[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Pages 28553-28566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 2:15 
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 1588, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H.R. 1588, an act to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military 
     activities for the Department of Defense, for military 
     construction, and for defense activities of the Department of 
     Energy, to prescribe personnel strength for such fiscal year 
     for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 20 
minutes equally divided prior to a vote on the conference report.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if the manager will yield, it is my 
understanding the leadership is going to extend the time for the vote 
another 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the distinguished minority leader is 
correct that the time has been extended. The vote is to occur, I 
understand, at 2:45. The 30 minutes intervening is under the control 
equally of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and 
myself.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask consent that that be the order. We 
have a caucus going on now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I encourage any and all Senators who 
desire to address this bill to avail themselves of the opportunity. To 
the extent that I have control over the 15 minutes, I am happy to 
accommodate Senators as they come to the floor.
  I yield such time as the distinguished Senator may require. I hope it 
will be around 5 or 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I apologize to our distinguished 
chairman for not having been down here during this discussion. As he 
well knows, I chair the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am 
proud to say we were able to get a bill out, the reauthorization bill. 
I feel very good about that. It will be coming to the floor. It is a 
good compromise but it required my attendance.
  I want to be on record to say that our chairman and the ranking 
member have done a very good job. We have worked closely together 
during the development of the authorization bill. We are making great 
headway. We are turning in the right direction. I particularly applaud 
those who participated in the ultimate compromise that we agreed on 
having to do with the lease program, the 767s. We all understand we 
have a crisis in our tanker fleet. Our KC-135s are getting old and 
there is controversy over how much longer they can be used. 
Nonetheless, our pilots who are performing this significant mission of 
refueling need to have the very best. We are addressing that problem.
  In the area of TRICARE, we have made some advancements that are long 
overdue. I know in my State of Oklahoma, we probably have one of the 
highest populations of retired military, many of them in Lawton and 
scattered throughout the State. I know there are very serious concerns 
we have gone a long way to meet.
  Environmental issues bother me a great deal, and maybe I am more 
concerned about what has happened to our ability to train our troops, 
because I happen to also chair the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. So we deal with the environmental issues.
  But it is very disheartening when you go down to your part of the 
country and see what has happened in some of the endangered species 
programs and how we are addressing those.
  In Fort Bragg, in Camp Lejeune, for example, we are spending such an 
inordinate amount of money protecting the suspected habitat of the red-
cockaded woodpecker that it is having a very deteriorating effect on 
our ability to train. This is something that does concern me greatly, 
and we are starting to address that, I know, in relation to the issue 
of endangered species. We have clarified the law that is going to 
perhaps, hopefully, stop some of the injunctions that have been taking 
place. I think we are making some progress there.
  I am glad we are addressing end strength--not as much as I would like 
to or our chairman would like to because this is a compromise 
situation, but we have to recognize that we allowed our end strength to 
deteriorate, in terms of numbers, to the point that

[[Page 28554]]

we are OPTEMPO of our regular services, we are OPTEMPO for our Guard 
and the Reserves. It is at an unacceptably high rate.
  I do not think there is one Member of this Senate who does not go 
home and talk to his Guard and Reserve units, only to find out that 
critical MOS, military occupation specialties, are being lost because 
they are just overworked. You cannot expect someone who is in a 
citizens militia to have to be full time. Essentially, that is what is 
happening right now.
  So we are starting to address that, and I think we need to go much 
further in the future. When I see that we did have a problem all during 
the 1990s, that I articulated on this Senate floor, when we had a 
lowering in the amount of attention that was given to our military in 
terms of end strength, in terms of modernization, in terms of national 
missile defense, these things were very disturbing to me. I know we are 
now recognizing it.
  I hate to say it in this way, but I really think those who subscribe 
to the idea--or did subscribe to the idea prior to 9/11--that the cold 
war is over and we need not have the size military we once did are just 
dead wrong. I look wistfully back at those days when we knew what our 
enemies had. We had one major superforce out there, and that superforce 
was predictable.
  Now we have the proliferation of both weapons of mass destruction 
throughout the world and the delivery system. We know what countries 
have a delivery system that could reach us here in Washington, DC. We 
need to make up for what was lost during that period of time.
  Lastly, I would agree with Secretary Rumsfeld who at one of our 
earlier meetings suggested that throughout the entire 20th century, the 
percentage of our GDP that went to defense was about 5.7 percent, and 
that dropped down in the 1990s to about 2.7 percent. We are up to 3.4 
percent approximately.
  I think we need to stop and rethink that as an overall picture of a 
plan for the future, perhaps it should be somewhere around 4, 4.5, or 5 
percent because the nature of the threat that is out there is more 
expensive. I think we need to address it. So I think this bill goes a 
long way in that direction.
  I am very pleased with the product we have. We have a long way to go, 
and I hope we can join hands and do that in the future.
  Again, I applaud our chairman and the ranking member for the efforts 
they have put forth in making this legislation a reality.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
his steadfast service on our committee these many years, and 
particularly in this past year when we were confronted with a number of 
very serious issues. And I recognize the consideration of this 
conference report coincides with his markup in the Environment and 
Public Works Committee on which I am privileged to serve with him. But, 
I say to the Senator, you manage to do both quite well.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Inhofe also for his 
service, his work on the committee. He travels to visit with our 
troops. He is totally dedicated to our troops and the national defense. 
I thank him for his kind words, but also for that commitment.


                              Section 336

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was hoping that my friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, might yield for 
a question.
  Mr. WARNER. I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HATCH. As I was reading the Defense authorization bill, I noticed 
that under section 336, entitled ``Pilot Program for Best-Value Source 
Selection for Performance of Information Services,'' the conference 
committee had modified the normal examination procedures for 
determining the source, either public or private, for the performance 
of information technology services. My question therefore is: Does 
section 336 modify, change or interfere, in any way with provisions of 
Title 10 Sec. 2460, Sec. 2464, or Sec. 2466 commonly referred to as 
``Core'' and ``50/50''?
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for his question. The answer is no. 
It was not the intent of the conference committee to make any 
modification to Title 10 Sec. 2460, Sec. 2464, and Sec. 2466 which 
address the requirements for the Department of Defense to maintain an 
organic core logistics capability and ensure that at least 50 percent 
of depot level maintenance is performed by employees of the Department 
of Defense. The Department of Defense must still abide by these 
statutory provisions when they make any decision or action provided for 
in section 336.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator for that answer.


                            tanker provision

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I would like to review with my 
colleagues section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2004. Under the leadership of Senate Armed Services 
Committee Chairman Warner, and Ranking Member Levin, Congress recently 
agreed to modify the manner in which the Air Force may acquire Boeing 
767 aerial refueling tankers. This compromise is contained in section 
135.
  In the words of Chairman Warner on October 23, 2003, this compromise 
sought to put this program back into the traditional budget, 
procurement, and authorization process. Section 135 replaces the 
current authorization for the Air Force to lease 100 aircraft, with an 
authorization for the Air Force to lease no more than 20 tankers, and 
to buy no more than 80 aircraft using multiyear procurement authority 
and incremental funding. The original proposal to lease 100 tankers 
would have cost taxpayers $6.7 billion more than buying them outright, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona's understanding is correct. By 
providing for the lease of only 20 planes, and by putting the bulk of 
this acquisition back into the traditional budget, procurement and 
authorization process, this compromise is estimated to save taxpayers 
over $4 billion.
  I would like to take this opportunity to correct the legislative 
record. In a colloquy in the House among Chairman Hunter and 
Congressmen Dicks and Tiahrt, it was stated that this compromise 
codified an agreement with the administration as set forth in a 
November 5, 2003, letter to me from Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. For the 
record, the compromise does not endorse or codify any such agreement. 
The compromise is intended to ensure that Defense Department acquires 
tankers in a manner that meets its own needs, but also the needs and 
interests of taxpayers. While the Air Force maintained that its 
original lease proposal achieved this goal, it clearly did not. I fully 
expect the Defense Department to execute the terms of this compromise 
in a manner that fully protects American taxpayers' interests.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am grateful to the Senator form Virginia for his 
leadership on this issue. Three of the four defense committees that 
were required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, 
did so without sufficiently examining the proposal or its effects on 
taxpayers. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee that put the 
brakes on that costly and misguided procurement plan.
  By buying those tankers that it requires rather than leasing them, 
the Air Force can realize very significant savings. The Air Force can 
avoid paying the cost of borrowing the funds from the private market to 
build and acquire the planes, as originally proposed. The Air Force can 
also avoid paying the lease-specific costs that were apparently 
included in the price that it had previously agreed to pay for the 
tankers. Documents we have reviewed suggest that these lease-specific 
costs could be as high as $5.5 million per tanker. Arranging for a 
purchase of the tankers will also allow the Defense Department to 
question many of the other terms and conditions of the Air Force's 
original lease proposal, such as the maintenance and training costs,

