[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 25]
[Senate]
[Pages 34420-34441]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 
1585. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     1585), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for 
     military activities of the Department of Defense, and for 
     other purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede 
     from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and 
     agree to the same with an amendment and the Senate agree to 
     the same, signed by a majority of the conferees on the part 
     of both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order there are 60 minutes 
of debate equally divided.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following named staff members of the Committee on Armed Services be 
granted the privilege of the floor at all times during consideration of 
and a vote relating to this conference report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Borawski, June M.; Brewer, Leah C.; Bryan, Joseph M.; 
     Caniano, William M.; Carrillo, Pablo E.; Clark, Jonathan D.; 
     Cohen, Ilona R.; Collins, David G.; Cork, Fletcher L.; 
     Cowart, Christine E.; Cox, Jr., Daniel J.; Creedon, Madelyn 
     R.; Cronin, Kevin A.; DeBobes, Richard D.; Dickinson, Marie 
     Fabrizio; Eisen, Gabriella; Farkas, Evelyn N.; Fieldhouse, 
     Richard W.; Forbes, Diana Tabler; Greene, Creighton;
       Howard, Gary J.; Hutton, IV, Paul C.; Jacobson, Mark R.; 
     Kiley, Gregory T.; Kingston, Jessica L.; Kostiw, Michael V.; 
     Kuiken, Michael J.; Leeling, Gerald J.; Levine, Peter K.; 
     Maurer, Derek J.; McConnell, Thomas K.; McCord, Michael J.; 
     Monahan, William G.P.; Morriss, David M.; Niemeyer, Lucian 
     L.; Noblet, Michael J.; Parker, Bryan D.; Pasha, Ali Z.; 
     Paul, Christopher J.; Pearson, Cindy; Pollock, David;
       Quirk V. John H.; Rubin, Benjamin L.; Rusten, Lynn F.; 
     Sebold, Brian F.; Seraphin, Arun A.; Smith, Travis E.; 
     Soofer, Robert M.; Stackley, Sean G.; Svinicki, Kristine L.; 
     Sutey, William K.; Wagner, Mary Louise; Walsh, Richard F.; 
     Wells, Breon N.; White, Dana W.

  Mr. WARNER. If the chairman would yield for a minute, I would invite 
my colleagues on this side of the aisle on the Armed Services Committee 
to indicate to me if they desire to speak. You have heard the 
Republican leader urge that we move along as quickly as possible. But I 
will try to accommodate all those who wish to speak within the 30 
minutes allocated on this side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I make the same request for Senators on 
this side of the aisle. If they wish to speak during this brief period, 
let us know. We will try to fit in as many as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I urge the adoption of this conference 
report for the Defense Department. Every year since 1961 there has been 
a Defense authorization bill enacted. This year conferees and staff 
have worked extraordinarily hard, with bipartisan cooperation, and we 
are proud to be keeping up our four-and-one-half decades-long tradition 
with this conference report.
  The great men and women of our Armed Forces are making the most 
difficult sacrifices. They are putting their lives on the line, they 
are giving up precious time spent with their loved ones, they are 
driven by love of country and by the call of duty.
  Our priorities on this bill are threefold: Care, readiness, and 
management. First, care will guarantee our troops have the best health 
care and support, both on the battlefield and once they return home.
  Second, readiness will ensure our Armed Forces succeed, both in 
ongoing operations and taking on new challenges in future missions.
  And, third, management will provide oversight for defense contracts, 
operations and processes, to ensure efficiency and maximize results.
  First, caring for our troops and their families must always be our 
top priority. Earlier this year, media reports and a joint hearing of 
the Senate Armed Services and the Veterans' Affairs Committee exposed 
totally unacceptable conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
  Further investigation revealed deficiencies in mental health care, in 
transitioning from DOD to VA care, and in our responsiveness to the 
needs of our veterans.
  This conference report includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which would 
address all these issues, ensuring our brave men and women receive the 
best care possible whenever and wherever their health concerns are.
  The Wounded Warrior Act brings new focus to the signature injuries of 
the Iraq war, by establishing and funding comprehensive policies for 
preventing and treating traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress 
disorder, and other mental health conditions.
  It provides for respite care and medical care for family members who 
are primary caregivers for seriously injured servicemembers.
  It requires the Department of Defense and the Veterans' 
Administration to develop fully interoperable electronic health record 
systems. The act initiates fundamental reform at the Department of 
Defense and Veterans' Administration disability evaluation system, by 
requiring use of the VA presumption of sound mental and physical 
condition when men and women join the service, and it also requires VA 
standards for awarding disability.
  In both cases, that will benefit our men and women. This act requires 
the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs to work together to 
significantly improve the management of medical care, disability 
evaluations, personnel actions, and the quality of life for 
servicemembers recovering from illnesses and injuries incurred while 
performing military duty.
  A lot of Senators have been involved in this effort. I simply wish to 
acknowledge a few. First of all, the Veterans' Affairs Committee, under 
the leadership of Senator Akaka, has been very significant in bringing 
this matter together, getting it through the Senate and now making this 
part of a conference report. There are other Members whom I will 
identify later who have been involved, but for the time being, thanks 
are owed to many people for this Wounded Warrior Act.
  Our report also includes a number of provisions to ensure that our 
servicemembers and their families are able to maintain a high quality 
of life. It authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all 
uniform service personnel, half of a percent more than the President 
proposed, and an expansion and improvement of education assistance and 
support for family members. I will insert for the Record at the end of 
my comments a much more lengthy list with specific details of the 
improvements in compensation and quality of life for our uniform 
personnel.
  Second, readiness for our ongoing engagements, primarily those in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, includes providing equipment, training, 
technology, and the authorities our Armed Forces need to prevail in 
combat today. For example, our report authorizes over $16 billion for 
mine resistant ambush protected vehicles, MRAPs, to protect against the 
threat of IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, consistent with the Department 
of Defense's amended budget request responding to urgent operational 
needs in the theater. Readiness also includes continuing to look ahead 
to ensure that our Armed Forces are appropriately transforming to be 
ready to meet emergent threats, to address long-term readiness. This 
authorization bill increases investments in defense science and 
technology programs for a total authorization of nearly $11 billion, 
$142 million more than the budget request. It includes authorization 
for a number of specific additions to our fleets of ships, submarines, 
aircraft carriers, ground systems, and aircraft. Again, a longer list 
will be inserted at the end of my statement.
  The third priority is management. Sound management and oversight are 
critical for us to ensure that every dollar spent on national defense 
is spent wisely and that every initiative carried out by the Department 
of Defense is done so efficiently and effectively. The conference 
report establishes a chief management officer in the Department of 
Defense and in each of the military

[[Page 34421]]

departments to ensure for the first time that these issues receive the 
continuous, top-level attention they need and deserve. The conference 
report would also address a number of specific management challenges 
that have arisen over the past few years. It will require private 
security contractors operating on the battlefields in Iraq and 
Afghanistan to comply with Department of Defense regulations on the use 
of force as well as orders and directives from commanders. It will 
establish a commission on wartime contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan 
to monitor reconstruction, security, and logistics support contracts 
and to make recommendations to improve the contracting process. It will 
also establish a special inspector general for Afghanistan 
reconstruction, as we already have in place in Iraq.
  Further in the area of management, the Department of Defense has lost 
its institutional capability to manage the hundreds of billions of 
dollars it spends on goods and services each year. In recent years, we 
have seen an alarming lack of acquisition planning across the 
Department, the excessive use of time-and-materials contracts, 
undefinitized contracts, and other open-ended commitments of DOD funds, 
and a pervasive failure to perform contract oversight and management 
functions so necessary to protect the taxpayers' interests. Just last 
month, the Commission on Army Acquisition and Program Management in 
Expeditionary Operations reported that systemic failures in the DOD 
acquisition system have left the Department vulnerable to fraud, waste, 
and abuse. These problems have been particularly acute in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but they are in no way limited to Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The conference report includes the Acquisition Improvement and 
Accountability Act of 2007 which would address these problems with the 
most sweeping piece of Government acquisition reform legislation in 
more than a decade. Among other things, it will tighten the rules for 
DOD acquisition of major weapons systems and subsystems, components and 
spare parts, to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, cost overruns, 
and failure to meet contract schedules and performance requirements.
  For example, section 816 of the conference report requires the DOD to 
review systemic deficiencies that lead to cost overruns on major 
defense acquisition programs, and section 814 of the conference report 
tightens data requirements applicable to contractors on such programs. 
Further, it will establish a defense acquisition workforce development 
fund to ensure that the Department of Defense has the people and the 
skills needed to effectively manage DOD contracts. It will strengthen 
statutory protections for contractor employees who blow the whistle on 
waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts by providing for the first 
time a private right of action in Federal court for contractor 
employees who are subject to reprisal for their efforts to protect the 
taxpayers' interests. A number of other management provisions will be 
included in my remarks at the conclusion and made part of the Record.
  The conference report identifies all funding provided for programs, 
projects, and activities that were not requested in the President's 
budget. For the first time the report identifies the names of Members 
requesting such funding. This information was made available to the 
general public in an electronically searchable format on the Armed 
Services Committee Web site on December 7. I ask unanimous consent that 
a letter I signed at the conclusion of the conference certifying 
compliance with the requirements of rule XLIV be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Armed Services,

                                 Washington, DC, December 7, 2007.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Leader: In accordance with the requirements of 
     paragraph 3 of Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     I hereby certify, with regard to the conference report on 
     H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2008, that each congressionally directed spending item, 
     limited tax benefit, and limited tariff benefit, if any, in 
     the conference report, or in the joint statement of managers 
     accompanying the conference report, has been identified 
     through a list including the name of each Senator who 
     submitted a request to the Committee on Armed Services for 
     each item so identified, and that such information was posted 
     on the Committee website at approximately 8:30 a.m. on 
     December 7, 2007.
       In addition, the certifications received by the Committee 
     pursuant to paragraph 6(a)(5) of such rule have been posted 
     on the Committee website in accordance with the requirements 
     of the rule.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Carl Levin,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. LEVIN. A few other comments on some specific provisions. First, 
the conference report includes a provision that would restore the 
collective bargaining and appeals rights for Department of Defense 
employees who are included in the national security personnel system. I 
am pleased we were able to work out language on a bipartisan basis that 
enables the Department of Defense to move forward with personnel reform 
without denying its employees those well-established rights. The ball 
is now in the Department of Defense's court to prove it can implement a 
new performance management system in a manner that is transparent and 
fair and can gain the acceptance of the Department's civilian 
employees.
  Second, the conference report includes a provision to improve and 
expand the special immigrant visa program and expand priority 2 
considerations under the U.S. refugee program to those Iraqis who have 
assisted our efforts in Iraq and similar consideration for certain 
highly vulnerable religious minorities in Iraq. I am pleased that the 
conference report includes this provision.
  I make note of one measure that will not be included in the 
conference report, sadly, and that is the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 
2007. This critical legislation would have broadened Federal 
jurisdiction to hate crimes motivated by gender, disability, sexual 
orientation, and gender identity. I am deeply disappointed that the 
House conferees were unwilling to include this provision in the 
conference report and unwilling to put it to a vote as part of the 
conference report in the House of Representatives. This provision has 
my full backing; 60 of us voted essentially for this bill in a vote 
before the Senate. I hope our colleagues will support it when we bring 
it up for a vote at a future time.
  Finally, I congratulate Senator McCain on his first conference report 
as ranking member of the committee. I thank my dear friend Senator 
Warner for continuing to be such a great partner, when Senator McCain 
was understandably unavailable. This bill could not have happened 
without Senator McCain and without Senator Warner. I also take my hat 
off to Ike Skelton who chaired our conference. His even temper and 
plain decency helped smooth a number of rough edges. I will include at 
the end of my comments a list of the staff of the Armed Services 
Committee who worked so tremendously hard to bring this annual bill to 
the point where we now, hopefully, will see its adoption, see the 
benefits for our troops and their families and our Nation.
  I also want to add to the names of those who worked so hard on the 
Wounded Warrior legislation Senator Patty Murray of Washington. She has 
been a leader in this effort and I pay special tribute to her, along 
with other Members who have worked so hard on the Wounded Warrior 
legislation.
  The conference report includes improvements in compensation and 
quality of life for the men and women in uniform, in addition to the 
3.5 percent pay raise for uniformed personnel, including: Authorizing 
payment of combat related special compensation to servicemembers 
medically retired for a combat related disability. Payment is equal to 
the amount of retired pay forfeited because of the prohibition on 
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability 
compensation; reducing below age 60 the age at which a member of a 
reserve component may draw retirement pay by 3 months for

[[Page 34422]]

every aggregate 90 days' service on duty under certain mobilization 
authorities; enhancing reserve education assistance benefits, including 
authorizing servicemembers eligible for education benefits under the 
Reserve Education Assistance Program to use those benefits for 10 years 
after separation, allowing separated servicemembers to regain 
eligibility by rejoining a reserve component; and authorizing 
eligibility for increased benefits by aggregating 3 years of qualifying 
service or more; and extending the prohibition on an increase in 
TRICARE fees for retirees and reservists and increasing funds for the 
Defense Health Program; requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish 
a Family Readiness Council and develop a comprehensive policy and plans 
to improve the support for and coordination of family readiness 
programs; and amending the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow 
certain spouses and children of servicemembers residing under orders in 
foreign countries to treat their time accompanying the servicemember as 
residence in the United States for the purpose of satisfying 
citizenship requirements.
  The Walter Reed Hospital investigations made clear that we need to 
improve the care we provide to our veterans, and especially to our 
wounded warriors. Our Nation has a moral obligation to provide quality 
health care to the men and women who put on our Nation's uniform and 
are wounded or injured fighting our Nation's wars. This obligation 
extends from the point of injury, through evacuation from the 
battlefield, to first-class medical facilities in the United States, 
and ends only when the wounds are healed. When wounds may continue to 
impact a veteran for a lifetime, we have an obligation to continue to 
provide quality care.
  In an effort to better meet this obligation, the conference report 
includes portions of the Senate and House passed legislation to improve 
services for wounded warriors. This legislation reflects close 
collaboration between the Committees on Armed Services and Veterans' 
Affairs. Some of the Conference Report's provisions would: Require the 
DOD and VA to jointly develop a comprehensive policy on improvements to 
care, management, and transition of recovering servicemembers in an 
outpatient status; expand treatment and research for traumatic brain 
injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and traumatic eye injuries; 
guarantee combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30 days of 
their request; require the DOD to use the VA Schedule for Rating 
Disabilities in determining servicemember disabilities; increase from 2 
to 5 years the period during which recently separated combat veterans 
may seek care from the VA; require the DOD to use the VA presumption of 
sound condition in establishing eligibility of servicemembers for 
disability retirement; and increase leave under the Family Medical 
Leave Act for caregivers of seriously injured servicemembers from 12 to 
26 weeks.
  The conference report will ensure that our service men and women are 
provided with the equipment, training, technology, and authorities they 
need to prevail in combat, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Specifically, the conference report: Added over $16 billion for all 
known Service and Special Operations Command requirements for mine-
resistant ambush protected, MRAP, vehicles that improve protection for 
our troops exposed to the improvised explosive device, IED, threat in 
Iraq and Afghanistan; funded over $4 billion for the Joint Improvised 
Explosive Device Defeat Office, JIEDDO, and directed JIEDDO to invest 
at least $50.0 million in blast injury research and over $150.0 million 
for the procurement of IED jammers for the Army; and authorized fiscal 
year 2008 end strengths for the Army and Marine Corps of 525,400 and 
189,000, respectively, which is an increase of 13,000 for the Army and 
9,000 for the Marine Corps.
  The conference report also seeks to make sure tomorrow's service men 
and women are provided with the equipment and technology they need to 
prevail in future operations. To this end, the conference report 
promotes the transformation of the Armed Forces to meet the threats of 
the 21st century, including: Requiring the Secretary of Defense to 
obligate sufficient annual amounts to develop and procure a competitive 
propulsion system for the Joint Strike Fighter, JSF, program in order 
to conduct a competitive propulsion source selection, and adding $196.9 
million to the Joint Strike Fighter program in fiscal year 2008 for 
this effort; authorizing construction for one Army High Speed Vessel 
and five Navy Battle Force warships, including the first ship of the 
CVN-21 aircraft carrier class; providing multiyear procurement 
authority for Virginia class submarines, and adding $588 million in 
advance procurement funding to support buying an additional submarine 
in 2010; adding $300 million in advance procurement funding for 3 T-AKE 
class supply ships, and $50 million in advance procurement for a tenth 
LPD-17 class amphibious ship; adding $2.28 billion for procurement of 8 
additional C-17 Globemaster strategic lift aircraft; and adding $51 
million to the budget request to provide increased space situational 
awareness capabilities to address concerns raised as a result of the 
recent Chinese kinetic anti-satellite weapons test.
  Devoting modest resources and effort to sound management practices 
ensures that our defense dollars are well spent. The conferees included 
several provisions designed to enhance the management of the DOD. 
Specifically, these provisions would: Provide that the Deputy Secretary 
of Defense is the Chief Management Officer of the DOD, and establish a 
full-time position of Deputy Chief Management Officer, with the rank of 
Under Secretary, to ensure continuous top-level attention to the 
management problems of the Department; strengthen oversight of 
reconstruction activities in Afghanistan by establishing a Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, modeled after the 
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; repeal the authority 
of the DOD to establish a new labor relations system and restore 
collective bargaining and appeals rights; and allow the Department to 
continue efforts to develop and implement a new pay for performance 
system, but only if the system is implemented in a manner that is 
consistent with existing labor relations requirements; tighten the 
rules for competition between Federal employees and private 
contractors, to ensure that Federal employees are given fair 
consideration for work to be performed for the Department of Defense.
  The conferees also included the Acquisition Improvement and 
Accountability Act of 2007 in the conference report. These provisions 
would improve the management and oversight of the DOD acquisition 
programs, and, specifically, would: Require the private security 
contractors operating on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan to 
comply with DOD regulations and rules on the use of force, as well as 
orders and directives from combatant commanders regarding force 
protection, security, health, safety, and interaction with local 
nationals; establish a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan to study and investigate Federal agency contracting for 
reconstruction, logistics support, and security functions in those 
countries, and make recommendations as to how contracting processes 
could be improved in the future; establish a defense acquisition 
workforce development fund to provide a minimum of $300 million in 
fiscal year 2008, and increasing amounts thereafter, to ensure that the 
DOD has the people and the skills needed to effectively manage the 
DOD's contracts; strengthen statutory protections for contractor 
employees who blow the whistle on waste, fraud and abuse on DOD 
contracts by providing, for the first time, a private right of action 
in Federal court for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal 
for their efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests; and tighten the 
rules for DOD acquisition of major weapon systems and subsystems, 
components and spare parts to reduce the risk of contract overpricing, 
cost overruns, and failure to meet contract schedules and performance 
requirements.

