination costs.
  In contrast, if the Senate accepts the chairman's amendment, there 
would be an orderly process, and we come to final judgment. This would 
happen without losing the extraordinary team and the technology in the 
meantime and without adding to the Government's eventual cost if 
termination is the final option chosen.
  However one feels about the Crusader itself, the Levin amendment is 
about something different--about the best way to restore fair, 
transparent, and informed Government decisionmaking to the process, 
which has been the opposite so far.
  Colleagues, I don't know that I need to repeat what I have said. I 
don't think I could be clearer in my presentation. I make this appeal 
on the basis of the way these decisions ought to be made. We deserve 
the transparency. We as legislators deserve an open, transparent 
process, much less the people we represent. To me, this is a synthesis 
or marriage that makes sense, No. 1, to best represent people in my 
State who are saying: We are going to be losing our jobs. We think we 
have done good work and, at the very minimum, can't you as a Senator 
demand there be an orderly and transparent process and we have our day 
in court. I should do that.
  For every Senator, Democrat or Republican, for whatever position you 
may or may not have right now based upon what information you have 
about the Crusader, this is just a matter of overview, of 
accountability of where we figure into the decisionmaking.
  I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, at this time there being no others seeking 
recognition on the pending and underlying second-degree amendment, I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I do at some point want to be recognized 
on the second-degree amendment, the Warner amendment to the underlying 
amendment. But not until we have had a chance to evaluate it a little 
bit more. That is what we have been doing in the last few minutes.
  As the ranking member, Senator Warner knows this is something that 
came up fairly quickly. We need a chance to look it over.
  In the meantime, I see Senator Akaka, the chairman of the Readiness 
Subcommittee, is going to be seeking recognition. So if it is 
acceptable, I would like to talk a little bit about our Readiness 
Subcommittee, our feelings, and then maybe respond to a couple of 
comments concerning the Crusader. Then if there is time, perhaps 
Senator Akaka could follow me.
  First of all, I congratulate both Chairman Levin and Senator Warner 
for their leadership in the Senate Armed Services Committee. They have 
worked tirelessly in the past months to formulate a bill that for the 
most part provides for increased readiness for the Armed Forces and the 
security of our Nation.
  I also thank Senator Akaka, the chairman of the Readiness 
Subcommittee, for his bipartisan leadership of the subcommittee. As the 
former chairman of that subcommittee and now the ranking member of the 
Readiness Subcommittee, I believe the subcommittee took a balanced 
approach to address a number of the readiness management concerns 
affecting the armed services.

[[Page 10763]]

  In keeping with our bipartisan approach to readiness, this bill 
increased funding for identified shortfalls in the services' 
infrastructure, equipment, maintenance, and operating budgets. I 
especially want to highlight the increases in the ammunition 
procurement, depot level maintenance, base operations, and military 
construction. While I support many of the readiness items in this bill, 
a few lines cause me some concern.
  Foremost, I am concerned about the $850 million reduction for 
professional services contracts. This reduction would have significant 
impacts on the level of services provided to the Department.
  I had hoped the bill approved by the Armed Services Committee would 
be more supportive of the Department's proposed readiness range 
preservation initiative. Although the bill includes two of the 
provisions requested by the Department, the modifications relating to 
the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, are not on the mark. I believe they should have been on 
the mark. I do know the political reality was the support was not 
there. I hope, when we send this bill to the President for signature, 
it will include some of these provisions since they are essential to 
maintaining the training and readiness of our forces.
  We might remember it was not long ago that we determined that in 
several of our training installations we actually paid more money for 
some of the environmental provisions than we did for ammunition. That 
was at a time when we had severe budget constraints, which are less 
severe today.
  Although I support many of the provisions of the bill, especially 
those in the readiness accounts, I was among the eight Republican 
Senators who voted against reporting out the bill in its current form. 
My vote against the bill was based on the drastic reductions, over $800 
million, from the President's request for missile defense programs. The 
reductions, according to General Kadish, the Director of the Missile 
Defense Agency:

       . . . would fundamentally undermine the administration's 
     transformation of missile defense capabilities and eliminate 
     the opportunity for the earliest possible contingency against 
     medium range ballistic missiles abroad.

  I have been at the forefront when it comes to the development of 
missile defense to protect our Nation's citizens. I find it ironic, in 
light of what happened on the 11th of September, that we are not 
putting in the money necessary for a missile defense system.
  I have very serious concerns about that. I know the administration 
does. I fully support what the administration is trying to do with 
missile defense. Of course, we cut the authorization considerably for 
that.
  Let me just make a comment or two about the discussion that has taken 
place here concerning the Crusader. I have to agree, Chairman Levin is 
correct when he talks about the chain of events that led to the May 8 
cancellation by the administration. It was something that we determined 
afterwards in committees that none of the military, none of the 
uniformed services were aware of. It was not right and I think everyone 
agrees that was not the proper procedure.
  I will say this. Let's not forget the real problem we have with 
artillery today. I will start by saying there are people in this 
Chamber and elsewhere who really do not believe we need artillery, we 
do not need a gun.
  But when you ask these same people if they are prepared to say we do 
not need ground troops in the future, there is not anyone who is going 
to say we do not need ground troops in the future. When we have troops 
on the ground, and we know we will have them on the ground--we had them 
in Anaconda and Afghanistan--you have to offer cover. Of course, if it 
is close to ships, you could do it that way, but that is highly 
unlikely. You could do it from the air or with artillery. If you do it 
from the air, as we depended on air in Afghanistan, then you have two 
problems.
  No. 1, according to the testimony of General Shinseki, it took an 
average of 25 minutes of response time to be able, from the air, to get 
the cover necessary. In other words, our troops were naked for a 25-
minute period of time. That is unacceptable.
  Second, it was further testified--we had testimony that was very 
convincing--that in one-half of the cases the weather was such we could 
not get that cover from the air.
  So what is the alternative? The alternative is to do it with 
artillery. I have lots of quotes here--that I will probably put in the 
Record, but I will not bother quoting right now--from the top military 
uniformed people saying we really needed to have the artillery 
capability at that time. So let's look at where we are today.
  There has been a lot of talk about the Crusader. The Crusader is the 
system of the future. It is a system that will correct the problem, the 
deficiency we have right now.
  We in this Chamber have to make a determination: Are we willing to 
send our troops into combat with inferior equipment? I would say that 
is unacceptable. So let's look at where we are today.
  This is the Paladin. That is the best thing we have today. It was 
designed in 1963. I have spent many hours inside the Paladin, in the 
training areas. It is inconceivable to me that we would be expecting 
our troops to use such antiquated equipment, one where after every fire 
you have to take a pole and take the breach and then hand load it, put 
the shell in, put the charge in behind it, close it, cock it, take a 
rope and pull it. I can show you Civil War movies where they had to go 
through that same process. That is totally unacceptable.
  First of all, we determined if we are going to have ground troops we 
have to have artillery. There are two things you want in artillery: One 
is range, the other is rate of fire. This is the Paladin right down 
here. It is at the very low end of the spectrum.
  In here are four countries that make a system that is better than the 
Paladin. In other words, these countries--such as this one here, 
PZH2000. I took the effort to go to Germany and sat inside one when it 
was fired. It is far superior to the Paladin but not as good as the 
Crusader. Here is the Crusader. In terms of rate of fire, in terms of 
range, it would be superior, if we had that, to the rest of these.
  Before we had what happened on May 8, we thought we were going to be 
in a position to have that Crusader capability so our troops that go 
out there would have something superior to the rest of them. Now we see 
if we do not have that, we have the British, the Russians, South 
Africans, and the Germans, all making a system that is better than what 
we have here.
  It may be that we can get there. I think most people agree that if we 
are going to have a gun for the future, we need to have it by 2008. The 
Paladin Crusader would have been there by that time. It may be that 
later on we will find another alternative and have a gun that will be 
consistent with the requirements of the Future Combat System by 2008, 
even though it would be lighter. The complaint was that the Paladin 
Crusader was too heavy. They knocked it down from 60 tons to 39 tons. A 
lot of people legitimately believe it is too heavy. Now they are 
talking about some alternative of around 18 tons to 20 tons. That is 
fine. We need to be able to pursue that.
  But the bottom line is that we have to be able to give our troops the 
capability of a superior artillery system. That is where we are today.
  We have a couple of alternatives. We know the House has language 
fully funding the Crusader. It might be that when we go to conference, 
we will come out with something such as that. We don't know.
  It is very important for us to recognize today that we have that 
deficiency. We have to determine as Members of this body whether that 
is acceptable--that we are willing to send our troops into combat with 
an inferior system. I think we will find that it is not acceptable.
  I again thank my chairman, Senator Akaka, for the way we have worked 
together, and for the subcommittee support in what we have done, even 
though I still think it is deficient.

[[Page 10764]]

  In the overall budget we had to deal with, we were not able to do two 
major things:
  No. 1, improve on the problems we have right now, and not with 
inadequate systems;
  And, No. 2, there are a lot of military construction projects that 
are still not addressed.
  I am not saying this to criticize the President's budget. I am just 
saying they have a bottom line and they have to live within it. There 
are still deficiencies.
  I think we did the best we could in our committee. I commend Senator 
Akaka for the bipartisan way in which he and I have always worked 
together for the past 15 years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to commend our colleague from 
Oklahoma with regard to the budget amendment. On the Crusader, he has 
been in the very forefront and participated, I think, in almost all of 
the discussions--fighting hard for the Army to at some point in time 
indicate what their preferences are and, second, to see that this void 
in the ability of the Army to provide the--let us just call it--
``artillery fire,'' and have it replaced at the earliest possible time 
with a system which can substitute many times over and more efficiently 
for the current antiquated Paladin system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank Senator Inhofe for his passion in 
dealing with the issues before the committee. I thank him for his 
support and cooperation throughout our markup. It is truly an honor to 
work with Senator Inhofe as we both seek to advance the readiness of 
our Armed Forces.
  I also thank Senator Levin and Senator Warner. They both worked 
tirelessly to meet our committee actions. They provided great wisdom 
and guidance during our deliberations.
  I rise today in support of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2003 and to highlight some of the major actions taken by 
the Readiness Subcommittee in this year's bill.
  This year, the committee had five goals:
  No. 1, continue improvements in compensation and quality of life;
  No. 2, sustain readiness;
  No. 3, improve the efficiency of Department of Defense operations;
  No. 4, improve the Department of Defense's capability to meet non-
traditional threats; and,
  No. 5, promote transformation.
  Our subcommittee focused on the first three of these goals.
  To improve quality of life, the Readiness Subcommittee recommended an 
increase of over $800 million to improve the buildings where 
servicemembers live and work, including a net increase of $640 million 
in new construction. We also provided an increase of $21 million for 
personal gear for military members to improve their safety and comfort 
in the field.
  To sustain readiness, the subcommittee made a number of 
recommendations that are included in the bill. First and foremost, the 
bill protects the $10 billion the President requested for operating 
costs of the ongoing war on terrorism, and has authorized the 
appropriation of these contingency funds once the President submits a 
request for specific uses for these funds to Congress. The subcommittee 
also developed an initiative to enhance training opportunities for our 
Armed Forces to ensure they can make the most effective use of existing 
training assets. To do this, we established a fund that would allow the 
Department of Defense to purchase land, or easements on land, that 
would protect training ranges. We also provided $126 million for 
improvements to those ranges, including better targeting capabilities 
and infrastructure improvements.
  To help to address longer term readiness challenges, the bill 
includes an increase of $95.0 million for maintenance of ships and 
other Navy assets, and $138.6 million to maintain highly stressed 
aircraft. And, we continue our efforts from last year to enhance the 
Department of Defense's coordination of anti-corrosion programs. 
Studies estimate that corrosion costs the Department up to $20 billion 
annually, and that corrosion continues to be a serious maintenance 
challenge and manpower drain. We therefore recommended that DOD 
designate a senior official to oversee anti-corrosion plans and 
policies, and added almost $30 million to fund those efforts and other 
anti-corrosion testing, research, and product applications.
  To improve DOD management, the subcommittee recommended a number of 
provisions to expand DOD's authority to acquire major weapon systems 
more efficiently. With respect to services contracts, we built on last 
year's legislation requiring improved management of the $50 billion DOD 
spends annually on services by establishing specific goals for the use 
of competitive contracts and performance-based contracting. These goals 
should help ensure that the Department of Defense meets contract 
services savings goals through specific management improvements rather 
than through program reductions. The bill also requires DOD to develop 
a comprehensive financial management enterprise architecture, and 
addresses recurring problems with the abuse of purchase cards and 
travel cards by military and civilian personnel.
  I believe this bill strongly supports the readiness of our forces, 
both now and in the future. As the chairman of the Readiness and 
Management Support Subcommittee, I commend it to my colleagues.


                           amendment no. 3899

  Mr. President, I also rise today in support of the amendment offered 
by Senator Levin, and to join my other colleagues in supporting it, 
because it provides the Army with the opportunity to fully analyze 
options to provide organic indirect fire support. I am concerned by the 
manner in which the Department of Defense has handled the decision to 
terminate the Crusader program because it is apparent to me that the 
Army's views were not appropriately considered in this decision.
  I have long supported the Army's efforts to transform itself into a 
lighter, more lethal force to meet the threats of the 21st century. I 
believe the Army is making considerable progress in its efforts and 
trust in the positions that have been advocated for the type of 
technology and weapons necessary to sustain both the legacy force and 
the objective force. My friend, Senator Inhofe, has made a good 
statement on this issue and I certainly support him. In most 
situations, I consider the Secretary of Defense to be the expert on the 
needs of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces. I rely on his 
advice and direction for what the Department needs to execute its 
mission of preserving our national security. A lot of my trust in his 
expertise and the recommendations of his staff is based on my belief 
that he relies upon those in the Department, both uniformed and 
civilian, to determine what is best for the Department of Defense.
  I am having a very difficult time with this issue because it seems 
apparent to me that the Army is not being heard on this issue. It is 
disturbing to consider that decisions on Army modernization and 
transformation are apparently being made without timely input from the 
Army. I believe it is imperative for the Army to be provided with the 
necessary time to complete its study of the full range of options 
available to provide organic indirect fire support. For this reason, I 
support Senator Levin's amendment.
  Mr. President, the full committee and our subcommittee have worked 
hard on drafting this bill. It is a bill that our country needs. I ask 
that my colleagues support it.
  Mr. President, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending 
amendment. I am the ranking member of the Airland Subcommittee of the 
Armed Services Committee. On that subcommittee, I have had a great 
working relationship with the chairman of that subcommittee, Senator 
Lieberman. We, for now the sixth year that I have

[[Page 10765]]

served in this capacity, have always brought our portion of the Defense 
authorization bill together in a bipartisan way. We have worked 
together on every amendment. We have either supported or opposed 
amendments on the floor. We have never had a disagreement.
  I am hopeful that will continue today because we have been working 
very hard on trying to get a resolution to the issue that is before us, 
which is this Crusader issue.
  Obviously, as Senator Akaka has just mentioned, the way the 
administration has gone about canceling this program, as we began the 
markup of the Defense authorization bill, has made it very difficult 
for us to try to make an adjustment in midstream. But we are working 
through that. In fact, we are in the process of active negotiations--
Senator Lieberman and myself, with the Defense Department--to see if we 
can come up with something that can accomplish the goals that have been 
laid out by Senator Inhofe, Senator Warner, Senator Levin, and others, 
that are vitally important to the future of the Army and their ability 
to be relevant in the wars of the future.
  Let me first start out by saying I agree with the comments of Senator 
Inhofe and Senator Warner--there may have been others, but they are the 
ones I have heard so far--that we do need indirect fire or artillery 
fire in support of our troops on the ground; that if we are going to 
have troops on the ground, we are going to have some sort of weapon 
there to protect them and provide the fire support they need.
  So the question is, Is what we have right now, as Senator Inhofe laid 
out, adequate? I think clearly the Army, in its evaluation of its 
options going forward, believed what they had was not adequate. That is 
why they had Crusader in their budget. That is why they had the Future 
Combat System in their budget.
  The administration has come in--looking at what I think are real 
problems that the Army has--and decided the Crusader does not fit with 
the future of the Army. It is not lighter, it is more lethal, but it is 
too darn heavy to be deployed in a realistic fashion in the wars that 
we are going to be fighting in the future.
  So they made a decision, frankly, the Army could not make. I say 
``could not make.'' They obviously did not make it. And I would argue 
they could not make it. They have not been willing to make some of the 
tough decisions, in my opinion, that have led them to the problem we 
are facing today.
  They have a big budgetary problem. Senator Lieberman and I have had a 
variety of different hearings on a variety of different subjects 
throughout the last 6 years, but every year we have a discussion of 
this problem with the Army. This is the one recurrent theme that we 
have had, which is the Army is not making the tough decisions to 
eliminate this bow-away problem they are going to have in a few years. 
In other words, they are not going to have enough money to fund all the 
programs they believe they need.
  We thought it was important they start making tough decisions to 
start cutting programs. We even had some concerns about some of the new 
programs they put in place during our 6-year tenure, such as the 
Interim Brigade Concept, but that is another story. We fought that, we 
lost, and we are willing to move on. The fact is, they did not have the 
money to do what was needed, to do what they wanted, what they believed 
was needed.
  What I think the Secretary of Defense did was look at that, as 
Senator Lieberman and I have looked at it over the years, and decided 
to act and to cut out a system they believed was not going to be 
relevant based on the experience they have had over the past several 
months in Afghanistan, and prior to that in Kosovo. So they made a 
decision.
  I understand Senator Levin wants the Army to have more of the same. 
With all due respect to the chairman--and I do respect him--I think the 
Army has proven they cannot make these kinds of tough decisions. It is 
not just within their capability to do that. They have gotten rid of a 
whole bunch of little systems, but when it comes to the tough decisions 
they have had to make, they have not been able to make them or they 
have not been able to put a credible alternative forward to the Defense 
Department to keep systems going in an affordable way.
  One example is Crusader. Crusader has three times the firing power of 
the Paladin. Yet what they ask for are the same number of Crusaders as 
we have Paladins. Yet the Crusader has three times the firing power.
  You would think if you are being told your program is on the hot 
seat, that we may cancel this program, this should not be news to the 
Army. The President of the United States, during the Presidential 
elections, mentioned Crusader as a program that he might cancel. So 
they should be aware there is a problem.
  They never offered a credible alternative to the Department of 
Defense to downsize the Paladin for the Crusader, to pay for it with 
force reduction because you need less people if you have less units. So 
to make this a deal that could be workable, they were unwilling to make 
that decision. They were unwilling to make that change because it 
involved force structure, and that is something the Army holds on to 
dearly.
  So I would just argue that while I understand the concept of having 
the Army have its say, I think the Army had plenty of opportunity to 
have its say, and they were not at the table with credible proposals to 
make this work.
  So what Senator Lieberman and I have been trying to accomplish over 
the past few weeks, once this came to light, is to see whether we can 
put something together. I think both Senator Lieberman and I have come 
to the opinion that the administration is right, that the Crusader 
program should be terminated.
  I would add a caveat to that. The Crusader program has not yet been 
terminated. The Department of Defense has not terminated the contract. 
What does that mean? That means every single day that this contract 
stays in force--a contract we know the Defense Department is going to 
terminate--we are spending $1.5 million.
  We are spending $1.5 million on a contract that we know is going to 
be terminated. Of that amount, a half a million dollars has no useful 
purpose for any future defense project.
  Let's understand what we are doing. Every day the Congress puts heat 
on the Defense Department; both sides of the aisle and both Houses of 
the Congress have been putting pressure on the Defense Department not 
to cancel this contract.
  The President has said he is canceling this contract. The Defense 
Department says they are going to cancel this contract. I understand we 
are putting pressure on them not to do it right away for a variety of 
reasons: We are on the floor with the bill; the House is marking up 
over here; there are all sorts of reasons not to do it, not to offend 
Congress.
  I tell you what offends this Senator is spending a half a million 
dollars a day for nothing. I understand the relationships on the hill 
and all the other things going on, but I think it is unconscionable to 
spend a half a million dollars a day on a contract we know is going to 
be terminated because of congressional pressure from both bodies to 
cancel the contract. If you are going to cancel it, cancel it now. I 
could take that money, 2002 money, and use it for some better purpose.
  Secondly, when it comes to this program, what Senator Lieberman and I 
are concerned about is our ability to have fire support for our troops. 
We have the Future Combat System. Under the President's proposal, they 
have moved the Future Combat System. It is another gun, a Howitzer. It 
is smaller. We don't know what this thing necessarily looks like, but 
it is projected to weigh about 18 to 20 tons as opposed to the original 
60 tons for the Crusader which has been scaled down to 40 tons now. It 
is still a very heavy and cumbersome piece of equipment.
  What they want and what the mission and vision of this military is is 
to be lighter, more deployable, quicker. Why? Because we will be 
responding to

[[Page 10766]]

these kinds of isolated events, and we need to be moving faster.
  It makes sense that we have this system because this 1963 Paladin 
system will not meet the needs of the Army of the future. So we need to 
do this system. Hopefully everybody in the Chamber looking at the 
facts, once they have an opportunity to do so, will agree with me that 
we need this system. So what the President did in his proposal was move 
up. We eliminated Crusader. We moved up the Future Combat System, this 
18 to 20 ton gun, from being deployed in 2014 to being ready in 2010 to 
2011.
  Now, what Senator Inhofe is arguing is--I think he is right--why 
don't we see if we can pull it up even a little further, up into 2008, 
which is when the Crusader was going to be deployed in the first 
place--see if we can move the Future Combat System up to 2008 so we can 
take the Crusader out of the mix but fill it in with a more relevant 
system.
  What does that do? You have to spend the money in 2008 but you don't 
buy two systems. You buy one. You buy one that is more relevant to the 
Army.
  To me that makes a lot of sense. The question is, How do we get to 
that? Can we afford to do that? We are going through those discussions 
right now. I hope we will have the opportunity.
  What I asked my ranking member to convey was that we would have the 
opportunity to at least see if we could work out some solution before 
this amendment came to the floor. The amendment came to the floor, and 
we will have a vote, I understand, but I am hopeful we can continue to 
work on this issue over the next week or so to see if we can come up 
with a solution, working with the Army, with the Department of Defense, 
with Members on both sides of the aisle who would like to see this 
mission accomplished.
  It really comes down to more money. I know that is not a plentiful 
thing in this bill. Everybody wants more money. What we are looking 
at--to give some rough figures--is that the money that is in the 
original bill, in the President's request, was $495 million for the 
Crusader program in fiscal year 2003. The President has said we will 
spend $195 million of that, continuing to spend that money on 
artillery, on this gun system of the future, because there is a 
technology that we were working on with Crusader as a gun system that 
is applicable to the next gun system. So it is a technology that we 
want to continue to move forward. So $195 million stays in a sense in 
that area.
  The rest goes into basically smart weapons. Why? Because the Defense 
Department believes these smart weapons are the future, that what we 
don't need are big artillery rounds, dumb bombs being fired by big 
cannons and we don't know where they will hit, at least not with 
precision. We know generally but not with precision. Why? There are 
lots of reasons. Frankly, one of them is political in the sense that we 
are becoming increasingly concerned about collateral damage. Smart 
weapons reduce collateral damage, civilian casualties. The smarter the 
weapons, the fewer the casualties. The weapons we were going to fire 
with the Crusader were not designed to be smart weapons and, therefore, 
more casualties to civilians.
  There are other reasons with respect to precision. It is cheaper. It 
is more effective. There are lots of other reasons.
  They made the decision for that reason. I support it. I support the 
allocation of those resources to more smart weapons.
  With respect to the 495, I think it is properly committed. The 
administration is very clear on that. Senator Lieberman and I believe 
strongly that the allocation is the proper one. The question is, How do 
we get from this artillery piece, moving it up from 2011 to 2008 so we 
can have it in a more timely manner?
  What we have found is, to be able to do that, we need an additional 
$173 million. That is a lot of money. But we have to make the decision, 
as a body, is it a wise expenditure of money to replace a 1963 vehicle 
that, as Senator Inhofe said, you still have to pull with a cord. 
Imagine that, we were doing that in the Civil War.
  So we are going to replace this vehicle, which is slow, which is 
small, which does not have the firepower necessary to really protect 
our troops. Are we going to replace it, and what is the cost of our 
doing so?
  I have been working with Senator Lieberman and others with the 
Defense Department to see, No. 1, can we find some other money; and No. 
2, are there some costs we will save by putting this money forward in 
savings to the contractor which we will terminate with the Crusader 
program.
  We are terminating that program. When you terminate a program, there 
are costs associated with it. You just don't terminate and walk away. 
You have damages that you have to pay because you canceled a contract 
that you said you were going to fulfill. So there are damages. They are 
negotiated damages. We don't have a handle on exactly how much. But my 
sense is that if we put additional money in a program to move forward 
this other system and we make that money available, then there might be 
lower termination costs because the contractor necessarily isn't 
terminating all of their programs.
  What we are trying to do is work through to see if we can't come up 
with a solution that terminates the Crusader, as the President rightly 
decided to do, so we can get rid of the program--we believe it is an 
obsolete program--fund the smart weapons we need to fund and about 
which the Defense Department is passionate--I agree with that--and at 
the same time get a new gun system by 2008, which is what the Crusader 
would have done in the first place, that is lighter and more capable, 
certainly, than the existing system.
  In a sense what we are trying to do is see if we can accomplish 
everything and save the Army a tremendous amount of money and not just 
help with funding this system but help with the other programs that the 
Army doesn't have a whole lot of money for either, making them more 
affordable under the budget.
  We are going to have to vote, I suspect, on the Warner amendment and 
on the Levin amendment. If that is the case, fine, we may have to do 
that. But I hope we can continue to work on this issue to see whether 
we in the Senate can come up with a solution that accomplishes 
everything I have just laid out, which is what I think, from talking to 
Members, is the objective for everybody.
  I am happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia if he has a 
question.
  Mr. WARNER. Briefly, I want to ask a question. I thought the Senator 
gave a very interesting, forthright, and quite courageous assessment of 
a situation that has prevailed for a very long time. I am not sure I 
fully agree with quite as strong an indictment of the Army.
  Nevertheless, facts are facts. I remember joining Chairman Levin and 
going over to see Secretary Cohen years ago, shortly after General 
Shinseki came into office, indicating it was the view of Senator Levin 
and myself that the funds were not there to achieve the magnitude of 
the Army reorganization. I remember that meeting very well. I think 
Secretary Cohen basically acknowledged they would do what they could to 
fix it, and the rest is history.
  The question I have to pose--and the chairman is here, and I will 
suggest a hypothetical--if my amendment were to be accepted by a voice 
vote, we would then proceed to a vote on the chairman's amendment, the 
underlying amendment. Does that help or impede the Senator's objectives 
as ranking member, working with his chairman to try to resolve that 
issue?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I don't believe that amendment prejudices anything we 
are doing. My understanding is, within the context of this amendment--
my hope is that we can continue to work on this, even as we are on the 
floor, to see if we can come up with an amendment that lays out what we 
need to do in 2003. I didn't get details, but there are other 2002 
budget issues. To accomplish this, we need to take care of that in the 
supplemental. That is another issue. As

