[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 28163-28190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 
                            FISCAL YEAR 2004

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 437 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 437

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2004 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The conference 
     report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  This morning, the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal 
conference report rule for H.R. 1588, the Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2004. The rule waives all points of order against the 
conference report and against its consideration.
  In addition, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided 
and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
House Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type 
of rule we grant for every conference report we consider in the House. 
And I want to especially give my thanks to the chairman and ranking 
member of this committee, because they have done a phenomenal job with 
this bill. It is a bill that sets an example for the rest of the 
committees in the House as far as working together and doing what is 
right for the country and what is right for our servicemen.
  This legislation firmly shows our commitment to restoring the 
strength of our Nation's military. The conferees authorize $400.5 
billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the 
national security programs of the Department of Energy, which matches 
the President's request.
  The legislation authorizes the funding necessary to defend the Nation 
and our interests around the globe. It contains important provisions, 
such as concurrent receipt pay for the Nation's veterans, commonsense 
environmental reforms allowing our troops to properly train, and 
important new benefits for military personnel and their families.
  The Iraqi conflict and our continuing war on terrorism have brought a 
renewed and proper focus on national defense. We owe much to our men 
and women in uniform; and their success in Iraq and Afghanistan is a 
testament to their bravery, training and equipment, and their 
commitment to defend our freedoms. It is the means by which we meet our 
commitment to provide them a decent quality of life with an across-the-
board 4.15 percent increase for military personnel, so as to sustain 
the commitment and professionalism of America's all-volunteer armed 
services and the families that support them.
  The pay raise will cut the pay gap between military and civilian jobs 
from

[[Page 28164]]

6.4 to 5.5 percent. This will be the fifth consecutive year that pay 
raises have exceeded that of the private sector.
  For our active soldiers, the conferees increased the rates of special 
pay for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger worldwide 
from $150 a month to $225 per month for the period beginning October 1 
of 2003, through December 31 of 2004.
  We also want to acknowledge where these active soldiers get the 
source of their strength. It is from their families here at home. And 
we are increasing the family separation allowance for servicemembers 
with dependents from $100 a month to $250 a month for the period 
October 1 this year through December 31 of 2004.
  I also want to take a moment to personally thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter) for tirelessly fighting for the solid ``Buy 
American Provisions'' that are included in this conference report. That 
is extremely important to my State of North Carolina.
  The ongoing war on terrorism dictates the need to have reliable 
domestic sources of weapons and equipment. Unfortunately, fewer 
American companies are designing and manufacturing the components and 
materials used in our military systems, as the U.S. industrial base is 
becoming more dependent on foreign sources. And this is a disturbing 
factor to me, as I know it is to the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Hunter). We have got to be able to produce these equipment 
needs here in the United States so we are not at the mercy of some 
other country if they decide for some reason to cut us off.
  However, I am very disappointed, and I know the chairman is too, that 
the conference report did not include a key provision that was passed 
by the House that would ensure that all the components of the 
Department of Defense uniforms come from American companies. The 
language specifically worked to more adequately cover domestic textiles 
and leather industries.
  I would also like to congratulate my good friend and colleague on the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), for 
authoring the 1-year citizenship provision for our valiant servicemen 
and women. It reduces the length of service requirement for 
naturalization to 1 year. And I would also like to note that the 
ranking member on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), worked hard on this issue as well.
  On a positive note, I am extremely pleased and proud that H.R. 1588 
establishes a payment program to simultaneously compensate disabled 
military retirees who were injured in combat for their full retirement 
pay from DOD and disability compensation from the Veterans 
Administration beginning January 1, 2004. Over the next 10 years, this 
bill will provide concurrent receipt to more veterans than have ever 
been covered by current law. Our veterans have given deeply and 
heroically, and it is only fair we recognize their service.
  So let us pass this rule and pass the underlying defense 
authorization conference report. At the end of the day, we will be 
making our homeland safer, and we will be supporting our sons and 
daughters serving in our military. We are also preparing for war, 
thereby ensuring victory. At this crucial time in our history, this 
bill is most important.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, for all of my 25 years in this Congress, I have worked 
to strengthen America's military and to increase our national security. 
Like other defense proponents on both sides of the aisle, I have bent 
over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support 
America's men and women in uniform.
  For instance, nearly 18 months ago, I introduced the Citizenship for 
America's Troops Act, a bill to help U.S. troops who are legal 
immigrants by easing the costly and burdensome obstacles that they face 
in the current citizenship process. Working with Democrats and 
Republicans in the House and the Senate, a good compromise was finally 
reached, one that is in this defense authorization conference report. 
It is not perfect, but it does provide much-needed relief to the more 
than 37,000 patriotic legal immigrants on active duty in the U.S. 
military, brave men and women who have been fighting and dying for a 
country in which they could not even vote.
  This kind of cooperation and bipartisanship approach, Mr. Speaker, is 
fundamental to our efforts to keep America's military strong, 
especially at a time when so many Americans are losing faith in 
President Bush's ability to win the peace in Iraq.
  While this conference report offers much to be proud of, Mr. Speaker, 
like the military pay raise and health care benefits for the National 
Guard and Reserves that Democrats have fought for, it also demonstrates 
how bipartisanship is becoming increasingly rare under this all-
Republican government.
  During the conference committee negotiations on this bill, Republican 
leaders shut out Democrats, including the distinguished ranking member 
of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), on some key areas of the conference. And the gentleman from 
Missouri will speak about those in more length. This is part of a clear 
and dangerous pattern by Republican leaders. We have seen it on the 
energy bill, the Medicare bill, and the FAA bill; but it is 
extraordinarily disappointing to see America's national defense policy 
treated in such a partisan manner.
  Moreover, the conference report itself contains several provisions 
where Republican idealogy clearly trumped solid national defense 
policy. In the interest of time, I am going to just mention three 
examples.
  First, why will President Bush and the Republicans not listen to the 
veterans and Democrats who are fighting to repeal the disabled veterans 
tax? Right now it penalizes nearly 560,000 disabled veterans, denying 
them $3 billion in military retirement benefits each year. As the 
American Legion has said, Mr. Speaker, the right thing to do is repeal 
the tax for all service-disabled military retirees. Democrats have 
proposed a plan to do that; but Republicans, led by President Bush, 
continue to block it. In fact, in this bill, Republicans refuse to help 
almost 70 percent of those disabled veterans, Mr. Speaker.
  So when Republican Members are at home for Veterans' Day celebrations 
next week, I hope they will be honest with the people about the 
provisions in this bill which provide only partial relief to only a 
fraction of America's disabled veterans. I hope they will explain that 
they did not think they could afford to restore military retirement 
benefits to 390,000 disabled veterans because they spent so much of the 
U.S. Treasury on tax breaks for the wealthiest few.
  Second, does anyone really believe that national security requires 
that we gut landmark environmental protections? Of course not. But 
rolling back America's environmental protections is a Republican 
priority. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack 
the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  And, third, is it really necessary to weaken the workplace 
protections of 746,000 patriotic Americans employed at the Pentagon, 
the same people who responded so courageously to the September 11 
attack on that building? And is it really necessary to eliminate the 
rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon? Of course not. But gutting 
important worker rights is another key Republican priority, and they 
are shamefully using this national defense bill to do it.
  Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, there are some areas of this conference 
report where bipartisanship and sound defense policy have prevailed. 
These include the substantial quality-of-life improvements that 
Democrats have fought for. Those include a 4.1 percent increase in 
basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases 
for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant 
officers to enhance retention. And they also include an increase in 
imminent-danger pay

[[Page 28165]]

and the family separation allowance for U.S. troops serving in harm's 
way.
  The conference report also builds on our efforts to support the 
National Guard and Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of 
defending America at home and abroad. For instance, it ensures that 
when the Ready Reserves serve in areas where those on active duty get 
hazardous duty pay, they will too. And if members of the Ready Reserve 
cannot get health insurance through their employer, it gives them 
access to the same TRICARE system that serves the military.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference report 
includes my own legislation to make life easier for the Guard and 
Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families, by 
allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families 
are making great sacrifices for this Nation and they deserve our 
support.
  Finally, the bill continues to make important investments in the wide 
range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout 
the world. It includes full funding of $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint 
Strike Fighter, the next generation multirole fighter of the future for 
the Air Force and the Navy and the Marines. It fully funds the F/A-22 
Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air 
Force, by providing $3.5 billion for 22 planes, and it includes the 
full $1.2 billion needed for the V-22 Osprey aircraft.
  Mr. Speaker, all these important prodefense provisions have strong 
bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of 
Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure the U.S. military 
has the resources it needs. That is the type of bipartisanship and 
cooperation that our national security policy requires. It builds 
strong public support for a U.S. foreign policy here at home and 
ensures our troops have the resources they need to do the dangerous job 
we ask of them.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders seem to have forgotten 
these lessons. And the President too often ignored them in the run-up 
to the war in Iraq, which is a big reason it will be so hard to restore 
President Bush's credibility and the public's confidence in his ability 
to win the peace in Iraq. The American people deserve better than that, 
and so do our troops in the field. I urge my Republican friends to 
remember that, especially as U.S. troops and U.S. taxpayers continue to 
shoulder almost the entire burden for rebuilding Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), our 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying conference report which we are going to consider this 
morning.
  I want to begin by thanking my friend, the former mayor of Charlotte, 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for the fine work 
she has done not only in managing this rule but her important support 
of provisions in this measure dealing with concurrent receipt, making 
sure that those veterans who have been wounded and suffered will also 
receive their retirement pay. This I know was a very high priority for 
her. She also was very involved, Mr. Speaker, in addressing the Buy 
American Provision, which my very dear friend and classmate, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the committee, 
has pursued. And I believe that we have come to a reasonable compromise 
on it.
  I am not in total agreement with the gentleman on this provision, at 
least the way he had originally had it, because I believe we need to 
focus on ensuring we get the best quality product at the lowest 
possible price for our taxpayers. But at the same time, obviously, we 
do want, as a first choice, to focus on, in the area of machine tools 
and other areas, American workers and American job opportunities here.
  I want to say that there is another provision that my friend, the 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings), worked on, and I know 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) worked on as well, which is very 
important, and that is to ensure that we provide citizenship to those 
who have risked their lives and fought on behalf of the interests of 
the United States of America. I am pleased that the conference has in 
fact chosen to follow the direction of this House in ensuring that we 
have brought about the Hastings language on this. We know that 
President Bush strongly supports this as well, and I would like to 
congratulate him on this.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important. As we opened the 
Committee on Rules meeting at 7 o'clock this morning, I said that if 
you look at most of the things that we do here in Washington, D.C., 
most all of them can be handled by State and local governments. We are 
obviously involved in health care and education and a wide range of 
areas, but clearly those are things that can be handled at the local 
level. There is really one preeminent issue that cannot be handled by a 
city, a county or a State government, and that happens to be the 
overall security of the United States of America and our interests 
overseas. And that is why I feel as a Member of this body very 
fortunate to have both the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) working hard to ensure that 
we have the very, very best defense for our Nation.
  Now, I want to say that as I listened to my friend from Dallas go 
through his prepared statement on this he did end by talking about the 
fact that Democrats and Republicans alike stand together in support of 
a strong defense, but I have to disabuse my colleagues of the notion 
that was made that somehow Republicans are interested in gutting worker 
rights, murdering our environment. Nothing could be further from the 
truth, Mr. Speaker.
  I will state that when it has come to the environmental issues, and I 
know the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) will get into this as 
he has in our meeting upstairs this morning and he has repeatedly here 
in the well, he has talked about the responsibility to ensure that our 
men and women in uniform are not playing second fiddle to some obscure 
environmental priorities that one has. This measure, in fact, pursues a 
very balanced approach to environmental issues.
  Similarly, this notion that we somehow want to plunder workers 
rights, that we want to gut the rights of workers, again, nothing could 
be further from the truth. This measure pursues a very balanced 
approach which focuses on worker rights. And so I want to say that I 
believe this measure is going to pass with strong bipartisan support.
  As the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) pointed out, the 
issue of concurrent receipts is important for us to address, especially 
as Members prepare to go back to their States and districts and talk 
about the important sacrifice that has been made and, of course, as we 
think today, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) was the 
first one to report this to us in the Committee on Rules this morning, 
we heard the tragic news overnight of a Black Hawk helicopter that was 
downed and the loss of six lives.
  We continue to live in a very dangerous world. And the chairman of 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Goss), I think made a point very clearly in our hearing 
this morning and that is that we need to take action now. We want to 
make sure that the conflict exists there and not here, and that is why 
this legislation is so important, so that we can in fact deal with 
those who want to do us in.
  The training that continues to take place in the madrasas, which is 
virulently opposed to the United States and our Western values, the 
other kind of terrorist activity that we are seeing, we have to be 
prepared to deal with that.
  Lives are being lost on a regular basis because of this battle 
against

[[Page 28166]]

international terrorism, but with passage of this legislation we will 
be able to diminish the threat of loss of life and ensure that our men 
and women in uniform are equipped and compensated to deal with this 
very, very serious issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this rule and the conference 
report.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and thank the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) for presenting it this morning.
  This was a difficult bill, and shortly we will talk about some bumps 
along the way. But, Mr. Speaker, we are at war. We must do our very 
best, and I think we have done a good job as it relates to the troops 
of the United States of America. They are superb. They are doing a good 
job. We must pay respect to them legislatively as well as to their 
families legislatively, and I think we have done that by the various 
items. The family separation allowance, the combat pay, the pay raise 
and all of these personnel items that we touched upon is our way of 
saying thanks for a good job well done.
  So I support this rule. In the process I want to express my deep 
appreciation to everyone in uniform and to those families who support 
those in uniform. And, sadly, we have lost some and I hope that this is 
some consolation that we continue to support the American men and women 
who are wearing the uniform of the United States of America.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Let me congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), my good partner on the Committee on Armed Services, and all 
the Members, Republican and Democrat, who helped to put this bill 
together. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick), the chairman on the committee, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), who gave us a lot of time and attention, and all the 
members of the Committee on Rules.
  Let me just say a word or two about what this bill does because this 
bill makes what I consider to be some sweeping reforms and it is a 
great bill. It covers a number of major areas, and along with what I 
call the ``people issues''; that is, the pay raise that has been 
mentioned, the additional monies for housing that brings down the 
amount that a service member has to pay out of their pocket, all of the 
things that go to quality of life for personnel. It also covers some 
major areas that have needed reform.
  One aspect of that is what I call freedom to train, and today if you 
go to a place like Camp Pendleton, I have used that as an example, it 
has some 17 miles of shoreline. Only a very small area can actually be 
utilized for Marines who basically practice Iwo Jima. They practice 
assaulting a defended beach area. They can only do that practice in a 
very, very limited area of about one kilometer because of environmental 
considerations. And if you go to bases around the country, rifle 
ranges, air space for our Air Force and our other services to undertake 
integrated training with multiple aircraft, all of that is being 
hindered and obstructed because of a collision with our environmental 
laws.
  Now, we have an answer to that, and the answer is a management plan 
called an inramp, and that is where the military gets together with 
State Fish and Wildlife and Federal Fish and Wildlife and they make an 
agreement. They make an agreement and they say, okay, the habitat for 
the gnatcatcher will be over here, we will set aside this 400 acres, 
and the Marines will have this area for rifle training or the Army will 
have this area for tank training or the Air Force will have this area 
for aircraft training.
  Once you make that agreement and you put it in place, it is not open 
for groups to come in and sue under the Endangered Species Act to close 
down that rifle range, to close down that tank range, to close down 
that air space that is so vital so that our people can survive in 
theaters like Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So this is offered under the proposition that the real endangered 
species here is a 19-year-old Marine rifleman who needs the very best 
training that he can get here at home before he projects American power 
overseas, and in this bill we put together this balance between 
conservation and military requirements.
  Also, with respect to allowing our submariners to utilize the best of 
their sonar devices that will keep them alive when they are in the 
littorals, in shallow water areas around the world, where they will be 
faced with very quiet diesel submarines which are now being 
proliferated in certain adversaries' navies. We say that, whereas 
before the standard was that if a mammal, maybe a sea lion, was 
potentially disturbed that military training could not take place in 
his neighborhood. Now we say he has to actually be significantly 
disturbed. He has to actually be disturbed or that disturbance has to 
be significant enough to alter the way he migrates or feeds or the way 
he goes about his daily life.
  So we are trying to give as much value to the sailors' survival as we 
have given to the sea lions' survival. I think that is a good balance. 
In this case we put the sailor ahead of the sea lion. I think the 
American people want that.
  With respect to personnel, right now we are facing a war that is a 
new war. It is a war in which we see terrorists with high technology. 
We have to be flexible. We have to move quickly, and that involves 
people who not just wear the uniform of the United States, it also 
involves people who wear the civil service uniform.
  So we are empowering Mr. Rumsfeld with the ability to reshape his 
civil service so that instead of taking 4 or 5 or 6 months to go 
through the bureaucracy to qualify a civil servant to work at a job so 
you get to the point where you just direct a sergeant to go do it and 
he salutes and goes and does it, we will now be able to quickly move 
civil servants into that job. We will be able to hire them quickly, and 
when people show an extraordinary ability to work and an enthusiasm and 
dedication that rises above the community, that they will be rewarded 
for that. And we have tested these ideas in pilot projects around the 
country, and the members who have participated in the pilot projects 
have voted that they like it.
  So we are undertaking important reforms in this bill. We are giving 
the military the tools they need to fight this new type of war. I would 
urge everyone to support the rule and support the bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, I am a conferee on the Defense Authorization 
Act. Virtually all of the funding for intelligence is contained in this 
bill.
  This bill is far from perfect. Like a number of conferees, I am 
enormously concerned about developing bunker buster nuclear weapons, 
weakening nonproliferation programs, and an assault on collective 
bargaining, all of which is unfortunately part of this legislation.
  Nonetheless, I signed the conference report and I intend to vote for 
final passage. The lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and 
women, Marines and civilians are on the line in Iraq and in the global 
war on terrorism. Accurate and actionable intelligence is vital if we 
are to prevail, and I intend to do everything I can to provide our 
forces with the best intelligence possible.
  The funds in this bill meet important intelligence needs vital to our 
Nation's security and, in contrast to the recent $87 billion 
supplemental, these funds come through the regular budget process.

[[Page 28167]]

  Still, the following needs to be said: The Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence on a bipartisan basis has identified serious 
shortcomings in the prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction and ties to terrorism. Sketchy and often circumstantial 
evidence produced estimates that likely were substantially wrong. At a 
minimum, I believe the Intelligence Community overstated the strength 
of the underlying data supporting the conclusions.
  The Intelligence Community has yet to acknowledge any flaws in prewar 
intelligence. With American lives on the line now, the shortcomings in 
prewar intelligence must be addressed now. A ``lessons learned'' study 
cannot await the conclusion of David Kay's ongoing WMD search. 
Regardless of what he finds, there were problems with collection, 
analysis and the way policy makers used the information.
  I strongly support this bill's requirement of an Iraq ``lessons 
learned'' report by the Department of Defense due March 31 of next 
year. As a conferee on the intelligence authorization bill, I plan to 
push for an interim ``lessons learned'' report from the Intelligence 
Community on the same date as the military's report is due, and I hope 
that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Goss) will join me in this 
request.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who has 
just gone through very difficult negotiations at a very difficult time. 
Some Members may not know that he lost his home to the California 
wildfires that swept through southern California. So I thank the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  This is good news. This defense conference report is good news for 
our young men and women who serve in the Armed Services and are 
required to carry out the will of this Nation overseas. We want to give 
them the tools necessary so they can do their job and come home safely 
to their families, and this bill provides many of the tools necessary 
for that to happen. It is also good news for our veterans in addressing 
the issue of concurrent receipts.
  It is also very good news for the KC-767 program. This is a critical 
part of our defense program and it completes the circuit for the start 
of a new program in fulfilling a great need by replacing our KC-135's, 
the tanker fleet that we currently have.