[[Page 34423]]

  The conference report also includes a provision that would build new 
flexibility into specialty metals requirements to ensure that the DOD 
can acquire the weapon systems needed by our men and women in uniform. 
In particular, the provision contains four new exceptions to the 
specialty metals requirements: a new exemption for commercial, off-the-
shelf items; a new de minimis exception for items that contain 
relatively small amounts, less than 2 percent by weight, of non-
compliant material; a new national security exception for items that 
are needed by our warfighters; and a new ``market basket'' exception 
for dual-use items. The exceptions for commercial, off-the-shelf items 
and de minimis amounts of non-compliant material are particularly 
important, because they apply to purchases by the Department and by 
defense contractors and subcontractors at any tier, regardless of 
whether the items acquired are systems, subsystems, assemblies, 
subassemblies, or components. Because commercial items such as engines 
and generators are built almost exclusively out of commercial, off-the-
shelf components, and any military-unique components are likely to 
constitute less than 2 percent of the specialty metals included in the 
final product, they too can now be purchased by DOD and its contractors 
without the cumbersome need for a waiver.
  In addition, the provision would eliminate the Anti-Deficiency Act as 
an enforcement mechanism for specialty metals requirements, ensuring 
that noncompliance can now be treated as a routine contract violation, 
subject to appropriate contractual penalties, and not as a potential 
criminal offense that precludes the acceptance of a product. Taken 
together, these changes should reduce the inordinate amount of time and 
effort that the Department has had to spend over the last 2 years 
trying to enforce compliance down to the component level on major 
weapon systems.
  The conference report also included a number of other noteworthy 
provisions, including: Requiring a report on Pakistan's efforts to 
eliminate safe havens for violent extremists on its territory and to 
prevent cross border incursions by those extremists into Afghanistan; 
renewing authority for the Special Operations Command to provide 
support to foreign forces, groups or individuals who are supporting or 
facilitating ongoing military operations by U.S. special operations 
forces; and expanding the Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa program and 
creating a priority 2 refugee category for those Iraqis who have 
provided assistance to the United States and for certain highly 
vulnerable Iraqi religious minorities.
  In the area of nonproliferation and cooperative threat reduction, the 
conference report: authorized an increase of $230 million to the amount 
requested for the Department of Energy nonproliferation programs; 
authorized an increase of $80 million for the DOD's Cooperative Threat 
Reduction, CTR, Program; and expanded the CTR program to countries 
outside of the former Soviet Union and adopted provisions that would 
repeal all of the required annual certifications.
  The conference report also authorized $9.8 billion for ballistic 
missile defense, a net reduction of $597 million below the budget 
request. The conference continued to focus on effective near term 
capabilities against existing short and medium range threats by 
authorizing an additional $120 million for such systems. Further, the 
conferees authorized provisions to improve the budgeting, acquisition, 
and oversight of missile defense programs, and to limit the use of 
funds for construction and deployment activities for the proposed 
European missile defense deployment until the governments of Poland and 
the Czech Republic give final approval of any bilateral deployment 
agreements negotiated with the United States, and Congress receives an 
independent assessment of options for missile defense in Europe.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the list of staff 
members of the Armed Services Committee to which I earlier referred.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Staff Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee

       Borawski, June M.; Brewer, Leah C.; Bryan, Joseph M.; 
     Caniano, William M.; Carrillo, Pablo E.; Clark, Jonathan D.; 
     Cohen, Ilona R.; Collins, David G.; Cork, Fletcher L.; 
     Cowart, Christine E.; Cox, Jr., Daniel J.; Creedon, Madelyn 
     R.; Cronin, Kevin A.; DeBobes, Richard D.; Dickinson, Marie 
     Fabrizio; Eisen, Gabriella; Farkas, Evelyn N.; Fieldhouse, 
     Richard W.; Forbes, Diana Tabler; Greene, Creighton.
       Howard, Gary J.; Hutton, IV, Paul C.; Jacobson, Mark R.; 
     Kiley, Gregory T.; Kingston, Jessica L.; Kostiw, Michael V.; 
     Kuiken, Michael J.; Leeling, Gerald J.; Levine, Peter K.; 
     Maurer, Derek J.; McConnell, Thomas K.; McCord, Michael J.; 
     Monahan, William G.P.; Morriss, David M.; Niemeyer, Lucian 
     L.; Noblet, Michael J.; Parker, Bryan D.; Pasha, Ali Z.; 
     Paul, Christopher J.; Pearson, Cindy; Pollock, David.
       Quirk V, John H.; Rubin, Benjamin L.; Rusten, Lynn F.; 
     Sebold, Brian F.; Seraphin, Arun A.; Smith, Travis E.; 
     Soofer, Robert M.; Stackley, Sean G.; Svinicki, Kristine L.; 
     Sutey, William K.; Wagner, Mary Louise; Walsh, Richard F.; 
     Wells, Breon N.; White, Dana W.

 Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I sincerely congratulate Chairman 
Levin, the members of our committee, and our House colleagues for their 
work on the conference report to accompany the fiscal year 2008 
National Defense Authorization Act. With provisions that authorize a 
considerable pay raise for all military personnel, increase Army and 
Marine end-strength, reform the system that serves wounded veterans, 
and help prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in defense contracting and 
procurement, this conference report undoubtably contains many important 
elements that will help support our national defense and, in 
particular, our servicemen and women. However, this conference report 
also contains other provisions that are very problematic. In fact, so 
flawed are those provisions that, despite all that is good in the 
conference report--and there is much--I must--cannot support this 
year's report.
  In this year's conference report, and the accompanying bill, there 
are $5.3 billion in earmarks. That does not even include about $330 
million worth of military construction pork ``airdropped'' by the House 
Appropriators despite having enacted ethics reform legislation just 2 
months ago. Of that $5.3 billion, $2.3 billion came from the Senate and 
$4.1 billion originated in the House. The disparity between the two 
bills is unprecedented.
  Almost half of the total amount of pork in this conference report, 
and the accompanying bill, arises from a single provision that 
authorizes the procurement of eight C-17 Globemaster aircraft that the 
Defense Department states we neither need nor can afford. I should also 
note that this conference report stripped out an important amendment 
that called for all congressionally directed spending on new programs 
and grants to be subject to full and open competition. In my view, the 
massive pork spending in this conference report renders it a frontal 
assault on this body's purported commitment to ethics and earmark 
reform and, in my view, results in a inexcusable failure in our 
obligation to the taxpayer.
  The conference report also contains troubling provisions that will 
likely fail to cure abuses in multiyear contracting, possibly weaken 
the ability of the Department of Defense to waive protectionist 
restrictions on the purchase of weapon systems containing specialty 
metals, and allow the Air Force to precipitously retire fully-capable 
aircraft just so it can buy new ones. Therefore, while many elements in 
this conference report are undoubtably helpful, I regrettably cannot 
sign it.
  Clearly, the most egregious single item in this report is a provision 
that authorizes the Air Force $2.28 billion to buy eight C-17 
Globemaster aircraft. I note that the dollar amount associated with 
this one provision, which originated in the House, nearly equals the 
total amount of earmarks in this bill that arose from the entire Senate 
side.
  This provision is particularly problematic given that the Secretary 
of Defense has consistently maintained that the Defense Department met 
its strategic airlift requirements with the

[[Page 34424]]

final purchase of C-17 aircraft authorized by the 2007 National Defense 
Authorization Act and, therefore, simply does not need any more C-17 
aircraft. In fact, during deliberations with the conferees, the Defense 
Department conveyed concern that continuing the C-17 production line 
would compete with the Department's number one priority for strategic 
airlift, the recapitalization of the aerial refueling tanker fleet. 
Reflecting that view, the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 
2008 included no funding for additional C-17 aircraft and, as it did 
last year, asked for money to begin shutting down the C-17 production 
line.
  In 2007, Congress allowed the Air Force to buy 10 C-17 aircraft above 
what it actually needed. This year, in their collective wisdom, the 
conferees have seen it fit to repeat that multibillion dollar mistake 
by providing for a follow-on purchase, in the face of the 
administration's admonitions. At the end of the day, this provision 
does little else than subsidize the continuation of the contractor's C-
17 production line, which is nearing its end--a corporate handout at 
its worst.
  I am particularly concerned about this provision given that I have 
uncovered compelling evidence of possible wrongdoing in the Air Force's 
interaction with the contractor on the C-17 matter. That evidence 
points to a disturbing level of effort--undertaken jointly by the Air 
Force and the contractor--to undermine the current program-of-record 
and support a procurement proposal for which there is no validated 
requirement and which is not reflected in either the President's Budget 
Request or even the Air Force's own Future Years Defense Program, FYDP. 
In its rank aggressiveness, the evidence I found, and referred to the 
appropriate authorities for further review, is not unlike some of what 
I observed in the Boeing tanker lease scandal. From those authorities, 
I understand that a review is pending. When faced with similar 
circumstances concerning the Boeing tanker matter, we suspended 
procurement activities until all related investigations were concluded. 
Prudence requires that, at a minimum, we do the same here.
  This conference report also includes authorization for 52 new 
military construction projects totaling $328 million requested by 
individual Members of the House that were not vetted or included in 
either the House- or the Senate-passed National Defense authorization 
bills for fiscal year 2008. On October 30, 2007, the House 
Appropriations Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Subcommittee 
slipped this bloated earmark list to the House Armed Services Committee 
with no public review or semblance of transparency. And, in order to 
maintain comity with the appropriators, the majority of defense bill 
conferees, over my objections, decided to insert the authorizations 
into our conference report. Not only is this is a classic example of 
``parachuting'' or ``airdropping'' earmarks into a conference report in 
the dead of night, which we ostensibly sought to stop with the 
enactment of a new ethics law two months ago, it is also an abrogation 
of our role as authorizers to fully vet each new matter we consider--
rather than blindly accept what the appropriators tell us. Despite the 
rhetoric of a ``new day'' for accountability, allowing such practices 
reflects that there is no transparency in this process. Regrettably, 
the conferees appear content to hide behind parliamentary tricks and 
mental gymnastics while knowing full well the spirit and intent of the 
reform we sought to achieve earlier this year. Saying that over $300 
million in pork construction projects can be added in conference means 
that there is essentially no limit on how much a program or a project 
can balloon during conference. This is a ``hog call'' if I've ever 
heard one.
  Senate amendment 828 to the Senate-passed Bill applied Federal 
competitive bidding laws and regulations to congressional earmarks. 
Rather modest in what it sought to do, that provision would not have 
prohibited Members of Congress from earmarking defense dollars. 
Instead, it simply would have ensured that taxpayers received the 
advantage of a competitive process. Under that provision, a Member of 
Congress in either body would have retained the prerogative to fund an 
activity that he deems worthy, but a full and open competitive process 
would be used to select the most qualified entity to undertake the 
project. If an activity is important enough to require earmarking of 
taxpayers dollars, that legislative proposal would simply have required 
transparency and full and open competition. Moreover, waiver authority 
was built into the provision to allow the Department reasonable 
flexibility in its implementation. In my view, that important provision 
should have been included in this conference report.
  The provision that I originally offered as an amendment to the Senate 
version of the bill clarified how much savings would be required to 
achieve under a multiyear contract before Congress could authorize that 
procurement mechanism to buy the largest and most expensive weapon 
systems. That clarification was important to help the Defense 
Department use multiyear contracts responsibly to capitalize on mature, 
well-run programs by buying at economically efficient rates--not to 
insulate poorly performing systems from effective congressional 
oversight. While the multiyear contracting provision in the conference 
report is helpful, it contains language that allows the Department to 
waive its stringent requirements in a way that eviscerates the 
provision's underlying intent. In other words, the waiver provision 
appears to create a loophole through which the Department can keep 
chronically poorly performing programs ``on rails'' and away from 
meaningful congressional oversight.
  For some time now, I have been concerned about how the Air Force, in 
particular, has been creating requirements for procuring new aircraft 
by precipitously retiring older but reliable, platforms to bulk up buys 
of new aircraft platforms. This has required this committee to 
legislatively prohibit, in previous authorization bills, the retirement 
of KC-135s, B-52s, C-5s, U-2s and C-130s. In this year's conference 
report, we have unwisely relieved at least a couple of those 
restrictions.
  The Air Force's number one acquisition priority is to replace its 
aged KC-135 fleet of tanker aircraft. The Air Force's original attempt 
to replace that fleet led to the now infamous Boeing tanker lease 
scandal, which resulted in jail-time for a top Air Force procurement 
official and Boeing's chief operating officer.
  This time, the Air Force intends to implement a ``comprehensive'' 
tanker replacement strategy, one component of which is the purchase of 
a new, commercial-derivative tanker. On that component, two contractor 
teams have submitted offers responding to a request for proposals, 
which the Air Force is now reviewing. A contract may be awarded as soon 
as late February 2008. Unfortunately, on the other two components of 
the strategy--implementing a complementary commercial fee-for-service 
program and re-engining some of its older KC-135s--the Air Force has 
made no serious headway. Against that backdrop, I remain concerned that 
the Air Force may simply maximize its desired purchase of new planes. 
Several studies conducted by both the Air Force and independent groups 
indicate that the current KC-135 fleet is viable for the intermediate 
term. Given that taxpayers have made a significant investment in the 
KC-135 fleet, the Air Force should not be permitted to precipitously 
retire them simply because it wants to buy as many new tanker aircraft 
as possible.
  The ``Air Force Fleet Viability Board, KC-135 Assessment Report'' 
cautioned that, before retiring KC-135s, the Air Force needs to conduct 
destructive testing so it can proceed on an informed basis. However, 
the Air Force has not complied with that recommendation. Nonetheless, 
section 135 of this conference report allows the Secretary of the Air 
Force to retire immediately 48 KC-135E tanker aircraft. It also allows 
the Air Force to start retiring the remaining 37 KC-135E during fiscal 
year 08 after contract award for the KC-X tanker replacement aircraft. 
Once again, without reasonably restricting the Air Force's retirement 
of

[[Page 34425]]