[[Page 28555]]

and whether the planes we are buying should be FAA-certified.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his steadfast 
leadership and vigilance on this critical issue. There could be no 
doubt as to the Senator's sincerity in always protecting the interests 
of taxpayers.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I commend the Senators from Arizona and 
Virginia for their leadership on this important issue. When the Air 
Force's original proposal to lease 100 tankers looked like a done deal 
a couple of months ago, both of these Senators stood up and made us 
consider the proposal in ways that we likely would not have, but for 
their commitment for the interests of both the warfighter and the 
taxpayer. In so doing, we now have before us, among other things, 
Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2004. As I understand this provision, the Air Force will be authorized 
to use the special non-confirming lease methodology to lease no more 
than 20 tankers, and buy the balance, not to exceed 80, under a 
multiyear procurement/incremental funding methodology.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator's rationale for agreeing to this compromise, 
whereby the total number of tankers to be leased was reduced by 80 
percent, relied on the Congressional Budget Office's conclusion that 
the fewer planes that the Air Force leased, the greater the savings to 
taxpayers.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct. The intent was to maximize 
savings to taxpayers. If the Defense Department, in the words of 
Senator Warner, puts this program in the traditional budget, 
procurement, and authorization process, the taxpayer will see 
significant savings.
  Mr. NICKLES. I understand that the Congressional Budget Office has 
concluded that if the Air Force implements the compromise by acquiring 
the tankers under two separate contracts, gets budget authority at the 
time it orders its planes, and pays progress payments, taxpayers will 
see $5.3 billion in savings over the Air Force's original proposal to 
lease 100 tankers.
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes. On the other hand, if the Air Force executes under a 
single contract--presumably under the current proposed contract--and 
pays at delivery, taxpayers will see savings cut nearly in half, 
according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Unfortunately, I 
have every reason to believe that the Air Force will proceed in this 
manner, which fundamentally belies the compromise proposal. By 
proceeding accordingly, the Air Force succeeds in deferring having to 
make hard budget decisions to acquire tankers it says it ``urgently'' 
needs, Boeing locks the Air Force into a contract to acquire 100 
tankers, and the investment bank gets its cut for setting up any 
financing and providing other financial services associated with the 
deal. All of this is done at an unnecessarily high cost to taxpayers--
just as under the original proposal.
  Mr. NICKLES. I agree. If the Defense Department proceeds accordingly, 
namely under the current contact, it will be attempting to meet its 
priorities through very many of the same convoluted means that were 
proposed under the original agreement--means that would cost more than 
necessary, thereby further increasing the deficit to unnecessarily high 
levels. Unfortunately, in the absence of a guarantee from the Defense 
Department that it will not implement Section 135 as suggested by the 
Defense Deputy Secretary's letter of November 5, 2003 and the recent 
colloquy in the House, I share your concern.
  Additionally I want to reinforce your statement that it is not the 
intention of Congress, nor does this legislation reflect an agreement 
for the Air Force Secretary to implement the current contract on 
acquiring 100 tankers. We have heard testimony and the Institute of 
Defense Analysis has reported, and I quote, ``We believe that the 
$120.7 million is a conservative, robust estimate of a reasonable 
purchase price for the KC-767A aircraft . . . and . . . should satisfy 
Boeing and its shareholders.'' We should not agree to a purchase price 
of $138.4 million which is significantly higher, because it includes 
lease unique costs.
  I take the opportunity to highlight for our colleagues that the 
Congressional Budget Office has scored this transaction as an $18 
billion direct purchase, requiring full budget authority up front. 
Ordinarily, under these circumstances, I would make a budgetary point 
of order. I will not raise that point of order now. But, what I will do 
is call upon the Secretary of Defense to implement the compromise 
provision in a way that accurately reflects the intent of the 
conference--acquire its tankers for the Air Force in a way that 
maximizes savings to taxpayers. It is anomalous that the Congress would 
have intended to have taxpayers see only half the savings and not touch 
the $6.4 billion maintenance and training contract--a contract that was 
never competed for. In the spirit of compromise, under Section 135, the 
Congress has provided the Department with tools to acquire the tankers 
responsibly and in a way that protects the interests of taxpayers.
  At the end of the day, whatever legislation comes out of this body, 
the administration is responsible for implementing it as the Congress 
intended. After months of investigation, inquiry and debate, there can 
be little doubt that the intent here is to best protect the interests 
of the taxpayer.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his continuing, active concern on 
this most important issue.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I understand that preliminary 
estimates suggest that buying no more than 80 tankers in a way that 
avoids lease-specific costs could save taxpayers as much as $5.3 
billion over the Air Force's original proposal to lease 100 tankers.
  Mr. McCAIN. The anticipated savings under the compromise as described 
in Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2004 are very significant. The original proposal to lease 100 
tankers was extraordinarily costly, and the compromise allows us to 
avoid those costs. For example, the original proposal would have had us 
pay $7.4 million per plane in private construction financing costs. The 
compromise provides for the Air Force to make progress payments to 
build the planes, and in so doing, to avoid this significant and 
unnecessary cost.
  One of the reasons that the compromise authorizes the Air Force 
Secretary to use incremental funding to buy no more than 80 tankers is 
to allow the Air Force to get the tankers it needs in a manageable way 
that protects taxpayers.
  Senator Warner has said that, contrary to the statements of our House 
colleagues, the compromise does not codify or endorse the tanker 
acquisition plan that Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz described in his 
November 5, 2003, letter. The reason the compromise does not codify 
this approach is because paying for the tankers on delivery as the 
Deputy Secretary proposes could be very costly and could dramatically 
slash the savings that this compromise intends to provide--an outcome 
that is unacceptable.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. As I stated during a Commerce Committee hearing on 
September 2, 2003 regarding this issue, the original lease transaction 
is nothing more than a complex, byzantine transaction that obscured the 
true cost of the tankers, reduced the transparency of the arrangement, 
and would unnecessarily cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. I 
commend the Senator from Arizona for his watchful eye over the 
negotiation and execution of this tanker deal. I also commend Senators 
Warner and Levin for brokering the compromise agreement and putting the 
public interest ahead of a powerful special interest.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 
2004 Defense authorization conference report. This report is not only a 
tribute to the Congress's hard work, in particular that of my good 
friend, Chairman John Warner, but it is also a reaffirmation of our 
commitment to meet the challenges of this War on Terror.
  The conference report contains a number of provisions designed to 
alleviate some of the burdens placed on

[[Page 28556]]

our fighting men and women. For example, I am proud to state that the 
report deals directly with a concern of many service members, including 
Utah National Guard and Utah-based Reserve families, by continuing 
payment through December 31, 2004, of special pay for duty while 
subject to hostile fire or imminent danger in the amount of $225 a 
month and $250 a month for family separation allowance. Additionally, 
all service members will receive at least a 3.7 percent pay raise. In 
order to help retain our mid-career service members, their pay will be 
increased between 5.25 and 6.25 percent. The burden for many of our 
Reserve forces will also be lifted regarding healthcare. The report 
provides TRICARE coverage for members, and their families, of the 
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve and each member of the Individual 
Ready Reserve, if they do not already have health insurance.
  Keeping our word to our Nation's veterans is vital to maintaining the 
honor of our country. No other issue is as important to our veterans as 
that of concurrent receipt, that is, simultaneously paying veterans a 
military pension and providing them with disability benefits. Under the 
current law, many veterans' retirement pay is reduced or offset dollar-
for-dollar for any disability benefit they receive. Unfortunately, 
proposals to remedy this situation remain controversial due to cost. 
Therefore, I must commend and congratulate Chairman Warner  once again 
for devising a compromise plan that boldly expands upon his previous 
efforts by providing full concurrent receipt for those veterans 
suffering disabilities from combat or combat-related operations and by 
phasing in this benefit, over a 10-year period for those retirees whose 
disability is rated at 50 percent or greater.
  This legislation is also important because it reaffirms our 
transformation policy. Many at home will ask what is ``transformation'' 
and what does it mean to the future of our Nation's military? Simply 
put, transformation is a process of reform that will revolutionize the 
way the military conducts operations. We saw a glimpse of this emerging 
reality during the Iraqi conflict where information was gathered from a 
variety of sensors, whether on the ground or in the air, and that 
information was transmitted very quickly to commanders who could then 
exploit the weakness of our enemy. It was a remarkable operation and it 
reflects the high level of competence and expertise of our Nation's 
service men and women.
  This Defense bill will accelerate transformation and ensure that our 
forces maintain their decisive edge. It is an important accomplishment 
and the chairman, ranking minority member and all the members of the 
committee deserve our thanks. Their efforts to make military 
transformation a reality have led them to fund the research and 
development of such revolutionary systems as the Army's Future Combat 
System, or FCS. FCS will allow our forces to deploy an army brigade 
anywhere in the world within 96 hours. The DDX and the Littoral Combat 
Ship will also be revolutionary in their stealth characteristics, 
automation systems, and command and control capabilities. The committee 
is also continuing its support for the Joint Strike Fighter, which will 
bring a stealth fighter to all of our air and naval/marine air forces.
  That being said, I was disappointed to see that the President's 
request for full funding of the F/A-22 did not occur, although the 
report did authorize the President's request for the procurement of 22 
F/A-22s. This is a system that is a transformational aircraft at its 
core. The F/A-22's supercruise engines allow for extended supersonic 
flight--a magnitude longer than its after-burner predecessors. Using 
stealth capabilities, the F/A-22 is able to penetrate an opponent's 
airspace and engage enemy aircraft at great ranges. Additionally, 
unlike our current air superiority fighter the F-15C, the F/A-22 will 
be able to engage integrated surface-to-air missile systems. Once again 
using stealth technology, the F/A-22 will be able to approach these 
missile sites and destroy them, utilizing internally carried GPS-guided 
bombs. The F/A-22, using this bombing capability, will also have the 
ability to track and launch attacks against ground-fixed and mobile 
targets. However, the truly transformational aspect of the aircraft is 
that it can accomplish all of these missions almost simultaneously. 
Paraphrasing the Air Force's motto, no aircraft comes close to the F/A-
22's capabilities. I cannot say how proud I am and the rest of the 
State of Utah is that the sustainment and maintenance work on this 
extraordinary aircraft will be handled at Hill Air Force Base/Ogden Air 
Logistics Center.
  I am also grateful that the committee was able to maintain the 
momentum toward transformation regarding our industrial policies. 
Instead of reverting to a protectionist posture, the report enables the 
Department of Defense and Congress to gather information on this issue. 
I believe that as the cost of research and development of our Nation's 
weapons systems continues to grow that it will become increasingly in 
our interests to harness the strengths of other nations in joint 
ventures. The future belongs to programs such as the Joint Strike 
Fighter, where the United States has been joined by the United Kingdom, 
Canada, the Netherlands, Italy, Turkey, Singapore and Israel to develop 
this stealthy and capable aircraft that will protect the forces of 
freedom at an affordable price. I commend the committee for its 
foresight on this matter.
  As I close, once again I wish to congratulate my colleagues on the 
Armed Services Committee, especially Chairman Warner, on this fine 
piece of legislation. It was a hard road, but once again the committee 
has risen to the challenge and supported our men and women in uniform. 
The Nation is in their debt.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the chairman and 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for bringing the 2004 
Defense Authorization Conference Report to the floor today. The 
conference report before us comes at a critical time in our national 
history with our troops engaged in conflict throughout the world.
  The committee's leaders have demonstrated patience and grace under 
pressure, navigating a difficult legislative process. I know firsthand 
how difficult this process can be; I have walked a mile in their shoes. 
I have served as the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation and now serve as its ranking member. It is in this 
capacity that I rise to express my dismay to learn that the bill agreed 
to by the conference committee includes significant changes to 
legislation under Commerce Committee jurisdiction--the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, MMPA. The changes include modifications to some of the 
most fundamental standards providing protection of marine mammals under 
the MMPA.
  I am proud to have been one of the original authors of the MMPA back 
in 1972. Overall, it has worked extremely well in balancing the need to 
protect marine mammals while allowing other important activities, 
including the defense of our Nation, to move forward.
  I firmly believe that the U.S. is capable of having both the 
strongest military force in the world, and at the same time, some of 
the best conservation laws of any country. I have been a great 
supporter of our Nation's military, having served on the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee for three decades.
  The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on which I 
currently serve as the ranking member, has jurisdiction over issues 
relating to marine mammals, including authorizations for and oversight 
of the MMPA. The Commerce Committee plans to take up reauthorization of 
the entire MMPA this Congress. Towards this effort, we have held 
hearings and numerous briefings with the many different entities who 
have an interest in the MMPA, including the Department of Defense, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, private