[[Page 10767]]

far as 2003 is concerned, I am still hopeful we can come up with 
something; whether it is on the floor or we can resolve it by the time 
the bill is finished, I don't know. I am hopeful we can include it if 
we can resolve it. I don't see anything in the amendment that 
prejudices it and trying to work it out in conference.
  Mr. WARNER. Last night the Senator hosted, with Senator Lieberman, a 
meeting with the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary of the Army, and I 
was present. I thought the very clear explanation you made of the 
different challenges of 2002, how they differ from 2003, was important. 
I think that would be vital for colleagues to understand--particularly 
in the context of your concern, which I share, about the million and a 
half a day being expended while the Congress works its way through this 
bill.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate that. My understanding is that if we 
terminated the contract--it is a million and a half dollars a day. If 
we terminated the contract today, there would be roughly $150 million 
unexpended in the program--I believe unobligated and unexpended from 
the program. Again, these are rough numbers, and I don't want to hold 
the Army to any particular number because these numbers have to be 
negotiated between the Army and the contractor; but the estimate we are 
getting is that roughly $100 million of that would go toward 
termination costs for the contractor in 2002 dollars, which would leave 
aside $40 million to $50 million, which could then be put toward the 
technology that is applicable to the Future Combat System.
  So it gets us a start to try to move the Future Combat System from 
2011 to 2008. Once that starts, it will be helpful if we can continue 
to move it up with an additional $173 million in 2003, which will put 
us in a position in 2004 to get it in a timely way.
  I know the chairman gets a million requests and there is not a lot of 
money out there, but $173 million, even in the Senate, isn't chump 
change. I argue that when you are taking out a system--obviously a very 
controversial move--for $173 million in 2003, you can replace that 
system and get another system fielded in the same timeframe as the 
original one, which is more practical for the usage for the Army, and 
you have accomplished something very significant.
  That is the pitch I am making. If we could make that happen, I think 
it would be good for the Army, and I think it would be taking what is a 
very difficult and troublesome situation that we have with Crusader and 
turning it into something very positive for everybody concerned.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. While the Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor, let 
me comment on one thing he said about the unwillingness of the Army to 
make the tough decision. The Army was in the middle of an analysis when 
it was completely truncated unexpectedly against the commitment and 
statements made by the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of 
Defense. So they were in the middle of making an analysis. It is not as 
though they were unwilling to make the analysis.
  This is important. It is an analysis looking at seven different 
questions, including what are the risks of proceeding versus the risks 
of canceling, the alternatives, what are the costs, and what is the 
cost effectiveness--all of these issues, under six combat scenarios. I 
think the Senator would agree that these could be life-and-death 
decisions. Whichever way you come out on these questions, these are 
life-and-death decisions. The Army is in the middle of an analysis, 
which they were told at the end of April they should finish by May 30, 
and on May 6 the Secretary of Defense indicated they decided to 
terminate.
  The analysis is important and it addresses many of the same issues 
the Senator from Pennsylvania addresses. I know what he is after. We 
want the best system we can possibly get as soon as possible. Relevant 
to that, surely, is the analysis of the Army looking at seven 
questions, including force effectiveness, benefit of each alternative; 
that is an issue that should be looked at, surely. We don't want to 
ignore what is the force effectiveness benefit of each of the four 
alternatives. We want to look at the capability of each alternative to 
support--now I am reading the questions--the capability of each 
alternative to support a rapidly deployed force in a small-scale 
contingency. That is one of the questions they are looking at. Six 
combat scenarios.
  People say: Gee, could the Crusader have been useful in Afghanistan? 
That is one of six. What about in a desert situation when the Paladin 
cannot keep up with the vehicles it is supposed to be supporting? Is 
that relevant? I know how deeply involved the Senator is and how 
committed he is to the same goal. These are important questions. To 
simply, without any explanation, change course twice in 2 weeks, first 
saying we are going to decide this by September 30, and then saying we 
are going to decide this by May 30, and then say I just decided--I will 
soon yield the floor, but I assure the Senator from Pennsylvania that 
the Army was in the middle of an analysis that was due by the end of 
this May.
  This amendment says we want that analysis finished--not just to check 
on the decision of the Department of Defense to end the Crusader 
system, but also to help us decide where we want to go in terms of some 
of the expenditures about which the Senator was talking. It is not just 
an analysis that helps us decide what course to change from, but what 
course to change to.
  That is why we put this provision in here for this analysis. I don't 
think it makes a huge difference as to whether or not, frankly, we have 
an analysis and a period of wait or we have an analysis and then 
reprogramming. In either event, if the Department of Defense stays on 
its present course after the analysis, after the benefit of that 
analysis, if they decide after receiving the Army's review of these 
seven questions and these six scenarios and the four indirect fire 
alternatives--if the Department of Defense decides they want to stay on 
the current course, in that case they will not be prevented from doing 
so under either of the two alternatives--the first-degree amendment or 
the second-degree amendment.
  That is why I tell my friend from Virginia and our other colleagues 
here to accept the second-degree amendment, with the understanding that 
we would then proceed to a vote with the support of the Senator from 
Virginia on the first-degree amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may just respond, that is a procedure 
I would endorse. I thank my colleague. In that form, the Levin 
amendment, as amended by Warner, would be consistent with the wishes of 
the Secretary of Defense and the goals and, therefore, I think I can 
represent it has his support. I will verify that, but I am positive I 
proceeded on that course this morning, and I know of no communication 
thus far to me of any deviation.
  The Levin amendment, as amended by the Warner second-degree, would be 
consistent with the goals as established in the President's budget 
amendment and is now being sought by the Secretary of Defense.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I inquire, I believe the Senator from 
Pennsylvania lost the floor to Senator Levin, in which case, if the 
Senator stays in the Chamber for a moment, I will not be long. I wish 
to respond.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Pennsylvania did want an opportunity to 
respond to some of my comments. If it is consistent with the needs of 
the Senator from Oklahoma--I should have given that opportunity to our 
friend from Pennsylvania--perhaps he can now have the opportunity.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be a minute. My criticism of the Army is not 
that the Army was not studying this issue when asked to do so by the 
Defense Department in April. My criticism is the Army has not made a 
decision for quite some time with respect to----

[[Page 10768]]


  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Who has the floor?
  Mr. SANTORUM. If the Senator from Oklahoma----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the floor, but 
the Senator from Oklahoma yielded to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. INHOFE. I will yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania----
  Mr. SANTORUM. Go right ahead.
  Mr. INHOFE. If at some point I can get back in.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate that. I will be quick because as hard as 
Senator Lieberman and I have worked, Senator Inhofe has worked 10 times 
as hard. I do not want to take up his time.
  That has been my concern with the Army, that they have not made tough 
decisions, not that they were not studying this issue at the request of 
DOD when they visited with them that they may be canceling this 
program. That is No. 1.
  The reason I have some concerns with moving forward this study--by 
the way, I understand the Army is already moving forward and studying 
this; they are doing the study right now--is it is very clear to me the 
Department of Defense is canceling this contract. A study can go 
forward, but they are canceling the contract.
  We can say we do not want you to cancel the contract. We can say a 
lot of things. But they are going to cancel this contract, and we are 
spending $1.5 million a day on a contract they are going to cancel. The 
President has been very clear about that.
  We can get into a big fight. My problem is twofold. No. 1, I think 
they are right. Even that aside, even if I think they are wrong, if we 
fight this thing out, if we have a big to-do, we are pushing this 
system back to gosh knows when we are going to get this artillery 
piece.
  I am doing it this way: Did they do every procedure right? I think 
the Senator from Michigan said it pretty well. They asked for an 
analysis, and then a few days later they killed the program. I would 
argue that is not right.
  Is it the right decision? I would make the argument it is the right 
decision. Was it gotten in the right way? No, it probably was not 
gotten the right way, but it is the right decision, it is a decision 
they made, and I think they are going to stick to it.
  I am trying to see if we can craft something, in working with the 
Army, to keep some continuity so we can bring an artillery piece on at 
an appropriate time to meet what the Army believes they need, and I 
would agree with them to do it.
  I will support this amendment. I will sit down. The reason I would 
have problems supporting this in conference is if this is the position 
we want to take in conference--I think it is vitally important and one 
of the reasons I wanted to deal with it on the floor--if we can find 
that $173 million piece for next year and if we put this amendment in 
and say we will wait until the analysis, then there is no chance of 
getting that money and bringing this system up.
  That is the problem I have with this amendment. I think the Senator 
from Michigan has every good intention with this amendment. I have no 
problem with what he is doing, but I think we need to continue to work 
on this to see if we can find a solution. If we cannot, I am willing to 
accept the Senator's amendment. I am willing to go to conference and 
even accept it at that point, but if we can do something to try to move 
this system forward, I think we should make every effort to do so. That 
is all I am suggesting.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for 2 
minutes for a quick response?
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. The suggestion of the Senator from Pennsylvania that some 
$170 million be added for some modification in the President's new 
budget proposal is proof of the fact that the analysis is necessary 
because what the Senator is proposing is different now from the 
administration's budget amendment. That is how fast these things 
change. That is point No. 1.
  It seems to me what Senator Santorum is arguing is exact evidence of 
the fact that we need to complete the analysis which was truncated.
  My second opinion: This is not a unilateral decision by the 
administration. No expenditure of funds is unilateral. There is a House 
of Representatives. There is a Senate. The House of Representatives has 
decided on a certain source of action, and in that course of action, 
they do not want this contract canceled. We have to go to conference 
with whatever we do. This is not just a decision that has been made and 
it is over. They should have had the analysis before they made the 
decision. They did not. We should still have the analysis before we 
decide what is the next course for these Future Combat Systems. It is 
just possible at least--possible--that when the analysis that was 
terminated prematurely is completed, that actually might affect the 
administration's plans.
  On both points I would have a difference with our friend from 
Pennsylvania.
  I yield the floor. The Senator from Oklahoma has been very patient.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. President, I was given by Senator Dayton a list which I believe 
should be printed into the Record. This is a list of 28 retired four-
star generals who have very strong support for the Crusader program. 
Each one has done op-ed pieces. I ask unanimous consent the list and 
several letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Retired 4-Star Generals Who Strongly Support Crusader and Robust 
                  Indirect Fire for Soldiers in Combat

       Gen Richard E. Cavazos, Commanding General, FORSCOM; 
     Commanding General, III Corps; Commanding General, 9th 
     Infantry Division.
       Gen John W. Foss, Commanding General, TRADOC; Deputy Chief 
     of Staff, Operations, U.S. Army; Commanding General, 18th 
     Airborne Corps; Commanding General, 82nd Airborne Division.
       Gen Frederick M. Franks, Commanding General, TRADOC; 
     Commanding General, VII Corps, Gulf War; Commanding General, 
     1st Armored Division.
       Gen Ronald H. Griffith, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; 
     Inspector General of the Army; Commanding General, 1st 
     Armored Division, Gulf War.
       Gen William H. Hartzog, Commanding General, TRADOC; Deputy 
     Commander in Chief, Atlantic Command; Commanding General, 1st 
     Infantry Division.
       Gen Jay Hendrix, Commanding General, FORSCOM; Commanding 
     General, V Corps; Commanding General, 24th Infantry Division; 
     Commanding General U.S. Army Infantry Center.
       Gen Donald R. Keith, Commanding General, Army Materiel 
     Command; Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and Development, US 
     Army.
       Gen Fritz Kroesen, Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; 
     Commanding in Chief, U.S. Army Europe; Commanding General, 
     18th Airborne Corps; Commanding General, 82nd Airborne 
     Division.
       Gen Gary Luck Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea; 
     Commanding General, 18th Airborne Corps, Gulf War; Commanding 
     General, Joint Special Operations Command; Commanding 
     General, 2nd Infantry Division.
       Gen David M. Maddox Commander in Chief, U.S. Army Europe; 
     Commanding General, V Corps; Commanding General, 8th Infantry 
     Division.
       Gen Barry McCaffrey U.S. National Drug Policy Director; 
     Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command; Commanding 
     General, 24th Infantry Division, Gulf War.
       Gen Jack Merritt Senior Military Representative, NATO; 
     Former President, Association of the United States Army.
       Gen Butch Neal Assistant Commandant, Marine Corps; Deputy 
     Commander in Chief/Chief of Staff, CENTCOM; Commanding 
     General, 2nd Marine Division.
       Gen Glen Otis Commanding General, TRADOC; Commander in 
     Chief, U.S. Army Europe; Commanding General, 1st Armored 
     Division.
       Gen Binnie Peay Commander in Chief, CENTCOM; Vice Chief of 
     Staff, U.S. Army; Commanding General, 101st Airborne 
     Division, Gulf War.
       Gen Denny Reimer Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Commanding 
     General, FORSCOM; Commanding General, 4th Infantry Division.
       Gen Robert RisCassi Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea; 
     Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Commanding General, 9th 
     Infantry Division. (High Tech, Motorized).
       Gen Jimmy Ross, Commanding General, U.S. Army Materiel 
     Command; Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics, U.S. Army.
       Gen Lee Salomon, Commanding General, Army Materiel Command; 
     Commanding Genera, 9th Infantry Division.

[[Page 10769]]

       Gen Thomas A. Schwartz, Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces 
     Korea; Commanding General, FORSCOM, Commanding General, III 
     Corps; Commanding General, 4th Infantry Division.
       Gen Robert W. Sennewald, Commanding General, FORSCOM; 
     Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea.
       Gen John Shalikaskvilli, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; 
     Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR); Commanding 
     General, 9th Infantry Division (High Tech, Motorized).
       Gen Gordon Sullivan, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; President, 
     Association of the United States Army; Commanding General, 
     1st Infantry Division.
       Gen John Tilelli, Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea; 
     Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army; Commanding General, FORSCOM; 
     1st Cavalry Division Commander, Gulf War.
       Gen Carl Vuono, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, Gulf War/Just 
     Cause; Commanding General, TRADOC; Commanding General, 8th 
     Infantry Division.
       Gen Louis C. Wagner, Jr., Commanding General, U.S. Army 
     Materiel Command; Deputy Chief of Staff, Research and 
     Development; Commanding General, U.S. Armor Center.
       Gen Johnnie E. Wilson, Commanding General, U.S. Army 
     Materiel Command; Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics, U.S. 
     Army.
                                  ____

                                                 Williamsburg, VA.
     Editor:
     Chicago Tribune
       Your editorial of 8 May, ``Killing the Crusader'' provided 
     your readers with a very one-sided view of the ongoing debate 
     over the wisdom of killing the Crusader. There is another 
     side to the argument based upon my experience as a commander 
     of infantry, armor and airborne units in peace and in war in 
     many parts of the world.
       You posed the question of Crusader as a battle of a 
     visionary Secretary of Defense against backward Cold War 
     thinking generals, entrenched bureaucrats and members of 
     Congress interested only in jobs in their districts. 
     Secretary Rumsfeld did assert that he wanted to kill the 
     program so the money could be invested in new technologies 
     for a more modern force. He has not yet identified his vision 
     of the conflicts of the future nor of the technologies that 
     would lead us there quickly.
       The Crusader is not a Cold War leftover. It was designed 
     and initiated after the Gulf War to address a long-standing 
     shortfall in the range and rate of fire over our known and 
     potential adversaries (Yes, Russian artillery has had a 
     longer range and a higher rate of fire than US artillery 
     since World War II and provided it to Iraq). Division 
     commanders from the Gulf War rated an improved howitzer as 
     the most important deficiency to be addressed. The 1960's 
     howitzer, upgraded several times, slowed the advance of our 
     forces since it couldn't keep up. You were right in saying 
     the old Paladin needed to be replaced but wrong in saying the 
     Crusader would be obsolete by the time it's fielded. There is 
     nothing identified nor started to replace the Crusader and 
     there probably won't be anything for years to come.
       Eventually all this comes down to taking a risk. Trading 
     Crusader for some hopeful technology of the future puts the 
     risk on the ground soldier. If Secretary Rumsfeld is 
     fortunate and we have no unexpected conflicts before his 
     revolutionary force is fielded then it will be a risk worth 
     taking. If the next conflict (and we have a hard time 
     predicting them) involves some serious ground combat (Iraq?) 
     then the soldiers and not the bureaucrats nor generals will 
     feel the effects of the risk.
       We can have a new revolutionary force in the future but we 
     need to retain a trained, ready and equipped force in the 
     interim. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Congress play 
     a role in this process. It should not be a battle between 
     them. Soldiers could suffer.
           Sincerely,
     John W. Foss,
       Gen, US Army (Retired), Former Commander of the 82nd 
     Airborne Division and the XVII Airborne Corps.
                                  ____

     Editor:
     Los Angeles Times
       The op-ed article by Michael O'Hanlon on May 9, ``Killing 
     the Crusader,'' suffers many of the same ailments found in 
     many such writings; he is only half right. He is exactly 
     correct when he notes that the Crusader advanced artillery 
     system could help in a situation like Korea. I would quickly 
     add Iraq. In fact, potential hostilities in Korea or Iraq 
     only highlight the value of a versatile system such as the 
     Crusader.
       His error comes in saying Crusader is designed just to slug 
     it out with the Soviet Union in Central Europe. Quite the 
     contrary is true; the lethality, versatility and 21st century 
     technology of this weapon makes it an imperative for 
     supporting our forces on any future battlefield.
       As a nation we do not have the luxury of picking our 
     adversaries. Rather, recent history shows that America must 
     expect the unexpected. A case in point is Operation Anaconda 
     in Afghanistan, which would have benefited greatly from the 
     Crusader--which is highly mobile, can fire faster and farther 
     with extreme accuracy, and outdistances current artillery.
       Likewise, all conflicts in the future will not involve neat 
     and clean battlefields where air power or other systems like 
     long-range rockets will be constantly available or useful. We 
     must have the firepower to take out air defenses, 
     communications, drive out entrenched enemies, provide lethal 
     cover for our ground troops, and operate in all types of 
     weather with either volume or precision fires.
       Speaking from the perspective of a Marine and from our 
     nation's experience in Desert Storm, I know first-hand that 
     we must support troops on the ground with overwhelming 
     firepower under all conditions--including the times when air 
     power is not available. That, in precise terms, captures the 
     unpredictable threats of the new century that make Crusader 
     so absolutely essential.
     Gen. Richard Neal,
       Former Assistant Commandant, U.S. Marine Corps, Deputy 
     Director of Operations, Desert Storm.
                                  ____

                                                 November 5, 1997.
     Mr. Philip Odeen,
     Chairman, National Defense Panel, Crystal Mall 3, Suite 532, 
         Arlington, VA.
       Dear Sir: We have followed with interest your recent 
     comments about the need for a ``transformation strategy'' for 
     the Department of Defense and the nation's armed forces. We 
     understand your focus on trend lines and their impact on 
     force structure, personnel savings, readiness, and training. 
     It is with these points in mind that we write, to clarify 
     what we believe are some critical misconceptions about the 
     Army's advanced field artillery system and its contribution 
     to the future Army.
       As you know, the Army is a leader in taking charge of its 
     future through near-term evolution to Army XXI and then 
     possible semi-revolution in Army After Next. The Army sees 
     Army XXI digitized, mechanized forces as it ``cord'' force, 
     while a more revolutionary light, super-mobile, elite 
     ``battle force'' might served a halting and fixing capability 
     in Army After Next. None of us knows how this concept will 
     finally play out, but we do see Crusader as an essential part 
     of any Army XXI and and AAN decisive fighting force.
       The Crusader system is a technological leap-ahead, 
     achieving the first U.S. Army artillery overmatch since the 
     end of World War II. Its mobility unleashes the combined arms 
     team . . . a role that its predecessor, Paladin, cannot fill 
     . . . just as the Bradley fighting vehicle enabled the 
     maneuver force to exploit the mobility of the Abrams tank. 
     Crusader is an essential component of Information Dominance. 
     Fielding it allows us to fight with rapid, long-range fires 
     and to take maximum advantage of the digitization of the 
     maneuver force. This ``smart'' system knows where it is at 
     all times, computes its own fire missions, point the gun, and 
     fires the mission, under soldier supervision. No other system 
     approaches its ability to deal with the plethora of targets 
     generated in an information dominance environment.
       Years of analysis, using varying threats and scenarios, 
     attest to the need for Crusader. Crusader is more than three 
     times as effective as the Paladin. With its technology 
     investment, the advanced field artillery system will provide 
     three times as much lethal fire support to the maneuver force 
     and survive three times as long as the system it replaces. 
     Its accuracy enhancements make it possible to achieve 
     effectiveness on a target-by-target basis by firing 32 to 50% 
     fewer rounds, depending on the nature of the target. In 
     comparison to other unique fire support means, like rockets, 
     Crusader is more economical by weight and cost. For example, 
     to achieve equal effects against a mechanized infantry 
     company, Crusader fires 30 rounds while MLRS fires seven 
     rockets. In terms of weight and cost of ammunition, Crusader 
     projectiles and propellant weigh 37% and cost 71% less than 
     the seven rockets. Analyses have shown that Crusader enhances 
     the contribution of both the cannon and rocket components of 
     the field artillery system.
       Because Crusader exploits the capabilities of information 
     dominance and situation awareness, it enables the force to 
     engage more targets. In study after study, Crusader increases 
     overall force effectiveness by over 50%. This is an 
     unprecedented impact for a single weapon system. The awesome 
     contribution of Crusader, especially using precision 
     munitions, provides revolutionary gains in combat power that 
     challenge current maneuver-fire support assumptions.
       You raised the potential for savings in force structure and 
     personnel through technology. The technology advances in 
     Crusader have enabled the Army, in anticipation of its 
     fielding, to already reduce the number of cannons per 
     battalion by 25% and the number of soldiers by 16%. When 
     Crusader is fielded, the Army will realize additional 
     manpower savings as every crew will be reduced in size to 
     three men who sit at cockpit-style workstations, are 
     supported by decision aids, and drive by wire. Automation

[[Page 10770]]

     has removed the requirement for the crew to handle rounds and 
     propellant in firing and resupply.
       These attributes have obvious strategic deployability and 
     logistical footprint implications. The force needs fewer 
     Crusaders, and those Crusaders kill many more targets using a 
     given amount of ammunition. Hence, the Army can deploy a 
     Crusader capability equal to Paladin's with 50% less 
     strategic and 38% less intratheater lift.
       We see Crusader as vital to Army XXI and the mechanized 
     portion of Army After Next. Fielding Crusader clearly 
     addresses the issues you have raised, significantly 
     increasing force effectiveness while providing manpower, 
     sustainment, readiness and training cost savings over its 
     life cycle because of reduced personnel requirements, 
     automated systems, embedded training, and improving 
     reliability.
         John W. Foss, General, USA (Ret); Donald R. Keith, 
           General, USA (Ret); Jack N. Merritt, General, USA 
           (Ret); Carl E. Vuono, General, USA (Ret); Frederick M. 
           Franks, Jr., General, USA (Ret); Gary E. Luck, General, 
           USA (Ret); Glenn K. Otis, General, USA (Ret); Louis C. 
           Wagner, Jr., General, USA (Ret); Ronald H. Griffith, 
           General, USA (Ret); David M. Maddox, General, USA 
           (Ret); Gordon R. Sullivan, General, USA (Ret).
                                  ____



                                  Allied Research Corporation,

                                         Vienna, VA, May 10, 2002.
     Senator John Warner,
     Russell Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner, A too long personal letter and my 
     ``up-front'' apology for same . . . but an issue I feel 
     passionately about. I write to you as a warfighter with 
     almost 40 years in uniform that includes battery level combat 
     command in Vietnam, command of the 101st Airborne Division in 
     the Gulf War, and 3 years at CENTCOM and numerous operations 
     to include Iraq, Somalia, and Ethiopian wars; as a former 
     Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Army with responsibilities for 
     managing the development of future Army systems and operating 
     under constrained budgets; as a Chairman of the Board and CEO 
     of a defense company headquartered in northern Virginia with 
     clear insights on the posture of our nation's industrial base 
     and finally, I write to you as native Virginian and you as my 
     Senator . . . a leader with a long career of public service 
     as Secretary of the Navy and leader in the SASC and Senate.
       Failure to go forward with the CRUSADER howitzer program is 
     a national strategic mistake of proportions that principally 
     only Army and Marine leaders truly understand. Regretfully, 
     the issue in Washington today has become embroiled in 
     civilian control emotions and service in-fighting as each 
     postures for their future (roles and missions) while 
     recovering from years of budget downsliding. At the end of 
     the day, Congress is responsible for raising Armies and thus 
     my letter to you. I believe the following points are relevant 
     to the final CRUSADER decision:

                               1. Balance

       (A) There must be balance in our air and ground arm today 
     and tomorrow. Today, that means understanding the fog and 
     friction of war in ensuring that fires are always available 
     regardless of communication and intelligence failures, bad 
     weather or simply unavailability. Tomorrow, that means 
     understanding that our enemies will develop counteracting 
     strategies. We have a grand Air Force and my record shows I'm 
     a great supporter. But history is replete with examples of 
     enemy responses, whether it be enemy actions at Guadalcanal 
     impacting naval positioning and the continuous support of 
     committed marines (thus the dedicated Marine air arm today) 
     or the future, where the introduction of lasers on the 
     battlefield will undoubtedly impact the air delivery of 
     ordnance and other air platforms performing intelligence, 
     command and control, and air defense missions. Are we no 
     longer to have howitzers as a major contributor to the fight? 
     Balance . . . a requirement today and tomorrow.
       (B) There must be balance between precision missiles and 
     high explosive (HE) precision and non-precision munitions in 
     support of soldiers and marines requesting ``close support 
     fires''. The battlefield today requires precision and massed 
     area fires delivered simultaneously over vast distances to 
     suppress enemy air defenses, prepare landing zones for 
     airborne and air assault forces, and defeat massed forces. 
     And at times our forces require diversified munitions and 
     continuous close fires to ``disengage'' from the enemy and 
     often this is a mix of smoke, HE, white phosphorus, 
     illumination and other munitions. And somewhere in all of 
     this is the need to understand costs. Bombs, missiles, and 
     howitzer delivered munitions each provide balance and are 
     needed. But when it comes to truly close continuous fires, it 
     is cannon field artillery delivered munitions that a soldier 
     or marine principally uses due to safety, the angle of fall 
     of the projectile, and their organic control.
       (C) Currently allies and adversaries are rapidly developing 
     a mixture of missile and gun solutions that ensure balance. 
     European, Chinese, and middle eastern and Gulf armies are 
     increasingly procuring advanced self-propelled artillery. 
     Today the U.S. Army is comparatively far down (9th) on the 
     list of cannon artillery and our most advanced system (the 
     Paladin) is 40 years old. It is interesting to note, that our 
     Navy (which has been thru numerous examinations of guns 
     versus missiles) has the very essence of CRUSADER embedded in 
     its approach to the advanced gun system for the DD(X), and 
     our Marine Corps is vigorously enhancing its regiments with 
     advanced howitzers and HIMARS, and it has its own organic air 
     support. Balance!

     2. Transformation, Modernization and Readiness, and Deterrence

       (A) CRUSADER is a transformation system and it fits 
     perfectly in the Army's Objective Force. It is a ``far 
     different'' system than that described only two years ago. 
     Its weight has been cut by a third; its crews save manpower, 
     its technology is unmatched. As such, the Army has already 
     changed its future manning and equipment documents to realize 
     these breakthroughs and capabilities by eliminating tanks, 
     personnel careers, howitzer sections and personnel from its 
     requirements. This CRUSADER howitzer is on time and target in 
     terms of its production milestones and is performing 
     magnificently in tests. Its cost as a major weapon system is 
     a modest $9-11 billion well below the cost of other service 
     systems.
       (B) Many call for skipping a decade of systems. We have 
     already done that many times over. We will never field 
     systems if we continue to kill them just as they are ready to 
     go into full-scale production after years of work by our 
     industrial base. Some say, ``move the technologies to the 
     tech base or to a new FCS system'' . . ., yet nothing really 
     exists except draft concepts on paper and vu-graphs. It will 
     be years before the next prototype system is available. Thus, 
     once again we delay modernizing the force introducing cost 
     readiness problems and, importantly, weakening our industrial 
     base. The wealth of engineering excellence assembled around 
     the CRUSADER program will be lost, rapidly impacting armored 
     vehicle industrial base capabilities which today principally 
     resides in only two companies. Deterrence has many 
     components. The presence of modernized heavy land forces and 
     a solid industrial base are not lost on our adversaries.
       (C) Today, we all understand the advent of asymmetric 
     warfare. We predicted years ago that it was coming. 
     Nevertheless, we should not lose perspective that the future 
     will involve combinations of asymmetric, conventional, and 
     WMD actions. We should note the pictures of armored vehicles, 
     tanks, and artillery in the latest city fighting in the 
     Middle East. Skipping decades to meet threats of the future 
     briefs well. World events have never allowed us to do that 
     and there is not nearly enough money in the world to 
     transform entire Armies in short duration. Thus, we've always 
     modernized systems and parts of systems and then fought them 
     in high-low mixes of heavy and light forces and mixtures of 
     modernized and un-modernized systems based on the spectrum of 
     conflict. Today, it is Iraq, Korea and Afghanistan. Tomorrow 
     it could be Colombia, Iran, Taiwan, China, a different 
     emerging Russia or the entire set of Middle East nations. 
     Whoever would have even been close to predicting our 
     deployments from Desert Storm to Enduring Freedom during the 
     past 10 years? Deterrence is a major price of our national 
     strategy and CRUSADER'S role in support of Army forces is a 
     key visible ingredient to that strategy.
       Finally, this decision has become very personal at the 
     highest levels. Regretfully, it started with a Presidential 
     campaign debate with uniformed aides beating the agenda for 
     change, long before discussions with seasoned warfighters 
     would or could take place. Courage to admit that the CRUSADER 
     system has radically changed since that time, and that there 
     is a clear need for the system in an uncertain world (by our 
     leadership) would only raise one's respect for their wisdom. 
     The Army has always been transforming. Transformation in form 
     of revolutionary or evolutionary approaches will only survive 
     when wisdom dominates national security decision-making. This 
     is a dangerous, complex business. Wisdom is ``Balance'' 
     learned from history. Wisdom is understanding the 
     complexities of modernization and its impact on readiness and 
     deterrence. Wisdom is listening to warfighters and 
     professionals who have spend their lifetime fighting and 
     studying the art of war. CRUSADER cuts across all of these 
     issues today.
       Thursday, you will speak at the graduation of the Class of 
     2002, at the Virginia Military Institute . . . many of these 
     graduates will very shortly be leading soldiers and marines 
     in ground combat. I hope they will be provided the 
     ``balanced'' fire support to do their job. I also hope they 
     will never have to lead our nation's youth in combat because 
     deterrence worked. The wise decision resoundingly supports 
     fielding CRUSADER as soon as possible.
           Sincerely,
     J. Binford Peay.
                                  ____

                                                     May 16, 2002.
       To the Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of 
     Representatives:

[[Page 10771]]

       The misinformation filling newspapers concerning the 
     Crusader program is troubling. Decisions to support military 
     transformation are key and must be reached through fact and 
     analysis.
       Crusader is a smart gun. Its development began in 1995, 
     after the Cold War ended and Iraq was defeated. Crusader was 
     a key part of then Army Chief General Gordon Sullivan's 
     vision to digitize land forces around the power of the 
     microprocessor. Furthermore, Crusader has been specifically 
     redesigned for C17 deployability, refuting the popular myth 
     that it is too heavy for 21st Century operations. For 
     example, Crusaders could have been on the ground in 
     Afghanistan in less than 24 hours.
       As we have heard repeatedly from the U.S. Army's 
     leadership, land forces need cannon artillery to provide 
     dedicated responsive fires in support of soldiers on the 
     ground around the clock, and in all weather. Precision 
     strikes from bombers, missile systems, and unmanned aerial 
     vehicles will complement, not substitute for Crusader's 
     capability. The decision to terminate Crusader should be 
     based on an analysis of alternatives using defined strategy 
     and scenarios, which includes a thorough assessment of cost 
     effectiveness and technology risk.
       The Crusader program is on cost, on schedule, and exceeding 
     performance objectives. This system has already fired over 
     6,000 rounds and demonstrates ranges exceeding 40 kilometers, 
     rates of fire beyond 10 rounds per minute, and three times 
     the lethality of currently fielded systems. Crusader also 
     brings proven technologies in leading-edge robotics, sensor-
     to-shooter architecture, crew cockpits, and advanced 
     materials.
       The taxpayers of this nation have invested nearly $2 
     billion in the development of Crusader. At a minimum, this 
     model program deserves a thorough assessment before it is 
     canceled and America's investment is thrown away. More 
     importantly, the soldiers of today and tomorrow should be 
     assured that the decision to terminate Crusader is based on 
     compelling evidence that proposed alternatives will be there 
     to provide the same needed responsive precision fires on 
     future battlefields--we know not where, when, or under what 
     circumstances.
           Sincerely,

                                            Frank C. Carlucci,

                                            John M. Shalikashvili,
                                              General, USA (Ret.).

