[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22987-22997]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  RONALD W. REAGAN NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                        2005--CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the bill (H.R. 4200) and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 22988]]

       The Committee of Conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4200), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the proceedings of the House in 
the Record for Friday, October 8, 2004.)
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished ranking 
member, Mr. Levin, and myself, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
conference report be adopted and the motion to reconsider be laid on 
the table, all with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this conference report represents the hard 
work of many, many individuals. I first thank my distinguished ranking 
member, Mr. Levin of Michigan, together with our subcommittee chairmen 
and all members of the committee. This was truly a bipartisan effort 
from start to finish. We achieved an extraordinary piece of 
legislation. I am proud to say, at the request of the chairman, myself, 
the bill is named the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
  We do that in honor of our late President's extraordinary 
contributions to the men and women of the Armed Forces in his capacity 
as President and in his role as Commander in Chief at that time.
  This conference report provides $420.6 billion for defense, an 
increase of $19.3 billion above the amount authorized by Congress last 
year. The report also authorizes an additional $25 billion for war-
related costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  I am proud to bring the conference report for the Ronald W. Reagan 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 before the 
Senate for final passage. I thank my ranking member and partner for 
these 26 years, the senior Senator from Michigan, Carl Levin, for his 
consistently constructive help and leadership in bringing this 
important legislation to the floor. I would also like to thank our 
subcommittee chairman and ranking members, and all committee members 
for their hard work on this conference report. I am pleased that this 
legislation report has the unanimous support of the members of the 
committee.
  I also want to thank Chairman Duncan Hunter and Congressman Skelton 
for their leadership and teamwork in producing this conference 
agreement.
  No committee succeeds without a dedicated, professional staff, and I 
believe our committee has one of the finest on Capitol Hill. I 
particularly want to recognize the efforts of the Committee Staff 
Director, Judy Ansley and the Democratic Staff Director, Rick DeBobes 
in bringing this process to a successful conclusion. They have led a 
great staff, all of whom deserve great credit and recognition. This 
dedicated professional staff worked very long hours and helped the 
members reach the agreements that are contained in the conference 
report before us. I ask that the names of all members of the committee 
staff be printed in the record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. As we consider this conference report, we remain a nation 
at war against terrorism around the world. There is no doubt that we 
will win this war because of the extraordinary Americans who volunteer 
to serve the cause of peace and freedom. All Americans are in their 
debt, and they and their families deserve our unwavering support. The 
legacy of President Ronald W. Reagan, to whom we and the Nation paid 
our last respects a few short months ago, is memorialized in this 
legislation. I can think of no better way to honor the service and 
sacrifice of the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, 
than to provide them with the pay and benefits they so richly deserve, 
and to give them the equipment they need to carry out their critical 
missions on behalf of our Nation, as President Reagan fought so hard to 
do when he was President and their Commander-in-Chief.
  This bill provides much needed benefits to those now serving in the 
Armed Forces--Reserve and Active Duty--as well as addressing long-
standing needs of military retirees and veterans, and their families 
who served this Nation so well. There were many contentious issues to 
resolve--BRAC, Buy America, Tanker replacement, housing privatization 
and TRICARE for Reservists, among others. We did resolve them, however, 
and I am proud we have achieved our goal of concluding a conference 
which sends a strong message of support to our men and women in 
uniform.
  As we stand here today hundreds of thousands of soldiers, sailors, 
airmen, and Marines, Active and Reserve, and countless civilians who 
support them, are serving bravely around the world from the Persian 
Gulf region and Afghanistan to Europe and North Korea. All Americans 
are justifiably proud of what the U.S. Armed Forces and their coalition 
partners have accomplished in the global war on terrorism. We are ever 
mindful that the defense of our homeland begins on the distant 
battlefields of the world.
  We must pause and remember that military success is not achieved 
without significant sacrifice. No matter how well conducted, military 
victory does not come without sacrifice and loss. We extend our 
heartfelt sympathies to the families and loved ones of those who have 
lost their lives in these operations and in other military operations 
to make America and the world safer. We mourn their loss and resolve to 
forever remember their service. We give thanks to those who serve and 
have served their Nation with distinction throughout our history. We 
are blessed to have this new generation of great Americans, so 
committed to American traditions, values and ideals, carrying on the 
traditions of those who preceded them with such dedication and valor.
  Without a doubt, the U.S. military is the most capable military force 
in the world today, a model of excellence, and the standard by which 
others are measured. The provisions in this conference report sustain 
and improve on that excellence.
  This conference report continues the momentum of recent years in 
making real increases in defense spending--a 3.4 percent increase--to 
sustain readiness, enhance the quality of life of our military 
personnel and their families, modernize and transform the U.S. Armed 
Forces to meet current and future threats, and take care of our 
retirees and veterans. The conference report before us provides $420.6 
billion for defense, an increase of $19.3 billion above the amount 
authorized by Congress last year. The conference report also authorizes 
an additional $25. billion for war-related costs in Afghanistan and 
Iraq.
  There are many things contained in this conference report that are 
important and of which I am very proud, but I want to highlight just a 
few. First and foremost is the 3.5 percent pay raise for our men and 
women in uniform, and a new healthcare benefit for reservists who serve 
on extended active duty. Second, we have reached agreement on how to 
proceed in procuring new aerial refueling aircraft in a prudent manner, 
consistent with existing laws and regulations. Third, we have preserved 
the 2005 BRAC round--a much needed review of our basing infrastructure. 
This is critical for the efficiency and smart posturing of our Armed 
Forces to meet future challenges.
  There are many other important initiatives, such as housing 
privatization, improved survivor benefits, funding for missile defense 
and other weapons systems. These important initiatives and authorities 
are contained in the conference report before you.
  This conference report sends a clear signal to our citizens, and to 
nations

[[Page 22989]]

around the world, that the United States is committed to a strong 
national defense. More important, this conference report sends a clear 
signal to our men and women in uniform, from the newest private to the 
most senior flag and general officer, that they have the support of the 
American people.
  I thank my colleagues for their support of this conference report.

