Military Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that my colleague would remain in the Chamber for the next hour while we talk a little bit about exactly what the Committee on Veterans Affairs has done and the discussion of the cuts that are being made to the veterans budget. We will get into that a little bit later. But tonight I want to talk about something called SBP, and we will discuss it in great length. But I want to introduce you to somebody first. Her name is Dottie Welch.

Dottie's story goes something like this: When Lt. Colonel Roger Welch of the United States Army retired and signed up for the military survivor benefit plan, better known now as SBP, years ago, he was told that in the event of his death, SBP would pay his wife, Dottie, 55 percent of his retirement pay for the rest of her life.

When he signed an irrevocable agreement to pay annually-increasing SBP premiums for the rest of his life, he did not know that his wife's future SBP benefit actually would be one-third less than what they were led to believe.

When Roger died in June of 2002, Dottie was dismayed to learn that there would be an offset, an offset based on her husband's Social Security-covered military earnings, that would reduce her benefits. With Social Security survivor benefits and the reduced SBP annuity, her total income is $384 a month less than she and Roger thought she would have to live on.

Dottie thinks the Social Security offset is just plain wrong. No one will tell her why it is there and why it is so large. Her husband, Roger, only had 5 years of military service covered by Social Security.

Dottie Welch's case highlights one significant inequity of the military SBP and the reason why so many retirees and survivors are upset about its current situation.

Unfortunately, this is only the first of several ways that Uniform Service Survivor Benefits relative to premiums being paid fall far short of what retirees and survivors were promised and what is afforded survivors of other Federal retirees.

There are three major SBP inequities. But before I go into those inequities tonight, I would like to pause for a moment and recognize my good friend from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who has been a stalwart supporter of the veterans of this country.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), for his comments and his support of veterans' issues. I also wish to add my congratulations and best wishes to him as he very soon becomes one of those retirees after serving many years in the Army Guard in his home State.

Mr. Speaker, there are three major SBP inequities. One is that thousands of people who bought SBP coverage were not briefed that most survivors' SBP annuities would be reduced substantially after age 62; two, the 40 percent government subsidy envisioned by Congress and touted by the services to encourage retirees' participation has plunged to 17 percent; three, the government provides Federal civilian survivors a substantially higher share of retired pay for life with no benefit reduction at any age.

The impact of these inequities is, as Members can imagine, devastating to many survivors, because SBP is not exactly a king's ransom at 55 percent of retired pay. At 35 percent, SBP provides only a poverty level or lower annuity for most survivors, even those of relatively senior officers.

So I am here tonight to provide more specifics on how the military SBP program is not providing, is not providing the level of protection military survivors need and deserve and were expecting; and why my bill, H.R. 548, the Military Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2003, is what is needed now to fix the current problem.

The first issue that we need to discuss tonight is something that I call the benefit reduction shock. It is incredulous to many that such an important feature of SBP, the reduced age 62 annuity that applies to the vast majority of military survivors, was never explained to retirees being asked to sign up for the program in the seventies and in the early eighties, but it is true.

I have in my hand a copy of the actual SBP Election Form 5002 signed by a retired member in 1982 in two different places. It specifies that SBP will

pay the survivor 55 percent of the member's retired pay. Nowhere, even in the fine print, does it mention any lower figure. We can only speculate about how or why this key fact was omitted, but it hardly matters now to those who were misled by the forms and by the briefings.

Certainly, the offset was extremely complicated for retirement counselors to explain, and it was almost impossible to tell any particular retiree at that point what SBP amount his or her survivor would actually receive after attaining the age of 62.

For members who attained retirement eligibility before 1985, the offset represented the amount of the survivors' Social Security benefit that was attributable to the Member's Social Security-covered military earnings, because the military only came under the Social Security system in 1957, and that amount varied widely for different retirees, and the rules for the calculation of Social Security benefits due to military versus civilian employment are arcane at best.

When they first learned of the age 62 benefit reduction, years, sometimes decades, after they purchased SBP, many older retirees and survivors expressed outrage in the mistaken belief that Congress had changed the law on them after the fact.

Not so. The age 62 reduction was part of the initial SBP law enacted in 1972, but this critical piece of information did not find its way into most military retirement briefings and SBP election forms until many years later after complaints, years after complaints started to roll in.

Large numbers of retirees and survivors feel betrayed by what they perceive as a bait-and-switch under which they were asked to sign irrevocable contracts to pay lifetime SBP premiums without being told what the annuity level they were actually buying was.

Dottie Welch is far from the only spouse who is very much aware of the impact of the Social Security offset. One survivor's husband was a Navy hard-hat diver during World War II, then an electronics technician on a nuclear submarine until his retirement in 1966. When he died in May of 2002, his widow had no idea she would be hit by the offset. ``I was shocked. I almost fell out of the chair, and wondered why God hadn't taken me too,'' she says today.

In the grief that followed her husband's death, this 78-year-old widow also faced numerous family bills and health problems. When her SBP annuity started, she was stunned to find out that it was one-third, one-third less than what she had expected. Now faced with $21,000 in bills, she was advised to declare bankruptcy, and feared she would lose her home trying to pay her debts. Her financial struggles eventually led her to the Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society for a grant to help her get back on her feet financially.

Not one member of our greatest American generation should find themselves under this kind of stress while getting over the death of their spouse and trying to do something with the large bills that were facing them.

In an attempt to reduce this kind of confusion, in 1985 Congress established a two-tier system, not linked to Social Security, that actually provides an SBP survivor 55 percent of retired pay until age 62, and 35 percent after that age. But making the age 62 reduction clear for the post-1985 retirees did not make it any fairer, and it did not change the fact that thousands upon thousands of earlier participants had not been told of the age 62 annuity reduction.

Also in 1985, Congress shocked the survivor community by repealing the 1984 legislation that would have barred any SBP Social Security offset for survivors who earned their Social Security benefits from their own work history rather than the military retiree's, as assumed under the original offset law. This only further highlighted the unfairness of the offset to thousands of widows who had pursued their own military or civilian careers.

Now, the second issue, another broken promise. When SBP was enacted in 1972, Congress set the premium formula in law with the intent that retirees' monthly premium payments would cover 60 percent, 60 percent of the long-term costs of the survivor benefits, with the government paying the remaining 40 percent. The formula was based on the program cost assumptions prepared by the Department of Defense actuaries concerning future inflation rates, pay raises, longevity of retirees, and survivors' longevity, et cetera.

But actual experience in later years proved the actuaries' original estimates had been far too conservative, as inflation was lower than predicted and retirees lived and paid premiums longer than anticipated. Because retiree premiums were locked into law and covered a greater portion of the program costs than had been projected, the government reaped an economic windfall, and found its share of the cost for the SBP program was much lower than anticipated. By 1988, retiree premiums covered 77 percent of the SBP costs, and DOD's share had dropped to 23 percent.

To its credit, Congress acted in 1990 to restore the intended 60/40 balance by reducing retiree premiums to 6.5 percent of retired pay, but the overconservative actuarial assumptions have continued to work against, work against retirees for the last decade, with the result that the Federal subsidy for SBP has continued to decline. As of 2003, the government's share has dropped from 40 percent to 17 percent, leaving retirees once more paying a higher-than-intended share of the benefit.

The only fair way to restore the proper cost balance between the retirees and the government is to reduce the premium, or increase the SBP benefit. The former benefits primarily retirees, while the latter benefits the survivors. Since retiree premiums were reduced to restore the 60/40 balance in 1990, Congress should restore the government's intended 40 percent cost share by raising the benefit for survivors. My bill does exactly that.