[[Page 28557]]

industry, the scientific research community, and nongovernmental 
organizations. Many of these entities have offered comments, including 
some serious concerns, with respect to the MMPA language now included 
in the DOD authorization bill.
  I regret to say that many of the provisions included in the bill 
before us simply don't make sense. For example, we have had testimony 
from respected scientists this year in hearings before our committee, 
as well as before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that the 
standard for ``harassment'' of marine mammals, now included in this 
bill, is scientifically indefensible. Moreover, some of the provisions 
included in the bill go far beyond DOD activities, including all 
research done by or on behalf of the Federal Government. Although no 
changes to the MMPA were in the bill that passed the Senate, the Senate 
leadership on the conference committee apparently felt that such 
changes would be acceptable.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service, which along with the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, implements the MMPA, estimates that about 38 percent 
of all of the ``small take'' permits that it has issued under the MMPA 
were issued to the Department of Defense. That is over one-third of all 
such activities, and we know that there are numerous other defense 
activities for which no permit has even been sought. Yet not once did 
the leadership of the Senate Armed Service Committee reach out to 
consult with me or my staff on these provisions that will affect over 
one-third of the activities that it regulates.
  We still plan to take up reauthorization of the MMPA in our 
committee, and we still have oversight of its implementation. I intend 
to work with my colleagues on the committee to carefully monitor how 
these changes are interpreted, to ensure that activities that could 
have real impacts on marine mammals do not fall off the radar screen, 
as it were. MMPA was written the way it was because we are still 
learning about how various activities may impact marine mammals. We 
must ensure that under these new standards, the lack of perfect science 
is not used as a basis to avoid the mitigation of potential impacts.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, as we work to complete the Defense 
authorization bill, we are reminded of our obligation to the brave men 
and women of our military. They are protecting us at home and abroad.
  Congress must make sure they have the equipment and resources they 
need.
  Two years ago, our country was attacked. Suddenly, we have to project 
sustained military force around the world, and we had to protect our 
skies at home--and we had to do it quickly.
  But as our tanker fleet embarked on more than 30,000 air refueling 
missions, we found that our 43-year-old tanker fleet was outdated, too 
often down for repairs, and too expensive to maintain.
  This conference report provides the Air Force with the ability to 
begin recapitalizing this crucial fleet, with 100 new KC-767 air 
refueling tankers. These tankers will enable our air crews to do their 
jobs more effectively, more efficiently and more safely.
  Success has many authors, and I thank my colleagues, including: 
Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their vigilance on this issue and 
their willingness to work with my Senate colleagues and me to ensure 
the Air Force gets these 100 tankers: Senators Stevens, Inouye, 
Cantwell, Roberts, Brownback and Conrad for their unwavering support 
for this program over the last 2 years; and, on the House side, I thank 
Congressmen Dicks, Larsen, and Murtha, as well as Chairman Hunter and 
Speaker Hastert.
  Fairchild Air Force Base outside of Spokane, Washington is home to 
the 92nd Air Refueling wing.
  I have been to Fairchild. I have visited with the families and talked 
with the brave men and women who fly these tankers. I know the 
difficult missions these crews handle for each of us every day.
  I promised to give them the best equipment we could, and today we're 
delivering on that promise.
  After 2 years of work, I am proud that this legislation provides the 
authority needed for the Air Force to enter into a contract for 100 KC-
767s.
  Section 135, of this conference report authorizes the Air Force to 
enter into a contract for the combined lease and purchase of 100 tanker 
aircraft under the terms and conditions of Section 8159 of the FY02 
Defense Appropriations Act.
  This section specifically authorizes the Air Force to enter into one 
contract for 100 aircraft, 20 by lease and 80 by purchase, or if 
necessary, more than one contract for the same combination of aircraft.
  In their joint report language, the conferees agree that this section 
would--quote--``authorize the secretary to enter into a multiyear 
procurement program, using incremental funding'' for the 100 aircraft 
pilot program.
  This language means the multiyear procurement program authorized by 
Section 135 would allow the Air Force to make payments as agreed to in 
the contract.
  Furthermore, the language states 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.
  I would like to point out that Section 135 was written after 
extensive negotiations between the Congress and the Department of 
Defense.
  The agreement reached on Section 135 is based in part upon a letter 
sent on November 5, 2003 to the chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. 
Wolfowitz.
  The language included in Section 135 of this conference report 
represents a common understanding between the conferees, the Congress 
and the Administration on the agreement under which the Air Force will 
execute this 100 aircraft pilot program.
  In closing, I again thank my colleagues for their help in fulfilling 
the promise I made to the brave men and women of the 92nd Air Refueling 
Wing.
  Within 3 short years, Fairchild Air Force Base will be home to the 
first four of the 100 KC-767 air refueling tankers authorized in this 
bill.
  Fairchild will get another 16 of these state-of-the-art aircraft just 
1 year later.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Wolfowitz letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               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 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,
                                      Deputy Secretary of Defense.

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am here to stand up for our troops. I 
am going to vote for the Defense Authorization Act because it will give 
our troops the tools they need to fight the battles today and in the 
future. Every day our soldiers are fighting a war on

[[Page 28558]]