                               Exhibit 1

           Committee Staff of the Committee on Armed Services

     Judith A. Ansley, Staff Director
     Richard D. DeBobes, Democratic Staff Director
     Charles W. Alsup, Professional Staff Member
     June M. Borawski, Printing and Documents Clerk
     Leah C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings Clerk
     Alison E. Brill, Staff Assistant
     Jennifer D. Cave, Special Assistant
     L. David Cherington, Counsel
     Christine E. Cowart, Administrative Assistant to the Minority
     Daniel J. Cox, Jr., Professional Staff Member
     Madelyn R. Creedon, Minority Counsel
     Kenneth M. Crosswait, Professional Staff Member
     Marie Fabrizio Dickinson, Chief Clerk
     Regina A. Dubey, Research Assistant
     Gabriella Eisen, Research Assistant
     Evelyn N. Farkas, Professional Staff Member
     Richard W. Fieldhouse, Professional Staff Member
     Andrew W. Florell, Staff Assistant
     Brian R. Green, Professional Staff Member
     Creighton Greene, Professional Staff Member
     William C. Greenwalt, Professional Staff Member
     Bridget W. Higgins, Research Assistant
     Ambrose R. Hock, Professional Staff Member
     Gary J. Howard, Systems Administrator
     Jennifer Key, Security Clerk
     Gregory T. Kiley, Professional Staff Member
     Michael J. Kuiken, Professional Staff Member
     Maren R. Leed, Professional Staff Member
     Gerald J. Leeling, Minority Counsel
     Peter K. Levine, Minority Counsel
     Thomas L. MacKenzie, Professional Staff Member
     Michael J. McCord, Professional Staff Member
     Elaine A. McCusker, Professional Staff Member
     William G. P. Monahan, Minority Counsel
     Lucian L. Niemeyer, Professional Staff Member
     Stanley R. O'Connor, Jr., Professional Staff Member
     Cindy Pearson, Assistant Chief Clerk and Security Manager
     Paula J. Philbin, Professional Staff Member
     Benjamin L. Rubin, Receptionist
     Lynn F. Rusten, Professional Staff Member
     Catherine E. Sendak, Staff Assistant
     Arun A. Seraphin, Professional Staff Member
     Joseph T. Sixeas, Professional Staff Member
     Robert M. Soofer, Professional Staff Member
     Scott W. Stucky, General Counsel
     Diana G. Tabler, Professional Staff Member
     Richard F. Walsh, Counsel
     Bridget E. Ward, Staff Assistant
     Nicholas W. West, Staff Assistant
     Pendred K. Wilson, Staff Assistant

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee and my good friend, Senator Warner, in 
urging the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 4200, the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We began work on this 
bill with our mark-up in early May. Since that time, we have spent 5 
weeks on the Senate floor and nearly 4 months in conference. This 
conference agreement would not have been possible without the strength 
and perseverance of Senator Warner.
  This conference report will promote the national defense, improve the 
quality of life of our men and women in uniform, and make the 
investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. First 
and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in 
compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and 
their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing 
military operations around the world.
  Mr. President, we all know that our Armed Forces today are deployed 
in harms' way around the world. As we stand on the Senate floor today, 
more than 130,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are engaged in 
taking on an aggressive insurgency and winning the peace in Iraq, with 
tens of thousands more supporting the war effort from outside the 
country. At the same time, our military continues to bear the brunt of 
the continuing effort to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, keep the 
peace in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai, and contain the threat of North 
Korea--while also preparing to execute other missions in support of the 
national military strategy.
  It has been clear to many of us for some time now that the Army and 
Marine Corps are simply stretched too thin, and that additional troops 
are badly needed to meet our worldwide commitments. I am pleased that 
this bill takes an important step toward that objective by increasing 
the active duty end strength of the Army by 20,000 and the active duty 
end strength of the Marine Corps by 3,000.
  I am also pleased that the bill before us contains much of the 
amendment offered on the Senate floor by Senator Daschle and Senator 
Graham to provide expanded TRICARE benefits for the National Guard and 
Reserve members who have made so many sacrifices and contributed so 
much to our nation over the last three years. In particular, the 
conference report would:
  Make permanent the temporary authority for free TRICARE health care 
coverage for National Guard and Reserve members and their families up 
to 90 days before a mobilized service member reports for active duty 
and for 180 days after release from active duty; and
  Authorize a new TRICARE benefit for Guard and Reserve members and 
their families when the member is not on active duty.
  Under this provision, National Guard and Reserve members who are 
mobilized would be authorized, upon release from active duty, to enroll 
in TRICARE Prime for 1 year for every 90 days spent on active duty. 
This is the least that we can do for these brave men and women.
  The bill would take a number of other important steps to improve the 
lives of our men and women in uniform. For example, the bill would:
  Authorize a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for military 
personnel;
  Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty 
subject to hostile fire or imminent danger;
  Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of the family separation 
allowance;
  Improve the Survivor Benefit Plan by eliminating the reduction in SBP 
benefits for surviving spouses over age 62, phased in over 3\1/2\ 
years;
  Ensure fair treatment of our disabled veterans by repealing the 
phase-in of concurrent receipt of retired pay and VA disability pay to 
military retirees with service-connected disabilities rated as 100 
percent; and
  Authorized a new program of educational assistance to members of the 
Selective Reserve, based on the GI Bill.
  The bill would also directly address a number of specific problems 
and issues that have arisen in the course of our continuing operations 
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  First, the bill would provide our Armed Forces new flexibility to 
respond to changing circumstances on the ground by authorizing the use 
of up to $300 million for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, under which commanders may use funds for small 
humanitarian and reconstruction projects; authorizing the use of up to 
$500 million for assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan military or 
security forces to enhance their ability to combat terrorism and 
support U.S. or coalition military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; 
and authorizing the Special Operations Command to expend up to $25 
million of existing funds to provide support to foreign forces, 
irregular forces, groups, or individuals, engaged in supporting or 
facilitating ongoing military operations by the United States special 
operations forces to combat terrorism; establishing a new rapid 
acquisition program to enable the Department of Defense to quickly 
acquire equipment needed by a combatant commander to eliminate 
deficiencies in equipment that have resulted in combat fatalities; and 
raising the thresholds for the use of streamlined acquisition 
procedures outside the United States in support of contingency 
operations.
  Second, the bill contains important language from amendments offered 
by Senators Durbin and Leahy on the

[[Page 22990]]