                             {time}   0945

  For those who are not familiar with the KC-135, this is basically a 
gas station in the sky. It refuels other aircraft, and it is a very 
necessary link in projecting power for this country. Afghanistan and 
Iraq once again confirmed the necessity that in today's war on 
terrorism, we must have tankers to fulfill the role of carrying out and 
projecting power. The problem has been that they are an aging fleet. 
The average age of the KC-135s is 43 years. Can the Members imagine, 
Mr. Speaker, coming back and forth to work in a 1960 automobile? This 
is basically what we have asked our young men and women to do. The 
average age of 43 years is the equivalent of driving a 1960 Dodge Dart. 
And just like an older automobile would suffer from rust and need 
repair, these aircraft are suffering from corrosion and have high 
maintenance costs. So the KC-135 must be replaced, and this is good 
news because this defense authorization conference report does that.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I would like to place the House on notice that we 
will have to correct some of the problems that have been created by 
this agreement in the current legislation. The conference report 
changes the original plan for the KC-767. It changes the delivery rate 
and purchasing method that was supposed to save approximately $4 
billion, an estimated $4 billion, but the short-term plan was 
shortsighted. It does create a long-term problem. I will submit for the 
Record the letter from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz 
outlining the plan to change the delivery schedule for the first 100 
aircraft. It essentially changes it from a 20-per-year delivery rate to 
a 12-per-year delivery rate.
  When we assume the total program of 400 aircraft, instead of ending 
this program in fiscal year 2025, it will now end in fiscal year 2039. 
That moves the mid-point of this entire program 7 years to the right. 
If we assume an average cost of $150 million per aircraft and a 5 
percent inflation rate, that is for increased labor cost, increased 
material cost, increased cost of money, it raises the cost of the 
entire program by 40.7 percent. So instead of 60 billion over 21 years 
for the KC-767 program, the Federal Government will have to spend 
approximately $84.4 billion over 35 years.
  What needs to be done? We are going to address the delivery schedule. 
It must be accelerated so that we can reach an optimum production rate 
and a lower cost per aircraft. We also need to provide adequate budget 
authority to serve the taxpayers with significant reduction in the cost 
of this program by accelerating the production rate. But over all, Mr. 
Speaker, this is a very good conference report, and it is going to be 
something that is going to help our young men and women as well as 
veterans. I support the rule, and I support the defense conference 
report.

                                  Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                                 Washington, DC, November 5, 2003.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for your consideration 
     of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A 
     aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on 
     the best way to get this program started. Your most recent 
     amendment would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20 
     of the 100 tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to 
     implement that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it 
     acceptable.
       Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the 
     critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the 
     constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed 
     chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then 
     buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year 
     until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in 
     Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile 
     for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will 
     add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The combination of these added 
     funds achieves an immediate start to the program and allows 
     us to purchase the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.
       I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past 
     and look forward to working with you in the future. If you 
     require further information, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen 
     and ranking minority members of each of the defense 
     committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Paul Wolfowitz.

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I am glad to see us 
put some quality-of-life provisions in it; and I commend the chairman, 
whom I have worked with for 20-odd years, for once again bringing a 
bill to closure.
  I do have to call attention to the fact that this rule waives all 
points of order, which is typical; but in this case, as ranking member 
of the Budget Committee, I feel obliged to make my colleagues aware 
what it is we are waiving because it is not a good way to do business; 
it is not a good way to keep a budget.
  This conference report contains two provisions that entail 
significant spending over and above the amounts allowed in the budget 
resolution. One allows concurrent receipt of military retirement 
benefits for retirees who also get VA disability benefits. The other 
commits the government to lease and purchase up to 20 or maybe even 100 
new tanker aircraft.
  No funds were added to this conference report to pay for either of 
these programs, and that is my problem. Between the two of them, they 
will entail new unfunded future commitments of approximately $40 
billion, $22 billion for concurrent receipt, $18 billion for 100 new 
tanker aircraft.
  As a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I support the 
compromise on concurrent receipt, and I

[[Page 28168]]

understand the need for new tankers; but I am concerned, and have to 
be, about the way we are doing this. The rule before us would waive the 
point of order that would otherwise lie against the conference report 
for some clear and substantial departures from the budget resolution 
that is supposed to be prevailing in this House.
  We just finished the fiscal year 2003, Mr. Speaker, with the largest 
deficit in our peacetime history, $374 billion. The deficit for next 
year, fiscal year 2004, is likely to break that by $100 billion, even 
without the additional cost of these programs which are not included in 
any of CBO's or OMB's projections.
  All I am saying is if concurrent receipt is a worthy benefit, and I 
think it is, then let us pay for it or at least let us recognize fully 
in the budget the cost of it. If we need these tankers, and I accept 
the arguments that we do, then let us pay for them. Let us make the 
argument and pay for them and set the priority in the budget. This bill 
does not do that, and this rule would allow Congress to flout the 
budget resolution without facing up to these costs. If Congress feels 
that it is necessary to abandon the budget resolution that supposedly 
prevails in the House and further increases the deficit, then we ought 
to be accountable for that decision. But this rule would make sure that 
no Member of this body will have the opportunity to demand such 
accountability.
  Let me tell the Members specifically the two problems in the 
conference report with respect to these items that give me trouble. The 
conference report phases in a compromised version of concurrent 
receipt. In 2004 this would increase direct spending by $800 million. 
By 2013 this would increase annual cost to as much as $3.5 billion. 
This provision would cost an estimated $22 billion in additional direct 
spending over the next 10 years, none of which is provided for in the 
mandatory spending provisions of the budget resolution. That is why I 
call it a substantial departure.
  There is another anomaly in the way concurrent receipt is treated. 
Since the mid-1980s, we have recognized military retirement costs 
through an accrual system that sets aside funds to cover the cost of 
retirement benefits we owe in the future for today's military service. 
The concurrent receipt provisions in this bill eliminate a reduction or 
offset in military retirement and thus increase military retirement 
benefits. Under current procedures, we should increase our accrual 
payments to account for the fact that we have just increased future 
spending on retirement benefits. This bill does not do that. It departs 
from a convention we adopted 20 years ago for reporting military 
retirement programs.
  The conference agreement also includes language that was not in 
either bill to lease 20 tankers and then buy 80 more. In effect, what 
it allows is incremental funding, something we have not done for big 
procurement programs for a long, long time. It entails at least a 
liability of $4 billion, maybe as much as $18 billion, and yet none of 
this money is in the Air Force budget. None of this authority has been 
recognized. What we have here is an effort to obscure the fact that we 
are increasing the defense budget but not adding BA commensurate to the 
amount of the increase.
  There are committees right now and next week railing against 
corporate misaccounting in this country and should be. But we should 
keep our own books in proper order in order to make such criticisms. 
This is not a way to budget. I support the bill and hope it does not 
constitute a precedent for the future.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong support of the rule and of the conference report 
with a deep sense of gratitude to the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Hunter), as well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), ranking member, for their extraordinary and bipartisan 
leadership on behalf of that fundamental function of our Nation and 
this Congress to provide for the common defense and in meeting the 
urgent needs of soldiers in the field of today, our intelligence 
community, but also meeting the needs of those who have served in 
uniform. I believe this conference report goes a long way toward 
discharging that duty.
  Mr. Speaker, in the survival of freedom we literally as American 
citizens owe our veterans everything. But in a world of limited 
resources, we can only in this Congress do the right thing. I rise 
specifically today on virtually the eve of Veterans' Day to point out 
how this Congress, thanks to the bipartisan leadership of the defense 
authorizing committee, is doing the right thing by veterans in the area 
of concurrent receipts.
  Since arriving in Congress, I have heard from one veteran after 
another, men and women who had worn the uniform of the United States of 
America, about the injustice of losing disability benefits for which 
they were eligible as veterans at the time they reached the age of 
retirement. Thanks to this legislation, in most cases disability 
benefits incurred in uniform or earned in uniform will not be forfeited 
simply because a veteran reaches the age of retirement. The Good Book 
tells us if we owe debts, pay debts; if honor, then honor; if respect, 
then respect. By meeting the urgent needs of the defense of the Nation 
today, we pay a debt to those who risk and expend their lives in the 
advancement of our freedom. But by addressing the injustice of current 
veterans benefits, Congress today goes a long way toward paying the 
debt we owe to those we can never repay.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans).
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership.
  I rise to point out that this conference report does not adequately 
address the needs of our disabled military retirees. Later today we 
will be considering a motion to recommit. And I strongly urge Members 
to support that motion and urge that we fix a tremendous injustice in 
this conference report.
  The conference report provides no relief whatsoever to two-thirds of 
disabled veterans who are now paying the Disabled Veterans Tax. 
Further, it provides only limited relief from the unfair tax burden to 
those it does cover. Under this report, veterans with disabilities 
rated at 50 percent or more would have to wait 10 years before 
receiving their full military retirement pay. The vast majority of 
eligible veterans are left out. In fact, 400,000 veterans with 
disabilities rated under 50 percent would not receive any relief at 
all. In other words, some veterans who lost their limbs while serving 
their country are not considered worthy of relief after they get back 
to the States.
  This is not ``full concurrent receipt'' as has been claimed. This is 
clearly not a victory for veterans. It is an attempt to divide and 
conquer veterans so as to deprive most retirees of their earned 
retirement benefits. A vote for the motion to recommit is a vote for 
full concurrent receipt and an end to the tax on our disabled veterans.
  I urge all Members to vote for this motion and support what 374 
Members have already said by cosponsoring legislation for full, not 
partial, concurrent receipt.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the veterans of our country are wise enough to 
make judgments about where they want to go, and I salute them for 
raising the issues that we have been dealing with the last few years.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to say right up front that I will vote for this 
defense authorization. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and a whole range of people have 
done an outstanding job to ensure the safety not only of the United 
States and our security but of those young men and women who are out 
there basically buttressing the pillars of civilization.

[[Page 28169]]

  The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) mentioned a little while 
ago that a 19-year-old rifleman ought to get the best training in the 
world. I agree with him 100 percent. I was a 19-year-old Marine Corps 
rifleman who worked with the Navy over a period of years, went into 
assaulted-fortified positions from Navy ships. So I personally 
recognize the absolute need, the uncompromising need, to ensure the 
best available training, the best equipment, the best of support that 
this country can offer to U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marine Corps, and 
airmen.
  I would like to work with the Committee on Armed Services and the 
chairman and the ranking member. Over the next several months, the 
Committee on Resources will be reauthorizing the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. The language in the defense authorization bill dealing 
with the marine mammals was something that we worked out. The language 
that is in the defense bill now, I think, goes beyond what is 
necessary. There are some issues dealing with small numbers versus 
negligeable numbers. There are some issues dealing with confined 
geographic areas. There are issues dealing with permits. There are 
issues with civilian scientific research.
  I think the model we can use for the marine mammals and the Marine 
training is laid out before us in this thing called INRMPs, Integrated 
National Resources Management Plans, that there is consultation, there 
is collaboration with the Committee on Resources and the other agencies 
throughout the Federal Government. That model that deals with INRMPs, 
that assures those guys on the ground, that young 19-year-old rifleman, 
is going to get the best training, no compromise on that. And I would 
like to work with the Committee on Armed Services to deal with those 
issues over the next several months.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise to express my opposition to the conference report on the 
Department of Defense authorization bill. I want to pick up with where 
the last speaker finished. He said he thought in this bill they went a 
little further than was necessary in the area of the Endangered Species 
Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. I want to say what I believe to 
be the case, that the problem with this bill is that it has been 
hijacked by the Republican leadership and the White House, who insisted 
on provisions that weakened environmental laws relating to the 
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
  I am also the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, 
and I want to address the civil service provisions in this bill. I am 
not opposed to reasonable reform that makes the Federal Government 
function more efficiently and still protects the basic rights of 
Federal employees, but this bill is not reasonable.
  Senator Collins developed a bipartisan compromise that safeguarded 
the collective bargaining rights of 700,000 DOD employees, yet gave DOD 
much of the flexibility it requested, but this bill abandons that 
compromise. This bill makes a mockery of labor relations at the Defense 
Department. At the same time that the bill claims to protect collective 
bargaining, it allows DOD to waive these requirements for the next 6 
years. During these 6 years, the Department can run rough-shod over its 
unions. The Department can decide what issues will be bargained, how 
labor and management impasses will be resolved and whether it will 
discriminate against union members.
  This bill also makes it harder for DOD employees to gain redress for 
unfair treatment. Currently employees have the ability to file appeals 
with the independent Merit Systems Protection Board, but under this 
bill employees first would have to go through an internal DOD appeals 
process. An administration that says it is against bureaucracy and red 
tape wants to create so much bureaucracy for employee appeals that 
employees will simply give up trying to protect their rights.
  The bill removes requirements for DOD employees to receive overtime 
pay or pay for working on holidays or weekends. This is ironic, since 
both the House and the Senate recently voted to protect overtime pay 
for private sector employees.
  As the war efforts in Iraq have demonstrated, DOD employees do not 
work only Monday through Friday, 9 to 5. Frankly, it is shameful that 
Congress is going to give those employees who safeguard our national 
security less overtime protection than it gives private employees.
  Finally, I have concerns about some of the provisions dealing with 
government-wide procurement policy. In particular, the bill extends to 
all civilian agencies something known as ``other transaction 
authority'' for research and development projects related to defense 
against terrorism. This would essentially waive all Federal procurement 
laws for these contracts. The bill also includes excessive waivers of 
procurement rules for contracts related to other anti-terrorism 
products and services.
  It is wrong to take important must-pass legislation like the DOD 
authorization and load it up with right-wing policies that damage the 
environment and strip employees of basic rights, but that is what this 
bill is doing, and I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
for her leadership and appreciate her yielding me time.
  Let me say that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for 18 
years in this Congress supported legislation that would give concurrent 
receipt to our veterans; 18 years. People in this Chamber need to know 
that, because there are people here who have been present during that 
time, and during that time the people who are now saying that 
Republicans will not support our veterans need to remind themselves 
that not a one of them joined sponsorship for his bill while that was 
there.
  Since I came to Congress, Mr. Speaker, I have been working to 
strengthen the Berry Amendment to help ensure that the Department of 
Defense use American manufacturers and products in its procurement 
programs. This past spring, and this good rule supports these efforts, 
I became very concerned when there was a blanket waiver issued for 
commercial aircraft.
  Among other products, this largely jeopardizes our domestic titanium 
industry. The number of companies that currently comprise this 
industrial base has shrunk to three domestic producers of titanium. 
Maintaining this base is not only vital for our economy, but also our 
national security. We simply cannot be relying on the Russians and the 
Chinese, who are developing their own economies, to supply significant 
amounts of titanium for our Nation's defense.
  The gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) has been tenacious in 
working to make sure that our industrial defense base is strengthened, 
not protected, strengthened, so that our national security is foremost.
  I would like to yield to the gentleman from California (Chairman 
Hunter) for his comments on this issue.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, and we are going to 
describe during the general debate the great industrial base 
provisions, like the machine tool provision that we came out of this 
conference with, some excellent stuff.
  But with respect to titanium, we know that we have three major makers 
of titanium left in this country. Otherwise, you have to rely on 
foreign sources. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hayes) personally for putting together the working group between 
industry and the Air Force and Members who are interested, and putting 
together what we call the basket approach to titanium.

[[Page 28170]]

  The basket approach says basically this: If you are going to take a 
domestic system, like the planes that are candidates for this tanker 
operation, and you convert them into a military system, right now the 
Berry Amendment says you have to use American-made titanium on American 
military systems.
  We have agreed that since some of these civilian aircraft will have 
some foreign-made titanium, we got with the industry leaders and they 
agreed that they would take and require the same amount of American 
titanium, with in fact a 10 percent increase, and spread that across 
the rest of their lines to make up for the foreign titanium that was in 
those civilian aircraft. I have talked with industry leaders. They feel 
a strong commitment to that policy.
  I want to thank the gentleman for putting that in place. I think it 
is going to accrue to the benefit of not only our tanker program, but 
also the health of the titanium industry.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman very 
much, and thanks again to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick). This is a great rule. It is for our troops, it is for our 
Nation, The spirit and intent of what we discussed is there.
  Vote for this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report and this 
rule. I have concerns about this bill, too. I represent the Puget Sound 
Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Keyport, Bangor. Many of these work rules 
are very much deplored by the workers there, and I regret that they 
have been attached to this legislation, but we will continue to work to 
try and deal with them as we proceed in this session of Congress.
  I want to rise in very strong support of the provision my friend the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) talked about earlier, the question 
of tankers. I became interested in this issue several years ago with a 
visit to Tinker Air Force Base where we saw the condition of our KC-
135-Es. I believe that this is a crucial national priority, to get a 
new tanker replacement program started.
  The Air Force has chosen the 767. We have had a lot of controversy 
about whether we should buy or lease. We have come up with a 
combination here. The Secretary of Defense's office, led by Mr. 
Wolfowitz, sent a letter on Thursday, which has brought us together. I 
want to commend the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), 
for his dedicated leadership on this issue. Without his tremendous 
effort and tenacity, we would not have gotten this far.
  I intend to have a colloquy later with the chairman of the committee 
when we get to the authorization bill on this matter, but I just want 
to say that I want to compliment everyone who has worked on this. For 2 
years, we had to get an effort under way to get this replacement effort 
going.
  Not to understate it, every single plane that flew into Afghanistan 
and into Iraq had to be refueled multiple times. Our whole effort to 
improve our bomber capability with the B-2 and smart weapons and all of 
the aircraft coming off of our carriers, Navy and Marine Corps 
aircraft, all of them had to be refueled multiple times. So you do not 
get anything done without tankers.
  We have planes now, 544 of them, that were built between 1957 and 
1963. These are very old aircraft. We have serious corrosion problems, 
and I am glad that this conference committee was able to come together 
and put together a package and that the administration has said they 
will make it work.
  I believe this is one of the most important things we can do. If you 
think about it, tankers and the EA-6-Bs, which are also old and in 
terrible condition, are two weapons systems that have become absolutely 
fundamental to our U.S. ability to project power around the world. I am 
glad we can get this tanker thing moving forward and that it is in this 
bill.
  I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership on this 
issue.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my deep 
disappointment at the failure to deal with challenges for one-half of 
our patriotic team in the war against terrorism. We have done some good 
things in here for our folks in the Armed Services, but for our 
civilian employees, who are a crucial part of our defense team, we are 
removing protections for overtime pay and other matters, and that is 
just abominable.
  When I went out to greet with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Dicks) the Carl Vinson when she came back from the Afghanistan war, I 
talked to the folks about their incredibly successful safety record of 
thousands of sorties without a loss, and they told me it is in large 
part because of the incredibly adept maintenance done on that ship by 
our civilian employees. This bill is a jab and a mark of disrespect for 
those civilian employees, who are every bit as patriotic as our folks 
in the Armed Services today, and there is no reason for this to have 
happened.
  Now, this is just the first step in this effort. We are going to 
continue to work on this, that this effort of flexibility does not mean 
disrespect for our civilian employees. We are going to stay on it like 
a dog with a bone.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support 
of this rule and the underlying bill which will follow immediately 
thereafter.
  I want to just point out to my colleagues that the concurrent receipt 
victory that is in this bill is significant, it is profound, it is 
historic, and will make a major difference in the lives of our men and 
women who have served ably and honorably in our military, have served 
for 20 years or more, and also have been disabled. It will provide that 
anyone who is service-connected disabled 50 percent or more or combat-
related of any rating will get the full concurrent receipt after a 
phase-in of 10 years.
  Let me point out to my colleagues that this adds about $22 billion in 
benefits over 10 years to veterans compensation. This is not an 
insignificant amount of money.
  After the phase-in period, let me remind my colleagues as well that 
this bill adds about a $3.5 billion every year to service connected 
disabled vets. So the next 10 years we are talking about another $35 
billion more that will go to our disabled veterans. That is in excess 
of $57 billion to our disabled veterans as a result of this 
legislation.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the 
chairman of the committee, for his work, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Bilirakis), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and so many 
others who worked on this to make sure that we get concurrent receipt 
resolved.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would only point out to the previous speaker and to speakers on the 
other side that if the Republicans in the House were willing to forego 
a little bit of the tax cuts for the wealthy, we could fully fund 
concurrent receipts, rather than just partially funding concurrent 
receipts.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of this 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to again thank the chairman and ranking member of this 
committee for the good work they have done in bringing this bill 
forward. It is a good bill at the right time in history to help our men 
and women and to be sure that we are doing all we can in this war on 
terrorism.