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me comment in response to some of the 
statements made by my distinguished and very close personal friend with 
whom I came to the Senate from the other body in 1994.
  Mr. President, will the Senator from Pennsylvania stay here? I was 
going to respond to some of the comments he made. First, I state in the 
strongest possible terms that there is no person I think more of than 
Secretary Rumsfeld. There has been a problem in this whole debate, and 
that is that he is busy managing a war right now. He has other things 
on his mind other than what our Future Combat System is going to be.
  Consequently, while they said, yes, we want to cancel the program, 
whatever the immediate motivation was, the Secretary made that 
decision, and, quite frankly, I do not believe--in fact, I am certain 
of it--at the time the decision was made he did not take into 
consideration the termination costs.
  As recently as last night in the office of the distinguished Senator 
from Pennsylvania, General Armbruster made the statement it would cost 
about $290 million without a bridge. So we are talking about a very 
large amount of money.
  I am concerned about $1 million today, $.5 million, $1.5 million, 
depending on how one wants to calculate the delay. I do not want to 
delay it. Let's keep in mind, the Senator from Michigan is correct when 
he said the Army has been preparing to do this for a long time. The 
Army has downsized in anticipation of having the capability that would 
come with the Crusader. In a minute I will say it could be the Crusader 
or something that would give us a capability that would certainly 
satisfy me as just one member of the Armed Services Committee.
  There are a couple other issues I want to clarify for the record. The 
Senator from Pennsylvania made the statement that with something that 
has three times the firepower, why don't they lower the expectations as 
to how many platforms they need.
  I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, at one time they were talking 
about 1,200 Crusaders. It is now down to 480 Crusaders. That is the 
most recent. I also say at the same time that the firepower, the rate 
of fire, is not just 3 times greater, it is 10 times greater in terms 
of sustained fire. That is critical. We have already downsized the 
request to 480 from 1,200.
  The cancellation of the Crusader most likely is going to happen. That 
is what the Senator has been saying, and I agree with the Senator from 
Michigan that the Secretary of Defense is not going to do that on his 
own. If he had strong opposition in both the House and the Senate, then 
there is a process whereby he would have a difficult time doing that 
unilaterally, and I believe that is very proper. In this case, when you 
are talking about an alternative system that might accomplish the same 
thing, this has been the compromise we have been talking about now. The 
House was not talking about this. They want to go full bore ahead with 
the Crusader.
  We have said if what we want to accomplish is to have an artillery 
capability by 2008, the same year the Crusader would have come on 
board, it can be done in other ways. I have suggested another way would 
be to say: Administration, you are right, but we need to get it down 
from 40 tons to 20 tons. We need to have something that is going to be 
faster and lighter, that will still give us some superiority on the 
battlefield and do it by the same year, 2008. That is a reasonable 
expectation. I think most of the Senators on the committee would say 
that would be a good alternative if that were done.
  In order to do it by 2008--this is something nobody disagrees with--
it is going to have to be done by using the same people who gave us the 
technology we have today, and we are going to have to use the same 
technology. To use that, it can be done, but we are going to have to 
construct something to allow that to be done. If we do not, and if we 
say, all right, we are going to open it up for bids at the end of 
milestone B, for example, then that is going to delay the process for a 
long time, and most likely that team that gave us the technology of the 
future would be dispersed and working elsewhere. So it would be very 
difficult.
  The last thing I want to mention is the disagreement I have with the 
statement of the Senator concerning the dumb bombs. Yes, we need the 
Excalibur, we need to have the MLRS, we need to have all the rocket 
technology that goes with it so we can be pinpoint accurate, but when 
it comes to cover, every general and every person in uniform coming 
before our committee has said, you have to have that, but you also have 
to have dumb bombs.
  If Excalibur were fired right now, the cost of that would be $200,000 
for a round. It has to be fired out of something. We do not have 
anything to fire it out of right now. We would with the Crusader. We 
would if we had this alternative we are suggesting so we would be able 
to use it. If we use MLRS, each round is $36,000. That has to be 
considered on the battlefield. But if you want to send a bunch of dumb 
bombs to give cover to our troops who are otherwise naked, that can be 
done for $200 a round.
  I contend--and I have heard such testimony from those in uniform--
that we have to have that capability. If we have to have that 
capability, we are going to have to have all that capability in one 
unit. That is where FCS comes in. There are about five major components 
of FCS. Sure, the way I want to go would make sure we get the first 
component, the artillery capability, by 2008. To do that, we would have 
to give it some degree of priority; $173 million additional would do 
that. We have heard that testimony. At the same time, I want the other 
components, too.
  I will stand here and say, whatever influence I have on this 
committee, I am going to use that influence to get the rest of these 
components to reach the Future Combat System that everybody is in 
agreement we want. The only disagreement we have is there are some who 
say only the Crusader is going to be able to do this. I do not believe 
that. I think we can do that if we keep the technology and the team 
together and do it in another vehicle.
  Those are the areas I wanted to address. I have to say to my friend 
from Pennsylvania, I really believe we want

[[Page 10772]]

the same thing. We want that capability by 2008, and we have ways of 
getting there. We may have to do it in conference. I think the Levin 
amendment is going to be important at this point to go ahead and get us 
in the right posture in conference, and I commit to everyone that I 
will work to achieve that goal that both of us want.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma. In 
committee, when this issue came up, we were not on the same side of the 
issue. I was clearly supporting the President's request and the Senator 
from Oklahoma was not, and I have found that in working with him, he 
has provided a path out of this very difficult conflict. That is why I 
completely agree with the statements he has made, that there is an 
opportunity to try to accomplish everything that I think most members 
of the Senate Armed Services Committee believe need to be accomplished, 
which is to have a new system up by 2008, to save money in the Army 
procurement project, which is badly underfunded, and at the same time 
transition these technologies we have with the Crusader on to the 
Future Combat System.
  From my perspective, it comes down to an issue of money. It comes 
down to an issue of whether we can find money in 2003, in this budget, 
in this authorization bill, to get together the concept demonstrator we 
need. Hopefully, we can start this year with 2002 funds and move 
forward with the $173 million for next year. That is not going to be 
easy to do. I am not sure we are going to be able to accomplish this on 
the Senate floor or we are going to be able to get this agreement. 
Maybe we even should not. Maybe this should be an issue we work out 
with the House and do it in conference when we have more people who 
will participate in it.
  I will say, without the leadership of the Senator from Oklahoma on 
this issue, I do not think the ability to accomplish all the things I 
laid out would have been possible. The Senator from Oklahoma and I 
understand Fort Sill is in Oklahoma, and I understand a lot of the 
Crusader work was going to be done in Oklahoma. Also, I understand this 
is an issue where the Senator could have come out by saying, I am going 
to go down with the ship on Crusader and I am going to fight for the 
folks back home in the sense that there are these jobs. But the Senator 
from Oklahoma, I have found, has always been doing what is in the best 
interest of the men and women in uniform.
  What he has proposed is exactly that. It is not a homer kind of 
proposal. It is anything but that. It is a proposal of what is in the 
best interest of the people who are in uniform, and I commend him for 
his leadership. I commend him for his innovation. I am hopeful we can 
get our folks from the other side of the Capitol in the House to work 
with us on this, and hopefully the administration will see the wisdom 
of taking an issue which is very divisive right now and being able to 
turn that very divisive issue, that could be very much a flashpoint, 
confrontation point that can be very damaging to our men and women in 
uniform, by delaying any system for quite some time, and see this as an 
opportunity to be able to accomplish all we want to accomplish, which 
is to field the system, save the money, and have the capability we need 
to protect our men and women.
  So I commend the Senator for his leadership and look forward to 
working on this issue over the next weeks as we finish in the Senate 
and go to conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in order to try to facilitate the 
important debate we are having and bring it to some conclusion with 
regard to the desires of the chairman to have votes, the chairman and I 
have discussed the following, and we would like to entertain thoughts 
from others: That the amendment of the Senator from Virginia in the 
second degree would be accepted by the chairman. He would presumably so 
state. We then proceed to a rollcall vote on the chairman's underlying 
amendment.
  However, the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. Nickles, is engaged 
in something that is important he complete. I understand he can be 
present by 2 p.m. because he, likewise, wishes to address this issue. 
So on the assumption he can be present between 2 p.m. and 2:10 and that 
his remarks would take no more than 15 minutes, could either the 
distinguished Senator from Oklahoma or the distinguished Senator from 
Pennsylvania indicate to me, and therefore to the chairman, a reason we 
should not then go to a vote shortly after the conclusion of the 
remarks by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Virginia yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. What we want to do, as I indicated, is to have the vote at 
2 p.m. Senator Nickles, who is vitally interested in this matter, 
wishes to speak. We now have a chance and are preparing a unanimous 
consent request to give Senator Nickles whatever time he needs and vote 
following his remarks.
  Mr. WARNER. OK.
  Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, first, yes, that would be 
acceptable to me. Quite frankly, I would like the Levin amendment 
without the second degree. It gives the administration and our 
committees more authority than without the amendment. However, I 
certainly would accept that and would want to agree to the votes.
  My senior Senator from Oklahoma is here now and mentioned he wanted 
to be heard.
  Mr. REID. Through the Chair, I ask the Senator from Virginia, and I 
direct the question to the Senator from Oklahoma, we were going to have 
you speak at 2 o'clock for a half hour; Is the Senator ready to give 
his remarks now?
  Mr. NICKLES. Sure.
  Mr. REID. Could the Senator be finished by 2 p.m.?
  Mr. NICKLES. Definitely.
  Mr. REID. We will have the staff look over the unanimous consent 
request and have a vote at 2 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend and colleague from Nevada. I am 
pleased we will vote soon on the Levin amendment which I strongly 
support. I understand it will be modified by the Warner amendment, 
which is also acceptable to this Senator. I am not positive we needed 
it, but we want to make the administration happy.
  What is most important is we provide our men and women in the 
military, in any branch, in any division, with quality equipment, equal 
to or superior to our competitors. I hate to say this, but it happens 
to be factual. We are not superior to our adversaries or potential 
adversaries when it comes to artillery.
  Fort Sill is the home of the artillery training base for the Army. A 
couple of weeks ago I visited the base, as I have done several times. I 
sat in the Paladin, our latest artillery weapon, and fired it with our 
men and women who were operating the cannon. I realized and was 
embarrassed at how obsolete it is. The chassis, the basic framework of 
the wheeled vehicle that they were using, was built in the early 1960s. 
The cannon was also loaded exactly as it was in the early 1960s. In 
fact, the cannon is loaded the same way Napoleon was loading cannons.
  I was surprised, dismayed, and more than convinced we need to upgrade 
the system. The Crusader serves as an update that modernizes the 
system. The Crusader has a mechanized, automated loading system. The 
Paladin came online in 1994, as if it was a new system. The chassis and 
the loading mechanism is identical to what we had in the early 1960s. 
It is the same method and mechanism during the time of Napoleon and the 
Civil War. The individual would manually load the projectile, which in 
this system 155 millimeters looks like a big bullet. It is very 
awkward, very heavy, very cumbersome, and weighs about 100 pounds. It 
is manually lifted from the floor or off a rack, inserted on a loading 
device, and shoved into the barrel. Then they shove in some packing, 
basically an explosive device, similar to powder. They shove it in 
manually behind the projectile. They close the breech. They put in a 
firing pin with a cord and yank it. It explodes

[[Page 10773]]

and they open the breech. They take a sponge and they swab the inside 
of the barrel to make sure it is still not hot and will not have 
another premature detonation.
  That is the same method used in the Civil War. The first couple 
rounds they might be able to do about three a minute. After a couple of 
minutes, they can only do about one a minute because the barrel gets 
pretty hot and they have to wear gas masks if they do very many because 
they are in a closed environment and get exhaust fumes. If these masks 
are not worn, the fumes can be hazardous to the health of the women and 
men operating the machines. In other words, this system is very 
obsolete. It needs to be replaced.
  I started looking at our competitors. Not one country, not two 
countries, several countries have a more efficient and more effective 
system.
  I am not chairman of the Armed Services Committee and I have not 
served on that committee. I have great respect for Senators Levin, 
Warner, and Inhofe, but I cannot think of any major weapons system 
where we are behind several countries in quality of equipment. I don't 
want to find our planes are inferior to any other country. I don't want 
to find our ships are inferior to any other country. I don't want to 
find our intelligence capability is behind any country. I don't want to 
find our weapons, our guns, our cannons inferior to any country.
  Unfortunately, in this case, our cannons are inferior. There are six 
countries that have greater capability in what I call ground support 
and cannons than we do. Britain, South Africa, Russia, China, Germany 
all have cannon artillery systems superior to ours, some in refiring 
capability, some in accuracy, some in speed.
  We need a new system. The Army recognized this for a long time and 
came up with the Crusader. The Crusader is far superior to every system 
I mentioned. The administration decided to cancel the Crusader. I don't 
agree with that decision. They made the decision that we needed 
something lighter. I can go with that as long as we still have a 
superior system to other countries, to our potential competitors and 
even our allies. I don't want our systems inferior to the Germans, 
South Africans--although they are allies--the Russians, and the 
Chinese. I want us No. 1 militarily. You don't want to be in military 
conflict and find you are a close second. That is not good enough.
  We need a superior system. The Crusader would be that. I know some 
are talking about maybe scaling down the Crusader. The Crusader was 
originally 80 tons, and now 62, and now going to 40 tons. Some are 
saying, see if we cannot take it down to 25, 27, or maybe 18 tons. I 
don't know if that is possible or not. I hope it can be. I would love 
to see the Crusader be more mobile, wider, able to be deployed more 
rapidly in regions far and away, maybe in Afghanistan or other areas. I 
would like to see the capability of this machine enhanced.
  However, I want to make sure our men and women, if they use this 
system and it is superior, that it is safe, it is not a death vehicle 
or one where their lives might be jeopardized. It remains to be seen if 
we can preserve this level of safety in a future combat system. The 
Levin amendment modified by the Warner amendment, allows us to 
accomplish something very important by taking this $475 million and 
saying it will not be in the Crusader. Or we could keep that option as 
the Crusader. But we are going to use these funds to closely support a 
fire system capable of protecting our men and women.
  We are going to be consulting the Army, individuals who have 
experience and expertise in this--which, frankly, was not done in the 
decisionmaking process as far as canceling the Crusader. It is 
unfortunate that they were not consulted. I am offended by that 
process.
  I hope the administration in the future will say if they are going to 
be canceling the system they will contact the Chief of Staff of the 
Army, former Chief of Staff of the Army, the Secretary of the Army, and 
listen to their advice. That did not happen in this case.
  Senator Levin was talking about how this would be reversed. You might 
remember a few months ago the administration had money for the Crusader 
in their budget. Now they have stated they are opposed to it.
  We need to come up with something better. Regardless of what the 
replacement may be, I want our military men and women to have a 
superior system that far exceeds what they have right now. I do not 
want our men and women being trained in vehicles, in cannons that are 
inferior to anybody's. Period. That is the bottom line. It is not who 
does the contracting. It is not who makes it. It is not where they are 
trained, not where it is fired, not where it is deployed. Our men and 
women have to have the best. Right now we do not have the best.
  Under the Levin-Warner amendment, we are going to take that $475 
million and, yes, we are going to have reprogramming capability, or 
consultation, the Secretary can have his ability to change it, and we 
have 30 days to review it, and it is going to be used for fire support. 
Presumably, we are going to come up with a better system than we have 
right now. This is what I expect to be done.
  I don't want to find out our men and women are still training in 
inferior systems 20 years from now. If we do not move fairly quickly, 
that is exactly what they will be doing. Even if we stayed with the 
Crusader, that was going to be online in the year 2008, 5 or 6 years 
from now. The future combat system Senator Inhofe and others have 
talked about can be on line in 2008. We need to be moving forward on 
this rapidly. There is not a lot of time to waste, not when you think 
we could be jeopardizing the lives of our men and women.
  Somebody said maybe we don't need cannons, we can rely on air support 
power. That is not accurate. Talk to anybody in the military. Do you 
need an army with tanks and guns? Yes. Do you need an army with weapons 
for potential combat systems and close fire support? The answer is 
always yes. Can the air always do it? No. Can the multiple-launch 
rocket system do it? Not always. Sometimes it can from greater 
distances, but not close-in, not when you are talking about a few 
hundred yards, not when you are talking about a mile, not when you are 
talking about real close-in support.
  We need a cannon. We need close-in support. This $475 million 
reprogramming capability is for a future combat system. It could be 
called Crusader 2; it could be called Crusader 3. We have reduced the 
weight of the Crusader from 80 tons to 40 tons and still call it the 
Crusader. Now we are talking about taking it from 40 tons to 20-some 
tons. If that can do the job while having automatic load capability, 
have superior user accuracy, have the speed to stay up with our tanks 
and armored personnel carriers--which right now we cannot do--if we can 
come up with a lighter and more mobile system that can still protect 
our troops and provide the fire support that is so necessary--great. I 
will strongly support it.
  I hope and expect the reprogramming and the Army intelligence and 
Army experts in this field will come up with a system that will work. 
But they need to do it quickly. I hope and expect the leaders on both 
the Armed Services Committee in the Senate and in the House will work 
to make sure that happens.
  Presently, relying on the existing system is just not satisfactory. 
It is not satisfactory for this Senator. I do not think it would be 
satisfactory for the Department of Defense, either.
  I thank my colleagues for their work to keep this money in artillery 
and in close fire support.
  I also compliment my friend and colleague, Senator Inhofe, for his 
leadership. No one has invested more time on defense issues that I am 
aware of, with maybe the possible exception of Senator Warner, than 
Senator Inhofe on this committee. And no one has invested more time in 
support of the Army than Senator Inhofe.
  I also wish to compliment Congressman J.C. Watts because, likewise, 
he has invested an enormous amount of time trying to make sure making 
sure our men and women in the Army have

[[Page 10774]]

the best artillery around, not just protecting the jobs in Oklahoma. I 
think both Congressman Watts and Senator Inhofe are to be congratulated 
for their leadership, trying to make sure the Army as well as the Navy 
and Air Force and Marines have equipment superior to any potential 
adversary we might confront.
  I am happy to support the Levin amendment, modified by Senator 
Warner. I urge my colleagues to adopt it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would like to make a unanimous consent 
request, just for the information of our colleagues. I ask unanimous 
consent the time until 2 p.m. today be for debate with respect to the 
pending Levin and Warner amendments, with the time equally divided and 
controlled in the usual form, and at 2 p.m. the second-degree amendment 
be agreed to, and without further intervening action or debate the 
Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Levin amendment, as amended, 
with no other amendments in order prior to the disposition of the Levin 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, that will be fine. I would like to make sure 
that before 2 o'clock Senator Dayton has 5 minutes. That should be no 
problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota was assured of 
at least 5 minutes. I do not know if this time is divided equally or 
not, but whatever time I have remaining, I yield 5 minutes of that time 
to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I inquire as to the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAYTON. I ask unanimous consent that I might have 10 minutes to 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes, reserving the right to object, we are going to 
vote at 2; is that correct? I did want 3 or 4 minutes to speak on this 
issue.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have had a lot of people talking. We 
certainly want the Senator from Alabama to have his time to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote be extended until 5 after 2; 
that all the same orders will be in effect but for the 5 minutes, and 
that the Senator from Minnesota be given 10 minutes and the Senator 
from Alabama, 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Minnesota.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Nevada 
for the accommodation. I thank the Senator from Alabama as well.
  Mr. President, I want to start by expressing my appreciation and 
admiration to the chairman of our Armed Services Committee, on which I 
am privileged to serve along with the Senator from Michigan, and 
ranking member, the Senator from Virginia. Both of them have been 
outstanding mentors and role models for me in the Senate.
  The legislation which has been brought forward has my full support as 
a member of the committee.
  I note that the President proposed $396 billion for national defense 
for the 2003 budget, a 20-percent increase in spending over the last 2 
years.
  Is my understanding that the committee, which has been working very 
much on a bipartisan basis, provides after adjustments for the civilian 
and military retirement dollars, essentially the full amount that the 
President requested for all activities. It reflects the bipartisan 
support this committee has for strengthening our national defense--even 
before the tragic events of September 11, and certainly thereafter. As 
I said, it involves a very sizable increase in spending. It is 
supported by this Senator, and by Senators on both sides of the aisle--
in our committee and on the floor.
  There are other aspects of the bill that I would like to address at a 
subsequent time. But given the spirit of cooperation and support that 
has been evidenced, in my view, consistently by the committee, by the 
chairman of the committee, and by its members to undertake these 
increases and improvements on a cooperative basis--frankly, as others 
have noted--the procedures by which the Crusader budget has been 
proposed to be eliminated is an unfortunate exception. As I say, it is 
one that strikes me as really not warranted by the actions of the 
committee in any way whatsoever.
  The President submitted a budget proposal to the Congress on February 
4 and called for $475.6 million to continue in the development of the 
Crusader. No cutbacks were proposed. There were no reservations 
expressed about the project. The Crusader is on time, it is on budget, 
and it is to specifications. In the simulated tests so far, it has been 
right on target.
  In the committee hearings, which the Armed Services Committee held 
quite extensively about the President's proposal for the year 2003, no 
reservations were expressed by anyone--not by the Secretary of Defense, 
nor the Deputy Secretary of Defense, nor the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nor 
the military commanders. In fact, it was just the opposite. There was 
strong and unqualified support for the commander.
  I have asked a number of military leaders who have come to my office, 
and the incoming and outgoing Chiefs of Staff in Europe. I was at the 
National Training Center in California last year, and I asked tank 
commanders what they thought of the Crusader. They were unanimously 
enthusiastic about the Crusader. They were unanimously emphatic about 
the need for the Crusader to strengthen our artillery.
  The Secretary of the Army expressed similar support for those same 
reasons in testimony before the committee. We received testimony in 
March of this year before the committee by the Army Vice Chief of 
Staff. As reported in Defense Week the next day--on March 18 of this 
year--he said ground forces attacking in Afghanistan could have used 
the Crusader to pound al-Quaida redoubts in the mountains near Gardez. 
General Keane told the panel on Thursday that, unlike some air-
delivered munitions, poor weather would not have stopped the Crusader's 
precision fire. General Keane said they could have used the Crusader 
for support of troops attacking in the mountains and have gotten the 
response of artillery fire at considerable range and distance they 
could not with any of their other systems.
  He went on to say if the Army had the Crusader today--meaning in 
March, in Afghanistan--perhaps three or four of them could have been 
used there. He said they could have kept the Crusader within the range 
outside of the immediate battle areas in secure areas. He said the 
Paladin, by contrast, would have to be positioned closer to the 
mountains and would need more forces to protect it.
  To give Senator Inhofe and colleagues on that subcommittee a sense of 
the Crusader's range and precision, General Keane said they could put 
it within the beltway outside of Washington, fire it in the air, and 
hit homeplate in Camden Yards in Baltimore.
  After hearing all of this testimony and this unqualified support, the 
committee began its markup of the military budget and Department of 
Defense

[[Page 10775]]

request. After about a week of rumors and innuendos, contrary rumors 
and denials of all of that, we received on the morning of the final 
markup session of the committee--on May 8 of this year--a copy of a 
letter from Mr. Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and 
Budget, to the majority leader, Senator Daschle, informing him of the 
administration's decision to terminate the Crusader. We received 
nothing--this Senator received nothing--from the Secretary of Defense, 
and, as far as I know, no formal communication to the committee from 
the Department of Defense. It was treated as though it was a budget 
adjustment. Since then, there has been this presumption that, of 
course, the committee will approve the administration's change of mind. 
Of course, we will all just reverse our course upon command. Of course, 
we will just disregard all of the expert testimony we received over the 
last months. Of course, we will disregard whatever research we have 
done individually. And we will disregard our own views on the 
importance of this program, and we will just follow into a lockstep by 
pirouette 4 months after the budget has been submitted. Sixteen months 
after taking office, the administration has figured out what it wants 
to do about this program--no consultation or discussion with members of 
the committee, at least not with this Senator and most of the others 
with whom I talked.
  We were told in testimony that no consultation nor forewarning was 
given to the chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
nor with the Chief of Staff of the Army, nor with commanders in 
theaters such as Korea and Europe.
  I am very much concerned and alarmed about the failure, if that is 
the case--and it has not been refuted--to communicate and to consult 
with the military leadership of this country.
  Today, I heard that we are to be held responsible for delays--any 
delays toward wasting taxpayers' money, if we haven't already approved 
of this proposed change. It costs $500,000 a day. That is the number I 
heard. That certainly is one that we not spend lightly.
  We are proposing to approve a budget of over $1 billion a day on 
national defense for fiscal year 2003--over $1 billion of taxpayers' 
money every day. We are going to use that money to defend our borders 
and our country. We are going to use that money to protect America's 
interests, our influence, our values, and our way of life--and all over 
the world. Ultimately and specifically, we are going to use that money 
to send American men and women--young men and women, in most cases--to 
places such as Afghanistan, far away, and put them right on the line 
with their lives and families and children left behind. We owe it to 
them to have them know they are going into those conditions with every 
possible advantage, means of force, means of domination, and with a 
means of coming home alive having accomplished their mission 
successfully on behalf of our country.
  I was in Afghanistan, along with some of my colleagues, in January. 
We had lunch with members of the Armed Forces who are, as I say, young, 
dedicated, and enthusiastic. They gave up jobs. Those who are in the 
Reserves voluntarily came out and are standing up for and fighting for 
our country.
  When I get General Keane's testimony that the Crusader would make a 
difference in protecting their lives, then I say that is the 
consideration, that is the sole consideration, the overriding 
consideration in whether or not to continue with Crusader.
  Before this Senate decides and before this country decides to abandon 
that system, I want to be assured--I want to be guaranteed--that we are 
going to have comparable firepower coming to their protection and their 
defense when needed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The time of the Senator from 
Minnesota has expired.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the underlying amendment offered by 
Senator Levin, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection for it being in order to 
ask for the yeas and nays on the first-degree amendment at this time?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized for up 
to 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Levin and Senator 
Warner, Senator Inhofe, Senator Nickles, and Senator Dayton, who just 
spoke, for the work they have done to try to reach an agreement on the 
Crusader system that we can all live with and is the right thing to do. 
I believe we have made steps in that direction. I am proud to support 
this amendment.
  Let me just say a couple things about it.
  I am a strong believer in doing what we need to do to defend our 
soldiers and to defend our interests around the world. I did conclude 
that the administration was correct that the $11 billion projected on 
the Crusader was not the wisest investment of that $11 billion. It is 
not considered to be a part of our Future Combat System that we look to 
establish. It is an interim weapon system. It would drain $11 billion 
that could help us create the Future Combat System that we are all 
striving to achieve.
  You have to make tough decisions. That is what we pay the Secretary 
of Defense to do. It is not an easy call. A lot of people believed in 
this system and supported it for years and years. But we cannot expect 
them, just on a dime, to come in--generals and so forth, our Defense 
Department officials and contractors--and to now say: Oh, yes, we need 
to cancel it.
  That is why it is tough. But the Secretary of Defense understands 
these issues deeply and wrestled with them. They said they wished it 
could have been done smoother and maybe with more notice. Perhaps not 
quite as jerky in the process.
  Well, everybody knew, and had known for a long time, that the 
Department of Defense was examining the Crusader system very closely. 
Everybody knew that many believed it was not the wisest use of $11 
billion. I am glad they made the call. It is a tough call, and I 
believe it is the right call.
  I note, for example, many have cited it as a good weapon that could 
be utilized in Korea where we do face a large number of tanks by the 
North Koreans, and that it might be utilized in that kind of combat. 
But I note that the Army states their intent is not to even deploy the 
Crusader to Korea. It would not be on the ground in Korea. It would be 
maintained in the United States as part of a Counterattack Corps. So it 
is not the kind of weapon we would be normally deploying in situations 
where you would expect we could have a pretty violent conflict that 
could occur. I think we are doing the right thing. I believe the 
administration deserves credit for that.
  The administration also had to deal with some tough choices about 
funding. We know we are not going to continue to see the kind of 
increases that President Bush has fought for in the last 2 years in the 
Defense budget as we go along. We know these are not going to be 
sustained.
  We had a $48 billion increase this year. A lot of that had to go for 
the pay, retirement, and health care benefits we promised our men and 
women in uniform and our retirees. But we do know that we have to spend 
some more money on capital, moving us to the Future Combat System, 
buying the new equipment that will transform us, continually, to 
maintain the greatest military force in the world.
  One of the things we have to be honest about is that by 2008, 2009 or 
2010, we are going to be facing a train wreck in expenditures. We have 
the V-22 Osprey coming on line, the Joint Strike Fighter, the F-22, 
other programs that have been in the works for many years, all of which 
are going to be hitting about that time period.
  If we are not going to be able to sustain all of those weapons 
systems, do we wait until 2006, 2005--after we have spent billions of 
dollars on them--to then decide we cannot complete them