Senate floor, reaffirming the prohibition against subjecting any person 
in the custody or under the physical control of the United States to 
``torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that 
is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 
States.'' These provisions send an important message to the world that 
the United States will not permit, condone, tolerate, or encourage the 
kind of behavior so graphically depicted in the photographs from Abu 
Ghraib prison in Iraq. We all know that the abuses that occurred at Abu 
Ghraib and elsewhere have undermined the hard work and sacrifices of 
our military and tarnished the image of our armed forces. The 
provisions included in the conference report reaffirm that we are a 
Nation of laws and send the message that Congress will not accept mixed 
messages or ambiguous statements on the fundamental issue of human 
rights and dignity.
  The bill contains several other important provisions addressing 
ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These include:
  A provision originally written by Senator Dodd, which authorizes 
reimbursement of service members and their families for purchases of 
body armor and other protective equipment at a time when the Department 
of Defense did not have sufficient protective gear in Iraq to protect 
our men and women in uniform; a provision addressing deficiencies in 
the oversight and management of contractors on the ground in Iraq, and 
requiring the issuance of specific guidance and regulations to enhance 
the safety of contractor employees and improve coordination between our 
armed forces and the contractors who are there to support their 
rebuilding efforts; and a provision reauthorizing and extending the CPA 
Inspector General to ensure that we have continuing oversight over 
fraud, waste and abuse in the expenditure of funds for the rebuilding 
of Iraq.
  The conference report also includes a number of provisions that will 
help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other 
federal agencies. These include: the Collins-Levin amendment permitting 
federal employees to be heard, for the first time, in bid protests 
appealing the results of public-private competitions; a provision that 
would extend the authority for energy savings performance contracts for 
an additional 2 years, enabling federal agencies to save hundreds of 
millions of dollars through improved energy efficiency; a provision 
that should help resolve the controversy over the Air Force's proposed 
lease of tanker aircraft by prohibiting the Air Force from entering a 
lease and instead requiring the use of a traditional multi-year 
contract; a provision that would require the Department of Defense to 
develop and implement a business enterprise architecture to gain better 
control over its finances; and a provision directing the Secretary of 
Defense to develop policies and regulations to discourage other 
countries from imposing ``offset agreements'' in defense trade, and 
thereby undermining our defense industrial base.
  Finally, I am pleased that the conference report contains a series of 
provisions that will establish a workers' compensation-like program for 
nuclear workers who have cancers and other occupational-related 
injuries. The program will be administered by the Department of Labor 
and establishes a compensation scheme for both employees and survivors. 
Covered employees would receive the compensation benefits, as well as 
medical benefits under the provisions. The total amount of compensation 
under the provision would be capped at $250,000. Also included are 
provisions that would extend to uranium miners the opportunity to seek 
this workers' compensation-like benefit. Employees can elect to apply 
for this benefit or they may choose to remain in their individual 
state's workers' compensation system.
  Mr. President, this is a good conference report, but no conference 
report is perfect.
  I strongly disagree with a provision in the bill that would attempt 
to transfer from the Department of Defense to the Treasury the 
responsibility to provide the funding for military health care. 
Programs do not become ``free'' just because they are moved outside the 
Defense budget. That is why this provision was strongly opposed by the 
chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.
  I am deeply disappointed that the House conferees refused to accept 
important Senate provisions addressing hate crimes. Acts of violence 
and bigotry based on factors like race, religion, national origin, 
gender, sexual orientation, or disability can undermine our nation's 
fabric by placing in question our continuing commitment to acceptance 
and diversity. The Kennedy-Smith hate crimes bill would address this 
problem head-on. The Senate has now passed the hate crimes bill on two 
separate occasions, and each time, the House has refused even to 
consider the provision on the merits.
  I am equally disappointed that the House refused to include the Boxer 
amendment on abortion. Under the law as it stands today, Medicare funds 
may be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest, but Department of 
Defense funds may not. This kind of discrimination against women who 
put their lives on the line for their country is incomprehensible to 
me.
  I am disappointed that, faced with a veto threat, we were able to get 
less than half of the provisions that we wanted to codify sound 
practices in public-private competition of work currently performed by 
government employees.
  Finally, I am disappointed that this conference report includes a 
House provision reducing the authority of the base closure commission 
to address bases not recommended for closure or realignment by the 
Secretary of Defense.
  Despite my concerns about these issues, I will vote for this bill 
because it contains so many other provisions that are so important for 
our national defense and for our men and women and uniform. At a time 
when our armed forces are under hostile fire in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
it is vitally important that we enact a defense authorization bill that 
provides the training and equipment that our military needs and the 
compensation and benefits that they deserve.
  I would like to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, 
Senator Warner, once again for the effective leadership that he 
provided in bringing this bill through conference and back to the 
Senate floor. Senator Warner's inclusiveness and openness in the way he 
manages the Committee and the conference have resulted in a far better 
bill than we would otherwise have had.
  I would also like to thank the minority members of our Committee for 
the able work that they have done in support of this bill throughout 
the past year, starting with hearings in the Spring, and continuing 
through mark-up, floor deliberation, and conference. We have a truly 
talented group of members, whose dedication to the national defense 
shows in their work.
  I would be remiss if I did not also mention the work of our dedicated 
committee staff, on both sides of the aisle. It is the hard work of 
this staff--under the able leadership of Judy Ansley and Rick DeBobes--
that has made this bill possible. Rick and Judy and the staff have been 
working literally around the clock for the last month to put this 
conference report, and I think that the Senate owes a debt of gratitude 
to every one of them.
  On the Majority staff Judy Ansley, Chuck Alsup, June Borawski, Leah 
Brewer, Alison Brill, Jennifer Cave, David Cherington, Marie Dickenson, 
Regine Dubey, Andy Florell, Brian Green, Bill Greenwalt, Bruce Hock, 
Gary Howard, Jennifer Key, Greg Kiley, Tom MacKenzie, Elaine McCusker, 
Lucian Niemeyer, Stan O'Connor, Cindy Pearson, Paula Philbin, Ben 
Rubin, Lynn Rusten, Katie Sendak, Joe Sixeas, Rob Soofer, Diana Tabler, 
Dick Walsh, Bridget Ward, Nick West, and Kelley Wilson.
  On the Minority staff Rick DeBobes, Chris Cowart, Dan Cox, Madelyn 
Creedon, Mitch Crosswait, Brie Eisen, Evelyn Farkas, Richard 
Fieldhouse, Creighton Greene, Bridget Higgins, Mike Kuiken, Maren Leed, 
Gary

[[Page 22991]]

Leeling, Peter Levine, Mike McCord, Bill Monahan, and Arun Seraphin.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
bill.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, while I support Senate passage of H.R. 
4200, the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005, and will not object to its passage, I am nevertheless 
concerned with language appearing in section 1225, ``Bilateral 
Exchanges and Trade in Defense Articles and Defense Services Between 
the United States and the United Kingdom and Australia.'' My concerns 
are shared by the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee, Senator Biden.
  We maintain an amicable and beneficial working relationship between 
the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees. In many years 
past, we opposed efforts by the Armed Services Committee to legislate 
on matters under our Committee's unique jurisdiction. Last June, we 
offered an amendment to the defense authorization bill because we 
understood that our own authorization bill would not proceed, and that 
the Senate Armed Services Committee supported all of the provisions we 
offered. We also sought to provide a response to certain provisions in 
the House defense authorization bill.
  The Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, 
introduced Senate Amendment 3429 to S. 2400, the Senate version of the 
defense authorization bill, on June 7, 2004. This amendment was 
identical to language in our committee's bill that provided exceptions 
to the requirements in subsection (j) of section 38 of the Arms Export 
Control Act regarding the content of any bilateral agreement that would 
waive International Traffic in Arms Regulations--the ITAR, 22 CFR 120-
130--export license requirements for transfers of defense items or 
defense services to the United Kingdom and Australia. This legislation 
would have, in the case of the agreement with the Government of 
Australia, excepted the agreement from section 38(j)(2)(A) and, in the 
case of the agreement with the Government of the United Kingdom, 
excepted that agreement from the requirements of section 38 
(j)(1)(A)(ii), (2)(A)(i), and (2)(A)(ii). The administration supported 
that language, and so did Senator Warner when he offered our language 
on his bill.
  The issue of the ITAR exemption agreements is a complex and important 
topic and, unfortunately, has become a major irritant in our special 
relationship with the United Kingdom. Perhaps more unfortunately, the 
bill the Senate will pass today will include not our language but 
rather language that may be prejudicial to U.S. interests on several 
grounds.
  First, the bill no longer provides the exceptions we sought. 
Enactment of this provision may therefore make any future efforts to 
obtain such statutory exceptions for these most important allies all 
the more difficult. The Senate will now have effectively endorsed the 
House position. This may well harm our bilateral relationship with the 
United Kingdom.
  Second, the language of section 1225(b) states: ``The Secretary of 
State shall ensure that any license application submitted for the 
export of defense articles or defense services to Australia or the 
United Kingdom is expeditiously processed by the Department of State, 
in consultation with the Department of Defense, without referral to any 
other Federal department or agency, except where the item is classified 
or exceptional circumstances apply.'' This language could do great harm 
to our government's ability to provide necessary and complete 
interagency review of munitions license applications. The phrase 
``without referral to any other Federal department or agency'' is new 
law, and it far exceeds what wisdom would dictate. Under this language, 
the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security would not be allowed 
to review any case not involving classified defense items, unless it 
met an ``exceptional circumstances'' standard. The vast majority of 
defense exports to the United Kingdom and Australia that are governed 
under the ITAR are not classified items, and while the Foreign 
Relations Committee supports expeditious consideration of munitions 
license applications for these allies, we are concerned by provisions 
that could deny our government the ability to effectively staff and 
review license applications.
  This concern is heightened by the fact that the provisions of section 
1225 apply to all arms exports to the United Kingdom and Australia, 
irrespective of end-user. The bilateral agreements negotiated with the 
United Kingdom and Australia take a different approach. They afford 
relief from export license requirements for certain unclassified 
exports, rather than merely expedited processing, but they also are 
limited in their application of a waiver to a finite group of U.S.-
approved end-users. That limit is a sensible accommodation of U.S. 
national security concerns, and it is difficult to understand why the 
National Defense Authorization Act conferees decided to ignore it.
  I fully expect that the Foreign Relations Committee and the House 
International Relations Committee will revisit this issue next year in 
an effort to correct the failings of the measure that is now before us.