[[Page 28171]]

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 437, I call up 
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1588), to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military activities of the 
Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel 
strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
November 6, 2003, Book II.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 437, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank all of my colleagues who 
participated in putting this bill together from the earliest hearing 
that we had early in the year on the threat that America faces, on the 
status of our Armed Forces, and on what we need to do to give the 
President and our troops the tools to get the job done. My partner, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), is every bit a 50-50 partner in 
this operation, Mr. Speaker. When we really get down to what it takes 
to protect our freedom, there are no Republicans or Democrats, and we 
have a very bipartisan committee, and I am proud of that. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as not just a friend, 
but a real full partner in helping to shape America's defenses, along 
with all of the members on the Democrat side on the Committee on Armed 
Services and, of course, our great, great folks on the Republican side, 
along with the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who have done 
such a great job.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we face a new era. This is an era of what I would 
call terrorists with high technology; and probably Jim Woolsey said it 
best when he said we have killed the big dragon, that is, we have 
disassembled the Soviet Union, but there are lots of poisonous snakes 
out there, and we are seeing those poisonous snakes and the effect of 
their bites every day around the world, not just in the theatres in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, but elsewhere. And I think probably the American 
people since 9-11 still have an acute understanding of the venom and 
the poison that is manifest in that capability of our adversaries in 
this new era of terrorists with high technology.
  Our job is to meet that threat, and our job is further, in meeting 
that threat, to shape the U.S. military and our defense apparatus to 
meet the threat, to defeat it, and to equip it; to give it the tools 
that it needs to do its job most effectively, and this bill does that, 
Mr. Speaker.
  I wanted to talk about a number of issues with respect to this bill. 
This is a sweeping bill; and it does a number of reforms, a number of 
changes, a number of things that I think are important to change our 
military as we move into this new era.
  Let me talk about, first just talk about the last subject that came 
up during the rule, and that is the tankers. Because, yes, the tanker 
agreement is in this bill. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about 
that.
  First, anyone who does a security analysis or a briefing on potential 
threats around this world and present threats understands that tankers 
are extremely important. I just might add that I undertook a series of 
classified and unclassified briefings, as have most members of the 
Committee on Armed Services over the last many years, and paramount to 
our ability to project power is American air power.
  Whether we are talking about B-2 bombers that can fly literally from 
Whiteman Air Base to strike a target in Kosovo with precision 
munitions, or talking about tactical aircraft flying off a carrier and 
hitting targets in Afghanistan or Iraq, we need tankers. Tankers, that 
big gas station in the sky that the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) 
talked about, are necessary to project American air power. If we have 
American air power and, specifically, if we have stealth, and we couple 
that stealth with precision munitions, that is, instead of carpet-
bombing a bridge, we send in that one precision munition, it hits one 
strut on that bridge and brings the whole bridge down, if we have that 
combination and we have the legs to get it there over the target in 
whatever remote part of the world we are operating in, we can project 
American power, we can protect our military forces, and we can drive 
them in a blitzkrieg attack against the enemy target, whether it is 
enemy forces surrounding Baghdad or some other area of the world; and 
Americans now understand that.
  So we have to have tankers. If we do scenarios around the world, 
every single scenario requires lots of American tankers and, I might 
say, Mr. Speaker, more than we have now, newer than we have now, more 
capable than we have now. That is the reason we are putting the tanker 
deal together, and that is the reason that this is being carried in 
this bill.
  Now, let me tell my colleagues, with respect to personnel, we have 
had some arm wrestling over this. But I think that the guy with whom we 
are trusting millions of young American lives, the Secretary of 
Defense, can be trusted with reshaping our personnel system in civil 
service in the Department of Defense to be more effective, and I think 
be more rewarding for those workers. I think they like the idea that we 
are going to be able to hire people right out of that job fair instead 
of telling them, in 3 months, maybe the Federal Government can hire 
you, while IBM and the private concerns are picking them up 
immediately. I like the idea that they are going to be able to be 
qualified for a job within a few days instead of after 3 or 4 months of 
bureaucracy, and that will allow them to take jobs that military people 
are doing now. When we have tested these things in places like China 
Lake, a majority of the workers, the workers have voted that they like 
this new system, this new flexible personnel system. This is an 
important new part of shaping the military.
  So I think that is good.
  Freedom to train, Mr. Speaker, we have talked about that. We have to 
give our young people the freedom to train, and once we make that 
agreement that the bird hatchery is going to be over here and the rifle 
range is going to be over here, we cannot let groups then go sue to 
close down the rifle range on the basis that they want to get that one 
too. We have to allow a balance to be maintained. One Marine said it 
best. He said to our members of the Committee on Armed Services, he 
said, for years we have done work-arounds. He said, we cannot work 
around it anymore, there is no land left to work around. So we need to 
have this. This is very, very important legislation, freedom-to-train 
legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  Let me talk about the industrial base. We have got in this bill a 
great foundation for bringing back and maintaining the industrial base 
of this country, and the centerpiece of this is what I think is the 
centerpiece of American production, the machine tool industry of this 
country, which used to be second to none. We have a provision in this 
bill, it is not a mandatory provision, so it is not going to make 
anybody have to go in and take out billions of dollars of machine 
tools, but it says that if you are an American contractor bidding on a 
DOD job, if you use an American machine tool instead of a foreign 
machine tool, you are going to get points in the competition. And I 
think that is going to incentivize some of our companies, big and 
small, to say instead of looking at another foreign-made machine tool, 
let us call up that American company and see what they have. Maybe we 
can use that machine tool. And that is going to, I

[[Page 28172]]

believe, Mr. Speaker, start to bring back this base of machine tools 
upon which a lot of our defense manufacturing capability was founded. 
We do a lot of other great things in our industrial-based provisions, 
Mr. Speaker; but that is the centerpiece, and I think it is a very 
important foundation.
  Now, we also reauthorize for 10 years the maritime security program. 
This is a program that brings in the strong right arm of America's 
maritime unions and makes sure that they are the ones that are moving 
men and materiel across the ocean into theaters of action instead of 
having to rely on rental operations where we are taking unions and 
working people from other countries and having to rely on foreign 
personnel to move the wherewithal for military victories around the 
world. That is what is going to bring our maritime unions, our ship-
builders, and our maritime operators back into preeminence; and we have 
worked hard on that, Mr. Speaker, and that is a great aspect of this 
bill.
  Concurrent receipt is very important, Mr. Speaker. We started out 
last year by saying people who are actually hit in combat, people who 
have won the Purple Heart, are going to get now two checks. They get 
the full check for everything that they have been disabled, for all of 
their disability, and they get the full check for their retirement for 
everything that they have done to serve the U.S. military. We now also 
say, and incidentally, I see the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) 
here, our chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, who very much 
has been a leader in putting this thing together. We also now are going 
to give full concurrent receipt, that is that full disability check, to 
all of those people who are wounded in the combat area or who are 
disabled or hurt in the combat area, who are hurt or disabled while 
training for combat. Maybe that guy who is jumping out at the 82nd 
Airborne, with the 82nd Airborne at Fort Bragg hurt his back, he is 
going to get it; and also people who are hit by instrumentalities of 
combat, like people who are hit by agent orange, Mr. Speaker. Then we 
go to the entire population of veterans who were not hurt in combat, 
were not hit by enemy bullets, were not hurt while training for combat 
but, nonetheless, have disabilities. And all of those people who are 
over 50 percent, Mr. Speaker, are going to receive both checks.
  Now, that is going to bring in about 250,000 people, new people into 
the system. It is a big, big victory for veterans. It is a wonderful 
thing.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say, too, along with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McHugh), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), 
obviously, the guy that I call the father of concurrent receipt, it has 
been a big part of his career. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), lots of great people; 
I might say that Senator Warner also, working on Purple Heart Plus last 
year, had a good hand in starting to put this thing together, lots and 
lots of people. Lots of our veterans and veteran supporters in this 
House have been involved in putting this program together. This is a 
great program.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a great bill. It is a far-reaching bill. It 
gives the President and the troops the tools to get the job done. Let 
us pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the National Defense 
Authorization Act. I will explain the reasons why, but I first want to 
compliment my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). This 
was the gentleman's inaugural voyage as chairman of the Committee on 
Armed Services and the seas were far from smooth. Many of the issues we 
faced were particularly difficult. I applaud the gentleman's leadership 
in recognizing that the totality of the bill is more important, 
especially when our country is at war in Iraq.
  I do want to raise several issues of caution about process, however. 
First, the conference process has not been totally inclusive. Many 
issues, three in particular, civil service reform, concurrent receipt, 
and Air Force tanker leasing have been decided without substantive 
Democratic consultation. Second, there were few conference meetings 
that involved all the conferees or even all the House conferees. 
Finally, it is highly undesirable to consider a conference report on a 
large and highly complex defense bill in just a few hours after the 
conference report has been filed. It is not possible for Members to 
make best judgments about voting on this bill when there has not been 
adequate time after it has been filed.
  The fact that we are considering this bill today, however, reflects 
the commitment of the Committee on Armed Services members that we must 
provide for the men and women of our military when they are sacrificing 
in so many ways to defend our country and our issues. They are 
depending on us. We will not let them down. And we are at war.
  I want to highlight just a few issues that cause me to support this 
bill. The bill includes a 4.1 percent pay raise for the troops. The 
bill provides an increase in imminent-danger pay. It provides for 
family separation allowance, which will directly benefit our servicemen 
and -women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and other dangerous 
spots away from their homes. The conference report further authorizes 
TRICARE coverage in the military health care system for our National 
Guardsmen and for our Reservists who played such a vital role against 
terrorism.

                              {time}  1030

  Finally, very, very important, this bill includes increasing the 
Army's size 2,400 additional soldiers. That is so terribly important 
because the troops are so strained at this time, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. McHugh) knows that so well as chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  We need the pay raise. We need the special pay to compensate and help 
retain those who have those special skills. Our bases need the military 
construction and family housing authorizations. We need to authorize 
the money for military operations, for flying hours and steaming days 
and tank miles, to allow our troops to be the best trained and prepared 
in the world.
  I want to mention concurrent receipt. Overwhelming majorities of both 
Houses clearly support providing this benefit to all disabled retirees. 
Nevertheless, the conference agreement, which would provide this 
benefit to those at least 50 percent disabled, is a significant step in 
the right direction. There will, however, be a motion to recommit 
regarding this issue, and I hope people will support it.
  I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we were able to reach agreements on 
many difficult issues, but I know many of my colleagues will not be 
happy with some of the substantive outcomes. The conference agreements 
concerning low yield nuclear weapons, civil service reform, and 
changing environmental laws are particularly problematic, and I point 
those out.
  Now, perhaps more than any time in the last decade, however, Mr. 
Speaker, it is essential that the House take action to provide for our 
men and women in uniform. This vote will not only be seen in Kabul or 
Baghdad but also Diego Garcia, Fort Irwin, Norfolk, Fort Leonard Wood, 
Whiteman Air Force Base. We need to send a message to the American 
public, and to our adversaries and allies, that we as a Congress are 
prepared to give our men and women in uniform the support, the strong 
support and protection that they deserve.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Unconventional Warfare, Terrorism and Capabilities and oversees these 
very important special operations forces who are doing such a great job 
for our country.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking and commending the 
chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),

[[Page 28173]]

and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for 
the great bipartisan job that has occurred in bringing this bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1588 and do so with a 
great deal of pride after a lengthy but productive conference. The 
conferees have hammered out an excellent bill that will go a long way 
in enhancing our national security and providing our troops and their 
families with the assets they need.
  I have the honor of chairing, as the chairman said, the new 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities on 
the Committee on Armed Services. As many in this body know, I have 
worked for many years to stand up such a subcommittee, and with good 
reason, for there is much that is left to be done.
  The subcommittee's ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan), and I have worked hard together to explore a multitude of 
ways to provide the Department of Defense with the capabilities to 
defeat and defend against terrorists at home as well as abroad, and 
many of these ideas are contained in the conference report before you.
  For example, the conference report includes many provisions that will 
prepare our Armed Forces and, in particular, the Special Operations 
Command, to combat terrorism worldwide as well as several items that 
will enhance homeland defense. In addition, the conference report 
establishes several programs addressing issues that arose in the recent 
war with Iraq and items that will speed the transformation of the 
military services.
  It is critically important that all Members vote for this measure. 
There is much to applaud in many areas. I am proud to be a conferee and 
proud of the work that the chairman, and my good friend, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter), as I said before, and the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) did in this regard. They have set a standard for 
us, and this is a bill which must be passed, hopefully with a very good 
vote.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to myself.
  Mr. Speaker, last night, yesterday in Iraq 7 brave young Americans 
died. This is the committee that makes the decisions to arm those 
people, to pay those people, take care of their families, and to take 
care of their injuries when they get home. And, so, as earlier this 
year I voted to send those young people to Iraq, I share in the 
responsibility and for those things that go wrong I share in the blame.
  Having said that, although I have grave reservations about parts of 
this bill, I will be supporting it because they deserve to be paid, 
they deserve a pay increase, they deserve the better weapons, the 
better ships that are in this bill. But there are a couple of things 
that trouble me greatly.
  Number one is the Bush administration's insistence on another round 
of base closures. Anyone in this body knows, who has taken the time to 
look at it, knows the United States Army is too small, that the entire 
United States Army is spoken for. If they are not deployed, they are 
getting ready to be deployed. So how on earth can we close one base out 
of four as the Bush administration wants to do?
  The fleet is too small, 295 ships. Again, how can we close one Navy 
port out of four if the fleet is too small?
  If the Bush administration truly thinks the base closures is a good 
idea, then they ought to have the courage to announce which bases they 
want to close prior to the Presidential election and not after in 2005. 
I think it just stands to reason. You do not hear Congressmen saying 
let us close bases. I cannot find one Service Secretary who is saying 
let us close bases. I cannot find one Admiral or General who will name 
one base that should be closed.
  So if the Bush administration wants to close bases, let them do it 
prior to the Presidential election.
  Second thing is, Mr. President, for the sake of those people 
fighting, let us pay for this war. This supplemental, and I am going to 
vote for it, is going to spend $400 billion for our Nation's defense.
  A couple weeks ago we had a supplemental for $87 billion, earlier in 
the year another supplemental for $79 billion. That adds up to about 
$565 billion. Every penny of that is borrowed. It is borrowed from the 
Social Security Trust Fund. It is borrowed from the Medicare Trust 
Fund. It is borrowed from the military retirees trust fund. It is 
borrowed from the civil servicemen's retirement trust fund. It is 
borrowed from the communist Chinese, and it is borrowed from average 
Americans.
  See, those of us who were lucky enough not to have to fight this war 
ought to at least be willing to pay for it and not stick the brave 
young men and women who will be coming home from this deployment with 
the bill. Every other generation of Americans tried to pay their own 
bills during wartime. This generation of Americans passes the buck to 
somebody else, and it is wrong.
  So for the sake of the great young men and women who are serving our 
country in the Army and the Navy, the Air Force, Marines, those great 
Guardsmen and Reservists who are being pulled away from their families 
to serve as we speak, and a young person from Mississippi who was a 
Guardsman died just yesterday, I am going to vote for this bill. But I 
would ask my colleagues to let us do this in the future in a more 
sensible way.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. McHugh), who has a high responsibility of overseeing the 
total force of the military, our Reserves, our Active, our Guard, with 
respect to all the personnel issues, pay, personnel issues, family 
benefits, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force.
  Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), for his gracious comments and for his 
courageous leadership, certainly on this bill, but also day in and day 
out.
  I think it is obvious there are a couple lessons we can learn from 
this bill. One is an old lesson, and that is happily this is one of, if 
not the most, bipartisan committees to operate in Congress, and that is 
so critical in times such as these. We have heard the gracious comments 
and enlightened comments of the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton), someone who I respect so much. I want to thank 
my ranking member, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), for his 
partnership in our portion on this mark, and all of the members of the 
committee on both sides of the aisle. But I give a special tip of the 
hat to our chairman who, in a very difficult time was experiencing 
personal loss, the loss of his private home during the California 
fires, still kept a focus on this vital piece of legislation.
  The second lesson is that important as all the military is, the 
troops are key. And you have heard my colleagues comment about the 
positive things in this bill, active industry, the increases for the 
Army in difficult times, similar end strength increases for the Guard 
and Reserve, for those good citizen soldiers the military pay raise 
average 4.1 percent, the imminent danger and family separation 
allowances at these difficult times. But I want to focus on concurrent 
receipt.
  The third lesson of this bill is we always want to do better, but I 
would note to my colleagues who have concerns that this is a program 
that has been in place since the Civil War era. And until all of this 
work together over the last several years, there had never been a 
change in it.
  With this bill today we will have started at 35,000 troops, veterans 
who are receiving full concurrent receipt, and we will have expanded 
that to over a quarter of a million. And that is progress, $22 billion. 
So we will continue to fight to do better, but this is amazing progress 
for more than 160 years when nothing had been done, and I urge all my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on 
H.R. 1588, a wartime bill that directly addresses committee concerns 
about the inadequacy of military manpower and the damaging effects of 
excessive operations and personnel tempos.