Now, the third issue. It is the military-civilian inequity. No less compelling than the misleading of enrollees and the decline of the intended subsidy is the stunning disparity that exists between benefits and subsidy levels the government offers military versus Federal civilian survivors.

In contrast to the military SBP subsidy of, remember, 17 percent, currently, the SBP for Federal civilian employees under the post-1984 Federal Employee Retirement System provides a 33 percent subsidy. For those under the pre-1984 Civil Service Retirement System the subsidy is 48 percent, and at 48 percent, it is nearly three times as high as the military's.

Even more important, the Federal Employment Retirement System survivors receive 50 percent of retired pay, and the other survivors under the old Civil Service Retirement System receive 55 percent for life, with no benefit reduction, no benefit reduction, at age 62.

Although Federal civilian premiums are higher, military retirees pay SBP premiums for a far longer period of time than do most civilians because they are required to retire at a younger age. Because their mortality rates are not much different, this means that Federal civilian retirees have a far more advantageous benefit-to-premium ratio, as indicated on these charts.

Now, military retirees particularly pay SBP premiums about twice as long, twice as long as Federal civilians because they retire at younger ages, but their spouses' longevity is about the same. So military SBP enrollees see a lower return and a much lower government subsidy.

Remember Dottie? My bill is the needed fix for the three major inequities of the Survivor Benefit Plan. We must keep faith with the older retirees and with the survivors. We must restore the intended 40 percent Federal subsidy, and we must put SBP on an equal footing with its Federal civilian equivalent.

The Military Survivors Benefit Improvement Act of 2003, my bill, accomplishes these three things. For these reasons, the 33 military and veterans associations of the military coalition have endorsed my bill and have made its passage one of their top priorities in the 108th Congress.

H.R. 548 will balance equity and will balance cost considerations by phasing out the SBP age 62 benefit reduction over the next 5 years. And upon enactment, the age 62 benefit increase phase-in will begin at 40 percent on October 1 of 2004 and continually annually each year after through the year of 2007

until the benefits are restored to a full 55 percent as was the desire of Congress.

In order to offset part of the costs of the benefit increase, H.R. 548 authorizes an open season provision in the legislation that would allow more retirees to participate, generating SBP program savings, and significantly reducing the outlays.

Now, Congress has already acknowledged the need for this particular piece of legislation. The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act included a provision asserting the sense of Congress that there should be enacted legislation to reduce and eventually eliminate the different levels of SBP annuity for surviving spouses who are under age 62 and those who are 62 and older. But we have failed to follow through on that commitment for the last 2 years. It is time for us to fix this problem. Military widows and widowers have waited long enough in their fight for fairness. Now is the time for Congress to step up and enact relief for the aging survivors of our greatest generation. World War II and Korean War retirees, and the following generations of retirees and survivors, deserve no less than the SBP deal they were promised and the one the government already provides for other Federal survivors.

Now, a quick time line of H.R. 548. It was introduced on February 5 of 2003. And upon introduction, we had 118 bipartisan co-sponsors. That is 27 percent of the entire House of Representatives. On that day it was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. On February 28 of 2003, it was referred to the Total Force subcommittee, and on the same date executive comment was requested from DOD. Now, over 3 months later I urged DOD to act on this request.

On March 7 of 2003, a letter was sent to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) and the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), of the House Committee on the Budget urging support to include budget authority in fiscal year 2004 in our budget resolution. On the letter there were 36 bipartisan co-signers, including numerous members of the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Veterans Affairs. Today this bill has 268 bipartisan co-sponsors. That equates to 62 percent of this House.

All Americans should urge their Representatives to co-sponsor H.R. 548 and their Senators to co-sponsor Senate bill 451, introduced by Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine.

Again, who supports H.R. 548? The number one legislative priority of the Military Officers Association of America and the 108th Congress. Additionally, the bill is strongly endorsed by the Military Coalition, a consortium of 33 nationally prominent military and veterans organizations representing more than 5.5 million members of uniformed services, active, reserved, retired, survivors, veterans and their families; and there are many, many others that have sent letters of support for this bill.

There are others that are tracking similar legislation in this body. I would note tonight that H.R. 1726, the Military Surviving Spouses Equity Act, sponsored by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), repeals the offset from surviving spouse annuities under the military Survivor Benefit Plan for amounts paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affair as dependency and indemnity compensation, or DIC. It provides for the recoupment of certain amounts previously paid SBP recipients in the form of retired pay refund. It was filed on April 10 of 2003. It has been referred to the Committee on Armed Services. It has 24 co- sponsors. And I want to commend my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), for his efforts to restore equity to this aspect of SBP; and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this legislation.

H.R. 1653, sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), would change the effective date for the paid-up coverage under the military Survivor Benefit Plan from October 1 of 2008 to October 1 of 2003. It has 25 co-sponsors, and I am an original co-sponsor of this particular bill. It was filed on April 7, and it too has been referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.

A third piece of legislation, H.R. 1592, the Military Survivors Equity Act. It has been sponsored by my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), and it would repeal the two-tier annuity computation system applicable to annuities under the SBP plan for retired members of the Armed Forces so that there would be no reduction in such an annuity when the beneficiary becomes 62 years of age. It was filed on April 3 of this year, referred to the Committee on Armed Services; and it has 5 co-sponsors as this time. Both the Filner bill and my bill fulfill the 2001 sense of Congress resolution to reduce and eventually eliminate this SBP reduction. Again, both these bills go a long way to fulfilling the sense of Congress and that resolution to reduce and eventually eliminate this SBP reduction.

Let me talk a little bit about the VA budget for 2004. Our service men and women who continue to fight for our freedom and security around the world must know that Americans are united in their support for them and for their safe return. We in Congress, along with President Bush, support not only the troops in the field but also the scores of veterans who have already given so much to this country.

Unfortunately, there have been false reports, false reports circulating that Congress is actually cutting veterans benefits. Here are the facts of the congressional budget for fiscal year 2004 relating to veterans spending. This budget will allow us to fully meet our commitments to more than 2.6 million disabled veterans and widows who rely on VA benefit checks every month. It calls for $33.8 billion in mandatory spending. This is the highest spending ever in this area. It also calls for $30 billion, a 12.9 percent increase in discretionary spending. Nearly 90 percent of this funding is for veterans' medical care. These are the indisputable facts of this year's Federal budget for veterans.

House Members, particularly the Republicans, along with President Bush, are committed to ensuring that those who have served their country with pride, with valor and dignity receive the best of America's appreciation. Any suggestion otherwise is simply untrue, is not supported by the facts.

During January, I had the opportunity to visit with some of our men and women in uniform stationed in Germany, Italy, and France. And I was struck by their professionalism and commitment to their assigned duties. They were proud to serve. It is just as simple as that.

Two weeks ago, I visited North Korea where freedom is nowhere to be found and democratic thought is oppressed. We are truly blessed to live in a world of freedom and democracy and where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are abundant and, I would submit, many times taken for granted.

Defense of the principles and values that we hold so dearly as a Nation leads our men and women into conflicts around the globe. Many return home after giving the ultimate sacrifice in defense of such values. But to those who do return, we can never say thanks enough.

Today, as we continue to rely on our Armed Forces in the war against terrorism, we look to our veterans for their example of courage and sacrifice. It is their selfless service that has made our Nation strong and our world a better place. America's veterans deserve our respect, our deepest respect, and enduring appreciation, as do their spouses who choose to marry members of our armed services and to share with them all the joys and sacrifices of their active duty careers.

The Survivor Benefit Plan is not to military spouses what Congress had intended or what enrollees were promised. The program is not providing the level of protection military survivors need and deserve.

