[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 8, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6960-S6970]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 936, which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 936) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     1998 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for 
     such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other 
     purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       Cochran/Durbin amendment No. 420, to require a license to 
     export computers with composite theoretical performance equal 
     to or greater than 2,000 million theoretical operations per 
     second.
       Grams amendment No. 422 (to Amendment No. 420), to require 
     the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a 
     study on the availability and potential risks relating to the 
     sale of certain computers.
       Coverdell (for Inhofe/Coverdell/Cleland) amendment No. 423, 
     to define depot-level maintenance and repair, to limit 
     contracting for depot-level maintenance and repair at 
     installations approved for closure or realignment in 1995, 
     and to modify authorities and requirements relating to the 
     performance of core logistics functions.
       Lugar Modified amendment No. 658, to increase (with 
     offsets) the funding, and to improve the authority, for 
     cooperative threat reduction programs and related Department 
     of Energy programs.

  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.

[[Page S6961]]

                           Amendment No. 645

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 645 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton] proposes amendment 
     numbered 645.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Page 217, after line 15, insert the following new subtitle 
     heading:

                    SUBTITLE A--HEALTH CARE SERVICES

       Page 226, after line 2, insert the following new subtitle:

          SUBTITLE B--UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES

     SEC. 711. IMPLEMENTATION OF DESIGNATED PROVIDER AGREEMENTS 
                   FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT FACILITIES.

       (a) Commencement of Health Care Services Under Agreement.--
     Subsection (c) of section 722 of the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201, 
     10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B);
       (2) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Unless''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) The Secretary may modify the effective date 
     established under paragraph (1) for an agreement to permit a 
     transition period of not more than six months between the 
     date on which the agreement is executed by the parties and 
     the date on which the designated provider commences the 
     delivery of health care services under the agreement.''.
       (b) Temporary Continuation of Existing Participation 
     Agreements.--Subsection (d) of such section is amended by 
     inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     including any transitional period provided by the Secretary 
     under paragraph (2) of such subsection''.
       (c) Arbitration.--Subsection (c) of such section is further 
     amended by adding at end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) In the case of a designated provider whose service 
     area has a managed care support contract implemented under 
     the TRICARE program as of September 23, 1996, the Secretary 
     and the designated provider shall submit to binding 
     arbitration if the agreement has not been executed by October 
     1, 1997. The arbitrator, mutually agreed upon by the 
     Secretary and the designated provider, shall be selected from 
     the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator shall 
     develop an agreement that shall be executed by the Secretary 
     and the designated provider by January 1, 1998. 
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the effective date of such 
     agreement shall be not more than six months after the date on 
     which the agreement is executed.''.
       (d) Contracting Out of Primary Care Services.--Subsection 
     (f)(2) of such section is amended by inserting at the end the 
     following new sentence: ``Such limitation on contracting out 
     primary care services shall only apply to contracting out to 
     a health maintenance organization, or to a licensed insurer 
     that is not controlled directly or indirectly by the 
     designated provider, except in the case of primary care 
     contracts between a designated provider and a contractor in 
     force as of September 23, 1996. Subject to the overall 
     enrollment restriction under section 724 and limited to the 
     historical service area of the designated provider, 
     professional service agreements or independent contractor 
     agreements with primary care physicians or groups of primary 
     care physicians, however organized, and employment 
     agreements with such physicians shall not be considered to 
     be the type of contracts that are subject to the 
     limitation of this subsection, so long as the designated 
     provider itself remains at risk under its agreement with 
     the Secretary in the provision of services by any such 
     contracted physicians or groups of physicians.''.
       (e) Uniform Benefit.--Section 723(b) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (PL 104-201, 
     10 USC 1073 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (1) by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, subject to any modification to the 
     effective date the Secretary may provide pursuant to section 
     722(c)(2)'', and
       (2) in subsection (2), by inserting before the period at 
     the end the following: ``, or the effective date of 
     agreements negotiated pursuant to section 722(c)(3)''.

     SEC. 712. LIMITATION ON TOTAL PAYMENTS.

       Section 726(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201, 10 U.S.C. 1073 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     sentence: ``In establishing the ceiling rate for enrollees 
     with the designated providers who are also eligible for the 
     Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed 
     Services, the Secretary of Defense shall take into account 
     the health status of the enrollees.''.

     SEC. 713. CONTINUED ACQUISITION OF REDUCED-COST DRUGS.

       Section 722 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 10 U.S.C. 1073 note) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Continued Acquisition of Reduced-Cost Drugs.--A 
     designated provider shall be treated as part of the 
     Department of Defense for purposes of section 8126 if title 
     38, United States Code, in connection with the provision by 
     the designated provider of health care services to covered 
     beneficiaries pursuant to the participation agreement of the 
     designated provider under section 718(c) of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (Public Law 
     101-510; 42 U.S.C. 248c note) or pursuant to the agreement 
     entered into under subsection (b).''.