[[Page 28174]]

  H.R. 1588 also reflects the House Armed Services Committee's belief 
in the need to be proactive in military personnel policy and pay 
matters so as to sustain the commitment and professionalism of the men 
and women of America's magnificent all-voluntary armed services, and 
the families that support them.
  Finally, H.R. 1588 contains legislative and funding initiatives to 
enhance the ability of the active, National Guard and reserves to 
operate as an integrated total force.
  Among the more important provisions of H.R. 1588 are:
  Active end strength increases of 2,400 for the Army, with an 
additional $68 million to support the increases;
  Growth in selected reserve and fulltime National Guard and reserve 
strengths;
  Military pay raises that average 4.1 percent;
  Continuation of increases in imminent danger pay and family 
separation allowances.
  A significant expansion of concurrent receipt that will when 
implemented wean that benefit more than 250,000 military retirees.
  Commissaries and exchange provisions to better define and protect 
those important benefits.
  DOD health care improvements, to include expanded health care 
coverage of the National Guard and reserves, and
  Expanded and expedited naturalization procedures for active and 
reserve component personnel.
  None of these great outcomes is achieved in a vacuum. The conference 
report before you is a bi-partisan measure, reflecting the active input 
and involvement of committee members, as well as the leadership and 
judgment of Chairman Duncan Hunter and Representative Ike Skelton, the 
committee's ranking Democrat.
  H.R. 1588 is a very good bill that addresses a range of needs of our 
wartime military. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Snyder.)
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Total Force I rise in support of this conference report. I would like 
to take this opportunity to thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Total Force, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his 
leadership and also to thank the committee chairman, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Hunter), and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skeleton), for their many years and efforts that has 
resulted once again in a conference agreement coming to the floor.
  This bill continues several years of improvements to quality of life 
programs for our military personnel, retirees, and their families. We 
provided a targeted pay raise of up to 3.7 percent and additional 
targeted pay increases for mid-career and senior enlisted personnel.
  We fixed a problem for our reservists who were called up after 
September 11 and were forced to pay their lodging expenses when they 
went home on leave. We extended the increase in imminent danger pay to 
$225 and family separation allowance to $250 until the end of next 
year. Our service members are still in conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and face months of separation from their loved ones. These increases 
are necessary and deserved.
  We increased access to TRICARE benefits for reservists and their 
families. We expanded commissary access to selected reservists and 
Reserve retirees under 60.
  We allow individuals who volunteer to defend our Nation but are not 
U.S. citizens to become naturalized after 1 year of service. We also 
allow their families to become naturalized if a service member is 
killed in action.
  I am disappointed that the committee was not able to include full 
concurrent receipt. Approximately 60 percent of Arkansas disabled 
veterans who are currently penalized by current law will not be helped 
by this compromise. We should do better.
  While I am supporting of this bill, the process that brought us here 
is not good. The bipartisanship for which our committee has been known 
is slowly vanishing. The responsibility to provide for our Nation's 
defense and security is an area in which partisanship should be 
minimized, particularly at a time of war.
  Sadly, it is becoming clear that this partisanship is becoming the 
norm in the way we conduct business. Both Democrats and Republicans 
have a duty and obligation to protect our citizens and the freedom 
Americans enjoy.
  We need to work together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that our 
rights and freedoms are preserved for future generations.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman of the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. Chairman, the conference report on H.R. 1588, the Fiscal Year 
2004 Defense Authorization Act, contains a provision, section 135, 
which authorizes the Air Force to enter into a contract for 100 tanker 
aircraft under the terms and conditions of section 8159 of the Fiscal 
Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct. Section 135 of the 
conference report does authorize a tanker acquisition program as did 
the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, it is my further understanding that section 
135 was written after extensive negotiation with the Department of 
Defense and the administration and that that section represents a 
common understanding between the conferees and the administration on 
the terms under which this tanker program will be executed.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is again correct. Section 131 codifies an 
agreement reached with the administration. The conferees relied upon a 
letter sent on November 5, 2003, to the chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on Armed Services in the other body by the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz, in coming to agreement on the 
tanker acquisition program authorized by section 135.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, it is further my understanding that section 
135 of the conference report will authorize the Air Force to enter into 
a single contract to acquire 100 767 tanker aircraft through a 
combination of lease and purchase.
  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is correct. Section 135 authorizes the Air 
Force to enter into one contract for 100 aircraft, 20 by lease and 80 
by purchase, or more than one contract for the same combination of 
aircraft.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Finally, it is my understanding that section 135 of the 
conference report authorizes the Air Force to enter into a multi-year 
contract for the purchase of 767 tanker aircraft, and that payment 
under this contract may be made at the time of aircraft delivery, a 
process sometimes referred to as incremental funding.
  Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) is correct. The 
conferees in their joint report language agree that this section would 
``authorize the Secretary to enter into a multi-year procurement 
program, using incremental funding.'' This language indicates that the 
multi-year procurement program authorized by section 135 would allow 
the Air Force to make payments as agreed to in the contract and that 
the Air Force would not be required to have the full budget authority 
required to purchase an aircraft in order to place an order for that 
aircraft under the contract.
  Mr. DICKS. We thank the chairman for his hard work on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, the letter sent to the Committee on Armed Services by 
Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz is as follows:

                                  Deputy Secretary of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, Nov. 5, 2003.
     The Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you again for your consideration 
     of the Department of Defense's proposal to lease 100 KC-767A 
     aircraft. As you know, there has been a vigorous debate on 
     the best way to get this program started. Your most recent 
     amendment

[[Page 28175]]

     would allow the Air Force to lease no more than 20 of the 100 
     tankers. The Air Force has developed a proposal to implement 
     that arrangement, and I hope that you will find it 
     acceptable.
       Our proposal strikes a necessary balance between the 
     critical need for new air-refueling tankers and the 
     constraints on our budget. As reflected in the enclosed 
     chart, we intend to lease the initial 20 aircraft and then 
     buy aircraft at a steady rate of 11 to 13 aircraft per year 
     until delivery of the 100th. We commit to add $2.4B, in 
     Fiscal Years (FYs) 2008 through 2010, to the funding profile 
     for the original proposal to lease 100 aircraft. We also will 
     add $1.4B in FY 2012 to 2013. The combination of these added 
     funds achieves an immediate start to the program and allows 
     us to purchase the last 80 aircraft at time of delivery.
       I appreciate the support that you have provided in the past 
     and look forward to working with you in the future. If you 
     require further information, please do not hesitate to 
     contact me. A similar letter has been sent to the chairmen 
     and ranking minority members of each of the defense 
     committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Paul Wolfowitz.

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most time-honored traditions of 
America's servicemen and women is to keep their promise to leave no 
troops behind on the battlefield. This revered tradition is based on 
the principle that it would be wrong to leave those behind who have 
served in sacrifice for their country. Our Nation should honor this 
tradition, this principle of respect when it comes to the treatment of 
veterans. No veterans should be left behind when it comes to providing 
them the benefits they have earned.
  Unfortunately, the Republican compromise on the disabled veterans tax 
known as concurrent receipt leaves over 397,000 veterans behind, 
397,000 veterans, most of whom have served our Nation in uniform 20 to 
30 years. They would not benefit whatsoever from this so-called 
compromise that represents a lot of broken promises and a lot of 
patriotic veterans left behind.
  Many of the military retirees who might be benefitted from this 
compromise will never see its benefits because it is phased in over 10 
years. How many World War II veterans will even be alive 10 years from 
now?
  When Republicans passed a $230,000 tax break just earlier this year 
for wealthy Americans making over $1 million a year in dividend income, 
those massive tax benefits were made effective this year. Why then are 
veterans forced to wait 10 years to see a limited reduction in the 
disabled veterans tax? Where is the fairness in that?
  One hundred sixty Republicans in this House have co-sponsored the 
Bilirakis bill to fully repeal the disabled veterans tax. 
Unfortunately, only two of those 160 Republicans have signed the 
discharge petition to require a vote on that bill.
  Well, today there is a second chance to do what is right for 
veterans. By voting yes on the motion to recommit we can repeal the 
disabled veterans tax. If just a few of the 160 will join with 
Democrats, we can repeal the disabled veterans tax and we can do it 
fully and we can do it today. We can keep the promise we made to 
veterans when we co-sponsored the Bilirakis bill.
  Keeping promises and leaving no troops behind, those are 
quintessential American values. On the eve of Veterans Day, let us 
apply those American values to the treatment of our veterans. Our 
promise to veterans should be more important than Republican Party 
loyalty. Vote yes on the motion to recommit. Vote yes to keep our 
promises to America's veterans.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Projection 
Forces.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Projection Forces, I am pleased to highlight the issues 
within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee.
  This conference report increases the requested authorization for 
programs within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Projection 
Forces by $1.3 billion to $30 billion dollars. Authorization is 
included for the administration's request of one Virginia class 
submarine, 3 DDG-51 destroyers, one LPD-17 amphibious assault ship, and 
two cargo and ammunition ships.
  Additional authorizations of $75 million for advance procurement of 
LPD-17 and $248 million for SSN refueling overhaul are also included. 
Our conference report addresses 100 aircraft KC-767 Air Force proposed 
lease program by restricting the lease portion of the program to 20 
aircraft, requiring the Air Force budget to procure the remaining 80 
aircraft. This approach will save the taxpayer at least $2 billion over 
the originally-proposed program.
  We have also taken several initiatives to begin to address shortfalls 
in important requirements of the Department of Defense. An additional 
$20 million to sustain a force structure of 83 B-1's, 23 aircraft above 
the level planned; and an additional $208 million for Tomahawk 
missiles, an additional $40 million for the Affordable Weapon, an 
additional $100 million bomber R&D initiative for the next generation, 
follow-on stealth, deep strike bomber.
  In addition, the recommended mark includes several important 
legislative proposals. First, a multi-year procurement authorization 
for several programs. Second, a limitation on C-5A aircraft 
requirement. Third, an electromagnetic gun initiative. Fourth, a 
requirement that the Secretary of Defense complete two independent 
studies on potential future fleet architectures for the Navy.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. 
I would like to thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) for 
all his support in completing in conference report. I would also like 
to thank our chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and 
our ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for 
their leadership, commitment and steadfastness in completing this 
process.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the 
Committee on Armed Services for yielding me time and for his great 
services to our country throughout his whole life which continues here 
in Congress. As a veteran himself, his service on the Committee on 
Armed Services is very informed and we thank him and recognize his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the commitment of our Nation's 
veterans. We will have a motion to recommit, as has been indicated, and 
it is to support our veterans.
  No group of Americans has stood stronger and braver for our Nation 
than our troops and our veterans. From the bitter cold winter at Valley 
Forge to the boiling hot Iraqi terrain, our soldiers have courageously 
answered when called, gone where ordered, and defended our Nation with 
honor.
  As a Nation we have a sacred pact with those who have served us in 
uniform. They have taken care of us and, in turn, we will always take 
care of them. That is our solemn pledge.
  Today, just before Veterans Day, we stand on the floor of the House 
of Representatives prepared to vote on the Department of Defense 
authorization conference report. And on this day we have young men and 
women, the sons and daughters of America on the ground, engaged in war 
in Iraq. We salute them for their courage, their patriotism and the 
sacrifice they are willing to make for our country. But this bill in 
many respects does not honor their service.
  Democrats are fighting to live up to our promise to our veterans by 
ending the unfair practice of the disabled veterans tax. The gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Marshall) will be offering the motion to recommit to 
this effect. He is leading our fight for a complete and total repeal of 
the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. We have made this 
long-standing issue too hot to handle for the Republicans and they have 
offered a proposal in today's conference report in response. Their 
proposal is a step, but it is not nearly good enough.
  The Republicans have put forth a proposal that leaves far too many 
veterans behind. Under their Republican

[[Page 28176]]

proposal, two-thirds of our veterans, two-third of our veterans still 
will not receive one penny of compensation for their disabilities.
  The Republican deal will address the tax for some veterans but not 
for others. For the select few it does address, the tax may not fully 
end for them for 10 years. Many of these are veterans of World War II. 
Ten years is a long time to wait in any event, but especially if you 
are a World War II vet. That is not good enough.
  America's veterans deserve better. On the battlefield of war our 
soldiers pledge to leave no one behind. As a Nation, it must be our 
pledge that after our soldiers come home we will leave no veteran 
behind. Our veterans served for all of us. We must be there for all of 
them.
  In June, Democrats launched a discharge petition to give Members a 
chance to vote to end completely the disabled veterans tax for all 
military retirees. Two hundred and three Members, 201 Democrats, only 2 
Republicans, signed the discharge petition, despite the fact that 160 
Republicans have co-sponsored the legislation. So we know that our 
Republican colleagues believe that this is the right course of action. 
Democrats are giving you a way to honor our own commitment. The right 
thing to do was obvious then when this discharge petition was signed to 
completely end the disabled veterans tax.
  The right thing to do today, just before Veterans Day, is also 
obvious. Vote to recommit this bill with instructions to strip out the 
failed Republican language on disabled veterans tax and add the 
Democratic language to completely and totally end the disabled veterans 
tax. Indeed, this language is the language of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a distinguished member of the Republican 
Caucus.
  The current language again leaves two-thirds of our vets behind. The 
Democratic motion to recommit leaves no veteran behind. We have a moral 
obligation to those who have paid the high price for our freedom, those 
who have worn our Nation's uniform. Our words must be as bold as their 
deeds, and we must honor what they have done for our country.
  So let us give a great gift to our veterans on this Veterans Day. I 
urge my colleagues to honor our veterans service and vote yes when the 
opportunity comes for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Let me just respond just a second to the gentlewoman who just spoke.
  The Democrats controlled this House for 40 years, and I went to Sonny 
Montgomery, who was chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and 
I asked him years ago, why do we not do something about this concurrent 
receipt thing? And he said, we are not doing anything about that 
concurrent receipt and we are never doing anything about that 
concurrent receipt.
  They had a Democrat President. They had a Democrat Senate. They had a 
Democrat House. They could have done something about it, but they did 
not, and now we get this phony posturing after a deal has been worked 
out to really try to deal with the problem. I think that is a cheap 
shot, Mr. Chairman. But that is not why I rise today.
  I rise to support H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2004. We are a Nation engaged in an ongoing global war 
on terrorism. American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are 
deployed all over the world in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 
and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The bill supports all of our service 
members who are fighting terrorism and defending our homeland.
  H.R. 1588 strikes a careful balance between ensuring that our 
military is able to train in a realistic manner while remaining good 
stewards of the environment. The bill amends the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act so that it can be read and implemented in a common sense 
fashion. The Navy, for example, will now be able use new sonar 
technology vital to the protection of U.S. ships, submarines and global 
interests, without harming marine mammals.
  The bill also changes the Endangered Species Act to ensure that 
military training lands are used for their primary purpose, to train 
America's troops in realistic environments. These changes will protect 
the environment and also enhance the readiness of our military 
personnel.
  H.R. 1588 also recognizes that the military services will face 
significant challenges as personnel and equipment return home from war. 
The level of effort necessary to resurge this equipment at our 
maintenance depots will be extraordinary. This conference report 
recognizes these consequences and includes additional funding for key 
readiness accounts.
  The bill includes $9.7 billion for military construction and family 
housing projects around the world. This is an increase in the 
President's budget of more than $420 million, with additional funds 
targeted at projects to improve the facilities in which America's 
service members live, work, train and operate. Such projects are 
extraordinarily important to the quality of life for our military 
personnel and their families, as well as U.S. military readiness.
  The National Security Personnel System established in this bill will 
provide the Secretary of Defense flexibility to hire, fire and promote 
a more agile workforce; the authority to tie pay to performance; 
increased ability to classify positions and to administer pay and 
allowances; and a better basis on which to establish a labor relations 
system.

                              {time}  1100

  The new personnel system will also ensure that employee 
representatives are included in the planning, development, and 
implementing of new human resources management systems. There also will 
be a separate process to ensure that employee representatives 
participate in the development and implementation of a new management 
relations system.
  There are some things that did not get in this that we were beat back 
on in the Senate. I think the BRAC provisions were one that I wish were 
changed. I think the firefighting provisions were very important to be 
changed; but, in balance, H.R. 1588 will make real improvements in U.S. 
military readiness and ensure the continued strength of U.S. Armed 
Forces for years to come, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, with a defense budget of $400 billion and an 
enormous range of issues, it is not easy to bring a conference to 
closure, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), as 
well as the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for what they have 
achieved.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1588, the conference report thereon, but I 
have some real concerns. First of all, I have already spoken to the 
failure of the underlying bill to accrue properly the budget authority 
that will be necessary to implement the compromise on concurrent 
receipt or the provisions for lease purchase of 100 tankers. I am 
concerned about the radical reform of civil service laws in the 
Department of Defense and the dispensation this bill gives to the 
Department of Defense from environmental laws that apply to everybody 
else. Also, I am concerned about the new and cumbersome strictures on 
cooperative threat reduction.
  I am particularly disappointed in the provisions of this report that 
deal with low-level nuclear weapons. I believe the conferees should 
have stuck with the bipartisan compromise reached by the Committee on 
Armed Services and set forth in the defense bill that we passed last 
May. That compromise was sound enough that in July of this year when I 
offered a motion to instruct, those provisions were accepted and upheld 
by the House without dissent.
  The administration began this year by stepping up its push for repeal 
on a ban of low-level nuclear weapons research and development, a ban 
which has been in the law for 10 years. There was little opposition 
here to broadening research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but there 
was bipartisan concern about going so far as engineering

[[Page 28177]]

development. And so both the House and Senate authorization bills 
proposed changes to allow research into low-yield nuclear weapons, but 
restricted any move into engineering development.
  The Senate, on the other hand, repealed the so-called Spratt-Furse 
amendment entirely, but then backfilled the cavity with caveats barring 
testing or deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons. They also added 
language requiring specific congressional authorization to move into 
development of any advanced nuclear concept project. These are the 
provisions included in the conference report.
  By contrast, the House version amended existing law rather than 
repealing it. We explicitly authorized research, but we maintained a 
bar on development beyond detailed feasibility studies, the so-called 
6.2a level of research and development.
  Our compromise may have similar in consequences to the Senate 
approach, but I think it was superior in form because it makes clear 
that it is the policy of the United States not to develop low-yield 
tactical nuclear weapons. The House compromise, thus, gives stronger 
assurance that Congress will be an equal partner if that policy is 
reversed, if that decision is taken, and if there is a move to go 
beyond research.
  When we adopted the Spratt-Furse amendment in the early 1990s, it 
came in the wake of an issue taken by the first President Bush whereby 
we withdrew a number of tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and the 
Soviets responded in kind. This was a step back and a step forward for 
nuclear security throughout the world. This initiative helped us later 
on to persuade Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus to forswear nuclear 
weapons.
  If today the United States should move toward renewed development of 
nuclear weapons, especially weapons designed to be more usable due to 
their low-yield warheads, it sends the wrong signal.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report because it does many 
things I support, particularly for the quality of life for our troops, 
and also because I trust that the effect of the language in the report 
will be enough to forestall development of mini-nukes. I recommend 
support for the bill.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), who is chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this legislation has a number 
of component parts, concurrent receipt. It has a $500 million human 
capital performance fund that will reward civil servants for 
outstanding performance, something we have never had before. It has a 
services acquisition reform act element that will reform the way we buy 
and purchase services which can save literally billions of dollars for 
America's taxpayers, and it has a national security personnel system 
that we have created that will allow the Department of Defense to shed 
the shackles of its 50-year-old civil service structure, because when 
it comes to our civil service, the tradition of preserving traditions 
has become a tradition. It is time for that to change.
  Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come up 
with some statements on this that I think are off the mark. They have 
noted that this bill makes a mockery of labor-management relations. 
This conference report includes chapter 71, the labor-management 
relations in the list of nonwaivable chapters in title V of the U.S. 
Code. The agreement sets up an extensive collaborative process that 
requires the Department to work side by side with the unions and 
employee groups in setting up the human resources management system for 
the Department of Defense. The agreement sets up an extensive 
collaborative process that requires the Department to work side by side 
with the unions in setting up the process in which management and labor 
work together in the future.
  The second and third requirements are new to Federal law. No other 
agencies are required to coordinate with their employees, a good 
precedent.
  Another gentleman said that the bill eliminates overtime pay for 
civilian employees. That is absolutely false. Overtime pay is not 
eliminated. The agreement, in addition to having $500 million in a 
human capital performance fund for civil servants who perform in an 
outstanding fashion, the agreement provides the Department the 
authority to improve the current provisions in law relating to overtime 
pay for some of the Department's most valuable employees. It asks for 
this language not to scrap overtime pay; instead, they are asking for 
authority not to be bound by the voluminous restrictions and 
requirements in title V that dictate how, when, and where DOD is 
authorized to administer overtime pay. This will allow the Department 
of Defense to move into the modern age.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004. I want to 
thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for their hard work on 
this bill. I must, however, express my deep reservations with regards 
to what I see as the inadequacy of the concurrent receipt provision. 
This Congress is expanding concurrent receipt to only 30 percent of 
disabled retirees. Where is our commitment to all of our veterans? 
Congress must not forget those veteran retirees who will still be 
denied their hard-earned retirement pay. All veteran retirees give at 
least 20 years of service to this country. They have stood ready to 
serve in times of war and times of peace. This country owes them more 
than a tax on the disability compensation.
  I fear the partial phase-in of concurrent receipt will create two 
classes of veterans: those who will continue to suffer under the 
disabled veterans tax and those who will be deemed disabled enough to 
receive their compensation. Their sacrifice and service was equal. 
Congress should treat them with the same equity with which they served. 
Whether being drafted into service or volunteering, every disabled 
veteran was prepared to give their last full measure. Each was prepared 
to demonstrate the ultimate commitment; yet Congress cannot even muster 
for them half a loaf.
  Mr. Speaker, as we head home to observe Veterans' Day, this is no way 
to honor our veterans. To divide veterans into the haves and have-nots 
is not befitting the sacrifices they made. They gave our country 100 
percent, whether in times of war or peace; and they deserve 100 percent 
of what they earned.
  In closing, I will be supporting H.R. 1588, but also will be 
supporting the Marshall motion to recommit to expand concurrent receipt 
to all of our disabled veterans.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett).
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is very 
important that for the first time in well over 40 years we do something 
about concurrent receipt.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference agreement on 
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
  This is a solid bill that broadly serves our national security 
interests and addresses the needs of our armed forces as we continue 
the fight against terrorism. I will get to some of its strengths in a 
minute. But first I want to thank you Chairman Hunter and Ranking 
Member Skelton for the leadership you have provided in putting this 
bill together. And I particularly want to recognize the ranking member 
of the Strategic Forces subcommittee, Mr. Reyes, for his efforts on 
this bill. Together we have tackled some very tough issues.
  The first long range missiles and nuclear weapons were developed 
almost 60 years ago. Yet today, we have no means to defend the 
territory of the United States against even a single long range 
missile, and have only recently begun to deploy defenses against 
theater range missile threats. In December of last year, the President 
announced his intention to enhance the capabilities of our Pacific 
missile defense test bed to field a modest, initial defensive 
operational capability to defend the territory of the United States by 
the end of fiscal year 2004. The President requested $9.1