                              Section 133

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to review with my colleague 
Section 133 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2005. Under the leadership of Senate Armed Services 
Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin, Congress has agreed 
to amend Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
fiscal year 2004 by expressly prohibiting the Air Force from using 
previously granted authority to acquire, through a lease or purchase, 
Boeing 767 aircraft for use as aerial refueling tankers.
  This provision succeeds in accomplishing Chairman Warner's primary 
objective, as he stated in this chamber on October 23, 2003, to put the 
tanker replacement program back into a traditional budget, procurement, 
and authorization track. In other words, the Air Force's program to 
modernize its tanker fleet must be subject to the aerial refueling 
analysis of alternatives, the aerial refueling portion of the Mobility 
Capabilities Study, a new aerial refueling validated capabilities 
document and operational requirements document in accordance with all 
applicable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instructions, and the 
express approval of a Defense Acquisition Board in full accordance with 
Department of Defense regulations.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona is correct. Section 133 
specifically revokes the authority previously granted under Section 
8159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2002, to the Air Force to lease aircraft for use as tankers. The 
conferees expressed their intent very strongly on this issue in 
eliminating all references to leasing aircraft throughout Section 135.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chairman for clarifying the intent of the 
legislation with respect to the prohibition on leasing tanker aircraft. 
Now, let's turn to what authority Section 133 grants with respect to 
purchase of tanker aircraft.
  Mr. WARNER. Section 133 bars the Air Force from executing a contract 
for the multiyear purchase of aircraft specified under Section 8159, 
that is, general purpose Boeing 767 aircraft that would be modified as 
an aerial refueling aircraft. Section 8159 would have precluded full 
and open competition.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Chairman is correct. This means that, under Section 
133, the Air Force may not acquire, either by lease or purchase, Boeing 
767s without full and open competition. In other words, any program to 
acquire tankers must start from the beginning, as the Senator properly 
stated last year, on a traditional budget, procurement, and 
authorization track.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Arizona is correct. I thank him for that 
clarification.
  Mr. McCAIN. One last question. Have we obtained an opinion from the 
Congressional Budget Office as to how it would score the acquisition of 
tankers under Section 133?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, we have. The Congressional Budget Office would

[[Page 22992]]

score this provision as a traditional procurement program which would 
expressly require the Air Force to pay for each tanker in the year it 
is purchased.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I am grateful to the gentleman from 
Virginia for his leadership in this 3-year odyssey. I remind my 
colleagues that three out of the four defense committees that were 
required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so 
without so much as reading the contract for that $30 billion 
procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee that 
put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. That having 
been said, the final chapter on the tanker lease program cannot be 
closed until those among Air Force leadership who engaged in misconduct 
are held accountable.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his steadfast 
leadership and vigilance on this critical issue. There could be no 
doubt as to the gentleman's sincerity in always protecting the 
interests of taxpayers and the warfighter.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is reprehensible that the GOP House 
leadership demanded the removal of the hate crimes provision from the 
Defense Authorization Act.
  The provision had solid support in both the Senate and the House. 
Under the leadership of Senator Warner and Senator Gordon Smith, the 
Senate approved it as an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill in 
July by the nearly 2-to-1 bipartisan majority of 65 to 33. Eighteen 
Republicans joined all the Democrats in approving this measure. Last 
week, by a vote of 213 to 186, the House instructed its conferees to 
support this provision in the conference report on the bill.
  The hate crimes provision is an essential response to a serious 
problem which continues to plague the nation. Since the September 11 
attacks, we've had a shameful increase in the number of hate crimes 
committed in our country against Arabs and Muslims--murders, beatings, 
arson, attacks on mosques, shootings, and other assaults. In 2001, 
anti-Muslim incidents were the second highest-reported hate crimes 
based on religion--second only to anti-Jewish hate crimes.
  Nevertheless, under current law, the Justice Department has to fight 
these vicious crimes with one hand tied behind its back. Outdated pre-
9/11 restrictions limit Federal jurisdiction in hate crimes based on 
religion. Hate crimes based on sexual orientation are not even covered 
by the law. How can House Republican leaders say they're fighting a war 
on terrorism, when they're not prepared to fight it here at home?
  Clearly, President Bush is worried about his right-wing base in the 
coming election, and the implication is obvious that the White House 
sent word to its Republican allies in the House--block the hate crimes 
provision, even if blocking it denies the clear will of the majority.
  The carefully selected White House candidate for the Senate in 
Florida used the hate crimes issue to smear his opponent in the 
Republican primary in August. Former Congressman Bill McCollum, a 
respected law-and-order Republican, was smeared as ``anti-family'' and 
``the new darling of the homosexual extremists'' and lost the primary--
because he supported the hate crimes legislation. There is nothing 
``anti-family'' or divisive about the hate crimes bill. It protects all 
victims of hate-motivated violence: citizens of all races, all 
religions, all sexual orientations. No one is left out.
  Sadly, the despicable smear against Congressman McCollum in Florida 
is only one example of the vicious campaign tactics used by Republicans 
this year. In West Virginia and Arkansas, the Republican National 
Committee has sent out flyers suggesting that ``liberals'' want to ban 
the Bible. My colleague Senator Robert Byrd aptly described it as a 
``desperation tactic'' and ``an insult to the intelligence of voters'' 
in his State.
  In Oklahoma, the National Republican Senate Campaign is running a 
race-baiting advertisement on television attacking Democratic Senate 
candidate Brad Carson's record on immigration by showing images of 
Hispanic farm workers and African Americans receiving welfare dollars. 
We've seen such campaign appeals to racism and bigotry before in this 
country. Most of us hoped we would never see them again.
  When President Bush condones outrageous tactics like these, how can 
he claim with a straight face that he's lived up to his campaign 
promise to be a uniter, not a divider?
  The administration is wrong to have ordered its allies in the House 
to block our bipartisan hate crimes provision. However, this is not the 
end of our battle. We will be back again and again, and we will 
continue to bring this legislation up every opportunity we can until it 
is signed into law. It's heartening to know that we may soon have a 
President who will sign it--a President who is honestly committed to 
uniting, not dividing, the country.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the 
conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2005, for reforming the Energy Employee's Occupational Illness Act, 
EEOICPA, and ensuring that the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program, 
RECA, receives additional mandatory funding to pay the workers whose 
claims were originally subject to additional appropriations.
  I view the reform of EEOICPA's subtitle D as particularly 
significant. From November 2003 through March 2004, the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee held three hearings on this program. These 
hearings determined that the current program's subtitle D was not 
paying injured atomic workers. Subtitle D relied on the DOE to 
determine causation with a subsequent referral to State compensation 
systems. Typically these State compensations not only add add 
additional delay to the process but they are adversarial in nature 
because insurers can contest the claim against a sick and dying worker. 
As a result of these three Senate hearings, there was a bipartisan 
effort by 20 Senators to move subtitle D from the Department of Energy 
to the Department of Labor, where EEOICPA's subtitle B is administered. 
The Department of Labor specializes in providing worker compensation, 
so it only seems reasonable to consolidate the program there. 
Originally, the Senate's proposed reform of subtitle D required the 
Department of Labor to adjudicate each claim according to the workers' 
respective State compensation standard. This compensation procedure, 
while insuring that the original intent of EEOICPA remained intact, was 
determined by the conferees to be too hard to administer. In my view, 
and it was stated in the March 2004 hearing, the proper course of 
action to pay these sick workers was to use a uniform standard funded 
from a mandatory account similar to subtitle B.
  The conference report's version of EEOICPA's subtitle D takes the 
right approach. Instead of a compensation scheme tied to each State as 
in the Senate proposal, the conference report chooses a uniform payment 
schedule according to disability and lost wages, for both living and 
deceased persons. Most importantly, subtitle D is funded out of the 
subtitle B mandatory account so it does not end up like the RECA 
program in lacking the necessary compensation funds once a positive 
determination is made. I am also pleased that the language contains the 
ombudsman provision, even though it is only authorized for three years. 
The ombudsman will report to Congress on the transition from the 
Department of Energy to the Department of Labor, and whether the intent 
of the reform language is adhered to, which is the quick compensation 
of sick workers.
  I would like to thank the many Senate staffers listed below who held 
together as a group for the past seven months; their names are found at 
the end of this statement. Through this strong bipartisan effort, more 
was accomplished than any by any single member. I hope this effort sets 
a tone for other endeavors that we pursue in Congress.