many fronts, including in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq soldiers are 
risking their lives every day, while their loved ones at home are 
praying for their safe return. Our troops are making grave sacrifices, 
some losing their lives in service to our Nation. Their families, their 
husbands and wives, parents and children, are also making sacrifices. 
It is the responsibility of Congress to provide the weapons, vehicles, 
and tools that our soldiers need to be an effective fighting force.
  But I also stand up for those who are protecting the United States of 
America--our brave, our gallant Federal employees who are out there 
every day on the front line. I am here to defend the rights of hard-
working civilian employees in the Department of Defense. When I stand 
up for America, I want to be able to stand up for what America believes 
in. And that includes basic rights for workers.
  I think it is terrible that the DOD is using it's budget, which is so 
vital for our troops, as a cover for undermining the basic rights of 
dedicated employees. This bill creates a completely new--and completely 
unfair--personnel system for civilian Defense Department employees. The 
new system undermines the collective bargaining rights of civilian 
personnel. It weakens the rights of DOD employees to appeal personnel 
decisions to an independent body. It rejects the current salary system, 
and seeks to replace it with one that will leave workers vulnerable to 
the whims of their supervisors. It even takes away the guarantee of 
overtime, weekend, holiday, and hazardous duty pay. We should not put a 
system in place that distracts Federal employees from doing their jobs 
and requires them to play office politics.
  This new civilian personnel system will seriously undermine morale, 
and opens the door to cronyism and political patronage. I am tired of 
the attempts by this administration to replace our effective civil 
service system with one that rejects the rights of workers. The 
thousands of civilian Federal employees at the Department of Defense 
are concerned about the security of our country, and work hard every 
day to ensure that our fighting forces are the best in the world. Many 
have served on the front line in the war on terrorism, and have lost 
their lives in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. I am 
ashamed that the Defense Department wants to take away their basic 
rights as workers.
  I think it is terrible that I must choose between supporting our 
troops and supporting our civilian Federal employees. I am tired of the 
cynical manipulation of this process. I feel like I am being set up--
that if we stand up for the workers, we are somehow or another getting 
in the way of national security. I am going to support the 2004 
Department of Defense Authorization because it is important to our 
Armed Forces. You can count on me to continue to fight for everyone who 
is making sacrifices for our Nation. Our troops and our civilian 
Federal employees deserve no less.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Defense authorization bill contains many provisions 
that provide essential support for our military personnel, especially 
when we are asking so much from them in Iraq and around the world.
  We have demonstrated our great appreciation for them by providing an 
across-the-board military pay raise of 3.7 percent, and a larger raise 
for mid-career personnel, raising the average increase to 4.1 percent. 
The separate increases already available for imminent danger pay and 
the family separation allowance are extended through December 2004.
  The bill also recognizes the contributions of our Reserve personnel, 
by authorizing an allowance of up to $1,000 per month for Active and 
Reserve personnel who experience unusually high deployments. We expand 
commissary privileges for Guard and Reserve family members and we 
expand health care coverage both for Guard and Reserve personnel and 
for their families.
  The bill increases benefits for families whose loved ones have made 
the ultimate sacrifice, by doubling the death benefit to $12,000 and by 
authorizing Survivor Benefit Plan annuities for surviving spouses of 
Guard and Reserve personnel who die on inactive duty training.
  The bill recognizes the toll of these deployments on children, by 
providing $35 million in supplemental impact aid to assist schools with 
large numbers of children of military families.
  The legislation also eases the path to citizenship for immigrants who 
serve in our Armed Forces and provides immigration benefits to 
surviving family members of those killed in service. 37,000 men and 
women in the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard have the 
immigration status of permanent residents serving in our Armed Forces. 
Another 12,000 permanent residents are in the Reserves and the National 
Guard.
  The legislation also improves access to naturalization for lawful 
permanent residents serving in the military. It provides expedited 
naturalization for members of the Selected Reserves during military 
conflicts. It protects spouses, children, and parents of soldiers 
killed in action, by preserving their ability to file for permanent 
residence in the United States.
  Over a dozen immigrant soldiers have been killed in Iraq and these 
benefits are well deserved. These immigration provisions in the bill 
are a tribute to the sacrifices that these future Americans are already 
making for their adopted country. They deserve recognition for their 
bravery and loyalty to the basic ideals and freedoms of our country. 
Unfortunately, although the bill provides many needed benefits for our 
men and women in uniform, it lets down their civilian counterparts.
  Many of us are extremely disappointed that the bill undermines 
fundamental protections for the 700,000 civilian employees of the 
Department of Defense.
  Specifically, the report undermines collective bargaining, premium 
pay, the pay and classification system, third party review, and the 
appeals process. Many of the provisions are disguised as improvements, 
when in fact they undermine years of civil service protections.
  Nearly 40 percent of Defense Department employees affected are 
veterans who have served the nation proudly. More than 8,000 are 
activated reservists serving in Iraq and other parts of the world. They 
are protecting us and we owe it to these patriotic Americans to protect 
their rights. They take pride in their work, their love their country, 
and they have served it with distinction, often for decades.
  The Bush administration has demonstrated its intention to undermine 
workers' again and again. They have proposed privatizing up to half the 
Federal workforce. They have created a Department of Homeland Security 
that doesn't allow its employees to join a union.
  Earlier this year, the administration stripped clerical and other 
workers in the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's offices of 
their long-held union membership. They have even proposed taking 
overtime protections away from more than 8 million hard-working men and 
women.
  It is an affront to these dedicated Federal workers to deprive them 
of their rights, even though no restrictions are placed on the rights 
of employees of government contractors performing similar jobs. Under 
the administration's proposal, we could well see Federal workers 
working alongside private workers with the Federal workers denied the 
same fundamental rights and protections that the private workers 
continue to have.
  These workers repair planes, ships, and tanks. They manage the 
storage and distribution of weapons and supplies. They manage computer 
networks, provide training, analyze intelligence, investigate crimes, 
acquire major weapons systems, perform research on cutting-edge 
technologies, test munitions, care for children, operate hospitals and 
laboratories, and treat patients. Defense employees deserve civil 
service and collective bargaining rights, just as other Federal workers 
do. The administration is wrong to use this must-pass bill as a vehicle 
to deny these workers their basic rights, and I intend to do all I can 
to see that Congress repeals this unfair

[[Page 28559]]

assault on these dedicated civilian workers of the Department of 
Defense.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first and foremost, I want to thank the 
members of the United States Armed Forces for their service to our 
country. These service men and women are performing admirably in the 
global fight against terrorism and the war in Iraq. They and their 
families are making great sacrifices for the American people. I am 
voting for this authorization legislation to support these people who 
are serving the country with such courage.
  But this is not an easy vote for me. This legislation contains a 
number of good provisions, such as much-deserved pay raises for our men 
and women in uniform, expansion of TRICARE health insurance to some of 
the members of our Guard and Reserve, concurrent receipt for disabled 
veterans, 12 WMD Civil Support Teams, and ``Buy American'' provisions. 
However, the bill also contains two particularly bad policies: the 
elimination of civil service protections for Department of Defense, or 
DOD, civilian employees, and the environmental exemptions granted to 
DOD.
  I am deeply troubled by the provisions included in the conference 
report that will effectively eliminate existing civil service 
protections for the more than 746,000 civilian Department of Defense 
employees. While I think we all can agree that some reforms are needed 
to the civil service system, I am concerned about the administration's 
approach to dismantling this system, in a seemingly department by 
department manner. I opposed the weakening of the civil service system 
during consideration of the bill that created the Department of 
Homeland Security, and I would have opposed the provisions in this bill 
if the Senate had considered them independently of this conference 
report.
  The civil service system was put into place in order to end the 
corrupt patronage system that had permeated Government hiring and 
advancement. The provisions included in this conference report will put 
salary decisions into the hands of managers, which could be a slippery 
slope back to the bad old days of cronyism. I am also concerned that 
this new system will limit appeal rights.
  Some in the administration have argued that the civil service system 
is rigid and could prevent the administration from acting quickly in 
the face of an imminent threat. This is not the case. The existing 
civil service system already provides the administration with broad 
flexibility, while at the same time ensuring that Federal workers have 
a consistent framework of basic protections, including appeal rights.
  In addition, I support the right of workers to join a union, and I am 
troubled by the implication that union membership is somehow a threat 
to our national security. The conference report that we are considering 
today will undermine existing union representation and collective 
bargaining agreements by allowing the Secretary to create a new labor 
relations system.
  The expected enactment of these provisions, coupled with the ongoing 
implementation of the new employment system that was created for the 
Department of Homeland Security, will result in more than half of the 
Federal civilian workforce not being covered by the basic protections 
of the civil service system.
  I am equally troubled by the provisions included in the conference 
report that exempt the DOD from several environmental laws. The Senate 
version of this bill struck a fair balance between the need to protect 
the environment and the need for military readiness. It allowed for 
some exemptions to the Endangered Species Act if the Secretary of 
Interior found that the DOD's resource management plan effectively 
conserved the threatened or endangered species and that DOD would fund 
the plan. The conference version destroys this balance by merely 
requiring that the DOD's management plan confer ``a benefit'' to 
threatened or endangered species. There is no mention of the need for 
DOD to fund its management plan. The new language means that the DOD 
will get exemptions from the ESA merely by having an integrated 
management plan on paper. The purpose of the critical habitat 
designation provisions of the ESA is to attempt full recovery of 
species by preserving habitat. The current bill falls short of that 
promise.
  The assault on our environmental laws goes further. This conference 
report exempts the DOD from key provisions of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, MPPA. It allows, among other things, the Secretary of 
Defense to waive its provisions for 2 years if the Secretary believes 
it necessary for national security.
  I am committed to supporting a strong Endangered Species Act, 
particularly because of the successes Wisconsin has had in 
rehabilitating endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Recent 
news accounts of sensitive whale population deaths caused by high-
frequency Navy sonar systems also trouble me. Our troops in Afghanistan 
and Iraq were expertly trained at DOD facilities that complied with 
environmental laws. It is my understanding that the DOD has never 
requested an exemption to the Endangered Species Act. DOD already has 
the authority to request exemptions from the ESA for national security 
reasons and this new provision in the conference report is unnecessary. 
I agree with Senator Jeffords that the Defense appropriations bill is 
not the appropriate place to have this debate.
  The administration sought even more environmental exemptions than are 
contained in this authorization bill. Although I am disappointed with 
the included exemptions, I am thankful that my colleagues were able to 
limit the damage.
  I will vote for this bill and for the good provisions it contains for 
our men and women in uniform and their families. However, I remain 
deeply concerned about the administration's policy on civil service 
reform and protection of the environment. I will support this flawed 
bill, but I do so with some reluctance and in the hope that the Senate 
will revisit these seriously flawed provisions next year in the proper 
committees.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense 
Authorization Conference Report provides important benefits as our 
military personnel continue to do battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, the 
Balkans, South America, and elsewhere. It is not, however, a perfect 
bill. I voted for it because I believe that in a time of war we need to 
take care of our military personnel and our veterans. But, I am 
concerned that this bill unnecessarily undercuts important 
environmental protection measures and civil service protections. I am 
also troubled by some of the nuclear weapons provisions of the bill. 
First let me describe some of the key provisions that I do support in 
this bill.
  This bill provides a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay increase and, 
because of some of the targeted pay raises for mid-career personnel, an 
average pay raise of 4.1 percent. It also authorizes increases in the 
critical pay bonus areas of family separation, hostile fire, and 
imminent danger pay from October of this year until next December. 
These increases are much needed and well-deserved.
  I am also pleased that the bill would allow the Army to add 2,400 
additional personnel. I supported adding 10,000 and would still like to 
see the number grow, but this is, at least, a start.
  Perhaps most important as we create new veterans daily, this bill 
starts to live up to our promises to our veterans. I have long believed 
that the commitment we make to the retirement benefits of a veteran and 
the commitment we make to care for those veterans injured while serving 
should not be mutually exclusive. This bill takes a very real step 
toward allowing veterans full concurrent receipt. Military retirees 
with 20 years of service, active duty or Reserve Component, and a 
Purple Heart or a combat related disability will be eligible for full 
concurrent receipt as of January 1, 2004. The remaining retirees who 
are disabled at 50 percent and above will get full concurrent receipt 
phased in over the next 10 years.
  In addition to the important personnel benefits of this bill, I am 
also

