Saxby Chambliss

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I express my support for the allocation of funds from the discretionary grants program to high-threat urban areas, including the city of Atlanta. Atlanta was not recognized by the Department of Homeland Security as a high-threat urban area in the department's last round of funding grants based on the department's grant criteria.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank my distinguished colleagues from Georgia and Indiana for their questions and concerns pertaining to this matter. In response to my colleague from Georgia; not only is it true that Atlanta is the largest city in the South, with the busiest airport in the nation as defined by the largest volume of air carriers in the industry and home of the CDC and the U.S. Army Forces Command headquarters, it is also true that Georgia is the tenth largest state in the nation based on population and plays host to numerous high profile events. It is extremely important to Atlanta and the state of Georgia that Atlanta receive adequate consideration for funding from the DHS via the high- threat urban area grant program in the future to better ensure a secure city of Atlanta and the state of Georgia. I thank my distinguished colleagues from Georgia and Indiana. emergency warnings

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Georgia for his question and concern about this matter. It is true, that training missions pertaining to disaster preparedness are currently taking place at Fort Gordon. I would also like to point out to my colleague from Georgia that numerous other local State and Federal agencies including partnerships between the Eisenhower Army Medical Center, the Medical College of Georgia, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency have all played an active role in this training.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Kennedy amendment. A-76 is a program that was implemented by the Government several years ago to try to make sure that contracts let in the public and the private sector are actually saving money. Are the taxpayers getting the best bang for the buck that was intended at the time the contracts were let? Folks in the public sector have never minded competing with the private sector for any type of public contract. The problem with A-76 is, when they go back and review those contracts that have been let, it seems they always go review the contracts that were awarded to the public sector and they never go to the contracts that were awarded to the private sector. If A-76 is going to be fairly applied to the public sector, it ought to be applied to the private sector. That is simply not the way A-76 has worked over the years. I complained about the previous administration on this issue, I complain to the current administration on this issue, and we have simply seen no change in the policy with respect to A-76. Competition is what makes our country go round and round in the business community. Nobody minds competing if they are in business for the right reason. And when it comes, in my case, to the instances where I have the most experience--in the public depots--we have never minded competing with the private sector for a contract when it comes to repair or improvement of our military weapons systems. But every time we get awarded a public contract, it seems that 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years out, all of a sudden we are seeing an A-76 that is submitted and the folks come in and review the contract that has been awarded to the public depot, while, on the other side of that coin, the dozens and dozens and dozens and billions of dollars in contracts that are awarded to the private sector are never subject to the A-76 review. Senator Kennedy's amendment goes a long way toward righting that wrong. I support that amendment. I support making competition open, making competition fair between the public sector and the private sector. And if the administration is not going to take the initiative to do that, and make sure that is the fact of the matter in contracts that are awarded to the public sector, then this is the type of action we have to take. I support the amendment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr President, I rise today in support of Air Force Procurement funds to purchase additional kits for the C-5 Avionics Modernization Program, AMP. The Air Force requested these kits in their Unfunded Priorities List for Fiscal Year 2004, and both the House and Senate Defense authorization bills provided additional funding. These funds would be used to help put the AMP installation back on schedule to be completed by fiscal year 2007. The Senate defense authorization bill includes a requirement to update the Mobility Requirements Study. I believe this study will almost certainly conclude that we do not have enough airlift capability to support our requirements. With this in mind, now is not the time to decommission any airlift assets. We are currently retiring C-141 aircraft. And the C-17 is a magnificent plane which has performed exceptionally well in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. This year's budget provides for 11 new C-17s, nevertheless we cannot purchase C-17s fast enough to fulfill our airlift requirements--that is why we need this C-5 avionics modernization program. This installation will extend the life and improve the capability of C-5s as well as contribute to our national defense for years to come. The Air Force has purchased 10 AMP kits to date. The President's budget request only proposed funding for 18 kits. With the addition of monies to purchase more kits, the Air Force can achieve its most desirable schedule for purchasing kits and enhancing the C-5 fleet. The program is currently ahead of schedule and has performed exceptionally well in testing. The need for the C-5s capabilities is very clear. The C-5 carried about half of all the cargo, 48 percent, in both Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom--flying 28 percent of the sorties in Iraqi Freedom and 35 percent of the sorties in Enduring Freedom. The AMP is necessary for every plane in the fleet. In fact, General Handy, the Commander of U.S. Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command, has said that he strongly supports additional funding and wants to see the C-5 fleet get the avionics and safety upgrades of AMP as soon as possible. The AMP modification will make the fleet compliant with the new Global Air Traffic Management standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organization. By making the planes compliant with the new Global, GATM, standards, the C-5 can use shorter flight paths and consume less fuel, thus operating more efficiently and will be cheaper to maintain. Even if the Air Force decides to retire some of the older C-5s in the next 10 years, or move them completely to the Guard and Reserve, the planes must have these upgrades to be viable and safe in high-density flight areas, in particular Europe and the Pacific. These planes will be less expensive to maintain for their lifespan of flight.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. As my colleague from Alaska has suggested, the APTO has entered a public-private collaborative project with the Southern Hydrogen Fuel Cell Research Partnership, which has then entered into a further agreement with the Georgia Tech Research Institute. This Georgia-based collaborative advances the national interest in the study of hydrogen-powered vehicles and fueling system designs. The APTO also hopes to accelerate the development of hydrogen power technology to determine whether it is feasible for both military and commercial use. Because of the importance of this project, I urge the Air Force to continue to support this important initiative.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, and I yield the floor. SAC Position on Objective Force Cannon

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the mission of the U.S. Air Force, USAF, Advanced Power Transformation Office, APTO, at Robins Air Force Base in Georgia. This transformation office was established to advise and assist military installations all over the world in their development of alternative fueled vehicles.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, as Atlanta's first black mayor, Maynard Jackson dedicated his career and his life to healing the racial inequalities that surrounded him and ensuring that the city of Atlanta was a thriving, inclusive community. Working to expand Hartsfield International Airport, Maynard fought for equal treatment for minority workers and businesses. He sought to bring diversity to government as well as Atlanta's business community. Through the equality he sought for all racial groups, he was able to foster economic expansion and growth for Atlanta and greater equality for her citizens. Working to secure the 1996 Olympics, Maynard ensured that Atlanta shined for the world and was recognized as a city that offered opportunity for everyone regardless of race or socio-economic class. Serving as the president of the National Conference of Democratic Mayors and the National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials, he became a role model for young African Americans hoping to someday make their mark on this world and worked tirelessly to improve interracial relationships in the South's largest city. His contributions and accomplishments to help our State thrive economically and to expand opportunities for minorities will be remembered for generations to come. The legacy he leaves behind is one of a greater respect for all people, greater opportunity for all people and greater hope for the world. Our thoughts and prayers are with his loved ones left behind, and his memory will forever be with us.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada and my friend Senator Reed for being gracious enough to let me speak on this bill. All of us who have served in this body over the past several years, whether it is during our campaigns, going back home for town halls, or visiting home over the weekends, have talked about the need for a prescription drug benefit within Medicare. We all agree on that. I am very pleased that this week, as well as all of next week, we will be debating this issue regarding the inclusion of a prescription drug benefit within Medicare and the overall improvement of Medicare. I am also very pleased that the particular bill that came out of the committee has certain options available for seniors in it. The one thing we tend to do from a legislative perspective is to put mandates and dictates on people, particularly when dealing with health care. This particular bill does not do that. There are significant options in this bill that Medicare beneficiaries are going to have with respect to a prescription drug benefit. I think having these options in place is going to put competition in place within Medicare and allow the marketplace to work. There are senior citizens today that we all refer to, and now I would like to concentrate on. I am talking about those low-income senior citizens who have high drug costs that need to be taken care of. While I remain positive that we are developing a bill--and there are a lot of positive things within this bill--I am very concerned that we are reaching beyond what most of us in this body have talked about over the last several years with respect to a prescription drug benefit; We are going way above and beyond providing that benefit just for those low- income, high-monthly-drug-cost individuals who so desperately need this benefit. The reason I am so concerned is that