KC-135s, we may have lost the ability to ensure that the Air Force does 
not replace its current fleet of tanker aircraft by simply maximizing 
its purchase of commercial-derivative aircraft a solution that simply 
disregards the interests of the taxpayer.
  A provision on the retirement of C-130 airlift aircraft is similarly 
improvident. That provision, section 133, would repeal the requirement 
in the fiscal year 2007 National Defense Authorization Act that any C-
130E aircraft retired in fiscal year 2007 be maintained in a condition 
that would allow recall of the aircraft to active service. Another 
provision, section 134, would allow for the retirement of 29 more C-
130E aircraft in fiscal year 2008.
  Without the Department's requirements for tactical airlift capability 
well-defined, it would be premature to retire any C-130 aircraft, at 
least until: (1) an Air Force Fleet Viability Board has conducted an 
assessment of the C-130E/H fleet of aircraft; and (2) the results of 
the Intra-Theater Lift Capability Study, ITLCS, phases 1 and 2, 
identify the right mix and number of intra-theater airlift assets. 
Therefore, I believe that we should not retire any more C-130 aircraft 
until the Department determines what its intra-theater lift 
requirements are and that aircraft already should not be stripped for 
parts or destroyed until we have the results of the requirements 
analysis.
  This conference report also contains several policy provisions that 
weakens the broad waiver authority that the Department of Defense 
currently has with regard to weapon systems that contain specialty 
metals. For a long time, I have tried to lessen the impact of, if not 
entirely eliminate, ``buy America'' restrictions, including the Berry 
amendment, in Defense Department purchases. Legislation restricting the 
Department's purchases along those lines tend to direct spending for 
the benefit of a particular entity or congressional district. So, I am 
concerned that, with the specialty metals/``buy America'' policy 
provisions contained in this conference report, we may have further 
opened the door for more pork legislation in the future. Finally, as 
those policy provisions were not in either the Senate- or the House-
passed defense bills, I question whether those provisions should have 
been added in conference.
  Another objectionable provision in the conference report would 
establish a policy that future major combatant ships be nuclear-
powered, regardless of requirements, cost, or other considerations that 
go into selecting a new ship class propulsion system. The Secretary of 
Defense could only seek a waiver of this requirement if he determines 
that nuclear propulsion for a future ship is not in the national 
interest. If the next cruiser class, CG(X), is required to be nuclear-
powered as a result of this policy, its cost will increase by greater 
than $1 billion and the ship will be delayed several years. The result 
would be significantly increased cost, fewer ships, and delays in 
fielding the next major surface combatant class of ships. At a time 
when the Secretary of the Navy is doing all he can to reform how the 
Navy goes about buying its biggest and most expensive weapon systems, 
this provision is a move in the wrong direction.
  The conference report also includes a provision that sets a very 
dangerous precedent by in effect forcing the Department to take action 
for the benefit of certain Members of Congress. Section 2846, entitled 
``Transfer of jurisdiction, former Nike missile site, Grosse Ile, 
Michigan'', mandates that the Department of Defense spend funds from an 
account that has historically been guided by an objective assessment of 
the risk to human health. This provision requires the Corps of 
Engineers to clean up a site to a higher standard than the Army deems 
necessary in Gross Ile, Michigan, so the property can be used as a 
wildlife refuge. Let me be clear: I have nothing against refuges. But, 
the Department of Defense has over 9,900 properties evaluated as 
Formerly Used Defense Sites, FUDS, and must conduct cleanup projects at 
more than 3,000 of them. The FUDS program costs the Department over 
$250 million a year and is expected to cost the Department $18.7 
billion when all said and done.
  We simply cannot afford allowing individual Members of Congress to 
move their pet projects to the top of the priority list, completely 
disregarding the risk to health and safety of other more vital 
projects. Clean-up should be based on the priority of risk, not 
political muscle.
  There was another conference decision which I believe may be very 
detrimental to our role as an authorizing committee. Senate-passed 
bill, Senate section 2811, ``General Military Construction Transfer 
Authority,'' was intended to extend to military construction accounts 
the current congressional review process for requests from the 
Department of Defense for the reprogramming of funds between accounts. 
Currently, for every funding account except military construction, the 
Secretary of Defense notifies all four defense committees of his intent 
to transfer funds from one account to another during the year to better 
manage obligations. However, for military construction accounts, the 
Secretary sends a notification only to the House and Senate 
subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The Senate 
provision sought to extend that oversight responsibility to our 
conferees on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. That was a 
good provision. It was included in our Senate markup without question 
and was agreed to by both the House and Senate staffs during 
conference.
  However, at the last moment during conference deliberations, members 
from the House Appropriations Committee persuaded my fellow conference 
leaders to drop the provision for no substantive reason, other than it 
would diminish the power of the appropriators. This capitulation is 
very troubling. The provision was written in response to recent actions 
by the Appropriations subcommittees that either held up military 
construction reprogramming requests based on parochial interests or 
approved reprogramming requests over the objections of this committee's 
staff. In particular, we were concerned by the proposal made by the Air 
Force to the Committees on Appropriations in January 2007 to use the 
existing reprogramming process to carry out a ``new start'' military 
construction project that had not been authorized by law--a clear 
challenge to the role of the authorizing committees over new start 
military construction.
  The committee was also concerned that the appropriators in both 
bodies approved a reprogramming in July 2007 for a military 
construction project for which no funds were appropriated in fiscal 
year 2007, as a favor to a particular Member--disregarding the policy 
implications of the action. Also, earlier this year, the Senate 
appropriators held up approval of two reprogramming requests for 
projects in Virginia in order to force the Department to act on other 
reprogramming requests. If this committee had equal authority, we would 
have the ability to prevent such shamelessly parochial and 
institutionally divisive behavior. Senate section 2811 would have put 
an end to such activity between the appropriators and authorizers by 
establishing equal footing with regard to reprogramming requests on 
military construction projects. I am at a complete loss why it was 
dropped from our conference agreement.
  Again, while there is much in this year's conference report that is 
very worthwhile and helpful to helping provide for the national 
defense, the elements contained within it that move in the wrong 
direction are too numerous, too large, and too costly for any Member to 
ignore. With those elements in this conference report, I simply cannot 
in good conscience tell the American people that this is our best--that 
this conference report represents our best vision for the country on 
matters that relate to, or affect, our servicemen and women and how we 
secure our national security interests abroad. By declining to sign 
this conference report today, I respectfully convey to the chairman and 
my fellow conferees my belief that we can, and for the sake of both the 
warfighter and taxpayer, we must do better.

[[Page 34426]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to thank my colleagues, 
both in the House and Senate, for their tremendous bipartisan work on 
the fiscal year 2008 national defense authorization bill.
  The Congress has passed the national defense authorization bill every 
year since 1959, and I have had the great privilege to have had a hand 
in this annual piece of legislation each of my 29 years in the Senate.
  This bill accomplishes the following: supports our troops deployed in 
harm's way; bolsters the readiness of our Armed Forces; reforms the 
acquisition practices of the Department of Defense; addresses the 
problems in military medical care uncovered at Walter Reed and 
elsewhere; provides needed equipment to protect our deployed forces; 
and strengthens the quality of life of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and marines, and their families.
  To care for those who serve in uniform, their families, and retired 
veterans, this legislation authorizes $696.4 billion which includes the 
base budget for fiscal year 2008--$507 billion--and the President's 
emergency supplemental requests for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global 
war on terrorism--$189 billion--made in February, July, and October.
  It authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all 
uniformed service personnel.
  It continues the authorization to pay over 25 separate bonuses and 
special pay critical to successful recruiting and retention.
  It authorizes fiscal year 2008 end strengths for the Army and Marine 
Corps of 525,400 and 189,000 respectively, which is an increase of 
13,000 for the Army and 9,000 for the Marine Corps.
  It includes the Wounded Warrior Act, which will improve health care 
and benefits for recovering veterans, recovering servicemembers and 
their families, and begin the process of reform of the Department of 
Defense, DOD, and Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, disability 
evaluation systems.
  It requires DOD and Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a 
comprehensive policy on improvements to care, management, and 
transition of recovering servicemembers in an outpatient status.
  It authorizes payment of combat-related special compensation to 
servicemembers medically retired for a combat-related disability. 
Payment is equal to the amount of retired pay forfeited because of the 
prohibition on concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA 
disability compensation.
  It reduces below age 60 the age at which a member of a Reserve 
component may draw retirement pay by 3 months for every aggregate 90 
days' service on active duty under certain mobilization authorities.
  It guarantees combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30 
days of their request.
  It includes several provisions to continue to provide best quality 
health care to servicemembers and their families and provisions that 
would enhance the ability of the services to attract health care 
personnel.
  It guarantees combat veterans mental health evaluations within 30 
days of their request.
  To ensure that servicemembers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
properly equipped, this legislation adds over $17 billion for mine 
resistant ambush protected--MRAP--vehicles that improve protection for 
our troops exposed to the improvised explosive device, IED, threat in 
Iraq and Afghanistan.
  It funds over $4 billion for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device 
Defeat Office, JIEDDO.
  It authorizes funds to procure ammunition, modernize ammunition 
plants, and protect and enhance military training ranges.
  To meet current and future threats to our country's national 
security, this bill requires the DOD to develop a competitive engine 
program for the Joint Strike Fighter and authorized $480 million for 
this purpose.
  It authorizes more than $13 billion for Navy shipbuilding.
  It provides mulltiyear procurement authority for fiscal years 2009 
through 2013 Virginia-class submarines, and adding $588 million in 
advance procurement funding to support buying an additional submarine 
in 2010.
  It adds $51 million to the budget request to provide increased space 
situational awareness capabilities to address concerns raised as a 
result of the recent Chinese kinetic antisatellite weapons test.
  It authorizes $220.4 billion to meet the operation and maintenance 
requirements of the services to support combat operations and improve 
the readiness of deploying and nondeploying forces.
  To ensure for the effective oversight of Department of Defense 
contracts, contractors, and acquisition workforce, this legislation 
requires private security contractors operating on the battlefield in 
Iraq and Afghanistan to comply with DOD regulations and rules on the 
use of force, as well as orders and directives from combatant 
commanders regarding force protection, security, health, safety, and 
interaction with local nationals.
  It establishes a Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan to study and investigate Federal agency contracting for 
reconstruction, logistics support, and security functions in those 
countries, and make recommendations as to how contracting processes 
could be improved in the future.
  It strengthens oversight of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan 
by establishing a Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
Reconstruction, modeled after the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
Reconstruction.
  It includes the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act of 
2007, which would improve the management and oversight of DOD 
acquisition programs.
  It strengthens statutory protections for contractor employees who 
blow the whistle on waste, fraud, and abuse on DOD contracts by 
providing, for the first time, a private right of action in Federal 
court for contractor employees who are subject to reprisal for their 
efforts to protect the taxpayers' interests.
  To recognize the responsibilities and enhance the role of the 
National Guard, this legislation includes the National Guard 
Empowerment Act which authorizes promotion of the Chief of the National 
Guard Bureau to the rank of four-star general and recognizes the 
responsibilities and enhanced role of the National Guard.
  Finally, to ensure the effective security and remediation of 
Department of Energy sites, this act supports enhanced security at 
Department of Energy, DOE, nuclear sites and the development of new 
technology to promote environmental cleanup of DOE sites.
  Madam President, this important bill will maintain our readiness and 
support the military's transformation to meet the 21st century's 
threats. I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation.
  Madam President, I direct persons to the committee report, the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008. On page 334 
there appears a provision, section 1079, entitled: ``Communications 
with the Committees On Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.'' I will read a part of it to familiarize people:

       The Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the 
     director of a national intelligence center, or the head of 
     any element of the intelligence community shall, not later 
     than 45 days after receiving a written request from the Chair 
     or ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services 
     of the Senate or the Committee on Armed Services of the House 
     of Representatives--

  The Senate and the House provide certain information.
  I worked with this provision at the time it was framed in our 
committee, and I want to say for the record that it was never intended, 
nor do I personally find any wording in this amendment, which would 
include the daily brief provided to the President of the United States. 
That is the exclusive property under executive privilege of the 
President.
  Madam President, I wish to add on that list on the Wounded Warrior 
Senator Webb, who took a very active role in that.

[[Page 34427]]

  Our respective leaders have asked us to keep this debate limited as 
best we can. I know of only one speaker on my side who is seeking 5 
minutes. I think our distinguished chairman covered the matter very 
carefully as he always does.
  It has been a privilege for me to participate in the preparation of 
this conference report and to work on the other committee matters 
throughout the year. As the chairman said, Senator McCain is on a 
mission, a mission I happen to support strongly. I am happy to work 
with Senator Levin instead of Senator McCain. His chief of staff, 
seated next to me, Mike Kostiw, and I were in constant contact with 
him, and in every way Senator McCain had hands on in the affairs of the 
committee this year as ranking member in the preparation of this 
report.
  Senator McCain and I have known each other ever since I was Secretary 
of the Navy. He was then in the prison camps. Shortly thereafter, when 
he joyously returned home to a nation that welcomed him with open 
heart, we have been friends ever since. It was quite logical for him to 
ask me to work in his stead. This is the 29th year Senator Levin and I 
have occupied these two chairs. Particularly the last 17 years, either 
I have been chairman or he has been chairman or ranking member of the 
committee. Our partnership is rather extraordinary. I anticipate he 
will maintain and continue that strong effort to make this committee 
what it is, nonpartisan in its function, in large measure, with Senator 
McCain after my departure a year hence.
  Again, I salute my good friend for his leadership as chairman this 
year. He is always open to me and other members of the Republican side 
of the committee to entertain their views very fairly and objectively, 
thoroughly. And together with our superb professional staff, we have 
managed to put together a very commendable bill for the Senate and now 
this conference report for the whole of the Congress.
  Having said that, I join in his recognition of Ike Skelton and Duncan 
Hunter, the two partners we have worked with for many years on the 
House side. This was his first year as chairman for Congressman 
Skelton. We worked in the final stages of the preparation of this bill, 
the four of us, on many key issues to resolve differences between the 
House and Senate. Ike Skelton is an extraordinary leader. He has been 
on that committee many years and has been about as long as we have in 
the Congress. We are fortunate to have his services, as we do the 
services of Senator Levin.
  I yield the floor. The chairman may wish to recognize a speaker on 
his side. Then I will recognize a speaker on our side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, before I yield time to Senator Murray, 
let me all too briefly thank my friend from Virginia. I treasure this 
relationship. It has been extraordinarily meaningful to me and 
important to me and our wives. We still have a year and a few months to 
go and we will make fullest use of all that time. In the meantime, let 
me extend my thanks to him and my appreciation for the friendship and 
support he has always provided, not just to me but to every Member of 
the Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my good friend. I wish to add 
our respective wives who have spent long hours waiting for us as we 
have traveled so many times in these almost 30 years to places all over 
the world together and left them at home, and many nights late here. 
They have been a good team to support both of us.
  Mr. LEVIN. Indeed, they have.
  I thank the Senator for those comments, and I yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Michigan and 
the Senator from Virginia for their tremendous work on this 
legislation.
  I am glad we are considering this bill. And I have come to the floor 
today to highlight a section of this legislation that's especially 
important to me because it will make a huge difference in the lives of 
our servicemembers and veterans--the Wounded Warriors Act.
  The Wounded Warriors Act has already passed the Senate once on its 
own. To ensure it passed Congress this year, it was added to this 
Defense bill, too. It is taken longer than I had hoped to get to this 
point. But today, I'm optimistic that we can pass this bill, and get 
these much-needed improvements to our troops and our veterans soon. 
This is a major step toward real change.
  I want to talk about how we got to this point, and why this bill is 
so necessary. This February, the Washington Post stunned us all with a 
series of articles on the squalid conditions some of our servicemembers 
were living in at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
  The articles described infestations of mice and cockroaches in some 
Walter Reed facilities. They described moldy walls, and broken ceilings 
in the rooms servicemembers were living in while they waited to get 
care. And the articles described how many of our servicemembers and 
their families feel trapped in a bureaucratic ``Catch-22,'' while they 
try for months to work out their disability ratings.
  I am proud that Democrats led a bipartisan effort in the Senate to 
address these problems aggressively. The Wounded Warriors legislation 
we have now is the result of a historic partnership between two of our 
committees--the Veterans' Affairs Committee, chaired by Senator Akaka, 
and the Armed Services Committee, chaired by Senator Levin. I want to 
thank both Senators for their leadership on this.
  Together, we convened hearings, reached across the aisle, and crafted 
legislation that will make sure that the men and women who have served 
our country so honorably get the care they deserve when they come home.
  The more we dug for information, the more we learned about the huge 
problems we need to address. Last winter, when I visited Walter Reed 
with our majority leader and other members of the Leadership team, the 
servicemembers we talked to weren't just frustrated with their living 
conditions. They had reached the end of their patience trying to 
navigate a disability system, which made absolutely no sense to them--
or to us.
  And the problem was not limited to servicemembers at Walter Reed. I 
went home and met with servicemembers in medical hold in Washington 
State--more than 200 people showed up. They, too, were angry and 
frustrated with their situation. They told me story after story about 
how they had to struggle to get their disability ratings and fight for 
the care they needed.
  It was clear from these meetings that the Defense Department and the 
VA don't have a joint strategy for caring for servicemembers and 
veterans, and that they use inconsistent ratings for disabilities. 
Their paperwork doesn't even match. How you're rated as disabled by the 
military is completely different than how you're rated by the VA.
  The result is that our servicemembers get caught in the middle. They 
get lost in the bureaucracy, while trying to get the treatment they 
need to recover. Too often, our injured servicemembers are the ones 
trying to figure out how to work out the transition. It's frustrating, 
and it's completely unacceptable.
  Other servicemembers told us that they have had to struggle to get 
the right diagnosis for their injuries. Our military has long known 
about the mental wounds that can be caused by war. But many 
servicemembers still said they got little or no help to cope with 
mental illness.
  I talked to men and women who said they knew something was wrong. 
They felt different. And they forgot little things--basic things. They 
described not being able to find their keys after they put them down. 
They couldn't remember their kids' birthdays. They couldn't even 
remember what they'd done the year--or even the day--before.
  One young man from a rural community in my home State of Washington 
said he came home and felt isolated, unable to talk to his childhood 
friends. He was 22, but he couldn't remember what he'd learned in 
school just a few years ago. He said he didn't know who he was any 
more, and he eventually tried to take his own life.