[[Page 28560]]

pleased that the bill makes a common sense commitment on strategic 
airlift. The bill prohibits any decision to retire C-5 As until an A-
model is completely modernized under the Avionics Modernization Program 
and Reliability and Re-Engining Program and then tested for its 
operational capability. This will allow decisionmakers to have the 
facts about what capability can be gained from the modernization 
programs. In addition, the Senate has required a March report updating 
the military's strategic airlift requirement. We know that the old 
requirement, defined pre-9-11, pre-Afghanistan, and pre-Iraq, is too 
low. Until we have a more accurate sense of what is really needed, it 
will be hard for Congress and the military to determine the best way to 
meet the need.
  Let me now detail my concerns with the environmental and civil 
service provisions of this legislation. I believe it is important to 
balance our national security needs with the rights of our children and 
grandchildren to live in a country that has clean air and water. 
America is the home to tremendous natural bounty and diversity. Those 
natural treasures are something we hold in trust, not something we 
should allow destroyed for expediency. As the Nation has advanced, we 
have striven to find ways to balance environmental protection with our 
economic and military needs. We have done this in our environmental 
protection laws, most of which carry national security waiver 
provisions. It is still not clear to me why the conferees felt it was 
appropriate to make changes to two key environmental protection laws 
without taking into account the advice and wisdom of those who oversee 
that legislation daily.
  Let me start by saying that I believe realistic military training is 
absolutely critical to the survival of our military personnel. Until 
now, we have managed to balance that need with our desire to safeguard 
our environment. This bill allows the Department of Defense to get 
around the Endangered Species Act, ESA, and to make enforcement of 
Marine Mammal Protection Act, MMPA, extremely difficult. With respect 
to ESA it is particularly troubling since, again, there is a national 
security waiver provision in that law. In the Senate, we were able to 
craft a compromise that allowed the Defense Department to avoid making 
any new critical habitat designations on installations that had 
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plans that the Secretary of the 
Interior had determined would in fact conserve the species on the 
installation and would be adequately resourced. This bill does not 
provide that safeguard.
  In the case of MMPA, this bill provides a weaker definition of 
``harassment.'' More extraordinary than that, the new weaker definition 
applies not just to military activities, but rather to any scientific 
research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government. We have 
been given no rationale or justification for making it easier for 
federally funded scientists to harm marine mammals. The bill makes it 
easier for the Navy to get permits if their activities will have no 
more than a ``negligible impact'' on marine mammals. I also do not see 
why legitimate Naval activities should not receive the same full 
scrutiny they have always received. Again, we were not given good 
justifications for making such a change. At the end of the day, I am 
very disappointed that the conferees agreed to basically allow the 
Department of Defense to begin making their own environmental rules. 
While they have done a very good job managing many environmental 
issues, their track record is not one that suggests complete self-
regulation is warranted or desirable. Their job is to fight and win our 
nation's wars. As a democracy, it is our job to provide them the legal 
framework that allows them to do their job while not sacrificing the 
nation's natural treasures. This bill is a step backwards.
  In the area of civilian personnel reform at the Department of 
Defense, I am again troubled that this bill opens the door to cronyism 
and discrimination, things from which we have long sought to insulate 
our civil service. While I am open to the notion that civil service 
reform may be in order, I am again concerned that it is being done in 
an ad hoc fashion and without the proper input from the committees that 
oversee the entire civil service. I believe that we must be wary of the 
potential politicization of our workforce. The employees of the Defense 
Department are highly dedicated professional, and they must be free 
from political pressure. I will be taking a close look at how the 
administration goes forward with its new authorities. I will be 
watchful that the employees are free from political retaliation and 
secure in their jobs so that they can perform their vital tasks to the 
highest of professional standards.
  Finally, let me say a few words about some of the nuclear weapons 
provisions in this bill. This conference report does a good job, on 
balance, of providing for our cooperative threat reduction and non-
proliferation assistance programs in the former Soviet Union. It 
provides roughly the funding requested by the President and, in 
particular, a needed Presidential waiver provision so that we can 
continue to help build a chemical weapons destruction facility in 
Shchuch'ye, Russia. It requires the Secretary of Energy to study and 
report on the possibility of purchasing and safeguarding excess 
weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from the independent states of the 
former Soviet Union, so as to ensure that such dangerous material 
cannot be diverted to rogue states or terrorists. And it allows the 
President to use some Nunn-Lugar and non-proliferation funds for 
projects outside the former Soviet Union, if he determines that this 
will assist in the resolution of a critical emerging proliferation 
threat or permit the United States to achieve long-standing 
nonproliferation goals.
  I regret that the Congress agreed to repeal the Spratt-Furse 
prohibition of work on low-yield nuclear weapons. I am pleased, 
however, that the conference report states that such work may not 
commence the engineering development phase, or any subsequent phase, of 
a low-yield nuclear weapon unless specifically authorized by Congress. 
I am also pleased that the Secretary of Energy is barred from 
commencing the engineering development phase, phase 6.3, of the nuclear 
weapons development process, or any subsequent phase, of a Robust 
Nuclear Earth Penetrator weapon unless specifically authorized by 
Congress.
  Again, I voted for this bill because it contains many important 
provisions, particularly in this time of war. But I am very concerned 
that some of the provisions agreed to by the conferees are ill-advised 
and premature. I hope that we will be able to reconsider them next 
year.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the fiscal 
year 2004 National Defense Authorization conference report.
  I want to acknowledge the leadership of the senior Senator from 
Virginia, Senator John Warner, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
in bringing this bill to final passage. Of course, I must also 
recognize the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin. I had the privilege 
of working with them on the Committee for several years and I can 
attest that each year they work together tirelessly to pass the defense 
authorization bill because they understand how absolutely vital this 
legislation is to the effectiveness and well-being of our armed forces.
  For that matter, let me also recognize every Senator on the committee 
for their efforts because this conference report authorizes the 
equipment, the training, and the operational funds necessary to support 
our troops who are right now operating across the globe to make our 
Nation and the world more secure.
  It also reflects the service and sacrifice of our troops by making a 
solid investment in their quality of life by increasing their pay and 
enhancing educational and health care opportunities for our active duty 
military members, our National Guard and Reserve troops and their 
family members. And that is only right, for today we are asking a great 
deal of our gallant young men and women as they guard our Nation at 
home and abroad and, of course,

[[Page 28561]]

risk their lives every day to restore freedom and prosperity to the 
oppressed peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This legislation also recognizes that we owe a continuing debt to 
those who have served honorably by phasing-in for those with a service 
connected disability rated at 50 percent or more the same benefit 
available to every other retired Federal employee--the ability to 
collect full retirement pay and disability entitlements without 
offsets. There is much work to be done before we achieve the full 
equity of concurrent receipt for all disabled military retirees and I 
will continue to support these efforts until we finally achieve the 
goal of full concurrent receipt.
  This $401.3 billion dollar authorization provides $74.3 billion for 
the critical procurement accounts. In particular, this bill makes some 
significant strides by providing almost $12 billion in an area that is 
critical to the security of the Nation--our shipbuilding capacity. It 
has become more and more apparent that as we engage the forces of 
terrorism around the world we have become increasingly dependent on the 
ability of our Navy to not only deliver troops and munitions to the 
fight, but to act as the sea base from which our forces can operate 
without restrictions virtually anywhere in the world.
  Yet, as a former Chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I remain 
concerned about the Navy's shipbuilding program, particularly with 
respect to the surface combatant force. As part of the 2001 Quadrennial 
Defense Review, the Navy and DoD approved a plan for maintaining a 310-
ship Navy including 116 surface combatants--cruisers, destroyers and 
frigates. Partly because of continuing concerns about the Navy's 
uncertainty regarding plans for future surface combatants, last year's 
authorization directed that the Navy notify Congress should the number 
of active and reserve surface combatant ships drop below 116 and 
provide an operational risk assessment based on that number.
  By the end of fiscal year 2003, the Navy's surface combatant fleet 
had fallen to 106 ships and in the latest report submitted by the Navy 
in June of this year, the Navy notified Congress that by the end of 
fiscal year 2004, it was their intent to reduce the force of surface 
combatants to 103 ships. According to the Navy, accelerating the 
decommissioning of Ticonderoga- and Spruance-class ships will free up 
funds for next-generation destroyer programs without appreciably 
raising the operational risk level to our Naval forces because they are 
``significantly less capable than the more modern and survivable AEGIS-
equipped DDG-51 class ships that are replacing them.''
  Therefore, I am encouraged that this authorization provides $3.2 
billion for the construction of three DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class 
destroyers for it is these ships, along with cruisers and frigates, 
that provide protection to the carriers and amphibious ships deployed 
to the Persian Gulf and around the world to prosecute the war on 
terrorism. Moreover, it adds $20 million for the DDG Modernization 
program to begin the insertion of advanced technologies that will 
dramatically reduce operation and support costs to the fleet and 
mitigate the risk of back-fitting these technologies on older ships. 
Above all, we must pursue every path necessary to provide technologies 
to our sailors that will ease their workload, enhance their training 
opportunities and increase the survivability of their ships.
  In 2005, the Navy will complete the DDG-51 acquisition program, and 
the next generation of surface combatants, the DD(X) and the Littoral 
Combat Ship (LCS) are being funded in the research and development 
accounts. Although this authorization provides $1 billion for the 
continued development of the DD(X) and $183 million for the continued 
development of the LCS in the RDT&E accounts, there is a looming gap in 
the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy account for surface combatants. 
Without a focused effort on the part of the Navy to commit and invest 
in a robust surface combatant program, I am concerned not only about 
the ability of the Navy's surface combatant force to maintain current 
operating tempos but the continuing viability of our shipbuilding 
industrial base.
  This trend not only applies to surface combatants but to our attack 
submarine fleet as well. Although the Navy and the Department of 
Defense has established a requirement of 55 attack submarines, the 
current inventory numbers only 54 of those ships. To compound the 
problem, the Navy continues to place submarines such as the USS 
Jacksonville on the list of submarines to be inactivated rather than 
funding their refueling as a solution to this force structure gap. The 
Senate wisely added $248 million for the refueling of that submarine 
and I am pleased this report sustained that effort.
  I am also disappointed that the conferees have included Section 319 
in this bill, on Military Readiness and Marine Mammal Protection. Under 
the Senate Rules, the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation has jurisdiction over issues relating to marine mammals, 
including authorizations for and oversight of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA). The Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, and Coast 
Guard, which I chair, intends to work on reauthorizing the MMPA in its 
entirety this Congress, and we have held a hearing and numerous 
briefings with all concerned marine mammal interests, including the 
Navy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
  By including Section 319 in this bill, the conferees have disregarded 
our jurisdiction and work on the reauthorization of the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act, and they have seriously altered marine mammal policy in 
the United States. I have serious concerns about their changes to the 
definition of harassment, the Department of Defense exemption from the 
MMPA, and the incidental takings language. Changes of this magnitude on 
behalf of the military requires oversight and review by the Commerce 
Committee, and the implications of these changes for other regulated 
parties and interested MMPA stakeholders must be fully understood. Our 
Subcommittee will address these changes and many other marine mammal 
conservation issues as we proceed with full, comprehensive 
reauthorization of the MMPA.
  Importantly, this bill sets aside $63.4 billion in the research and 
development accounts to develop the advanced technologies our troops 
will use to maintain their technological superiority over their 
adversaries. Significantly, conferees authorized $11 billion for the 
critical science and technology programs which brings us close to the 
goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense budget to invest in the 
``seed corn'' of our future military capability.
  Much of that S&T investment will be executed at universities and 
colleges throughout America. For example, the University of Maine 
system has been on the forefront of the development of chemical and 
biological sensors and decontamination systems. The bill provides them 
with $1 million this year to begin the development of an 
environmentally-friendly photo-catalytic decontamination agent that 
holds much promise for the safe and rapid decontamination of exposed 
personnel as well as for the remediation of chemical agent and 
manufacturing and storage facilities.
  In addition, this bill also authorizes $4 million for continued 
research at the University of Maine into the structural reliability of 
fiber-reinforced polymers composites in ship assemblies that will help 
define and ultimately control the significant property variations found 
in composite plates used in Navy ship construction.
  One of the hallmarks of the Department of Defense is the interwoven 
nature of the military and civilian personnel who work together as our 
national security team. Civilian workers at DOD work alongside their 
military counterparts every single day, sometimes in the most hazardous 
conditions. For example, at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, 
ME, workers hold a memorial service every year for the gallant crew of 
the USS Thresher, lost at sea in April, 1963 with 112 sailors and 17 
fellow civilian workers from the shipyard. The civilian workers at the 
Department of Defense work