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Hutchison of Texas, D'Amato, and Murray be added as cosponsors to the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this amendment refines legislation enacted 
last year to transition the uniformed services treatment facilities 
[USTF's] into the DOD's new health care program called TRICARE.
  I hope that the managers of the bill, Senator Thurmond, chairman of 
the committee, and Senator Kempthorne, chairman of the operative 
subcommittee, will accept it.
  Mr. President, I am proud to have been associated with the USTF's 
since the program's inception over 15 years ago. I was an original 
cosponsor of the amendment offered on this floor in 1981 by the late 
Senator Henry M. ``Scoop'' Jackson that transitioned these former 
public health service hospitals and clinics to facilities of the 
uniformed services to provide health care to dependents of active duty 
personnel as well as military retirees and their dependents. Most 
recently last summer on this floor, I sponsored the amendment that 
provided the future authority for the USTF's to continue providing care 
to military beneficiaries through the integration of their facilities 
into DOD's military health care delivery system.
  The USTF's currently serve about 120,000 beneficiaries at facilities 
located in seven States: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, 
Ohio, Texas, and Washington. The facilities provide high-quality care 
that has been judged by every major study done to date as cost-
effective when compared to CHAMPUS and other DOD health care 
alternatives. The USTF's pioneered managed care principles such as 
enrollment and capitation that have become the hallmarks of the new 
TRICARE program.
  The USTF's are very popular with the beneficiaries, many of whom 
would never consider receiving their health care from any other 
provider. Satisfaction surveys just completed by an independent firm 
conclude that the USTF's as a whole have a 91 percent satisfaction 
rate, 7 percentage points higher than the norm for civilian HMO's. The 
USTF in my State, Pacific Medical Center, enjoys the highest overall 
satisfaction rate of nearly 95 percent. I doubt that any DOD health 
care provider program can match the USTF's for satisfying the medical 
needs of military personnel and their families.
  The introduction of TRICARE, however, has brought the USTF program to 
a crossroads. TRICARE has been operating in my State of Washington for 
over 2 years and started in Texas in November 1995. Its introduction 
has heightened interest within DOD to integrate the USTF's into TRICARE 
to ensure consistent application of the so-called uniform benefit. The 
amendment I offered last year which was enacted as part of the fiscal 
year 1997 National Defense Authorization Act set out the process for 
this integration of the USTF's into TRICARE to protect the beneficiary 
interests as well as to preserve the separate designated status of the 
USTF's. My amendment, which reflected the position passed by the House, 
called for an orderly process for negotiation of new agreements so 
Pacific Medical Center and the other USTF's could continue offering 
high-quality and cost-effective health care to military beneficiaries.
  Despite my earlier amendment's good intentions, unforeseen problems 
have developed, largely because of institutional delays and the Defense 
Department's unconventional interpretation of some of the key 
provisions. Accordingly, I feel compelled to offer an amendment today 
that updates and perfects last year's language.

[[Page S6962]]

  In a similar fashion to last year, my amendment today includes four 
straight-forward provisions already contained in the House-passed 
fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill. It is important to note 
that these four provisions are in every way substantively identical to 
subtitle C of title VII of the House-passed bill.
  The first House-passed provision provides authority for a 6-month 
transition period in the implementation of the new USTF program to 
allow adequate time to educate the beneficiaries. The 6-month 
transition is entirely reasonable given that new TRICARE contracts 
provide at least 7 months for a proper transition. As we learned from 
the TRICARE transition in Washington, a compressed time period for 
transition will cause confusion and frustration for the beneficiaries.
  The second House-passed provision provides authority to continue the 
existing USTF agreements during the transition period. The Seattle and 
Texas USTF's technically lose their statutory designation effective 
October 1 unless they have new agreements executed. But because of 
delays in commencing the negotiations with DOD, these two USTF's will 
not have new agreements implemented by October. An extension of the 
current agreement and all its provisions until the transition period is 
complete seems fair and appropriate.
  The third House provision clarifies that the ceiling for capitation 
payments provided to the USTF's takes into account the health status of 