[[Page 34428]]

  That young man had a traumatic brain injury. He had been around not 
one--not five--not 20--but more than 100 explosions while he was on the 
ground in Iraq. Even so, he wasn't screened for TBI when he was 
discharged. No one asked how he was doing. And no one followed up when 
he got home to ask how he was adjusting to civilian life.
  This should not happen to any of our servicemembers who have served 
us honorably. Yet that young man's experience is all too common.
  As a result of our investigation, Democrats said, ``No more.'' It's 
simply unacceptable that after fighting for our country, our 
servicemembers have had to return and fight against our government for 
the care they deserve.
  By passing the Wounded Warriors Act, we are moving aggressively to 
make sure that these men and women are treated well when they come 
home. The Wounded Warriors Act lays out a clear path directing the 
Defense Department and the VA to address shortfalls in the care of our 
wounded warriors.
  It requires the Defense Department and VA to work together to develop 
a comprehensive plan to prevent, treat and diagnose TBI and PTSD. It 
creates DOD centers of excellence for TBI and PTSD to improve our 
understanding of these devastating injuries. If directs the two 
agencies to develop a joint electronic health record so that critical 
medical files aren't lost as our wounded troops move from battlefield 
doctors, to medicals holds, and on to the VA.
  The act requires the military and the VA to work together on 
disability ratings. This is the first step toward bridging the gap 
between the VA and the Defense Department. And it requires the military 
to adopt the VA presumption that a disease or an injury is service-
connected when our heroes--who were healthy prior to service--have 
spent 6 months or more on active duty.
  The bill also addresses many of the horrifying conditions that our 
troops found themselves in at Walter Reed and other facilities. It 
ensures our servicemembers get adequate severance pay. And it can 
provide medical care for the families of recovering servicemembers.
  In addition to the Wounded Warriors Act, the Defense Authorization 
bill includes important provisions passed by the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee aimed at improving care for servicemembers once they 
reach the VA system.
  As you know, my colleagues on the Committee and I have worked hard to 
get these improvements in place, so I want to take a moment to mention 
them as well.
  Under this bill we will require that an initial mental health 
evaluation be-provided to veterans or returning servicemembers no more 
than 30 days after they ask for one. We will extend the period of 
eligibility for VA health care for combat veterans of the Persian Gulf 
War and future conflicts. That time period will increase from 2 years 
to 5 years after discharge or release. And we'll ensure improvements to 
the quality of care for veterans with TBI by requiring age-appropriate 
nursing care, and plans to help servicemembers recover and transition 
back into civilian life.
  While this bill is an important step toward providing our wounded 
warriors with the level of care they deserve and have earned, it's by 
no means the last step. Much work remains to be done by the DOD and the 
VA. We in Congress will have to keep a close watch to make sure the 
Defense Department and the VA are meeting the goals we've set out here.
  And as a member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I can assure you that I will be 
doing just that.
  I voted against going to war in Iraq. But I've said consistently that 
no matter how you feel about the war, we have an obligation as leaders 
to make sure that our men and women who fight for us get the care they 
deserve. I'm particularly proud of the way Democrats moved to address 
the problems facing our returning servicemembers, which clearly wasn't 
a priority for the Bush Administration.
  Democrats said: ``Not on our watch. Not any more.''
  The Wounded Warrior bill provides real solutions for our troops and 
veterans from the battlefield to the VA and everywhere in between. Our 
servicemembers have always answered the call of duty, but for too long, 
our Government has not answered theirs. I'm proud to say those days are 
over. This bill is part of that commitment. Let's pass it today, so we 
can get started on these improvements and provide the kind of care our 
servicemembers and veterans deserve. As I said at the beginning of this 
speech, this is a major step toward real change for our troops.


                   Nomination of General James Peake

  While I have the floor, Madam President, I also want to take a minute 
to say a few words about the nomination of GEN James Peake to be the 
next Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  On Thursday, I joined with my colleagues on the committee and voted 
in favor of his nomination. As we all know, there has been a vacuum at 
the head of the VA for years now, and for the reasons I have already 
laid out today, we need someone strong to lead this agency as we work 
to change course there. I do not think we ought to dwell on the 
mistakes of the past. I believe we do have to learn from them.
  At his confirmation hearing, General Peake pledged to stand up and 
put the needs of veterans above the political needs of the White House. 
He can guarantee that I am going to hold him to his word because we owe 
our troops nothing less.
  After fighting for their country, too many have had to fight against 
their Government to get the care and benefits they have earned. They 
have had to contend with bureaucratic ineptitude, a massive claims 
backlog, and wait times--just to name a few of the many problems at the 
VA.
  While I believe we shouldn't dwell on the mistakes of the past, I 
believe we must learn from them. And I expect General Peake to learn 
from the VA's past failures.
  The veterans of this country deserve a Secretary who is an honest and 
independent advocate for them--not an apologist for failed 
administration policies. Yet one of the biggest mistakes made by 
General Peake's predecessor was his blind political allegiance to the 
President--at the expense of the veterans he was supposed to serve.
  In his confirmation hearing, General Peake pledged to stand up for 
the needs of veterans above the political needs of the White House. As 
a senior member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the 
MilCon-VA Appropriations Subcommittee, he can guarantee that I will 
hold him to his word.
  General Peake will be taking the reins at a critical time in the 
agency's history. Many challenges lie in his path--from the enormous 
task of streamlining and improving the military and veterans disability 
systems, to implementing a joint electronic medical record; and from 
reducing wait times for benefits, to caring for the large number of 
returning veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic 
brain injury.
  These challenges require innovative solutions. They require a 
Secretary who will roll up his sleeves and get to work. And they 
require strong leadership. It will require action. And it will require 
results. General Peake promised to do just that. We must all hold him 
accountable--I know I will. If he fails to change the direction of this 
agency, he will have to answer for it.
  But I also pledge to work with him to get this right and put our 
veterans first. We have a true opportunity to change course at the VA. 
But the clock is ticking. With our troops fighting overseas and older 
veterans accessing the VA in greater numbers, we are facing 
unprecedented challenges.
  As they say at the VA in my home State, ``business as usual'' isn't 
an option. And I am hopeful that General Peake won't accept ``business 
as usual'' either. I am hopeful that he will make sure we keep our 
promises to the heroes who risked everything for our safety because we 
owe them nothing less.

[[Page 34429]]

  Madam President, I again thank the Senator from Michigan and the 
Senator from Virginia for their tremendous leadership in making sure 
our troops get all they need and, in particular, for the Wounded 
Warriors Act, which will be historic when it gets passed and signed 
into law and we can turn around to the men and women who served us so 
well and say: We are working with you, not against you.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record, in a slightly different form, a list of the staff--
professional staff and several personal staff--on my side who have 
helped in the preparation of the Senate bill and the preparation of the 
conference report. While there is some redundancy, I think the Record 
should reflect my specific appreciation to these many people who make 
it possible for the chairman and ranking member to prepare these bills 
and then the reports. So I have infinite respect and gratitude for each 
of them.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Minority Staff Senate Armed Services Committee

       Republican Staff Director: Michael V. Kostiwa.
       Assistant to Staff Director: William M. Caniano.
       Executive Officer: Christopher J. Paul.
       Administrative Assistant for the Minority: Marie Fabrizio 
     Dickinson.
       Minority Counsel: David M. Morriss, Richard F. Walsh, Derek 
     J. Maurer.
       Investigative Counsel: Pablo E. Carrillo, Bryan D. Parker.
       Professional Staff Members: William M. Caniano, Gregory T. 
     Kiley, Lucian L. Niemeyer, Christopher J. Paul, Lynn F. 
     Rusten, Robert M. Soofer, Sean G. Stackley, Kristine L. 
     Svinicki, Diana G. Tabler, and Dana W. White.
       Research Assistants: David G. Collins, Paul C. Hutton.
       Subcommittee on Airland: Minority Professional Staff 
     Members: Gregory T. Kiley (Lead), William M. Caniano.
       Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities: Minority 
     Professional Staff Members: Lynn F. Rusten (Co-lead), 
     Kristine L. Svinicki (Co-lead), William M. Caniano, Robert M. 
     Soofer.
       Subcommittee on Personnel: Minority Professional Staff 
     Staff Members: Richard F. Walsh (Co-lead & Counsel), Diana G. 
     Tabler (Co-lead).
       Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support: Minority 
     Professional Staff Members: Lucian L. Niemeyer (Lead), Bryan 
     D. Parker (Counsel), Derek J. Maurer (Counsel).
       Subcommittee on Seapower: Minority Professional Staff 
     Members: Sean G. Stackley (Lead), Gregory T. Kiley.
       Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Minority Professional 
     Staff Members: Robert M. Soofer (Lead), Kristine L. Svinicki, 
     Gergory T. Kiley, Derek J. Mauer (Counsel).
       Minority Professional Staff Members for:
       Acquisition and Contracting Policy: Christopher J. Paul, 
     Pablo E. Carrillo, Bryan D. Parker.
       Arms Control and Non-proliferation: Lynn F. Rusten.
       Army Programs: William M. Caniano.
       Budget and Reprogramming: Gregory T. Kiley.
       Chemical-Biological Defense: Robert M. Soofer.
       Chemical-Demilitarization: Lynn F. Rusten.
       Civilian Personnel: Diana G. Tabler.
       Combatant Commands: AFRICOM: Lynn F. Rusten.
       CENTCOM: William M. Caniano/Dana W. White.
       EUCOM: Lynn F. Rusten.
       JFCOM: Kristine L. Svinicki.
       NORTHCOM: Robert M. Soofer.
       PACOM: Lynn F. Rusten/Dana W. White.
       SOCOM: William M. Caniano.
       SOUTHCOM: William M. Caniano.
       STRATCOM: Robert M. Soofer.
       TRANSCOM: Sean G. Stackley, Gregory T. Kiley.
       Counterdrug Programs: Lynn F. Rusten.
       Defense Security Assistance: Lynn F. Rusten.
       Depot Maintenance: Derek J. Mauret.
       Detainees and Military Commissions: William M. Caniano, 
     David M. Morriss, Christopher J. Paul, Pablo E. Carrillo.
       Department of Energy National Security Programs: Kristine 
     L. Svinicki.
       Environmental Issues: David M. Morriss.
       Export Controls: Lynn F. Rusten.
       Health Care: Diana G. Tabler.
       Homeland Defense: Robert M. Soofer.
       Information Assurance and Cyber Security: Gregory T. Kiley.
       Information Technology: Gregory T. Kiley, William M. 
     Caniano.
       Intelligence Programs: Derek J. Maurer, William M. Caniano.
       Laboratories: Kristine L. Svinicki.
       Military Construction and BRAC: Lucian L. Niemeyer.
       Military Personnel and Family Benefits: Richard F. Walsh, 
     Diana G. Tabler.
       National Military Strategy: William M. Caniano.
       Missile Defense: Robert M. Soofer.
       Navy and Marine Corps Programs: Sean G. Stackley.
       Nominations: Richard F. Walsh.
       Oversight Investigations: Christopher J. Paul, Pablo E. 
     Carrillo, Bryan D. Parker.
       Readiness/Operations & Maintenance: Derek J. Maurer.
       Science and Technology: Kristine L. Svinicki.
       Space Programs: Robert M. Soofer.
       Special Operations Forces: William M. Caniano.
       Strategic and Tactical Aviation Programs: Gregory T. Kiley.
       Test and Evaluation: Kristine L. Svinicki.
       Personal Staff of Senator Warner: Sandy Luff, Sam Zega, 
     Scott Suozzi, Jennifer Cave.

  Mr. WARNER. Now, Madam President, on this side, we have the Senator 
from Oklahoma. I say to the Senator from Michigan, I understand, Mr. 
Chairman, the distinguished Republican leader, Mr. McConnell, wishes to 
say a few words in support of the bill at the end.
  Mr. LEVIN. As does the majority leader. If I could just introduce 
this thought: We have three additional Members, we believe, who wish to 
speak: Senator Kennedy, Senator Durbin, and Senator McCaskill. Those 
are the ones we have so far on this side.
  Mr. WARNER. Perhaps, Madam President, we should have the Chair inform 
us as to the remainder of the time for each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chairman has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and 
the ranking member has 23 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first of all, let me thank both the 
chairman of the committee and Senator Warner, as well as Senator 
McCain, for their work for the people who defend this country. I also 
would be remiss if I did not thank their staffs. They have been highly 
cooperative with my staff as we looked through several items.
  This is a large bill. It is an important bill. I intend to vote for 
it. But I have some heartburn, and I want to spend a few minutes 
talking about it.
  Last year, the Defense Department contracted out $110 billion without 
the first competitive bid on either contracts or grants. When we 
considered this bill in this body, we approved a competitive bid 
amendment that would say: We are going to have competition for all of 
these. We have $5.6 billion worth of earmarks in this bill, of which 
none are competitive; there is another $12 billion of add-ons, of which 
none are competitive--just in what we have done.
  There is a difference of opinion among a few of us with a vast 
majority of the others in terms of whether the President--whoever the 
administration is--gets to direct priorities versus us directing 
priorities. I understand that, and that is a fair debate.
  Our position is that sometimes we know better. That may, in fact, be 
the case. But this body passed an amendment that said we are going to 
use competition on all these earmarks so that, in fact, the American 
people get value, they get a better product at a lower price. That, 
unfortunately, was taken out in conference. Senator McCain 
wholeheartedly supported that amendment on this floor.
  Now, why would we take that out? What is it that would say we don't 
want to get the best value for our taxpayers' dollars when it comes to 
$100 billion worth of spending? Why is that? Why would we do that?
  We had a very simple process. We said: If you have an earmark and it 
is something that needs to be done right now, all competitive 
requirements for that are waived. It does not apply to anything in the 
past. But for any new spending we earmark, we say: If it is not urgent 
or unique, then we ought to spread it out to find out how we get the 
best value for our money. We agreed to that. Then, when we got to 
conference, we did not hold it.
  Why did we not hold it? Why is it we do not want to have the winner 
of competition of grants and contracts to be

[[Page 34430]]

involved in getting better value for the American people? Could it be 
we want to protect someone? Could it be we do not want sunlight? The 
real answer is going to be that yesterday the Accountability and 
Transparency Web site that we passed went on line, and all of America 
is going to find out where all this money is going. On this Web site, 
it shows if it was a directed earmark without any competition 
whatsoever.
  So why would we deny the American taxpayers now the ability to get 
far greater value than what they are going to get because we want to 
direct something somewhere? If we truly think it is the best thing--and 
it is not urgent and it is not unique--and we want to say we want to do 
it, good and dandy, but why wouldn't we want to do it at the best 
value, at the best price for the American taxpayer? So we end up where 
the American taxpayer is going to lose about $10 billion to $15 billion 
this year through inefficiency and the lack of competitive bidding on 
grants and contracts in the Defense authorization bill.
  When I met with Tina Jones, the Comptroller, what we found out was 
that what we label at $5.9 billion in this bill is really closer to $17 
billion when you really work it all out. We started discovering this 
when we asked the Department of Transportation to tell us what was the 
impact of their earmarks.
  The other amendment I have offered that has not been accepted by this 
body--but should--is to do a study of our earmarks to see if we really 
get value, if they really do turn something profitable. Do they really 
give us something our military needs? What happens is this $110 billion 
should have only cost us $90 billion.
  Now, what does the difference mean? It means buying thousands more 
MRAPs. It means buying more F-22s. But because we do not competitively 
bid and because the conference committee did not keep this amendment, 
the American taxpayer loses, our children lose. But, most importantly, 
the warfighter loses because if we waste dollars that could have gone 
to help them better, we disadvantage them in the job we have asked them 
to do for us.
  So I am going to keep offering this. I am going to make a big deal 
about competition for getting Government contracts in this country, 
based on quality and price. I am going to keep offering the fact that 
we ought to assess what the effect of our earmarks is. Now, people 
bristle at that. But if we are right that we know better than the 
Pentagon and we know better than the generals and we know better than 
the procurement officers, we at least ought to look at the results of 
how we know best and see ``Did it turn out?'' instead of blindly 
continuing to do the same thing without the knowledge of the effect of 
what we did.
  There are all sorts of other issues connected with this--parochial 
issues, campaign issues, political issues--that are connected to 
earmarks. But the most important issue that ought to be considered is 
the warfighter. The second issue that ought to be considered is our 
children. The fact is, we are hurting our children when we are not 
efficient and proper with the American taxpayers' money.
  I do intend to vote for this bill. It is very important for our 
warfighters.
  I do appreciate the chairman. I admire so much his relationship with 
all those on the Armed Services Committee, the collegiality under which 
he has worked on this legislation.
  My admiration is not limited to the Members of the Senate; there is 
the staff. They have been tremendously cooperative with us.
  But this is a great question we need to ask. We fail to uphold our 
oath when we don't spend money wisely. We fail the next generation. We 
fail the principle of liberty that we have a Defense Department for in 
the first place when we waste money.
  I know there are a lot of other areas we can work on within the 
Defense Department, but before we have any credibility about working on 
the other money we waste, we ought to be sure we are clean in terms of 
what we do. So the fact we are not going to look at what the results 
were of the money that we directed, and that we are not going to have 
true competition for about $150 billion this next year of grants and 
contracts within the Defense Department says we are going to let down 
the warfighter, says we are going to let down the next generation. To 
me, my hope is in the future, we will embrace this transparency, this 
idea that we ought to get the best value for every dollar we spend for 
our Defense Department, and we ought to do it in a way that is 
transparent so the American people can see what we are doing.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia for giving me this time. I thank 
the majority leader for creating an opportunity for us to at least have 
some time to discuss this bill. Discussions such as these are important 
to the American public. My challenge is to the chairman of this 
committee: Next year, let's make up for this. Let's truly put 
competition first. Let's get great value for our children and for our 
warfighters. We can do it. We won't stop anything that is needed now. 
We won't stop anything that is unique. But those things that are not 
pertinent to the here and now, that are going to come in the future, we 
ought to get great value for. We know we don't. The IG report said we 
don't. There is tons of information we have that says we are not 
getting great value.
  With that, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues for giving me 
the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I think it is important for the colloquy 
that the Senator and I are now having that the copy of the amendment 
that was once in the bill and deleted be put in the Record at this 
point. Does the Senator have it with him? If we could do that, that 
would be helpful.
  Mr. COBURN. I will make certain it is placed in the Record.
  I so ask unanimous consent.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           amendment no. 3044

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of earmarks for awarding no-bid contracts 
                      and non-competitive grants)

       At the end of subtitle B of title VIII, add the following:

     SEC. 827. PROHIBITION ON USE OF EARMARKS TO AWARD NO BID 
                   CONTRACTS AND NONCOMPETITIVE GRANTS.