[[Page 10776]]

and that something else on line is better? I think not. The sooner we 
do it the better.
  Let me just mention that the budget submitted by the Defense 
Department to use the money that would not be spent for Crusader are 
investments in strengthening the Army's capability and, indeed, are the 
budget items that the Army requested if they did not have the Crusader.
  They include $57 million for a Netfires missile system that could be 
effective for our troops on the battlefield; $195.5 million on indirect 
fire for the objective force--our objective that we seek to establish--
$48.3 million for the Excalibur advanced system; $11.4 million for the 
tactical unmanned aerial vehicles--we need more unmanned aerial 
vehicles--$10.8 million for precision-guided mortar munitions--they 
would be precision guided instead of the indirect fire mortar weapons 
we have today. That can be done, and we can achieve that. They also 
include the guided multiple launch rockets that are precision guided; 
high-mobility artillery rocket systems; the Abrams tank engine, and 
other items that the Army requested.
  I thank the Chair, and I thank our leaders, Senator Levin and Senator 
Warner. I believe we are on the right track.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Alabama has 
expired.
  All time has expired.
  Under the previous order, amendment No. 3900, offered by the Senator 
from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3900) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3899, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Clinton
     Schumer
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
       
  The amendment (No. 3899), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 3912

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  Mr. President, Senator Warner and I will now offer an amendment that 
permits retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-
connected disability to receive both military retirement pay earned 
through years of military service and disability compensation from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs based on their disability.
  We offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Harry Reid, who has been 
the leader in the Senate on this issue, Senator Bob Smith, who raised 
this issue in our committee markup, and on behalf of the Armed Services 
Committee. This is a committee amendment.
  In the bill itself, before this amendment is even considered, there 
is a provision that we adopted in committee that goes a long way toward 
addressing an issue that many of us have been concerned about for a 
long time--the inability of military retirees to draw their full 
retirement pay if they are receiving compensation from the Department 
of Veterans Affairs for a service-connected disability. We believe they 
are entitled to both.
  The language that is already in the bill was limited by the funding 
allocation that was available to us. We got about half the job done in 
the bill, but we are now offering this amendment which will finish this 
equitable assignment that many of us have taken on.
  We believe we should authorize full concurrent receipt for these 
deserving veteran retirees, and the amendment that we offer will do 
that.
  We did not do the whole job in the bill because we did not want to 
make our bill subject to a point of order. We had a certain allocation 
of mandatory spending for this. We used it. That is the amount that is 
in the bill, and that is why in the bill we provide the concurrent 
receipt of military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation 
by military retirees with service-connected disabilities that are rated 
at 60 percent disability or higher. That used up the allocation we had. 
But many of us believe, and the committee believes, that we should do 
this for all disabled military retirees. This amendment will do that.
  If there is a point of order raised, we hope it will be waived. We 
did not want to make our entire bill subject to a point of order, so we 
divided it into two pieces.
  Under the provision in the bill, the amount of retirement pay would 
be phased in over a 5-year period beginning with 30 percent of the 
otherwise authorized retirement pay in 2003 and increasing to 45 
percent in 2004, 60 percent in 2005, 80 percent in 2006 and 100 percent 
in 2007.
  Again, the provision already in the bill was drafted very 
specifically to limit the cost to comply with the mandatory funding 
allocation that is contained in the budget resolution reported by the 
Senate Budget Committee. The language in the bill itself is not enough, 
in the judgment of the committee.
  It is unfair to limit concurrent receipt of retired pay and 
disability compensation to military retirees with a disability rated at 
60 percent or more. We cannot differentiate equitably and fairly from 
those retirees who are 50 percent disabled, 40 percent disabled, or 30 
percent disabled. They have all been disabled through their military 
service to our Nation. It is also unfair to delay the receipt of full 
compensation for 5 years. They are overdue for full compensation now. 
We are losing 1,500 veterans per day in this country, and we should act 
now.
  I first commend Senator Harry Reid for his absolute commitment to 
this issue, to resolving this inequity, to addressing this unfairness. 
Year after year he has eloquently and passionately persuaded this body 
to act in this way. He has succeeded in doing so. We have not been able 
to get this through conference. We are determined to make this effort 
again.
  I also note that during the committee markup of this bill, Senator 
Smith of New Hampshire proposed an amendment which would have permitted 
full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' 
disability compensation by all retirees eligible for nondisability 
retirement who have a service-connected disability, no matter what the 
disability rating was.
  Again, because this amendment of Senator Smith would have put our 
entire bill in violation of the budget resolution that was reported by 
the Budget Committee, we asked Senator Smith to allow this amendment to 
be offered on

[[Page 10777]]

behalf of the committee when the bill reached the floor. This would 
allow the full Senate to decide this issue. By majority vote, the 
committee agreed to this course of action, and this is the amendment we 
are offering at this time.
  The amendment we offer is essentially the same as S. 170, which is a 
bill initially introduced by Senator Reid of Nevada, who has been, 
again, the true leader in this effort in the Senate. The Senate passed 
this provision last year. Again, we were not able to bring it out of 
conference. We fought for this provision to the very end of the 
conference last year. It was one of the last two issues that were 
resolved in the conference between the Senate and the House. The House 
simply refused to accept our provision, and we finally had to reach an 
agreement if we were going to have a Defense Authorization bill last 
year.
  We were able to enhance the special compensation last year in 
conference for the most severely disabled retirees, and pass a 
provision on the condition that the President propose, and the Congress 
enact, legislation that would offset the costs of the initiative. The 
President did not propose that offsetting legislation, so the Senate 
once again is taking the initiative to right this wrong.
  Senator Reid's bill, S. 170, now has 81 cosponsors in the Senate. The 
House companion bill, H.R. 303, has 395 cosponsors. Senator Cleland, 
and Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, the chair and ranking member of the 
Personnel Subcommittee, have been strong advocates for this bill. The 
overwhelming support in both the House and the Senate for these two 
bills is a clear indication we simply should not settle for the limited 
provision in the bill as reported by the committee.
  Enactment of this amendment would remove an injustice to disabled 
military retirees. Military retirement pay and disability compensation 
were earned and awarded for different purposes. Military retirement pay 
is awarded for a career of service to our Nation in the Armed Forces. 
Disability compensation is awarded to compensate a veteran for an 
injury incurred in the line of duty. It is unfair for military 
retirees, who have earned both payments, not to receive them 
concurrently. Veterans injured in the line of duty, who leave military 
service and then serve a career as a Federal civilian employee, do not 
have to forfeit any of their Federal civilian retired pay to receive 
their VA disability compensation.
  I hope the Senate will adopt this committee amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. I send our amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration on behalf of the committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3912.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To provide alternative authority on concurrent receipt of 
military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for service-
                      connected disabled veterans)

       Strike section 641, relating to phased-in authority for 
     concurrent receipt of military retired pay and veterans' 
     disability compensation for certain service-connected 
     disabled veterans, and insert the following:

     SEC. 641. PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION TO DISABLED 
                   MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1414 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have 
       service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and 
       veterans' disability compensation

       ``(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Except 
     as provided in subsection (b), a member or former member of 
     the uniformed services who is entitled to retired pay (other 
     than as specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled 
     to veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid 
     both without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38.
       ``(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The 
     retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this 
     title with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable 
     under section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's 
     retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 
     5305 of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of 
     the member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title 
     exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member would 
     have been entitled under any other provision of law based 
     upon the member's service in the uniformed services if the 
     member had not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
       ``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member 
     retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 
     years of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of 
     this title at the time of the member's retirement.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `retired pay' includes retainer pay, 
     emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
       ``(2) The term `veterans' disability compensation' has the 
     meaning given the term `compensation' in section 101(13) of 
     title 38.''.
       (b) Repeal of Special Compensation Program.--Section 1413 
     of such title is repealed.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 641(d) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 
     107-107; 115 Stat. 1150; 10 U.S.C. 1414 note) is repealed.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 71 of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the items relating to sections 1413 and 
     1414 and inserting the following new item:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected 
              disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' 
              disability compensation.''.

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on--
       (1) the first day of the first month that begins after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in the 
     calendar year in which this Act is enacted, if later than the 
     date specified in paragraph (1).
       (f) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits may 
     be paid to any person by reason of section 1414 of title 10, 
     United States Code, as amended by subsection (a), for any 
     period before the effective date specified in subsection (e).

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join with Senator Levin, Senator Smith, 
Senator Hutchinson, and Senator Reid in offering this amendment to S. 
2514.
  The committee included in the bill a provision--section 641--that, 
over the next 5 years, would phase in elimination of the current 
dollar-for-dollar offset of military retired pay and veterans' 
disability pay for those military retirees most severely in need--that 
is, those who have been determined by the Veterans' Administration to 
be 60 percent or more disabled. I compliment Senator Cleland, Senator 
Hutchinson, Senator Smith and the members of the Personnel Subcommittee 
on bringing forward this timely, focused relief. The provision in the 
underlying bill was drafted to be consistent with the direct spending 
funding allocation contained in the budget resolution reported by the 
Budget Committee.
  But as the leaders of the subcommittee would readily acknowledge, 
more needs to be done. During the full committee markup, Senator Smith 
of New Hampshire proposed an amendment that would implement full 
concurrent receipt immediately. This initiative, I note, is consistent 
with S. 170, the legislation spearheaded by Senators Reid and 
Hutchinson, which, at this point, has over 80 consponsors in the 
Senate. It also is similar to the legislation that Senator Reid, 
Senator Hutchinson and I introduced in March of this year, S. 2051, the 
Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2002, which sought to eliminate the 
conditions for implementation of full concurrent receipt previously 
included in last year's conference report.
  However, many, many of my colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, 
have joined in seeking to end this injustice impacting disabled 
military retirees. Our shared goal? To ensure that an important class 
of disabled veterans--military retirees who have incurred service 
connected physical or mental disability--are fairly and appropriately 
compensated by the nation they served so well.
  The administration has taken a very different view on this issue. In 
fairness, I think the Senate should be aware of the Statement of 
Administration Policy on the underlying bill, which we received this 
morning and which addresses the issue before the Senate.
  This document states that the President's senior advisors will 
recommend a veto if either section 641 or the proposed amendment before 
us now that would fully implement concurrent receipt is included.

[[Page 10778]]

  I do not believe there is any member of this Senate who would assert 
that military retired pay adequately compensates a severely disabled, 
retirement-eligible service member who is appropriately rated by the 
Veterans' Administration for service connected injuries and disability. 
Perhaps, over a century ago, when the military retirement system was in 
its infancy, the legislation requiring the offset accurately reflected 
the legislative intent of the members. That is not the case today. The 
number of cosponsors for legislation that would repeal this law 
illustrates that it no longer expresses the will of the Congress. It is 
our responsibility to take appropriation action. We can not and should 
not wait any longer for this to happen.
  Before concluding, I want to recognize and thank the many veterans 
groups in The Military Coalition who have been unwavering in their 
support for this legislation. I have met with and listened closely to 
representatives from several of these organizations about their 
concerns about concurrent receipt, and I particularly want to recognize 
the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Fleet Reserve 
Association, the Retired Officers Association, the Retired Enlisted 
Association, the Non Commissioned Officers Association, the National 
Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted National Guard 
Association of the United States, the Disabled American Veterans, 
American Veterans of World War II, Korean and Vietnam AMVETS, the 
Association of the United States Army, the National Military Family 
Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, and the Vietnam 
Veterans of America for their support.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in this effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my 
ranking member, Senator Warner, and Chairman Levin for their 
outstanding work on this bill and achieving a compromise which would 
allow us to bring to the floor this legislation that would provide 
compensation for all veterans, not just a small number of them. It was 
a difficult situation to deal with, and they handled it beautifully.
  I also thank my friend and colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, for 
being the lead sponsor, the originator, of S. 170, which provides full 
compensation for all veterans, no matter what the percentage of 
disability. I am pleased and proud to have been a cosponsor of that 
legislation. I also thank Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas for his 
leadership as well on this issue.
  There are many Senators who have been involved in this legislation 
and who have worked tirelessly on behalf of veterans over the years, 
but it has been a long and difficult road. Every time I talk to 
veterans, veterans will tell me they have been waiting and waiting for 
this and they do not understand why the high numbers of cosponsorships 
on the bills to provide this full compensation do not yield in the end, 
after all the conference committees are finished, the passing of the 
legislation. I think now we are going to see that happen finally.
  My support for this legislation goes back to being a freshman 
Congressman in 1985, when a Congressman by the name of Mike Bilirakis 
of Florida had this legislation in the hopper. Concurrent receipt has 
the support of just about every veterans organization in the country. I 
have several letters from the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled 
American Veterans, the Military Coalition, the Retired Enlisted 
Association, the Retired Officers Association, and even a letter from 
the New Hampshire House of Representatives. I ask unanimous consent 
that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          The American Legion,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 2001.
       Dear Senator: The American Legion adamantly opposes Section 
     19 of House Concurrent Resolution 83 entitled: Concurrent 
     Retirement and Disability Benefits to Retired members of the 
     Armed Forces. This imprudent section requires the Secretary 
     of Defense to evaluate ``the existing standards for the 
     provision of concurrent retirement and disability benefits to 
     retired members of the Armed Forces and the need to change 
     these standards.''
       This ill-advised section does not properly state the intent 
     of H.R. 303 and S. 170: To amend title 10, United States 
     Code, to permit retired members of the Armed Forces, who have 
     a service-connected disability, to receive both military 
     retired pay by reason of their years of military service and 
     disability compensation from the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for their disability.
       The Congressional Research Service, The Library of 
     Congress, completed an extensive report in April 7, 1995 
     entitled: Military Retirement and Veterans' Compensation: 
     Current Receipt issues. This report is straightforward and 
     clearly addresses both sides of this debate. That probably 
     explains why both H.R. 303 and S. 170 continue to enjoy such 
     overwhelming bipartisan support. Today, 35 Senators and 287 
     Representatives are steadfast cosponsors.
       The American Legion adamantly supports legislation and 
     funding to permit retired members of the Armed Forces, who 
     also have a service-connected disability recognized by VA, to 
     receive both military retired pay and disability 
     compensation. Military retirees are the only retired Federal 
     employees who must offset their retired pay (dollar-for-
     dollar) with VA disability compensation awarded them. 
     Penalizing military retirees for choosing to serve their 
     country for 20 or more years is not only an injustice to 
     those who have served, but also a tremendous deterrent to 
     those who may be considering a military career.
       The American Legion strongly recommends the final Budget 
     Resolution include funding to pay for concurrent receipt 
     because it is the right thing to do. Thank you for your 
     continued leadership and support of veterans, especially the 
     service-connected, and their families.
           Sincerely,
                                               Steve A. Robertson,
     Director, National Legislative Commission.
                                  ____


    The Retired Enlisted Association--The Concurrent Receipt Debate


              what is the ``concurrent receipt'' problem?

       ``Concurrent Receipt'' refers to the dual receipt of 
     military retired pay and VA disability. Presently, a military 
     retiree must offset, dollar for dollar, from their retired 
     pay the amount they are receiving in VA Disability 
     Compensation.


          what legislation is pending to correct this problem?

       There are currently several bills pending before Congress, 
     which would work to correct this inequity by eliminating the 
     offset. That legislation is the following:
       H.R. 44 (106th Congress), by Rep. Bilirakis (R-FL) provides 
     limited authority for concurrent payment of retired pay and 
     veterans' disability compensation for certain disabled 
     veterans. Was referred to Committee on National Security and 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs. This bill is similar to H.R. 
     303 and H.R. 65 with a smaller benefit for certain disabled 
     retirees. For disability rated as total--$300 per month; 90 
     percent disability--$200 per month; 70 or 80 percent 
     disabled--$100 per month. Disability must have been granted 
     within 4 years of retirement date. This bill is a partial 
     measure to correct the concurrent receipt inequity. TREA 
     continues to support full receipt of retired pay and 
     veterans' disability compensation. Passed in FY 2000 National 
     Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
       HR 303 (106th Congress), by Rep. Bilirakis (R-FL) to permit 
     retired members who have service-connected disabilities to 
     receive compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     concurrently with retired pay, without deduction from either.
       S 2357 (106th Congress), by Sen. Reid (D-NV) to permit 
     retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-
     connected disability to receive military pay concurrently 
     with veterans' disability compensation.
       The Senate version of the FY 2001 NDAA included Sen. Reid's 
     amendment, however, the final conference report did not 
     include full concurrent receipt. The FY 2001 NDAA did include 
     a provision for Chapter 61 (Military Disabled Retired) with 
     20 or more year's service to receive the same special 
     compensation benefit as non-disabled retirees within 4 years 
     of retirement date. The effective date of payment is October 
     1, 2001.
       Rep. Bilirakis has introduced HR 303 and Sen. Reid has 
     introduced S. 170 in the 107th Congress to completely 
     eliminate the offset. The House Bill currently has 192 co-
     sponsors and the Senate Bill has 20 co-sponsors.
                                  ____



                                       The Military Coalition,

                                 Alexandria, VA, February 2, 2001.
     Hon. Harry M. Reid,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reid: The Military Coalition, a consortium of 
     nationally prominent uniformed services and veterans 
     organizations, representing more than 5.5 million members, 
     plus their families and survivors, is grateful to you for 
     introducing S. 170--a bill to ease the inequity of the 
     current law that reduces uniformed servicemembers' earned 
     retired pay by any amount of disability compensation they 
     receive from the

[[Page 10779]]

     Department of Veterans Affairs. The current 100 percent 
     offset imposes a very discriminatory penalty, especially for 
     those whose disability severely limits their post-service 
     earnings potential.
       S. 170 would correct the current inequity whereby disabled 
     uniformed services retirees are forced to fund their own 
     disability compensation from their own retired pay. The 
     Military Coalition strongly agrees with you that each of 
     these compensation elements is earned in its own right--
     retired pay for a career of arduous service in uniform and 
     disability compensation for pain and suffering and lost 
     future earnings resulting from service-connected 
     disabilities.
       In many cases, members with decades of uniformed service 
     are forced to forfeit most or all of their military retired 
     pay to receive the same disability compensation paid to a 
     similarly disabled member with relatively few years of 
     service. This unfairly denies any compensation value for 
     their decades of service and sacrifice in the uniform of 
     their country.
       In the last two years, Congress has enacted legislation 
     authorizing special compensation for certain severely 
     disabled retirees. This was a small but important first step 
     in recognizing the difference between a retirement for an 
     extended career of service and compensation for a disability 
     incurred as a result of such service. Your sponsorship of S. 
     170 this year takes this important issue the next, and final, 
     step.
       We understand the cost of S. 170 is significant. But we 
     believe strongly that fair compensation for America's 
     disabled retirees is also a significant issue--one that has 
     been long overdue. The Military Coalition will be most 
     pleased to work with you in urging all members of Congress to 
     support the immediate enactment of S. 170.
           Sincerely,
     The Military Coalition.
                                  ____

                                           State of New Hampshire,


                                    Office of the House Clerk,

                                        Concord, NH, July 9, 2001.
     Hon. Bob Smith:
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On January 25, 2001, the New Hampshire 
     House of Representatives passed House Concurrent Resolution 
     1, urging the federal government to allow military retirees 
     to receive service-connected disability compensation benefits 
     without requiring them to waive an equal amount of retirement 
     pay.
       On March 29, 2001, the New Hampshire Senate passed the same 
     resolution.
       Enclosed is a copy of that House Concurrent Resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                               Karen O. Wadsworth,
     Clerk of the House.
                                  ____

                                                       The Retired


                                         Officers Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, August 1, 2001.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: I am writing to express my deepest 
     apology for a printer's error on page 25 of the August issue 
     of The Retired Officer Magazine, which indicated legislators' 
     cosponsorship status on selected key bills.
       Although TROA provided correct data, printing plant 
     employees transposed data indicating your cosponsorship 
     status on legislation to increase Survivor Benefit Plan age-
     62 annuities (S. 145 or S. 305) and to authorize concurrent 
     receipt of military retired pay and veterans disability 
     compensation (S. 170), respectively. In your case, this 
     transposition failed to give you proper credit for your 
     cosponsorship of S. 170.
       The printer has accepted responsibility for this serious 
     error, and will mail every TROA member in your state a prompt 
     and corrected cosponsorship summary.
       Should you receive any correspondence from TROA members 
     based on the misprint in our magazine, please feel free to 
     provide them a copy of this letter to indicate TROA's 
     recognition and gratitude for your cosponsorship of S. 170.
       Again, we regret this unfortunate error, and very much 
     appreciate your support for the concurrent receipt 
     initiative.
           Sincerely,
     Michael A. Nelson.
                                  ____



                                   Disabled American Veterans,

                                  Washington, DC, August 31, 2001.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: Disabled veterans are deeply 
     disappointed by yet another move in Congress which will 
     jeopardize legislation to remove the unfair requirement that 
     veterans must surrender the military retired pay they earned 
     by reason of past service performed to receive compensation 
     for ongoing effects of service-connected disabilities. As 
     National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans, I write 
     to urge that you take all necessary action to ensure the 
     passage of one of the two companion bills H.R. 303 or S. 170, 
     or their equivalent in other legislation, rather than 
     substitute provisions included in H.R. 2586, the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.
       Provisions in H.R. 2586 to authorize ``concurrent receipt'' 
     of military retired pay and veterans' disability compensation 
     are accompanied by the equivalent of a ``joker clause'' that 
     renders the provisions inoperative unless the President 
     includes money in next year's budget to pay the cost of the 
     legislation and Congress then enacts legislation to take the 
     money from elsewhere in the Federal budget. In reality, this 
     provision in H.R. 2586 is of no effect. However, it will end 
     congressional action on real concurrent receipt legislation 
     in the form on H.R. 303 and S. 170.
       The serious injustice in current law deserves a real 
     remedy, not another symbolic gesture. Currently, 360 members 
     of the United States House of Representatives have signed on 
     as cosponsors of H.R. 303, and 72 Senators have cosponsored 
     S. 170. To abandon this meaningful legislation in favor of 
     the hollow provision in H.R. 2586 is indefensible.
       On behalf of those disabled veterans who have dedicated 
     their lives and sacrificed their health to make ours the most 
     secure and most prosperous nation on earth, I ask that you 
     individually act to ensure that our government honors its 
     obligation to provide them the retired pay they were promised 
     and earned and the disability compensation they are 
     rightfully due. Please let me know if these disabled veterans 
     can count on you to ensure real concurrent receipt 
     legislation--rather than in H.R. 2586--is enacted.
           Sincerely,
                                            George H. Steese, Jr.,
                                               National Commander.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. This concurrent receipt issue centers 
around the ability of a military retiree to receive both military 
retired pay and their VA disability. The American Legion and VFW point 
out that the concept of concurrent receipts goes all the way back to 
when Congress passed a law prohibiting active-duty or retired personnel 
from also receiving these disability pensions. So military retirees are 
the only Federal employees prohibited from receiving both retirement 
pay and VA disability. This is an inequity.
  I give a brief quote from a constituent by the name of Thomas Taylor 
who wrote to me, and he said:

       Dear Senator Smith: As a cosponsor of H.R. 303, or S. 170, 
     your help is now needed to stop making disabled military 
     retirees fund their own Department of Veterans Affairs 
     disability compensation from their military retired pay. 
     Retired pay is hard-earned compensation for the extraordinary 
     demands and sacrifices of a career in uniform. VA disability 
     compensation is for pain, suffering and lost future earnings 
     due to service-connected disability. The current retired pay 
     offset is so unfair it has been highlighted on national 
     network news.

  That is so true. I am glad to support my constituent and millions of 
constituents in this regard. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Taylor's 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Dear Senator Smith: As a cosponsor of H.R. 303 or S. 170, 
     your help is needed now to stop making disabled military 
     retirees fund their own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
     disability compensation from their military retired pay. 
     Retired pay is hard-earned compensation for the extraordinary 
     demands and sacrifices of a career in uniform. VA disability 
     compensation is for pain, suffering, and lost future earnings 
     due to service-connected disability. The current retired pay 
     offset is so unfair it has been highlighted on national 
     network news.
       You are among the 86 percent of representatives and 76 
     percent of senators who express support for ending the 
     current offset. But actions speak louder than words. I depend 
     on you to ensure Congress backs up its cosponsorship support 
     with money in the FY 2003 Budget Resolution.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Thomas Taylor

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Retired pay and disability are separate. 
That is a fact. Our veterans should not be penalized further merely for 
choosing a career in the military, which is exactly what has happened. 
Nondisabled military retirees pursue second careers after service to 
supplement their own income, thereby justly enjoying the full reward 
for the completion of the military career retirement, and then going to 
work and earning extra money if they are able to do so.
  In contrast, military retirees with a service-connected disability do 
not enjoy the same full earning potential. Their earnings are reduced 
based on the degree of service-connected disability. Some of the 
injuries may be modest by some standards, and others

[[Page 10780]]

have lost limbs or been paralyzed or suffered other injuries which 
severely limit their ability to make a living.
  This debate has gone on for a number of years. I will not go into all 
the details as to the reasons these military retirees deserve this. 
They have earned this. No veteran should ever be left behind. This 
compromise assumes sufficient funding to accommodate an increase in the 
military retiree pay that a veteran can collect.
  The compromise reached before we came back with this legislation was 
that only 60 percent would be compensated, not everyone. That is not 
fair. We had all of the Senators and Congressmen in both the House and 
Senate supporting the full compensation for everyone: Whether you had a 
10-percent disability or 100-percent disability, you got the dollars. 
That was the underlying bill by Senator Reid.
  Why does it appear suddenly we have come forth with an amendment or 
proposal that gives it to only a portion of the veterans? That is 
wrong.
  If we go with the compromise which was proposed, 80,000 veterans will 
get the award, the disability compensation, but 450,000 to 600,000 will 
be cut out.
  Veterans were writing to me, and I am sure to many other Members, 
with great justification, saying if all of the Senators--almost 80, 
maybe 83 percent--support providing this for everyone and an 
overwhelming majority of the House Members support it, why in the House 
bill did we have a compromise that cut out 450,000 veterans? Why is it 
on the same track in the Senate, cutting out 450,000 veterans? The 
truth is, that is wrong; we should not do that.
  I was exasperated, as was a constituent, Raymond Snow, who wrote this 
letter to me:

       This mirrors provisions in the house FY03 Budget 
     Resolutions to authorize higher payments for disabled 
     retirees who are more than 60 percent disabled. This is just 
     nickel and diming the military retiree and not all Federal 
     employees. This is not a benefit. It is an entitlement and 
     should be treated as it is with all Federal employees.