the enrolled beneficiaries who are under age 65. This reflects last 
year's clear intent that the actuarial benchmark for developing rates 
to reimburse the USTF's should be the health status of the actual USTF 
enrollees, not a national average of military health care patients.
  The fourth and final House provision clarifies last year's provision 
so that USTF's still qualify to purchase pharmaceuticals under the 
preferred pricing levels applicable to military health care providers. 
All parties agree that last year's legislation was not intended to take 
away the right to continued acquisition of these reduced-cost drugs.
  In addition to these four House-passed provisions, my amendment 
includes three other items to ensure that DOD negotiates fairly with 
the USTF's on the new agreements. These provisions would not be 
necessary if the Defense Department were earnestly negotiating in good 
faith with Pacific Medical Center and the Houston, TX, USTF. These two 
facilities are on the firing line because TRICARE is already in their 
regions and they are therefore required by law to have a new agreement 
executed by October 1, 1997. DOD, however, has chosen to negotiate 
first with three other USTF's that will not see TRICARE in their 
regions until mid-1998 at the earliest and consequently do not face the 
same immediacy faced by Seattle and Texas.
  The first new provision tries to prod the negotiations with DOD with 
a requirement for binding arbitration for up to 90 days if DOD and the 
Washington and Texas USTF's do not reach an agreement with DOD by 
October 1, 1997. This arbitration amendment encourages both sides to 
work out their differences without giving extra leverage to either 
side. Without arbitration, DOD has no incentive to negotiate because it 
can literally run the clock out and present the Washington and Texas 
USTF's with a ``take-or-leave-it'' contract in late September just 
before the October 1 deadline arrives.
  Binding arbitration is an eminently fair device to break an impasse 
and push the negotiations to completion by a date certain. The Seattle 
and Houston USTF's are fully prepared to accept the judgment of an 
independent arbiter. If DOD wants to avoid arbitration, the 
Department's Health Affairs Division should commence immediately good-
faith negotiations with Seattle and Houston leading toward a fair 
agreement.
  This was the result the last time Congress threatened to impose 
arbitration to push DOD and the USTF to an agreement. The conference 
report language accompanying the fiscal year 1991 National Defense 
Authorization Act stressed that Congress was prepared to require 
mandatory arbitration if the managed care model was not negotiated by 
DOD and the USTF's by a statutory deadline. This threat of arbitration 
was instrumental in pushing DOD back to the negotiating table.
  The second new provision contained in my amendment clarifies how the 
USTF's can contract out their physician services. The clarification 
permits contracting out to primary care physicians provided the USTF's 
retain all risk and don't exceed their enrollment cap and their 
historical service area. The provision serves the beneficiary interest 
by allowing the USTF's to place primary care physicians where they are 
needed to enhance the convenience and accessibility of care. This 
change will also level the playing field with the TRICARE contractors 
that can contract out their primary care services.
  The third and last new provision in my amendment is a conforming 
change that applies to the uniform benefit, with the accompanying 
higher enrollment fee and higher cost shares, when the new USTF 
agreements are fully implemented. This clarification is needed to 
ensure consistency with the 6-month transition of the arbitration 
period.
  Finally, Mr. President, I implore DOD to respond favorably to the 
request of Pacific Medical Center and the other USTF's for open 
enrollment season so that military retirees can sign up this summer for 
the USTF program. Since DOD did not permit Pacific Medical Center to 
conduct an open season last year, if there is no open enrollment this 
summer the effect will be to deny military retirees a chance to enroll 
in this program for 2 consecutive years. The result is substantial 
pent-up demand and frustration by retirees who are simply looking for 
another choice in meeting their military health care needs. I urge DOD 
to adhere to the request in a recent Washington State congressional 
delegation letter to permit an open season, as clearly provided for in 
the USTF contracts.
  Overall, Mr. President, this set of legislative refinements, as well 
as providing for an open season, should enable the USTF program to 
continue to serve the health care needs of its military beneficiaries. 
I appreciate the committee's understanding and hope it will soon be 
able to accept this amendment. Of course, I urge the full Senate to 
pass it.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we lay aside 
the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 669