       (a) Prohibition.--
       (1) Contracts.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, all contracts awarded by the Department of Defense 
     to implement new programs or projects pursuant to 
     congressional initiatives shall be awarded using competitive 
     procedures in accordance with the requirements of section 
     2304 of title 10, United States Code, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation.
       (B) Bid requirement.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), 
     no contract may be awarded by the Department of Defense to 
     implement a new program or project pursuant to a 
     congressional initiative unless more than one bid is received 
     for such contract.
       (2) Grants.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     Act, no funds may be awarded by the Department of Defense by 
     grant or cooperative agreement to implement a new program or 
     project pursuant to a congressional initiative unless the 
     process used to award such grant or cooperative agreement 
     uses competitive or merit-based procedures to select the 
     grantee or award recipient. Except as provided in paragraph 
     (3), no such grant or cooperative agreement may be awarded 
     unless applications for such grant or cooperative agreement 
     are received from two or more applicants that are not from 
     the same organization and do not share any financial, 
     fiduciary, or other organizational relationship.
       (3) Waiver authority.--
       (A) In general.--If the Secretary of Defense does not 
     receive more than one bid for a contract under paragraph 
     (1)(B) or does not receive more than one application from 
     unaffiliated applicants for a grant or cooperative agreement 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary may waive such bid or 
     application requirement if the Secretary determines that the 
     new program or project--
       (i) cannot be implemented without a waiver; and
       (ii) will help meet important national defense needs.
       (B) Congressional notification.--If the Secretary of 
     Defense waives a bid requirement under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary must, not later than 10 days after exercising such 
     waiver, notify Congress and the Committees on Armed Services 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

[[Page 34431]]

       (4) Contracting authority.--The Secretary of Defense may, 
     as appropriate, utilize existing contracts to carry out 
     congressional initiatives.
       (b) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 31, 2008, and 
     December 31 of each year thereafter, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to Congress a report on congressional 
     initiatives for which amounts were appropriated or otherwise 
     made available for the fiscal year ending during such year.
       (2) Content.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall include with respect to each contract, grant, or 
     cooperative agreement awarded to implement a new program or 
     project pursuant to a congressional initiative--
       (A) the name of the recipient of the funds awarded through 
     such contract or grant;
       (B) the reason or reasons such recipient was selected for 
     such contract or grant; and
       (C) the number of entities that competed for such contract 
     or grant.
       (3) Publication.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
     shall be made publicly available through the Internet website 
     of the Department of Defense.
       (c) Congressional Initiative Defined.--In this section, the 
     term ``congressional initiative'' means a provision of law or 
     a directive contained within a committee report or joint 
     statement of managers of an appropriations Act that 
     specifies--
       (1) the identity of a person or entity selected to carry 
     out a project, including a defense system, for which funds 
     are appropriated or otherwise made available by that 
     provision of law or directive and that was not requested by 
     the President in a budget submitted to Congress;
       (2) the specific location at which the work for a project 
     is to be done; and
       (3) the amount of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available for such project.
       (d) Applicability.--This section shall apply with respect 
     to funds appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal 
     years beginning after September 30, 2007, and to 
     congressional initiatives initiated after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I wish to assure my colleague from 
Oklahoma that this is a matter I personally have discussed with Senator 
McCain many times. He would hope that the committee in the coming year 
would address, once again, the amendment and the ramifications 
therefrom.
  I think that is the intention, is it not, Mr. Chairman?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry. I was distracted.
  Mr. WARNER. I think the committee will once again revisit this 
subject with the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Virginia, but let me also thank the 
Senator from Oklahoma. The subject of competition is one which many of 
us have put in decades of effort on. As a matter of fact, I remember 
when Senator Bill Cohen of Maine was sitting a few desks from where you 
are now standing, a decade or so ago. On a bipartisan basis at that 
time we adopted the Competition In Contracting Act and did a lot of 
good over time. Gradually, over time, I think there has been some 
fraying in it.
  The Senator points out some very significant issues. We are always 
happy to work with him on issues. We don't agree with everything he 
says, but on much of what he says and on his point, his major point, we 
do agree, in terms of the critical importance of competition. There are 
some provisions in this bill which the Senator from Oklahoma inspired--
many of them. A number of those come from that passion of his to 
improve competition. It is in the section on acquisition reform. We 
thank him for his effort in that regard. I also thank him for his very 
personal comments about me.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator and I join the chairman.
  I was going to grant from our time allocation 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LEVIN. We very much appreciate that courtesy, as always.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to express my deep disappointment 
that the Congress is taking up the conference report on the Defense 
bill without the hate crimes provision. I commend Chairman Levin for 
his strong leadership in our efforts to have it included as part of 
this measure. Despite his efforts, and the strong support of Majority 
Leader Harry Reid, it is an extraordinary missed opportunity that we 
are not able to send the hate crimes bill to the President before the 
end of the year.
  The inclusion of the hate crimes provision in the Defense bill was 
appropriate. Our military stands for America's ideals and fights for 
America's ideals. At a time when our ideals are under attack by 
terrorists in other lands, it is more important than ever to 
demonstrate that we practice what we preach, and that we are doing all 
we can to root out the bigotry and prejudice in our own country that 
leads to similar violence here at home.
  In Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers are fighting for freedom and 
liberty. They are on the front line fighting against evil and hate. We 
are united in our effort to root out the cells of hatred around the 
world. We should not turn a blind eye to acts of hatred and terrorism 
here at home. We owe it to our troops to uphold those same principles 
here at home. We should not shrink now from our role as the beacon of 
liberty to the rest of the world.
  If America is to live up to its founding ideals of liberty and 
justice for all, combating hate crimes must be a national priority. The 
hate crimes bill would have advanced those values and goals, and we are 
committed to getting it enacted. It is long past time for this measure 
to become law.
  We are now facing a time when the FBI reports that hate crimes are on 
the rise, and there has been a sharp increase in the number of hate 
crimes reported against Hispanics--at the highest levels since the 
reports were first mandated by the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, 
demonstrating the real societal impact of anti-immigrant campaigns.
  The Southern Poverty Law Center also reports that hate groups are on 
the rise. Since September of this year, when thousands of Americans 
marched for civil rights in Jena, LA, there have been more than 50 
noose incidents across the country. Just a few weeks ago, the New York 
Times included a chart reflecting the ``Geography of Hate'' across 
America. Over the last 2 years, it shows that nooses have been sighted 
in many different States.
  This terrifying symbol of racism and prejudice has even appeared 
recently on schoolyards and college campuses, creating fear in their 
whole communities. Apparently, we have not succeeded in adequately 
teaching the lessons of America's long history of discrimination. 
Education is an important part of prevention, but we also need strong 
national legislation to punish those who engage in hate-motivated 
violence and to expand Federal resources available to investigate and 
prevent these vicious crimes.
  As my colleagues here in the Senate know, Senator Gordon Smith and I 
have been fighting this battle for a long time. Just a few months ago, 
the hate crimes provision was adopted by the Senate with a vote of 60-
39 as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. It's not the 
first time that the Senate voted to pass this bill. In 2000 and 2002, a 
majority of Senators voted to pass this legislation.
  In 2004, we had 65 votes for the bill and it was adopted as part of 
the Defense authorization bill. But that time, like this time, it was 
stripped out in conference. Twice in the last 2 years, Chairman Conyers 
has succeeded in getting the House to vote to pass this legislation--
but, once again, the House and Senate have not come together to get 
this bill done.
  We have been in this battle for nearly a decade, and we will continue 
to press ahead. It is long past time to stand up for the victims of 
these senseless acts of violence--victims like Matthew Shepard, for 
whom this bill is named, and who died a horrible a death in 1998 at the 
hands of two men who singled him out because of his sexual orientation. 
Nine years after Matthew's death--9 years--we still haven't gotten it 
done. How long are we going to wait?
  This year, with Matthew Shepard's mother Judy at our side, we were 
filled with hope that finally this would be the year that we would get 
this bill to the President's desk. A broad and growing coalition of 210 
law enforcement, civic, disability, religious and civil rights groups 
support the bill, including the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, the Anti-Defamation League, the Interfaith Alliance, the 
National Sheriff's Association, the

[[Page 34432]]

Human Rights Campaign, the National District Attorneys Association and 
the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
  Over 1,400--1,400--clergy from a broad spectrum of religious 
traditions from across the country have come together to support the 
Matthew Shepard Act. These leaders of America's religious communities 
have called on Congress to stand united against one of the worst forms 
of oppression: violence based on personal characteristics and identity. 
Together, we must work together to create a society in which diverse 
people are safe as well as free.
  We will continue to fight to protect the rights of our fellow 
citizens, and not let a veto threat stop us from doing the right thing. 
We are not giving up. We will continue to push to get the bill through 
the Congress next year. I remain hopeful that the President will hear 
our call and that he too will finally support this much-needed measure.
  Hate crimes are an appalling form of domestic terrorism that cannot 
and must not be tolerated anywhere in our country. We have made 
progress over the years, and our focus now should be to strengthen 
protections for hate crimes so that all Americans will be protected 
under the law. No Americans should feel that they are second class 
citizens because Congress refuses to protect them against hate crimes.
  I am looking forward to voting for this conference report. At the 
outset I want to express a view that I know all of the members of the 
Armed Services Committee feel, and that is great respect for our 
chairman, Senator Levin, and Senator Warner, who has been past chairman 
of the Armed Services Committee and has a lifetime of commitment in 
terms of the security of our Nation and to the betterment of our Armed 
Forces. We are grateful for their leadership, and the country should 
be. I am also very grateful for their help and assistance, along with 
my colleague and friend Gordon Smith, for a provision that was included 
in the Defense authorization bill but which has been subsequently 
dropped, and that is the hate crime legislation we had added which had 
been included at other times as well in the Defense authorization bill. 
It was included in the year 2000, in 2002, and now, by a vote of 60 to 
39, was included in this legislation.
  This legislation is to make sure our troops are going to be the best 
trained, the best led, and the best equipped. Also, the very serious 
efforts that have been made in terms of the health care that has been 
pointed out by the Senator from Washington and other various provisions 
of enormous importance.
  What we are interested in doing is giving the support to our 
frontline troops. We ask ourselves: What are they doing? What is their 
task? Their task is fighting terrorism and fighting evil overseas--
fighting terrorism and fighting evil overseas so that we are going to 
be safe and secure. It does seem to me if they are fighting against 
terrorism and evil overseas and they are fighting for American values 
overseas, they ought to also be fighting for American values here at 
home. The values here at home are to fight the terrorism and evil that 
exist here at home in terms of hate crimes--hate crimes--the types of 
crimes that are devoted and focused on individuals because of who they 
are. The kind of crimes that hurt not just the individuals but 
communities; the kind of crimes that have expanded significantly over 
the period of recent years.
  America is a better America by not tolerating hate crimes. America is 
a better America when we are fighting hate crimes in the best way and 
with all of the tools we possibly can. We had that legislation. It was 
included. We had good debate on the floor of the Senate. We had 
bipartisan support for the hate crimes legislation. That same concept 
had been passed as an individual bill in the House of Representatives. 
The same concept was included in instructions from the House of 
Representatives 3 years ago that we should accept it. But this time, 
the House of Representatives refused to address it and we have seen 
that provision withdrawn. I think it was a significant and important 
mistake.
  I wish to give to those who are committed to that program, that 
effort to try and deal with the problems of violence in America. We 
have all seen the challenges of violence in these past weeks. As the 
Southern Poverty Law Center reports, it is taking place in schoolyards 
and communities all over our Nation. This is violence caused by hatred, 
by people that are targeting individuals of different color skin, 
different races, different ethnic backgrounds, different sexual 
orientation.
  So at another time we will bring this issue back to the floor of the 
Senate. We want to give the assurances of those who have been a part of 
this whole march which has taken place over the period of years since 
1968 with the killing of Dr. King--this has been a continuing march. We 
haven't stopped. We will not yield. We will not give in.
  I am grateful to the Senator from Virginia for yielding me this time. 
We will ultimately prevail. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts. He has been a strong, hard-working member of our 
committee these many years, and I was happy to accommodate him with 
time.
  On my side, the distinguished Senator from Georgia has indicated he 
would not seek to speak. There is one remaining Senator, I understand, 
the other Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. When he appears, I 
will recognize him for the purpose of making a few remarks.


                  IRAQ SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA HOLDERS

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I am so pleased that Chairman Levin 
included in the conference report a critical component of the original 
Iraq Refugee Crisis Act, which would defray the cost of transportation 
and provide prearrival admissions assistance and up to 8 months of 
postarrival resettlement assistance to those Iraqis who come here on 
Special Immigrant Visas or SIVs. SIV holders are those individuals 
whose lives may be in jeopardy because of their support for the 
American mission. My staff has learned that there is an effort by the 
administration to limit the scope of the assistance provided to these 
brave Iraqis. I know when Senator Smith and I introduced similar 
language as an amendment to the fiscal year 2008 Labor, Health & Human 
Services, and Education appropriations bill, we certainly intended to 
provide Iraqi SIVs with the full array of benefits normally provided to 
refugees by the U.S. Government, the State Department's Bureau of 
Population, Refugees, and Migration as well as the Health and Human 
Services Department's Office of Refugee Resettlement. With this effort 
in mind, I want to be sure the conferees and the author of the Iraqi 
Refugee Crisis Act, the Senator from Massachusetts, had the same intent 
when including the provision in the conference report accompanying H.R. 
1585, the Department of Defense authorization bill. I would also ask my 
colleague from Oregon if he agrees with me.
  Mr. SMITH. Yes, I concur with Senator Cardin; it was indeed our 
intent that Iraqi SIVs receive the full array of admissions and 
resettlement assistance offered to refugees. I also want to thank the 
conferees for including this important provision.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to echo the comments of my 
friends from Maryland and Oregon. The original Iraq Refugee Crisis Act 
included language similar to the conference report and the Cardin 
amendment to the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill. 
As the original author of the legislation, I can assure you it was my 
intention to provide Iraqi SIV recipients with the full array of 
benefits available to refugees. Moreover, SIV recipients are not to be 
counted against immigrant caps, nor are they counted against U.S. 
Refugee Admissions Program caps.
  Mr. LEVIN. I want to thank my friends from Massachusetts, Maryland 
and Oregon for their support. As I have said before, the United States 
has a special responsibility to assist those individuals fleeing Iraq 
and particularly to those individuals who assisted the United States. 
In the case of this legislation, it is the intent of the conferees to 
provide Iraqi SIVs the full