       Elizabeth Bellville, Office of Senator DeWine;
       Catherine Boland, Office of Senator Voinovich;

[[Page 22993]]

       David Cherington, Senate Armed Services Committee;
       Doug Clapp, Office of Senator Murray;
       Madelyn Creedon, Senate Armed Services Committee;
       Angela Becker-Dippman, Office of Senator Cantwell;
       Ken Ende, Office of Senator Murkowski;
       Jonathan Epstein, Office of Senator Bingaman;
       Holly Fechner, Health Education and Labor Committee;
       Tom Horgan, Health Education and Labor Committee;
       Kurt Kovarik, Office of Senator Grassley;
       Kate Kimpan, Office of Senator Bunning;
       Pete Lyons, Energy and Natural Resources Committee;
       Sara Mills, Office of Senator Reid;
       Beth Stein, Office of Senator Harkin;
       Kristine Svinicki, Office of Senator Craig;
       Katie Swaney, Office of Senator Talent;
       Kim Taylor, Office of Senator Bunning;
       Jason Unger, Office of Senator Reid;
       Dan Utech, Office of Senator Clinton;
       Tim Valentine, Office of Senator Alexander;
       Karina Waller, Office of Senator Stevens;
       Jenny Wing, Office of Senator Harkin;
       Portia Wu, Health Education and Labor Committee.

  Again, my thanks to the Chairman and Ranking members of both the 
House and Senate Armed Services Committees for ensuring that these 
innocent atomic workers, who helped win the cold war, clean up its 
former nuclear sites, and continue to maintain our nuclear deterrent, 
are adequately compensated for the injuries they sustained working at 
DOE's nuclear facilities.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I strongly support passage of the 
conference report on HR 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2005. This legislation funds over $420 billion for 
defense programs, which is a 3.4 percent increase or $20.9 billion 
above the amount authorized by Congress last year.
  While I am pleased that we are able to act on this legislation prior 
to adjourning for the elections, I would be remiss if I did not mention 
that once again, the Defense Appropriations Act has been signed into 
law prior to final action on the Defense Authorization Act. The 
responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be 
distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for the 
policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its 
programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate 
funding based on policies provided by authorization bills. In reality 
however, the Appropriators' function, has expanded dramatically, and 
the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision 
making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the 
authorizing committees. I hope next year we will succeed in passing the 
authorization measure prior to the appropriations measure.
  The men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces put their lives on the 
line every day to protect the very freedoms we Americans hold dear. It 
is our obligation to provide key quality of life benefits to the 
members of our military. Great strides will be made by this bill 
towards accomplishing that goal. For example, this Conference Report 
authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military 
personnel. It repeals the requirement for military members to pay 
subsistence charges while hospitalized, and adds $7.8 million for 
expanded care and services at the Walter Reed Amputee Patient Care 
Center. Also, included in the conference report is a permanent increase 
in the rate of family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 
per month as well as a permanent increase in the rate of special pay 
for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month 
to $225 per month.
  We continue to be increasingly reliant on the men and women of our 
Reserve forces and National Guard. In fact, around 40 percent of all 
the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are composed of National 
Guard and Reserve forces as well as nearly all of the ground forces in 
Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. Many of these soldiers and sailors leave 
behind friends, families, and careers to defend our nation. 
Accordingly, it is the responsibility of policy makers to ensure we 
look after the needs of these patriots. Included in the conference 
report is the authorization for full medical and dental examinations 
and requisite inoculations when reservists mobilize and demobilize as 
well as a new requirement for pre-separation physical examinations for 
members of the reserve component. This provision is critical to 
maintain and, in some circumstances, increase the readiness of the 
total force.
  In the Senate version of this legislation, we passed an important 
amendment to authorize an increase in the size of our Army by 20,000 
and size of our Marine Corps by 3,000. I am very pleased this provision 
was included in the conference report. This increase is absolutely 
vital in our Army's ability to carry out its mission in the global war 
on terror. There is no shortage of evidence supporting an increase in 
Army endstrength. Recently, the Army pulled 3,600 troops out of South 
Korea to fill critical needs in Iraq. The Department of Defense should 
be able to move troops around as needed to address critical needs. 
However, in this case, we are sacrificing our readiness on the Korean 
peninsula because we do not have enough solders serving in the Army.
  After returning home for a short period of time, soldiers and Marines 
are already making preparations for their second tour in Iraq or 
Afghanistan in as many years. This is not good for morale, this is not 
good for retention, this is not good for readiness, and this is not 
good for the soldier's families. Eventually, recruitment will be 
seriously affected by these trends.
  Additionally, the Army recently announced a new stop-loss policy. 
While, I certainly recognize the Army's authority and necessity to 
issue stop loss orders, their issuance in this instance is yet another 
reason why we need to increase the size of the Army. For all the 
benefits in group cohesion that results from extended tours, the Army 
will be facing a serious crisis when it comes time for these soldiers 
to reenlist on their own accord. I am concerned about the effect that 
these stop-loss orders will have on the morale of our Army. While I 
still do not believe that we need a draft, we do need to increase the 
size of the Army to carry out important defense missions.
  Once again, I am disappointed that the development of this 
legislation lent the opportunity for the annual buy America battle. In 
a similar fashion as last year, the Senate had to beat back a provision 
in the house version of the legislation that sought to protect 
parochial interests at the cost of our defense industry and American 
jobs. It seems as if every year, we fight the same fight in conference. 
I am pleased that once again, the Senate prevailed over the 
protectionist leanings in the House.
  As I have stated countless times before, we need to provide American 
servicemen and women with the best equipment at the best price for the 
American taxpayer. By following this simple philosophy, we will protect 
both the men and women in uniform, as well as our domestic defense 
industry.
  The international considerations of buy America provisions are 
immense. Isolationist, go-it-alone approaches have serious consequences 
on our relationship with our allies. Our country is threatened when we 
ignore our trade agreements. Currently, the U.S. enjoys a trade balance 
in defense exports of 6-to-1 in its favor with respect to Europe, and 
about 12-to-1 with respect to the rest of the world. We don't need 
protectionist measures to insulate our defense or aerospace industries. 
If we enact laws that isolate our domestic defense industry, our allies 
will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to 
greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be 
seriously undercut. Critical international programs, such as the Joint 
Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be terminated as our 
allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship.
  The Senate also successfully defeated an amendment during Senate 
consideration and again in conference aimed at crippling the upcoming 
BRAC round. BRAC has taken on a new significance in the war against 
terror. There has not been a time in recent memory when it has been 
more important not