Retirees and survivors deserve no less in the SBP deal than they were promised. This Congress needs to step up and deliver what the aging survivors of our greatest generation retirees were promised. And we need to provide at the proper level the protection necessary for future generations of retirees. Congress must act to fix this problem now.

Mr. President, I rise today with colleagues Senator Kennedy and Senator Dayton to introduce the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2003, legislation that provides a comprehensive blueprint for addressing the needs of our Nation's children.

When Representative George Miller and I introduced the Act to Leave No Child Behind in the last Congress, in May of 2001, this Nation was looking at an unprecedented Federal budget surplus of some $5.6 trillion that Federal budget experts forecasted for the years 2002- 2011.

But, just 2 years later, that projected surplus is gone. Instead, Federal budget experts now predict a deficit of more than $2 trillion for those years, the worst fiscal reversal in our history.

Where did the money go?

Obviously, the current economic slowdown has had an impact insofar as it has caused a drop in Federal receipts. However, much of the surplus was lost to an enormous tax bill that contained mostly tax breaks for the largest companies and most affluent individuals, which was enacted during the spring of 2001.

And now, to make matters worse, the President is calling for more tax breaks, again, mostly to be enjoyed by the wealthy, which Federal budget experts estimate will cost $1.5 trillion over the next decade.

At the same time, the President has proposed to severely weaken our Nation's efforts on behalf of families and children, particularly poor families with children.

I listened to the President call for a more compassionate America in his State of the Union Address. Little did I expect that he was calling for others to be compassionate so that he would not have to be.

The budget that we received from the President earlier this month is the worst I have seen for families with children in decades.

Despite the fact that millions of parents struggle with the cost of child care, that the majority of States have long waiting lists, and that we vastly need to improve the quality of care, the President proposes to freeze child care assistance in each of the next five years.

At the same time, the President proposes to increase the number of hours that parents on welfare are required to work and increase the overall number of parents on welfare who are required to work. All of this is without a dime more for child care.

Who is going to watch these children? It is an undeniable fact that additional work requirements will cause an increase in the amount of child care parents need. And, additional hours of child care cost money.

The risk is that States will rob Peter to pay Paul. They will shift child care assistance from the working poor, many of whom might be former welfare recipients, to help those on welfare meet their child care costs. This makes no sense.

For Head Start, the President proposes a modest increase, barely enough to cover inflation despite the fact that Head Start reaches only 60 percent of eligible 3- and 4-year-old children and only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers.

In lieu of a real expansion in the program, the President proposes giving current Head Start funds used by community programs to States. This would mean that after 38 years of success, Head Start would no longer be a national program, with national performance standards, offering comprehensive services to our Nation's poorest children--those most likely to be struggling once in school.

Head Start works. Study after study shows the gains Head Start children make. Since Head Start graduates make up only 8 percent of incoming kindergarten students, it makes no sense to raid the Head Start money to reach the other 92 percent of children who are not in Head Start. And yet, that could very well be the result of the President's proposal.

What we know in our country is that many of our young people need a safe place to go after school, particularly at-risk youth who would otherwise be likely to go home alone, where in the absence of adult supervision, they are more likely to smoke, drink, have sex, or engage in crime. And yet, the President proposes to cut the 21st Century after-school program by $400 million. That cut would cause some 570,000 children to be discharged next year from after-school programs across America.

The President proposes deep cuts in Federal housing assistance, allowing States to receive foster care as a block grant instead of individual payments based on children actually in foster care, and potentially eliminating health insurance for millions of children through a block grant of Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

At the same time, according to the National Governor's Association, State economies are on the whole in the worst shape since World War II. States are operating with billions of dollars in the red with State constitutional requirements to balance their budgets.

It is clear what is going on here.

Instead of providing more resources to help States during these tough times, the President is raiding poverty programs for children and using that money to help pay for tax benefits for those who are at the very top of the income scale. This reckless policy only worsens the budget shortfalls facing so many States.

Children are one-quarter of our population. But, they are 100 percent of our future. It makes no sense to shortchange our investment in children.

America's children today are living under some staggering challenges. Nearly 12 million children live in poverty; over 9 million children have no health coverage; about 7 million children go home alone each week after school; and, nearly 1 million children are abused and neglected.

We can do better for our children. We should do better for children. We don't need another tax break for America's wealthiest citizens. What we need is a sound investment in our Nation's children.

The legislation we are introducing today is called, ``An Act to Leave No Child Behind.'' We are committed to this one principle beyond all others. Not just a slogan, but as a means to define an urgent national priority.

We need to make sure that we not only talk about leaving no child behind, but that we actually take steps to do so. Introducing this bill is the first such step.

Every word on every page is focused on the same purpose--lifting our children up, giving each child an opportunity, helping each child to have a safe and rewarding life.

Under the Act to Leave No Child Behind, every child in America would have health coverage. No child in America would go to bed at night aching from hunger. We would use our tax code to lift millions of children out of poverty--not provide more hand-outs for the most wealthy in this country.

It's time to ensure that every American child has an opportunity to attend Head Start, Pre-K, or quality child care to begin a lifetime of learning. It's time to ensure that every American child can read by 4th grade, and read at grade level. And, it's time to take dramatic new steps to address the needs of children who are abused and neglected every year.

Budget experts predict that the President's tax plan will give millionaires an average tax break of $88,800 each. For that same amount of money, we could fully fund Head Start and provide health insurance to every one of the 9 million uninsured children.

We have the resources. If we can afford to give $88,800 on average to every millionaire, then the question is really about priorities and political will--not resources.

If we join together, we can transform this Nation and give each and every child his God-given right to grow and flourish to all he can be, to his or her fullest potential so that all children can realize their dreams.

I ask unanimous consent to have a summary of the bill printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise with our colleague Senator Lieberman today to reintroduce two pieces of legislation intended to improve the process by which the Federal Government

acknowledges the sovereign rights of American Indians and their tribal governments. The first bill is called the Tribal Recognition and Indian Bureau Enhancement Act, or the TRIBE Act. The second bill I am introducing is a bill to provide assistance grants to financially needy tribal groups and municipalities so that those groups and towns can more fully and fairly participate in certain decision-making processes at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

I offer these bills with a renewed sense of hope, knowing that they will contribute to the larger national conversation about how the Federal Government can best fulfill its obligations to America's native peoples. Senator Campbell and Senator Inouye have provided invaluable leadership on this issue. The bills I am reintroducing were the subject of a hearing before the Indian Affairs Committee last fall. While neither bill was reported out of Committee before the end of the last Congress, I hope that the Indian Affairs Committee will continue its work on these and related bills--including Senator Campbell's recently introduced tribal recognition bill--and will see fit to address the problems that currently plague the recognition process.

Currently, there are some 200 petitions pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs by groups from throughout our Nation seeking Federal recognition as Indian tribes. Nine of these are in the State of Connecticut. These are in addition to the two tribes already recognized in our State: the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribal Nation.

I want to emphasize that as a State, Connecticut has embraced its two established and federally recognized tribes--the Mashantucket Pequot tribe and the Mohegan Tribe. They have generated thousands of jobs for Connecticut residents--primarily in the gaming industry. In fact, Foxwoods Casino, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, is the largest gambling casino in the world. Both tribes have delivered hundreds of millions of dollars into the treasuries of our State and towns dollars that have been used to help meet needs in housing, health care, education, and transportation for people throughout the State.

Like any large enterprise, these casinos have placed significant demands on the roadways, water systems, and police and fire departments. By some estimates, an average of 20,000 to 40,000 people visit these two casinos every day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

Clearly, Federal recognition is an important legal status that can profoundly change both Indian and non-Indian communities. Our experience in Connecticut has taught us that Federal recognition is too important to be treated lightly.