  That is the issue--to offer up a compromise, although it saves money. 
But this is about being fair to veterans and being fair to those who 
serve. That compromise was unfair because it cut out 450,000 veterans. 
I ask, if you have a 50-percent disability or a 60-percent disability, 
why should the person with the 50-percent disability be cut out and get 
no compensation for his or her disability, and a person with 60 percent 
get it? The truth is, it should not be that. It is unfair to offer a 
compromise that is different from what most Members of the Senate and 
the House agree to. That is wrong, and that is why we are correcting 
it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of all 
the cosponsors in the Senate of the Reid bill, S. 170.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                          Cosponsors of S. 170

       Daniel K. Akaka, Wayne Allard, George Allen, Max Baucus, 
     Robert F. Bennett, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Jeff Bingaman, 
     Christopher S. Bond, Barbara Boxer, John B. Breaux.
       Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Conrad R. Burns, Robert C. 
     Byrd, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Maria Cantwell, Jean Carnahan, 
     Lincoln D. Chafee, Max Cleland, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
       Thad Cochran, Susan M. Collins, Kent Conrad, Jon Corzine, 
     Michael D. Crapo, Thomas A. Daschle, Mark Dayton, Michael 
     DeWine, Christopher J. Dodd, Pete V. Domenici.
       Byron L. Dorgan, Richard J. Durbin, John Edwards, John E. 
     Ensign, Michael B. Enzi, Dianne Feinstein, Bob Graham, 
     Charles E. Grassley, Chuck Hagel, Orrin G. Hatch.
       Jesse Helms, Ernest F. Hollings, Tim Hutchinson, Kay Bailey 
     Hutchison, James M. Inhofe, Daniel K. Inouye, James M. 
     Jeffords, Tim Johnson, Edward M. Kennedy, John F. Kerry.
       Patrick J. Leahy, Carl Levin, Joseph I. Lieberman, Blanche 
     Lincoln, Trent Lott, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Barbara A. 
     Mikulski, Zell Miller, Frank H. Murkowski.
       Patty Murray, Bill Nelson, E. Benjamin Nelson, Jack Reed, 
     Pat Roberts, John D. Rockefeller IV, Rick Santorum, Paul S. 
     Sarbanes, Charles E. Schumer, Richard C. Shelby.
       Bob Smith, Gordon Smith, Olympia J. Snowe, Arlen Specter, 
     Debbie Stabenow, Craig Thomas, Strom Thurmond, Robert G. 
     Torricelli, John W. Warner, Paul D. Wellstone.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Another letter from a man from my home 
State, a Mr. Lutz, who said:

       Eight out of ten members of the Senate have cosponsored S. 
     170 . . . which would permit retired members of the Armed 
     Forces who have service-connected disability to receive both 
     military longevity retired pay and disability compensation. 
     Last year, provisions from S. 170 were included in the 
     National Defense Authorization Act to authorize concurrent 
     receipt, but with the conditions that keep concurrent receipt 
     provisions from taking effect unless the President included 
     funding in his budget and Congress enacted other legislation 
     to offset the costs. Our members are deeply frustrated that 
     such a large majority of the Senate has cosponsored S. 170, 
     but still the injustice continues.

  That is the point. What the Senate is doing now--and I congratulate 
Senator Warner and Senator Reid, Senator Hutchison, and Senator Levin 
for their cooperation--we now have said this legislation, which 
provides full compensation to 450,000 to 500,000 veterans who have a 
disability and are retired, they get it both; whether the disability is 
10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent or 60 percent, they get the 
compensation. We are not drawing lines, saying one injury was more or 
less important than another. We have taken the underlying legislation 
we have supported overwhelmingly and said, we will put it in the Armed 
Services Committee bill and support this legislation. If there is a 
point of order raised, we intend to be supportive.
  I congratulate all Members in the committee who supported me. The 
vote was 24 to 1 in committee in support of Senator Reid's legislation 
to provide the full compensation. It is a committee amendment. I am 
aware of that. However, there are other Senators who have asked to be 
associated with the legislation. Today Senators Bingaman and Snowe 
asked to be associated with the amendment. I know many other Senators 
who are not on the committee also feel the same.
  In conclusion, we cannot allow Government to make mathematical 
assessments of battle wounds. Frankly, when the House Budget Committee 
did what they did, that was exactly what they did.
  I also venture a guess that not too many on that committee fully 
understand what it means to be in the military, as I have been in the 
military, and many other Members in the Senate, to understand being 
counted does not cut it when it comes to battle wounds received by 
veterans. You cannot draw a distinction, saying one person gets so many 
dollars because they have 60 percent disability and this person gets no 
compensation because they have 50 percent disability.
  That is outrageous and not well thought out by those who prepared it 
and then insisted on the language, although a majority of the House 
Members supported the underlying bill that supported all. This is what 
causes people to get turned off on the political process. To Senator 
Levin and Senator Warner and Senator Reid's credit, they have seen 
through that and offered this up as a committee amendment on behalf of 
all members of the Armed Services Committee, except one, and all of 
those in the Senate who have supported this legislation.
  I am pleased and proud, as one who lost his father in World War II, 
as one who served his country in Vietnam, along with my brother who 
also served in Vietnam. We are a military family. I am pleased, 
honored, and proud to support this legislation and to support this 
committee amendment and, hopefully, see this move through the 
conference where we will stand up to the House of Representatives and 
pass this legislation so all military retirees who receive disability 
will get both disability and retirement. Whatever the cost, we need to 
bear that cost. They bore the cost for us when they served.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Let me say, this is not my amendment, it is our amendment. 
The committee has extended it forward, for which I am very grateful, on 
behalf of the Senate, that this amendment was offered. This is the way 
I look at it. It is not my amendment. We started off a number of years 
ago, working our way through this, to be at the point we are now. I am 
very happy.

[[Page 10781]]

  One of the things I was struck with on Memorial Day this year--it 
never hit me like it did this year--over many years, three decades, at 
least, I have been going to Memorial Day services. They have one big 
event in Las Vegas and a number of others. The event is not as big as 
it used to be. Veterans are dying. World War II veterans are dying. 
This Memorial Day, I looked out in the audience, and people I expected 
to be there were gone. That is what this amendment is all about. It is 
bringing the respect to these people who are gone, and those who are 
here still living what they deserve. World War II veterans are dying at 
the rate of more than 1,000 a day.
  I cannot say enough on this Record to express my personal 
appreciation to Senators Levin and Warner because we have not been real 
successful in years past. We have done OK but have not been completely 
successful. You have fought, in conference with the House, to get us 
what we want. I will never forget how you fought.
  I remember last year after we failed, we held a press conference, 
talking about we are going to do better next year. And we have done 
better. This is next year and we have done better.
  I appreciate Senator Smith talking about how fervently he feels about 
this. I know that. I have served with him on the MIA/POW Committee. I 
know how he feels about our military personnel.
  Of course, regarding the two men who are the chairman and ranking 
member of this committee, I wish, again, words were adequate for me to 
tell the American people how fortunate we are to have the two of them, 
the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Virginia, in effect, for 
the Senate, representing the Senate, taking care of the service men and 
women of this country. That is what your obligation is--to make sure 
those men and women of our Armed Forces who carry rifles and drive 
trucks and serve food, who wear the uniform of this country are well 
taken care of.
  We can always do better, there is no question about that. But the two 
of you, I think, will go down in history as really directing this 
country in the way it should be.
  In the last session, I introduced S. 170 entitled ``The Retired Pay 
Restoration Act of 2001'' to address, as has already been said here 
today several times, the 100-year-old injustice against over 550,000 of 
our Nation's veterans. This legislation, which would permit the retired 
members of the armed services with a service-connected disability to 
receive military retirement pay while also receiving veterans' 
disability compensation, now has 82 cosponsors.
  I am proud of the veterans across this country, not only in Nevada 
but all across the country, because veterans who do not have service-
connected disabilities have joined us in this fight for equity and 
fairness.
  I have not asked Senator Levin, I have not asked Senator Warner or 
Senators Smith or Landrieu or Carper--but I could ask the question and 
I know I would get the answer that you have been overwhelmed with mail 
from veterans all over this country and veterans organizations, saying: 
Isn't it about time we took care of these veterans?
  The House chose not to appropriate funds for this measure. On March 
21, 2002, I along with 26 cosponsors, introduced S. 2051, ``The Retired 
Pay Restoration Act.''. It would repeal the contingency language the 
House inserted in the National Defense Authorization Act, and thus 
remove the condition preventing authority for concurrent receipt of 
military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation from 
taking effect.
  My legislation allows those who have made sacrifices while serving 
our country to receive the benefits they deserve. This year the Budget 
Committee--and I am so grateful to Senators Conrad and Domenici, 
chairman and ranking member of that committee, who included funding in 
this budget that we are going to approve, hopefully--and will provide 
funding for full concurrent receipt of Department of Defense retirement 
benefits and veterans disability benefits to veterans who are between 
60- and 100-percent disabled as a result of their military service.
  Also, this year the Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator 
Levin and, as I have mentioned, the ranking member, Senator Warner, 
authorized concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and veterans 
disability rated 60 percent or higher. This goes a long way to correct 
the injustice to those veterans who have served their country 
honorably.
  The inequitable legislation prohibiting the concurrent receipt of 
military retirement pay and veterans disability compensation was 
approved by Congress shortly after the Civil War, when the standing 
Army of the United States was very small. At that time, only a small 
portion of our Armed Forces consisted of career soldiers.
  I have been working on this for a long time. Each year we get a 
little closer to achieving this goal of 100-percent compensation for 
our Nation's veterans. We are going to continue working on this. But we 
have made it to this point for a lot of reasons. But I repeat, for no 
two reasons more important than Senators Levin and Warner.
  I stand before the Senate today, indicating this amendment that the 
committee has introduced should be approved by all Senators--we have 82 
cosponsors--once and for all taking care of the inequity that our 
Nation's veterans have had to experience. Military retirement pay and 
disability compensation are awarded for entirely different purposes. 
The current law ignores the distinction between the two. Military 
retired pay is compensation veterans earn through the extraordinary 
sacrifices inherent in a military career. It is a reward promised for 
serving two decades or more under demanding conditions.
  Veterans disability compensation, on the other hand, is to recompense 
for pain, suffering, and loss of future earning power caused by 
service-connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on 
their retired pay alone, and a severe disability only makes the problem 
worse by limiting or denying any postservice working life.
  The U.S. military force is unmatched in terms of power, training, and 
ability. Our Nation's status as the world's only superpower is due to 
the sacrifices our veterans made during the last 100 years or more. 
Rather than honoring their commitment, though, and their bravery, by 
fulfilling what I believe are our obligation, the Federal Government, 
their employer in the past, has chosen instead to perpetuate a 
longstanding injustice. Simply, this is disgraceful and we must correct 
it.
  Once again, our Nation is calling upon members of the Armed Forces to 
defend democracy and freedom--in a different way, perhaps, but still to 
defend democracy and freedom.
  Today, about 1.5 million Americans dedicate their lives, every waking 
minute--some when they are not awake--to the defense of our Nation. I 
am sure they have many restless nights.
  We must send a signal to these men and women currently in uniform 
that our Government takes care of those who make sacrifices for our 
Nation. We must demonstrate to veterans that we are thankful for their 
dedicated service. This is one way to do that. Career military retired 
veterans are the only group of Federal retirees who are required to 
waive their retirement pay in order to receive their disability pay. 
All other Federal employees receive both their civil service retirement 
and their VA disability with no offset. Simply put, the law 
discriminates against career military. It assumes wrongly, they either 
do not need or do not deserve the full compensation they earn for their 
years in uniform.
  This inequity is absurd. How do we explain it to these service 
personnel who have sacrificed their own safety to protect this great 
Nation? How do we explain to other members currently risking their 
lives to defeat terror?
  I have already mentioned the number of veterans we lose on a daily 
basis. Every day we delay acting on this legislation means continuing 
to deny fundamental fairness to tens of thousands of men and women. 
They will never have the ability to enjoy their well-deserved benefits 
unless we do something.

[[Page 10782]]

  I received a copy today of a veto threat from the President saying 
that if this is in the bill, the President will veto it.
  I don't know the President of the United States as well as John 
Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, but I know him as well as 
anybody else in this Chamber. I think this was not done by President 
George W. Bush. This is staff directed. President Bush would not veto 
this bill because of what veterans are going to get. This is coming 
from some bureaucratic apparatus. President George W. Bush would not 
veto this. If he did, he would be a much different person than I have 
come to know.
  I hope we will give this the proper action and just disregard it. The 
President will not veto this based upon this. If he did, I would be 
extremely disappointed and every veteran in America would be 
disappointed.
  This amendment represents an honest attempt to correct an injustice 
that has existed for far too long. Allowing all disabled veterans to 
receive military retired pay and veterans' compensation concurrently 
will restore fairness to Federal retirement policy.
  I have heard all kinds of excuses. Added to it now is this veto 
threat, which I don't take seriously. Now it is time for veterans to 
hear our gratitude and to see results.
  I again express my appreciation to the committee and Senators Levin 
and Warner for offering this as the committee amendment. That says it 
all. I hope we will respond overwhelmingly to support the committee 
action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority whip 
for his comments.
  Mr. President, part of my remarks is an exact lifting from the 
Congressional Record of last year when Senator Reid took the floor 
following the adoption by the Senate of the conference report on the 
authorization. Just three of us were here--Senators Reid, Levin, and I. 
We talked about our commitment to bring this matter up again this year. 
It was a remarkable colloquy. I read it again not long ago. It shows 
the long period of time in which our distinguished colleague from 
Nevada has fought so hard for the veterans, and particularly those who 
were deprived of what I believe, of what Senator Reid believes, and I 
believe what a majority of the Senate believes they are entitled to.
  I thank my distinguished colleague from Nevada for his very 
thoughtful and kind remarks, but most importantly for his undying 
leadership through the years, coupled with others--our colleague from 
New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Hutchinson, whom I urged come to the 
floor, and I believe he will be here shortly, and others.
  I ask unanimous consent that a colloquy from 2001 be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Congressional Record, Dec. 13, 2001]

       Mr. Levin. I wish to very briefly take up other parts of 
     this bill, including one in which Senator Reid has been so 
     involved. I want to get to that point immediately because he 
     is in the Chamber now. I want to pay tribute to the effort he 
     has made to try to end what is a real unfairness in our law. 
     The unfairness is that our disabled veterans are not 
     permitted to receive both retired pay and VA disability 
     compensation. This is something that is unique to our 
     veterans--that they are not able to receive both the retired 
     pay plus the disability compensation, which they have been 
     awarded. It sounds unusual to say one is ``awarded'' 
     compensation for disability.
       We had a provision in the Senate bill to address this 
     inequity. We would have allowed our disabled veterans, as 
     others in the Federal Government employ and others in 
     society, to receive both retirement and disability pay. The 
     House leadership was not willing to have a vote on the budget 
     point of order, which would have been made, which would have 
     authorized this benefit to be paid. So we were left with no 
     alternative.
       Senator Warner and I were both there in conference, day 
     after day. We pointed out that Senator Harry Reid has been a 
     champion on this, and there are others in this body who have 
     pointed out the inequity in the provision that prohibits the 
     receipt of both retired pay and disability compensation.
       At the end, we could not persuade the House to include this 
     provision and have a point of order contested in the House. 
     So what we ended up with was something a lot less than what 
     we hoped we would get, and that is the authorization for 
     these payments to be made, the authorization to end the 
     unfairness, but it would still require an appropriation in 
     order to fund them.
       Mr. Reid. Will the Senator yield for a question?
       Mr. Levin. Yes.
       Mr. Reid. Madam President, I basically want to spread 
     across the Record of this Senate my appreciation to the 
     chairman and ranking member for the advocacy on behalf of the 
     American veterans regarding this issue. This is basic 
     fairness. Why should somebody retired from the military, who 
     has a disability pension from the U.S. military, not be able 
     to draw both? If that person retired from the Department of 
     Energy, he could do both.
       We have debated this, and there is overwhelming support 
     from the Senate. It is late at night, but I want the Record 
     to be spread with the fact that I deeply appreciate, as do 
     the veterans, your advocacy. I want the Record to also be 
     very clear that the Senate of the United States has stood up 
     for this. The House refused to go along with us.
       Also, I feel some sadness in my heart because we are going 
     to come back and do this next year. Sadly, next year there 
     are going to be about 500,000 less World War II veterans. 
     They are dying at the rate of about 1,000 a day. So people 
     who deserve this and would be getting this during this next 
     year will not because the average age of World War II 
     veterans is about 79 years now. So there is some heaviness in 
     my heart.
       We are going to continue with this. I don't want anybody in 
     the House of Representatives to run and hide because there is 
     no place to hide. This was killed by the House. For the third 
     time, I appreciate Senator Levin and Senator Warner.
       So although I support the conference report for H.R. 3338, 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, 
     I feel a sense of disappointment.
       Once again this year, the conference report failed to 
     include a provision on an issue that I have been passionately 
     working on for the last couple of years. Namely, the 
     concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability 
     compensation.
       Unbelievably, military retirees are the only group of 
     federal retirees who must waive retirement pay in order to 
     receive VA disability compensation.
       Put simply, if a veteran refuses to give up their 
     retirement pay, the veteran must forfeit their disability 
     benefits.
       My provision addresses this 110-year-old injustice against 
     over 560 thousand of our nation's veterans.
       It is sad that 300-400 thousand veterans die every year. I 
     repeat: 300,000-400,000 veterans die every year. They will 
     never be paid the debt owed by America to its disabled 
     veterans.
       To correct this injustice, on January 24th of this year, I 
     introduced S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2001.
       My bill embodies a provision that permits retired members 
     of the Armed Forces who have a service connected disability 
     to receive military retirement pay while also receiving 
     veterans' disability compensation.
       The list of 75 cosponsors clearly illustrates bipartisan 
     support for this provision in the Senate.
       My legislation is very similar to H.R. 303, which has 378 
     cosponsors in the House. I'm thankful to Congressman 
     Bilirakis, who has been a vocal advocate for concurrent 
     receipt in the House for over fifteen years.
       My legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service 
     organizations, including the Military Coalition, the National 
     Military/Veterans Alliance, the American Legion, the Disabled 
     American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the 
     Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Uniformed Services 
     Disabled Retirees.
       In October, I introduced an amendment identical to S. 170 
     for the Senate Defense Authorization bill. The Senate adopted 
     my amendment by unanimous consent.
       Unfortunately, the House chose not to appropriate funds for 
     this important measure.
       This meant that the fate of my amendment would be decided 
     in a ``faceless'' conference committee.
       It pains me deeply to see that my amendment was removed in 
     conference.
       This is an old game played in Congress in which members 
     vote for an amendment to help veterans, knowing full well the 
     amendment will be removed at a later time.
       When will decency replace diplomacy and politics when it 
     comes to the treatment of America's veterans.
       Why won't members of the House of Representatives join 
     their Senate colleagues and right this wrong?
       Why can't we do our duty and let disabled veterans receive 
     compensation for their years of service and disability 
     compensation for their injuries?
       We gather at a solemn moment in the history of our great 
     Nation.
       On September 11th, terrorists landed a murderous blow 
     against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

[[Page 10783]]

       Right away, we saw the men and women of our Armed Forces 
     placed on the highest level of alert. American troops then 
     deployed to the center of the storm, set to strike against 
     the enemies of all civilized people.
       Our Nation is once again calling upon the members of the 
     U.S. Armed Forces to defend democracy and freedom. They will 
     be called upon to confront the specter of worldwide 
     terrorism.
       They will be called upon to make sacrifices.
       In some tragic cases, they will be seriously injured or 
     even die.
       Most believe that a grateful government meets all the needs 
     of its veterans, no questions asked.
       I am sad to say this is not the case today.
       I will continue this fight until we correct this injustice 
     once and for all.
       Mr. Levin. I thank Senator Reid. He has been a champion of 
     this cause. He has fought harder than anybody I know to end 
     this inequity. The House leadership simply would not go along 
     with this. We had a choice: We would either have a bill or no 
     bill. That is what this finally came down to.
       I believe Senator Reid got something like 75 cosponsors for 
     his provision. The Senate overwhelmingly supported this 
     provision. I hope we have better luck next year in the House.
       In the meantime, what we have done is we have authorized 
     this, and perhaps our Appropriations Committee will be able 
     to find the means to fund this. But until next year, I am 
     afraid the number of veterans you have pointed out--perhaps 
     1,000 a day--will not get the benefits they deserve.
       Mr. Reid. I am on the Appropriations Committee. I will work 
     toward that. I do want the Record to reflect my overwhelming 
     support for this legislation. I feel badly this provision is 
     not in it, but this is a fine piece of legislation on which 
     the two of you have worked so hard.
       Mr. Warner. I also thank my distinguished colleague, 
     Senator Reid, for his leadership on this issue. We speak of a 
     disabled veteran. I have had a lifetime of association with 
     the men and women in the U.S. military. In my military 
     career, I was not a combat veteran. But I served with many 
     who have lost arms, legs, and lives. Those individuals, when 
     they go into combat and lose their limbs, or suffer injuries, 
     are somewhat reduced in their capacity to compete in the 
     marketplace for jobs and do all of the things they would like 
     to do as a father with their children and their families.
       I take this very personally. I feel that some day the three 
     of us--and indeed I think this Chamber strongly supports it--
     will overcome and get this legislation through. I thank the 
     Senator for his leadership. He is right that the World War II 
     veterans have died at a 1,000, 1,200, sometimes 1,400 a day, 
     and many of those are being penalized by this particular law. 
     So I thank the Senator and I thank my chairman. We shall 
     renew our effort early next year.
       Mr. Levin. I want to say one thing publicly. I want to 
     again thank Senator Warner. As he often points out, we came 
     at the same time to this body. I have been blessed by having 
     him as a partner and a ranking member for the short few 
     months I have been chairman of the Armed Services Committee. 
     Nobody could have asked for a better partner than I have had 
     in Senator Warner. There are times, of course, that we don't 
     agree with each other, but there has never been a time I can 
     remember in 23 years where we don't trust each other.
       There is nothing more important in this body than to be 
     able to look somebody in the eye and say that. That is 
     something I feel very keenly. Our staffs have been 
     extraordinary in their work. This has been a very difficult 
     bill.
       In addition to thanking Senator Warner personally, I thank 
     our staffs for the work they have done. Every night when I 
     call David Lyles--every night--he is there with the staff 
     until 10 or 11 o'clock. I do not even call him after 11 
     o'clock because that is when I go to bed, or at least I try 
     to. I am pretty sure he stays on after that. I know it is 
     true with Senator Warner's great staff, too.
       Mr. Warner. Madam President, I thank my great chairman. He 
     succeeded me as chairman. We just moved one seat at the table 
     in our committee hearing room. I guess that was the only 
     change. Of course, other things took place.
       As he says, the trust is there, the respect is there. We 
     travel. We just finished an extraordinary trip. We were the 
     first two Members of Congress to go into the area of 
     operations in Afghanistan, having visited our troops in 
     Uzbekistan, our troops in Pakistan and Oman, and then on up 
     into the Bosnia region where we visited our respective 
     National Guards who are serving there now.
       I value our friendship. I look forward to hopefully many 
     more years working together. I thank my friend. We shall 
     carry forward. We do this in the spirit of bipartisanship on 
     behalf of our men and women in uniform of the United States. 
     We are here to do the people's business, and I say to the 
     Senator, we have done the people's business. We have been 
     aided in that effort by Judy Ansley, my chief of staff, 
     having succeeded Les Brownlee; and Senator Levin's wonderful 
     David Lyles, and Peter Levine. I use Senator Levin's lawyer's 
     legal brains as much as I use my lawyer's legal brains.
       I thank our distinguished Presiding Officer, again, for 
     helping us here tonight. I again salute and commend my staff. 
     I am a very fortunate individual to be served so well in the 
     Senate. We share our staffs in many ways. They get along 
     quite well together.
       Mr. Levin. Indeed, they do.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Nevada will 
yield for a comment.
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his 
very gracious compliments. As always, he seeks to give others more 
credit than they are due. He is modest in terms of what he himself has 
done. He has just simply been an invaluable leader on this issue. 
Senator Smith and others clearly played an important role. But I really 
want to single out Senator Reid.
  If we get this done this year--and I expect we will--despite that 
veto threat, it will be in large measure because the Senator from 
Nevada, in his absolutely inimitable way, takes leadership of an issue 
that makes a difference in the lives of tens of thousands and perhaps 
hundreds of thousands of veterans who have earned both of these 
benefits.
  I thank him for his gracious approach. I will tell him that we will 
carry on this fight in conference, assuming this is adopted. We will 
carry on the fight for part of it which was adopted in our bill--which 
is already there. I assure him that if we succeed, the veterans of this 
country will know who the principal leader was. Again, he is not alone. 
He would be the first one to say that. Senator Smith, Senator 
Hutchinson, and others are critically important in this effort. But he 
clearly is the leader. I thank him.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while I have the floor, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Biden be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Cantwell and Mikulski be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to be added as a cosponsor 
as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I extend my thanks to the majority whip 
and to the floor managers of the bill. Senator Reid cares very deeply 
about this issue. I have known him for some time. We came to Congress 
together in 1982. We were classmates in the House of Representatives 
that year. Mike Bilirakis of Florida has been a champion of this issue 
for close to 20 years.
  I served as Governor for 6 years with George W. Bush when he was 
Governor of Texas. I do not know that I know him better than anybody 
else on the floor. I know him reasonably well. I am not altogether 
surprised that he would issue a veto threat on this issue. Before we go 
forward and approve it, I think that is clearly what is going to 
happen. I don't believe he is doing this out of some sense of lack of 
respect for the military. I clearly don't believe he would be doing 
this out of a lack of respect for those who served and became disabled 
during their service to their country.
  I have not seen the veto message that Senator Reid placed in the 
trash receptacle there. But it would be interesting to hear what the 
President's words actually were on the message. Does the Senator mind? 
It is not very lengthy.
  Mr. REID. I have pulled it out of the file.
  Mr. CARPER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. I preface this by saying I really do not think the 
President would do this. It is something that has overwhelmingly 
bipartisan support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Rockefeller be 
added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has 82 cosponsors. It is in the budget, 
as I indicated in my opening statement.

[[Page 10784]]

There is money for it in the proposed budget. There is money for it in 
this committee report. If somebody wants to vote against this, at least 
on the President's veto threat, that is their right. Here is the answer 
to the question.

       The administration also believes that our current deficit 
     projections necessitate strict adherence to fiscal discipline 
     to ensure the quickest return to a balanced budget. The 
     Administration is concerned that an amendment may be offered 
     on the Senate floor that would expand this objectionable 
     provision even further. Should the final version of the bill 
     include either provision affecting concurrent receipt of 
     retirement and disability benefits, the President's senior 
     advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.

  Remember, they would recommend it. That is why it deserves to be in 
the file.

       Section 641 as currently drafted is contrary to the long-
     standing principle that no one should be able to receive 
     concurrent retirement benefits and disability benefits based 
     upon the same service. All Federal compensation systems aim 
     for an equitable percentage of income replacement in the case 
     of either work-related injury or retirement.

  Work related? Legs blown off? Shot in the stomach?

       The administration's preliminary estimate is that Section 
     641 would increase mandatory outlays by $18 billion from 2003 
     to 2012 and would also increase DoD discretionary costs for 
     retirement . . .