[[Page 22994]]

to waste money on non-essential expenditures. To continue to sustain an 
infrastructure that exceeds our strategic and tactical needs will make 
less funding available to the forces that we are relying on to destroy 
the international network of terrorism. I am once again pleased that 
the Senate put the good of the Department of Defense over parochial 
interests and protected the upcoming BRAC round.
  The Department of Defense has come out with very fair and reasonable 
criteria used to select what bases are chosen for BRAC. I have every 
confidence the Secretary of Defense will carry out this round of BRAC 
in a just and consistent manner. Sooner or later surplus bases must be 
closed. Delaying or canceling BRAC would only make the process more 
difficult and painful than necessary. The sooner the issue is 
addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go 
toward defense modernization and better pay and benefits for our hard 
working service members.
  I understand that some of my colleagues are concerned about the 
potential negative effects a base closure may have on their local 
economy. But let me point out that previous base closure rounds have 
had many success stories. For example, after England Air Force Base 
closed in 1992, Alexandria, LA, benefitted from the creation of over 
1,400 jobs--nearly double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S., 
about 60,000 new jobs have been created at closing military bases. At 
bases closed more than 2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs 
have been replaced. This is not to say that base closures are easy for 
any community, but it does suggest that communities can and will 
continue to thrive.
  Another issue of considerable diverse views during conference 
deliberations concerned the aerial refueling tanker lease program. I 
would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to praise the 
leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner and 
Ranking Member Levin for their steadfast vigilance during the three-
year odyssey on the Air Force's failed Boeing 767 tanker program. I 
remind my colleagues, again, that three out of the four defense 
committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease 
100 tankers, did so without so much as reading the contract for the $30 
billion procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee that 
put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. And lest one 
thought otherwise, the Boeing 767 tanker investigations in the 
Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Office of Inspector 
General and the U.S. Senate are continuing and expanding.
  Under Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2005, the Air Force may not enter into a sole-source 
multiyear contract for the lease or purchase of Boeing 767s. Indeed, 
the Conference Report makes clear that, at the end of the day, the Air 
Force's plan to modernize or update its fleet must be subject to full 
and open competition and the traditional budget, procurement and 
authorization track. The conference report brings the Air Force's plan 
back to square one.
  The bottom line here is this. The aerial refueling tanker provision 
in the defense authorization bill does much to inject much needed 
sunlight in a program that has largely been insulated from public 
scrutiny. In so doing, this provision, that was adopted, directs the 
Air Force to begin--anew from the beginning--in its program to 
modernize its tanker fleet. The Air Force will have to now fully 
consider the Congress's direction, prohibiting the retirement of KC-
135E tanker aircraft, as a worthwhile alternative to updating tankers 
through KC-135E to R conversions. The tanker legislation in this bill 
ensures that any effort by the Air Force to modernize and replace its 
fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the 
Air Force. That having been said, the final chapter on the failed 
tanker lease program cannot be closed until those among Air Force 
leadership who engaged in misconduct, are held accountable.
  I also would like to thank the chairman and ranking member, as well 
as Senators Dodd, DeWine, and Hollings for their assistance in 
reauthorizing the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program through 
Fiscal Year 2009. This program uses a competitive, merit-based review 
process to give grants directly to local fire departments for 
equipment, training, and fire prevention programs. Our nation's 
firefighters must be prepared to respond to a myriad of threats, and 
this legislation will help ensure that they are adequately trained and 
equipped to meet them.
  Mr. President, Americans are blessed with nearly limitless freedoms 
and liberties. In exchange for all our country gives to us, it does not 
demand much in return. Yet throughout our history, millions of people 
have volunteered to give back to their nation through military service. 
The selfless acts of courage and sacrifice made by the men and women in 
our armed services have elevated our nation to the greatness we enjoy 
today.
  America is defined not by its power but by its ideals. One of the 
great strengths of the American public is the desire to serve a cause 
greater than our own self interest. All too often, our younger 
generations are accused of selfishness and an unwillingness to 
sacrifice. I disagree. I see generations of people yearning to serve 
and help their fellow citizens. Each year, thousands of our young 
Americans decide to dedicate a few years or even a full career to 
protecting the rights and liberties of others. They often do this with 
very real risks to their lives. They volunteer to do this not for 
profit, nor for self promotion, but out of a sense of duty, service, 
and patriotism.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the fiscal 
year 2005 national Defense authorization conference report.
  I acknowledge the leadership of the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. 
John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in bringing this 
bill to final passage. Of course, I must also recognize the ranking 
member, Senator Carl Levin. I had the privilege of working with them on 
the committee for several years and I can attest that each year they 
work together tirelessly to pass the Defense authorization bill because 
they understand how absolutely vital this legislation is to the 
effectiveness and well-being of our Armed Forces.
  For that matter, I also recognize every Senator on the committee for 
their efforts because this conference report authorizes the equipment, 
the training, and the operational funds necessary to support our troops 
who are right now operating across the globe to make our Nation and the 
world more secure.
  It also reflects the service and sacrifice of our troops by making a 
solid investment in their quality of life by increasing their pay and 
enhancing educational and health care opportunities for our active duty 
military members, our National Guard and Reserve troops and their 
family members. And that is only right, for today we are asking a great 
deal of our gallant young men and women as they guard our Nation at 
home and abroad and, of course, risk their lives every day to restore 
freedom and prosperity to the oppressed peoples of Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  This legislation also recognizes that we owe a continuing debt to 
those who have served honorably by continuing to work on full 
concurrent receipt for those with a service connected disability, the 
same benefit available to every other retired Federal employee, the 
ability to collect full retirement pay and disability entitlements 
without offsets. Last year we made great strides in addressing the 
disparity by which disabled military retirees have their pension 
benefits reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of disability 
benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And this 
bill goes even further by removing disabled retirees, who are rated as 
100 percent disabled, from the 10-year phase-in period. Thanks to this 
bill, those retirees