  (Purpose: To provide $500,000 for the bioassay testing of veterans 
         exposed to ionizing radiation during military service)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have two amendments I will discuss. 
The first is an amendment numbered 669.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Rockefeller, proposes an amendment numbered 669.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 46, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 220. BIOASSAY TESTING OF VETERANS EXPOSED TO IONIZING 
                   RADIATION DURING MILITARY SERVICE.

       (a) Nuclear Test Personnel Program.--Of the amount provided 
     in section 201(4), $50,000 shall be available for testing 
     described in subsection (b) at the Brookhaven National 
     Laboratory in support of the Nuclear Test Personnel Program 
     conducted by the Defense Special Weapons Agency.
       (b) Covered Testing.--Subsection (a) applies to the third 
     phase of bioassay testing of individuals who are radiation-
     exposed veterans (as defined in section 1112(c)(3) of title 
     38, United States Code) who participated in radiation-risk 
     activities (as defined in such paragraph).

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will be relatively brief and take 
just several hours--just take a few minutes to speak about this. I 
wanted to see if everyone was awake today.
  This is an amendment that would assist atomic veterans. Mr. 
President, I

[[Page S6963]]

actually could talk for several hours about the atomic veterans. But I 
would just say that I think the most moving and most emotional times 
for me as a Senator has been time spent with atomic veterans in 
Minnesota. These are veterans who were asked to go to ground zero 
during the atomic testing in States like Nevada and were put in harm's 
way by our Government, and no one told them what they might be facing, 
and no one gave them protective gear.
  For many of these atomic veterans it has been a nightmare. This all 
started in the 1950's, and for decades many of them have had a pattern 
of illness in their families. I could go on for hours talking about 
what has happened to them, including high incidences of cancer for the 
atomic veterans themselves, and all sorts of problems of cancer and 
deformities with children and grandchildren.
  And to this day they still wait for adequate compensation. They wait 
for justice. I think it is one of the most shameful things that has 
happened in our country. These are veterans.
  I actually want to focus on just one small piece of this amendment. I 
am hoping to be able to receive good support from both Democrats and 
Republicans, and I am hoping this amendment may indeed be accepted. I 
know Congressman Lane Evans has worked on this in the House, and I 
believe this provision has been accepted in the House of 
Representatives.
  This amendment would authorize $500,000 for the third and final phase 
of a Defense Special Weapons Agency program at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory to conduct--this will sound technical, Mr. President, but it 
is actually pretty important--to conduct internal dose reconstructions 
of veterans exposed to ionizing radiation while serving in the Armed 
Forces. DSWA is responsible for providing dose reconstructions for most 
atomic veterans filing claims with the VA. Out of the funding provided 
to DSWA--this, again, is the Defense Special Weapons Agency--for R&D 
under section 201(4), $500,000 would be available for bioassay testing 
at Brookhaven National Laboratory for the purpose of conducting 
internal dose reconstructions of atomic veterans to find out what has 
happened to them.
  That is what this is all about. This program is crucial to atomic 
veterans because it provides the means, I say to my colleague from 
South Carolina, who has been so supportive of veterans, for more 
accurate reconstruction of radiation dosage. This is a vital step in 
ensuring that atomic veterans receive the compensation they deserve and 
in reassuring veterans who did not inhale or ingest radioactive 
particles in quantities sufficient to cause cancer. In other words, 
they need to know where they stand. This is a terribly important test. 
We do not want to eliminate the funding for this. Many veterans who 
have radiogenic diseases have been denied compensation often based on 
flawed dose reconstructions.
  Mr. President, out of the hundreds of thousands of atomic veterans--I 
would like my colleagues to hear this, even if they are not on the 
floor now as they consider how to vote on this--out of the hundreds of 
thousands of atomic veterans, merely 15,000 have filed claims for 
service-connected compensation with the VA based on disability stemming 
from radiogenic diseases. Of these, only 1,438 have been approved, or 
less than 10 percent. Just imagine this, hundreds of thousands of 
atomic veterans, only 15,000 claims, and only a little over 1,000 have 
been approved. Of this low percentage, an indeterminate percentage may 
have had their claims granted for diseases unrelated to radiation 
exposure.
  Mr. President, we have to make sure that we provide funding, a small 
amount of funding within the Department of Defense--that is where we 
have been doing this funding--to make sure that we continue this very 
critical test undertaken for atomic veterans.
  The White House Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments 
found ``that the Government did not create or maintain adequate records 
regarding the exposure of all participants [in nuclear weapons tests 
and] the identity and test locales of all participants.'' This finding 
calls into question the current capability of the Government to come up 
with accurate dose reconstructions on which the approval of claims for 
VA compensation for many atomic veterans depend. Again, the advisory 
committee has said we do not have adequate data. We have not been able 
to keep the records. If we do not have this dose reconstruction done 
well, then a lot of the atomic veterans who deserve compensation for 
the terrible illnesses that have been inflicted upon them or their 
family members are not going to have the chance to get the 
compensation.

  The DSWA program at Brookhaven uses a technology called fission 
tracking analysis. It analyzes the results of urine samples from atomic 
veterans to arrive at internal dose reconstructions. The program seeks 
to improve the technique first used to establish the Marshall 
Islanders' exposure to ionizing radiation from atmospheric nuclear 
testing, the same tests that we have been using with Marshall 
Islanders. During the third and final phase of the program, Brookhaven 
plans to conduct bioassays of atomic veterans and provide technical 
assistance to DSWA in internal dose reconstruction.
  Here is what has happened, here is the reason for this amendment, 
colleagues. Unfortunately, a conflict has now taken place between DOD 
and VA, and it has developed on funding the final phase of the program. 
DSWA declines to continue funding the program because it contends that 
it is not in the business of medical testing, even though the agency 
has performed medical testing for Marshall Islanders. The VA simply 
claims it lacks the necessary funding. In the interests of the atomic 
veterans who served this country bravely and unquestionably, we need to 
end the bickering and ensure the program is carried out to fruition. 
The VFW, the National Association of Atomic Veterans, and the Disabled 
American Veterans agree and strongly back this amendment. It is a 
little bit outrageous that we have this bickering going on and at the 
same time you have these veterans for whom this test is the only way 
that they are ever going to be able to get any compensation.
  Mr. President, in closing, I note that for many years the cover of 
the Atomic Veterans Newsletter, the official publication of the 
National Association of Atomic Veterans, contained the simple but 
eloquent statement: ``The atomic veteran seeks no special favor, simply 
justice.'' Their fight for justice has been too long, it has been too 
hard, and it has been too frustrating. But these patriotic and 
deserving veterans have persevered and they retain their faith in 
America.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in helping atomic veterans 
with their struggle for justice and supporting my amendment. It is a 
matter of simple justice. Mr. President, Congressman Lane Evans, who 
has been such a strong advocate for atomic veterans, has done this on 
the House side. I think the Senate should join in this effort. I think 
it would be absolutely unconscionable if we eliminated this funding for 
this small but very, very important program where we can have adequate 
data as to what kind of radiation dosage these atomic veterans were, in 
fact, vulnerable to, affected by, and what this means for them now. 
That, Mr. President, is the meaning of this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent this amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 668

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to transfer $400,000,000 
 to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to provide funds for veterans' 
                    health care and other purposes)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment number 668.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 668.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC.  . TRANSFER FOR VETERANS' HEALTH CARE AND OTHER 
                   PURPOSES.