[[Page 28562]]

and sacrifice to keep this Nation secure and we should recognize their 
dedication and professionalism.
  While there are many positive provisions included in the bill, I am 
disappointed that the conferees did not include all of the personnel 
reform provisions put forward by my colleagues, Senators Collins, 
Levin, Sununu and Voinovich, instead adopting many of the provisions 
put forth by the Department. The current civilian personnel system was 
established over a period of decades in order to protect the rights of 
the civilian worker in areas such as merit-based hiring practices, 
equal pay for equal work, appeals of adverse personnel actions and 
collective bargaining. As the new National Security Personnel System 
established in this bill is set in place, the Department must keep 
faith with its civilian employees and provide for third-party appeals, 
third-party dispute resolution as part of the collective bargaining 
process and a credible, transparent performance rating system.
  I will be watching closely as the Department institutes this new 
personnel system to ensure that Federal employee's rights are not 
abrogated and that the highly-skilled civilian defense workforce can 
continue to stand arm-in-arm with their military counterparts to 
provide for the security of our Nation.
  Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to 
the men and women in the armed forces and their families through the 
enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it 
includes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.7 percent for all military 
personnel and once again provides an additional targeted pay raise of 
5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for the senior non-commissioned officers 
and mid-career personnel who are the backbone of our military.
  There are also a number of provisions that will directly aid the 
families of service members such as an increase in the family 
separation allowance from $100 to $250 per month and an increase in the 
special pay for those subject to hostile fire and imminent danger from 
$150 to $225 per month.
  This authorization rightly recognizes that our reservists and 
National Guard troops play an increasingly vital role in the war on 
terrorism, and extends to them expanded benefits in critical areas such 
as medical care and special pay rates. For example, reservists and 
their families will now be provided access to enhanced TRICARE coverage 
including non-mobilized reservists and their families who are either 
unemployed or whose employers do not provide health coverage. In 
addition, reservists and their families will be granted the same 
commissary privileges as active duty personnel.
  Overall, this authorization provides the men and women of our armed 
forces with the equipment they need to accomplish their mission, the 
quality of life they have earned and security for their families. I 
support this legislation and urge my colleagues to pass this conference 
report unanimously because in a year when our Nation is facing 
unprecedented security challenges and dangers, we can do no less.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am disappointed that some provisions 
in this legislation giving the Department of Defense additional 
personnel flexibility go too far in weakening the legal protections of 
DoD civilian employees, who are critical to the military's performance 
and to its fighting men and women. I pledge to actively monitor DoD's 
implementation of its new authority to guard against abuse.
  Throughout the development of this legislation, the administration 
has tried to push a regressive agenda to do away with important worker 
safeguards--and, in the process, to risk opening up the workplace to 
politicization and unfair treatment and to close off important channels 
of communication between labor and management. Congress rejected much 
of this, but some risks remain.
  On the Governmental Affairs Committee, where I serve as Ranking 
Member, we worked hard and forged a sensible bipartisan compromise on 
these issues for the department. This legislation, S. 1166, was 
approved by our committee by a 10 to 1 vote. The provisions of S. 1166 
were considered by the conferees, and some of our compromises were 
incorporated into this conference report. However, at the insistence of 
House majority conferees and the administration, the conference 
agreement also includes a number of provisions that risk opening up the 
workplace to cronyism and arbitrariness and undermining established 
means for fairly resolving issues between labor and management, so it 
is important that Congressional intent be closely adhered to.
  For example, in the area of collective bargaining, the conference 
agreement included the provision of S. 1166 stating that the Secretary 
of Defense has no authority to waive chapter 71 of civil service law, 
which governs labor-management relations. The conferees also retained 
an amendment, which I had offered in our committee, assuring that the 
Secretary of Defense cannot choose to bargain only with large national 
unions and refuse to bargain with others that do not represent large 
numbers of Defense Department employees.
  However, the conferees also agreed to a new provision authorizing the 
Secretary of Defense, together with the Director of the Office of 
Personnel Management, to establish a ``labor relations system'' for the 
Department of Defense to address the ``unique role'' of the 
Department's civilian workforce. As the conference report makes chapter 
71 non-waivable, this new provision overrides chapter 71 only where the 
new provision and chapter 71 are directly inconsistent with each other. 
The new provision authorizing establishment of a labor relations system 
does not conflict with the statutory rights duties, and protections of 
employees, agencies, and labor organizations set forth in Chapter 71--
including, for example, the selection by employees of labor 
organizations to be their exclusive representatives, the determination 
of appropriate bargaining units, the rights and duties of unions in 
representing employees, the duty to bargain in good faith, the 
prevention of unfair labor practices, and others--and such rights, 
duties, and protections will remain fully applicable at the department. 
The conference agreement provides that, in establishing a labor 
relations system, the Secretary will be authorized to ``provide for 
independent third party review of decisions, including defining what 
decisions are reviewable by the third party, what third party would 
conduct the review, and the standard or standards for that review.'' 
The Secretary may use this provision to expedite the review of 
decisions, but not to alter the statutory rights, duties, and 
protections established in chapter 71 or to compromise the right of 
parties to obtain fair and impartial review of decision. The mutual 
trust required for productive labor-management relations requires a 
level playing field.
  The conference report also includes other provisions, which weaken a 
number of safeguards that we had included in S. 1166, including the 
statutory mandate that DoD meet standards for the quality of its system 
for rating employee performance and that the department phase in its 
new personnel system to enable the department to get fair and objective 
processes in place. The conferees also included new provisions that 
would give the Secretary of Defense latitude to waive premium pay for 
employees working irregular schedules or in dangerous situations, and 
to disregard statutory checks against cronyism and politicization in 
promoting, reassigning, and laying off employees.
  Finally, even aside from the weakened employee protections in the 
legislation itself, I am very concerned that the department may try to 
impose its new personnel authorities without adequate preparation and 
funding. Under the new system, the department wants to use employee 
performance, rather than seniority, to determine salary increases. To 
avoid arbitrary pay decisions, however, the department must establish 
personnel systems that can make meaningful distinctions in employee 
performance based on appropriate criteria, and managers must be 
adequately trained to use these new authorities. In evaluating this 
legislation last summer, GAO warned that the