[[Page 22995]]

will be authorized for full concurrent receipt effective January 2005.
  This bill also finally corrects an inequity to those who have doubly 
sacrificed for our Nation, survivors of those who served this Nation 
well and honorably. First, they sacrificed each day as their loved one 
defended our Nation and they again sacrificed when they laid their hero 
to rest. And how did we repay them, by reducing their survivor benefit 
payment by over 30 percent once they reached age 62.
  In the first session of this Congress, I sponsored S. 451, along with 
46 cosponsors, a bill to correct this inequity. My colleague, Senator 
Landrieu, sponsored a similar measure for the same reasons. This year 
we worked together during the debate to include an amendment that would 
provide survivors relief from this ``widow's tax.'' I am very pleased 
to note that the conferees also recognized the unfairness of this 
reduction and approved a provision that will, over the next 3\1/2\ 
years, raise the percentage of the annuity available for survivors from 
35 percent after age 62 back to the 55 percent they were collecting 
before their birthday.
  This bill provides $420.6 billion for Defense programs in fiscal year 
2005, an increase of $19.3 billion above the amount authorized by the 
Congress last year. In addition, the conferees authorized $25.0 billion 
for additional war-related costs for Operations Iraqi Freedom and 
Enduring Freedom, including more than $2 billion for force protection 
measures, including armor, munitions, communications and surveillance 
programs.
  In particular, this bill also provides a little over $10 billion in 
an area that is critical to the security of the Nation, our 
shipbuilding capacity. It has become more and more apparent that as we 
engage the forces of terrorism around the world we have become 
increasingly dependent on the ability of our Navy to not only deliver 
troops and munitions to the fight, but to act as the sea base from 
which our forces can operate without restrictions virtually anywhere in 
the world.
  Yet, as a former chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I remain 
concerned about the Navy's shipbuilding program, particularly with 
respect to the surface combatant force. As part of the 2001 Quadrennial 
Defense Review, the Navy and DoD approved a plan for maintaining a 310-
ship Navy including 116 surface combatants, cruisers, destroyers and 
frigates. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the Navy's surface combatant 
fleet had fallen to 106 ships and the Navy has notified Congress that 
by the end of fiscal year 2004, it was their intent to reduce the force 
of surface combatants to 103 ships.
  Therefore, I am encouraged that this authorization provides $3.6 
billion for the construction of three DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class 
destroyers for it is these ships, along with cruisers and frigates, 
that provide protection to the carriers and amphibious ships deployed 
to the Persian Gulf and around the world to prosecute the war on 
terrorism. Moreover, it adds $100 million for the DDG in service 
modernization program to begin the insertion of advanced technologies 
that will dramatically reduce operation and support costs to the fleet 
and mitigate the risk of back-fitting these technologies on older 
ships. Above all, we must pursue every path necessary to provide 
technologies to our sailors that will ease their workload, enhance 
their training opportunities and increase the survivability of their 
ships.
  However, this is the last planned funding for the DDG-51 acquisition 
program, and the next generation of surface combatants, the DD(X) and 
the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, are being funded in the research and 
development accounts. Although this authorization provides $1.5 billion 
for the continued development of the DD(X), including an additional 
$84.4 million for the detailed design of the second DD(X) and $350 
million for the continued development of the LCS in the RDT&E accounts, 
there is a looming gap in the shipbuilding and conversion, Navy account 
for surface combatants.
  Without a focused effort on the part of the Navy to commit and invest 
in a robust surface combatant program, I am concerned not only about 
the ability of the Navy's surface combatant force to maintain current 
operating tempos but the continuing viability of our shipbuilding 
industrial base. Many have noted that in spite of Congress' efforts to 
stabilize the workload in our surface combatant shipyards, the Navy's 
changing construction profile is undermining those efforts.
  I urge the Navy to heed the stated concerns of Congress, especially 
those of us with shipyards facing an uncertain future and do everything 
in their power to stabilize their shipbuilding accounts both in terms 
of budget and in schedule.
  Importantly, this bill sets aside $66.5 billion in the research and 
development accounts to develop the advanced technologies our troops 
will use to maintain their technological superiority over their 
adversaries. Significantly, conferees authorized $11.2 billion for the 
critical science and technology programs which brings us close to the 
goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense budget to invest in the 
``seed corn'' of our future military capability.
  Much of that S&T investment will be executed at universities and 
colleges throughout America. For example, the University of Maine 
system has been on the forefront of the development of advanced 
engineered wood structures and composites. The bill provides funds so 
the university can develop the advanced lightweight structures the Army 
needs to meet the requirement to establish forward operating bases for 
our expeditionary forces in the far-flung regions of the world.
  In addition, this bill also authorizes continued research at the 
University of Maine into the structural reliability of fiber-reinforced 
polymers composites in ship assemblies that will help define and 
ultimately control the significant property variations found composite 
plates used in Navy ship construction.
  I am deeply disappointed that the House provision to delay the 2005 
BRAC round by 2 years was not maintained in this bill because I believe 
fervently that closing domestic bases at a time we are engaged in a 
global war is not in the best interests of our Nation.
  During the Senate debate on the fiscal year 2005 authorization bill, 
I and my colleagues, Senators Lott, Dorgan and Feinstein offered an 
amendment that would have delayed the 2005 Base Realignment and Closing 
Process, BRAC, for 2 years in order to focus on a closing process for 
our overseas military installations because we believed that the Nation 
must reassess its current overseas force structure and adjust it to 
meet the threats of today. Unfortunately, our amendment was narrowly 
defeated by a vote of 47 to 49.
  Since then, the President has announced a force restructuring that 
includes the closure of several overseas military facilities and a 
redeployment of troops and assets back to the United States. This is 
exactly the reason we offered our amendment and I continue to strongly 
believe that until our global defense posture is defined and our 
foreign basing requirements are thoroughly understood, closing our 
domestic bases is premature and ill-advised.
  Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to 
the men and women in the armed forces and their families through the 
enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it 
includes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.5 percent for all military 
personnel. It also contains a number of provisions that will directly 
aid the families of service members. For example, the bill removed the 
existing funding limitations on the military housing privatization 
authorities, which will allow the military services to continue to 
partner with the private sector to provide the highest quality housing 
for military members and their families in the shortest amount of time.
  This authorization rightly recognizes that our Reservists and 
National Guard troops play an increasingly vital role in the war on 
terrorism, and extends to them expanded benefits in critical areas such 
as medical care and special pay rates. The bill approves permanent 
eligibility for up to 90 days of TRICARE coverage for Reserve members 
and their families prior to mobilization, and 180 days of transitional