       (a) Transfer Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     transfer to the Secretary of

[[Page S6964]]

     Veterans' Affairs $400,000,000 of the funds appropriated for 
     the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1998.
       (b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Funds transferred to the 
     Secretary of Veterans' Affairs shall be for the purpose of 
     providing benefits under the laws administered by the 
     Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, other than compensation and 
     pension benefits provided under Chapters 11 and 13 of title 
     38, United States Code.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment would not be subject to 
any point of order. It authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer 
some $400 million to the VA budget for the health care for veterans.
  Mr. President, this amendment is an effort to ameliorate some damage 
that was done in the budget resolution that--I say to my colleagues, I 
do not think any Senator was really familiar with--made significant 
cuts in VA health care.
  My amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill would, 
again, authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer $400 million from 
the DOD budget to restore cuts in VA discretionary health care 
spending. This amendment responds to the health care needs of veterans 
by restoring some badly needed funding for programs to the fiscal year 
1997 level.
  Mr. President, even with this restoration, chances are remote that 
the VA health care funding for fiscal year 1998 will exceed fiscal year 
1997. We all know--I just want to make this clear to my colleagues--
that we have an aging veteran population. We all know that as more 
veterans live to be over 65 and over 85, there is more of a strain on 
the health care budget. We want to be sure that the cut that took place 
in the budget resolution--which I don't think hardly any Senator was 
aware of, although all of the veterans organizations were aware, and 
there is a fair amount of indignation around the country on this 
question--we want to make sure that these cuts in veterans health care 
don't end up forcing veterans who were either disabled, ill, or poor to 
have to shift from VA health care to other health care. That would be a 
travesty for the veterans and their families, and it would also have 
negative consequences for VA health care in our country.
  Mr. President, it has become clear that the cuts in the veterans' 
discretionary programs that were agreed to as part of the budget 
resolution are going to have some severe, if not devastating, 
consequences on the quality and availability of VA health care for 
disabled and needy veterans. The fiscal year 1998 cuts will limit VA's 
ability to serve all patients entitled to VA health care. If veterans 
health care benefits are delayed because of reduced staffing--you have 
to make your cuts somewhere--or a longer waiting period, then we are 
going to be shortchanging men and women who have risked their lives for 
our country.
  Let me give you some sense of the impact of the $400 million 
reduction in VA discretionary spending in fiscal year 1998. Mr. 
President, to give you some idea about it, a $400 million reduction in 
VA discretionary spending in fiscal year 1998 is roughly equivalent to 
the cost of operating one of the smaller of the VA's 22 integrated 
service networks.
  I held a forum, I say to my colleagues, in May. It was unbelievable. 
We had a huge turnout of veterans representing, I think, all of the 
veterans organizations that I can think of--Vietnam Veterans of 
America, Disabled Americans, Paralyzed Veterans, Military for the 
Purple Heart, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, atomic 
veterans, you name it.
  The Minnesota veterans were unanimous in denouncing the cuts in some 
really essential VA health care resources. Like my colleagues, I 
supported the sense-of-the-Senate amendment that was introduced by 
Senators Daschle, Domenici and Rockefeller on May 21, which called for 
full funding of the VA discretionary programs, including medical care 
for fiscal year 1998. I supported it for two reasons. First, I don't 
think many of us were aware that in the budget resolution there were 
going to be cuts in our investment in resources for VA health care. 
Second, I think it is simply the wrong thing to do. I think there is a 
sacred contract with our veterans, and if we are going to be making 
cuts and do deficit reduction, we ought not to be doing it on their 
backs.
  So, Mr. President, I am convinced that this amendment is appropriate. 
I am convinced that it is really quite appropriate to pass an amendment 
that gives the Secretary of Defense the authorization to authorize this 
transfer of funding because, after all, these veterans were fighting 
for the defense of the Nation. That is what it was all about. I think 
it is critically important that we live up to this commitment.
  Mr. President, let me just finish up again and say to colleagues that 
I am just introducing these amendments because, as I understand this 
process, we are going to have a cloture vote this afternoon and we may 
not have votes for about a day and there will be more time to discuss 
these amendments. At least, that is my understanding. I do want 
colleagues to be familiar with each of them.
  I think that the atomic veterans, unfortunately, have been out of 
sight and out of mind for all too many people in the country. This is a 
critically important amendment to those veterans so that they can know 
what happened to them. That is the very least we can do for those 
veterans, their children and grandchildren.
  On the second amendment, I am absolutely convinced that very few 
Senators were aware of the fact that the budget resolution made these 
cuts. It was all done in good conscience. Some of my closest friends 
worked on the budget resolution and supported it. My amendment simply 
says that we should take $400 million and heal these cuts. My amendment 
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to do that. I know Dr. Ken Kaiser 
came out to Minnesota and met with veterans, and he wasn't aware of 
these cuts. I have not met one person in charge of delivering health 
care for veterans who believes that this can be done in such a way that 
it will not seriously damage the quality of health care. I am not just 
giving some kind of trump speech on the floor of the Senate. This is 
very important. We ought to, at the very least, be able to transfer 
this small amount of money and restore this funding for our VA health 
care.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I see my colleague from 
Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 712

 (Purpose: To express the sense of Congress reaffirming the commitment 
   of the United States to provide quality health care for military 
                               retirees)

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 712.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title VII, add the following:

     SEC. 708. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR 
                   RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Many retired military personnel believe that they were 
     promised lifetime health care in exchange for 20 or more 
     years of service.
       (2) Military retirees are the only Federal Government 
     personnel who have been prevented from using their employer-
     provided health care at or after 65 years of age.
       (3) Military health care has become increasingly difficult 
     to obtain for military retirees as the Department of Defense 
     reduces its health care infrastructure.
       (4) Military retirees deserve to have a health care program 
     at least comparable with that of retirees from civilian 
     employment by the Federal Government.
       (5) The availability of quality, lifetime health care is a 
     critical recruiting incentive for the Armed Forces.
       (6) Quality health care is a critical aspect of the quality 
     of life of the men and women serving in the Armed Forces.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the United States has incurred a moral obligation to 
     provide health care to retirees from service in the Armed 
     Forces;
       (2) it is, therefore, necessary to provide quality, 
     affordable health care to such retirees; and

[[Page S6965]]

       (3) Congress and the President should take steps to address 
     the problems associated with health care for such retirees 
     within two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, one of the reasons I sought membership on 
the Senate Armed Services Committee is my commitment to supporting our 
men and women in the Armed Forces. I am particularly pleased to be the 
ranking Democratic member of the Personnel Subcommittee.
  My focus on that committee has been and will be to improve the 
overall quality of life of our military personnel. Where possible, the 
level of the compensation they receive, improve military health care, 
and expand access to educational benefits.
  One of the areas that I am most concerned about is the availability 
and adequacy of military health care. In particular, I believe this 
Nation has incurred a fundamental responsibility to provide for the 
health care of military retirees. We must adhere to this commitment.
  I am especially concerned about what happens to retirees when they 
reach the age of 65. They are ineligible to participate in TRICARE. In 
addition, as the military begins to close and downsize its military 
treatment facilities, retirees over 65 are unable to seek and obtain 
treatment on a space available basis. Medicare does not currently 
reimburse the Department of Defense for health care services. The 
retirees over 65 are, in effect, being shut out of the medical 
facilities promised to them.
  I am reminded of the quote from one of Wellington's troops: ``In time 
of war and not before, God and soldier men a adore. But in time of 
peace with all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier 
slighted.''
  I know we live in an environment in which resources are constrained. 
We are going to have to make some tough choices between people, 
modernization, and procurement while maintaining readiness. We are 
going to have to strike a balance between these competing priorities. 
But we must not allow budget constraints to force us to slight our 
soldiers. This is morally wrong. We have a sacred responsibility to 
take care of those who took care of us. We have incurred a moral 
obligation to attempt to provide health care to military retirees who 
believed they were promised lifetime health care in exchange for a 
lifetime of military service.
  One alternative is Medicare subvention. It would appear that 
subvention would be fiscally beneficial to Medicare and would improve 
the ability of the Department to provide health care to military 
retirees over 65. However, I have several questions regarding possible 
shortcomings of subvention:
  First, does subvention meet the needs of military retirees over 65 
who do not live near military treatment facilities?
  Second, as the Department continues to reduce its health care 
infrastructure, will maintaining access to all beneficiaries increase 
in difficulty?
  I understand the Department has expressed concern that, under certain 
circumstances, Medicare subvention could result in diminished access to 
military treatment facilities for other DOD health care beneficiaries. 
That raises my third question. Will subvention increase access to some 
beneficiaries at the expense of others? If so, is this what we really 
want?
  Another option that has been discussed is the idea of allowing 
retirees over 65 the option of enrolling in the Federal Employees 
Health Benefit Program [FEHBP].
  The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of 
enrolling Medicare-eligible military retirees in the FEHBP is between 
$3.7 and $4.2 billion. The primary advantage to FEHBP enrollment is the 
ability of beneficiaries to seek and obtain healthcare anywhere in the 
Nation that insurers in the FEHBP provide service. I am concerned about 
additional cost this program would incur especially if offered in 
addition to the benefits currently available to retirees over 65. My 
question: Is there a better way to provide similar levels of service 
while not adding significantly high levels of cost to the Department of 
Defense?
  A third option would be to allow military retirees over 65 to enroll 
in TRICARE. This would require additional resources to be made 
available to military treatment facilities to ensure that all TRICARE 
beneficiaries were guaranteed access. The Armed Services Committee was 
presented with an estimated $274 million shortfall in the budget 
request to fund the Military Health Service System. Frankly, without 
corresponding changes in the TRICARE system, continued enrollment in 
TRICARE will only exacerbate the current difficulties TRICARE faces in 
meeting all the needs of Military Health Service System beneficiaries. 
Under this option, we might also face the prospect of providing new 
access to some at the expense of those presently in the system.
  Mr. President, I know there are significant difficulties involved 
with choosing the optimal approach to addressing military health care 
concerns. We have to deal with this problem. It is one of the highest 
priorities listed by the men and women in the armed forces. It is also 
the highest priority of those who represent the retired military 
population in this nation.
  I believe that a comprehensive approach to reforming the DOD health 
care system is required. In addition to ensuring access to health care 
coverage, it is also necessary to ensure that health care is available 
to beneficiaries wherever they serve or retire.
  In 1995, the Congressional Budget Office prepared a report entitled 
``Restructuring Military Medical Care.'' The report estimated that the 
total cost to the Department of Defense of providing the Federal 
Employees Health Benefit Program for all non-active duty beneficiaries 
ranged between $5.9 billion and $10.7 billion annually depending upon 
the percentage the Government pays for the average premium. The report 
also estimated the total cost of maintaining a wartime combat medicine 
capability for active duty personnel at $6.5 billion. Some have asked 
if it would be feasible to replace the bulk of the Department of 
Defense Health service system with FEHBP while maintaining a combat 
medicine capability given that the Department of Defense spends 
approximately $16 billion per year for health care.
  I sponsored language in the Senate Armed Services Committee report 
that directed the Department of Defense to conduct a study of this 
issue. I believe this is an important step toward gathering the 
necessary information we need to make an intelligent decision which 
honors our commitment to the personnel in the military. We need to know 
what impact this would have on the entire medical infrastructure in the 
military. I hope we can begin to find the answers that will allow us to 
resolve this matter. Our men and women in uniform and those who have 
served deserve nothing less.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues here in the Senate, 
especially my good friend Senator Kempthorne, who is the chairman of 
the Personnel Subcommittee, on this most important matter.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are on the defense authorization bill. 
I have been privileged to listen to a number of presentations. They 
deal with, in many instances, very significant and very important 
issues for the future of this country.
  Mr. President, I rise today to talk about two issues. One is an 
amendment that I intend to offer later in the consideration of this 
bill. The second is to support an amendment that is to be offered by 
Senator Lugar and, I believe, cosponsored by Senator Bingaman and a 
group of others, dealing with the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program 
and the funding for it.
  Before I discuss those two, let me indicate, however, that it is 
curious to see a cloture motion filed on a bill like the defense 
authorization bill this early in the process. A cloture motion suggests 
somehow that we should have a vote cutting off debate when debate has 
hardly begun on this defense authorization bill. This is a very 
significant piece of legislation. There needs