[[Page 28563]]

vast majority of DoD's systems for appraising employee performance are 
not well-enough established to take on the task of supporting a 
meaningful performance-based pay system. Moreover, successful projects 
where pay is based on performance must be adequately funded, or else 
pay levels will be determined by budget constraints rather than by the 
competency and efforts of employees; and colleagues will be pitted 
against each other in competition for limited funding for performance 
pay, thereby disrupting unit cohesion and teamwork.
  An experienced supervisor at the Defense Department, quoted in a news 
article today about this legislation, well expressed these risks in the 
following terms: ``The changes are going to be swift and we're going to 
go into this thing blind,'' he said. ``The worst thing we can do to the 
employees of the DoD . . . is to come in and demoralize them by putting 
in new pay systems that can't be financed or executed.''
  As the department, together with the Office of Personnel Management, 
proceeds to develop the regulations and the personnel systems to 
implement this legislation, I intend to watch closely. I expect the 
department to provide a fully open process, in close collaboration with 
its employees, for developing the regulations necessary to implement 
the new personnel authorities. And the department should not implement 
pay-for-performance or other authorities until personnel systems are in 
place, managers are trained, and funding is available, so that the 
risks of favoritism, politicization, and a demoralized workforce 
inherent in this legislation are kept to a minimum.
   Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support the fiscal year 204 Department 
of Defense authorization bill.
   With so many of our young men and women deployed in Iraq, 
Afghanistan and throughout the world, it is very important that 
Congress support our troops and the important pay increases and 
personnel benefits in this bill.
   This legislation authorizes a 3.7 percent across the board pay 
increase for all uniformed members of the armed services and targeted 
pay raises of 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for mid-career 
servicemembers. I strongly support these provisions of the bill. These 
pay increases are well earned.
   I am also pleased that imminent danger pay at the level of $225 per 
month and family separation pay of $250 per month was extended until 
December 31, 2004. With United States troops bearing so much of the 
burden in Iraq, many military families are having a difficult time 
making ends meet. Extending these benefits is the least we can do.
   But let me be clear. This $401 billion Defense authorization bill 
contains many troubling provisions that will make us less secure and 
that I oppose.
   First, this legislation repeals a 1989 ban on the research and 
development of low-yield nuclear weapons and provides funding for 
research into new bunker-busting nuclear weapons. Developing new and 
low-yield nuclear weapons will not make us safer--it will only lead to 
a dangerous escalation in the arms race. These provisions send the 
wrong message to the rest of the world and are based on a flawed 
strategy developed by President Bush that contemplates scenarios for 
the preemptive use of nuclear weapons.
   Second, this legislation significantly rolls back environmental 
safeguards on our military bases. The bill prohibits the Secretary of 
Interior from designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species 
Act on any lands owned or controlled by the Department of Defense if 
the lands are subject to a management plan developed by the military 
that provides a ``benefit'' to the species. the conference report also 
gives the military greater leeway to conduct activities that might 
disturb marine mammals, such as whales. Under this bill, the Secretary 
of Defense may exempt any action or category of actions from the 
requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, if the Secretary 
deems it is necessary for national defense. These environmental 
rollbacks are unfortunate. I urge the Department of Defense to take 
extra care not to abuse these new broad authorities.
   Finally, I am concerned this bill did not do more to limit sole-
source contracting by the Department of Defense. During Senate 
consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment stating that the 
Department of Defense should meet its own goal of replacing 
Halliburton's sole-source contract to reconstruct Iraq's oil industry 
with a fully competitive contract by August 31, 2003.
   It is now November and Halliburton's sole source contract is still 
in place and a new competitive contract has not been awarded. I 
appreciate that the final bill contains a provision requiring a report 
within 30 days on why this sole-source contract has been allowed to 
continue. However, it is regrettable that conferees did not establish a 
deadline for the termination of Halliburton's sole-source contract.
   Despite these concerns, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for their hard work on 
this legislation. It is a bill that will help our military men and 
women who are serving to protect our Nation.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the Department of Defense authorization conference bill before us 
today. The bill will strengthen our Nation's military readiness, 
procure vitally important weapons systems and provide for our veterans. 
At the same time, I wish to highlight my concerns about provisions in 
the bill relating to civilian defense workers and the environment.
  I am pleased that the bill allows the U.S. Air Force to move forward 
with the KC-767 Global Tanker Transport program. By allowing the 
modernization of our aging tanker fleet, the bill promotes our national 
security and the security of our friends and allies.
  I became involved in this issue more than 2 years ago after visiting 
Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington State, which is one of the 
premier basing locations for the Air Force's KC-135 refueling tankers. 
It was clear to me then, and it is clear to me now, that these aging 
planes need to be replaced.
  With an average age of over 40 years, the KC-135s are the oldest 
planes in the Air Force, older than most of the pilots that fly them 
and older than virtually all large commercial aircraft.
  The bill authorizes a program that will provide the Air Force one 
hundred KC-767 aircraft by leasing the first twenty planes and 
purchasing the remaining eighty. This arrangement is the result of a 2-
year effort to find the best way to provide our pilots with the 
equipment that they desperately need, while protecting the interests of 
taxpayers. This has been accomplished.
  I want to congratulate my colleagues, Senator Warner and Senator 
Levin, for their leadership on the Senate Armed Services Committee to 
develop a solution that will reach our goals. I also want to thank the 
Air Force and the Department of Defense for working to find the funds 
that will carry out this program.
  I am particularly proud that the Air Force was able to improve our 
military capability by procuring an American product. Boeing has been 
the industry leader in the tanker market for fifty years and it has 
helped ensure our military's air power dominance.
  The 767 is built by thousands of men and women in my home State and 
is sold around the world. I am excited to see that because of this 
legislation, the Boeing 767 tanker will keep our military flying in the 
21st century.
  I am also pleased that the bill provides for our Nation's veterans. I 
am profoundly grateful for the service of America's veterans and for 
the sacrifices they have made to defend our Nation and our freedom. We 
have an important responsibility to ensure that our veterans are 
provided benefits and assistance that they deserve.
  Specifically, the bill authorizes that the full concurrent receipt 
will be phased in over a 10-year period for disabled military retirees 
and National Guard and Reservists who have at least 20 years of 
service. In each of the next 10 years, service members will receive an 
additional 10-percent increase, until the full concurrent receipt is 
reached in 2014.

[[Page 28564]]

  The bill also expands the Combat-Related Special Compensation Program 
that was enacted as part of the Fiscal Year 2003 National Defense 
Authorization Act. This year's bill provides concurrent receipt to 
military retirees, National Guard and Reservists who have at least 20 
years of service, any retiree who was awarded the Purple Heart, or any 
retiree with a service-connected disability incurred as a direct result 
of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the 
performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an 
instrumentality of war.
  A strong national defense depends on active duty forces, Guard and 
Reserve personnel, a civilian workforce, military contractors and 
military communities. Civilian workers in my State play a key role in 
ensuring that the U.S. military is the best-trained and best-equipped 
in the world. Over 16,000 highly skilled and dedicated workers in the 
International Association of Machinists Local 160, the Bremerton Metal 
Trades Council, and other unions and organizations in Kitsap County 
help ensure that our sailors have the ships and equipment they need to 
combat terrorism and protect our security.
  Accordingly, I am concerned about provisions in the bill that would 
erode existing protections for civilian DOD workers. These provisions 
will set back our efforts to ensure a fair and effective civil service 
system. Specifically, these provisions could weaken collective 
bargaining rights at the local level, reduce due process protections 
for DOD workers, and scale back appeals rights along with protections 
against favoritism in hiring in the workplace.
  Given the recent contributions of our civilian workers in the war 
effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should not be taking away long-
standing protections that have helped make the U.S. military the 
strongest in the world. I intend to work to ensure effective 
congressional oversight of the implementation of these controversial 
personnel provisions.
  I am also troubled by provisions in the bill that would weaken 
current environmental protections for marine mammals and other species. 
For several decades, the military services have demonstrated a strong 
commitment to natural resource conservation while fulfilling their 
primary missions. Puget Sound is home to many military installations 
and sensitive species. Based on our experience in Washington State, I 
believe that we can have both the highest levels of military readiness 
and natural resource conservation.
  However, I am very troubled that the bill would weaken both the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). Both of these acts currently provide significant environmental 
protections, while providing the military the flexibility to conduct 
training and other exercises. Because species recovery efforts pose 
unique challenges, I believe that amendments to these acts are best 
considered by the Commerce Committee and the Environment and Public 
Works Committee.
  On balance, however, this bill marks a major step forward in support 
of America's soldiers, sailors, marines and air force personnel and our 
Nation's security. I am pleased to vote for it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the 
fiscal year 2004 Defense Authorization bill. At the same time, I am 
compelled to state for the record my dissatisfaction with the process 
that first delayed the conference report for months, and then presented 
the conferees with a conference report and a deadline for filing that 
precluded Senators from familiarizing themselves adequately with the 
final product.
  Despite my concerns about the process, and my opposition to three 
specific provisions in this bill, the men and women in uniform 
protecting the United States need the support this bill provides. I 
commend Senator Warner and Senator Levin for their dedication and 
leadership in bringing this difficult process to a successful 
conclusion. Our security depends upon the unrivaled strength of 
America's military and the unmatched skills, dedication and bravery of 
America's servicemen and -women, which they are demonstrating on a 
daily basis. This defense blueprint ensures that we will be able to 
continue to give our troops in the field the best possible equipment, 
while at the same time preparing them for future challenges. The funds 
authorized in this bill will allow our military to continue to conduct 
operations with the intensity and effectiveness that the worldwide 
fight against terror requires. Secondly, and no less important, our 
military services will be able to continue transformation at the pace 
necessary to meet the challenges they will face in the coming decades.
  There are many important provisions in this bill. I want to briefly 
highlight ones that I think are particularly important. First, the 
strength of our military depends primarily on the men and women who are 
serving with such dedication and courage. They deserve fair 
compensation and adequate support for their families. This bill 
authorizes critical increases in pay and improvements in their quality 
of life that are so important to America's soldiers and their families. 
This bill increases base pay by 4.1 percent, increases family 
separation allowance, increases hostile fire pay, authorizes the first 
increment of concurrent receipt for disabled retirees, expands 
commissary access for Selected Reserve members and their families, and 
enhances health care benefits for reservists. I am particularly pleased 
that we have made progress in increasing the benefits for our 
reservists and their families, because they are bearing an important 
share of the sacrifices our military is making for our defense.
  We have also included important provisions to maintain the momentum 
in transforming our military services. The Airland Subcommittee, where 
I have the honor of serving as Ranking Member, under the able 
leadership of Senator Sessions, has fully supported the critical 
programs for transforming the Army and Air Force, such as the Army's 
interim brigades and the Future Combat System, and the Air Force F-22 
fighter and the Joint Strike Fighter. I am also pleased that we have 
included a provision to improve the Department of Defense's capacity to 
expand high speed high bandwidth capabilities for network centric 
operations, which is critical for our military to expand it's military 
dominance.
  Despite my approval of the bill, I oppose some of the labor/personnel 
and environmental provisions contained in the legislation, and I did 
not sign the conference report to signal my disagreement with these 
provisions. I am disappointed that some provisions giving the 
Department of Defense additional personnel flexibility went too far in 
weakening the legal protections of DOD civilian employees who are 
critical to the military's performance and to its fighting men and 
women and that key work of the Government Affairs Committee, which has 
primary jurisdiction, was ignored in propounding these provisions. I 
intend to describe at another time my concerns with the personnel 
provisions in this bill.
  On the environmental front, I am disappointed that the conference 
bill contains unnecessarily broad exemptions for the Department of 
Defense from an array of environmental protections, most of which 
originated in the House of Representatives. Without question, we can 
protect our troops and conserve our natural resources--especially our 
wildlife and marine mammals--at the same time. We have built the 
strongest military force in the world while the Department of Defense 
has complied with the same environmental laws as everyone else. This 
bill undermines the protections for wildlife under the Endangered 
Species Act by allowing an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 
certified in writing to confer an undefined ``benefit'' on species to 
substitute for critical habitat designation. Unlike the Senate's bill, 
the conference bill does not require the Department of Defense to fund 
or dedicate resources to implement or monitor the plan; or the 
Department of Interior to determine that the plan will effectively 
conserve species within the lands it covers. While I would hope that 
the Department of Defense would