[[Page 22996]]

health benefits for Reserves, active duty members, and their families 
when the member separates from active duty service. It also authorizes 
a new program of educational assistance to members of the Selected 
Reserve, providing varying amounts of aid depending on the length of 
time they were mobilized.
  Overall, this authorization provides the men and women of our armed 
forces with the equipment they need to accomplish their mission, the 
quality of life they have earned and security for their families. For 
these reasons, I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to 
pass this conference report unanimously because in a time when our 
Nation is facing unprecedented security challenges and dangers, we can 
do no less.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small 
Business and Entrepreneurship, I express my views on the Conference 
Report for H.R. 4200, the fiscal year 2005 DOD Authorization Act. 
Defense authorization legislation typically contains a variety of 
provisions pertaining to government contracting, and these provisions 
have a significant impact on the ability of small firms to compete for 
Federal procurement dollars. Small businesses will find that this 
report contains both positive and negative provisions.
  First, I express my deep disappointment with the decision of the 
Conference Committee to remove from the act the legislative language 
requiring consideration of small business interests by the Office of 
Federal Procurement Policy's advisory panel on reform of government 
contract laws, extending the panel's term, and specifically requiring 
the panel to reports its findings to the Congressional small business 
committees. I originally proposed this language as Senate Amendment No. 
3273. It was adopted unanimously by the Senate and codified in Section 
805 of the DOD Authorization Act.
  The work of this advisory panel, like its predecessor panels, is 
critical to the long-range direction of acquisition reforms. This 
panel, authorized by Section 1423 of the fiscal year 2004 National 
Defense Authorization Act, was to emphasize the study of commercial 
practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of 
acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and the 
use of Governmentwide contracts. In making appointments to the panel, 
the administrator for Federal Procurement Policy was required to 
consult the agency heads as well as the House and Senate Armed Services 
Committees, Governmental Affairs Committee, and House Government Reform 
Committees. The panel's authorizing legislation required it to prepare 
a written report with recommendations and to submit this report to 
these named Committees along with the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy Administrator, or OFPP.
  Curiously, the panel's mandate was silent with regards to small 
business contracting, even though the Federal Government is committed 
by law to the goal of awarding 23 percent of all prime contracts to 
small businesses. My amendment, as adopted by the Senate, responded to 
this glaring omission by extending the panel's reporting period, 
requiring the panel to make recommendations on assuring small business 
participation in Government contracting, and directing the panel to 
submit its report to the House and Senate Small Business Committees.
  Because of President Bush's strong support for small business 
contractors, the policies of Section 805 had solid backing from the 
administration. Over the summer, I wrote to the White House and 
requested that small businesses be represented both in the composition 
and in the work of this panel. In reply, OFPP Acting Administrator 
Robert Burton responded that, ``Based on your suggestion, I will ensure 
that senior level representation from the Small Business Administration 
will serve on the panel. Moreover the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy will request the panel to specifically address small business 
contracting and subcontracting issues.''
  Some recent changes to Federal procurement laws have had the effect 
of decreasing competition, accountability, and transparency in the 
procurement process while increasing the barriers to entry faced by 
small business contractors. Section 805 was designed to address this 
unfortunate trend, and I believe it should not have been removed.
  I am particularly disappointed the conference report contradicts the 
public position of the administration that small business interests 
deserve consideration in formulating Federal procurement reforms by the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy advisory panel. However, let me be 
clear: the Conference Committee's decision to remove Section 805 does 
not overrule the commitment of the OFPP administrator and does not 
prevent the Senate Small Business Committee from closely monitoring the 
work of the panel and holding in-depth oversight hearings on its 
report.
  In addition, I find unfortunate the choice to permit exemption of the 
entire landscaping and pest control industries from the application of 
the Small Business Act. Adoption of this provision was not marked up by 
either the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship or 
the House Committee on Small Business.
  I also regret the conference committee's decision not to authorize 
transitional counseling on federal procurement opportunities at the DOD 
and the Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Our veterans, 
especially service-disabled veterans, deserve immediate assistance. 
However, I am encouraged that the Conference Committee directed the 
Comptroller General to conduct a study on this subject. I am also very 
pleased that HUBZone and service-disabled veteran-owned small 
businesses can now participate in the DOD Mentor-Protege Program, 
preserved the parity between the small business reserve threshold and 
the simplified acquisition threshold in future threshold adjustments 
for inflation, limited the period of multi-year task order contracts to 
10 years, protected small businesses engaged in the DOD satellite 
procurement against arbitrary changes, and refused to adopt changes to 
source selection criteria which may have favored large businesses over 
small contractors.
  In conclusion, I again commend President Bush and Acting OFPP 
Administrator Burton for the administration's continued steadfast 
support of small business-friendly procurement policies. I look forward 
to continuing to work closely with the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to 
Senators Warner and Levin for their expert guidance for moving this 
huge piece of legislation through the Congress. This will now go to the 
President of the United States.
  One of the provisions in this legislation is so important to me--more 
important to 40,000 100-percent disabled Americans. Those who are 100-
percent disabled will receive the concurrent receipts immediately. We 
had a 10-year phaseout. That will no longer be the case.
  That was not easy, but it is really wonderful because, first of all, 
those 40,000 are either disabled, unable to work at all and, frankly, 
the vast majority of them may not live 10 years to receive their 
benefits. This is so important that these most dedicated members of our 
armed services, who are 100-percent disabled, will receive these 
benefits immediately.
  I appreciate very much the work of the chairman and ranking member, 
Senator Levin.
  I also want to express my appreciation to Senator Harkin. Senator 
Harkin basically had a hold on the work we do around here, meaning he 
was going to slow everything up. Senator Harkin is a veteran himself. 
He understands that this is not something which needs to be held up.
  I want the Record to be spread with the appreciation of the four 
leaders for Senator Harkin's cooperation in this matter to allow this 
bill to go to the President right now.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join in that. Senator Harkin was 
actually a Naval aviator. We have discussed that distinguished part of 
his career many times.

[[Page 22997]]

  I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Nevada. He very quietly 
works on issues. I can remember a year ago we stood in this well when 
we weren't able to achieve that goal, the distinguished Senator from 
Nevada himself--I think Senator McCain was very active and Senator 
Levin. We said: All right. This year we can't get it, but next year we 
will. Through the Senator's absolute resolute determination that was 
accomplished. He did it for a category of veterans who are well 
deserved of this recognition by the Congress and the American people 
for their services.
  I thank the Senator.

                          ____________________