I would not be back before the Senate to address this issue if I did not believe that there are serious defects in the process for tribal recognition. This is a significant issue for Connecticut, but it is also a matter of concern for the entire country. The tribal recognition process is broken. And the process is harming communities and tribes across the country.

The problems with the current recognition process have been well documented and I do not intend to restate all that has been said and written about the subject in recent years. Suffice it to say that it is widely recognized that the process is failing both tribal groups and other interested parties. The General Accounting Office, in a highly- critical study released in November 2001, summarized the problem when it concluded that ``because of weaknesses in the recognition process, the basis for BIA's tribal recognition decisions is not always clear and the length of time involved can be substantial.''

Senator Campbell, Chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, has eloquently pointed out the irony that descendants of native peoples who have lived in North America for thousands of years are the only Americans that must be ``documented'' to prove their status. How much more bitter that irony has become now that a process established to be fair and considerate toward native peoples is, in many ways, working against them. Let me share with our colleagues some compelling facts, which I have referenced here on the floor of the Senate before.

Decisions on tribal petitions do not take months to make. They typically take years--and sometimes decades, thanks to understaffing and the demands of complying with FOIA requests and litigation. At its current pace, it will take well over 100 years for BIA to clear just its existing backlog of tribal recognition petitions. Can you imagine any group of Americans having to wait years or decades to have their legal rights vindicated? We would not and do not tolerate those kinds of delays in other areas of federal administrative law. Yet they are commonplace with respect to groups seeking Federal tribal status.

Tribes, towns, and other interested parties have often had their evidentiary submissions ignored. During consideration of two recent petitions, the BIA decided it would no longer accept evidence submitted on the petitions--but the agency failed to tell interested parties for eleven months. In the meantime, neighboring parties and other interested parties had spent large sums of time and money to submit voluminous additional evidence bearing on whether or not the petitions should have been granted.

In some cases, the seven mandatory criteria for recognition have been selectively ignored by BIA. In the case of the Eastern Pequot and Paucatuck Eastern Pequot petitions, two of the seven criteria for recognition were waived by the then-Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. According to published reports, he effectively ignored the recommendations of the historians and genealogists on his staff who had found that those criteria had not been met. In another case, there was a 70-year period during which a petitioner could produce no evidence that it continuously existed as a distinct community exhibiting political authority. The BIA's technical staff concluded that a 70-year gap was too long to support a finding of continuous existence. Despite the lack of evidence, the Assistant Secretary decided that continuous existence could be presumed, and so he went on to deem this criterion to be met and to recognize the tribe.

Again, the bottom line is that the recognition process is broken. Last year, one of our colleagues--a long-time champion for American Indian causes--called the current recognition process a ``scandal.'' I agree and I think it's bad public policy to allow Federal agencies to continue to make decisions when their decision-making procedures are so flawed.

The current process is arcane, burdensome, time consuming, difficult to understand, and too easily manipulated for political purposes. The evidence is overwhelming that the rules of recognition are being applied strictly for some and bent or ignored altogether for others. That's wrong. That's unfair. The Chairwoman of the Duwamish Tribe of Washington State has said she and her people ``have known and felt the effects of 20 years of administrative inaccuracies, delays and the blase approach in . . . handling and . . . processing the Duwamish petitions.'' Because the process is so complicated and so different from other, more familiar, administrative procedures, it is hard for people to have confidence in the BIA's decisions--especially when the BIA appears to be applying the rules differently in different cases.

The reforms proposed by the TRIBE Act are modest. The TRIBE Act will permit any Indian group in the continental United States that desires to be acknowledged as an Indian Tribe to file a petition with the BIA. If the group can satisfy the mandatory criteria for federal acknowledgment, then the group would be recognized.

The legislation simply requires better notice to Indians and non- Indian groups. It provides for better fact-finding and it requires the Secretary to publish a complete explanation of final decisions regarding documented petitions. The bill improves the recognition process in the following specific ways: first, it would authorize $10 million per year to better enable the Bureau of Indian Affairs to consider petitions in a thorough, fair, and timely manner. Second, it would provide for improved notice of a petition to key persons who may have an interest in a petition, including: the governor and attorney general of the state where a tribe seeks recognition; other tribes; and elected leaders of towns in the vicinity of a tribe seeking recognition, third, it would require that a petitioner meets each of the seven mandatory criteria for federal recognition

spelled out in the current Code of Federal Regulations, and fourth, it would require that a decision on a petition be published in the Federal Register, which would include a detailed explanation of the findings of fact and of law with respect to each of the seven mandatory criteria for recognition.

I want to emphasize what this legislation would not do. It would not revoke or in any way alter the status of tribes whose petitions for federal recognition have already been granted. It would not restrict in any way the existing prerogatives and privileges of such tribes. Tribes will retain their right to self-determination consistent with their sovereign status. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the TRIBE Act will not dictate outcomes or micro-manage the agency.

As I have often said, I believe that every tribal Government that is entitled to recognition should be recognized and should be recognized in an appropriately speedy process. But I also think we have to make sure that the BIA's conclusions are accurate so there won't be endless questions and disputes over the Bureau's decisions. Every recognition decision carries with it a legal significance that should endure forever. Each recognition decision made by the BIA is a foundation upon which relationships between tribes and States, tribes and towns, Indians and non-Indians will be built for generations to come. We need to make sure that the foundation upon which these lasting decisions are built is sound and will withstand the test of time. We as a Nation cannot afford to build relationships between sovereigns on the shifting sands of a broken bureaucratic procedure.

Let me close with a word about the second bill I am introducing. This bill will provide grants to allow poor tribes and municipalities an opportunity to effectively participate in important decision-making processes. When the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, makes decisions that will change communities, it is only right that the government should provide a meaningful opportunity for those communities, whether tribal or non-tribal, to be heard.

As we consider how best to reform the process for tribal recognition, we ought to be guided by the firm principles embedded in the bills I am offering here today: fairness, openness, respect, and a common interest in bettering the quality of life for all Americans. I look forward to discussing these and other ideas with Chairman Campbell, Senator Inouye, and my colleagues here in the Senate, tribal leaders, and others who believe the time for reform has come.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly on the fiscal year 2005 national Defense authorization conference report.

I acknowledge the leadership of the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, in bringing this bill to final passage. Of course, I must also recognize the ranking member, Senator Carl Levin. I had the privilege of working with them on the committee for several years and I can attest that each year they work together tirelessly to pass the Defense authorization bill because they understand how absolutely vital this legislation is to the effectiveness and well-being of our Armed Forces.

For that matter, I also recognize every Senator on the committee for their efforts because this conference report authorizes the equipment, the training, and the operational funds necessary to support our troops who are right now operating across the globe to make our Nation and the world more secure.

It also reflects the service and sacrifice of our troops by making a solid investment in their quality of life by increasing their pay and enhancing educational and health care opportunities for our active duty military members, our National Guard and Reserve troops and their family members. And that is only right, for today we are asking a great deal of our gallant young men and women as they guard our Nation at home and abroad and, of course, risk their lives every day to restore freedom and prosperity to the oppressed peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.

This legislation also recognizes that we owe a continuing debt to those who have served honorably by continuing to work on full concurrent receipt for those with a service connected disability, the same benefit available to every other retired Federal employee, the ability to collect full retirement pay and disability entitlements without offsets. Last year we made great strides in addressing the disparity by which disabled military retirees have their pension benefits reduced, dollar for dollar, by the amount of disability benefits they receive from the Department of Veterans Affairs. And this bill goes even further by removing disabled retirees, who are rated as 100 percent disabled, from the 10-year phase-in period. Thanks to this bill, those retirees will be authorized for full concurrent receipt effective January 2005.