[[Page 34433]]

array of benefits traditionally provided to refugees as described by my 
friend from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. I would like to thank the chairman for that important 
clarification. I also know that despite the provision of benefits, it 
was never my intent that these SIVs would be counted against immigrant 
or U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps set by the administration 
through consultations with Congress and would like to clarify whether 
this was also the intent of the conferees?
  Mr. LEVIN. My friend from Maryland is correct: despite provision of 
benefits, these SIVs, due to their special status, are not to be 
counted against immigrant or refugee caps. Does my friend from 
Massachusetts concur?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I do. SIVs are not to be counted against immigrant or 
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps set by the administration through 
consultations with Congress.
  Mr. CARDIN. I would like to thank Chairman Levin and Senator Kennedy 
for making the intent clear on this issue. I know these clarifications 
will mean a great deal to the Iraqi men and women who have been so 
critical to our mission in that country.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, today I was pleased to vote in favor of 
passage of the conference report on the National Defense Authorization 
Act for Fiscal Year 2008. This significant legislation will provide 
much needed funding for the brave men and women currently serving in 
our armed forces and includes critically important language addressing 
the needs and care of returning servicemembers.
  The provisions dealing with care at VA are a direct outcome of the 
close collaboration that has occurred between the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and the Armed Services Committee. It was a pleasure to work 
with Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee and others on this 
key legislation to help our Nation's servicemembers and veterans. It 
contains provisions drawn from legislation which was reported by the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee to the full Senate in late August, 
legislation that we have been seeking final passage of for many months 
now.
  A substantial portion of these provisions seek to address what has 
become the signature wound of this conflict: traumatic brain injury. 
While attempting to meet the immediate needs of veterans with TBI for 
high-quality care at VA and subsequent rehabilitation in their 
communities, it would also provide VA clinicians with increased 
resources to develop the expertise and the capacity to meet the 
lifelong needs of these veterans.
  First, VA would be required to develop a comprehensive rehabilitation 
and community reintegration plan for each veteran with TBI, to be 
implemented by a team of clinicians with appropriate expertise. The 
veteran, or the veteran's caregiver, would also have the opportunity to 
request a review of the rehabilitation plan, to ensure adequate 
responsiveness to individual concerns. These provisions stem from 
testimony from family members and advocates at the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee's March 27, 2007, hearing on transition issues and care for 
returning servicemembers.
  Second, to better meet the need of veterans who reside in areas that 
are not close to any of VA's five major polytrauma centers, the 
provisions in this bill would authorize the use of non-VA facilities, 
when VA lacks the capacity to provide treatment or the veteran lives 
too far away to make VA treatment feasible. VA's lead polytrauma 
centers have significant expertise in rehabilitative care, but in other 
locations specialized rehabilitative care is frequently unavailable in 
VA facilities.
  Third, veterans with severe TBI often end up in nursing home care. 
This bill would require VA to provide ``age-appropriate'' care to these 
younger veterans who are severely wounded but who sometimes end up in 
end-of-life care environments. Additionally, the bill would give VA 
providers the ability to work with the Defense and Veterans Brain 
Injury Center to conduct research and treatment to potentially ``re-
awaken'' some veterans with more severe TBI, who may still be able to 
achieve some level of cognitive recovery.
  Finally, in response to the needs of veterans with TBI who are unable 
to manage routine activities of daily living, this bill would require 
VA to establish programs to maximize veterans' independence, quality of 
life, and community reintegration. It would also establish an assisted 
living pilot program for those with TBI. This would expand options to 
assist veterans who might otherwise be forced into institutional long-
term care.
  One of the cornerstones of this section of the bill extends the 
period of automatic eligibility for VA health care. Under current law, 
any active-duty servicemember who is discharged or separated from 
active duty following deployment to a theater of combat, including 
members of the Guard and Reserve, is eligible for VA health care for a 
2-year period. This bill would extend the period to 5 years.
  A greater period of eligibility is essential for two primary reasons: 
protection from budget cuts and ensured access to care for issues that 
may not be apparent immediately upon separation from active duty, such 
as invisible wounds. In recent years, veterans with lower priority 
ratings have been denied care due to budget delays and cuts through the 
legislative and appropriations process. Combat veterans deserve 5 years 
of guaranteed health care immediately following discharge.
  Two years is often insufficient time for symptoms of PTSD and other 
mental illnesses to manifest. These invisible wounds are often not 
apparent until 3 or 4 years after discharge, and servicemembers 
frequently delay treatment until their issues become serious. Studies 
indicate that up to 30 percent of OIF/OEF veterans will require some 
form of mental health or readjustment service. Over 1.5 million 
Americans have served in those theaters of combat, and about 750,000 
are currently eligible for VA health care. Extended eligibility will 
smooth their transition to civilian life.
  To further improve a timely response to veterans' mental health 
needs, this bill would require VA to provide a mental health 
examination within 30 days of the veteran's request. Senator Obama has 
done excellent work on this provision, and I thank him for his efforts. 
Past wars have shown that delaying mental health care makes recovery 
far more challenging.
  In addition, this bill improves outreach to members of the National 
Guard and Reserves. The Reserve forces have been used in the current 
conflicts on an unprecedented scale. It is essential that VA include 
them in their outreach efforts upon demobilization. This bill would 
specifically include them in VA's definition of outreach. This change 
acknowledges the central role played by the Guard and Reserve.
  In addition to the vital veterans-related legislation included in 
this bill, as a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee 
and chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management support, I 
am pleased that this bill provides troops with the equipment and 
facilities they need, as well as strengthens the oversight and 
management of the Defense Department. This includes the incorporation 
of the Acquisition Improvement and Accountability Act and the 
establishment of a full-time Chief Management Officer and Deputy Chief 
Management Officer. I am especially pleased that the conference report 
repeals the Department of Defense's authority to establish a new labor 
relations system under the National Security Personnel System, NSPS, 
and restores collective bargaining and appeals rights. The original 
NSPS legislation stripped Federal employees of their basic rights and 
protections. I so vehemently opposed these provisions that I voted 
against the Defense Authorization conference report creating NSPS. I am 
glad that Congress has decided to restore these fundamental rights and 
protections to employees who work every day to secure our Nation.
  Once again, let me congratulate the members of the House and Senate 
for their passage of this bill and I urge the

[[Page 34434]]

President to sign this crucial legislation into law.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the conference report on the fiscal year 
2008 Department of Defense authorization bill now before the Senate 
includes some significant mileposts of progress for the National Guard. 
Those sections of the bill come directly from the National Guard 
Empowerment Act of 2007, a bill that I sponsored along with Senator Kit 
Bond of Missouri, my fellow cochair of the U.S Senate National Guard 
Caucus. Well over half of the Senate--a significant portion of the 
National Guard Caucus--cosponsored the empowerment bill. Working with 
the Nation's Governors, key National Guard-affiliated organizations, 
and the Adjutants General of the United States, we make notable headway 
in this bill on several issues that go to the core of the Guard's 
missions, preparedness and our national defense.
  This legislation clears away organizational cobwebs in the Department 
of Defense and changes the Pentagon's structure to better reflect the 
vital role and responsibilities of the Guard. More importantly, we 
direct the Department of Defense to begin the urgently needed process 
of tapping into the National Guard's extensive experience in homeland 
defense issues--expertise the Defense Department has previously 
ignored.
  To give the Guard more bureaucratic muscle, especially in decisions 
affecting the Guard, the legislation elevates the Chief of the National 
Guard from the rank of lieutenant general to the rank of general, 
making the Chief the prime military adviser to the Secretary of Defense 
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The National Guard 
Bureau becomes what is called a Joint Activity, still closely 
affiliated with the Department of the Army and the Air Force, but now 
more like other joint agencies like Combatant Commands and the Defense 
Intelligence Agency, capable of communication across the Department.
  To focus the Defense Department more on homeland defense, the bill 
requires that the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Northern Command come 
from the ranks of the National Guard, and it requires the Department of 
Defense to develop a plan in conjunction with the Guard to deal with 
homeland defense situations.
  These reforms are tangible progress for the Guard, and there is a 
pressing need for them. The National Guard is a keystone to our 
Nation's defense, ready to carry out missions at home and abroad. The 
Guard is ready to serve as the primary reserve to both the Army and the 
Air Force, while taking the lead in providing military support during 
emergencies situations at home. It would take a long time even only to 
list the missions accomplished by the National Guard since September 11 
in carrying out their assignments in Iraq and Afghanistan or to respond 
to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
  Despite all the Guard's achievements on our behalf, the force often 
has gotten second-class treatment in the Department of Defense. The 
Guard has to beg and scrape and rely on the tender mercies of others 
for every piece of equipment they need to do the jobs they are asked to 
do, and they have to fight to be included in the long-range planning 
and budget and policy discussions that directly affect the Guard, its 
missions, its people, its equipment and its other needs. The Guard 
works extremely closely with state emergency responders, and they have 
special authorities and experience in working within the domestic 
United States. But despite this special expertise and these special 
authorities, does the Pentagon listen to and learn from the Guard's 
ideas and knowledge about domestic defense? Sad but true, the answer is 
no.
  I wish we could have gone even further in this legislation. Dropped 
during floor debate here in the Senate was a section of the Empowerment 
bill to make the Guard Bureau Chief a member of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff. That would improve the quality of advice to the Secretary of 
Defense and the President on domestic defense matters. Another 
provision, removed in conference with the House, would give the Guard a 
separate budget for procuring homeland defense-related equipment, as 
well as the ability to work with states to identify gaps in emergency 
response capabilities. Another clearly warranted section of our bill 
would have ensured that our Adjutants General, who command units from 
the both the Army Guard and the Air Force Guard, receive joint credit 
for their experience. That would create a greater pool of candidates 
for the senior positions that we have opened up in this bill. The 
institutional objections we heard to these provisions ranged from the 
weak to the unreasonable. But regrettably, in this case they carried 
the day.
  We did make clear progress. The joint activity provision, to take a 
less prominent example, is highly significant. The phrase ``joint 
activity'' means exactly how it is used in the Goldwater-Nichols Act: 
an organization that performs joint missions under the auspices of the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, or the commander of a Combatant or a Combined Command. The 
National Guard Bureau has now basically been given a legal license to 
work not only with the two services--the Army and Air Force--but also 
with a variety of unified commands, the Joint Staff, and the Office of 
the Secretary of Defense. The National Guard Bureau now will have 
similar organizational standing as that granted to other joint 
activities such as, among many other organizations, the Joint Staff or 
the Defense Logistics Agency.
  This coalition of National Guard supporters--which goes far beyond 
the sponsors and co-sponsors to the Governors, the Associations, and 
many others--must keep pushing. If we are to have a national security 
structure that is as effective as the American people need and deserve 
it to be, we must ensure that the Guard's voice is heard loud and clear 
in key deliberations. We must ensure that the Pentagon takes the 
military support mission seriously. We should consider re-introducing 
the portions of the Empowerment legislation that have not yet been 
enacted. To keep a laser-like focus on domestic defense, we must take a 
careful look at other Defense Department organizations involved in 
domestic defense, like U.S. Northern Command.
  I know that Senator Bond joins me in thanking the Nation's Governors 
for their stalwart support of the empowerment bill, as well their 
unstinting energy in working with us on another successful effort on 
behalf of the Guard, the similarly successful effort to repeal the 
recent changes to the Insurrection Act, turning back an unjustifiable 
expansion of a President's power to use the military for law 
enforcement. This provision of this Defense authorization bill was 
drawn directly from legislation that I introduced with Senator Bond, 
which this year was the subject of a hearing by the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Associations like the Adjutants General Association of the United 
States, the National Guard Association of the United States, and the 
Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States were 
there every step of the way, keeping their members informed and 
bringing enormous energy to this effort.
  Special thanks go to Representatives Gene Taylor of Mississippi and 
Tom Davis of Virginia who led a vigorous, companion effort on the House 
side, as well as Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, John McCain of 
Arizona, and John Warner of Virginia for leading the Senate 
negotiations.
  We owe the deepest thanks to the almost 500,000 members of the 
National Guard. Their ability to balance their full-time jobs with 
their family responsibilities and Guard commitments is simply 
remarkable. They are indispensable to our national security structure, 
at home, and abroad. Their sense of pride, professionalism and duty 
represents the very best qualities of our military and our country. I 
am simply in awe of what they have done to protect this Nation, and I 
know the whole Congress and the country share this heartfelt gratitude.
  Throughout this whole process, we have been guided by the fact that 
the Guard is always there for the people of the United States of 
America. Our part

[[Page 34435]]

is easier than theirs: We cannot afford to let our Guard down. The 
Guard Empowerment provisions of this bill will help us honor that 
commitment to the men and women of the Guard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I commend the conferees for including 
the Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act as part of this conference agreement.
  I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member for supporting this 
needed provision, and I also appreciate the support of Senators Smith, 
Hagel, Biden, Brownback, Lieberman, Leahy, Snowe, Voinovich, Feinstein, 
Collins, Obama, Dole, Menendez, Mikulski, and Clinton, who joined in 
sponsoring the original amendment when it was adopted by the Senate by 
voice vote during our debate on this bill.
  The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act requires the Secretary of State to 
establish a refugee processing program in Iraq for Iraqis threatened 
because of their association with the United States. Applicants must 
demonstrate they have a well-founded fear of persecution. Iraqis who 
will now be able to apply directly to the United States rather than 
going through the United Nations referral system,--include: Iraqis who 
were or are employed by or worked for the United States Government in 
Iraq; Iraqis who were or are employed in Iraq by a media or 
nongovernmental organization headquartered in the United States, or by 
an organization that is closely associated with the United States 
mission in Iraq and that has received U.S. Government funding through 
an official documented contract, award, grant, or cooperative 
agreement; and Iraqis who are members of a religious or minority 
community with close family members in the United States.
  The act allows the Secretary to suspend in-country processing for 
periods of 90 days, with a report to Congress on the reasons for any 
suspension.
  In addition, the act makes available 5,000 special immigrant visas 
each year for the next 5 years for Iraqis who have worked for the U.S. 
Government in Iraq and are endangered as a result. Applicants must have 
a positive recommendation or evaluation from a senior supervisor and be 
approved by the U.S. Ambassador in Iraq or his designee. The provision 
sunsets after 5 years. These visas, because of their special status, 
are not counted against immigrant caps nor are they counted against 
U.S. Refugee Admissions Program caps.
  Under the act, Iraqis granted special immigrant visa status are 
eligible for 8 months for the full array of benefits traditionally 
provided to refugees by the State Department's Bureau of Population, 
Refugees, and Migration and the Health and Human Services Department's 
Office of Refugee Resettlement. The provisions under the act would 
defray the cost of transportation and provide prearrival admissions 
assistance and up to 8 months of postarrival resettlement assistance to 
those Iraqis who come to the U.S. on special immigrant visas. Senators 
Cardin and Levin are the primary authors of this provision and, have 
spoken eloquently for it.
  The act also allows reapplication by Iraqis in the United States who 
have been denied asylum, in part, because conditions in Iraq changed 
after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government.
  In addition, the act directs the Secretary of State to designate a 
high-level special coordinator at the Embassy in Baghdad to handle 
issues related to Iraqi refugees and internally displaced persons. The 
coordinator will be responsible for overseeing in-country processing of 
refugees and special immigrant visa applicants, and will have authority 
to refer persons directly to the U.S. refugee resettlement program. 
Similar positions would be designated in the American embassies in 
Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria.
  The act also requires the Secretary of State to consult with other 
countries about resettlement of refugee populations and to develop 
mechanisms in countries with significant populations of displaced 
Iraqis to ensure the refugees' well-being and safety. U.S. financial 
assistance would be provided in such cases to help meet the cost of 
caring for the refugees and protecting them.
  These measures are urgently needed to address the immense human costs 
of the war in Iraq and its tragic effect on the millions of Iraqis--
men, woman, and children--who have fled their homes and often their 
country to escape the violence.
  A significant number of courageous Iraqis have worked with the 
American military, the staff of our Embassy, or with American 
organizations to support our mission in Iraq. Their support and loyalty 
have cost too many lives already, and their families have often been 
forced to flee their communities or even their country because of the 
danger.
  The target of the assassin's bullet is on their back, and we owe them 
enormous gratitude. But instead of giving them needed help and 
protection, we have too often offered only bureaucracy and dubious 
hopes.
  Regardless of where we stand on the war, Congress is united in 
believing that America has a fundamental obligation to assist Iraqis 
who have courageously supported our forces and our efforts in Iraq and 
whose lives are in peril as a result. The provisions in the agreement 
are a long-needed attempt to fulfill our commitment to them.
  Despite the clear and present danger faced by many Iraqis because of 
their ties to the United States, their religious affiliation, or their 
work with media, nongovernmental or humanitarian organizations, the 
vast majority of Iraqi refugees must go through a long and complicated 
referral process of approximately 8 to 10 months, in which the United 
Nations serves as an intermediary outside Iraq. This act cuts through 
much of that redtape.
  Obviously, we cannot resettle all of Iraq's refugees in the United 
States. But we need to keep faith with the Iraqis who have worked so 
bravely with us and for us and supported our mission in Iraq, and whose 
lives are in serious danger now because of it.
  A few months ago, I had the honor of meeting SGT Joe Seemiller, a 
young man who is haunted by the military motto, ``Leave No Man 
Behind.'' Sergeant Seemiller is dedicated to helping the translator he 
was forced to leave behind in Iraq. On countless occasions, his 
translator helped to avoid serious American and Iraqi casualties. He 
braved innumerable death threats and the horrific murder of his 
brother. Finally, he had to flee to Syria, where he waited more than 2 
years for the opportunity to be resettled in the United States.
  The Refugee Crisis Act, makes clear that America has a fundamental 
obligation to assist Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of their 
close ties to our Nation. I look forward to working with the 
administration in the months ahead to implement this important 
humanitarian legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the conference agreement.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I want to take the 
opportunity to applaud the leadership of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee for their efforts on the Defense authorization conference 
report. Chairman Levin and the ranking member, Senator McCain, have 
done a Herculean job of working through the hundreds of conference 
issues in this bill with the House companion bill. The work and effort 
of all parties involved is one of the shining examples of the Congress 
working together in a bipartisan, bicameral effort to support our men 
and women in uniform.
  As a signatory to the conference report, I support this bill. There 
is much to like in this bill. We provide necessary benefits to keep our 
recruiting and retention on the right track. This bill includes a 3.5-
percent pay increase for uniformed service personnel, establishes a 
Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, prohibits 
the increase in TRICARE fees for retirees and reservists, increases the 
grade of the Chief of the Guard Bureau from lieutenant general to 
general. The bill also includes an increase in Active Army and Marine 
Corps end-strength, increases funding for Mine Resistance Ambush 
Protected vehicles, increases funding for cooperative threat reduction 
program efforts, and provides authorizations for critical military 
construction projects.

