Senator Collins Rises in Support of Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts, who, as always, is extremely gracious, and the Senator from Michigan, for allowing me to proceed, and the chairman of our distinguished committee.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking member for their extraordinary efforts in producing this bill. The mark-up of this legislation was conducted in a true spirit of cooperation. While certain portions of this bill engendered spirited debate, the points of controversy are relatively few. It is tribute to both Senator WARNER and Senator LEVIN that we completed our mark-up in a remarkably short period of time.

This legislation includes authorization for the vital resources that the young men and women in our military require in defending our Nation. With terrorist attacks continuing across the globe, and our troops helping the Iraqi people to rebuild their country, this legislation will ensure that our military has the tools necessary to fight, and ultimately win, the war against terrorism.

Since joining the Armed Services Committee, I have been a member of the Personnel Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over military pay, housing, and health care. In recent years, we have made tremendous progress in improving the quality of life not just for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, but also for their families. That is important. The old saying goes: we recruit the soldier but we retain the family. When our troops deploy, it's important that they have the peace of mind that comes from the knowledge that their families have good housing, quality health care, and a support network to help address any problems.

I am proud that the legislation before us builds on the efforts that we have made in previous years to ensure that our troops are the best paid, best housed, and best equipped in the world. It includes a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for all uniformed personnel, and incorporates a targeted pay raise ranging from 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent for mid-career service members. We want to make an extra effort to retain their expertise. It also authorizes a significant increase in the rate of family separation allowance, from $100 per month to $250 per month.

There are two provisions affecting pay and benefits that I believe are particularly important. Last month, along with the majority leader and a number of my colleagues, I traveled to South Korea to meet with our troops at Osan Air Force Base and in the Demilitarized Zone. I was privileged to speak with two of my constituents, SS Jennifer Meuth of Thomaston and MS Jay Mason of China. As I always do when I meet with our troops, I asked if there was anything that the Congress could do to support them. Without hesitation, both of them asked me to support the establishment of Assignment Pay for troops stationed in Korea. Our troops endure many hardships as part of their service in Korea. Most are separated from their families, the housing is often substandard, and they live under the constant threat of North Korean aggression.

I am proud to say that the legislation before us mandates the payment of $100 per month in assignment incentive pay to the brave men and women serving our Nation in Korea. It is a tribute to the leadership of Senator SAXBY CHAMBLISS and Senator BEN NELSON, who lead the Personnel Subcommittee. Most of all, I want to thank Sergeants Meuth and Mason for bringing this important issue to my attention.

The second provision that I want to highlight is a bill that I introduced this year calling for an increase in what is called the military death gratuity. Currently, when a ser vice mem ber is killed while on active duty, his or her family receives a payment of $6,000, usually within days after the death. While other long-term financial assistance is provided to support the family, this payment helps the survivors cover any short term expenses.

The bill I introduced earlier this year, S. 704, would increase this amount to $12,000 and make it retroactive to September 11, 2001. So the families of those troops killed in Afghanistan will receive this additional benefit. The last time the Congress raised the death gratuity was during that last gulf war over a decade ago. Recognizing the importance of this issue, the Senate moved very quickly earlier this year to pass my legislation as a free-standing bill. The House, however, has not yet acted upon it. I am grateful to the Chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, Senator CHAMBLISS, for incorporating this increase in the death gratuity in the Defense Authorization bill.

I would also like to express my congratulations to Senator TALENT, the new Chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee. The shipbuilding portion of this year's Defense Authorization represents a significant turning point. In previous years, the budget for ship construction proposed by the Department of Defense has been inadequate to sustain a large enough fleet to meet our Nation's requirements. The legislation before us today recognizes the challenge, and provides critically needed increases in shipbuilding funds.

It authorizes the construction of seven new ships, including three DDG-51 destroyers. I am pleased to report that two of those destroyers will be built at the world famous Bath Iron Works in my home State of Maine. Certainly, it will take more than 1 year's progress to address years of funding shortfalls. But this bill surely represents significant progress.

The committee also recognized the importance of modernizing the DDG-51 destroyers currently in the fleet. At my request, $20 million has been allocated for a DDG-51 modernization program. This funding will be used to examine ways to improve the effectiveness of these ships, while at the same time reducing their manpower requirements. That in turn will lead to lifetime savings for these ships. It will allow the Bath Iron Works to explore initiatives aimed at ensuring that these destroyers continue to be the backbone of our surface combatant fleet.

The seapower portion of the bill also includes $248 million for the refueling and overhaul of the USS Jacksonville, a nuclear submarine that had been scheduled to be decommissioned by the Navy. If this were allowed to occur, the problem is that our submarine force would fall below the levels recommended by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. Today, the requirements for submarines is increasing, especially given the growing role that they play in intelligence gathering. This refueling, which will take place at the Kittery-Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, will add years of useful life to the Jacksonville. It is good news for the Navy, and it is good news for the skilled workers at the shipyard.