from a fiscally responsible standpoint, it is incumbent on us, as Members of this body and as members of the House, that we do not overreach and put a burden on the young people in this country. I don't want them coming back to us one day and saying, ``What in the world did you folks do to us in 2003 by imposing such a heavy financial burden on Medicare? Because of this prescription drug benefit, Medicare cannot remain solvent without increasing payments going into Medicare.'' I have strong concerns that we are overreaching with this bill. That is why I am so pleased the Senator from Nebraska, the Presiding Officer today, and the Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign, who have studied this issue and have developed a substitute which may be offered as an amendment. I look forward to having a healthy debate working with their language in addition to the base bill coming out of committee. It is my sincere hope that we can find the right answers, and at the same time, continue to serve and provide a benefit to those people who so desperately need it. There is another issue that I want to make sure we are very deliberate about and that we cover, and that is the issue regarding the ability of our pharmacists, particularly in rural areas, to participate in this program. We cannot afford to have a one-size-fits-all benefit that allows individuals to go straight to the manufacturing source for their benefits under this plan. These pharmacists, particularly in rural areas, deal with individual patients and customers on a daily basis. They provide a service that not only benefits the patient and the customer but benefits Medicare. Pharmacists give advice and counsel regarding the drugs that have been prescribed for them, and I think without question will save millions of dollars in future years in this program within Medicare. Lastly, I could not stand up and talk about a prescription drug benefit without recognizing that our drug companies over the years--and I happened to be sitting in the chair yesterday when Senator Dorgan was talking about this, and Senator Dorgan is exactly right--have stepped up to serve seniors by providing significant amounts of drugs to low- income individuals who simply could not afford to buy those drugs. These companies offer monetary discounts on large quantities of drugs to seniors involved in their plans. One of those companies, Pfizer, happened to be in my office today reiterated exactly what they have done. This is a very positive thing we should all remember when we are talking about our drug companies. As we move forward with this bill for the next 2 weeks, I remain very cautious about where we are going to be at the end of the day. We do have to make sure that we have a healthy debate in light of the fact that we do have to provide a prescription drug benefit. We know a bill is going to pass, but we certainly need to send the right bill into conference with the House, so that when it comes out of conference it benefits those folks who need it most, those low-income individuals with enormous monthly drug bills. We should be able to look these young pages in the eye and say we did not saddle them with a burden that will be unaffordable years from now. So I thank the Senator from Nevada for letting me interrupt and the Senator from Rhode Island for letting me come in and give my speech now. I look forward to the debate over the next 10 days as we conclude this at the end of next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. That is correct.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague Senator Miller of Georgia, that would amend the Medicare portion of the Social Security Act to exclude brachytherapy devices from the prospective payment system for outpatient hospital services under the Medicare Program. Currently, the number of devices reimbursed by Medicare is one set number and non- specific to the prostate cancer patient. Prostate cancer accounts for 43 percent of all cancers found in men-- more than triple the rate of lung cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 221,000 men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2003 and approximately 27,000 of these men will die as a result. The American Cancer Society also estimates that about 5,700 men diagnosed will be from Georgia and nearly 700 of them may die. This legislation will help some of these men fight and survive this indiscriminate killer. Over 130,000 men and their sons nationwide have been treated with brachytherapy Theraseeds to date. Brachytherapy is an important form of radiation treatment for prostate cancer in which radioactive ``seeds'' are implanted into the patient. While there are several ways to treat prostate cancer, patients need the freedom to choose the treatment that best suits them and their situation. Tremendous variations exist that may effect the clinical requirements for cancer patients using brachytherapy theraseeds, including variations in the types of radioactive isotopes, as well as the number and radioactive intensity of the seeds. The brachytherapy community indicates that these variations result in considerable differences in total brachytherapy costs among patients, varying from several hundred dollars to over $10,000 per patient. Prostate brachytherapy is different from many other clinical interventions because of the dramatic variability in the type, number and radioactivity of brachytherapy seeds needed to treat each patient. This variability is due to differences in the clinical presentation from patient to patient, including the type, staging, and size of a patient's cancer. This variability also results in a broad range of costs per patient. This legislation will allow a more fair reimbursement for physicians who are using brachytherapy to treat prostate cancer patients. This bill will also allow Medicare patients to receive another type of therapy when making decisions and dealing with the reality of being diagnosed with prostate cancer. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this piece of legislation so that men suffering with prostate cancer will have more coverage under Medicare should they choose brachytherapy for their treatment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation, along with my colleague Senator Miller of Georgia, that would amend the Medicare portion of the Social Security Act to exclude brachytherapy devices from the prospective payment system for outpatient hospital services under the Medicare Program. Currently, the number of devices reimbursed by Medicare is one set number and non- specific to the prostate cancer patient. Prostate cancer accounts for 43 percent of all cancers found in men-- more than triple the rate of lung cancer. The American Cancer Society estimates that nearly 221,000 men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2003 and approximately 27,000 of these men will die as a result. The American Cancer Society also estimates that about 5,700 men diagnosed will be from Georgia and nearly 700 of them may die. This legislation will help some of these men fight and survive this indiscriminate killer. Over 130,000 men and their sons nationwide have been treated with brachytherapy Theraseeds to date. Brachytherapy is an important form of radiation treatment for prostate cancer in which radioactive ``seeds'' are implanted into the patient. While there are several ways to treat prostate cancer, patients need the freedom to choose the treatment that best suits them and their situation. Tremendous variations exist that may effect the clinical requirements for cancer patients using brachytherapy theraseeds, including variations in the types of radioactive isotopes, as well as the number and radioactive intensity of the seeds. The brachytherapy community indicates that these variations result in considerable differences in total brachytherapy costs among patients, varying from several hundred dollars to over $10,000 per patient. Prostate brachytherapy is different from many other clinical interventions because of the dramatic variability in the type, number and radioactivity of brachytherapy seeds needed to treat each patient. This variability is due to differences in the clinical presentation from patient to patient, including the type, staging, and size of a patient's cancer. This variability also results in a broad range of costs per patient. This legislation will allow a more fair reimbursement for physicians who are using brachytherapy to treat prostate cancer patients. This bill will also allow Medicare patients to receive another type of therapy when making decisions and dealing with the reality of being diagnosed with prostate cancer. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this piece of legislation so that men suffering with prostate cancer will have more coverage under Medicare should they choose brachytherapy for their treatment.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend the outstanding hard work, dedication, and team work of the Colquitt County High School baseball team for winning this year's State championship. This week, the Colquitt County Packers won the Georgia High School Association's Class AAAAA State championship by a stunning victory at Ike Aultman Field, and I couldn't be more proud. This is an exceptional accomplishment not only for the team and high school, but also for the entire Colquitt County community. Winning this year's State championship was the first Packer State championship since 1997 when the team defeated Lassiter High in three games for the first baseball title in Packer history. I am so proud of each and every team member for their great success. I am especially proud of Packer head coach Jerry Croft for his leadership, devotion, and guidance. Because Colquitt County has been my home for over 30 years, it gives me great pleasure to share this huge accomplishment of the Packers with my colleagues in the Senate and with the American people.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act. With the introduction of this important legislation, we are able to acknowledge our Nation's rich heritage of hunting. The purpose of this bill is to pass that legacy on to future generations by protecting and preserving the rights of our Nation's sportsmen and women. In 2001 over 13 million Americans contributed over $20.6 billion to the U.S. economy while hunting--a true recreational activity. Many believe that in order to hunt you must own land, but that is not true. I believe that hunting should be available as a recreational activity for everyone. I have been an avid outdoor sportsman since my early adulthood. I am also an avid conservationist, like most other hunters. Mr. President, recreational hunting provides many opportunities to spend valuable time with children, just as I do with my son. He has been hunting since he was a young boy where he discovered and learned to appreciate one of the Earth's greatest treasures, nature. Over the years, hunters have contributed billions of dollars to wildlife conservation, by purchasing licenses, permits, and stamps, as well as paying excise taxes on goods used by hunters. Since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt, father of the conservation movement, sportsmen and women have been and will continue to be some of the greatest supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation practices in the U.S. Hunters need to be recognized for the vital role they play in conservation in this country. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act will do just that. This bill formalizes a policy by which the Federal Government will support, promote, and enhance recreational hunting opportunities, as permitted under State and Federal law. Further, the bill mandates that Federal public land and water are to be open to access and use for recreational hunting where and when appropriate. I should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest that we open all national parks to hunting. As I mentioned, the goal is simple--I want recreational hunting on our public land to be available to the citizens of this country where and when appropriate. It is crucial that the tradition of hunting is protected and that the valuable contributions that hunters have made to conservation in this country are recognized. And, we want to ensure that Federal land management decisions and their actions result in a `no net loss of hunting opportunities'' on our public lands. This bill allows Congress to address this issue and to honor our Nation's sportsmen and women.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 209, I voted no. It was my intention to vote aye. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome. (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunting Heritage Protection Act. With the introduction of this important legislation, we are able to acknowledge our Nation's rich heritage of hunting. The purpose of this bill is to pass that legacy on to future generations by protecting and preserving the rights of our Nation's sportsmen and women. In 2001 over 13 million Americans contributed over $20.6 billion to the U.S. economy while hunting--a true recreational activity. Many believe that in order to hunt you must own land, but that is not true. I believe that hunting should be available as a recreational activity for everyone. I have been an avid outdoor sportsman since my early adulthood. I am also an avid conservationist, like most other hunters. Mr. President, recreational hunting provides many opportunities to spend valuable time with children, just as I do with my son. He has been hunting since he was a young boy where he discovered and learned to appreciate one of the Earth's greatest treasures, nature. Over the years, hunters have contributed billions of dollars to wildlife conservation, by purchasing licenses, permits, and stamps, as well as paying excise taxes on goods used by hunters. Since the time of President Teddy Roosevelt, father of the conservation movement, sportsmen and women have been and will continue to be some of the greatest supporters of sound wildlife management and conservation practices in the U.S. Hunters need to be recognized for the vital role they play in conservation in this country. The Hunting Heritage Protection Act will do just that. This bill formalizes a policy by which the Federal Government will support, promote, and enhance recreational hunting opportunities, as permitted under State and Federal law. Further, the bill mandates that Federal public land and water are to be open to access and use for recreational hunting where and when appropriate. I should clarify and stress that this bill does not suggest that we open all national parks to hunting. As I mentioned, the goal is simple--I want recreational hunting on our public land to be available to the citizens of this country where and when appropriate. It is crucial that the tradition of hunting is protected and that the valuable contributions that hunters have made to conservation in this country are recognized. And, we want to ensure that Federal land management decisions and their actions result in a `no net loss of hunting opportunities'' on our public lands. This bill allows Congress to address this issue and to honor our Nation's sportsmen and women.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I am pleased to support this amendment to provide for the men and women who serve in our armed forces. I particularly want to express my heart-felt appreciation to the families of servicemen who gave their lives in our fight for freedom and victory in Iraq. This amendment accomplishes three purposes. First, for permanent residents who serve honorably in our Armed Forces, it changes the waiting period from 3 years to 2 years of service in order to begin the naturalization process. This provision also requires the Department of Defense to formulate a policy to ease and facilitate naturalization for these men and women. Secondly, the amendment provides a process of immediate naturalization for our selected reserve Armed Forces serving during a time of hostility. In today's military, we rely heavily and strategically on our reservists, and it is only fair to extend this benefit to reserve as well as active duty personnel serving our country in a time of war. Thirdly, the amendment benefits the immediate family members of servicemen who are U.S. citizens killed in combat. These immediate family members may be non-immigrants who rely on the citizenship of their spouse, father or mother, or even son or daughter to adjust their status to become permanent residents and eventually citizens themselves. In honor and respect of U.S. citizens who die in combat, this amendment will provide their families the temporary ability to continue the immigration process. This amendment further compliments a bill that my Georgia colleague, Senator Miller, and I passed in the Senate 2 months ago. That legislation expedites the granting of posthumous citizenship to immigrant soldiers who die in combat. Our bill and the amendment offered today reduce the waiting periods, eliminate the red tape, and reward those who serve in our armed services and especially those who make the ultimate sacrifice while defending freedom. Today we will adopt an amendment to further respect servicemen like 19-year-old Diego Rincon from Conyers, GA, who was killed in Iraq. These members of our armed forces, whether citizens or permanent residents, and their families should be fully appreciated for their service to our country, and in some cases, receive the benefit of continuing the process to become citizens.