  That is basically what it is.
  I say to the Senator from Delaware, I had forgotten you had served as 
a Governor with George Bush. I am sure you know him better than I. As I 
said, I think senior advisers would give him this and he would say: 
Find something else.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the majority whip for sharing that message.
  I also had the privilege of serving on active duty in the military, 
in the U.S. Navy, when Senator Warner was Secretary Warner, Secretary 
of the Navy. And many of my colleagues, then and before and since, have 
become disabled and have retired in some instances, and a number of 
them, frankly, would like to draw a disability pension, and they would 
like to receive their retirement check as well.
  The point in the President's veto message is this: We do not provide, 
anywhere in the Federal Government that I am aware of, for a person to 
receive the disability payment and retirement check for the same years 
of service.
  For a person who served on active duty and was disabled, and 
subsequently took another job in the Federal Government, and earns a 
pension, they may receive their disability check for the years they 
served on active duty and were injured and then separately for their 
years they served in another capacity in the Federal Government. But 
the service is not for the same number of years.
  What the President is saying in his veto message, just as his 
predecessors said, is: Should we make this exception? We, as Members of 
the Senate, for those of us who served in the military, can actually 
earn service credit for the time we served on active duty. There is a 
difference, though. We have to pay for it. It is not a gift. It is 
something we have to pay for in order to have our military service 
count toward our pension as a Senator or a Member of the House of 
Representatives.
  I think the question the President is raising in his veto message is, 
Is it appropriate for us to say that a person who served in the 
military on active duty, who was injured, should subsequently receive a 
pension check, a retirement check, as well as a disability check for 
the same number of years? That is the issue.
  The other issue is this: How do we pay for this? For me, that is 
really as important as the first question, maybe even more important. I 
have been here a year and a half, and I am becoming increasingly 
concerned that whatever sense of fiscal responsibility held sway here 
in the past is ebbing. I criticized President Bush for not providing 
leadership on the executive side for a balanced budget, for helping to 
lead us back into this situation where we now have looming deficits for 
as far as the eye can see. I have been critical of him on this point.
  For him now to come before us and say, in the name of fiscal 
responsibility, this is something we maybe ought not to do--I think it 
would be hypocritical of me to ignore him for actually taking a stand I 
urged him to take in other areas.
  I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but when I see us 
cutting taxes and continuing to spend, and knowing that the money we 
are spending is money simply coming out of the Social Security trust 
fund, I do not feel good about that. And I do not see how any of us 
could either.
  The question of whether or not someone should be paid a military 
pension and a disability check for the same time, same service, is one 
issue. But for me, a greater issue--I hope the chairman of the 
committee, the ranking member, or the Senator from Nevada can assure me 
that we are going to pay for this, not taking money out of the Social 
Security trust fund. That is my question.
  I am happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may respond to my dear friend, as the 
Senator indicated earlier, his service and my service in the Congress 
started at the same time. During that period of time, the Senator from 
Delaware has developed, deservedly, a reputation for being very 
fiscally frugal. I say that in the most positive sense. He is a person 
who understands numbers and budgets. He is very concerned about that. 
And I appreciate his remarks about this.
  I would say I am also concerned about the fiscal impact of anything 
we do here. We have done a lot of things that cost a lot of money. We 
should always be concerned about that. One of those who always does his 
best to keep us on the straight and narrow is the Senator from 
Delaware.
  I say that someone who served in the military enough years to retire 
and is disabled deserves both pensions. We can talk about time of 
service and all that. I do not think that is any different from someone 
who was disabled in the military and also retires from the Department 
of Energy or the Department of Interior. It is all Government service. 
I think the military retirees should have more attention rather than 
less. Our legislation, in my opinion, will take away the less attention 
that these men--mostly men; now men and women--for the last 100 years 
have received.
  But I share with the Senator from Delaware problems we have 
budgetarily. I say to my friend from Delaware, I was the first to offer 
an amendment on the balanced budget constitutional amendment that you 
could not do that using Social Security surpluses. It got 44 votes. It 
almost passed. But I do think my efforts in drawing attention to the 
fact that the constitutional amendment would have taken Social Security 
surpluses was--I hope--enough or one of the reasons the constitutional 
amendment was defeated.
  So I look forward to working with the Senator from Delaware to try to 
save money, to try to do things to balance the budget, as we had a 
balanced budget not long ago. As you know, I say to my friend through 
the Chair, last year we had a surplus of $4.7 trillion over 10 years at 
this time. That is gone.
  But having said that, I have not lost any of my fervor or passion for 
this amendment. This is something we have to do. The Senator from 
Delaware certainly has been a leader in other areas in this, trying to 
focus on how else we can save money. I know that the Senator from 
Delaware--with his wide-ranging experience in State and Federal 
Government, including being Governor of his State for two terms, and 
having served for a long time in the House of Representatives, and now 
serving in the Senate--can help us find ways to save money and not have 
to hurt those who I think are very deserving veterans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, before our distinguished colleague from 
Delaware departs the floor, I would like to ask a question of him. He 
is a modest man, but I hope he will provide some insight.
  When I was privileged to come to the Senate 24 years ago, nearly 
three-quarters of the Members of the Senate had,

[[Page 10785]]

at one time or another, worn the uniform of their country. Because the 
world has changed so much since that period of time, and so forth, very 
few Members today have had the opportunity, really, to serve, and 
therefore it is now--where it was 70 to 75 percent--down to 30 percent.
  But I would like to just ask a question because many are studying 
this Record and following this colloquy.
  I have always believed, Mr. President, fellow Senators, that the 
military service is an inherently dangerous profession and that any 
individual--man or woman--who accepts those risks--in the course of my 
remarks, which I will eventually make, I will cover this in greater 
detail. But my recollection of our distinguished colleague from 
Delaware, when I was privileged to be the Navy Secretary, was in naval 
aviation. It was during the period of the cold war.
  But, I say to the Senator, perhaps you would share with us, frankly, 
what went on in your mind every time you took off, every time you 
landed. Your missions, at that time, as I recall, were basically in the 
antisubmarine operation. You may not have been fired upon, but the 
simple act of flying that plane every day, together with your crew, was 
one of danger, one of risk.
  We saw an extraordinary rendition on television last night of that 
plane that was involved in firefighting. The wings collapsed. In the 
course of my period--I do not claim to be any hero or anything else, 
but I certainly have witnessed a lot of harm that has been inflicted, 
one way or the other, to the men and women who have worn the uniform.
  I ask the Senator from Delaware, does he share my basic thesis that 
it is an inherently dangerous business, not only to the individual but, 
indeed, for the families who will await their return every day?
  Mr. CARPER. When I was on active duty in the Navy, I was 21 years old 
and served until I was 25. We served three tours in Southeast Asia. Our 
aircraft was the P-3 which we used to track Soviet nuclear submarines 
in the oceans of the world. When we were in Southeast Asia, our job was 
to track shipping traffic in and out of Vietnam. I flew a lot of low-
level missions. I loved the Navy. The Senator loved the Navy as well. I 
served for 23 years active and reserve duty. Four years before that, I 
was a Navy ROTC midshipman. I loved the mission. I was young. I had no 
family. I could not wait to get in that plane. I could not wait to take 
off, and I loved being part of my squadron.
  This was a time in my young life when we felt we were invincible. We 
knew we weren't, but we sure felt that we were. I served the country, 
as I know you did, because I loved my country. I would do it all over 
again if given the opportunity.
  Mr. WARNER. I am sure you witnessed operational accidents in those 
instances that you saw on active duty probably as I did when I was a 
ground officer in the aviation unit in Korea. But some of those who 
shared the tents with me never came back. Some were operational. I 
remember our commanding officer, a tried and trusted combat veteran 
from World War II. His name was Al Gordon. His plane took off on a 
mission and burst into flames. He crashed not a few miles distant from 
our field. Again, accidents happen with great frequency. It is a 
dangerous business for all those involved. They accept those risks, 
expecting those of us in Congress to support them and their families 
such as the purport of this legislation.
  I thank my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, if I could ask one question to the 
chairman and manager of the bill, then I will stop. I listened, when I 
was presiding, to the chairman explaining the amendment and explaining 
how this benefit would be paid for. I have to tell you, I did not 
understand the rationale for offering this amendment outside of the 
bill, why it was not included as part of the bill. I did not understand 
why it is subject to a budget point of order.
  Would the chairman explain how we propose to pay for this benefit? 
That is my question: How do we propose to pay for it?
  Mr. LEVIN. There is an allocation in the budget resolution for 
mandatory spending. That allocation was utilized inside of our 
authorization bill because we believe that 60 percent disability should 
not be a dividing line, that there is not a logic to that, and that 
everybody who has a disability should be able to receive concurrently 
both retirement and disability pay. We have a committee amendment which 
will achieve that.
  If we had done this inside of the bill itself, if we had put this 
language we now offer in the committee amendment inside of the bill 
itself and brought it to the floor, the whole bill would have been 
subject to a point of order. We decided to reduce the risk of that 
occurring by offering a committee amendment for that part of the 
funding which is above the allocation in the budget resolution.
  Mr. CARPER. My basic question for the committee chairman is, How do 
we pay for this benefit?
  Mr. LEVIN. The same way we pay for the bill, for anything else we do 
in this, anything else that Congress authorizes and appropriates money 
for.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. LEVIN. With the permission of my ranking member, since we will 
both be here anyway, I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent, since 
two of our colleagues on the committee have been here waiting, whether 
the Senator from Louisiana could be recognized after this matter is 
discussed, with Senator Reid perhaps responding, and then the Senator 
from Arkansas being recognized immediately after the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  Mr. REID. If I could reserve the right to object, I have spoken to 
the Senator from Louisiana. I believe Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas 
is the final speaker on this underlying amendment.
  We could dispose of this amendment within the next little bit. And if 
we could do that quickly, I don't know, if I could ask through the 
Chair the Senator from Arkansas how long he wishes to speak on this 
matter.
  The Senator from Arkansas indicates he would take about 5 minutes. 
Senator Landrieu has indicated she has a longer statement. Senator 
Hutchinson could speak. Senator Warner could say whatever he needed to 
say.
  Mr. LEVIN. After Senator Landrieu is recognized.
  Mr. REID. We would pass it before she is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. If that is agreeable to the Senator from Louisiana, I 
would then ask that she be recognized for 5 minutes on the amendment 
itself; then that Senator Hutchinson be recognized; then Senator Warner 
for his remarks after disposition of this amendment; and that Senator 
Landrieu then be recognized.
  Mr. REID. If I could interrupt, your very able ranking member has 
indicated that if we could have these two 5-minute speeches, we would 
move to passing this amendment. Then he is going to be on the floor of 
the Senate a lot so he could speak on this.
  Mr. WARNER. I can speak following passage of the amendment.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Landrieu be recognized 
for 5 minutes to speak on the amendment and Senator Hutchinson be 
recognized to speak for 5 minutes on the amendment and then we will 
vote on the amendment. That would be by a voice vote. Then it is my 
understanding Senator Landrieu wants to be recognized after that.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. For at least 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Senator Warner has made a brilliant suggestion.
  Mr. LEVIN. Another brilliant suggestion.
  Mr. REID. Why don't we adopt this amendment right now, then have the 
speeches.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Wellstone be added as cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 10786]]

  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3912. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3912) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I appreciate an opportunity to say a 
word on this amendment that we just voted on and then to present some 
information about the underlying bill in reference to the Subcommittee 
on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
  Let me begin by thanking the chairman of our committee, our most able 
chairman and our most able ranking member, for their extraordinary and 
bipartisan work on the underlying bill. Let me also thank them for 
joining their forces and their talents and their persuasive skills to 
put forward the amendment that we just discussed in some detail.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment just adopted. I believe 
it is something we most certainly should do. It is a shame we have not 
taken this action previous to this year. There are 25 million veterans 
who have served our Nation proudly and bravely. Only 2 percent, about 
550,000 veterans, quite a large number but a small percentage, have 
been disabled on the battlefield, have received serious injuries in 
many cases; in some cases, minor injuries, but in all cases, relative 
to the service, and many of those were received on the battlefield.
  In Louisiana, that is about 12,000 men and women who have served 
proudly and bravely, about 3 percent. While there is a cost associated, 
as has been discussed by both our chairman and our ranking member, and 
noted by the Senator from Nevada who has led this fight over many 
years, while there is a cost associated, it is a cost that this budget 
and this Nation and this economy should bear for the small percentage 
of veterans who were disabled when serving the Nation so they don't 
have to be shortchanged in their retirement because they have also 
given up a limb or two, or a bodily function that prevents them from 
living in a way that many others enjoy. It is the least we can do, and 
I am only sorry it took us this long to get to this point.
  I agree with the Senator from Nevada that I think the President would 
not veto this very well-put-together bill over this issue. I think he 
will, in the end, join with members of the Democratic Party and the 
Republican Party to support the extension of this benefit and to fix an 
injustice that is in the payment and compensation scheme and plan for 
this Nation.
  Again, only 2 percent of the veterans have received injuries that 
caused them to be disabled--legally designated as disabled--and they 
are simply asking, since they joined up, signed up, put the uniform on, 
and were injured in the line of duty and it caused them to be disabled 
so they are unable to be productive because they gave their physical, 
mental, and spiritual contribution so that the rest of us could be 
productive, the least we can do is to say you don't have to be 
shortchanged in your retirement. We are happy and proud and it is our 
honor and duty to provide you with your disability and your retirement, 
both of which you have earned.
  So while I appreciate the comments of the other Senators who have 
questioned how we might afford it, my question is, How can we not 
afford it? Why haven't we done this before? I am proud to support the 
amendment, and I hope we will be able to have a good negotiation with 
the House and the President to support the men and women in uniform who 
were hurt, many seriously, and have given great sacrifice, while 
keeping the rest of us safe. At least we can give them a full 
disability check and a full retirement check.
  I want to speak for approximately 15 minutes on the underlying bill. 
Particularly, I want to speak as it relates to the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, which is the subcommittee I now 
chair with my most able and very good partner, the Senator from Kansas, 
Mr. Roberts.
  Douglas MacArthur said that in war there is no substitute for 
victory. We are engaged in a war right now unlike we have ever been 
engaged in before. We have never really fought a war such as the one we 
are fighting today. We are in the process in this underlying 
authorization bill, which funds our Department of Defense at the 
highest level ever--the highest level in many years--and we are in the 
process of shaping our defenses and our offenses to fight this new kind 
of war.
  In this war, our enemies are not wearing uniforms of a recognized 
state; they are not using conventional weapons or a conventional means 
of attack. They are using weapons of mass destruction, which they did 
on September 11, by taking several of our own airplanes and filling 
them with fuel and turning them into flying bombs and flying them into 
some of the greatest buildings and symbols here in America on a Tuesday 
morning when the Sun was shining. They didn't attack men and women in 
the military; they attacked civilians. They attacked innocent men and 
women and children who were unprepared for what was happening to them, 
and they could never have really been prepared for such a horrible and 
horrific attack.
  These are fanatics, people who are cowards; these are terrorists, 
murderers, and people who are going to use weapons of mass destruction. 
They have proven so because they have used them, and they will continue 
to use whatever weapons they can get their hands on to wreak havoc here 
in America and to our allies as well.
  I just received word that there has been yet another suicide bomb 
that hit Jerusalem within the last few hours.
  I have to say this because my children just finished school this 
year. My 10-year-old and 5-year-old celebrated their last day of school 
a couple weeks ago. I can't tell you how difficult it was to read the 
article about yet another suicide bombing that occurred in Jerusalem 
just yesterday morning, where 19 people were killed. The description of 
that event in the New York Times was that the bus was full of 
schoolchildren. The bus was full of workers going to work. I cannot 
imagine the pain of a parent putting a child on a bus, and they are on 
the way to school with their books and in their uniforms, and then the 
parents are called to come collect the body parts a few hours after 
they put their child on a bus. That is terrorism. That is what we are 
fighting.
  That is what this bill is funding. This is what we have to have a 
victory over. Israel is in a battle for survival. We are not in the 
same position, obviously, and not in the same sort of vulnerable 
situation; nonetheless, this is the new kind of war.
  If we don't strengthen our military, if we don't support new 
strategies, new defenses, focus on intelligence and on getting the 
coordination of our intelligence so we are not caught off guard in the 
future, if we fail, stumble, or delay in trying to rearrange some of 
our strategies, we will let our people down and not give them the 
protection they deserve in this war against murderers and cowards and 
fanatics.
  I am proud to stand here to represent for a few minutes our 
subcommittee, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, which 
was formed a few years ago for this exact purpose, to help our military 
think differently about these new threats, about the new ways we are 
going to fight these wars. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the 
leadership of the chairman from Michigan and the ranking member from 
Virginia in supporting our efforts to help give our military the 
support they need.
  We will achieve victory. There is no question about that. America 
will continue to lead our allies and we will be, year in and year out, 
decade in and decade out, victorious because we will be able to meet 
these challenges. In this bill we are discussing we have taken some of 
the first steps.
  Well before September 11 our subcommittee explored these new threats, 
such as terrorism, the use of weapons of mass destruction, which not 
only are

[[Page 10787]]

going to face our men and women in uniform as they fight in faraway 
places but also our civilians. Our civilians are well aware of these 
threats. There is general fear and anxiousness, understandably, now in 
the Nation. They are depending upon us to provide the framework for 
this new defense.
  Our committee worked to authorize the critical programs that are 
creating these new capabilities that will help to make this 
transformation possible. Again, we focused on combating terrorism, 
chemical and biological defenses, which we have come to know and 
understand much more in these last few months--how we must be prepared 
to fight against these new weapons, as horrible as they are.
  Our committee also wants to support in a full way our Special 
Operations Command, which is a relatively small force, but an 
extraordinary force, a very brave force--something that was created by 
this Congress to meet these new demands and the new threats and which 
is executing spectacularly in Afghanistan. Our committee and this 
subcommittee support their work.
  The nonproliferation program, which is to try to help identify and 
stop the proliferation of nuclear materials through the Department of 
Defense and Department of Energy is part of our mark, as well. And I 
feel very strongly, as I know the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin 
does, that we need to keep up the research development and testing and 
evaluation in the science and technology account in our military 
budget.
  Let's not lose sight that this war is not only going to be won with 
muscle but won with a lot of brains. It is going to be won because we 
are on the cutting edge of new technology in every aspect.
  In order to get those new technologies to the battlefield, we have to 
invent them. The way we invent them is research, research, research. We 
cannot undermine the research in this budget.
  S. 2514 recommends additional funding in each of these areas that are 
intended to support this subcommittee's objectives and all the 
objectives as outlined by Senator Levin. I will take a few minutes to 
go through a few of them.
  The President's budget request included $7.3 billion for combating 
terrorism, and another $2.7 billion for combating terrorism items in 
the emergency response fund. This bill supports the President's 
initiatives, as well as $30 million for additional research and 
development that we think is crucial to achieving some of the goals we 
have outlined.
  In response to the unsettling results of a recent GAO report on 
military installation preparedness for incidents involving weapons of 
mass destruction, this bill includes a provision that directs the 
development of a comprehensive plan to improve the preparedness of 
these installations.
  Also in light of continued confusion about the Department's role--and 
understandable confusion. We have not fought a war on our own homeland 
since the Civil War. We have been positioned to fight overseas, to 
protect our perimeters thousands of miles away. Now our military has to 
think: Is that the right strategy and, if not, what role should we play 
with our local law enforcement and local police protection?
  It is not a simple question, and our bill directs the Department and 
the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report on how DOD should 
be fulfilling this new homeland mission so that we can help them come 
to the right conclusions regarding this new state of affairs.
  In the area of nonproliferation, for too long our programs with 
Russia and the former Soviet Union were, in my opinion, 
mischaracterized. Many people characterized this as wasteful foreign 
spending. Since September 11, I hope we have come to realize that 
funding these programs should be in the forefront as a means to 
eliminate the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This is not 
wasteful foreign spending.
  It is out of self-preservation that we seek to make these programs 
robust and effective to prevent weapons of mass destruction from 
falling into the wrong hands because we have seen the result.
  I want to read a quote from a distinguished former chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, who led this committee beautifully 
for so many years. Senator Nunn said shortly after September 11:

       The terrorists who planned and carried out the attacks of 
     September 11 showed there is no limit to the number of 
     innocent lives they are willing to take. Their capacity for 
     killing was limited only by the power of their weapons.

  Intelligence and field reports from Afghanistan point to al-Qaeda's 
desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We have seen much more 
of that in the news lately. But the visions of Senators Nunn and Lugar 
a decade ago have limited the terrorists' weapons and capability of 
killing because they started before the headlines, before the attacks 
of September 11 putting programs into place because of their vision. 
This committee wants to support that vision and make it more robust, 
and we have.
  Accordingly, Congress and the President must continue to push forward 
in nonproliferation programs. This underlying bill is not perfect, but 
it puts us well on the way and honors the work that Senator Nunn and 
Senator Lugar accomplished, again, prior to September 11.
  Among the legislative provisions, we have also included support of 
granting permanent authority, which the President asked for, for the 
President to waive on an annual basis the preconditions to implementing 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
  We have also included Senator Lugar's bill that will provide 
discretionary authority to the Secretary of Defense to use CTR funds 
outside the former Soviet Union, which is very important as we have 
discovered that maybe our whole problem is not going to be only 
confined to former Soviet Union states but, unfortunately, now other 
states. We have to have a robust plan for containment and cooperation, 
and Senator Carnahan's bill encourages the Secretary of Energy to 
expand the cooperative program beyond traditional weapons grade 
material.
  These are two essential components to build on the legacy and the 
work that Senator Lugar and Senator Nunn have so beautifully done over 
the years.
  I wish to comment on two more areas, Mr. President. As I mentioned, 
in science and technology, the President's budget included $9.9 billion 
for S&T programs. This is both good and bad news. It is only 2.6 
percent of DOD's budget. It is the lowest percentage since fiscal year 
1992. Although the dollar amounts have increased because the overall 
Defense Department bill has increased, it is not near the goal of 3 
percent, which is where we want to be, and it is a less percentage than 
last year. So the trend lines are not going in the most positive 
direction.
  I hope we can continue to work in this area because this is important 
to our subcommittee and to our entire committee, and I think it is 
important to give the support to our military so we can be not only the 
strongest but the smartest. We are going to be working on that as well.
  In chemical and biological weapons, I visited the Army's infectious 
disease research laboratory at Fort Detrick. It was a very fine day we 
spent touring that facility. I was taken aback by the hard work and 
dedication of the civilian and military researchers who are working to 
develop the defenses and cures we need to fight these new biological 
weapons.
  I should note for all Senators that this laboratory, the U.S. Army 
Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, USAMRIID, did the 
analysis of the anthrax that was sent to the Senate of the United 
States last year. In addition to their work, they analyzed more than 
15,000 samples of anthrax and other biological agents, using facilities 
that are very small and overcrowded. I believe if I took anyone from 
Louisiana or elsewhere to visit this facility, they might be very 
surprised to see the cramped quarters. They would be proud of the 
extraordinary work, but they would be surprised to see the cramped 
quarters in

[[Page 10788]]

which we are asking people to operate when this threat is real, this 
threat has happened, this threat will probably happen again.
  There is money in this budget to upgrade those facilities, and I am 
proud to be a part of that.
  Of course, it is important to the Maryland Senators because this 
facility is in Maryland, but it is important to our whole Nation. I am 
proud to be leading that effort to give us the finest lab facilities to 
deal with these new threats. We did not have to do this in World War 
II. We did not have to do this in Vietnam. We have to do it now. Our 
scientists are on the front lines, our lab technicians are on the front 
lines, and this bill needs to reflect the new realities.
  We also fund a number of innovative projects for chemical and 
biological defense including improved sensors, decontamination 
technologies, and equipment and promising nanotechnologies. But it also 
includes provisions to allow defense labs to cut the red tape, adopt 
more business-like practices so they can be more competitive in 
attracting the finest technical talent and doing the best technical 
work for the Department and for the Nation.
  One final point: Over the last few years, our subcommittee has 
requested that the Department perform a careful evaluation of their 
testing and evaluation facilities. The reason is we want to make sure 
we are testing all these new weapons systems, new technologies, so that 
when we get them to the battlefield, they actually work.
  We want to make sure the right incentives are in this bill to have 
good and robust testing. The procedure we are using now to explain in 
the most simplified way is that they are not the right incentives in 
place to have the right kinds of testing because the testing budget is 
competing with the production budget.
  So we have put in a proposal that hopefully will not create a new 
bureaucracy and not take discretion away from the services. We do not 
intend to slow down getting new technologies. We want to make sure we 
are doing our taxpayers a good service by making sure we are testing 
before the battlefield in a way that helps us save taxpayer money and 
gives our soldiers and sailors what they need to fight effectively. 
That is a very important component.
  Finally, in special operations, I say again that this force is doing 
extraordinary work. They only have 1.3 percent of this whole budget, 
but they are basically the ones we see on the news every night fighting 
al-Qaida in the caves and in the desert, everywhere, over ground, 
underground, in the air, on the battlefield, protecting us and hunting 
down these murderers, cowards, and terrorists, wherever they are.
  We are proud that we are recommending $96.1 million to Special 
Operations Command to make sure they can address their training and 
pressing equipment needs for the forces, the new radios that we saw on 
the news, the emitter radios. When the special operations were riding 
horseback, they were calling down the strikes from our bombers and our 
fighters, and that was a result of the work our subcommittee did in a 
bipartisan way to provide our warfighters on the battlefield with what 
they need to get the job done, thinking outside the box, and we are 
really proud of the work they have done.
  In addition, besides good communications equipment and good training, 
these special operations forces, because of the human intelligence now 
that is required, need much more foreign language training, more 
sophisticated sort of schoolwork, to make sure that our fighters are up 
to the task, and we are really working with foreign operations to 
provide them funding for the new kind of training, particularly foreign 
language, that is going to be necessary for all of our military in the 
future as we find ourselves operating in very different circumstances, 
in different countries with different cultures, trying to understand 
very complicated geographic, cultural, and religious conflicts.
  Over the past year, and in fact well before September 11, this 
subcommittee has looked at the new threats, such as terrorism and the 
use of weapons of mass destruction, that will face our military and our 
Nation in the 21st century. It has worked to authorize the critical 
programs in the Departments of Defense and Energy that are creating the 
new capabilities that will transform the military to help it meet and 
defeat those threats.
  Chairman Levin's guidelines for the Armed Services Committee in 
developing our legislation included two themes where this Subcommittee 
focuses much of its work:
  Promote the transformation of the armed forces to meet the threats of 
the 21st century.
  Improve the ability of the armed forces to meet nontraditional 
threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
  As the subcommittee is responsible for monitoring emerging threats 
and helping ensure that our military has the capabilities needed to 
respond to those threats, this subcommittee's jurisdiction includes the 
following: research, development, test and evaluation, RDT&E, including 
science and technology, S&T accounts, Special Operations Command, 
combating terrorism, counter-drug programs of DoD, nonproliferation 
programs of DoD and DOE, and chemical and biological defense.
  This bill recommends additional funding or legislative provisions in 
each of these areas that are intended to meet the objectives of Senator 
Levin's proposed guidelines. I will describe our major efforts in each 
of these areas.
  The President's budget request included $9.9 billion for science and 
technology programs. Unfortunately, this is only about 2.6 percent of 
DoD's budget, the lowest share since fiscal year 1992, and far short of 
Secretary Rumsfeld's goal of 3 percent of the total budget, which would 
be more than $11 billion.
  This subcommittee has oversight over the majority of S&T programs 
within the Defense Department.
  This bill recommends significant increases for the Department of 
Defense's research and development budget, as compared to the 
President's budget request. In particular, I want to note that there 
are recommendations to increase the science and technology budget 
request by over $170 million. There are significant increases for: 
Combating terrorism and weapons of mass destruction; Army 
transformation, including funding $100 million of Army unfunded 
requirements in science and technology; technologies to reduce the 
effects and costs of corrosion on ships and aircraft; fundamental 
scientific research at national labs and universities; and cyber 
security, including continuing the important information security 
scholarship program championed by Senator Warner.
  This bill includes legislative provisions to address the issue of 
speeding the transition of defense technology from the laboratory into 
the hands of warfighters. This will give our troops the most advanced 
technology available more rapidly and improve the return on our S&T 
investments. They will also help our small businesses get prompt and 
fair evaluations by DOD of their technology ideas for combating 
terrorism.
  During the past year, I visited the Army's infectious disease 
laboratory at Fort Detrick, MD. I was taken aback by the hard work and 
dedication of the civilian and military researchers there, who are 
working to develop the defenses and cures that we need to fight the 
threat of biological weapons. I am pleased that the bill also includes 
provisions to continue the Senate's efforts to improve the quality of 
our nation's defense laboratories. This legislation reauthorizes and 
expands a number of pilot programs previously established by our 
subcommittee under Senator Roberts. The programs allow defense labs to 
cut red tape and adopt more business-like practices so they can be more 
competitive in attracting the finest technical talent and doing the 
best technical work for the Department.
  The bill includes a provision recommended by Senator Lieberman that 
establishes a coordinated, joint Defense Nanotechnology R&D Program. 
This legislation will ensure that the Department invests sufficiently 
and