This bill also finally corrects an inequity to those who have doubly sacrificed for our Nation, survivors of those who served this Nation well and honorably. First, they sacrificed each day as their loved one defended our Nation and they again sacrificed when they laid their hero to rest. And how did we repay them, by reducing their survivor benefit payment by over 30 percent once they reached age 62.

In the first session of this Congress, I sponsored S. 451, along with 46 cosponsors, a bill to correct this inequity. My colleague, Senator Landrieu, sponsored a similar measure for the same reasons. This year we worked together during the debate to include an amendment that would provide survivors relief from this ``widow's tax.'' I am very pleased to note that the conferees also recognized the unfairness of this reduction and approved a provision that will, over the next 3\1/2\ years, raise the percentage of the annuity available for survivors from 35 percent after age 62 back to the 55 percent they were collecting before their birthday.

This bill provides $420.6 billion for Defense programs in fiscal year 2005, an increase of $19.3 billion above the amount authorized by the Congress last year. In addition, the conferees authorized $25.0 billion for additional war-related costs for Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, including more than $2 billion for force protection measures, including armor, munitions, communications and surveillance programs.

In particular, this bill also provides a little over $10 billion in an area that is critical to the security of the Nation, our shipbuilding capacity. It has become more and more apparent that as we engage the forces of terrorism around the world we have become increasingly dependent on the ability of our Navy to not only deliver troops and munitions to the fight, but to act as the sea base from which our forces can operate without restrictions virtually anywhere in the world.

Yet, as a former chair of the Seapower Subcommittee, I remain concerned about the Navy's shipbuilding program, particularly with respect to the surface combatant force. As part of the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Navy and DoD approved a plan for maintaining a 310- ship Navy including 116 surface combatants, cruisers, destroyers and frigates. By the end of fiscal year 2003, the Navy's surface combatant fleet had fallen to 106 ships and the Navy has notified Congress that by the end of fiscal year 2004, it was their intent to reduce the force of surface combatants to 103 ships.

Therefore, I am encouraged that this authorization provides $3.6 billion for the construction of three DDG-51 Arleigh-Burke class destroyers for it is these ships, along with cruisers and frigates, that provide protection to the carriers and amphibious ships deployed to the Persian Gulf and around the world to prosecute the war on terrorism. Moreover, it adds $100 million for the DDG in service modernization program to begin the insertion of advanced technologies that will dramatically reduce operation and support costs to the fleet and mitigate the risk of back-fitting these technologies on older ships. Above all, we must pursue every path necessary to provide technologies to our sailors that will ease their workload, enhance their training opportunities and increase the survivability of their ships.

However, this is the last planned funding for the DDG-51 acquisition program, and the next generation of surface combatants, the DD(X) and the Littoral Combat Ship, LCS, are being funded in the research and development accounts. Although this authorization provides $1.5 billion for the continued development of the DD(X), including an additional $84.4 million for the detailed design of the second DD(X) and $350 million for the continued development of the LCS in the RDT&E accounts, there is a looming gap in the shipbuilding and conversion, Navy account for surface combatants.

Without a focused effort on the part of the Navy to commit and invest in a robust surface combatant program, I am concerned not only about the ability of the Navy's surface combatant force to maintain current operating tempos but the continuing viability of our shipbuilding industrial base. Many have noted that in spite of Congress' efforts to stabilize the workload in our surface combatant shipyards, the Navy's changing construction profile is undermining those efforts.

I urge the Navy to heed the stated concerns of Congress, especially those of us with shipyards facing an uncertain future and do everything in their power to stabilize their shipbuilding accounts both in terms of budget and in schedule.

Importantly, this bill sets aside $66.5 billion in the research and development accounts to develop the advanced technologies our troops will use to maintain their technological superiority over their adversaries. Significantly, conferees authorized $11.2 billion for the critical science and technology programs which brings us close to the goal of setting aside 3 percent of the defense budget to invest in the ``seed corn'' of our future military capability.

Much of that S&T investment will be executed at universities and colleges throughout America. For example, the University of Maine system has been on the forefront of the development of advanced engineered wood structures and composites. The bill provides funds so the university can develop the advanced lightweight structures the Army needs to meet the requirement to establish forward operating bases for our expeditionary forces in the far-flung regions of the world.

In addition, this bill also authorizes continued research at the University of Maine into the structural reliability of fiber-reinforced polymers composites in ship assemblies that will help define and ultimately control the significant property variations found composite plates used in Navy ship construction.

I am deeply disappointed that the House provision to delay the 2005 BRAC round by 2 years was not maintained in this bill because I believe fervently that closing domestic bases at a time we are engaged in a global war is not in the best interests of our Nation.

During the Senate debate on the fiscal year 2005 authorization bill, I and my colleagues, Senators Lott, Dorgan and Feinstein offered an amendment that would have delayed the 2005 Base Realignment and Closing Process, BRAC, for 2 years in order to focus on a closing process for our overseas military installations because we believed that the Nation must reassess its current overseas force structure and adjust it to meet the threats of today. Unfortunately, our amendment was narrowly defeated by a vote of 47 to 49.

Since then, the President has announced a force restructuring that includes the closure of several overseas military facilities and a redeployment of troops and assets back to the United States. This is exactly the reason we offered our amendment and I continue to strongly believe that until our global defense posture is defined and our foreign basing requirements are thoroughly understood, closing our domestic bases is premature and ill-advised.

Finally, and most importantly, the bill continues our commitment to the men and women in the armed forces and their families through the enactment of several important pay and benefits provisions. First, it includes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.5 percent for all military personnel. It also contains a number of provisions that will directly aid the families of service members. For example, the bill removed the existing funding limitations on the military housing privatization authorities, which will allow the military services to continue to partner with the private sector to provide the highest quality housing for military members and their families in the shortest amount of time.

This authorization rightly recognizes that our Reservists and National Guard troops play an increasingly vital role in the war on terrorism, and extends to them expanded benefits in critical areas such as medical care and special pay rates. The bill approves permanent eligibility for up to 90 days of TRICARE coverage for Reserve members and their families prior to mobilization, and 180 days of transitional health benefits for Reserves, active duty members, and their families when the member separates from active duty service. It also authorizes a new program of educational assistance to members of the Selected Reserve, providing varying amounts of aid depending on the length of time they were mobilized.

Overall, this authorization provides the men and women of our armed forces with the equipment they need to accomplish their mission, the quality of life they have earned and security for their families. For these reasons, I support this legislation and urge my colleagues to pass this conference report unanimously because in a time when our Nation is facing unprecedented security challenges and dangers, we can do no less.

Mr. President, as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I express my views on the Conference Report for H.R. 4200, the fiscal year 2005 DOD Authorization Act. Defense authorization legislation typically contains a variety of provisions pertaining to government contracting, and these provisions have a significant impact on the ability of small firms to compete for Federal procurement dollars. Small businesses will find that this report contains both positive and negative provisions.

First, I express my deep disappointment with the decision of the Conference Committee to remove from the act the legislative language requiring consideration of small business interests by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy's advisory panel on reform of government contract laws, extending the panel's term, and specifically requiring the panel to reports its findings to the Congressional small business committees. I originally proposed this language as Senate Amendment No. 3273. It was adopted unanimously by the Senate and codified in Section 805 of the DOD Authorization Act.