[[Page 28178]]

billion to support that--and other--missile defense efforts.
  I am pleased to report that this bill fully funds the request, 
providing the resources required to meet this great and historic 
challenge. The conferees have also agreed to shift funds from longer 
term, less mature efforts in order to accelerate nearer term fielding 
of systems like Patriot that are designed to protect our troops 
deployed worldwide who face increasing threats from theater range 
ballistic missile threat.
  Some of the most difficult issues we addressed in this bill involve 
nuclear weapons. Since the end of the cold war, we no longer face a 
monolithic threat. The new national security environment in which we 
find ourselves requires that we adopt a more flexible and adaptive 
approach to planning for our strategic deterrent. It further requires 
that we examine the weapons in our aging stockpile to determine if they 
continue to meet the Nation's needs for a credible and robust 
deterrent. Provisions of this bill would allow our scientists and 
engineers the freedom to explore the full range of options for 
defeating existing and emerging threats. At the same time, the bill 
includes ``checks'' that reserve for Congress the authority to approve 
the development of certain classes of new nuclear weapons.
  The bill would also authorize the budget request of $6.4 billion for 
the weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration. 
The United States has observed a moratorium on nuclear testing for over 
a decade, and NNSA programs continue to maintain the safety, 
reliability and performance of the nuclear stockpile in the absence of 
testing.
  However, recognizing that circumstances may require a return to 
testing at some point in the future, and that the current test 
readiness posture of almost 3 years does not provide a real option for 
any President, the conferees have included a provision that would 
require the Secretary of Energy to achieve and maintain a readiness 
posture of not more that 18 months.
  The conference agreement provides strong support for the military 
space and intelligence activities that have proven so effective in 
Afghanistan, and more recently Iraq. Notably, the bill would promote 
development of the U.S. commercial space-based imagery industrial base, 
enhance space-based communications to support the warfighter, and 
robustly fund development of unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, 
surveillance and reconnaissance.
  Mr. Speaker, the men and women of our armed forces are doing their 
part everyday in places far from home. Let us do our part, and pass 
this bill.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
conference report on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2004. This critically important legislation provides 
our brave men and women in uniform the tools they need to accomplish 
their missions, but it also contains many provisions to improve their 
quality of life.
  This bill increases the combat capabilities of our Armed Forces with 
appropriate levels of spending for readiness, procurement, research and 
development. It funds programs such as the M1 Abrams tank and Bradley 
fighting vehicles that are used in current conflicts, and transforms 
our military to meet the threats of tomorrow with futuristic systems 
like the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor. The bill provides funding to make 
our homeland safe by combating terrorism at home and abroad and 
continuing to develop a ballistic missile defense system.
  Most important in this legislation, however, are the provisions aimed 
to benefit our current and past servicemembers. H.R. 1588 provides a 
4.1 percent pay raise, and it increases imminent-danger pay. It also 
funds important military family housing, education and military 
facilities. H.R. 1588 directs improvements to the TRICARE system and 
survivor benefit, and it contains many other provisions for members of 
the National Guard and the Reserves.
  I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Total Force, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), for his tremendous dedication to 
these quality-of-life issues.
  This bill also recognizes the inherent unfairness that disabled 
military retirees have their retirement benefits offset by the amount 
of their disability benefits by providing concurrent receipt for more 
veterans than have ever been covered before.
  Finally, I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), for not 
only their leadership of our committee but also for their work in 
shepherding this bill through the legislative process. They recognize 
that we owe all of our freedom and safety to our brave men and women in 
uniform and that Congress can help them in a major way with the passage 
of this bill. They also know how important this bill is to my district 
and Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, the home of the infantry where 
37,000 active duty troops go to work every day.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1588.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
conference report, and I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) for yielding me this time.
  I am happy to see we are finally making some progress on eliminating 
the unfair disabled veterans tax, but it is not enough. We must keep 
working to ensure that no disabled veteran has to give up their 
hardearned military retirement pay just because they earn disability 
compensation.
  Under the Republican plan, veterans who are more than 50 percent 
disabled will begin to receive a benefit that will be phased in over 
the next 10 years; but this still leaves two-thirds of disabled 
veterans behind. In Oregon, 5,500 disabled veterans are currently 
penalized by this sick tax. Under this compromise, 2,000 veterans will 
receive some sort of relief at some point over the next 10 years, but 
the remaining 3,500 retired disabled veterans in Oregon who are 
currently penalized by this sick tax will receive no benefit under this 
Republican compromise.
  While I am pleased we were able to take this first step, we cannot 
stop until all of our Nation's military retirees who are disabled as a 
result of service to this country are able to receive the compensation 
they have earned and deserve. This is a promise we must keep.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us is one I will 
support. It will provide adequate pay, housing and training for the men 
and women serving our country on active duty and in the Guard and 
Reserves. It funds important modernization priorities that will ensure 
that the weapons systems with which we equip our troops are the most 
advanced and capable in the world for years to come.

                              {time}  1115

  However, the report is not perfect. I am disappointed by the way in 
which the conference report treats civilian employees of the Department 
of Defense. Simply stated, the report will strip more than a third of 
our Federal civilian employees, over 700,000 hardworking men and women, 
of their most basic worker protections and rights.
  I am sorry the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) left the 
floor. He indicates 71 and some of the other articles that protect 
Federal employees will not be waived. That is technically true, but the 
bill allows them to be suspended for the next 10 years. So although 
they technically cannot be waived, they will not be in effect at the 
decision of the Secretary.
  Let me be clear. I am not opposed to thoughtful reform of our civil 
service system. However, the report goes too far. It will undo decades 
of some of the most important worker protections enacted by Congress 
and supported for decades by Republican and Democratic Presidents 
alike.
  Notwithstanding these concerns, Mr. Speaker, I will support this 
important agreement. I expect it to pass by a wide margin with broad 
support from both House Democrats and Republicans who stand squarely 
behind our troops and in favor of protecting our national security.

[[Page 28179]]


  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic motion to 
recommit is among the most cynical and political motions I have seen in 
my 23 years in Congress. And I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is a cheap 
shot, cynically designed and crafted to politicize disabled veterans 
and to mock the historic benefits increase contained in this bill, $22 
billion in the first 10 years and at least $57 billion over the next 20 
years for disabled veterans. For example, a 100 percent service-
connected disabled veterans over the next 10 years may see an increase 
of approximately $167,000. That is brand new money. They do not have it 
now. Under this bill these deserving men and women will get it. The 
same goes for those whose wounds are combat related or rated 50% or 
above by the VA.
  For the last 100 years, as we know, the unfairness of concurrent 
receipt has been with us. For most of those years, the Democrats had a 
hammer lock on the House and Senate and did nothing. In the early 90's 
the Democrats had it all. Bill Clinton was in the White House for 8 
long years. Yet nothing was done on the Bilirakis bill. Nothing was 
done to reform concurrent receipt. Even this year, it wasn't in the 
Democratic budget. We tried to make this a bipartisan effort--today's 
motion is pure politics.
  I am sickened by this kind of posturing. I know the game you are 
playing. This is all about the next election. Our bill is a victory for 
veterans. This will make a significant addition to the benefits 
received by our disabled veterans. I hope Members will vote for it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for former Members of Congress because I 
am a freshman this year, but had I been a Member of Congress in the 
past, I definitely would be fighting strongly for the repeal of 
concurrent receipt.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit to 
provide full concurrent receipt for disabled military veterans. For 
years, the lack of concurrent receipt, or as some have called it the 
disabled veterans tax, has taken benefits from the pockets of deserving 
military retirees. It is an embarrassment that Congress has gone this 
long without taking care of that disabled veterans tax. I am glad that 
some veterans will get relief under this bill. But all veterans deserve 
relief. This is a matter of keeping sacred promises.
  The so-called compromise today is leaving a lot of veterans behind, 
including 2,038 veterans in Maine who would get benefits if we enacted 
full concurrent receipt for all.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit to provide a 
full benefit to all veterans. If that fails, I definitely will support 
the final bill to give relief to at least some of our deserving 
veterans, including 1,219 in Maine who will now get concurrent receipt 
under this bill. That is a good step forward.
  But I will not give up and I will keep working until all veterans get 
full concurrent receipt and we eliminate the unfair disabled veterans 
tax on these veterans.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support 
on the eve of Veterans Day of a full compensation and total concurrent 
receipts for all of our veterans. I want the unwarranted tax against 
veterans to be eliminated. I do not like the fact that 390,000 of our 
veterans will be left behind in this bill and will be supporting the 
motion to recommit but will add my support to this legislation because 
I hope that we can take a baby step in order to make a giant step 
toward providing for all our veterans.
  I would ask my colleagues to go back to the drawing boards on helping 
our civil service employees at DOD, because overtime is a precious 
commodity for those trying to provide for their families. Then I think 
it is appropriate that we hear from Secretary Rumsfeld and Paul 
Wolfowitz on an exit strategy that will help our young soldiers on the 
front lines in Iraq because we do believe they are fighting for our 
freedom but it is crucial that we understand the loss of life has 
exceeded all speculation. And then, of course, I do appreciate the 
compromise that has allowed us to buy more equipment for the Air Force 
and the Boeing compromise of lease and option to purchase. This 
approach will be an effective way to balance need and costs.
  And then on the eve of this very fine Veterans Day, let me pay 
tribute to all of our veterans, our combat wounded, and particularly 
those young men and women on the front lines in Iraq, those families 
who have lost their loved ones in Iraq and, yes, those who languish in 
our hospitals who are wounded. It is time now that we stand for them 
and provide the full support that they need. Let us leave no veteran or 
soldier behind.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1588 the National 
Defense Authorization Act for 2004. I am supporting this legislation 
because our fighting men and women deserve to be properly funded. 
However, I have grave concerns in regards to how this legislation has 
been handled by the majority party in the House Armed Services 
Committee. I stand with Ranking Member Ike Skelton in expressing my 
dismay that Democratic members were not consulted on very important 
provisions of this significant legislation. This Authorization bill 
while momentous cannot truly be considered the work of this entire body 
if it was not inclusive of Democratic members. Even so, I add my 
appreciation to Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Skelton for their 
sincere commitment to our Armed Forces.


                          civil service reform

  My concern is most evident in the lack of power civil service reform 
addressed in this bill. The bill claims to protect collective 
bargaining rights but removes all of the protections provided under the 
current law. Chapter 71 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code sets forth 
requirements for federal agencies to engage in good faith bargaining 
with unions and protects against discrimination based on union 
membership. This bill claims to make Chapter 71 nonwaivable but 
essentially allows the Department of Defense to waive Chapter 71 
requirements for the 6-year period following enactment. During these 6 
years, the Department of Defense can unilaterally establish a new labor 
relations sytem after only minimal consultation with unions and minimal 
notification to Congress. This new system will supersede all existing 
agreements negotiated between the Department of Defense and its unions.
  During the 6-year period, the Secretary of Defense will have the 
authority to decide what issues will be bargained, whether labor-
management impasses will be resolved by an outside third party, and 
what protections union members will have against discrimination. This 
authority will allow the Department of Defense to run roughshod over 
its unions for the 6 years, making a mockery out of the collective 
bargaining process. Mr. Speaker the lack of proper protection for our 
hard working civil service employees is unacceptable. My concern for 
civil service reform in this bill does not end with collective 
bargaining rights. In addition, this Authorization removes many vital 
due process and appeal rights for Department of Defense employees. 
Perhaps most striking is the fact that this bill removes the 
requirement that Department of Defense employees must receive 
additional pay for working overtime, working on holidays or weekends, 
or working in jobs involving unusual physical hardship or hazard. Both 
the House and Senate voted recently to protect overtime pay for private 
sector employees. Mr. Speaker it is disheartening that we are removing 
many basic rights from our civil service employees that we would 
normally guarantee for most Americans.


                          Concurrent Receipts

  Mr. Speaker I rise in full support with my Democratic colleagues in 
asking for the immediate elimination of the disabled veterans tax. I 
will support the motion to recommit. This Authorization bill leaves 
two-thirds of our military retirees to continue having their 
compensation compromised by this tax. Disabled military retirees should 
not be prohibited from receiving the full amount of their retirement 
pay while still receiving the full amount of their full disability 
compensation--these benefits are their entitlement; after all, we are 
forever indebted to them for their service. Our disabled veterans 
should be amongst our most cherished

[[Page 28180]]

and recognized individuals in society, they deserve better than to be 
penalized for their sacrifice in battle. This body must move as a whole 
to adopt the proposal on concurrent receipts and eliminate this tax 
that is an undue burden on our disabled veterans who have already 
sacrificed enough for their nation.


                         Exit Strategy for Iraq

  Mr. Speaker while this Authorization bill provides necessary funding 
for our brave fighting men and women this body must insist on receiving 
a report on the exit strategy from Iraq. It is pertinent that this 
Congress be informed how long our soldiers will have to face mortal 
danger. How can we reasonably assume the cost of funding our Armed 
Services when we have little information as to when our current 
conflict will end? Secretary Rumsfeld has an obligation to this body 
and indeed to our brave troops to report on the administration's exit 
strategy from Iraq.


                           Chinook Helicopter

  Mr. Speaker, I feel that this Authorization bill while supporting the 
needs of our Armed Forces may not address the need for greater 
protection for the Chinook helicopter that is widely used by our Armed 
Forces. The tragic loss of life that occurred by the downing of Chinook 
helicopters in Iraq illustrates the need for the implementation of 
defense technology to provide greater protection for the Chinook 
helicopters. Indeed, the Chinook is a vital instrument used by our 
Armed Forces to transport troops and supplies to our fighting forces on 
the ground. However, it is also one of our most vulnerable pieces of 
our military arsenal. The infrared technology aboard the Chinook makes 
it more susceptible to ground-to-air missile attack. I am disappointed 
that this Authorization bill may not address the need for modifications 
to the Chinook helicopter that can counteract its vulnerability. We 
must not allow our Armed Forces to lose more brave men and women 
because we did not address this glaring need, let's move to insure the 
safety of all fighting equipment.
  While I have grave concerns about this momentous legislation I am 
voting in support of this Authorization. I do so because we must 
support our Armed Forces, as well it is long overdue that our civil 
service and defense employees receive pay increases.
  I am also heartened by the purchase compromise reached with Boeing in 
this legislation. Boeing and their supporting suppliers who are based 
in Texas are innovative, when called upon, they are capable of 
responding to national security and civil market needs. It is also 
important in the future that contracts with the Department of Defense 
rely on both the lease and purchase of this vital equipment.
  Mr. Speaker I hope in the future that such significant legislation as 
this will involve the debate and full consideration of this entire 
body.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I profoundly appreciate the hard work that has gone into this 
legislation but, my friends, we know that it is 1,200 pages long, it 
spends $400 billion of the taxpayers' money and no one in this body 
save the conference members have had more than 3 hours to read this.
  It is a fine thing to stand up and say we support our troops, and we 
all do. But the fact is we should not be voting on this today because 
we have not read it. We should vote next week on this, after we have 
had time to think about this seriously. If we truly care about our 
veterans, let us care enough to read the legislation, and if we truly 
care about our troops, let us care enough to read this legislation.
  I will vote ``present'' because I do not have enough information to 
vote yea or nay, and I regret that profoundly.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Missouri, who is a classmate, for yielding me this time. I want to 
compliment him and Chairman Hunter on this bill. We have worked for 2 
years on the tanker provisions in this legislation. I am convinced that 
modernizing our tankers is absolutely crucial to national security. The 
gentleman from Missouri and I have worked for many years to implement 
and upgrade the B-2 bombers which fly out of Whiteman, Missouri. We 
have found that in all of these deployments that tankers are absolutely 
crucial.
  I must tell the House that the condition of our tankers today is not 
good. The KC-135-Es have significant corrosion. They were all built 
between 1957 and 1963 in the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. I 
have been on them. I have talked to the pilots who fly them. I have 
talked to General Handy, General Jumper and they are convinced that 
replacing these tankers is one of the most important things we can do 
to preserve our military capability. When you think about it, every 
time we deploy, we have to have tankers. We have to have EA-6-Bs, those 
jammers. Both of them are very, very old and both of them need to be 
replaced and we need get on with it.
  One of the things that I am concerned about that we still have not 
addressed since the Bush administration took office is the fact that we 
are short in procurement still 30 to $40 billion. The big argument in 
the tanker issue is lease versus buy. The only reason we had to do a 
lease is the Air Force did not have the money to buy these airplanes. 
That is why we have got to get the procurement account up, General 
Myers says somewhere between 100 and $110 billion. We are at $72 
billion. We have got work yet to be done here.
  I am also very concerned about the provisions in this bill that deal 
with worker rights. We are going to continue to work on that. I hope 
that down the road we can exempt shipyards from those new restrictions.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado has the right to 
close.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me take a moment, Mr. Speaker. This is deadly serious business 
that we are about. We are providing for the troops, those who wear the 
uniform of the United States of America as provided by the Constitution 
of the United States. This is of the highest calling of our Congress. 
No, all the provisions in this bill do not meet with my approval 
wholeheartedly or with others'. But on the other hand there is so much 
in this bill that takes care of the troops, their families, their 
needs, their capability of waging war, and we are at war, Mr. Speaker.
  With that in mind, I hope that every person in this Chamber, despite 
the misgivings of some provisions, will support this bill with the 
understanding that in so doing, a vote for this bill is a vote of 
confidence and appreciation for those who are wearing the uniform and 
those families at home in whose prayers those young soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and Marines are.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, number one, to congratulate the Committee on 
Armed Services, led by Chairman Hunter, Chairman Hefley and Ranking 
Member Skelton. It is a good bill. I rise in support of the bill and 
against the motion to recommit.
  Primarily, though, I want to compliment my friend and colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for the work that he has done over the years on 
the issue of concurrent receipt. Veterans all over America will 
appreciate the determination and the tenacity that he has brought to 
this issue of concurrent receipt. Today is a recognition of total 
dedication and hard work and not willing to give up, while it has been 
very frustrating on occasion. The gentleman from Florida has done an 
outstanding job. I just want to rise today to say that. It is a 
heartfelt thanks to the gentleman from Florida and on behalf of all the 
veterans all over our great country for him having been able to make 
this happen today.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall).