[[Page 10789]]

wisely in this revolutionary technology area, and plans the program 
strategically from the start so that new nanotechnologies can be used 
by our warfighters as soon as possible.
  The bill includes a provision requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
carry out a program to identify and support techological advances that 
are necessary to develop vehicle fuel cell technology for use by the 
Department of Defense. The program is to be conducted in cooperation 
with the Secretary of Energy, other appropriate federal agencies, and 
private industry, with at least half of the total cost of the program 
to be borne by industry. The program, which is authorized at $10 
million, will also focus on critical issues for fuel cell vehicles such 
as hydrogen storage and development of a hydrogen fuel infrastructure.
  There are a number of other funding provisions throughout the bill, 
totaling over $50 million, that support increased development or use of 
revolutionary and advanced technologies such as hybrid electric 
technology, advanced batteries and fuel cells.
  Three years ago, the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 
initiated a provision requiring a task force of the Defense Science 
Board (DSB) to report on the state of the Department's test and 
evaluation facilities. The DSB report, issued in December 2000, 
concluded that ``the T&E process is not funded properly, in phasing or 
in magnitude.'' As a result, ``testing is not being conducted 
adequately'' and ``there is growing evidence that the acquisition 
system is not meeting expectations as far as delivering high quality, 
reliable and effective equipment to our military forces.''
  The annual report of DOD's Director of Operational Test and 
Evaluation, DOT&E, for fiscal year 2001 endorses the views of the 
Defense Science Board, concluding that: ``The acquisition process fails 
to deliver systems to the warfighter that meet reliability and 
effectiveness requirements.'' In other words, DOD's Director of 
Operational Test and Evaluation and the Defense Science Board have both 
concluded that the Department's systematic underfunding of test and 
evaluation has resulted in a situation where we cannot give our troops 
the assurance they deserve that weapons systems will function the way 
they are supposed to in combat conditions.
  This bill includes a series of provisions designed to reverse this 
situation by implementing the recommendations of the DSB and the 
Director of OT&E. The most important of these provisions would address 
longstanding funding shortfalls in the T&E infrastructure accounts, as 
recommended by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation and the 
Defense Science Board, by requiring the Department to: (1) fund the T&E 
infrastructure through direct appropriations, rather than through 
surcharges on T&E ``customers''; and (2) establish a central T&E 
``resource enterprise'' to handle this infrastructure funding.
  The first provision would transfer roughly $250 million of testing 
funds from individual programs to separate T&E accounts to achieve 
direct funding. The money would still pay for the same things, but out 
of different accounts: the programs from which the money was 
transferred would benefit from a reduction in the rates that they are 
charged for testing (to be achieved by eliminating overhead charges). 
Because the new funding approach would reduce the prices charged to T&E 
customers, the Director of OT&E and the DSB believe that this approach 
would reduce the current disincentive to testing.
  The second provision would improve the ability of the test and 
evaluation facilities to compete for limited funds by giving them a 
high-level advocate within the Department. We share the view of the 
Director of OT&E and the DSB that we owe it to our men and women in 
uniform to ensure that the weapons systems that they carry into battle 
will work as intended in an operational environment. Adequate testing 
of weapons systems is not an abstract concept: lives depend upon it. 
For this reason, the committee would implement the recommendations of 
the Director of OT&E and the report of the Defense Science Board task 
force on test and evaluation capabilities.
  The President's budget request included $4.9 billion for the Special 
Operations Command SOCOM, keeping their budget steady at 1.3 percent of 
the overall defense budget. The bill under consideration recommends 
adding $96.1 million to the SOCOM request to address training 
shortfalls and pressing equipment needs of the forces, such as radios 
for Army Special Forces and night vision goggles for Navy SEALs.
  About half of this additional funding was offset by a combined $13.7 
million transfer of fiscal year 2002 funding as requested by the 
Command for the Advanced SEAL Delivery System program, which faces 
numerous problems, and a reduction in premature fiscal year 2003 
funding for procurement of a second mini-submarine.
  The committee's bill fully funds the research and development 
associated with the program, and recommends that about a fourth of the 
procurement funding be released only after the Secretary of Defense 
reports to the committee on how remaining technological, schedule and 
cost challenges associated with building the mini-sub will be 
addressed.
  In addition, the bill includes a provision directing the Comptroller 
General to examine Special Operations Forces' foreign language 
requirements, training and means of achieving and retaining language 
proficiencies.
  The President's budget request included $7.3 billion for combating 
terrorism and another $2.7 billion for combating terrorism items in the 
Defense Emergency Response Fund, DERF. S. 2514 would authorize the 
portion of the budget request under our jurisdiction and add some $30 
million for research and development programs aimed at combating 
terrorism.
  In response to the unsettling results of the GAO report that the 
committee required in last year's bill on military installations' 
preparedness for incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, we 
have included a provision that directs the Secretary of Defense to 
develop and submit a comprehensive plan to improve the preparedness of 
military installations to deal with WMD incidents. The plan will 
include a strategy with clear objectives and resource requirements, as 
well as a performance plan for achieving and measuring implementation.
  Finally, in light of continued confusion about the Department's role 
and strategy for defending the homeland, the bill directs the Secretary 
of Defense to submit a detailed report on how DOD should be and is 
fulfilling its homeland defense mission.
  With respect to counter-drug activities, in addition to authorizing 
the budget request of $849 million, the bill provides an additional $25 
million for the National Guard counter-drug State plans. This 
additional funding is of specific interest to many Senators.
  The bill fully funds the budget request for both the DOD Cooperative 
Threat Reduction programs and the related programs at the Department of 
Energy, including a $15 million increase for the DOE nonproliferation 
research and development work. There are several legislative provisions 
that have been included to support these nonproliferation programs:
  At the administration's request, we included permanent authority for 
the President to waive, on an annual basis, the pre-conditions to 
implementing the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. There is 
legislation to support the administration decision to transfer the 
program to eliminate plutonium production in Russia to the Department 
of Energy from the Department of Defense. We included Senator Lugar's 
bill that would provide discretionary authority to the Secretary of 
Defense to use CTR funds outside of the Former Soviet Union; and we 
also have Senator Carnahan's bill that would direct the DOE to explore 
ways to secure nuclear materials and improve nuclear plant security 
worldwide.
  This bill funds a number of innovative projects for chemical and 
biological defense, including improved sensors, decontamination 
technology and

[[Page 10790]]

equipment, and promising nanotechnology. It also includes a reduction 
to the budget request for a one-year spike in chem-bio defense funds 
that Department officials acknowledge are not executable and not well 
defined.
  The bill authorizes the full funding requested by the Defense 
Department for chemical demilitarization, almost $1.5 billion for 
fiscal year 2003. It includes a legislative provision that would 
provide the funding in a Defense Department account, as required by 
law, rather than in an Army account, as the budget request did.
  I am proud to be associated with this bill and want to thank the 
chairman, ranking member, and especially my ranking member, Senator 
Roberts, and all the members of my subcommittee for working together to 
produce this legislation. I believe that it takes a great step in 
transforming our military to face an uncertain future and a host of 
ever-changing threats. I strongly support this bill and urge the Senate 
to pass this legislation.
  It is my pleasure to serve as chair of this important subcommittee. 
It was great working with Senator Roberts and the other Members. I 
again thank Senator Levin for his leadership because this Emerging 
Threats Subcommittee is important to be part of the front line of 
helping reshape our military and provide the protection that our 
taxpayers and our citizens expect in this new war against people who 
are cowards, fanatics, and murderers, who do not wear a uniform and who 
have decided they are not going to attack people in uniform but they 
are going to attack innocent men, women, and children. So we need to be 
prepared for the future, and I think we are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator from Arkansas yield for 30 seconds?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will yield.
  Mr. LEVIN. He has been very patient, and I very much appreciate his 
yielding to me.
  I thank Senator Landrieu for her absolutely invaluable contribution 
as chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee. This subcommittee, 
under her leadership, and under the leadership of Senator Roberts 
before her, has seen what has been coming and has been doing everything 
within its power to put resources into defeating the new emerging 
threats, the terrorist threats we face. Her leadership has been 
absolutely superb. I thank her very much for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a minute?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I likewise say to our colleague who serves on the Armed 
Services Committee, we appreciate her work. I think she gave a well-
delivered statement from the heart.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
concurrent receipt amendment. I thank Chairman Levin for ensuring it 
was a committee amendment. It came out with the full endorsement and 
strong support of the committee.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for his 
commitment to concurrent receipt and how engaged he has been on 
ensuring that this finally becomes a reality. And a special thanks to 
Senator Reid, with whom I have been privileged to work on this 
important issue. We introduced S. 170, the Retired Pay Restoration Act. 
Last year, we offered this amendment to the Defense authorization and 
saw it pass overwhelmingly on the floor of the Senate. Truly, Senator 
Reid has been the champion of this issue. I believe we are on the verge 
of a real victory on this, and I commend him for his commitment and his 
diligence, year in and year out.
  The word ``injustice'' has been used a number of times in regard to 
the issue of concurrent receipt. I think it is the right word to use 
and it is the right context in which we put this vote. Military 
retirees are the only group of Federal retirees who are forced to fund 
their own disability benefits. That is the issue. Military retirees are 
the only group of Federal retirees who have to fund their own 
disability benefits. The Senator from Louisiana rightly pointed out 
that we are dealing with only a portion of our veterans, about 400,000 
disabled military retirees, who must give up their retired pay in order 
to receive their VA disability compensation. For those 400,000, it is 
the most important issue of the day--it impacts their daily lives. I 
suggest to my colleagues that it is a far bigger issue than those 
400,000. As the ranking member on the Personnel Subcommittee, I have 
seen how important issues like concurrent receipt are to the 
recruitment and retention of our men and women in uniform.
  The kind of message that our Government sends, the kind of dynamic we 
create, is reflected in issues such as this. When military retirees are 
treated in a discriminatory way, when they are treated with less 
respect than other Federal retirees, the message to the American 
people, the message to our young people who are considering what career 
to go into, is sent that we do not truly value them. We may say the 
words and we may salute them and we may honor them, but if we do not 
honor them in policy, then we are not honoring them as we should.
  I want to share with my colleagues excerpts from two letters I 
received in recent days from my constituents. One is from a veteran in 
Harrison, AR, who said:

       It is a matter of fundamental fairness that we provide our 
     disabled military retirees with the pay they have earned and 
     rightfully deserve. I am sure it has been brought to your 
     attention numerous times that retired Federal employees 
     receive VA disability compensation concurrent with Federal 
     retirement pay. Why are military retired treated differently?

       That is the question--why are they treated differently?
  Then there is a letter from a veteran from Mulberry, AR, who wrote:

       The purpose of VA disability compensation is to defray the 
     effects of lost earning potential caused by injuries and 
     sickness incurred while defending our country. Retirement pay 
     is based wholly on the number of years of dedicated service. 
     The two pays are entirely separate and should be mutually 
     exclusive.

       That is exactly the case. The offset that has existed is an 
     injustice. It is unfair. We have an opportunity to rectify 
     that this year.
  I know there are thousands of veterans right now watching C-SPAN who 
are following this debate and are doing so with a sense of cynicism. 
They have seen this debate before, and they have seen the vote of the 
Senate before. They have seen the Senate vote to end the 110-year 
inequity on concurrent receipt, only to see it dissolve and disappear 
in the course of the conference negotiations. The House has not seen to 
take the step we have taken, and so there will be again the 
negotiations that will go on between the House and Senate.
  I say to my colleagues, to the veterans of this Nation, and to our 
retired military, I pledge, through the conference committee that will 
exist, to continue to fight on this issue until the fundamental 
inequity that exists in current law has been eliminated, once and for 
all, for all of America's heroes. I am committed to full concurrent 
receipt and to fight for that until our veterans get what they have 
earned, and I urge my colleagues to fight for that as well as we go 
through the continuation of this process in the coming weeks. I thank 
the chairman. I thank Senator Warner for this time and for the 
opportunity to express my strong support for the amendment that has 
been agreed to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our colleague from Arkansas. He 
has worked long and hard on this issue for a number of years. He is a 
very valued member of the Armed Services Committee, particularly as it 
relates to personnel issues, in the area in which the Senator spent 
much time.
  Senator, we are doing our duty. I thank the Senator.
  I add a few observations of my own about this legislation. I deferred 
my comments so others could proceed because I was going to remain on 
the floor.

[[Page 10791]]

  Mr. President, everyone at a time such as this draws on personal 
recollections. I had an opportunity to briefly discuss with our 
distinguished colleague from Delaware his own experiences in the 
military. I draw on my modest experience in the military to derive the 
support I give to this particular piece of legislation. I have said on 
this floor many times that I would not be in the Senate today, 
privileged to represent my State these 24 years now, had it not been 
for the opportunities accorded me by brief tours of active service and 
a period of some 10 years in the Reserves in the military, together 
with opportunities I had in the Naval Secretariat after 5 years, 4 
months, during that critical period of our history when our men and 
women were engaged in Vietnam, as well as elsewhere in the world in the 
cold war.
  For those brief periods I served in the closing months of World War 
II, as a 17-year-old sailor, really in the training command only, I 
have vivid memories of the streets of America, lined with men and women 
in uniform, coming and going to the battlefields of the Pacific and 
Europe, and particularly those who had returned from the battlefields 
showing the scars of war.
  As the chairman pointed out, that particular generation of World War 
II are passing on today in numbers exceeding 1,000 each day of the 
year. This legislation, should it become law--and I am optimistic it 
will become law; certainly the underlying provision in the committee 
bill which the Presiding Officer and others worked on--will touch a few 
of the World War II generation.
  As the years passed on and I had the opportunity to have a brief tour 
of duty in Korea, again, as simply a ground officer with the First 
Marine Air Wing, I had occasion to observe those on the field of battle 
and experience the losses. That is emblazoned in my memory forever.
  Then in the Navy Secretariat from time to time we would go to 
Vietnam. We are now honored in this Chamber with a very distinguished 
veteran of that period as the active chairman of the committee. I 
visited many of those in the aid stations and otherwise who had borne 
the brunt of war. Therefore, it is with sheer joy that I participated 
with my colleagues today, just one in the ranks, to try to get this 
amendment passed.
  The numbers of veterans organizations which work in this is long and 
lengthy that I and other Members of the Senate visited with in the 
course of our independent work on this particular piece of legislation, 
as well as what we did in the committee structure. It is remarkable 
when you deal with those organizations. They are men and women of 
humility, proud they had the opportunity to wear the uniform of the 
Nation, and they come out of a sense of duty to try to provide for 
those who have gone before us on active duty and those who are on today 
and those who will follow in the generations to come.
  As I pointed out in my colloquy with the Senator from Delaware, while 
my most vivid memories are associated with those who bore the brunt of 
combat and war, many bear the scars of arduous training. Think of how 
many accidents we have had associated with the training in parachutes, 
the training in aviation, the operation exercises. Many of our 
exercises, people may not recognize, are conducted under live fire 
conditions, by necessity, to harden those who someday may face the 
reality of a combat zone.
  I was with the distinguished Senator from New York visiting those who 
came back from the battlefields in Afghanistan who had borne the brunt 
of combat and suffered the injuries, to visit them and thank them for 
their duty for this Nation and the cause of freedom. I somehow believe 
this is just a fulfillment of an obligation that we have had long 
overdue. I join those who will move every possible way we can to see 
that this becomes the law.
  I thank so many colleagues who have taken time today to speak to this 
particular issue. Their motivations are pure of heart, simply to do 
duty. We have done it and we have now seen this opportunity. The Senate 
has met that opportunity, by the vote which we have witnessed and 
agreed to this.


                           Amendment No. 3900

  Mr. President, earlier I offered a second-degree amendment to the 
Levin amendment.
  Under the Levin amendment, the Secretary of Defense is required to go 
through a reprogramming process which, by its very nature, is 
indeterminate in time.
  No one can predict the certainty of how quickly a measure can get 
through four committees. That has to be done in order for the Secretary 
to spend funds, to fully implement the President's Crusader budget 
amendment which set forth the purposes for the use of the funds.
  I come back to the word ``fully.'' Had any one of those committees 
not--for whatever reason, even reasons unrelated to the Crusader 
issue--acted affirmatively on the reprogramming request, then the 
Secretary would not have the ability to fully expend those funds 
consistent with the objectives laid down in the President's budget 
amendment.
  Also, it is a long process, the reprogramming process, and the 
outcome has a certain degree of uncertainty. If any committee vetoes 
the reprogramming, the Secretary would not be able, again, to fully 
implement the budget amendment. He would be able only to implement 
those programs contained under the future combat system; whereas, under 
my amendment, the Secretary has more flexibility. Thirty days after 
notification to the Congress, under my amendment, the Secretary can 
move funds to all and fully implement the objectives of the President's 
budget amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, who 
is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, be added as a 
cosponsor on the concurrent receipt amendment offered by the chairman 
and myself, and that the consent be granted prior as if to the taking 
of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to either request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank Senator Warner for his tremendous 
service to this country and the Nation, particularly in uniform, and 
the magnificent contribution he makes daily to the deliberations of the 
Armed Services Committee. We could not do it without him. His 
contributions are such that they enable the committee to do its work in 
a fashion which I think most of the Members of the Senate would 
support.
  This is the 6th year that I have served on the Personnel Subcommittee 
of the Committee on Armed Services. I am privileged to chair this 
subcommittee. As I look back over the past 5 years, we have done a lot 
to improve the pay and benefits for our service men and women. Every 
year, we responded to the concerns of our service members and their 
families.
  We heard our service members say that their pay was inadequate and 
not competitive with the civilian market. We responded by approving pay 
raises that total over 20 percent over the five years, and put into law 
a provision that requires pay raises at least a half percent above 
inflation through fiscal year 2006.
  We heard the pleas of our service members that they were not fully 
reimbursed for off-post housing expenses. We responded by removing the 
requirement that members pay 15 percent of housing costs out-of-pocket 
and authorized an increase in the basic allowance for housing in order 
to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses to zero by fiscal year 2005. 
We also directed the Secretary of Defense to implement a program to 
assist members who qualify for food stamps with a special pay of up to 
$500 a month.
  We heard the concerns about the Redux retirement system. We responded 
by authorizing service members to choose between the traditional high 
three retirement system, or to remain under Redux with a $30,000 bonus. 
We also authorized our military personnel to participate with other 
Federal employees in the Thrift Savings Plan.
  We heard concerns about health care for our active duty members and 
their

[[Page 10792]]

families. We responded. We enacted provisions that improved the quality 
of health care and access to health care providers. We authorized 
TRICARE Prime Remote for families of active duty personnel assigned 
where military medical facilities were not available. We eliminated 
copayments for active duty personnel and their families when they 
received care under the TRICARE Prime option.
  We heard the military retirees when they called our attention to the 
broken promise of health care for life. We started with a series of 
pilot programs which included access to the Federal Employees Health 
Benefit Program, a TRICARE senior supplement, and Medicare subvention. 
Ultimately, we found an even better answer, TRICARE for Life. Under 
this program, TRICARE pay virtually everything the Medicare does not 
pay. This is the best health care program for Medicare eligibles in the 
United States. We are really proud of this program.
  We responded to concerns of our absentee military voters by passing 
laws making it easier for military personnel and their families to vote 
in Federal, state, and local elections.
  By the way, Mr. President, in that TRICARE for Life Program we 
included a program that I think is extremely valuable for military 
retirees, the U.S. Government is picking up the cost of the biggest 
out-of-pocket expense for our military retiree families, and that is 
the cost of prescription drugs. I just wish we could do that for every 
senior family in America.
  For our military recruiting and retention ebbed and flowed during 
this 5-year period. We responded by authorizing special pays and 
bonuses as well as innovative recruiting initiatives. We also passed 
laws that will require high schools to give our military recruiters 
access to students directory information and the same access to 
students as the schools give to colleges and potential employers.
  I know that we recruit individuals and retain families. Both 
recruiting and retention are improving. Just a few years ago, the 
services reported great challenges in meeting recruiting goals, and 
service members were leaving at alarming rates. I would like to think 
that the improvements in benefits that I just described helped to turn 
our recruiting and retention around. I understand that the downturn in 
the economy and the terrorist attacks on our Nation also contributed to 
the increase in the desire to serve our nation.
  This year, like the last 5 years, we have attempted to respond to the 
needs of our service members and their families. In the bill now before 
the Senate we do several things.
  We recommend authorization of the active duty end strength requested 
by the administration. This includes an increase in end strength of 
2,400 for the Marines. I am convinced that the other services need an 
increase in end strength as well. We simply cannot continue to increase 
our military commitments without increasing the end strength of our 
Armed Forces. They are already stretched too thin. I intend to offer an 
amendment to increase the end strength of the Army, Navy, and Air Force 
for next year, and will propose a plan to address the needs of the 
services over the next 5 years.
  We cannot fight a war on the cheap and we cannot fight a war without 
people.
  For the fourth year in a row, we propose a significant pay raise 
above the rate of inflation for military personnel. We recommend an 
across the board pay raise of 4.1 percent which is a half percent above 
the increase in the Employment Cost Index, and an additional targeted 
pay raise for certain experienced mid-career personnel that will result 
in pay raises ranging from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent beginning in 
January, 2003. We also extend the special pays and bonuses that are so 
important for recruiting and retention.
  Full time manning support is one of the top readiness issues of the 
Reserves. All of our TAGs have talked to us about the shortage in full 
time support in the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. For the 
second year in a row, the Administration failed to budget for the ramp 
up contained in an agreed upon plan to bring full time manning in the 
Army Reserve and the Army National Guard up to minimal levels over an 
11-year period. We address this shortfall by increasing the full time 
manning end strength by 1,761 personnel as the second installment of 
the 11-year plan.
  We authorize the service secretaries to pay an incentive pay of up to 
$1,500 per month to members serving in certain difficult to fill 
assignments. We encourage the Department to use this assignment 
incentive pay to address some of the concerns about military personnel 
serving tours in Korea.
  We are finally able to authorize concurrent receipt of military 
retired pay and veterans' disability compensation for retirees with 20 
or more years of military service with disabilities rated at 60 percent 
or more.
  I understand the figure is now zero percent disabling and above. This 
is an incredibly high watermark in terms of service of this body to 
those who have served, and particularly those who are service-connected 
disabled and who also are military retirees with 20 or more years of 
service.
  I understand that our posture here is, even though the Armed Services 
Committee reported out legislation that this Defense authorization bill 
grant current receipt of disability compensation and military 
retirement--receipt concurrent for those who are 60-percent disabled or 
more--that this body by unanimous consent has agreed to actually lower 
that figure so that all of our military retirees with 20 years of 
active duty service or more, zero percent disabled or greater, will now 
be able to receive disability compensation and military retirement at 
the same time. I think that is only just.
  We have our assistant majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, to thank 
for that. He has been pushing for this for many years.
  Our proposal will phase in this effort. But with this Defense 
authorization bill today we will not be phasing it in; it will be 
reality, in the Senate's point of view.
  This provision was carefully drafted, in consultation with veteran 
organizations and with members of the committee.
  We authorize a National Call to Service provision initiated by 
Senator McCain that would require individuals enlisting in the military 
under this program to serve on active duty for 15 months after the 
completion of initial entry training. That would encourage our citizens 
to participate in military training somewhat. It is not universal 
military training, but it is an incentive to become familiar with the 
military. And I think it is an excellent proposal by Senator McCain and 
Senator Bayh. It is called National Call to Service.
  If an individual comes on active duty, train, and then serve 15 
months, what do they receive in addition to that for compensation?
  They could elect one of the following incentives: No. 1, a $5,000 
bonus; No. 2, a student loan repayment of up to $18,000, which is quite 
significant; No. 3, a 12-month educational allowance at the Montgomery 
GI bill rate; or, No. 4, a 36-month educational allowance at two-thirds 
of the Montgomery GI bill rate.
  I think this is one of the most insightful programs to come along in 
a long time. I heartily endorse it.
  We increase the maximum end strength for each of the military 
academies from 4,000 to 4,400 cadets or midshipmen.
  I think this is an excellent provision and one that we need.
  We provide $55 million to address the severe aviation training 
backlog in the Army to train pilots from Guard and Reserve units 
transitioning to new aircraft and to train active duty pilots in their 
combat aircraft before reporting to their units.
  We direct the Secretary of Defense to review personnel compensation 
laws and policies applicable to our Reserve components, including the 
retirement system to determine how well they address the demands placed 
on the Guard and Reserve personnel.
  I thank my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and the 
Personnel Subcommittee for their support.
  I especially thank Senator Hutchinson for his support and work. His

[[Page 10793]]

hard work has made this a truly bipartisan effort on behalf of our 
military men and women and their families. I appreciate all that he has 
done and what he has contributed.
  The bill we bring before the Senate today is a good bill that will go 
a long way toward improving the lives of our servicemembers and their 
families. I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this 
significant legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask permission to address the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it is a great privilege for me 
to serve on the Armed Services Committee with the distinguished Senator 
from Georgia, who, as head of the Personnel Subcommittee, has just laid 
out all of the strengths of this particular piece of legislation with 
regard to the personnel of our Armed Services.
  We all can be so proud of our men and women in uniform. I have been 
to Afghanistan twice since the first of the year--the first 
congressional delegation to go into Afghanistan after September 11. In 
fact, they would not even take us in in the daylight. We went in under 
cover of darkness, lights out, no runway lights, all landing with night 
vision equipment because of the security for nine Senators on that 
trip.
  What I encountered was not only the harsh reality of the climate--
that bitter cold--but our first instructions were, when getting off the 
airplane: Don't dare step off the tarmac. The sergeant who escorted me 
through the darkness, in fact, explained that, having to traverse the 
trail over 30 times, his buddy was the unlucky one and had his foot 
blown off.
  Seeing the faces of those young men and women--then, that first week 
of January, and 2\1/2\ months later--I saw how resolute they were, how 
they had tasted military success, how they knew that their cause was 
just, and how they were absolutely resolved in winning because the 
stakes are so high for our country and for the rest of the free world.
  I have come to the floor to speak on this legislation because I am 
constantly inspired by my colleague from Georgia, the very life that he 
lives daily, which is an inspiration to this Senator, as are the 
sacrifices he made for his country as a young man, which has led him to 
a style of living that all of us cannot imagine and yet he accommodates 
and he overcomes every day. That is a great inspiration to all of us.
  So is it any wonder I am loving my time in the Senate, when I have 
colleagues I can look up to, such as the senior Senator from Georgia, 
joined by this wonderful committee that is quite bipartisan in its 
approach to these legislative matters. It is a great privilege for me 
to come and speak about him personally, and to come and speak and lend 
my name in support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am floored by the wonderful and 
gracious remarks of the Senator from Florida, my dear friend, Mr. 
Nelson, my colleague on the Armed Services Committee, my colleague on 
the Commerce Committee. He is most effusive in his praise of me. But he 
is absolutely correct when he praises the service of our young men and 
women in harm's way.
  There is a marvelous book out now, ``We Were Soldiers Once and 
Young.'' I was a soldier once and young, and I can only look with 
admiration, great respect, and tremendous heartfelt pride at the young 
men and women out there now. The service men and women are young, they 
are talented, they are trained, they are committed, and they are doing 
a great job for the United States.
  If this bill is a tribute to anything, it is not a tribute to me or 
to anybody on the Armed Services Committee or even to this Senate, but 
it is a tribute to them and their hard work on behalf of all of us.
  So I thank the Senator from Florida for his effusive praise, but 
let's just reserve those kinds of words for another day. Today, we are 
talking about dealing with the needs of our service men and women who 
make it possible for us to have this open and free debate here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the Levin/
Warner amendment No. 3912.
  I am pleased the Senate is addressing the issue of concurrent receipt 
of military retirement benefits. Under current law, military retirees 
cannot receive both full military retirement pay and full VA disability 
compensation. Instead, retirement payments are reduced by the amount 
received in disability compensation. Changing the law to allow for 
concurrent receipt of benefits is an issue of basic fairness because 
both military retirement pay and VA disability compensation are earned 
benefits. Retirement pay comes after at least twenty years of dedicated 
service in the Armed Forces and VA disability is earned as a result of 
injury during time of service.
  I have been working with South Dakota veterans and my colleagues in 
the Senate for several years to fix this problem. Last year, the Senate 
adopted an amendment to both the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution and 
to the fiscal year 2002 Defense authorization bill to include funding 
to correct this problem. Unfortunately, despite strong support in the 
Senate, the language to allow concurrent receipt was removed from last 
year's budget resolution during the conference with the House of 
Representatives. In the defense authorization bill, Congress agreed to 
allow concurrent receipt, but only if the administration included 
authorizing legislation as a part of the fiscal year 2003 budget 
request. I was very disappointed to discover that the President's 
fiscal year 2003 budget request did not include provisions for 
concurrent receipt.
  Although I am pleased the Senate is going to take care of our 
military retirees with the passage of this amendment, I remain 
concerned about the Bush administration's continued opposition to 
concurrent receipt. Just recently, the Bush administration released a 
statement criticizing the concurrent receipt provision contained in the 
fiscal year 2003 Defense authorization bill. I have sent a letter to 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget asking him to 
reconsider the Bush administration's position. Simply state, at a time 
in which we are asking more and more from the men and women serving in 
the military, we should be looking for ways to encourage them to make a 
career in the military by improving benefits and assuring them they 
will be taken care of in retirement.
  I appreciate the Senate Armed Services Committee's leadership on this 
issue, and look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on 
behalf of our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3915