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I want to discuss Senator Reid's amendment, which would permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability to receive both their full military retired pay and disability compensation. On March 27, I held a Personnel Subcommittee hearing with my colleague Senator Nelson specifically about this issue of concurrent receipt. Our colleague, Senator Reid of Nevada, was the first to testify, and he was followed by Undersecretaries Dan Cooper and Charlie Able and several experts from the General Accounting Office, Congressional Budget Office, and various veterans groups. There was a lot to learn about the intricacies of Federal benefits and compensation, but ultimately the hearing reinforced the fact that this legislation is extraordinarily complex and expensive. All said though, I intend to support this amendment because this compensation is long overdue for our Nations' veterans. It is unfortunate that the cost of concurrent receipt is so high, but America's veterans have earned their benefits through their long service to our Nation. Last year, Congress funded a form of special compensation for retired soldiers who had certain combat-related disabilities. The first check for this limited compensation will be cut on July 1, 2003, and this is good news for those veterans who qualify. This is an important step in the fight to help our nation's veterans but we must do more. These benefits for veterans and their families are important and we should honor those who interrupted their lives and the lives of their families to defend this country and preserve our freedom.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment in question. I don't think anyone in the U.S. Senate is looking forward to the upcoming BRAC round in 2005, including myself. BRAC will have a negative impact in Georgia should any of the bases or posts in my state be closed. However, I am convinced fiscal realities and some over capacity issues exist which we absolutely need to address, and if we don't do it now we will have to do it later. Putting off the BRAC 2005 round now will only prolong the anxiety in our communities surrounding our military installations. The Department of Defense has stated that they are as much as 25 percent over-capitalized in their installations across the country. I do not agree with that assessment but I believe that if we are serious about transforming the military for the 21st Century then we need to reduce capacity to more closely equal our force structure needs. I personally have 13 major defense installations in my State of Georgia, and we are preparing now for the 2005 BRAC round. We have a tremendous amount to be proud of at every one of our Georgia installations and I never pass up an opportunity to say how proud I am of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, Department of Defense (DoD) civilians--and their families--who serve at our bases. They have served our country well. And I believe our bases in Georgia are essential to the national security of the United States. All you have to do is look at the recent conflict in Iraq and see that Georgia's bases were all so strategically important. Georgia will prove that to the BRAC Commission when they come to visit us in the coming months.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Massachusetts for their comments. I agree that we should not make short-term decisions on these issues, that more precise definitions of ``inherently governmental'' and ``core'' are required to guide competitive sourcing decisions and public-private partnerships, and that the ``streamlined'' procedure OMB is advocating are a step in the wrong direction. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to ensure any revision to A-76 are done carefully and do not discriminate against our Federal workforce. biobased products

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with the administration's approach to competitive sourcing and the revisions to Circular A-76 currently under consideration by the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Currently, ``competitive sourcing'' as defined and interpreted through Circular A-76 is biased against work performed by Government employees. Some examples of this are: 1, there are very limited provisions for work, including work that has been previously outsourced, being competed and returned to the Government, and, 2, any function that has ever been studied for outsourcing is required to be restudied for outsourcing every 5 years. With this in mind, I urge the administration to incorporate provisions in the revised A-76 to be released in the coming months. The following items must be included for our support: One, remove all barriers to moving previously outsourced or ``inherently governmental'' work into Government facilities and develop clear provisions for competing previously outsourced work. The spirit of A-76 should be to have an even flow of workload between public and private facilities and a level playing field for public and private entities upon which they can compete for work. Two, encourage public-private partnerships and establish clear provisions for allowing public-private partnerships to compete for work competitively sourced under A-76. Three, more explicitly define ``inherently governmental'' so that it will be clear which activities are not subject to A-76 studies. Four, eliminate the requirement once an A-76 competition has been awarded to the Government, for the work to be reviewed again every 5 years and subject to recompetition. The option to restudy should remain but the requirement to restudy should be eliminated.