The work of this advisory panel, like its predecessor panels, is critical to the long-range direction of acquisition reforms. This panel, authorized by Section 1423 of the fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, was to emphasize the study of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and the use of Governmentwide contracts. In making appointments to the panel, the administrator for Federal Procurement Policy was required to consult the agency heads as well as the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Governmental Affairs Committee, and House Government Reform Committees. The panel's authorizing legislation required it to prepare a written report with recommendations and to submit this report to these named Committees along with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Administrator, or OFPP.

Curiously, the panel's mandate was silent with regards to small business contracting, even though the Federal Government is committed by law to the goal of awarding 23 percent of all prime contracts to small businesses. My amendment, as adopted by the Senate, responded to this glaring omission by extending the panel's reporting period, requiring the panel to make recommendations on assuring small business participation in Government contracting, and directing the panel to submit its report to the House and Senate Small Business Committees.

Because of President Bush's strong support for small business contractors, the policies of Section 805 had solid backing from the administration. Over the summer, I wrote to the White House and requested that small businesses be represented both in the composition and in the work of this panel. In reply, OFPP Acting Administrator Robert Burton responded that, ``Based on your suggestion, I will ensure that senior level representation from the Small Business Administration will serve on the panel. Moreover the Office of Federal Procurement Policy will request the panel to specifically address small business contracting and subcontracting issues.''

Some recent changes to Federal procurement laws have had the effect of decreasing competition, accountability, and transparency in the procurement process while increasing the barriers to entry faced by small business contractors. Section 805 was designed to address this unfortunate trend, and I believe it should not have been removed.

I am particularly disappointed the conference report contradicts the public position of the administration that small business interests deserve consideration in formulating Federal procurement reforms by the Office of Federal Procurement Policy advisory panel. However, let me be clear: the Conference Committee's decision to remove Section 805 does not overrule the commitment of the OFPP administrator and does not prevent the Senate Small Business Committee from closely monitoring the work of the panel and holding in-depth oversight hearings on its report.

In addition, I find unfortunate the choice to permit exemption of the entire landscaping and pest control industries from the application of the Small Business Act. Adoption of this provision was not marked up by either the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship or the House Committee on Small Business.

I also regret the conference committee's decision not to authorize transitional counseling on federal procurement opportunities at the DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. Our veterans, especially service-disabled veterans, deserve immediate assistance. However, I am encouraged that the Conference Committee directed the Comptroller General to conduct a study on this subject. I am also very pleased that HUBZone and service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses can now participate in the DOD Mentor-Protege Program, preserved the parity between the small business reserve threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold in future threshold adjustments for inflation, limited the period of multi-year task order contracts to 10 years, protected small businesses engaged in the DOD satellite procurement against arbitrary changes, and refused to adopt changes to source selection criteria which may have favored large businesses over small contractors.

In conclusion, I again commend President Bush and Acting OFPP Administrator Burton for the administration's continued steadfast support of small business-friendly procurement policies. I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Mr. President, I would like to review with my colleague Section 133 of the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Under the leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin, Congress has agreed to amend Section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004 by expressly prohibiting the Air Force from using previously granted authority to acquire, through a lease or purchase, Boeing 767 aircraft for use as aerial refueling tankers.

This provision succeeds in accomplishing Chairman Warner's primary objective, as he stated in this chamber on October 23, 2003, to put the tanker replacement program back into a traditional budget, procurement, and authorization track. In other words, the Air Force's program to modernize its tanker fleet must be subject to the aerial refueling analysis of alternatives, the aerial refueling portion of the Mobility Capabilities Study, a new aerial refueling validated capabilities document and operational requirements document in accordance with all applicable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instructions, and the express approval of a Defense Acquisition Board in full accordance with Department of Defense regulations.

I thank the Chairman for clarifying the intent of the legislation with respect to the prohibition on leasing tanker aircraft. Now, let's turn to what authority Section 133 grants with respect to purchase of tanker aircraft.

The Chairman is correct. This means that, under Section 133, the Air Force may not acquire, either by lease or purchase, Boeing 767s without full and open competition. In other words, any program to acquire tankers must start from the beginning, as the Senator properly stated last year, on a traditional budget, procurement, and authorization track.

One last question. Have we obtained an opinion from the Congressional Budget Office as to how it would score the acquisition of tankers under Section 133?

I thank the Senator. I am grateful to the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership in this 3-year odyssey. I remind my colleagues that three out of the four defense committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so without so much as reading the contract for that $30 billion procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee that put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. That having been said, the final chapter on the tanker lease program cannot be closed until those among Air Force leadership who engaged in misconduct are held accountable.

Mr. President, I strongly support passage of the conference report on HR 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This legislation funds over $420 billion for defense programs, which is a 3.4 percent increase or $20.9 billion above the amount authorized by Congress last year.

While I am pleased that we are able to act on this legislation prior to adjourning for the elections, I would be remiss if I did not mention that once again, the Defense Appropriations Act has been signed into law prior to final action on the Defense Authorization Act. The responsibilities of authorizors and appropriators are expected to be distinct. The Defense Authorization Act lays out the blueprint for the policies and funding levels for the Department of Defense and its programs. The role of the Appropriations Committee is to allocate funding based on policies provided by authorization bills. In reality however, the Appropriators' function, has expanded dramatically, and the Appropriations Committee now engages in significant policy decision making and micromanagement, largely usurping the role of the authorizing committees. I hope next year we will succeed in passing the authorization measure prior to the appropriations measure.

The men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces put their lives on the line every day to protect the very freedoms we Americans hold dear. It is our obligation to provide key quality of life benefits to the members of our military. Great strides will be made by this bill towards accomplishing that goal. For example, this Conference Report authorizes a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for all military personnel. It repeals the requirement for military members to pay subsistence charges while hospitalized, and adds $7.8 million for expanded care and services at the Walter Reed Amputee Patient Care Center. Also, included in the conference report is a permanent increase in the rate of family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month as well as a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger from $150 per month to $225 per month.

We continue to be increasingly reliant on the men and women of our Reserve forces and National Guard. In fact, around 40 percent of all the ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are composed of National Guard and Reserve forces as well as nearly all of the ground forces in Kosovo, Bosnia, and the Sinai. Many of these soldiers and sailors leave behind friends, families, and careers to defend our nation. Accordingly, it is the responsibility of policy makers to ensure we look after the needs of these patriots. Included in the conference report is the authorization for full medical and dental examinations and requisite inoculations when reservists mobilize and demobilize as well as a new requirement for pre-separation physical examinations for members of the reserve component. This provision is critical to maintain and, in some circumstances, increase the readiness of the total force.

In the Senate version of this legislation, we passed an important amendment to authorize an increase in the size of our Army by 20,000 and size of our Marine Corps by 3,000. I am very pleased this provision was included in the conference report. This increase is absolutely vital in our Army's ability to carry out its mission in the global war on terror. There is no shortage of evidence supporting an increase in Army endstrength. Recently, the Army pulled 3,600 troops out of South Korea to fill critical needs in Iraq. The Department of Defense should be able to move troops around as needed to address critical needs. However, in this case, we are sacrificing our readiness on the Korean peninsula because we do not have enough solders serving in the Army.

After returning home for a short period of time, soldiers and Marines are

already making preparations for their second tour in Iraq or Afghanistan in as many years. This is not good for morale, this is not good for retention, this is not good for readiness, and this is not good for the soldier's families. Eventually, recruitment will be seriously affected by these trends.

Additionally, the Army recently announced a new stop-loss policy. While, I certainly recognize the Army's authority and necessity to issue stop loss orders, their issuance in this instance is yet another reason why we need to increase the size of the Army. For all the benefits in group cohesion that results from extended tours, the Army will be facing a serious crisis when it comes time for these soldiers to reenlist on their own accord. I am concerned about the effect that these stop-loss orders will have on the morale of our Army. While I still do not believe that we need a draft, we do need to increase the size of the Army to carry out important defense missions.