[[Page S6966]]

to be time for significant debate on issues that are very substantial.
  I hope this is not going to be habit forming--filing cloture motions 
virtually at the same pace when a piece of legislation like this comes 
to the floor of the Senate. A desire to shut off debate ought not be 
initiated before there is some demonstration that debate is going to go 
on forever. If a bill is moving at a reasonable pace, there is no 
reason, in my judgment, for anyone to be offering cloture motions or 
shut off debate. I just say that is a curious thing to have happen on 
this bill right at the start of the legislation. I hope that won't be a 
habit.
  Now to the issue of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, Mr. 
President, folks in my hometown, in most cases, won't know much about 
this program because the American people have not been given much 
information about the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. It is kind 
of a foreign title to a program that in most cases benefits the lives 
of every American citizen.
  I want to describe what it is and why it is important and why I 
support the amendment that was offered, I believe, by Senator Lugar, 
along with many other distinguished colleagues, and is now pending 
before the Senate.
  The Cooperative Threat Reduction Program is a program by which we 
engage with our resources under an arms control agreement to help a 
former adversary, the former Soviet Union, now Russia, and its 
surrounding States to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and warheads 
that were previously in place aimed at the United States of America. 
Doing so reduces the threat against our country. I think it makes 
eminent good sense to see a missile destroyed in its silo rather than 
having a missile fired and have to deal with a missile that is flying 
toward a target of the United States.
  Obviously, things have changed dramatically with the Soviet Union now 
being gone, and we now have Russia and other independent States. We are 
dealing with a new world, and we have a cold war that is largely ended. 
We have a circumstance in which we want to work with what had been a 
former adversary to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons that that 
adversary now possesses in concert with the arms control agreements 
that we have already had with them and that we have negotiated and 
signed with that former adversary.
  Mr. President, let me ask unanimous consent to have an object on the 
floor that I might use to demonstrate to my colleagues that this, in 
fact, works.
  Mr. President, I want to show my colleagues a picture. This is a 
picture of some workers in Russia with power saws sawing the wings off 
Russian bombers. These folks are bent over a wing of a bomber sawing 
the wings off Russian bombers. Why are they sawing the wings off 
Russian bombers and sending these bombers, now unable to fly, to the 
boneyard? Because of arms control agreements. They are required under 
arms control agreements to reduce the number of bombers they possess in 
their arsenal.
  A smaller picture shows former Secretary of Defense Perry inspecting 
an SS-24 silo. This is a missile silo in the Ukraine. This silo had 
550-kiloton warheads on top of a missile--nuclear warheads capable of 
being delivered over 6,200 miles. This silo is now empty of warheads. 
There are no nuclear warheads in that silo. And our former Secretary of 
Defense Perry is inspecting a silo that is now cleared of its missile 
and its nuclear warheads.
  Finally, this picture. This is a picture of silo No. 110 near 
Pervomaisk in the Ukraine which held an SS-19 missile. As you can see, 
it is now only a hole. And, in fact, if you saw a later picture you 
would see sunflowers planted where missiles were previously planted 
poised and aimed at the United States of America. This is a hole. The 
hole is now covered up. There is no missile, no warhead. And, in fact, 
sunflowers are now planted there.