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1050, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2004. Before talking about this bill, I wish to comment on what my colleague from South Carolina just talked about with respect to his amendment on health care. I commend both he and Senator Daschle for their leadership on this particular issue. We are in some very difficult times in America from a military perspective. We are calling on our Guard and Reserve more and more every single day. We want to do more to provide the benefits to attract high-quality men and women into the Guard and Reserve and retain them once we get them there. We are getting our fair share of America's finest into the Guard and Reserve, and anything we can do from a benefits standpoint to make sure we continue to do that and to keep them there are issues we certainly need to look at. I personally like the concept of Senator Graham a little better than Senator Daschle's, although I am not in any way critical of Senator Daschle's amendment. What I like about Senator Graham's amendment is that we have a health care benefit within the active military that is called TRICARE. TRICARE is a fairly new health program which provides health care benefits to our active-duty personnel. We have had some problems with TRICARE in getting it implemented, but we have gotten most of those kinks in TRICARE worked out. What Senator Graham's amendment will do versus Senator Daschle's amendment is to strengthen TRICARE, and I think anything we can do to strengthen TRICARE and have it benefit the active duty, as well as the Guard and Reserve, is an approach we ought to use. I commend both Senators. Senator Graham has particularly taken a leadership role with regard to this issue. I certainly have enjoyed working with him on it. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel within the Armed Services Committee, it has been a distinct honor and privilege for this freshman Senator to work with Senator Warner and Senator Levin. They are two men during my 8 years in the House of Representatives for whom I came to have great respect and great admiration, not just for their leadership on armed services issues, but on other matters as well, and to have the opportunity to work with them in the very close way I have had the chance to do over the last several months since becoming a member of the Armed Services Committee has been a distinct pleasure for me. They have certainly worked well together and worked in a bipartisan way within the committee to make sure we did produce a bipartisan bill. America's defense is not a political issue. It is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. These two gentlemen have provided the type of leadership America so desperately likes to see when it comes to any issue, but particularly with respect to defense issues. I commend my ranking member, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. First of all, Senator Nelson is a very gracious and grand American gentleman. The Senator from Nebraska has a number of military installations he represents, and to have the chance to visit with him on issues that are unique to Nebraska versus issues that are unique to Georgia has really been a delight for me. What I have enjoyed doing most of all in working with Senator Nelson is talking about issues that are of concern to our men and women in the military with respect to quality of life, educating their children, paying them greater benefits, whether it is pay raises or health care benefits or whatever. There is no greater champion for the men and women in our military uniforms than Senator Ben Nelson. I have truly enjoyed working with him and am very pleased we were able to craft a section of the Defense Authorization Act for 2004 together, and to do so in a very bipartisan way. The committee recommended authorization of $99.2 billion for military personnel, an increase of $4.8 billion over the fiscal year 2003 authorization. It also approved several key provisions I will outline that fulfill our committee's express goal of continuing our commitment to improving the quality of life for the men and women of the Armed Forces--active duty, Reserve, Guard, and Retired--and their families. S. 1050 authorizes an across-the-board pay raise of 3.7 percent for all military personnel. Additionally, targeted pay raises ranging from 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent are authorized for warrant officers and the Service's most experienced noncommissioned officers. These pay raises, along with existing incentive pays and bonuses, will continue to make careers in the military more attractive and send the message to all active and Reserve component personnel that their service in uniform is invaluable. Following up on the initiative taken by the Senate in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003, the committee recommended permanent increases in the family separation allowance, from $100 to $250 a month, and in hostile fire, imminent danger pay from $150 a month to $250 a month. The subcommittee also supported legislative changes to high deployment pay proposed by DoD that will require close tracking of individual deployments and appropriately compensate those members who are repeatedly called away from their home bases for extended periods of time. These increases recognize the sacrifices made by military personnel and their loved ones who endure separations and the harsh realities of defending the Nation in the global war on terrorism. The committee approved an incentive pay of $100 a month for military personnel stationed in Korea. Arduous working conditions, substandard housing, and tours of duty unaccompanied by family members are hallmarks of duty in Korea. As the Nation marks the fourth and final year of the United States' 50th Anniversary of the Korean War Commemoration, and as the need for continuing vigilance on the Korean Peninsula