[[Page 34436]]

  In addition, as a response to the problems from the Walter Reed 
incidents reported earlier this year, we provide a comprehensive 
Wounded Warriors Act as part of the authorization bill. The Wounded 
Warrior provisions would require the Department of Defense, DOD, and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, to jointly develop a 
comprehensive policy on improvements to care, management, and 
transition of recovering servicemembers, require DOD to develop a 
comprehensive plan to treat traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic 
stress disorder and authorize respite care and other extended care 
benefits for seriously injured servicemembers.
  While I support this conference report, I want to point out one 
provision in particular that I have concerns with. This particular 
issue, as I have expressed to the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, is a section of the bill that would require that 
prescriptions dispensed through the TRICARE retail pharmacy program be 
procured at or below Federal ceiling prices. As I understand it, it is 
the intent of the language and the intent of the conferees not to 
modify the current master agreements. I hope that this clarification is 
appropriate, and I wanted to briefly point this out.
  Again, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this report. We 
as a Senate can be proud of this bill. Mr. President, I believe that 
this is good legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to adopt this 
Defense authorization conference report.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I wish to applaud the chairman and 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senators Levin 
and McCain, respectively, on passage of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.
  Specifically, I would like to express my gratitude to the bill 
conferees for their inclusion of four amendments that I authored and 
which were unanimously adopted by the Senate during its consideration 
of this bill. These provisions will increase oversight of our country's 
economic and security assistance to Afghanistan by creating a Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, section 1229; help 
victims of state-sponsored terrorism to achieve justice through the 
U.S. courts, section 1083; prevent military health care fees through 
the TRICARE program from rising, sections 701 and 702; and increase 
accountability and planning for safety and security at the Warren Grove 
Gunnery Range in New Jersey, section 359.
  First, I was proud to be joined by my cosponsors, Senators Coburn, 
Dodd, Hagel, Feingold, Webb, and McCaskill, in creating a Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. I wrote this 
legislation because I believe that while a democratic, stable, and 
prosperous Afghanistan is important to the national security of the 
United States and to combating international terrorism, I am concerned 
that we are not achieving all of our goals there. The United States has 
provided Afghanistan with over $20 billion in reconstruction and 
security assistance. However, repeated and documented incidents of 
waste, fraud, and abuse in the utilization of these funds have 
undermined reconstruction efforts. I therefore believe that there is a 
critical need for vigorous oversight of spending by the United States 
on reconstruction programs and projects in Afghanistan.
  I would like to emphasize that the Government Accountability Office 
and the departmental Inspectors General have provided valuable 
information on these activities. However, I believe that the 
congressional oversight process requires more timely oversight and 
reporting of reconstruction activities in Afghanistan. Oversight by 
this new Special Inspector General would encompass the activities of 
the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the United 
States Agency for International Development, as well as other relevant 
agencies. It would highlight specific acts of waste, fraud, and abuse, 
as well as other managerial failures in our assistance programs that 
need to be addressed.
  This new position will monitor U.S. assistance to Afghanistan in the 
civilian and security sectors, as well as in the counternarcotics arena 
and will help both Congress and the American people better understand 
the challenges facing U.S. programs and projects in that country. I am 
pleased that this provision has been included by the conferees.
  Second, this bill includes my legislation to provide justice for 
victims of state-sponsored terrorism, which has strong bipartisan 
support. I believe this legislation is essential to providing justice 
to those who have suffered at the hands of terrorists and is an 
important tool designed to deter future state-sponsored terrorism. The 
existing law passed by Congress in 1996 has been weakened by recent 
judicial decisions. This legislation fixes these problems.
  In 1996, Congress created the ``state-sponsored terrorism exception'' 
to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, FSIA. This exception allows 
victims of terrorism to sue those nations designated as state sponsors 
of terrorism by the Department of State for terrorist acts they commit 
or for which they provide material support. Congress subsequently 
passed the Flatow amendment to the FSIA, which allows victims of 
terrorism to seek meaningful damages, such as punitive damages, from 
state sponsors of terrorism for the horrific acts of terrorist murder 
and injury committed or supported by them.
  Congress's original intent behind the 1996 legislation has been 
muddied by numerous court decisions. For example, the courts decided in 
Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran that there is no private 
right of action against foreign governments--as opposed to 
individuals--under the Flatow amendment. Since this decision, judges 
have been prevented from applying a uniform damages standard to all 
victims in a single case because a victim's right to pursue an action 
against a foreign government depends upon state law. My provision in 
this bill fixes this problem by reaffirming the private right of action 
under the Flatow Amendment against the foreign state sponsors of 
terrorism themselves.
  My provision in this bill also addresses a part of the law which 
until now has granted foreign states an unusual procedural advantage. 
As a general rule, interim court orders cannot be appealed until the 
court has reached a final disposition on the case as a whole. However, 
foreign states have abused a narrow exception to this bar on interim 
appeals--the collateral order doctrine--to delay justice for, and the 
resolution of, victim's suits. In Beecham v. Socialist People's Libyan 
Arab Jamahiriya, Libya has delayed the claims of dead and injured U.S. 
service personnel who were off duty when attacked by Libyan agents at 
the Labelle Discotheque in Berlin in 1986. These delays have lasted for 
many years, as the Libyans have taken or threatened to take frivolous 
collateral order doctrine appeals whenever possible. My provision will 
eliminate the ability of state sponsors of terrorism to utilize the 
collateral order doctrine.
  Another purpose of my provision is to facilitate victims' collection 
of their damages from state sponsors of terrorism. The misapplication 
of the ``Bancec doctrine,'' named for the Supreme Court's decision in 
First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 
has in the past erroneously protected the assets of terrorist states 
from attachment or collection. For example, in Flatow v. Bank Saderat 
Iran, the Flatow family attempted to attach an asset owned by Iran 
through the Bank Saderat Iran. Although Iran owned the Bank Saderat 
Iran, the court, relying on the State Department's application of the 
Bancec doctrine, held that the Flatows could not attach the asset 
because they could not show that Iran exercised day-to-day managerial 
control over Bank Saderat Iran. My provision will remedy this issue by 
allowing attachment of the assets of a state sponsor of terrorism to be 
made upon the satisfaction of a ``simple ownership'' test.
  Another problem is that courts have mistakenly interpreted the 
statute of limitations provision that Congress created in 1996. In 
cases such as Vine v. Republic of Iraq and later Buonocore v.

[[Page 34437]]

Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the court interpreted the 
statute to begin to run at the time of the attack, contrary to our 
intent. It was our intent to provide a 10-year period from the date of 
enactment of the legislation for all acts that had occurred at any time 
prior to its passage in 1996. We also intended to provide a period of 
10 years from the time of any attack which might occur after 1996. My 
provision clarifies this intent.
  My provision also addresses the problems that arose from overly 
mechanistic interpretations of the 1996 legislation. For example, in 
several cases, such as Certain Underwriters v. Socialist People's 
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, courts have prevented victims from pursuing 
claims for collateral property damage sustained in terrorist attacks 
directed against U.S. citizens. My new provision fixes this problem by 
creating an explicit cause of action for these kinds of property 
owners, or their insurers, against state sponsors of terrorism.
  Finally, in several cases the courts have prevented non-U.S. 
nationals who work for the U.S. Government and were injured in a 
terrorist attack during their official duties from pursuing claims for 
their personal injuries. My provision fixes this inequity by creating 
an explicit cause of action for non-U.S. nationals who were either 
working as an employee of the U.S. Government or working pursuant to a 
U.S. Government contract.
  I also want to make special mention of the inspiration for this new 
legislation. On October 23, 1983, the Battalion Landing Team 
headquarters building in the Marine Amphibious Unit compound at the 
Beirut International Airport was destroyed by a terrorist bomb killing 
241 marines, sailors, and soldiers who were present in Lebanon on a 
peace-keeping mission. In a case known as Peterson v. the Islamic 
Republic of Iran, filed on behalf of many of the marine victims and 
their families, the U.S. District Court ruled in 2003 that the 
terrorist organization Hezbollah was funded by, directed by, and relied 
upon the Islamic Republic of Iran and its Ministry of Information and 
Security to carry out that heinous attack. The judge presiding over 
this case, Judge Royce Lamberth, referred to this as ``the most deadly 
state-sponsored terrorist attack made against United States citizens 
before September 11, 2001.'' In September of this year Judge Lamberth 
found that Iran not only is responsible for this attack, but also owes 
the families of the victims a total of more than $2.6 billion for the 
attack. Congress's support of my provision will now empower these 
victims to pursue Iranian assets to obtain this just compensation for 
their suffering. This is true justice through American rule of law.
  Third, this Defense authorization bill includes my provision to 
prevent proposed increases in enrollment fees, premiums, and pharmacy 
copayments for TRICARE, the military community's health plan. The 
principal coauthor of this provision is Senator Hagel.
  Both career members of the uniformed services and their families 
endure unique and extraordinary demands and make extraordinary 
sacrifices over the course of 20-year to 30-year careers in protecting 
freedom for all Americans. I believe they deserve the best retirement 
benefits that a grateful nation can provide. Proposals to compare cash 
fees paid by retired military members and their families to fees paid 
by civilians fails to adequately recognize the sacrifice of military 
members. We must be mindful that military members prepay the equivalent 
of very large advance premiums for health care in retirement through 
their extended service and sacrifice.
  The Department of Defense and our Nation have a committed obligation 
to provide health care benefits to Active Duty, National Guard, 
Reserve, and retired members of the uniformed services, their families, 
and survivors, that considerably exceeds the obligation of corporate 
employers to provide health care benefits to their employees. 
Ultimately, the Department of Defense has options to constrain the 
growth of health care spending in ways that do not disadvantage current 
and retired members of the uniformed services, and it should pursue any 
and all such options as a first priority. Raising fees excessively on 
TRICARE beneficiaries is not the way to achieve this objective.
  Finally, I thank the conferees for including my amendment to require 
increased oversight and accountability, as well as improved safety 
measures, at the Warren Grove Gunnery Range in New Jersey. I wrote this 
provision with Senator Menendez because a number of dangerous safety 
incidents caused by the Air National Guard have repeatedly impacted the 
residents living nearby the range.
  On May 15, 2007, a fire ignited during an Air National Guard practice 
mission at Warren Grove Gunnery Range, scorching 17,250 acres of New 
Jersey's Pinelands, destroying five houses, significantly damaging 13 
others, and temporarily displacing approximately 6,000 people from 
their homes in sections of Ocean and Burlington Counties in New Jersey.
  My provision will require that an annual report on safety measures 
taken at the range be produced by the Secretary of the Air Force. The 
first report will be due no later than March 1, 2008, and two more will 
be due annually thereafter. My provision will also require that a 
master plan for the range be drafted that includes measures to mitigate 
encroachment issues surrounding the range, taking into consideration 
military mission requirements, land use plans, the surrounding 
community, the economy of the region, and the protection of the 
environment and public health, safety, and welfare. I believe that 
these studies will provide the type of information that we need to 
ensure that there is long term safety at the range, both for the 
military and the surrounding communities.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I oppose the fiscal year 2008 Defense 
authorization conference report because it does nothing to end the 
President's misguided, open-ended Iraq policy, which has overburdened 
our military, weakened our national security, diminished our 
international credibility, and cost the lives of thousands of brave 
American soldiers.
  There are certain provisions of the report that I support strongly, 
including a pay raise for military personnel. I am pleased that the 
conference report contains a number of provisions I supported, 
including Senator Webb's amendment creating a Commission on Wartime 
Contracting to examine waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
including the misuse of force by private security contractors, and 
Senator Lautenberg's amendment to create a Special Investigator General 
for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
  But on balance, I cannot vote to support a conference report that 
defies the will of so many Wisconsinites--and so many Americans--by 
allowing the President to continue one of the worst foreign policy 
mistakes in the history of our Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield--what do I have, 9 minutes left? 
I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I thank Senator Levin of Michigan and 
Senator Warner of Virginia. This is a big piece of work and it took 
them a long time and a lot of patience and a lot of skill. It is 
voluminous and contains so much of importance for our national security 
defense, and I thank them and their staffs for the extraordinary job 
they did.
  A word of disappointment before I go into more praise. Troops to 
Nurse Teachers is a program Senator Warner and I talked about 2 years 
ago. We had hoped to include it in this bill. We passed it in the 
Senate, and we lost it in conference. The idea, of course, is to take 
retired military nurses and move them into nursing faculty positions, 
because we have such a shortage in our Nation of nurses. For reasons I 
can't explain, our good idea turned into a study. Let's hope the study 
turns into a program that brings us more nurses, whom we desperately 
need.

[[Page 34438]]

  Let me say a word about my vote on this bill. Everyone will have 
their own reason for supporting this bill. My reason is a young soldier 
named Eric Edmundson. Eric Edmundson, from North Carolina, had been in 
the Army about 6 or 7 years, was a victim of a traumatic brain injury 
in Iraq, brought out to Walter Reed, went through numerous surgeries, 
suffered some very debilitating and tough injuries. The VA system tried 
their best, sent him to Richmond without the kind of results that the 
family or Eric wanted to see. They told the family his only recourse 
was to go to a nursing home--a nursing home--at the age of 26. His 
father said: No way. My son is not going to a nursing home. His father, 
Ed Edmundson, quit his job. He and his wife started this crusade to get 
Eric into the best hospital they could find in America. He ended up in 
the Rehab Institute in Chicago, paid for by the Federal Government 
after a long battle. Then, after months of heroic rehabilitation, on 
the day of his discharge Eric Edmundson walked out of that hospital. I 
was there that day. I looked at the tears in the eyes of his family, 
his wife, saw his little baby girl, and realized that we cannot give up 
on these wounded warriors.
  I introduced a bill and commended it to Senators Levin and Warner and 
thanked them personally for including it in this legislation. This bill 
is going to mean that we make extraordinary efforts, as we should, to 
stand behind these veterans and give them the very best care they can 
possibly receive. With that kind of care, many of them can be restored 
to the life they deserve.
  We also need to start monitoring those who come into the military 
service on the issue of traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic 
stress disorder to establish cognitive tests as baselines so some of 
the subtleties of their injuries that aren't discovered for years can 
be discovered. To go to Walter Reed now to the amputation unit and find 
the average soldier telling you that he in Iraq has experienced at 
least 60 concussions that they felt--even if they didn't personally 
harm them; they walked away from them thinking nothing of it, it is 
cumulative. It can come back to haunt them. I went to barracks with 
Senator McCaskill and we visited units and soldiers who went through 
this. We know this is an ongoing concern and an ongoing obligation, and 
this bill recognizes it.
  I salute all of those who made this possible for the passage of this 
bill; the inclusion of the Wounded Warriors Act, the traumatic brain 
injury bill I worked on. They say you get a lot done around Congress if 
you don't care who takes the credit. I am glad this bill passes. Even 
though the one I introduced with my name didn't, the major parts of it 
are included. My vote on behalf of this is for Ed and Beth Edmundson, 
who did everything in their power for their son, and to Eric Edmundson, 
his wife Stephanie, and his little daughter Gracie.
  They are the ones who brought this to my attention and the ones I 
will be thinking of when I vote today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois, Mr. 
Durbin, for his passion on this issue, this brain injury problem, which 
is bedeviling us. We have now incorporated the original screening so we 
know where people are who come into the service. This bill has his name 
on it as a cosponsor and has his spirit and effort incorporated in it. 
That is a most important thing. We thank him.
  Senator Byrd may want to speak.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I spoke to our friend from West Virginia. 
He said he will not speak now. He also wants to expedite this bill. On 
our side, it could be that Senator Inhofe may appear for a minute or 
two.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator McCaskill will ask to be 
recognized. How many minutes do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Three minutes 48 seconds. The 
other side has 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Without even asking, I know Senator Warner would be happy 
to yield a minute or two of his remaining time if she needs it.
  I thank Senator McCaskill. She has been intrepid on so many issues, 
including the ones we talked about on mental health. She brings a 
background to the committee which is unique in terms of oversight. We 
are grateful she is on our team.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I have to express how lucky I have 
been this year to learn from two titans of bipartisan leadership in 
this body. If the rest of the Senators would emulate Senator Warner and 
Senator Levin, America would be better off. I thank you for the 
incredible lesson I have had at your knee this year. I also thank 
Congressman Ike Skelton, a giant from Missouri, who, with his gentle 
smile and steely resolve, helped shepherd this bill through.
  I want to point out a few of the many provisions that are in here--
the ones put in with my auditor's hat on:
  First, stronger provisions about the definitization of contracts. We 
cannot hold contractors accountable unless we tell them what we want, 
we are clear about what we want, and then we demand that we get it. 
That is important.
  Second, the training of military personnel about contracting. My dad 
peeled potatoes in the Army in World War II. We are never going to have 
soldiers doing that again; we are going to hire people to do that. We 
have to make sure we are getting value for that. That means the 
military needs to know how to oversee these contracts.
  As Senator Levin mentioned, whistleblower protection for the 
employees of the contractors. Many of them are Americans first, and 
they want to tell us the bad things that are going on within these 
contracts. We need to give them the same protection Government 
employees have for whistleblowing. This legislation accomplishes that, 
and it will do great good for the American taxpayer in terms of 
protecting our military.
  Finally, the provision that, as freshmen, we are most proud of--
Senator Webb and I worked very hard on the Contracting Commission. I 
think over the next 2 years this country will have an opportunity, in a 
bipartisan way, to provide a high-profile look at contracting and how 
we can do it better. It is important that we get this right. As Harry 
Truman said, nobody should be allowed to profit off the blood, tears, 
and the deaths of the men and women who serve us so bravely. It is very 
important that we get this done.
  I thank the Senators for the opportunity to speak for a few moments, 
and I appreciate so much their willingness to work with myself and 
Senator Webb, the two freshmen on my side on the committee this year.
  I am pleased to be supporting the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense 
Authorization Act, a critical bill in setting policy for the Department 
of Defense. However, I unfortunately must note my deep disappointment 
with some of the content of the legislation.
  I have and will continue to oppose the practice of adding extensive 
numbers of ``earmarks'' to Federal spending measures. I believe this 
practice is fiscally irresponsible. And it is earmarks in this 
legislation that once again proves disconcerting to me.
  I am aware that a series of unfortunate decisions by House leadership 
resulted in the House passing several appropriations measures, 
including the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs funding measure, 
before consideration of earmarks sought by House Members was completed. 
This subsequently resulted in the exclusion of Military Construction 
earmarks for House Members when the National Defense Authorization Act 
was taken up and passed by the House. The decision of House leaders to 
later add House earmarks to the Military Construction accounts in the 
Military Construction-Veterans Affairs appropriations conference 
produced a dilemma for authorizers, who had not yet reached a 
conference agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act. 
Ultimately, in order to maintain proper order in the legislative 
process, authorizers chose to add the House Military Construction 
earmarks to their conference agreement. I find this terribly 
unfortunate and, frankly, unacceptable. But, in light of the special 
circumstances under which it took place, I have decided not to oppose 
the Defense Authorization Act.