[[Page 28181]]


  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) for their 
leadership in pulling together a good bill. Not all of the provisions 
of this bill are satisfactory to everyone in this Chamber and 
ultimately I think this bill will pass, but I want to give us an 
opportunity to improve the bill by increasing the tax cut that this 
bill contemplates for disabled American veterans.
  I have heard a reference to this being cynical. I have heard a 
reference to the history of the House in which there were other 
opportunities to end the disabled veterans tax, but I am a new guy here 
and I think today we have an opportunity to do what is right. If it was 
right 20 years ago or 50 years ago or 10 years ago, it is right now.
  I am going to offer a motion to recommit. I want everybody to 
understand what that motion to recommit does.

                              {time}  1130

  It leaves the entire bill intact. It changes nothing in the bill with 
the exception of one thing: it instructs that the House conferees go as 
far as they can toward the Senate position with regard to the disabled 
veterans tax, also known as concurrent receipt. If we do that, we 
effectively eliminate the disabled veterans tax. We are not doing that 
in this bill.
  We do give a tax cut to disabled veterans in this bill. It is the 
compromise, frankly, that has been forced as a result of all of the 
attention brought to this issue during this session by many veterans 
groups, by many on the Democratic side, by the discharge petition that 
I filed earlier, and because so many people have supported the 
Bilirakis bill in the past. Right now we have got about 370 cosponsors 
of the Bilirakis bill. House Resolution 303 is designed to end the 
disabled veterans tax. There are many on the other side of the aisle 
who have signed on as cosponsors of H. Res. 303 to end the disabled 
veterans tax. We have got an opportunity to do that right now with this 
motion to recommit. It is a rifle shot. It does only one thing, and 
that is do right by our veterans.
  Some have said that we cannot afford more than this. I like tax cuts. 
While I was the mayor of Macon, I led the fight to lower our property 
taxes for the first time in 20 years. I think I am one of the few 
Democrats, fewer than 10, I suspect, that voted for the compromise 
administration tax cut that we passed earlier this year. I will vote 
for other tax cuts as well.
  We have got to prioritize our tax cuts. We will have an opportunity 
right now to give tax cuts to disabled veterans that they well deserve 
and that we can afford if we are willing to put that tax cut toward the 
top of the priority list. Others here have voted for tax cuts beside 
this one. Now is an opportunity to vote for this. That is why I am 
doing this motion to recommit.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), who is not a Johnny-come-lately 
on concurrent receipt. He has led this fight longer than I have been a 
Member of the United States Congress.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, as to the issue of concurrent receipt, 
which the other side keeps referring to as a tax on disabled veterans, 
as the Members know, and I appreciate all the kind remarks that I have 
received from both sides of the aisle, but I have worked on this for 18 
years, and during the first half of those 18 years, the other party was 
in charge, and we have to ask ourselves what was done during all that 
period of time. I say to the Members nothing, nothing. I am searching 
my mind to try to find out how many hearings we were able to have on 
this issue during that period of time. We may have had one. I am not 
even sure we had even that. Never in any of their budgets had they even 
put a single penny into their budgets for full concurrent receipt, even 
the most recent ones. The discharge petition would bring H.R. 303 on 
the floor. There is going to be a motion to recommit, which basically 
says we have got to have the entire amount.
  Why did you all not crank those dollars into your budget? You have 
not chosen to do so.
  The gentleman has talked about his discharge petition. My discharge 
petition back in the early 1990s, 1993 I believe it was, failed. Where 
were all the signers from that side of the aisle back in 1993, or 
whatever that year was, when we had that discharge petition? Politics, 
I might say, politics, politics.
  Starting January 1 of next year, the proposal will phase in full 
concurrent receipt for all retirees who have disability ratings 50 
percent or more. It expands the combat-related special compensation 
program to cover all 100 percent combat-related disability categories, 
as opposed to those that are 60 percent now. It also extends these 
benefits to the Reserve and National Guard, who have not been getting 
it up to now.
  Despite this breakthrough, Mr. Speaker, full concurrent receipt 
remains a priority goal for all of us. Only let us show it. Rather than 
just discharge petitions, let us put the dollars into the budget, if we 
will, on both sides of the aisle if we are really serious.
  I ask everybody to vote for this bill and to oppose the motion to 
recommit, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons stated.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Department of 
Defense authorization conference report. But before I address the 
issues raised by this bill, I want to thank the staff for their hard 
work on this bill. I especially appreciate the efforts of Bill Natter 
of the Committee staff and Bill McCann from my personal staff. I also 
want to extend a special thank you to Faye Virostek, who has worked in 
my office as a Brookings Fellows for almost a year. Faye is 
tremendously talented and dedicated. She has contributed greatly to my 
work on the Armed Services Committee and to my office, and I wish her 
the best as she prepares to return to her permanent executive branch 
job.
  I did not sign the conference report because I object to the 
exclusion of the minority members of the Conference Committee from 
deliberations over several important issues. In some cases, we were 
able to work constructively to reach reasonable compromise, but in 
others the majority was unwilling to work with us in an attempt to 
produce a consensus position. I do not believe that our Nation's 
interests or this institution are well-served by this process.
  For example, the conference report mirrors the House report language 
to rewrite the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act, 
two critical environmental laws.
  In addition, the resolution on concurrent receipt of disability and 
retirement benefits fails to resolve the unfairness and hardship faced 
by many veterans. I believe the debate needs to be continued on this 
very important issue, and I was disappointed that the majority chose to 
adopt a half-measure rather than solving the problem in its entirety.
  I also am dismayed that efforts to clarify the Berry amendment 
failed. This is not a failure of the conference process, but it is a 
serious blow to the textile industry in Massachusetts and across the 
country.
  Having said that, I believe the conference report is on the whole a 
solid proposal. At a time when members of our Nation's military are 
being asked to make tremendous personal sacrifices, this bill 
represents a step in the right direction.
  I recognize the importance of providing a truly bipartisan 
authorization package in order to maintain the world's most capable 
military. To this end, the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional 
Threats and Capabilities, where I serve as ranking member, authorized 
increased spending on DARPA, chemical and biological defense, and 
special operations. I applaud Subcommittee Chairman Saxton for his 
leadership and work on these issues, and I also want to thank Ranking 
Member Skelton for all of his efforts.
  While this bill generally represents a sound approach to most of the 
issues before the Committee, I am disappointed that its flaws were not 
corrected. In the coming months, I hope that we will be able to move 
forward and address the shortcomings in this conference report.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to offer my support to 
this conference report. The conference report includes a much needed 
pay raise and much needed support for our military families. In typical 
fashion, however, my Republican colleagues have taken a good bill and 
bogged it down with extraneous and extreme measures. The conference 
report does not include the stronger House language on Buy America and 
allows

[[Page 28182]]

research on low-yield nuclear weapons--a practice prohibited by 
Republicans and Democrats over the last 20 years because it violates 
the non-proliferation treaty and makes it easier for questionable 
regimes to obtain nuclear weapons. The conference report also exempts 
the military from complying with two of our most important 
environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act.
  When this authorization process began, Secretary Rumsfeld came to 
Congress and told us that in order to maintain readiness, they needed 
exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Resources Conservation Recovery 
Act, Superfund, the Endangered Species Act, and the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act. Fortunately, the Congress saw fit to exclude most of 
what the DOD asked for with regard to environmental exemptions.
  The conference report directs the Secretary of Interior to substitute 
the Department of Defense's land management plan, known as an 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan, for critical habitat 
designation under the Endangered Species Act, if the plan provides a 
``benefit'' for threatened species. Further, the conference report does 
not require that the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
benefit the species.
  This is a much lower standard than the current law, not to mention 
the DOD has enough trouble coming up with a management plan for things 
it is supposed to know about, let alone fish and wildlife. If the 
military is able to escape the critical habitat designation, private 
property owners will have to bear the burden of providing for the 
recovery of threatened and endangered species. This is simply not 
right.
  Just this week, the Committee on Resources passed a bipartisan 
reauthorization of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. That legislation 
was the culmination of over 4 years worth of hearings and the testimony 
of dozens of witnesses. Contrary to what happened in the committee of 
jurisdiction, where they were able to successfully compromise to 
address the definition of harassment, the language in the conference 
report would overturn a recent court decision and construct a wall 
against any further litigation against the Navy.
  Over the last 5 years our troops have toppled a dictator in Iraq, 
stopped a genocide in Kosovo, and defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan. 
Our troops prepared for those missions without exemptions from our 
cornerstone environmental laws--laws that administration officials and 
the General Accounting Office do not believe are hampering our military 
readiness.
  Indeed, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark 
recently stated, ``Additional exemptions aren't needed. I spent a lot 
of time in the Army and, in all my years of service, complying with the 
environmental laws never compromised the military readiness of troops 
under my command.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to ask ourselves why we are 
passing language that neither the Resources Committee nor a four-star 
general deem necessary.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support this conference 
report. I must draw a line in the sand. My Republican colleagues have 
got to stop looking for ways to put bad and extraneous language in good 
bills in an attempt to force the hands of those who disagree with them.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, I am pleased to speak in support of the bill before us. I 
wish to thank Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton for their 
leadership in completing action on this legislation, which provides our 
military--and the men and women who serve in it--the resources they 
need to keep America strong in the 21st century. The military pay 
increase and the enhanced benefits for active and reserve personnel 
recognize the valiant efforts of the men and women who have ably served 
our Nation, and the development and procurement of state-of-the-art 
weapons systems will provide them with the tools they need to continue 
their mission of excellence.
  I am particularly pleased with provisions in the legislation that 
demonstrate Congress's commitment to the role of submarines as an 
essential part of a strong naval fleet. Passage of the conference 
report today will represent the final step in a historic agreement to 
permit multi-year procurement for the Virginia-class submarine. This 
agreement will encourage more rapid and cost-effective production of 
this important system--saving the U.S. taxpayer an estimated $115 
million per submarine--while giving the United States Navy new 
capabilities to respond to future threats. Multi-year procurement will 
also provide greater stability in southeastern New England's defense 
industry, and I know that the people of Rhode Island are proud to have 
a role in this important aspect of military transformation. I wish to 
convey my deepest gratitude to Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member 
Skelton of the Armed Services Committee, as well as Chairman Jerry 
Lewis and Ranking Member Jack Murtha of the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee, for their work to help this effort reach fruition.
  This legislation takes another step toward providing concurrent 
receipt to our Nation's disabled military retirees, though the language 
falls short of our obligations. As a cosponsor of H.R. 303, I believe 
we must fulfill our promises to our Nation's veterans by allowing them 
total access to both their retirement pay and disability benefits. Next 
Tuesday, our Nation honors those Americans that have protected our 
Nation, and we must honor their service by providing them with the 
benefits they have earned.
  Unfortunately, today's agreement contains language that may undermine 
important civil service safeguards for civilians within the Department 
of Defense, as well as existing environmental protections. I urge 
Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton to schedule hearings on 
these topics in the coming months so that our committee may exercise 
appropriate oversight authority and ensure that the implementation of 
these new policies does not undermine decades of efforts by Congress to 
protect our environment and federal workforce.
  Overall, this legislation represents an important investment in the 
defense of our Nation, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, the Defense Authorization Conferees 
should be commended for rejecting efforts to undermine the agreement 
signed by President Bush that provides important protections for how 
Naval Station Roosevelt Roads is to be closed. It was particularly 
critical because this is a very sad week in Puerto Rico, as Puerto Rico 
has lost three of our young men and one woman who were serving on 
active duty in Iraq. It would have been a cruel irony for the Defense 
authorizers to remove fundamental BRAC protections for Puerto Rico at 
the same time Puerto Ricans were paying the ultimate sacrifice by 
serving our country.
  Last spring the U.S. Navy announced downsizing plans for Roosevelt 
Roads. The Navy followed its announcement with the planned departure 
from the Vieques training range--a result that was the fruit of 
innumerable debate and struggle. In subsequent testimony to Congress, 
the Navy professed high operational costs and personnel requirements 
stemming from the continued operation of Roosevelt Roads and implied 
the base should close.
  Of course, downsizing and the implications of closure have taken 
their toll and it has been a sordid year for Roosevelt Roads, those who 
work or worked there and Ceiba, Puerto Rico--the community the base has 
called home for the past 60 years. The Navy's own pronouncements 
estimated the base brought $300 million annually to the local economy. 
The region around base, with 14 percent unemployment, can ill afford a 
drawn out redevelopment process.
  During negotiations with defense appropriators and the U.S. Navy, we 
reached a compromise that was enacted under which Roosevelt Roads would 
close in a 6-month timeframe in accordance with the BRAC (base 
realignment and closure) process. This compromise would afford the Navy 
a quick departure and cost savings, while keeping with the important 
protections and procedures required by BRAC. It would also provide 
Puerto Rico with the much-needed economic development opportunities 
provided through redeveloping the base. This proposal was agreed to and 
signed into law on September 30.
  In the midst of the defense authorization conference, out of scope 
proposals surfaced to thwart such progress. The proposals ranged from 
requiring a report to Congress and subsequent 360-day waiting period 
for any and all Roosevelt Roads property disposals to mothballing, or 
leaving the base on inactive status, allowing the land to waste away 
without a clear plan for redevelopment and creating additional 
uncertainty among the community. While I appreciate that all out of 
scope items in conference have been dropped, I fear that punitive 
efforts may surface yet again as base closure and redevelopment 
continues.
  The recent proposals are stalling tactics void of merit and driven by 
angry politics stemming from deep resentment held by those who strongly 
opposed closing the Vieques training range. Let the past become the 
past. Let's move forward with the best interest of the U.S. military 
and the American citizens in Puerto Rico in mind.
  If enacted such tactics would have continued to cost the Navy money 
and drain personnel resources, while hindering meaningful economic 
opportunity for Puerto Rico. Under

[[Page 28183]]

such a scenario, American citizens in Puerto Rico would remain without 
jobs while base redevelopment plans sat in limbo.
  Puerto Ricans care deeply about their common citizenship and continue 
to serve valiantly in our military. What should soldiers think of such 
punitive, political squabbling about a base closure at home, while they 
fight overseas? As it was President Bush who authorized the Navy's 
departure from Vieques, he too has stated on many occasions that we all 
should avoid politicizing military affairs when our troops are abroad.
  I have included for the Record a letter cosigned by fellow Members of 
the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Such support is much appreciated. 
Further, I want to thank Ranking Member Ike Skelton and his Senate 
counterpart Carl Levin for their strong commitment and leadership on 
this issue.
  I find it troubling that the bipartisan deal that took place on 
Defense Appropriations might someday be undermined by such resentful 
politics, especially given the difficult challenges we now face, and 
the sacrifices we ask of our troops. I will continue to fight against 
these punitive efforts while at the same time I will pursue dialogue 
with those colleagues who may still consider punishing action against 
my constituents.
  It certainly would be in the best interest of the Navy, the people of 
the local community, and the future of Roosevelt Roads to set these new 
proposals aside, and continue working to redevelop the base and 
rejuvenate the local economy. We Members of Congress have more pressing 
matters to consume our time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, given our current military situation in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, I believe it is incumbent upon us to send an 
unequivocal message of support for our troops who are currently in the 
field. It is equally important that we provide veterans--those who have 
made sacrifices in order to protect the safety of our country, the 
benefits they have rightfully earned.
  Not since the Korean War have we as a country relied on the members 
of our reserve forces and National Guard as we do now. We are depending 
on them to preserve the peace in Iraq and protect our safety at home. 
We have uprooted them from their families, taken them away from their 
jobs and put them in the line of fire. Yet, it is not uncommon that 
after serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, members of the Reserve forces 
return home without the basic benefits they so rightfully deserve. 
While this legislation is far from perfect, it takes an important step 
by ensuring that activated members of the Reserve forces and National 
Guard and their families receive health benefits.
  Importantly, this legislation extends the increase in ``combat pay'' 
and a Family Separation Allowance for all of our troops who are 
currently serving in the military. Given the sacrifice that our troops 
make in the name of protecting our country, it is only right to 
guarantee that they and their families have adequate financial 
resources in their time of need.
  Additionally, this legislation addresses the unfair Disabled Veterans 
Tax. It allows certain disabled military retirees to receive both their 
retirement and disability benefits. However, it only allows concurrent 
receipt of these benefits for one-third of the approximately 700,000 
disabled veterans. I believe this is sorely inadequate and is the 
reason why I voted to recommit this bill so conferees could have the 
chance to repeal the entire Disabled Veterans Tax and let all disabled 
veterans rightfully receive both their military benefits as well as 
their retirement benefits.
  While I do not believe this bill is perfect and I am particularly 
concerned with certain provisions regarding civil service reform and 
the environment, I do believe that given our current military 
obligations, it is essential that we support our troops. By extending 
benefits for our troops and veterans, we are guaranteeing that those 
who have dedicated their lives to serving our country are not left 
behind during this critical time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Conference 
Report of H.R. 1588, the Defense Authorization Act. This bill contains 
anti-environmental provisions that roll back fundamental protections of 
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act 
(MMPA).
  H.R. 1588 exempts the military from protecting endangered species. 
Provisions in this Conference Report compromise the survival of some 
300 threatened and endangered species living on military lands by 
prohibiting the designation of critical habitat as mandated under the 
ESA. Instead, military lands will be managed under Integrated Natural 
Resources Management Plans, prepared by the Secretary of Defense. 
Currently, such plans have no definitions, no standards, and no limits.
  Such sweeping changes in the management of species living on military 
lands are completely unnecessary. Sea otters and toads do not and will 
not prevent our military from being the best trained and prepared in 
the world. But if for some reason the toads rise up, the military 
already has, but never has used, a national security exemption as part 
of ESA. The military has shown so little previous concern with this 
issue that it was only in March of this year that the Department of 
Defense began developing guidance on how to assess and process 
exemptions requests inappropriate situations.
  Marine mammal protection is under its greatest fire today. Although 
unnecessary from the start, a full exemption from the MMPA was granted 
for military readiness activities in the version of this bill that 
passed the House on May 22, 2003. The Senate version of the bill 
contained no MMPA exemption for any reason. How then did it come to 
pass that the Conference Report we debate today broadens the exemption 
to include scientific research activities by the Federal Government? 
The Conference Report, agreed to by Republican conferees behind closed 
doors, opens gaping loopholes in the management of marine mammals and 
creates unequal standards for ocean users. This is both unfair to the 
marine mammals struggling to survive and to the shipping, fishing, and 
tourism industries, which will now be held to different standards under 
MMPA than scientific researchers and the Navy.
  The ``encroachment'' of civilian communities on military managed 
lands is a serious problem as the separation between where people live 
and where the military trains decreases. As such, there has never been 
a more necessary time for the military to look out for the public's 
best interest. The public wants and needs a healthy and well-managed 
environment and for the military to be held to complying with our 
nation's fundamental environmental protection laws. The military should 
be listening to its neighbors and respecting their requests, and 
Congress should have listened to its constituents and prevented the 
weakening of the ESA and MMPA.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1588, to authorize 
military spending for fiscal year 2004. This bill authorizes the 
funding necessary to defend our country and promote our interests 
throughout the world. The bill makes significant enhancements to our 
combat capabilities, continues our efforts to transform the military to 
meet the terrorist threats of the 21st century, and provides a number 
of new benefits to American soldiers throughout the world.
  Congress has a responsibility to work with the President to protect 
the national security of our nation. When our soldiers are sent in to 
war, it is the Congress's responsibility to make sure that all 
resources necessary are provided to carry out their missions.
  I stand behind our brave men and women who have performed admirably 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have made tremendous sacrifices on behalf 
of their country and have served longer deployments than expected. Much 
of the funds in this bill will go directly to support our troops in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Under this bill our men and women in uniform will receive a 4.15 
percent average increase in base pay. At the same time the bill reduces 
the average amount of housing expenses paid by service members from the 
current 7.5 percent to 3.5 percent, and eliminates out-of-pocket 
expenses completely by fiscal year 2005. The bill also extends special 
pay and bonuses for active duty personnel through the end of 2004. 
Family separation allowance for service members with dependents is 
increased, from $100 to $259 per month. The special pay rate for those 
subject to hostile fire and imminent danger is increased from $150 to 
$225 per month. The legislation also extends TRICARE health coverage to 
National Guard members and reservists and their families if such 
servicemembers have been called to active duty. The bill also 
authorizes nearly $10 billion for military construction, family 
housing, medical facilities, and child development centers.
  This legislation also continues the transformation of our military to 
meet new challenges of the global war on terror. The bill funds 
research and procurement of countermeasures to protect troops and the 
homeland from chemical, biological, and nuclear attack. It increases 
weapons and equipment procurement for Special Operations Forces. It 
funds programs to dismantle, secure, and eliminate weapons of mass 
destruction and facilities in Russia and the former Soviet republics.
  There are several significant shortcomings in this legislation, 
however, that I would like to discuss.
  This conference report contains an inadequate proposal to address the 
Disabled Veterans Tax imposed on our military retirees. Under current 
law, military retirees are taxed