[[Page 28565]]

feel obliged to dedicate sufficient resources, the country would be 
better served to have required it.
  The bill's changes to the Marine Mammal Protection Act for military 
readiness and federally funded scientific research activities were not 
part of the Senate's bill. Quite simply, they may have disastrous 
consequences for whales and other species living off our Nation's 
coasts. For example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act's core 
prohibition against taking actions with the potential to injure or 
disturb marine mammals has been severely weakened. Now, only acts that 
injure or have the significant potential to injure marine mammals, or 
that are likely to disturb their behavioral patterns to the point of 
abandonment or significant alteration, are prohibited. And these 
changes also are an unnecessary intervention into the work of the 
committee with expertise. They come just as the Senate and House 
committees with jurisdiction over these questions have begun their work 
of reauthorizing the Marine Mammal Protection Act. I only hope the 
committees will revisit these provisions in the reauthorization of that 
legislation.
  In closing, let me express my concerns about how the conference was 
managed. It is unfortunate, in my view, that on an issue as important 
as this--the very essence of our Nation's ability to wage the current 
war against terrorism and at the same time prepare for unknown 
challenges in the future--that it took months to reach a consensus on 
this bill and that the final conference report was presented to all 
members with inadequate time to review the final product prior to 
filing. Such an important bill should not be handled in this manner.
  Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, between now and the hour of 2:45, I 
yield such time as I have to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I rise today to make some brief comments 
about the Defense authorization bill.
  First, I compliment the chairman and ranking member for working hard 
on this legislation. I also thank the professional staff, both on the 
committee as well as the personal staffs. It was my first year on the 
committee, and it was an incredible process. There were many 
controversial and complex issues on which we worked together.
  In the end, we have done a lot for the members of our military, our 
Armed Forces serving in this country and around the world. With the 
global war on terrorism, these issues have become more important than 
ever: To make sure they have the resources to fight the global war on 
terrorism and to ensure a quality of life so we can maintain the all-
volunteer professional armed services we have.
  Several issues covered in my subcommittee, the Readiness 
Subcommittee, were very important. We have a problem with our ranges. 
Dealing with readiness, we have to have the proper training facilities. 
This bill helps us address some of those issues. The military does such 
a fabulous job protecting the environment on its training ranges that 
the use of those ranges almost became threatened. This bill makes sure 
that the training ranges and the environment are protected, while the 
military can still use the training ranges. That was a very important 
part of this Defense authorization bill.
  I also think about what we have done for military families. That 
cannot be overemphasized because of the sacrifices they make for this 
country. It is not just the people in uniform, but it is the families 
and the sacrifices they make for the country. It is important that we 
take care of their quality of life. I am very proud of the work we have 
done in this Defense authorization bill.
  I hope next year we can complete this bill earlier in the year, 
before Defense appropriations is done, because it is a better way to do 
it. The issues are complex. Many times they are controversial. But we 
have to be willing to put our personal interests, our party's interests 
behind the interests of our Nation and the interests of our military.
  The Defense authorization bill is one place where we can join hands 
across the aisle, as we have done on so many issues this year, and 
continue to work to make sure our military is so far superior to any 
other military in the world that if there is ever a question whether we 
go into battle, we know we have the upper hand.
  Madam President, I thank the chairman for all the great work he has 
done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague for 
his remarks and, more importantly, his active participation in our 
committee's work throughout this year.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Arkansas be recognized for 2 minutes immediately prior to the 
vote.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, we have the 
military construction conference report coming up right after the vote, 
and there is no time set for the two managers to speak.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided for 
the two managers of the bill to speak prior to that vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there objection to the extra 2 minutes? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I rise today in support of the 2004 Defense 
authorization conference report. Even though there are some provisions 
I am disappointed in--some of the environmental matters and how those 
issues got worked out, and a few other issues, and I don't want to 
dwell on the negative--there are two reasons I signed on to the 
conference report and why I encourage my colleagues to vote for this 
conference report.
  Those two reasons are sitting right in the front, Senator John Warner 
and Senator Carl Levin. They have demonstrated a true spirit of 
bipartisanship. It has been a great model for me as a new Senator to 
sit on this committee and watch these two Senators fight for their 
causes but do it in a very fair and open manner and deal with each 
other in such a constructive way. I thank them for their leadership.
  They worked through dozens and dozens of very difficult issues. 
Nobody got their way completely. But they showed great leadership and 
great stewardship. I want to publicly acknowledge them and thank them, 
especially Chairman Warner because he has been extremely fair to the 
minority.
  Again, we don't always get our way, but I think he has demonstrated 
the camaraderie and the comity that we should have in the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague for his kind 
remarks. I simply say, spoken like the true son of a great United 
States Senator, with whom I was privileged to serve and who emulated 
all of the characteristics the Senator from Arkansas has bestowed on 
me, undeserving as they may be, one David Pryor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank our dear friend, Mark Pryor. 
Senator Warner and I came together and we came with his father at the 
same time. His dad and his mother, Barbara, have been dear friends of 
ours. Mark Pryor has made an extraordinary contribution as a new 
Senator to this body and to our Armed Services Committee. He has made a 
great contribution. We are grateful for that and for his remarks this 
afternoon.
  Mr. President, I rise once again to join with Senator Warner in 
urging

[[Page 28566]]

the Senate to adopt the conference report on H.R. 1588, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004.
  As we stand on the floor of the Senate today, America's armed forces 
are engaged in military operations around the world on a scale unknown 
since the end of the Vietnam war nearly three decades ago. According to 
the latest reports, we have 132,000 troops deployed in Iraq with an 
additional 87,000 serving in support roles outside of Iraq. We have 
9,000 troops in Afghanistan, with an additional 35,000 serving in 
support roles. Tens of thousands more soldiers, sailors airmen and 
marines are deployed elsewhere around the world.
  In the last 2 years, we have also seen the largest sustained callups 
of National Guard and Reserve components since the Vietnam war. We have 
seen units deployed for extended periods, and repeated deployments of 
the same units. Throughout this period, our men and women in uniform 
have shown extraordinary ability, professionalism, and dedication, 
conclusively demonstrating once again that they are by far the best 
trained, best equipped, best disciplined, most highly skilled and 
motivated military force in the world. Nonetheless, there are 
indications that the unprecedented demands we have been placing on our 
Armed Forces are starting to have an impact on morale.
  I will vote for this conference report because it contains so many 
important provisions for our national security and for our men and 
women in uniform.
  It includes an across-the-board military pay increase, along with a 
series of other increased pays and benefits for our men and women in 
uniform and their families. The conference report includes Senator 
Harry Reid's amendment on concurrent receipt; Senator Daschle's 
amendment on TRICARE; Senator Kennedy's amendment on expedited 
citizenship for lawful immigrants serving in the military; and an 
increase in Army troop strength on which Senator Jack Reed played a 
leading role. It includes important Senate provisions that authorize an 
expansion of our cooperative threat reduction programs to countries 
outside the former Soviet Union.
  The provision authorizing the establishment of a new National 
Security Personnel System did not come out entirely the way I would 
have liked, but the Senate was able to include a number of important 
protections for civilian employees at the Department of Defense. 
Senator Collins' strong commitment to a bipartisan, fair, and balanced 
approach to this issue made this a far better provision than it would 
otherwise have been.
  The conference report contains a number of other provisions that 
concern me. For example, I believe that provisions addressing the 
Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act go beyond 
what is needed to address the legitimate needs of the Department of 
Defense. I am also disappointed by the outcome of the conference on 
nuclear weapons issues, which take the United States in a dangerous new 
direction.
  Despite my concerns about these issues, I will vote for this 
conference report because it contains so many other provisions that are 
so important for our national defense and for our men and women in 
uniform. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this conference 
report, which will help provide our military the training and equipment 
that they need and the compensation and benefits that they deserve.
  Thanks again to Senator Warner and both our staffs, who we 
specifically thanked last night for all their work which made this 
conference report possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the conference report.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Edwards) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily 
absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 447 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham (FL)
     Graham (SC)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Akaka
     Byrd
     Jeffords

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Edwards
       
     Kerry
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________