Once again, I am disappointed that the development of this legislation lent the opportunity for the annual buy America battle. In a similar fashion as last year, the Senate had to beat back a provision in the house version of the legislation that sought to protect parochial interests at the cost of our defense industry and American jobs. It seems as if every year, we fight the same fight in conference. I am pleased that once again, the Senate prevailed over the protectionist leanings in the House.

As I have stated countless times before, we need to provide American servicemen and women with the best equipment at the best price for the American taxpayer. By following this simple philosophy, we will protect both the men and women in uniform, as well as our domestic defense industry.

The international considerations of buy America provisions are immense. Isolationist, go-it-alone approaches have serious consequences on our relationship with our allies. Our country is threatened when we ignore our trade agreements. Currently, the U.S. enjoys a trade balance in defense exports of 6-to-1 in its favor with respect to Europe, and about 12-to-1 with respect to the rest of the world. We don't need protectionist measures to insulate our defense or aerospace industries. If we enact laws that isolate our domestic defense industry, our allies will retaliate and the ability to sell U.S. equipment as a means to greater interoperability with NATO and non-NATO allies would be seriously undercut. Critical international programs, such as the Joint Strike Fighter and missile defense, would likely be terminated as our allies reassess our defense cooperative trading relationship.

The Senate also successfully defeated an amendment during Senate consideration and again in conference aimed at crippling the upcoming BRAC round. BRAC has taken on a new significance in the war against terror. There has not been a time in recent memory when it has been more important not to waste money on non-essential expenditures. To continue to sustain an infrastructure that exceeds our strategic and tactical needs will make less funding available to the forces that we are relying on to destroy the international network of terrorism. I am once again pleased that the Senate put the good of the Department of Defense over parochial interests and protected the upcoming BRAC round.

The Department of Defense has come out with very fair and reasonable criteria used to select what bases are chosen for BRAC. I have every confidence the Secretary of Defense will carry out this round of BRAC in a just and consistent manner. Sooner or later surplus bases must be closed. Delaying or canceling BRAC would only make the process more difficult and painful than necessary. The sooner the issue is addressed, the greater will be the savings that will ultimately go toward defense modernization and better pay and benefits for our hard working service members.

I understand that some of my colleagues are concerned about the potential negative effects a base closure may have on their local economy. But let me point out that previous base closure rounds have had many success stories. For example, after England Air Force Base closed in 1992, Alexandria, LA, benefitted from the creation of over 1,400 jobs--nearly double the number of jobs lost. Across the U.S., about 60,000 new jobs have been created at closing military bases. At bases closed more than 2 years, nearly 75 percent of the civilian jobs have been replaced. This is not to say that base closures are easy for any community, but it does suggest that communities can and will continue to thrive.

Another issue of considerable diverse views during conference deliberations concerned the aerial refueling tanker lease program. I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to praise the leadership of Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Warner and Ranking Member Levin for their steadfast vigilance during the three- year odyssey on the Air Force's failed Boeing 767 tanker program. I remind my colleagues, again, that three out of the four defense committees that were required to approve the original proposal to lease 100 tankers, did so without so much as reading the contract for the $30 billion procurement proposal. It was the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee that put the brakes on that costly and misguided misadventure. And lest one thought otherwise, the Boeing 767 tanker investigations in the Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General and the U.S. Senate are continuing and expanding.

Under Section 133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, the Air Force may not enter into a sole-source multiyear contract for the lease or purchase of Boeing 767s. Indeed, the Conference Report makes clear that, at the end of the day, the Air Force's plan to modernize or update its fleet must be subject to full and open competition and the traditional budget, procurement and authorization track. The conference report brings the Air Force's plan back to square one.

The bottom line here is this. The aerial refueling tanker provision in the defense authorization bill does much to inject much needed sunlight in a program that has largely been insulated from public scrutiny. In so doing, this provision, that was adopted, directs the Air Force to begin--anew from the beginning--in its program to modernize its tanker fleet. The Air Force will have to now fully consider the Congress's direction, prohibiting the retirement of KC- 135E tanker aircraft, as a worthwhile alternative to updating tankers through KC-135E to R conversions. The tanker legislation in this bill ensures that any effort by the Air Force to modernize and replace its fleet of tankers is done responsibly. We should expect no less from the Air Force. That having been said, the final chapter on the failed tanker lease program cannot be closed until those among Air Force leadership who engaged in misconduct, are held accountable.

I also would like to thank the chairman and ranking member, as well as Senators Dodd, DeWine, and Hollings for their assistance in reauthorizing the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program through Fiscal Year 2009. This program uses a competitive, merit-based review process to give grants directly to local fire departments for equipment, training, and fire prevention programs. Our nation's firefighters must be prepared to respond to a myriad of threats, and this legislation will help ensure that they are adequately trained and equipped to meet them.

Mr. President, Americans are blessed with nearly limitless freedoms and liberties. In exchange for all our country gives to us, it does not demand much in return. Yet throughout our history, millions of people have volunteered to give back to their nation through military service. The selfless acts of courage and sacrifice made by the men and women in our armed services have elevated our nation to the greatness we enjoy today.

America is defined not by its power but by its ideals. One of the great strengths of the American public is the desire to serve a cause greater than our own self interest. All too often, our younger generations are accused of selfishness and an unwillingness to sacrifice. I disagree. I see generations of people yearning to serve and help their fellow citizens. Each year, thousands of our young Americans decide to dedicate a few years or even a full career to

protecting the rights and liberties of others. They often do this with very real risks to their lives. They volunteer to do this not for profit, nor for self promotion, but out of a sense of duty, service, and patriotism.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and my good friend, Senator Warner, in urging the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We began work on this bill with our mark-up in early May. Since that time, we have spent 5 weeks on the Senate floor and nearly 4 months in conference. This conference agreement would not have been possible without the strength and perseverance of Senator Warner.

This conference report will promote the national defense, improve the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, and make the investments we need to meet the challenges of the 21st century. First and foremost, the bill before us continues the increases in compensation and quality of life that our service men and women and their families deserve as they face the hardships imposed by continuing military operations around the world.

Mr. President, we all know that our Armed Forces today are deployed in harms' way around the world. As we stand on the Senate floor today, more than 130,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are engaged in taking on an aggressive insurgency and winning the peace in Iraq, with tens of thousands more supporting the war effort

from outside the country. At the same time, our military continues to bear the brunt of the continuing effort to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, keep the peace in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai, and contain the threat of North Korea--while also preparing to execute other missions in support of the national military strategy.

It has been clear to many of us for some time now that the Army and Marine Corps are simply stretched too thin, and that additional troops are badly needed to meet our worldwide commitments. I am pleased that this bill takes an important step toward that objective by increasing the active duty end strength of the Army by 20,000 and the active duty end strength of the Marine Corps by 3,000.

I am also pleased that the bill before us contains much of the amendment offered on the Senate floor by Senator Daschle and Senator Graham to provide expanded TRICARE benefits for the National Guard and Reserve members who have made so many sacrifices and contributed so much to our nation over the last three years. In particular, the conference report would:

Make permanent the temporary authority for free TRICARE health care coverage for National Guard and Reserve members and their families up to 90 days before a mobilized service member reports for active duty and for 180 days after release from active duty; and

Authorize a new TRICARE benefit for Guard and Reserve members and their families when the member is not on active duty.

Under this provision, National Guard and Reserve members who are mobilized would be authorized, upon release from active duty, to enroll in TRICARE Prime for 1 year for every 90 days spent on active duty. This is the least that we can do for these brave men and women.