Without question, some aspects of the bill reported from the Armed Services Committee are somewhat controversial, and I expect that they will be debated fully here on the Senate floor. But the overwhelming majority of this bill is the product of bipartisan consensus. There is an agreement that we should spare no resources in ensuring that the brave young men and women who proudly wear the uniform have the highest quality training available, the most advanced equipment in the world, and receive the best benefits we can offer. I am proud to say this bill accomplishes those goals.

Again, I express my appreciation to our chairman and our ranking member for their hard work and for their dedicated leadership. I am very proud to serve with them.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, on behalf of the whole committee, I express appreciation to our colleague from Maine. She no longer will be subcommittee chairman on our committee because she is the full chairman now of one of the major subcommittees of the Senate as a whole, but she is very active.

I wonder if I might ask the distinguished Senator from Maine, the issue of transformation by the Secretary of Defense was addressed in the House and to some extent addressed by our committee. But basically, the committee over which the distinguished Senator from Maine is chairman has the primary oversight responsibilities. In the course of the debate on the floor, I hope—if not now at some point—she will give some guidance to me as to how this committee can address such amendments as may be brought up in the context of responsibilities of our committee. If she could find some time to consult with me on that, I would be very appreciative, as will the Senator from Michigan.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, if I could respond to the inquiry of the distinguished chairman of the committee, during the past several weeks, since the Secretary sent his plan to the Hill, my staff, in close cooperation with other staff members on the Committee on Governmental Affairs, including Senator Levin's committee staff and others, have been working to see if we could reach consensus on a proposal. Frankly, I believe the Secretary's initial proposal goes too far. It is overreaching.
But there are certain authorities that would be extremely helpful to the Secretary as he attempts to make sure we can reward civilian employees with higher pay and streamline the personnel process. We came up with a proposal. We are still assessing the import that the proposal might have. In addition, there may be some procedural barriers in our ability to bring forward the amendments. So we are continuing to work closely to see if we can come up with a consensus. I hope to have an answer shortly for the chairman.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank our colleague on this point. But bear in mind that there are some in the House bill. We will have to deal with them in conference.

To the extent we can have any interlocking on this bill with those provisions of the House bill, which the Senator's committee and our committee and the Senate as a whole feels should be incorporated into the bill, it would be helpful to do that.

I think in general the Secretary of Defense is on the right track in the sense that when you stop to think, today's military is so different than it was 2 or 3 years or even a decade ago.

As I mentioned earlier, before the Senator from Maine joined us on the floor, the total force today is not only the uniformed men and women of the Armed Forces, they are very much part of the civilian force. There are thousands of civilians over in the Iraqi situation and in Afghanistan right now taking risks commensurate with those of uniformed personnel and performing services to give infrastructure to the military to do their missions.

The Secretary of Defense has to have some flexibility in how he assigns and reassigns civilian personnel. I hope we could achieve some measure commensurate with what the wisdom of the Congress enabled the Secretary of Homeland Defense to have. It seems to me that is sort of the bar at which we ought to look.

Might I inquire, does the Senator share views similar to the Senator from Virginia?

Ms. COLLINS. I do. The Senator from Virginia has put it very well, and I am eager to craft legislation—and believe we have done so—that would give the Secretary the flexibility he needs for the Department to have an efficient, effective, and fair personnel system for the civilian employees. I note, however, that the Department has some 700,000 civilian employees. So we need to make sure we are doing this in an appropriate manner. Some of the provisions submitted by the Secretary go far beyond the authority that we gave to the new Secretary of Homeland Security.

So we are looking at it, and we have come up with draft legislation language that we are sharing and have been sharing with the staff of the Senator from Virginia and with other interested parties. My hope—it may be a vague hope—is that we could have a consensus document that would provide bipartisan support and the support of some of the employee organizations. I don't know whether that is going to be the case. But that certainly is my hope.

If I might make one other point, I simply point out the obvious to all of us—that this legislation is the train moving through at this point in time. The probability of its passage by the Chamber is quite high. These provisions, as the Senator says, are of great concern to those groups, whether they are union or other groups, that act on behalf of the very courageous and wonderful cadre of civilians without which we couldn't have a defense.

The likelihood of a separate bill moving forward at a later point in this session has a question mark, which is obvious to my colleague from Maine and my colleague from Michigan. To the extent we can reach some consensus and attach it to this bill is the extent to which maybe we can make some progress at this point in a timely likelihood of making progress at this point in time.

I yield the floor.