[[Page 34439]]

  I am pleased that the conference report states the disapproval by 
authorizers of the process that led to adding these earmarks. I am also 
pleased that a strong commitment has been made to not engage in such a 
practice again. I also note, as does the conference report, that the 
authorized projects have previously been considered and voted on in the 
House so there has been a degree of public vetting of these projects. 
Finally, I am pleased that the National Defense Authorization Act 
contains no other earmarks added in this offensive manner.
  In closing, I fully recognize that this legislation contains many 
provisions critical to today's fighting men and women and to our 
national security, ranging from a well deserved pay raise to the 
funding of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle. I am proud to 
have been a part of developing this legislation and applaud Chairman 
Levin and Chairman Skelton for their efforts. I am also particularly 
pleased with the inclusion of vital measures that I worked especially 
closely on, from extensive acquisition reform and contracting 
accountability measures to a host of new protections and programs for 
America's wounded warriors. Our troops deserve this legislation, but it 
is my hope that the Congress will utilize a better process in achieving 
it in the future.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask now that the remainder of my time be 
given to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my friend from 
Virginia and also the chairman of the committee. They have done a great 
job in getting this bill up, and I was concerned that we weren't going 
to get to it today. That wouldn't have been a good message to send.
  I think we have a good authorization bill, although I think there are 
some shortfalls. I am encouraged by the funding levels we are 
authorizing for the F-22, the F-35, the KC-X, and the Future Combat 
System--although with the Future Combat System we did take a cut of 
about $205 million. That is something I hope we will be able to get 
restored next time. It is interesting that a lot of people don't 
realize how important the Future Combat System is. We have not had a 
major renovation in transformation on the ground in decades. I do 
believe that cut needs to be restored, and I think we can work on that 
in the future.
  I am further encouraged that the bill authorizes a 3.5-percent 
across-the-board pay raise. I believe that is very important at this 
time, as is the authorization of funding for Afghanistan and Iraq. I 
will be going there again in about 3 weeks. Every time I go, I see the 
great successes they are having, and I get very excited. However, while 
we have authorized something that is adequate in this case, the 
appropriations aren't there yet. I think it is vital that we get this 
done immediately.
  There are other areas I want to concentrate on next time. I think the 
Train and Equip Program is one of the best things we have, the program 
expanding the IMET Program, where we would be able to train a lot of 
the military officers of other countries, primarily countries that are 
found in Africa and others. There was a time when we thought that in 
our IMET Program we were doing them a favor by allowing them to come 
and be trained by us. But now I think we understand that if we don't do 
it, other countries will. There is no better way to ensure the 
allegiance of countries than to train them. I think that needs to be 
improved.
  I hope we will get to the point where we recognize that if we in the 
United States want to have the best of everything--I am talking about 
the best lift programs, strike programs, ground programs--we are going 
to have to really do a better job at the top line. We went through 100 
years in this country of spending 5.7 percent of our GDP on military, 
and it went down, at the end of the nineties, to about 2.7 percent. It 
is now hanging at about 3.6. I think the expectations of the American 
people are that we should have the best of everything to do that. We 
are going to have to increase the top line. I believe we will be able 
to address that in the next session.
  I am glad the bill is here today. I look forward to getting this 
passed and sending the message to our very courageous fighting men and 
women that help is on the way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WARNER. On our side, the distinguished Republican leader is the 
sole remaining speaker. I understand he will be coming to the floor 
shortly.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we will close with thanking all of the 
members of the committee for their work. On our side, we have a couple 
of old lions, Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, and our wonderful 
freshmen, Senators McCaskill and Webb, who led the way to give us a 
Commission on Contracting. All of the members made major contributions.
  Since I am sitting in front of Senator Byrd, and I have 3 seconds 
left, I pay my personal respects to the longest serving member of our 
committee as well as, obviously, the senior Member of the Senate. I 
wanted to look that wonderful Senator in the eye and express the 
gratitude of this body and of our committee for what he contributes to 
both the Senate and the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague in 
paying tribute to our distinguished leader, Senator Byrd. I remember 
the years when we served under him as majority leader. He always let 
the Armed Services Committee get whatever time it needed on the floor 
to handle our bills. And then, of course, through all these many years, 
I pleaded with him to reunite West Virginia and Virginia, bring them 
back as one mighty State again. I indicated I would yield my position 
to the Senator and retire into oblivion and let him become the 
distinguished Senator. He has not accepted my request.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is no similar request by this Senator 
to reunite Ohio and Michigan, by the way.
  I also thank Senator Jack Reed, who has meant so much to the 
Committee and to me personally over the years.
  Mr. WARNER. That is true.
  I also thank the Republican leader for the support he has given me 
and Senator McCain in leading the work of our committee, together with 
our members. I thank each and every one of those members, some of whom 
are on the floor now prepared to vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, at the outset, this the penultimate DOD 
authorization bill for the distinguished Senator from Virginia. What a 
leader he has been on defense issues for his 30 years in the Senate. He 
will have an opportunity to do one more before he rides off into the 
sunset, much to our regret.
  I also would like to congratulate Senator Levin for his work on this 
important conference report, which is, indeed, a bipartisan 
achievement. I was particularly pleased to see that the committee 
provided full authorization for the supplemental funding for our troops 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was pleased to see the committee recommended 
no policy changes to the Petraeus plan.
  The Wounded Warriors legislation, which we passed earlier in the 
year, is also included. The Wounded Warriors bill is vitally important 
to our men and women in uniform and important to the people of the 
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
  So I thank the managers of the conference report. This is an 
important accomplishment for our men and women in uniform, who we can 
all agree are deserving of this body's full support and our deepest 
gratitude.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the proud history of America's Armed 
Forces, I fear that the Bush years will be known as a rare, even a dark 
time.
  At a time when we call upon our troops to face new challenges and 
great dangers, our President stretched them thin and neglected their 
protection and care, in many instances. Military readiness levels have 
dropped to levels not

[[Page 34440]]

seen since Vietnam. Tours of duty keep getting extended. We are so 
bogged down with over 160,000 troops in Iraq that we cannot adequately 
respond to the grave and growing challenges elsewhere, such as bin 
Laden, who remains free to taunt and threaten us; his al-Qaida network, 
which is more powerful than ever; like Afghanistan, where the gains of 
the past are now backsliding, the drug trade is rampant, and violence 
is on the rise; Pakistan, where the path toward democracy is wavering 
significantly.
  It will take years to recover from the mismanagement of the military 
in the past few years by our Commander in Chief.
  Today, we can take steps that will make our country safer, aid the 
fight against terrorism, and provide our heroic troops with the care 
and support they deserve.
  Mr. President, my ability to express my appreciation, admiration, and 
affection for Senators Levin and Warner--I am incapable of doing that.
  To me there are no two finer Senators whoever served this body. There 
are no two Senators who have done more for our armed services. They not 
only take care of those who are now fighting for us, they take care of 
those who have fought for us in wars passed.
  I certainly am going to miss Senator Warner. He has another year with 
us. That is good for Nevada, it is good for Virginia, and it is 
wonderful for our country. He will contribute significantly to the 
well-being of the Senate and our country during the next year. Senator 
Levin is someone I lean on all the time. He is a person who understands 
what legislation is all about, probably more than most all of us. There 
is no one who can look at a piece of legislation and make an analysis 
of what is good and bad about that legislation. It doesn't matter if it 
is a matter dealing with our military or a matter dealing with 
something important to his State or, as far as that goes, if there is 
something important dealing with my State and I want a real good 
analysis of it. I don't turn to my staff; I turn to Carl Levin. I say 
to these two fine gentlemen that I speak not only for this Senator, but 
I speak for all Senators.
  They, and all of us, understand rebuilding our Armed Forces must 
begin with a sufficient number of troops, but today the military is 
struggling to meet its recruiting goals. We are taking people into the 
military when we would not have thought of taking them into it a few 
years ago--people not graduating from high school, people with criminal 
records. That is why this Defense authorization bill provides funds to 
speed the growth of the Army from 512,000 to 547,000, an increase of 
35,000, which is so important, and the Marine Corps, from 180,000 to 
202,000, an increase of 22,000, both of which are significantly above 
the goals set by President Bush.
  We also go beyond the President's request for $1 billion for the 
strategic readiness fund and add $1 billion to replace equipment for 
Guard and Reserve that has been sent to Iraq. Every natural disaster 
exposes the depleted capacity of our Guard and Reserve, and this bill 
begins to make that right.
  This Defense bill also refocuses our military by saying there will be 
no permanent bases in Iraq. We need not be seen as an occupying force 
in Iraq. In a couple months, we will begin the sixth year of that war. 
We don't need permanent bases in Iraq.
  This legislation has important language addressing potential waste, 
fraud, and abuse by establishing a Commission on Wartime Contracting. 
This is so important.
  It beefs up our counterterrorist operations along the Afghan-
Pakistani border to help fight al-Qaida and capture bin Laden, an 
effort that has been abandoned, it seems.
  Last, but not least, it honors our brave troops who have given so 
much and receive sometimes so little in return. We start by giving 
everyone in uniform an across-the-board 3.5 percent pay increase. Those 
in uniform did not join to get rich; they joined to serve our country.
  This pay increase, as I said, will not make them rich. They did not 
enlist to get rich. They joined the military to serve this great 
country. Though a 3.5-percent increase certainly will not make them 
rich, it will help them make ends meet and help their families to do 
the same as they face the burden of a husband, wife, mother or father 
serving an extended tour of duty someplace in the United States or 
around the world.
  This pay raise didn't come from President Bush. He opposed it, or I 
should say part of it. It comes from Congress. We provide care and 
support for our troops when they are back home because our commitment 
to them must not end when their combat tours end.
  The Wounded Warrior Act is in this bill which will improve health 
care and benefits for recovering veterans, servicemembers, and their 
families.
  Senator Patty Murray directed me and a number of other Senators to go 
to Walter Reed. She knew what was there. It was early in the morning, 
but it was a trip that any time of the day would have been beneficial. 
What we learned there was the basis of the Wounded Warrior legislation 
led by the Senator from Washington, Patty Murray.
  The American people will, for many years in the future, be indebted 
to her for this legislation, and I appreciate very much the managers of 
this bill placing this important legislation in it.
  I am especially pleased this bill has two provisions I have worked on 
for years. These two fine managers continue the improvement. The first 
will expand eligibility for combat-related special compensation for 
disabled veterans whose combat wounds force them into medical 
retirement before attaining 20 years of service. The three of us have 
worked on this issue for many years. This is very important. Current 
law requires these wounded veterans to fund their own disability 
compensation. We end that practice and do right by these heroes.
  The second provision will restore equity for disabled retirees that 
the VA has rated as unemployable. This is the only group of 100 percent 
disabled retirees who still suffer the unfair disability offset from 
their retired pay. This legislation will right that wrong.
  I would be remiss if I did not express my disappointment that there 
were not enough votes in the House to pass the hate crimes portion of 
the bill. There is a longstanding history of addressing hate crimes and 
actually hate violence in Defense authorization bills. It was only 
right and proper that we again did it this year.
  The hate crimes portion would have made America a safer, better 
place. It would have given State and local law enforcement agencies the 
tools they need and want.
  At a time we fight for equality across the globe, we ought to ensure 
equality in America. This issue will not disappear. We will keep 
fighting to give all Americans protection from hate violence.
  Despite this setback, this is a bill that all 100 Senators can 
proudly support. At times of unprecedented challenges throughout the 
globe, this legislation will make us safe. At a time when we see a lot 
of waste, mismanagement, and misplaced priorities on the part of this 
administration and the people with whom they choose to do business, it 
reaches for a higher standard of integrity. That is what this 
legislation does.
  At a time of tremendous strain on men and women in uniform, this 
legislation sends a strong message that we honor them, we respect them, 
and will always stand by them. I urge all my colleagues to send that 
message today by overwhelmingly passing this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time consumed today 
be counted postcloture. I thought consent was ordered last night that 
took care of this issue. If not, I hope can have this approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I thank my distinguished colleague 
from Nevada for his thoughtful remarks. While we may have differences 
on the course, direction, and policies, I don't know of any Senator who 
comes to the

[[Page 34441]]

floor and can speak with greater sense of compassion on behalf of the 
men and women who wear the uniform and their families and those who 
have borne the brunt of this conflict, not only in Iraq but in 
Afghanistan and other places.
  I also ask unanimous consent that my colleague from Virginia, Mr. 
Webb, be granted 2 minutes. He worked with Senator Murray on the 
Wounded Warrior Act. I knew him very well when he returned from 
Vietnam. He served on my staff as a young Marine captain. Had it not 
been for what he suffered in that war, he might still be in the Marine 
Corps today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Senator is recognized, I wish to 
thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, obviously for the comments he 
made about me, which were extremely meaningful to me and will be 
memorable to my family, although they will discount it hopefully 
somewhat. I also thank him for his leadership in this body and for the 
way he has fought for so many causes, not just for our veterans but our 
troops. Year after year, he is on this floor improving the situation 
for those who have been badly wounded, retired, and disabled. Without 
that effort, the progress we have made in the last few years simply 
could not have happened. I thank him.
  I am glad Senator Webb was able to get to the floor. I have already 
thanked him for his work on the Commission on which he and Senator 
McCaskill led an effort, a Commission on contracting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and there are so many other areas in which he is involved. 
I am delighted he was able to get to the floor for a few minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I do not want to take up too much time on 
the floor. All the salient points have been made, and I know the Senate 
is anxious to vote.
  First of all, I echo the comments about the majority leader. He has 
to stand up and take a lot of hits on behalf of all of us. I know of no 
one who is more highly and sincerely motivated.
  It has been a pleasure to work with the chairman, Senator Warner, and 
Senator McCain on the Armed Services Committee. I am also on the 
Veterans' Committee. We were able to work with both committees on the 
Wounded Warrior project.
  I would like, very briefly, to give a special thanks to Senator 
Warner, my senior Senator from Virginia, for having stepped forward on 
this wartime contracts commission and brought it to fruition after 
Senator McCaskill and I had spent a lot of time working on it and were 
in a situation where we didn't know if it actually was going to get 
into the bill. It was Senator Warner stepping forward and ironing out a 
few of these provisions and leading the Republican side that made that 
possible.
  Obviously, I am very strongly in support of the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator 
from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Delaware (Mr. Biden) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 433 Leg.]

                                YEAS--90

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--3

     Byrd
     Feingold
     Sanders

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Boxer
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Inouye
     McCain
     Obama
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________