The bill would take a number of other important steps to improve the lives of our men and women in uniform. For example, the bill would:

Authorize a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel;

Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of special pay for duty subject to hostile fire or imminent danger;

Authorize a permanent increase in the rate of the family separation allowance;

Improve the Survivor Benefit Plan by eliminating the reduction in SBP benefits for surviving spouses over age 62, phased in over 3\1/2\ years;

Ensure fair treatment of our disabled veterans by repealing the phase-in of concurrent receipt of retired pay and VA disability pay to military retirees with service-connected disabilities rated as 100 percent; and

Authorized a new program of educational assistance to members of the Selective Reserve, based on the GI Bill.

The bill would also directly address a number of specific problems and issues that have arisen in the course of our continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, the bill would provide our Armed Forces new flexibility to respond to changing circumstances on the ground by authorizing the use of up to $300 million for the Commanders' Emergency Response Program in Iraq and Afghanistan, under which commanders may use funds for small humanitarian and reconstruction projects; authorizing the use of up to $500 million for assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan military or security forces to enhance their ability to combat terrorism and support U.S. or coalition military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; and authorizing the Special Operations Command to expend up to $25 million of existing funds to provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals, engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing military operations by the United States special operations forces to combat terrorism; establishing a new rapid acquisition program to enable the Department of Defense to quickly acquire equipment needed by a combatant commander to eliminate deficiencies in equipment that have resulted in combat fatalities; and raising the thresholds for the use of streamlined acquisition procedures outside the United States in support of contingency operations.

Second, the bill contains important language from amendments offered by Senators Durbin and Leahy on the Senate floor, reaffirming the prohibition against subjecting any person in the custody or under the physical control of the United States to ``torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment that is prohibited by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.'' These provisions send an important message to the world that the United States will not permit, condone, tolerate, or encourage the kind of behavior so graphically depicted in the photographs from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We all know that the abuses that occurred at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere have undermined the hard work and sacrifices of our military and tarnished the image of our armed forces. The provisions included in the conference report reaffirm that we are a Nation of laws and send the message that Congress will not accept mixed messages or ambiguous statements on the fundamental issue of human rights and dignity.

The bill contains several other important provisions addressing ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. These include:

A provision originally written by Senator Dodd, which authorizes reimbursement of service members and their families for purchases of body armor and other protective equipment at a time when the Department of Defense did not have sufficient protective gear in Iraq to protect our men and women in uniform; a provision addressing deficiencies in the oversight and management of contractors on the ground in Iraq, and requiring the issuance of specific guidance and regulations to enhance the safety of contractor employees and improve coordination between our armed forces and the contractors who are there to support their rebuilding efforts; and a provision reauthorizing and extending the CPA Inspector General to ensure that we have continuing oversight over fraud, waste and abuse in the expenditure of funds for the rebuilding of Iraq.

The conference report also includes a number of provisions that will help improve the management of the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. These include: the Collins-Levin amendment permitting federal employees to be heard, for the first time, in bid protests appealing the results of public-private competitions; a provision that would extend the authority for energy savings performance contracts for an additional 2 years, enabling federal agencies to save hundreds of millions of dollars through improved energy efficiency; a provision that should help resolve the controversy over the Air Force's proposed lease of tanker aircraft by prohibiting the Air Force from entering a lease and instead requiring the use of a traditional multi-year contract; a provision that would require the Department of Defense to develop and implement a business enterprise architecture to gain better control over its finances; and a provision directing the Secretary of Defense to develop policies and regulations to discourage other countries from imposing ``offset agreements'' in defense trade, and thereby undermining our defense industrial base.

Finally, I am pleased that the conference report contains a series of provisions that will establish a workers' compensation-like program for nuclear workers who have cancers and other occupational-related injuries. The program will be administered by the Department of Labor and establishes a compensation scheme for both employees and survivors. Covered employees would receive the compensation benefits, as well as medical benefits under the provisions. The total amount of compensation under the provision would be capped at $250,000. Also included are provisions that would extend to uranium miners the opportunity to seek this workers' compensation-like benefit. Employees can elect to apply for this benefit or they may choose to remain in their individual state's workers' compensation system.

Mr. President, this is a good conference report, but no conference report is perfect.

I strongly disagree with a provision in the bill that would attempt to transfer from the Department of Defense to the Treasury the responsibility to provide the funding for military health care. Programs do not become ``free'' just because they are moved outside the Defense budget. That is why this provision was strongly opposed by the

chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

I am deeply disappointed that the House conferees refused to accept important Senate provisions addressing hate crimes. Acts of violence and bigotry based on factors like race, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability can undermine our nation's fabric by placing in question our continuing commitment to acceptance and diversity. The Kennedy-Smith hate crimes bill would address this problem head-on. The Senate has now passed the hate crimes bill on two separate occasions, and each time, the House has refused even to consider the provision on the merits.

I am equally disappointed that the House refused to include the Boxer amendment on abortion. Under the law as it stands today, Medicare funds may be used for abortions in cases of rape or incest, but Department of Defense funds may not. This kind of discrimination against women who put their lives on the line for their country is incomprehensible to me.

I am disappointed that, faced with a veto threat, we were able to get less than half of the provisions that we wanted to codify sound practices in public-private competition of work currently performed by government employees.

Finally, I am disappointed that this conference report includes a House provision reducing the authority of the base closure commission to address bases not recommended for closure or realignment by the Secretary of Defense.

Despite my concerns about these issues, I will vote for this bill because it contains so many other provisions that are so important for our national defense and for our men and women and uniform. At a time when our armed forces are under hostile fire in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is vitally important that we enact a defense authorization bill that provides the training and equipment that our military needs and the compensation and benefits that they deserve.

I would like to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, once again for the effective leadership that he provided in bringing this bill through conference and back to the Senate floor. Senator Warner's inclusiveness and openness in the way he manages the Committee and the conference have resulted in a far better bill than we would otherwise have had.

I would also like to thank the minority members of our Committee for the able work that they have done in support of this bill throughout the past year, starting with hearings in the Spring, and continuing through mark-up, floor deliberation, and conference. We have a truly talented group of members, whose dedication to the national defense shows in their work.

I would be remiss if I did not also mention the work of our dedicated committee staff, on both sides of the aisle. It is the hard work of this staff--under the able leadership of Judy Ansley and Rick DeBobes-- that has made this bill possible. Rick and Judy and the staff have been working literally around the clock for the last month to put this conference report, and I think that the Senate owes a debt of gratitude to every one of them.

On the Majority staff Judy Ansley, Chuck Alsup, June Borawski, Leah Brewer, Alison Brill, Jennifer Cave, David Cherington, Marie Dickenson, Regine Dubey, Andy Florell, Brian Green, Bill Greenwalt, Bruce Hock, Gary Howard, Jennifer Key, Greg Kiley, Tom MacKenzie, Elaine McCusker, Lucian Niemeyer, Stan O'Connor, Cindy Pearson, Paula Philbin, Ben Rubin, Lynn Rusten, Katie Sendak, Joe Sixeas, Rob Soofer, Diana Tabler, Dick Walsh, Bridget Ward, Nick West, and Kelley Wilson.

On the Minority staff Rick DeBobes, Chris Cowart, Dan Cox, Madelyn Creedon, Mitch Crosswait, Brie Eisen, Evelyn Farkas, Richard Fieldhouse, Creighton Greene, Bridget Higgins, Mike Kuiken, Maren Leed, Gary Leeling, Peter Levine, Mike McCord, Bill Monahan, and Arun Seraphin.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.