National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 - Conference Report

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I express my gratitude to the chairman for those remarks and also for his service to the Senate and the country. As chairman of the committee, with his able ranking member, Senator Levin of Michigan, they have produced an extraordinary bill at an extraordinary time.

To think we are now appropriating record amounts for our military defense is appropriate as America faces an act of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and literally commitments around the world. I know this bill is controversial in some respects. It includes in it a provision which I urged in the earlier debate on another bill. That is an increase in the combat pay and family separation allowance for those currently in harm's way, those involved in fighting and waging these wars.

I think that is the right thing to do. This committee was doing the right thing by including it so our men and women in uniform at least have some peace of mind that they know while they are facing imminent danger, while they are separated from their families, we are going to try to give them additional assistance.

I join the Senator from Vermont in his earlier remarks. There are elements about this bill that trouble me. I understand by his remarks that they were elements urged by the House conferees, not the Senate conferees. I honestly agree with him. There is no reason why we should ever have to sacrifice our environment or the treasures of nature to protect America. In those rare situations where national security demands it, there is a law that allows for it. But this bill, unfortunately, goes a step too far, allowing the Department of Defense, I am afraid, to have a waiver from environmental requirements that is not necessary and, frankly, could endanger the environmental security in the name of national security. We could have done better. I hope we address this issue in the future.

There are two specific areas I would like to address that are touched by this bill, but not directly. They relate to the men and women who are currently fighting for this country and risk their lives even as we meet. It is appropriate on Veterans Day that we would be debating this bill. Our hearts go out to not only the men and women in uniform, but to all their families who worry and pray and hope the day will soon come when their loved ones return home.

I worry about what is becoming of the profile of America's military because it is changing. This bill acknowledges it, but we have to continue to acknowledge it. More and more we are dependent on the Guard and Reserve to perform important military functions of our Government.

Currently, about one out of every five fighting persons in Iraq is a member of a Guard or Reserve unit. With the callup that is anticipated in just a few months, that percentage will change dramatically. Over 40 percent of the people on the ground in Iraq fighting for America will be members of Guard and Reserve units. That is a dramatic departure from where we were just a few years ago in the Persian Gulf war when the Guard and Reserve played an important, but limited, role. Now the Guard and Reserve play a much larger role. Senator Warner of Virginia alluded earlier to the concern I have, about the equipment and treatment of the Guard and Reserve who are activated, particularly in light of the tragic incident just a few days ago when an Army Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 16 of our soldiers. Included among them was the pilot Brian Slavenas of Genoa, IL, who will be buried tomorrow.

I looked into this and was concerned that the appropriate equipment had not been committed to this Guard helicopter unit, a unit which comes from both my State of Illinois and the neighboring State of Iowa.

What I learned after an extensive investigation is that, in fact, when the 106th unit was activated to be sent overseas, it was represented they were fully operational and ready to fight. In fact, only 3 of the 14 helicopters had the necessary equipment to defend against shoulder-fired missiles.

When this was discovered, efforts were made to equip the other helicopters as they were being sent overseas, with some success but not complete. In fact, once they arrived in Kuwait in position to go into Iraq, further efforts were made by their commanding officer, Colonel Palumbo, and others to make certain they had the appropriate equipment.

During that period of time when equipment was being secured for these helicopters, they were flying dangerous missions. It troubles me. First, they should not have been activated fully operational when they were not. It should have been discovered at an early point. Second, it troubles me that they were flying on dangerous missions without the necessary protective equipment.

I understand the requirement of war sometimes makes those risks necessary, but considering what we know now about the shoulder-filed missiles and the ordnance ammunition on the ground in Iraq, I think extra precautions should have been taken to equip all of these helicopters before they were put in harm's way.

I trust that will be the standard to follow in terms of helicopters and that literally all Guard and Reserve units will receive the necessary equipment, the same equipment as Regular Army, before they are called into action.

That will be my standard and one I would like to hold this Department of Defense to, in cooperation with this committee.

The last point I wish to make is this: Several weeks ago this Senate considered an amendment I offered to the $87 billion emergency supplemental bill asking the Federal employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserve be held harmless in terms of their salary and income while they serve; that we at least provide for them as much money from the Federal agencies they are leaving as they would have made if they had stayed home.

This is not a radical idea. Dozens of States, local units of government, and private companies do this already across America, but we don't do it for Federal employees, despite the fact that of the over 1.2 million Guard and Reserve people in America today, 10 percent work for the Federal Government. Of those who are currently activated, 23,000 are Federal employees called away from their jobs and away from their families and homes to serve overseas.

By a vote of 96 to 3, we accepted this provision saying that, yes, the Federal Government would treat our activated Guard and Reserve employees the same as State and local governments already do. Then the bill went to conference. Sadly, on a partisan rollcall vote that provision was stripped out of the bill. Many of the same Senators who have come to the floor talking about their devotion to our veterans were not there when we needed them to keep this provision in our conference on the $87 billion appropriations.

I say to my colleagues on the floor, I am going to offer this Reservist Pay Security Act of 2003 again and again. To all my colleagues who stand proudly behind the men and women in uniform, let their votes reflect it. Let their votes reflect that we will treat our Federal employees as State and local government already treat their own. That is only fair.

As America becomes more dependent on the Guard and Reserve, it is only right and just that we stand behind not only the men and women in uniform, but their families so that their income is sustained while they are serving our country and risking their lives.

Madam President, I yield the floor.