[[Page 28184]]

one dollar of their retirement pay for every dollar they receive in 
veterans disability compensation. Denying service-disabled men and 
women the benefits they have earned breaks our promise to those who 
placed their lives on the line for America's freedom. Any veteran with 
a service-connected disability, regardless of the length of his or her 
military service, can retire from a federal civilian job and receive 
both retired pay and disability compensation without penalty.
  America's troops are united as they serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and 
here at home. Our veterans were united as they fought for our country. 
They remain united today in their love for our nation. But the Disabled 
Veterans Tax compromise before the House today seeks to divide them. It 
leaves behind more than 390,000 disabled military retirees--more than 
two-thirds of those who would receive full compensation under HR 303. 
Those retirees with a Purple Heart or combat-related disability would 
be eligible this January. Others who have 50 percent or greater 
disability would have to wait for ten years to receive their full 
benefits. Those with less than 50% disability still will not receive 
one penny of compensation for their disabilities.
  Because this compromise is phased in over a ten-year period, many of 
our older veterans, particularly those from World War II and the Korean 
War, may not live long enough to receive the full benefits to which 
they are entitled. In my district in Maryland, there are 1,519 veterans 
who are now subject to the Disabled Veterans Tax. This bill leaves 
1,000 of them behind.
  More than 85 percent of the members of this House have cosponsored HR 
303, yet the compromise before us falls far short. Many of my 
colleagues also signed the discharge petition that would compel the 
House to consider this bill. For these reasons, I urged my colleagues 
to support the motion to recommit. It would have stripped from the bill 
the inadequate compromise language that only helps two-thirds of 
America's veterans, and replace it with full, immediate concurrent 
receipt. Our disabled military retirees deserve no less.
  I am also disappointed that conferees chose to include in this bill a 
far-reaching plan to revamp the DOD civilian employee system. Under 
this agreement, more than 700,000 civilian workers in the Defense 
Department will lose fundamental protections that have been in place 
since President Kennedy's administration. These protections were put in 
place to safeguard against the patronage, political favoritism, and 
nepotism that were rampant before the advent of the civil service 
system.
  These DoD employees will lose many of their current due process 
rights. The conference report retains the right of employees to appeal 
to the Merit Systems Protection Board but only as an appellate body. As 
a result, DoD civilian employees would have far fewer rights to appeal 
personnel actions than other civilian employees have. They would lose 
guarantees on overtime pay, hazard pay, weekend pay, and holiday pay. 
Finally this provision empowers Secretary Rumsfeld and all future 
Secretaries of Defense to create an entirely new personnel system for 
DOD civilians. I am also very concerned that enactment of these 
provisions will set a dangerous precedent that will lead to erosion of 
protections in other federal department and agencies. In these times of 
uncertainty and turmoil, we are asking more of our civil servants than 
ever before in our history. To remove these important safeguards now is 
the wrong thing to do.
  In sum, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that we have failed to provide 
the full concurrent receipt to our veterans that they deserve, and that 
we have eroded some of the civil service protections for Defense 
Department employees. However, I will support this legislation because 
it provides additional resources for our troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
and throughout the world as they prosecute the global war on terrorism. 
Our military must be given every available tool for its arsenal as it 
combats emerging threats to our soldiers and our homeland.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1588, the FY 2004 Department of Defense Authorization bill.
  However, I believe that this bill is far from perfect. It does not 
fully support veterans' disability issues, collective bargaining for 
civilian personnel, and protection for the environment. It is 
unfortunate that these issues suffered due to the political process. I 
did support the motion to recommit in hopes that these critical issues 
could be further discussed, but that motion failed.
  If we were not in a time of war I would not support this bill. Yet, 
our brave men and women deserve all the protections and assistance we 
can provide, and I will do all I can to support them.
  While I am voting against the report, I do support the outcome of the 
Conference Committee regarding overseas voting provisions for the 
military. I am pleased that language referring to ballots submitted by 
members of the military stationed overseas was not included in the 
report. The issue of ensuring the integrity of overseas military 
members' ballots has been addressed in the Help America Vote Act 
(HAVA), and I believe we must await the full implementation of HAVA 
before considering any changes. Therefore, I did not believe that some 
of the suggested changes were necessary.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my disappointment in this 
conference report. I regret that I must oppose it.
  I support our troops and our veterans, and applaud the conference 
report's improvement in pay for our troops, but there are far too many 
things wrong with this bill. For example, under H.R. 1588, 
environmental standards are weakened and worker rights are severely 
limited. Yet again, the Republicans have placed a higher priority on 
partisanship and special interests than doing what is right for our 
country and our service men and women.
  But, of all the many problems with this conference report, the most 
disappointing is the section on concurrent receipt that fails to end 
this horrendous policy for many of our disabled veterans. For months, 
the Republicans have refused even to allow a vote on H.R. 303 which 
would end the disabled veterans tax for all of our veterans. But now in 
a half-hearted attempt to appear responsive to the overwhelming demands 
of Democrats and veterans groups to repeal this tax, the Republicans 
have thrown our veterans a bone--a partial repeal of the concurrent 
receipt policy.
  It is estimated that, under the Republican plan, two-thirds of 
disabled veterans will not receive one penny of compensation for their 
disabilities. This is unacceptable. Our veterans deserve all of the 
benefits that they have earned. Our veterans have sacrificed in order 
to ensure our freedom and safety. Congress must now do its part. 
Congress can and must completely end the disabled veterans tax--
immediately.
  Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Ranking 
Democrat Ike Skelton for their leadership on this important bill.
  Our young men and women in uniform are performing magnificently right 
now in Iraq in a difficult and developing mission. They are also 
performing magnificently in Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world 
where the global war on terror takes us. It falls to the Congress to 
make sure our troops have what they need to prosecute this war on all 
fronts. Certainly all of Congress agrees that our soldiers in the field 
deserve to get all they need, no matter what.
  The central feature of today's bill is a huge step forward on the 
issue of concurrent receipt. Finally, we are acknowledging the inherent 
unfairness of having long-time service members chose between retiree 
pay and disability. We didn't get nearly what we wanted, nor what these 
military retirees deserve . . . but we made significant progress on 
advancing the cause of expanding the phase-in of concurrent receipt.
  This bill provides much needed support for our military including: a 
pay raise of 4.15 percent for uniformed services, further reducing out-
of-pocket expenses for servicemembers, increasing allowances for family 
separation and danger pay, and modestly increasing the force structure 
of the Army and active Reserves and National Guard.
  DOD did not get all the power it wanted when it comes to contracting 
out civilian jobs, but I am very uncertain about what lies ahead for 
civilian workers. We made some progress in the negotiations, but the 
strong language in the House bill put quite a pall over the future of a 
viable civilian service. We have a very tough road ahead. And, I 
maintain the Secretary is just wrong on this one--a strong civilian 
workforce performs the core functions of the military better, and 
cheaper, in-house.
  Today's package, and our passage of it speaks, we hope, to the needs 
of our military and offers them the concrete understanding that this 
Congress considers our military men and women our ultimate 
responsibility.
  As we move forward, I will be working to do more to ensure our 
military retirees eventually get a full concurrent receipt.
  I will keep a very close eye on the plans and activities of the 
Department of Defense as they proceed with their plans for civil 
service workers. I want to ensure that our civil service workers remain 
the viable, strong workforce our national security demands.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1588 the 
Defense Authorization Conference Report. While this conference report 
has some deficiencies it also has a number of positive points that I 
support.
  Inititally when this Defense Authorization was drafted compromises 
were reached that

[[Page 28185]]

would allow the DoD to have flexibility and at the same time providing 
labor protections. Unfortunately, the conference report language has 
been redrafted and allows DoD to wipe away these protections. It is 
unfortunate that civilian defense employees are not receiving the same 
protections. I would hope that we can work to ensure workers rights at 
the Pentagon. These men and women serve our country and are also 
fighting to protect our freedoms.
  While this conference report has begun to address the issue of 
concurrent receipts for veterans it does not fully solve the problem. 
We need to make sure all veterans receive this benefit. It takes a step 
in the right direction, but it does not fully solve the problem.
  This conference report also calls on the Secretary of Defense to 
submit to the House Intelligence Committee a report on the preparation 
for and conduct of our military operations under Operation Iraqi 
Freedom.
  I am thankful that the F-22A Raptor received additional funding. The 
Raptor is the new front line jet fighter for our Air Force. This 
aircraft will give us complete air superiority. I am proud to say that 
we build this radar system in my district.
  The Authorization also contains additional funding for the Shadow 200 
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. This vehicle which is again built in my 
district played a vital role in Iraq in providing our troops with an 
aerial view of the battlefield to give our troops a tactical advantage. 
Because of the success of this vehicle the National Guard is now 
interested in the unit and has requested funding for it.
  I am happy to say an amendment I inserted into the Defense 
Authorization has been accepted and will be a part of this 
authorization. My Amendment calls for employee surveys of leadership 
and management performance. This survey will help to promote efficiency 
and allow for the recognition of achievement and increase best 
practices in an agency. It is important that we allow employees to take 
ownership of where they work and to make them part of the team.
  Again, I rise in support of this conference report.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report for the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act.
  I would first like to recognize our Committee leadership, Chairman 
Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton, for the bill they have crafted to 
address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Our Committee has a 
long tradition of working across party lines to ensure the readiness 
and well-being of our Armed Forces, and I am pleased to have 
participated in yet another cooperative effort with my Armed Services 
colleagues. Unfortunately, this bipartisan spirit did not extend to the 
more controversial aspects of the Defense Authorization Act, especially 
the reworking of the civil service system and yet another compromise on 
the Disabled Veterans Tax. On the balance, however, this bill 
establishes good policy for our troops when they need it the most.
  H.R. 1588 offers the pay and benefit measures that our Armed Forces 
deserve. We put together another healthy across-the-board pay raise--
4.15 percent--as well as targeted raises of up to 6.25 percent for mid-
grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers. 
We have also extended special pay provisions for the men and women 
deployed around the world. Hostile fire and imminent danger pay will be 
raised from $150 per month to $225 per month through December 1, 2004, 
while family separation allowance (FSAA) will increase from $100 to 
$250 per month.
  In an effort to address the issue of military readiness, H.R. 1588 
also includes TRICARE health benefits for deploying Reservists. We have 
been undermining our own system by relying on Reservists to be ready to 
go when called but failing to provide them the required medical 
coverage to ensure deployment-level readiness. Through this new 
authorization, the Department of Defense can provide immediate medical 
and dental screening and care for selected Reservists who are assigned 
to a unit alerted or notified of mobilization. Non-mobilized Reservists 
currently without health insurance will also be able to enroll in 
TRICARE on a cost-share basis. With the burden on our Reserves at an 
all-time high, providing basic coverage is the least we can do for 
those called to serve.
  One of the worst aspects of this legislation is the wholesale 
dismantling of our Department of Defense civilian workforce. Under the 
conference report before us, some 700,000 federal employees will be 
stripped of their rights and protections in the current civil service 
system and placed at the mercy of political appointees in DoD. The 
Defense Authorization Act, as written, provides no guidelines for a new 
civilian personnel system; rather, it gives almost unchecked power to 
Secretary Rumsfeld to create a system of his own design. We have heard 
testimony about pay for performance and pay banding, but none of this 
is codified in the legislation. It opens the door to political 
patronage and cronyism--the very abuses which the civil service system 
was enacted to prevent in the first place. Our committee held exactly 
one hearing on the civil service portions of this bill, and that 
hearing was held only after Committee Democrats raised an outcry. The 
hearing was hastily organized with one day's notice and hardly allowed 
for the in-depth examination due such a sweeping proposal. Let me be 
clear--this process has been a farce and nothing less than a slap in 
the face to our DoD civilian workforce. We praise these men and women 
in one breath, and in the next, dismiss them as expendable. In passing 
this provision, Congress will abdicate its constitutional 
responsibility and cede our authority in this matter to the Executive 
Branch. I am deeply disappointed that the Administration felt it 
necessary to interfere in this conference and prevent us from adopting 
the much more moderate and sensible legislation crafted in the Senate 
under the leadership of Senator Collins.
  Likewise, I am dissatisfied with the partial rollback of the Disabled 
Veterans Tax. For years I have cosponsored and supported legislative 
efforts to allow disabled veterans to receive their full retirement 
annuity in conjunction with VA disability pay, and year after year, we 
are only able to come up with half-hearted measures. The so-called 
solution before us will take ten years to rectify the unfair penalty. 
Our veterans cannot wait until 2014 to finally see the compensation 
they rightfully earned, in numerous cases many years ago. It is 
shameful that our Republican colleagues are unwilling to budget the 
funding for those who have already made so many sacrifices in behalf of 
our Nation but yet are all too willing to send more young men and women 
down the same path in harm's way. I truly hope that we can reexamine 
this phased-in approach next year and accommodate all disabled veterans 
equally and immediately.
  As the Ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land 
Forces, I am happy to report that we have done well by the major Army 
and Air Force acquisition programs under our jurisdiction. The bill 
carefully balances current hardware needs with development and 
procurement of future systems. Modernization of our Bradley Fighting 
Vehicles and Abrams tanks will ensure the capability of our heavy armor 
divisions and our industrial base. I am particularly pleased that we 
have funded the Stryker Medium Armored Vehicles at the Administration's 
request for both procurement and research and development. Stryker 
represents the bridge between current Army legacy systems and the 
networked Future Combat System; through Stryker, our soldiers will hone 
the skills necessary for the transformation to the fast and lethal 
warfare of the 21st century.
  I would like to thank the Committee staff for their tireless work 
over the past several months in putting together the best bill 
possible. I would especially like to thank the Tactical Air and Land 
Forces Subcommittee professional staff, J.J. Gertler, Bill Natter, and 
Doug Roach, for their dedication, professionalism, and invaluable 
expertise throughout the year's work.
  We have a bill that we can largely be proud of. Again, I urge my 
colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to recommit 
the Defense Reauthorization Conference Report. We must say no to the 
veteran disability tax and support concurrent receipt.
  As a veteran, and as a Member of Congress, it is my duty to fight for 
the veterans who fought for our freedom. We must make sure that our 
veterans receive the benefits and healthcare that they have more than 
earned.
  To take money away from our veterans while giving tax cuts to the 
wealthy is disgraceful.
  I don't understand how House Republicans can vote to cut $14 billion 
from veterans' benefits, and then send 130,000 troops to Iraq.
  While America's wealthiest receive huge tax cuts our soldiers die 
overseas. And for those that do come home, they want to cut their 
benefits. Our soldiers deserve better.
  Right now, 520,000 veterans' benefits claims are still pending in the 
VA. Some of these claims involve soldiers that served as long ago as 
the Korean War.
  I have even introduced a bill to try to solve this problem, H.R. 1264 
that will help reduce this backlog of claims. This is the type of help 
our veterans need.
  It is shameful that our disabled veterans cannot receive disability 
pay without receiving a cut in their pension. Veterans should not be