becomes ever clear, thus additional compensation for service members in Korea is fully justified. The subcommittee members were very concerned about the welfare of survivors of all deceased military personnel--active duty, Reserve, and Retired. The committee accepted our recommendations to double the death gratuity from $6,000 to $12,000 retroactive to 9/11, 2001, and to extend automatic survivor benefit plan benefits to survivors of inactive duty Reservists who die while serving on active duty. The committee responded to requests from the Department of Defense for assistance in force shaping by authorizing a new incentive pay for military personnel in overmanned ratings to encourage them to accept the challenge of converting to ratings and military occupational specialties that are experiencing shortages. The committee responded to concerns about the operation of TRICARE standard, directing the Secretary of Defense to take necessary measures to ensure the adequacy of this TRICARE option. The committee approved a proposal that will authorize unlimited use of military commissaries by qualifying members of the Ready Reserve. The ``citizen soldiers'' of the Guard and Reserve, who have so ably answered the Nation's call, before and after the attack of September 2001, deserve full access to this important benefit of service. The committee authorized additional Army National Guard and Air National Guard full-time support personnel to assist in fielding 12 additional weapons of mass destruction civil support teams. Upon implementation, this will raise the total number of teams nationwide to 44. The committee included a provision that will facilitate medical and dental screening and medical care for members of the Selected Reserve who are assigned to units that have been alerted for mobilization. The committee also included a provision that will ensure that Guard and Reserve leaders are eligible for command responsibility pay. These are only a few highlights of S. 1050 which, I believe, indicate our sincere commitment to our troops and their families. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, I am proud to be a part of ensuring that we meet that commitment. I will take a minute to commend our staff. As many hours as we put in--it is now 7:15 tonight and we will be going later than that--staff put in many more hours than we did. To my committee staffers, Dick Walsh and Patty Lewis, we say thank you for a great job and for all of your hard work and dedication to the men and women in uniform, and to Gary Leeling, who is the Democratic staffer who has worked so closely with Dick and Patty. This has been a joint effort on the part of all three of these staffers. The same way Senator Nelson and I have worked in a bipartisan way, these folks have worked in a bipartisan way. Gary, we say thanks to you for a terrific job on behalf of all of our men and women. Again, I thank Senator Nelson for his outstanding work and his cooperation. It has been a pleasure to work with him. We cannot say enough about the great leadership Senator Warner and Senator Levin, and their service to our country, particularly their service to the men and women who serve in uniform in every branch of our military. They are doing a terrific job of making sure the American military is second to no other military in the world. I yield the floor.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAMBLISS

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on S. 1054, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. This debate on the tax reconciliation bill is necessary and long overdue. I think it is clear that Members on both sides of the aisle agree that our economy is struggling and a growth package is desperately needed. However, there are wide differences of opinion on the contents of the best package and the best way to implement it. I am, and always have been, a proponent of the President's original growth package of $726 billion. Implementing the President's proposed bill would create millions of jobs, increase the gross domestic product, GDP, and personal income, and in the process, stimulate overall growth of our Nation's economy. My home State of Georgia would reap overwhelming benefits from the President's proposal if enacted into law. For instance, between 2004 and 2008, 26,720 additional Georgia citizens would secure jobs; Georgia taxpayers would average $4.2 billion more in disposable income per year; and Georgia taxpayers would average $2.2 billion more in personal saving per year. Between the President's proposal, the House-passed bill and the Senate bill, the Senate bill of $413 billion, which is loaded with tax hikes in the form of offsets, is by far the weakest of the three bills. This bill will do little to stimulate the economy and provide almost no tax relief to the millions of Americans who seek it. While many of the tax reducing provisions contained within this bill are worthwhile and sound, now may not be the best time to go forth with them given the state of our economy and the increasing budget deficit. Tax cuts will significantly improve the American economy, but only if Congress makes wise decisions about which taxes to cut and how to cut them. Addressing the double tax on dividends is a big step in the right direction, but the economy will not reap major benefits unless the tax is reduced in an economically beneficial manner. Several proposed amendments will strengthen this bill, but it has a long way to go for it to be in a form that will truly stimulate the economy and create jobs. I will vote for the passage of this bill, but only for the sake of advancing the process and moving the bill to conference so that it can be improved. Should this bill come out of conference looking much like it does now, I will most likely oppose final passage of the growth and economic stimulus bill.