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3915.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page 10794]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To extend for 2 years procedures to maintain fiscal 
                   accountability and responsibility)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.  . BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Extension of Budget Enforcement Points of Order.--
     Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     621 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' before ``312(b)'' and by striking 
     ``, and 312(c)''; and
       (B) by striking ``258C(a)(5)''; and (2) in subsection 
     (d)(3)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' before ``312(b)'' and by striking 
     ``, and 312(c)''; and
       (B) by striking ``258C(a)(5)''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (b) Extension of Budget Enforcement Act Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Expiration.--Sections 251 and 258B of this Act and 
     sections 1105(f) and 1106(c) of title 31, United States Code, 
     shall expire September 30, 2007. The remaining sections of 
     part C of this title shall expire on September 30, 2011.''.
       (2) Striking expired provisions.--
       (A) BBA.--The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) is amended by striking 
     section 253.
       (B) Congressional budget act.--The Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is amended--
       (i) in section 312, by striking subsection (c); and
       (ii) in section 314--
       (I) in subsection (b), by striking paragraphs (2) through 
     (5) and redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (2); and
       (II) by striking subsection (e).
       (c) Extension of Discretionary Caps.--
       (1) In general.--Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2007'';
       (B) by striking subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (C).
       (2) Caps.--Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(7) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $764,722,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $756,268,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $28,922,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $1,445,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $6,030,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(D) for the conservation spending category: 
     $1,922,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,872,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(8)(A) with respect to fiscal year 2004 for the 
     discretionary category: $784,425,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $814,447,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal year 2004 
     for the conservation spending category: $2,080,000,000, in 
     new budget authority and $2,032,000,000 in outlays;''.
       (3) Reports.--Subsections (c)(2) and (f)(2) of section 254 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (2 U.S.C. 904) are amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (d) Extension of Pay-as-You-Go.--
       (1) Enforcement.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (2) Pay-as-you-go rule in the senate.--
       (A) In general.--Section 207 of House Concurrent Resolution 
     68 (106th Congress) is amended in subsection (g), by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.
       (B) Senate pay-as-you-go adjustment.--For purposes of 
     Senate enforcement of section 207 of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 68 (106th Congress), upon the enactment of this 
     Act, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate shall adjust balances of direct spending and receipts 
     for all fiscal years to zero.
       (3) Pay-as-you-go enforcement during on-budget surplus.--
     If, prior to September 30, 2007, the Final Monthly Treasury 
     Statement for any of fiscal years 2002 through 2006 reports 
     an on-budget surplus, section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) shall 
     expire at the end of the subsequent fiscal year, and the 
     President, in the next budget, shall submit to Congress a 
     recommendation for pay-as-you-go enforcement procedures that 
     the President believes are appropriate when there is an on-
     budget surplus.
       (e) Senate Appropriations Committee Allocations.--Upon the 
     enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate shall file allocations to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate consistent with this Act 
     pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.


                amendment NO. 3916 to amendment no. 3915

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of 
Mr. Conrad and Mr. Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Conrad, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3916 to amendment No. 3915.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To extend for 2 years procedures to maintain fiscal 
                   accountability and responsibility)

       Strike all after the first word in the amendment, and 
     insert the following:

       BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Extension of Budget Enforcement Points of Order.--
     Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     621 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' before ``312(b)'' and by striking 
     ``, and 312(c)''; and
       (B) by striking ``258C(a)(5)''; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(3)--
       (A) by inserting ``and'' before ``312(b)'' and by striking 
     ``, and 312(c)''; and
       (B) by striking ``258C(a)(5)''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (b) Extension of Budget Enforcement Act Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Expiration.--Sections 251 and 258B of this Act and 
     sections 1105(f) and 1106(c) of title 31, United States Code, 
     shall expire September 30, 2007. The remaining sections of 
     part C of this title shall expire on September 30, 2011.''.
       (2) Striking expired provisions.--
       (A) BBA.--The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.) is amended by striking 
     section 253.
       (B) Congressional budget act.--The Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 621 et seq.) is amended--
       (i) in section 312, by striking subsection (c); and
       (ii) in section 314--
       (I) in subsection (b), by striking paragraphs (2) through 
     (5) and redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (2); and
       (II) by striking subsection (e).
       (c) Extension of Discretionary Caps.--
       (1) In general.--Section 251(b)(2) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 
     901(b)(2)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter before subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2007'';
       (B) by striking subparagraphs (C), (D), (E), and (F); and
       (C) by redesignating subparagraph (G) as subparagraph (C).
       (2) Caps.--Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(c)) is 
     amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(7) with respect to fiscal year 2003--
       ``(A) for the discretionary category: $764,722,000,000 in 
     new budget authority and $756,268,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the highway category: $28,922,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(C) for the mass transit category: $1,445,000,000 in new 
     budget authority and $6,030,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(D) for the conservation spending category: 
     $1,922,000,000 in new budget authority and $1,872,000,000 in 
     outlays;
       ``(8)(A) with respect to fiscal year 2004 for the 
     discretionary category: $784,425,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $814,447,000,000 in outlays; and
       ``(B) with respect to fiscal year 2004 for the conservation 
     spending category: $2,080,000,000, in new budget authority 
     and $2,032,000,000 in outlays;''.
       (3) Reports.--Subsections (c)(2) and (f)(2) of section 254 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 (2 U.S.C. 904) are amended by striking ``2002'' and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (d) Extension of Pay-as-You-GO.--
       (1) Enforcement.--Section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2007''.
       (2) Pay-as-you-go rule in the senate.--
       (A) In general.--Section 207 of House Concurrent Resolution 
     68 (106th Congress) is amended in subsection (g), by striking 
     ``2002'' and inserting ``2007''.

[[Page 10795]]

       (B) Senate pay-as-you-go adjustment.--For purposes of 
     Senate enforcement of section 207 of House Concurrent 
     Resolution 68 (106th Congress), upon the enactment of this 
     Act, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     Senate shall adjust balances of direct spending and receipts 
     for all fiscal years to zero.
       (3) Pay-as-you-go enforcement during on-budget surplus.--
     If, prior to September 30, 2007, the final Monthly Treasury 
     Statement for any of fiscal years 2002 through 2006 reports 
     an on-budget surplus, section 252 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 902) shall 
     expire at the end of the subsequent fiscal year, and the 
     President, in the next budget, shall submit to Congress a 
     recommendation for pay-as-you-go enforcement procedures that 
     the President believes are appropriate when there is an on-
     budget surplus.
       (e) Senate Appropriations Committee Allocations.--Upon the 
     enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate shall file allocations to the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the Senate consistent with this Act 
     pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974.
       (f) Effective Date.--The provisions of this section shall 
     take effect 15 days after the enactment of this Act.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senate began its debate on budget 
discipline on the supplemental appropriations bill, but we left our 
work undone. Today, we are here to finish the job.
  On the supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate debated a 5-year 
budget process extension that my colleague, Senator Gregg, and I 
offered. Regrettably, that amendment failed on a tie vote. The Senate 
also began to debate an amendment by Chairman Conrad that would have 
extended some of the budget process for a more limited time. That 
amendment fell on a point of order.
  We are left, therefore, with a budget process that expires on 
September 30 of this year, less than 3\1/2\ months from now. Unless we 
act before then, the process will fail to constrain the government from 
deficit spending. And unless we act, the process will fail to protect 
the Social Security trust funds from being used to fund other 
government spending.
  Thus, Senator Conrad and I have come to the floor with a compromise 
proposal. Our amendment would extend exactly the same budget processes 
that Chairman Conrad's amendment would have, in exactly the same way. 
So the Senate will have no reason to dispute the way in which our 
amendment enforces budget discipline.
  But our amendment would also do something that Chairman Conrad's 
amendment would not have done. The amendment that Chairman Conrad 
offered on the supplemental appropriations bill had no caps on 
appropriated spending. Now we understand that Chairman Conrad and 
Senator Domenici intended to offer an amendment that would create 
enforcement for 1 year, this year, pretty much as a budget resolution 
would, but were unable to offer that amendment.
  But just 1 year of constraint on appropriated spending means 
absolutely no restraint on next year's budget resolution. At a minimum, 
we ought to put some constraint on how much spending we can put into 
next year's budget. If we do not put any constraint on the coming 
year's budget resolution, then we are not doing what we need to do to 
rein in the deficit and protect Social Security.
  And that's what our amendment would do. We would do everything that 
the Conrad amendment would do, exactly as the Conrad amendment would do 
it. But then our amendment would have 2 years of caps on 
appropriations, instead of just 1. We would require next year's budget 
resolution to live by a cap, as well.
  Now, for the first year, the numbers we use for our amendment are, as 
best as we can determine, what Chairman Conrad and Senator Domenici 
would have offered had they had the chance on the supplemental 
appropriations bill. We have simply followed the numbers that Senator 
Domenici distributed at that time. They are pretty much the same as the 
budget resolution numbers that we proposed in our earlier amendment, 
except that an adjustment is made to smooth out fluctuations in the 
highway trust fund.
  For the second year, we continue to use the numbers in the budget 
resolution reported by the Budget Committee on March 22. We have sought 
to employ the most neutral numbers that we can find.
  We have sought, therefore, to focus the debate on a single issue: 
Shall we have budget constraint for next year's budget resolution, or 
will we have no constraint at all?
  In March, the Congressional Budget Office projected that, with the 
President's budget levels, we are headed for a deficit of $121 billion 
in 2003 and a deficit just a few billion dollars short of $300 billion, 
if you don't count the Social Security surplus.
  And for this fiscal year, 2002, just last Friday, CBO issued a report 
saying:

       The total budget deficit for the first eight months of 
     fiscal year 2002 was $149 billion . . . a sharp reversal from 
     the $137 billion surplus recorded for the same period in 
     2001. So far this year, receipts are more than $80 billion 
     below CBO's baseline projections, and CBO now expects the 
     deficit for the entire fiscal year to end up well above $100 
     billion.

  And in Saturday's papers, CBO Director Dan Crippen was quoted saying 
that the unified budget deficit for 2002 could reach $150 billion.
  Once again, the government is using the Social Security surplus to 
fund other parts of government. That is something that many Senators 
from both parties fought for most all of the 1990s. It is something 
that we should continue to fight.
  This is a critical test for us. Are we serious about protecting 
Social Security, even in these difficult times? Especially after 9-11, 
the American people have a right to know that we are being especially 
careful with their dollars, that we can keep track of them, and that we 
are truly putting our priorities straight--with the war on terrorism at 
the top, but also guaranteeing the safety and security of Social 
Security.
  This is a modest budget process proposal, Mr. President. It is the 
least that we should do, and I urge my colleagues to join us in this 
effort. Let us extend the budget process for at least 2 years, and do 
what we can to protect Social Security.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Senator from 
Washington, Ms. Cantwell, be added as a sponsor of the pending first- 
and second-degree amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to stand and commend my colleague, 
Senator Feingold, for his initiative with respect to the budget 
circumstance facing the country and the Congress. Senator Feingold has 
crafted an amendment that represents a compromise on the question of 
the budget for this year. It is critically important that we adopt a 
budget for this year, and it is also important that we have the budget 
disciplines extended.
  I hope my colleagues realize what we face. In the absence of an 
extension of the budget disciplines, the budget points of order, the 
pay-go provisions all expire on September 30. That would mean the 
things we have used to control spending and to exercise fiscal 
discipline are gone. They are gone. That means that as we go through 
the appropriations process, we would not have the allocations to the 
committees that are enforced by 60-vote points of order to prevent 
spending from going out of control. We would not have those same 60-
vote points of order to protect against additional tax reductions that 
would threaten the fiscal condition of the country. And we would not 
have the provisions that allow us to protect Social Security. All of 
those provisions expire at the end of September.
  Mr. President, that is what Senator Feingold is before us offering 
now--an extension of those provisions, an extension that has been 
worked out with

[[Page 10796]]

very detailed, bipartisan discussions over an extended period of time.
  Senator Feingold has played a very constructive role in that regard. 
He did not end there with the amendment that he is offering. He also 
has offered budget caps for this year and next year. My judgment is 
that we ought to adopt spending caps for this year and next year, and 
they ought to be at levels that are realistic so they can really be 
enforced. What we have learned in the past is if you set unrealistic 
spending caps, they are then broken with impunity and we wind up 
spending much more money, digging the deficit hole deeper.
  Let me just emphasize that the spending number that Senator Feingold 
has set out in this amendment is exactly the same number that the 
President of the United States sent us for the budget for this year. 
The number he has included for next year as a spending cap takes that 
amount and increases it by something over 3 percent. That is the number 
that was in the report of the Senate Budget Committee to our colleagues 
in the full Chamber. Those are responsible numbers. They allow and 
accommodate the very large increases in spending asked for by the 
President for defense and homeland security. All the rest of the 
spending would actually be reduced from the so-called baseline.
  Now, that is a responsible budget outline. It accommodates fully the 
President's request for increases for defense and homeland security, if 
that is the wish of the Senate and the wish of the House. But it 
provides a budget discipline that is going to be badly needed here if 
we are to recover because the harsh reality that we confront is that 
last year when we were told there were going to be nearly $6 trillion 
of surpluses over the next 10 years, all of that money is gone; there 
are no surpluses. In fact, our reestimates indicate that instead of 
surpluses, we face some $600 billion of budget deficits over the next 
decade.
  Mr. President, it is more serious than that. It is really far more 
serious than that because those numbers lump together the trust funds 
and the other funds of the Federal Government. If one takes out the 
trust funds, if one takes out, for example, the Social Security trust 
fund, what one sees is an ocean of red ink over the next decade--
hundreds of billions of dollars of nontrust fund deficits this year and 
next year and all of the years to the end of the decade. Instead of a 
$160 billion budget deficit this year, if one segregates the Social 
Security trust fund, if one protects the Social Security trust fund, it 
will be $320 billion.
  Next year, the budget deficit, instead of being $200 billion, will be 
$370 billion. That is the depths and the dimensions of the fiscal 
deterioration that has occurred in just 1 year.
  These are not just numbers on a page. These are numbers that reflect 
a larger reality with enormous economic implications for this country. 
I hope our colleagues are listening. I hope our colleagues are thinking 
very carefully about the path we have embarked on, where this is all 
headed, because I want to warn our colleagues that none of this adds 
up. It does not come close to adding up. It is critically important 
that we adopt an extension of the budget disciplines that will help 
keep this from further exploding out of control.
  It is absolutely critical that we agree to a budget for this year 
and, as Senator Feingold has offered, a budget for next year as well, 
with enforceable caps, with provisions that will allow this Chamber to 
discipline spending and revenue and, yes, protect Social Security. 
Absent these disciplines, absent a budget, I believe we are headed for 
a very difficult ending to this session.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from North Dakota--and I also applaud, 
as he did, the Senator from Wisconsin for offering this amendment--
without the budget talk that people outside this Chamber perhaps don't 
understand, is it correct that the Senator from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from North Dakota are saying that what the Senate needs is a 
budget so that we can keep spending down to certain limits as to what 
the 13 subcommittees can appropriate, so that there will be, as there 
have been for many years, some discipline in what we do with spending? 
Does this amendment do anything more than what I just described?
  Mr. CONRAD. No. I think the Senator stated it well. This provides, 
No. 1, a budget for this year and a budget for next year and caps 
spending at those amounts. The number for this year is the number the 
President sent us, $768 billion. It is not the same policy the 
President sent us, but it is the same total amount of spending that the 
President sent us. In addition to that, there are the various budget 
disciplines that expire at the end of September that Senator Feingold 
is extending in his amendment.
  I might say, I know Senator Feingold worked this out on a bipartisan 
basis. There were other Senators on the other side of the aisle who 
were involved with negotiating this amendment. I can tell you there 
have been many discussions with Members on both sides with respect to 
the number and with respect to a continuation of the budget 
disciplines. This was not something that was done in a partisan way or 
just on one side of the aisle. This is the result of lengthy 
discussions over an extended period of time with Senators on both 
sides.
  Mr. REID. Can I ask the Senator another question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. Why would someone not want this Congress to have budget 
discipline? Why would someone want freewheeling spending, spend 
anything you can; why would someone want that?
  Mr. CONRAD. There are a number of reasons that are possible for 
somebody to be in opposition to a continuation of the budget 
disciplines. One would be they want to spend more money. Another 
possibility is they want more tax cuts that are not paid for. Both of 
those are possibilities. A third possibility, with respect to the 
budget disciplines, is that they have another idea for budget 
discipline. I suppose that is a possibility.
  With respect to the actual number, they might disagree. They might 
say they want less spending or they want more spending, but I say to my 
colleagues, whatever their disposition is with respect to that, let's 
vote. Let's decide. Let's move this process forward, but let's do it in 
a way that is timely. Let's get a budget in place before the 
appropriations process starts. Let's do that. We have an opportunity to 
do that now. Let's get those budget disciplines extended before we 
start the appropriations process; otherwise, we are courting chaos.
  Mr. REID. Can I ask one additional question? It is my understanding, 
having spoken with the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from 
Wisconsin, that both Senators would agree to a limited time that this 
matter would be debated. This is not something on which the two 
Senators are wanting extended debate. The Senator from North Dakota 
would agree to a reasonable period of time and have a vote; is that 
right?
  Mr. CONRAD. I certainly would, but I think, in fairness, the question 
should be directed at my colleague. He is the author of this amendment. 
I would certainly be willing to do whatever the Senator from Wisconsin 
is willing to do. I would certainly accept a reasonable time limit.
  Mr. REID. I have already spoken with my friend from Wisconsin, and I 
know he is not concerned about an extended debate. He gave a brief 
statement, as we heard it in the last few minutes. I hope, I say to all 
of my colleagues, we can set a reasonable period of time tomorrow. I 
know we are not going to be able to work much later tonight, but that 
we would set a time for some reasonable debate and move forward. I hope 
we can do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first, I say to the Senator from Nevada, I certainly 
think limited debate time will be acceptable. This is similar to the 
approach we tried to bring up on similar proposals on other bills. 
Members of the Senate understand this.

[[Page 10797]]

  The reason I rise at this point is to thank the Senator from North 
Dakota for his kind words, but also in many ways the Senator from North 
Dakota is sort of my mentor on these issues of the budget. Before I 
came here, I watched him focus on balancing the budget in a sincere 
way, taking political risk with relation to it.
  In the 10 years I have been here, many of them on the Budget 
Committee, time and again I have seen his proposals, his genuine 
attempts to either get us to a balanced budget as fast as possible or 
to figure out some way to make absolutely sure that we do not borrow 
from Social Security, which is something he and I both abhor.
  That is exactly what this is about. Yes, it sometimes sounds like 
technical budget talk, but it really is whether or not there is going 
to be an open bank account for Congress to take money out of Social 
Security--that is what it is about--without any rules, without any 
caps, without any discipline. That is what we are discussing. Sure, it 
comes out in the form of a lot of documents and a lot of papers and a 
lot of numbers, but what it is about is whether or not Members of this 
body are truly committed to stopping the practice of borrowing from 
Social Security and getting us back to a balanced budget as fast as 
possible.
  The Senator from North Dakota and I spent just about every day for 
many years trying to get us to the point where we were not borrowing 
from Social Security. A lot of people thought that could not happen, 
but we made it, working together with our colleagues, often both 
parties and under President Clinton. We made it. We were there for a 
while.
  The only way we can get there again is by finding a way to extend 
these budget caps and keep these budget rules in place because, without 
them, I really do fear many of the alternatives Senator Conrad 
mentioned will come to the fore, and the result will be a huge hole.
  There is already a significant hole being developed, a significant 
deficit that actually reminds me of the kinds of numbers I first saw 
when I came here. I ran on this issue of whether we can balance the 
budget, and the deficits we are starting to look at for a 1-year period 
are beginning to resemble the deficits I was complaining about when I 
first had the chance to run for the Senate and challenge what was going 
on in Washington in the 1980s.
  I thank the Senator. I am pleased we could come together in this 
amendment. It is not everything I would want ideally, but it is a 
significant step in the right direction, and it will provide some 
discipline, not only in this fiscal year that is coming up but in the 
following fiscal year. I thank him very much for his cosponsorship of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Wisconsin and the 
Senator from North Dakota leave the floor, when we look at these 
staggering numbers, we had a surplus last year at this time of close to 
$4.7 trillion. It is gone now.
  We had staggering numbers in 1986, as an example, when Senator Conrad 
and I were first elected to this body. The Senator from North Dakota 
ran on the platform that he thought something should be done about 
these deficits, and unless something was done, he would not run again, 
and he followed through on that. It was politically a very courageous 
thing to do. As fate would have it, things worked out that he could 
come back.
  We have been able to manage these staggering yearly deficits. We have 
had surpluses in recent years, so it is not as if we are asking for the 
impossible, but we need discipline to do it. We will not have 
discipline without this budget resolution.
  It is unfortunate, as we have heard said so many different times, 
that these tax cuts have put us in a real quandary: $4.7 trillion, 50 
percent of it is the tax cut; 25 percent of it, approximately, is the 
war; the rest of it is other economic issues and other policies of this 
administration. We are in deep trouble economically.
  I do not know why anyone would oppose what is being attempted by the 
author of this amendment and the author of the second-degree amendment. 
This is something that needs to be done for the good of the country. If 
there were ever anything that was for the security of our Nation, it is 
getting the financial house back in order. It is not back in order, and 
it will go downhill if we do not do something to cause us to have 
budget discipline.
  I am not going to prolong the debate tonight other than to say I am 
grateful--the people of Nevada are grateful--for the work done by these 
two Senators.
  I hope we will be joined by people of good will on the other side to 
see if we can come up with a resolution. There is no question that this 
started out as a bipartisan amendment. I am disappointed it is not 
offered on a bipartisan basis tonight. But the two Senators have 
spoken. They have the spirit of bipartisanship. There is nothing 
partisan at all about this amendment. I hope we can move forward on it 
and complete it tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague from 
Wisconsin for his initiative. I was not involved in the development of 
this amendment. The Senator from Wisconsin negotiated this amendment 
with one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They 
produced this amendment. They believed this was a way to advance a 
return to fiscal discipline. They believed putting caps on spending for 
this year and next and restoring the budget discipline was a critical 
first step.
  This is not the budget resolution I passed through the committee. It 
has similar elements, but it has additional budget discipline, an 
entire additional year of spending caps. I believe this is critically 
important to our fiscal future.
  I think the amendment that was negotiated by Senator Feingold and one 
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle represents the best 
chance we have this year of moving this country back towards fiscal 
balance. This will not solve the problem. It will prevent the problem 
from getting worse, and it will move us in the direction of restoring 
fiscal discipline. It is a critical first step.
  My own judgment is, next year, when hopefully the economy is on 
stronger ground, we will put in place a multiyear plan to balance the 
budget without using Social Security funds. That is going to take a 
multiyear effort. The hole has been dug so deep as a result of the tax 
cut, which is the biggest culprit, combined with the economic slowdown, 
combined with the attack on the country, combined with underestimations 
of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. All of those elements have cooked 
this stew. Unless we respond, our country is going to get in deeper 
trouble.
  Last week, we had to pass a massive increase in the indebtedness of 
the United States. The President is asking for the second biggest 
increase in the indebtedness of our country in the history of the 
United States. That is how serious the situation is. I hope our 
colleagues will join with an effort to get us back on track.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the Senate considers the Defense 
authorization bill, we all know that this legislation is extremely 
important for our country. Around the world, the members of our armed 
forces are engaged in an ongoing and all-important battle against 
terrorism.
  Our men and women in uniform are serving with great skill and courage 
in defense of our freedom. They endure long hours and hazardous, life-
threatening challenges. They do so with awe-inspiring spirit and 
determination that has made us all proud and that keeps our country 
free.
  I know I speak for all of us when I express our vast appreciation and 
respect for these courageous men and women. It is an essential priority 
for all of us in Congress to ensure that they have the resources needed 
to carry out their missions. Recruiting, training, and equipping the 
best possible force is the cornerstone of our Nation's military 
strength and superiority.

[[Page 10798]]

  The Armed Service Committee has produced a strong and effective bill 
to see that our military is well-prepared to face the challenges of the 
21st century. The funds authorized for fiscal year 2003 demonstrate our 
strong commitment to the Nation's defense. The U.S. military is the 
most capable fighting force in the world and this bill is well designed 
to maintain that strength.
  This legislation also builds on the steps we have taken in recent 
years to improve the quality of life of our armed forces. The 4.1 
percent pay increase is the fourth consecutive year that the committee 
has authorized a significant pay raise above the rate of inflation.
  The bill also maintains support for reducing out-of-pocket housing 
expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent, with the goal of reducing 
them to zero by fiscal year 2005. Additionally, the bill adds $640 
million above the President's budget request for military construction.
  In recent years improvements in TRICARE and prescription drug 
benefits have dramatically improved the quality of life for service 
members, retirees, and their families. This bill also addresses the 
quality of life issue by providing $35 million to public school systems 
that serve large numbers of military children and children with severe 
disabilities.
  The bill also directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 
quadrennial review of the quality of life of our service members. For 
many years, we have emphasized a quadrennial review of our defense 
strategy. Under Personnel Subcommittee chairman Max Cleland's 
leadership, we have now recognized that the morale and well-being of 
our service members is vital to an effective national defense.
  As chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee, I have consistently 
advocated a strong Navy-Marine Corps team as a major part of the 
Nation's defense. This bill supports the President's budget request for 
shipbuilding. We have also worked hard in the committee to provide 
additional funds for advanced procurement of Virginia Class attack 
submarines, Arleigh Burke Class destroyers (DDG-51) and San Antonio 
Class amphibious transport dock ships (LPD-17). These funds do not buy 
additional ships, but they will contribute to solving the shipbuilding 
shortfall that is a great concern to our committee.
  The committee has resisted efforts to fund additional ships through 
reductions in the Operations and Maintenance accounts. The Army, Navy, 
Air Force, and Marines need these funds to carry out their day-to-day 
operations, maintenance and training.
  Instead, the committee rightly focused on providing modest increases 
to the shipbuilding accounts from the missile defense fund. After 
reviewing the administration's proposal, we found that a small 
reduction in this fund is justified. We believe this proposal is the 
best way to sustain the readiness of our armed forces to conduct their 
full range of operations and missions.
  The bill also improves the ability of the armed forces to meet non-
traditional threats, including terrorism and weapons of mass 
destruction. Overall, $10 billion is provided for combating terrorism. 
Significantly, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Defense to expand 
the Cooperative Threat Reduction program beyond the countries of the 
former Soviet Union.
  A major priority in our defense strategy continues to be the ability 
to deter a potential adversary. If deterrence ultimately fails, we must 
be prepared to fight and win future conflicts. The $300 million added 
by the committee to the science and technology budget brings the 
Department of Defense closer to the goal of devoting 3 percent of all 
defense funds to the cutting edge technology that can bring us new 
systems and more effective deterrence.
  Key discussions by the Department of Defense and Congress on past 
defense budgets contributed significantly to the outstanding 
performance of our armed forces in Operation Enduring Freedom. Now more 
than ever, we must think creatively about the future and do all we can 
to enhance our readiness and our technological edge to meet the 
challenges we will face. I urge the Senate to approve this legislation 
as an important part of that effort.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, today, I am again offering an amendment 
that would correct the long-standing injustice to the widows or 
widowers of our military retirees. The proposed legislation, which 
reflects the language of S. 145 which I introduced on January 23, 2001, 
would immediately increase for surviving spouses over the age 62 the 
minimum Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, annuity from 35 percent to 40 
percent of the SBP covered retired pay. The bill would provide a 
further increase to 45 percent of covered retired pay as of October 1, 
2006.
  As I outlined in my many statements in support of this important 
legislation, the Survivor Benefit Plan advertises that if the service 
member elects to join the plan, his survivor will receive 55 percent of 
the member's retirement pay. Unfortunately, that is not so. The reason 
that they do not receive the 55 percent of retired pay is that current 
law mandates that at age 62 this amount be reduced either by the amount 
of the Survivors Social Security benefit or to 35 percent of the SBP. 
This law is especially irksome to those retirees who joined the plan 
when it was first offered in 1972. These service members were never 
informed of the age-62 reduction until they had made an irrevocable 
decision to participate. Many retirees and their spouses, as our 
constituent mail attests, believed their premium payments would 
guarantee 55 percent of retired pay for the life of the survivor. It is 
not hard to imagine the shock and financial disadvantage these men and 
women who so loyally served the Nation for many years experience when 
they learn of the annuity reduction.
  Uniformed services retirees pay too much for the available SBP 
benefit both, compared to what we promised and what we offer other 
Federal retirees. When the Survivor Benefit Plan was enacted in 1972, 
the Congress intended that the Government would pay 40 percent of the 
cost to parallel the Government subsidy of the Federal civilian 
survivor benefit plan. That was short-lived. Over time, the 
Government's cost sharing has declined to about 26 percent. In other 
words, the retiree's premiums now cover 74 percent of expected long-
term program costs versus the intended 60 percent. Contrast this with 
the Federal civilian SBP, which has a 42 percent subsidy for those 
personnel under the Federal Employees Retirement System and a 50 
percent subsidy for those under the Civil Service Retirement System. 
Further, Federal civilian survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay 
with no offset at age 62. Although Federal civilian premiums are 10 
percent retired pay compared to 6.5 percent for military retirees, the 
difference in the percent of contribution is offset by the fact that 
our service personnel retire at a much younger age than the civil 
servant and, therefore pay premiums much longer than the federal 
civilian retiree.
  Although the House conferees thwarted my previous efforts to enact 
this legislation into law, I am ever optimistic that this year we will 
prevail. I base my optimism on the fact that the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 included a Sense of the Congress 
on increasing Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses age 
62 or older. The Sense of the Congress reflects the concern addressed 
by the legislation I am introducing again today.
  Since I introduced S. 145, 37 of my colleagues joined as cosponsors 
to the bill. I hope they will join me in speaking in support of this 
important legislation and the Senate will adopt this amendment.

                          ____________________