[[Page 28186]]

forced to give up one dollar of their pension for every dollar that 
they receive in disability pay. A veteran must not be punished for 
being disabled.
  I cosponsored H.R. 303, the concurrent receipt bill. And I signed the 
petition that would have brought this bill to the House floor despite 
Republican opposition.
  Our veterans are simply waiting for what they are owed--their 
disability pay and their full pensions.
  Our veterans are dying at a rate of 1,000 a day. The Republican plan 
will not aid the veterans that need help now.
  Under the Republican plan only one-third of the disabled veterans 
will get the help that they need. This is unacceptable and our veterans 
deserve better.
  Our veterans need our help. Let's not keep them waiting any longer.
  I urge my colleagues to support concurrent receipt and send this 
report back to conference.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I spoke against this bill when it was on 
the House Floor and, unbelievably, it's gotten worse in Conference. I 
am frustrated that on the week before Veterans Day, the conference 
report keeps moving further away from what the military, veterans, and 
Americans need. The most fundamental function of our national 
government is the defense of our nation. Today, this function is more 
important, and we are spending more on national defense than ever 
before. The conference report that we are debating this morning carries 
a $401.3 billion price tag, which means that the United States will be 
spending over a billion dollars a day, and more on our military than do 
the next 25 nations combined. This bill certainly spends enough to do 
the job, however it is full of provisions that not only waste tax 
dollars, but even threaten Americans' health and safety.
  I am pleased that the Defense Authorization bill starts to reduce the 
tax on disabled Veterans, which is long overdue. However, I am 
disappointed that the bill would only partially end the tax--leaving 
out two-thirds of military retirees affected by the tax and forcing 
those covered to wait 10 years for full benefits.
  I am also extremely disappointed that the conferees chose to 
eliminate the 1993 ban on low-yield nuclear weapons. The House bill 
allowed research but maintained the ban on development activities that 
could lead to the production of a destabilizing and unnecessary new 
low-yield nuclear weapon. However, conferees accepted the Senate 
language that also allowed research but eliminated the ban. 
Fortunately, Congressional approval is required before these dangerous 
weapons can be produced, and I hope that this never occurs. Producing a 
new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons increases the likelihood 
they will be used in conflict, breaking a taboo that has been in place 
since World War II. Developing new types of nuclear weapons sends the 
wrong message to other nations. America must lead by example if the 
threat of nuclear weapons is going to be eliminated.
  This bill is missed opportunity to focus on real priorities. The 
anti-environmental provisions in this bill are especially frustrating. 
Instead of addressing real threats to readiness, the administration and 
the Republicans in Congress are taking on an easier target, dolphins. 
Using defense as cover, they are proposing changes to environmental 
laws that have nothing to do with defense readiness.
  As the largest owner of infrastructure in the world and also the 
biggest polluter, the Department of Defense should be setting the best 
example, not getting permission from Congress to cut corners on the 
protection of the environment and the health of our communities.
  The Conference Report includes modified House language that would 
prohibit designation of critical habitat under the Endangered Species 
Act if the Secretary of the Interior determines that the Integrated 
Natural Resources Management Plan prepared by the Secretary of Defense 
will provide ``a benefit'' for endangered and threatened species on 
military lands. However, there is no definition of ``benefit.''
  We have seen that critical habitat designation is not the problem on 
military lands. This conference report misses the real threat to 
military readiness: encroachment of development around bases. This is 
the same sprawl and unplanned growth that threatens our farms and 
forestlands, pollutes our air and water, and congests our roadways, and 
this is the real threat to our ability to train and maintain the 
world's mightiest fighting force.
  Across the country, from Ft. Stewart, Georgia, to Camp Pendleton, 
California, development is threatening the armed forces' ability to fly 
planes, maneuver and conduct other readiness activities. This has led 
the State of California to pass their Senate bill 1468 which recognizes 
the long-term operations of military installations must involve a 
partnership between the State, local agencies and the Federal 
Government. It provides the military, environmental organizations and 
local planning agencies the tools to work together to fight common 
enemies of military readiness like suburban sprawl. But this proposal 
is completely absent from the legislation coming before us.
  The Conference Report also retains controversial House language that 
would reduce protections for marine mammals. New language, added in 
conference, would also apply the weakened standards to any research 
activities by the Federal Government (or contractors), creating a 
double standard as current law would continue to apply to citizens and 
the private sector.
  In addition, key conservation terms of the Marine Mammal Protection 
Act are altered in order to overturn a recent Federal court of appeals 
decision regarding the impacts of Navy sonar technology. The bill 
allows the Department to exempt itself from what's left of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act for anything necessary for national defense. It 
excludes any meaningful involvement of the wildlife agencies, the 
States, Congress and the public in review of these exemptions. This 
contradicts language passed unanimously this week by the Resources 
Committee--the House committee with exclusive jurisdiction over the 
MMPA--which does not contain any special standards or exemptions for 
DOD. This has raised the ire of both Democratic and Republican 
Resources Committee Members participating in the Conference.
  Not only are these provisions harmful, they are also unnecessary. 
Under current law the Department can already waive environmental laws 
when it's necessary for national security. There has never been a case 
where a waiver has not been granted for military necessity.
  The defense authorization bill is also wrong on a very fundamental 
level. It is missing an opportunity to use the Department of Defense to 
set the highest standards. Given adequate resources and the right 
orders, our Department of Defense can achieve any mission. We are 
missing that opportunity. As the wealthiest and most powerful country 
in the world, we ought to be able to figure out how to better address 
this problem without compromising the environmental survival of what we 
are fighting to protect.
  It is arrogant and hypocritical to let the Federal Government off the 
hook for environmental regulations. We will impose them on small 
business or local governments but not on us ourselves.
  I oppose this conference report because we are spending too much on 
the wrong things and not enough on strategies that will make our 
Department of Defense more sustainable over time. The spending is too 
heavy on weapons research and too light on relieving the stress on our 
fighting forces. We can and must do a better job shaping our Nation's 
defense policy.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 1588, the Department 
of Defense Authorization bill, which includes concurrent receipt for 
disabled military retirees and veterans. Currently, disabled retiree 
and veterans' benefits are offset by the amount of disability pay that 
they are eligible to receive. The legislation corrects that unfairness.
  Members of Congress representing hundreds of thousands of retirees 
and veterans came together to achieve a significant, victory for 
disabled retirees and veterans. We fully support our soldiers--past and 
present.
  The bill is fair, responsible, and appropriately recognizes the 
service of our nation's disabled retirees and veterans. It establishes 
a concurrent receipt for more disabled military retirees and veterans 
than ever before, and provides them with the retirement income they 
have earned and deserve.
  Under current law, a disabled military retiree or veteran could be 
entitled to $1,000 a month in military retirement and $300 a month in 
disability. But the amount of the disability payment is subtracted from 
the retirement pay, leaving the soldier with a check for $700 in 
retirement and $300 in VA disability. A retiree or veteran is no better 
off if they suffered a disability than if they didn't. The legislation 
eliminates this inequity.
  Active duty combat retirees and veterans who are 60 percent disabled 
and above now have full concurrent receipt. The key part of the 
agreement expands full concurrent receipt to all combat retirees and 
veterans with a Veterans Administration disability between 10 percent 
and 100 percent.
  The agreement not only provides a full concurrent receipt benefit for 
active duty retirees and veterans, but also for reservists and national 
guardsmen who currently do not qualify for concurrent receipt under 
either Purple Heart or combat-related disability pay. The reservists 
and national guardsmen will receive full concurrent receipt if their 
disability is between 10 percent and 100 percent.

[[Page 28187]]

  The legislation establishes benefits for those remaining retirees and 
veterans at 50 percent disability and above. They presently do not 
receive any benefits. That means every disabled military retiree and 
veteran with a disability greater than 50 percent will be entitled to 
concurrent receipt.
  It also creates a 13-member bi-partisan commission appointed by 
Congressional leaders and the White House. Under the commission, for 
the first time since 1946, there will be a top-to-bottom review of the 
disability system. The commission's goal is to review the disability 
system to ensure that the appropriate benefits are provided to our 
retirees and veterans.
  From World War II to Vietnam, from the Persian Gulf War to the War on 
Terror, we provided our active military with the tools they need to do 
their jobs, and our retirees and veterans with the proper benefits for 
their years of service. The concurrent receipt agreement follows that 
tradition and honors those who have served our country.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I have always been a strong supporter of 
the military and I'm well aware of the unconventional war we face 
against terrorists. However, I continue to oppose the nuclear weapons 
related provisions in this year's defense authorization bill.
  No one is arguing about the need to find new technologies with which 
our nation can combat deeply buried targets, particularly those held by 
terrorists. At issue is whether Congress needs to resort to repealing 
the Spratt-Furse prohibition on nuclear weapons development and 
encouraging the production of new weapons.
  There is a disconnect in the federal government between weapons 
development and the realistic application of nuclear weapons. Advocates 
of new nuclear weapons see them as just another tool in the War on 
Terror, without realizing nuclear weapons work best as a deterrent, not 
as first-use weapons.
  Supporters of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator and new nuclear 
weapons, argue that the current authorization language is strictly 
limited to weapons research and development in Department of Energy 
labs. This claim ignores the obvious end result of weapons 
development--weapons design does not occur in a vacuum. In order for 
our soldiers to use nuclear weapons in combat, these weapons must first 
be physically tested, most likely at the Nevada Test Site. The federal 
government's poor record on weapons testing and containment of fallout 
is lengthy and disappointing, at best.
  Like many Utahns, I come from a family of downwinders. My father, as 
well as other loved ones, developed terminal cancer after he was 
exposed to radiation from Cold War nuclear weapons tests conducted by 
the federal government. I do not believe that we should even consider a 
resumption of nuclear weapons testing when rational alternatives have 
not been fully explored.
  I have already seen too many Americans succumb to then-unforeseen 
consequences of weapons testing. Advances in containment technology are 
certainly possible, however, the current circumstances do not lend 
themselves to a resumption of nuclear weapons testing and I will do 
everything in my power to avoid that end result.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in opposition to 
the very limited provision to address the unfair disabled veterans tax 
in the Defense Authorization Act.
  Currently, veterans who retire with 20 years of honorable service and 
who also have a service-connected disability are not permitted to 
collect both military retired pay and VA disability compensation. In 
essence, they are paying for their own retirement. We must stop 
penalizing our disabled veterans in this cold and unfeeling manner.
  Our nation's veterans and many, many Members of this House have been 
fighting for so long for the elimination of this tax for all retirees. 
We are now so close to victory. We cannot settle for the partial 
concurrent receipt measure that is included in this bill.
  This proposal is simply unacceptable. It gives less than half a loaf 
and spreads it over ten years. It is naive at best and callous at 
worst.
  The proposal leaves approximately 400,000 military retirees without 
relief. In my state of California, fully 38,000 are left out of this 
Republican proposal.
  Many of the deserving veterans will die before the ten years are up 
and before they receive their full concurrent receipt.
  This bill will set up yet another complicated administrative system 
for our veterans to wade through.
  And worst of all, this bill as presented today unfairly pits veterans 
against other veterans.
  We must restore earned and deserved benefits to all eligible military 
retirees. If this Defense Authorization Conference Report continues to 
leave out two-third of deserving veterans, I cannot vote for its 
passage.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Conference Report 
on the National Defense Authorization Act. It was a pleasure to serve 
as an outside conferee to H.R. 1588 for education provisions that will 
benefit our nation's military, schools and students across the world.
  In addition to Impact Aid, H.R. 1588 provides additional assistance 
to local educational agencies (LEAs) that benefit dependents of members 
of the Armed Services and Department of Defense civilian employees. $30 
million is authorized to be used as general revenue by LEAs that are 
impacted by the presence of military installations.
  Every Member recognizes the importance of funding for special 
education. H.R. 1588 recognizes that the Department of Defense also has 
a role in helping school districts provide these necessary services. 
The conference report makes available $5 million from the Department of 
Defense's budget to help school districts provide special education 
services to children with severe disabilities who have a parent who is 
on active duty in the uniformed services or who is a foreign military 
officer.
  Now more than ever our military families rely on Department of 
Defense schools overseas. H.R. 1588 expands the eligibility for space-
available, tuition-free attendance at Department of Defense Dependents 
Schools (DODDS) overseas to the dependents of mobilized reservists who 
are called to active duty and whose overseas tour is voluntarily or 
involuntarily extended beyond one year. Current admissions policy 
permits the dependents of reservists called to active duty from an 
overseas location to enroll in DODDS on a space-available, tuition-free 
basis, but denies such admission to reservists mobilized from the 
continental United States. As the number of reservists deployed 
overseas continues to increase, it is imperative that we recognize the 
needs of these men and women as well as the educational needs of their 
children.
  Finally, today's Conference Report recognizes the future needs of our 
military. H.R. 1588 enables the Secretary of Defense to develop a more 
comprehensive and attractive array of educational programs in science, 
mathematics and engineering. Educational programs in technical fields 
will help to train the next generation of scientists, engineers, and 
technical entrepreneurs, all of whom may contribute to the future 
technological superiority of our military forces.
  Congress and the American people support our brave military for their 
commitment and their sacrifice. The recent war in Iraq shows the 
importance of preparation and equipment for our military as they work 
to defend freedom and liberty across the globe. In addition to these 
vital education provisions, the Conference Report to be passed today 
will provide the necessary resources and training for our troops at 
home and abroad.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this 
Conference Report.
  While I have continuing problems with the process of how this bill 
was negotiated, excluding the participation of most Democratic-
appointed conferees, and how no time has been allowed for Members of 
this body to review the final version of the bill on which we are 
voting this morning, it is not for reasons of process that I oppose 
this bill.
  I oppose this bill because it does not do right by our disabled 
veterans; it does not do right by the hard-working, faithful, and 
patriotic civilian workforce of the U.S. Department of Defense; and it 
does not do right by our commitment--including the declarations of our 
current president--to halt the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.
  However, first I would like to summarize several of the items in this 
bill that I strongly support and for which I have fought for many 
years.
  I support the extension of TRICARE for non-deployed National Guard 
and Reservists and their families. Under current law and Pentagon 
policy, reservists become eligible for TRICARE, the Defense 
Department's health care system, once they are on active duty. This 
conference report will ensure that TRICARE is provided to those Guard 
and Reservists who lack coverage or who are not eligible for coverage 
offered by an employer. Guard and Reservists will be required to pay 28 
percent of TRICARE premium and can stay in the program for one month 
before and six months after mobilization. This program is authorized 
for one year, until September 30, 2004, but I will continue to fight to 
ensure these changes become permanent.
  I also support the provision in this conference report to allow 
lawful permanent resident military members to achieve naturalized 
citizenship after serving honorably for one year in the regular 
components of the military and our Ready Reserves. It also allows non-

[[Page 28188]]

citizen spouses, unmarried children, and parents of citizens and non-
citizens serving in the U.S. military who are killed as a result of 
such service, to file or preserve their application for lawful 
permanent residence. This provision does not provide any benefits if 
family members are out of status or are illegal aliens.
  I support the increases in Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation 
Allowance. The higher rates authorized in this bill will be $225 per 
month for hazardous duty pay and $250 for family separation allowance. 
These higher rates will be provided to all eligible military members, 
not just those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I strongly support the 4.1 percent pay increase for military 
personnel and the targeted increases for mid-grade and senior non-
commissioned officers and mid-grade officers.
  I also strongly support the increased authorizations for the 
equipment, supplies, logistical support so badly needed by our deployed 
military personnel and those in training, as well as the increases in 
research, development, testing and evaluation of new equipment and 
materials that will be required for an effective and modern fighting 
force. Our uniformed men and women deserve the very best equipment to 
carry out their duties and missions, and I believe this bill helps 
provide them with these materials.
  Unfortunately, I cannot support a bill that will still leave two out 
of every three disabled veterans subject to the so-called Disabled 
Veterans Tax. This conference report includes a plan to provide 
concurrent receipt of military retirement and Veterans Affairs (VA) 
disability benefits to military retirees with disability ratings of 50 
percent or high that would be phased in over the next ten years. 
According to a report released by Veterans Affairs Committee Ranking 
Member Lane Evans, a veteran himself of the Vietnam War, the plan 
authorized in this bill will help only 160,000 of the approximately 
560,000 disabled military retirees that are subject to the tax. To be 
eligible for relief, retirees must have 20 years of service and 
disability ratings of 50 percent or above. As is already provided for 
in current law, veterans who meet the criteria for a combat-related 
disability, popularly known as ``Purple Hearts Plus,'' will receive 
full disability and retirement benefits, if they have twenty years or 
more of service.
  I believe that the Conference Report should have included the 
provisions of H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2003, which 
I and the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives attempted to 
bring to the House floor for action earlier this year. It would cover 
all of our disabled veterans, not just one out of three. Three days 
from now we will remember our veterans and celebrate Veterans Day. I 
cannot do this in good conscience if I support legislation in which 
two-thirds of retired veterans who have service-related disabilities 
will be left behind and will be required to continue to pay tax on 
their disability.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report that scraps 
existing civil service laws and protections for the more than 746,000 
civilian employees whose daily work and sacrifices ensures the 
effective running of the U.S. Department of Defense. This Conference 
Report removes all collective bargaining protections contained in 
current law; it removes all basic due process protections for 
employees; it strips Defense Department employees of basic appeal 
rights; and it removes the requirement that Defense Department 
employees receive additional pay for working overtime, working on 
holidays or weekends, or working in jobs involving unusual physical 
hardship or hazards. Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Conference Report on H.R. 1588 
because it lifts the ban on research and development of a new 
generation of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons that was first 
enacted in 1989 during the Administration of President George H.W. 
Bush. This new program will allow the United States to pursue a new 
generation of nuclear weapons of a type most likely to be used in 
battle, which I fear may lead to a new nuclear arms race on a global 
scale.
  I also have other grave concerns regarding this bill, such as the 
weakening of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, which I do not have time to go into this morning.
  I regret that I must vote in opposition to this very important bill, 
but I simply cannot short-change our disabled veterans, the Defense 
Department workers, and the very security of our nation and the world 
from nuclear attack.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support for 
the conference report on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2004. This Member would like to offer particular 
thanks to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), and the Ranking 
Minority Member on the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their work on this important bill. 
Furthermore, this Member would like to thank the Chairman of the Armed 
Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), and the Ranking Member of the 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Readiness, the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), for their critical work on 
authorizing $3 million for the frontage levee segment protecting the 
Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska. Indeed, this Member 
is very appreciative for the inclusion of this provision in the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, the Nebraska National Guard Camp Frontage Levee Segment 
is a central element of the Clear Creek portion of the Western Sarpy 
Levee project. Completion of the Guard camp segment must coincide with 
the other elements of the Western Sarpy project to assure coordinate 
progress on completing this governmentally complicated flood protection 
project. Indeed, without building this section of the levee along the 
Platte River simultaneously with the construction of the entire levee 
system it will not work; there would be a gap in the levee that would 
only accentuate the flooding risks and flood volume that would affect 
the Nebraska National Guard Camp unless this project moves forward with 
the rest of the levee construction project.
  Previously, the Clear Creek Project was authorized at $15.6 million 
in the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) to provide 
protection to the City of Lincoln's water supply, I-80, and U.S. 6, 
BNSF RR (Amtrak Line), telecommunication lines and other public 
facilities. In the FY2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress 
included $500,000 for construction start-up costs.
  The Nebraska National Guard Camp at Ashland, Nebraska, provides 
training for Nebraska and other states' Army guard units to maintain 
mission readiness. The Ashland Guard Camp levee is an essential element 
of the Clear Creek structure on the western side of the Platte River 
since it also is that part of Clear Creek nearest to the Lincoln 
wellfield. Planning and design funds for the Guard's segment have been 
previously provided by the Congress to the Department of Defense 
through the Military Construction appropriations bill. Planning has 
resulted in development of a more cost-effective frontage levee to 
replace a previous ring-levee approach.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, this Member again expresses his appreciation 
and urges his colleagues to vote in support of the conference report 
for H.R. 1588.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Marshall

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the conference 
report?
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, because the conference report does far too 
little to end the disabled veterans tax, I oppose the conference report 
in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Marshall moves to recommit the conference report on the 
     bill H.R. 1588 to the committee of conference with 
     instructions to the managers on the part of the House to 
     include, in any further conference substitute recommended by 
     the committee of conference, provisions that, within the 
     scope of conference, maximize the number of persons who will 
     be eligible for full concurrent receipt of military retired 
     pay and veterans disability compensation.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not debatable.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on the motion to recommit to conference will be followed 
by 5-

[[Page 28189]]

minute votes on the adoption of the conference report; the motion to 
instruct on H.R. 6 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Filner); and the motion to instruct on H.R. 1 offered by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188, 
nays 217, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 616]

                               YEAS--188

     Abercrombie
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NAYS--217

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Ackerman
     Berman
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cox
     Davis (AL)
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lipinski
     Majette
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Towns
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1157

  Mr. VITTER and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WHITFIELD and Mr. TANCREDO changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 362, 
nays 40, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 617]

                               YEAS--362

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan

[[Page 28190]]


     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--40

     Baldwin
     Blumenauer
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Holt
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Markey
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller, George
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Tierney
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Baird
     Becerra
       

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Ackerman
     Berman
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cox
     Davis (AL)
     Emerson
     Fattah
     Fletcher
     Gephardt
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lipinski
     Majette
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Paul
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Towns
     Wu


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1204

  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________