  Mr. President, this piece of metal comes from that missile and the 
missile silo. This piece of metal was removed from this missile silo in 
the Ukraine. This little piece of metal is a demonstration of the 
success of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. This was part of 
an armament in the ground on an intercontinental ballistic missile with 
nuclear warheads aimed at the United States of America. Now it is here 
in this Chamber. And where this silo and missile with a warhead used to 
sit there is now planted sunflowers.
  Why? Why at silo 110 near Pervomaisk in the Ukraine is there now a 
planting of sunflowers rather than a nuclear missile or an 
intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead aimed at the 
United States? Because this program works. This program makes sense. 
This program reduces the number of missiles, the number of bombers, and 
the number of nuclear warheads in an arms control agreement. It reduces 
the number of those weapons that previously had been poised to strike 
at the United States of America.
  Let me describe the facts about how this program has worked. We have 
seen the elimination of 212 submarine launchers, 378 intercontinental 
ballistic missile silos, 25 heavy bombers, more than 500 ICBM's.
  Fiscal year 1997: 131 additional ICBM silos--70 of them in Russia, 61 
of them Kazakhstan--and 43 heavy bombers gone under this program; and 
80 submarine launchers, all in Russia, gone; 84 missiles--48 in 
Ukraine, 36 in Russia--gone under this program. In effect, we helped a 
former adversary destroy weapons that had previously been poised and 
aimed at us.
  I can't think of anything that makes more sense than to destroy a 
missile by dismantling its silo, the missile and the warhead, and it is 
gone.
  That is exactly what the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program has 
done. Senators Lugar and Nunn were the authors of this program. Many 
others in the Chamber have worked hard on this program.
  There is an amendment pending that will restore the money for this 
program which is necessary to continue the progress to reduce the 
number of nuclear arms in Russia and the independent states under this 
program. It is a bargain by any stretch. It makes eminent good sense 
for this country to do it.
  I am proud to say that I support the amendment. I commend Senator 
Lugar, Senator Bingaman, and so many others for offering the amendment 
today.
  Mr. President, let me turn then to one other item. We will in the 
context of debating this piece of legislation also discuss whether we 
wish to authorize two additional rounds of military base closings or 
whether we want, to say it another way, create a base realignment and 
closing commission that would recommend, in two rounds, closing certain 
military installations in our country.
  I am not here to support having more capability in military bases 
than we need. That would be wasteful. I understand that. On the other 
hand, we have had three full rounds of base closings and one 
abbreviated round. In the three rounds of closing military 
installations, we have ordered the closure of over 100 military 
installations in this country. My understanding is that only 50 of them 
have been finally and completely closed. We have no accounting at all--
none--of what the costs and the benefits have been from the closings 
that have occurred so far.
  I think it is far better for us to decide that we should finish the 
job on the previous rounds of base closings before we authorize two 
additional rounds.
  I have another motive, obviously. I am concerned about what the 
rounds of base closings that are authorized do to communities in our 
country. We have had a couple of Air Force bases put on the list and 
taken off the list, put on the list and taken off the list. What 
happens in communities when you have a base closing round is that the 
minute your community or your facility is remotely involved in that 
round of base closings, economic growth is stunted and new investment 
is stopped.
  There isn't anyone who will come to Cheyenne, WY, or to Grand Forks, 
ND, or Minot, ND, or Rapid City, SD, or you name it, where they have 
military installations, and say, ``Oh, by the way, there are going to 
be new rounds of base closings here.''
  So what we want to do is make a new investment in the community of 
apartment buildings or commercial property, or a plant here or a plant 
there. That is not the way it works. What they say is, ``Gee, we do not 
know what the future is going to bring.'' You

[[Page S6967]]

might have 30 percent unemployment in that region 2 years from now 
because they might close that military installation, and if they do, 
the last thing I want to have done is to have made an investment in 
that community and find that investment going belly up. It terribly 
stunts economic growth in these communities while you have these base 
closing rounds.
  In fact, at the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, the 
subcommittee of which I am a member, General Fogleman, who indicated in 
response to a question of mine that he would not likely be here when we 
have additional base closing rounds and said he would not recommend 
that we have two additional rounds. If we have additional rounds, and 
he indicated that he felt there would be some overcapacity, we should 
have only one, he said. That would be his recommendation. But I believe 
very strongly that we should not authorize two additional base closing 
rounds in this defense authorization bill for a number of reasons.

  The Congressional Budget Office stated the following. The 
Congressional Budget Office said:

       The Congress could consider authorizing an additional round 
     of base closures if DOD believes there are surplus military 
     capacity after all rounds of BRAC have been carried out. That 
     consideration, however, should follow an interval during 
     which DOD and independent analysts examine the actual impact 
     of measures that have been taken thus far. Such a pause would 
     allow DOD to collect the data necessary to evaluate the 
     effectiveness of initiatives and to determine the actual 
     costs incurred and savings achieved.

  The Congressional Budget Office thinks it would be unwise to initiate 
additional base closing rounds without having the information available 
about what have been the costs and the benefits of the previous three 
rounds. I think we would be wise to heed the admonition of the 
Congressional Budget Office on this issue.
  A good many Senators have expressed an interest in this amendment on 
both sides of the aisle--Senator Daschle, Senator Conrad, Senator Lott, 
Senator Domenici, Senator Feinstein, Senator Dodd, and others. I know 
we will likely have a significant and robust debate when this occurs.
  I simply wanted to alert my colleagues that some of us feel very 
strongly that we should not initiate additional base closing rounds in 
this defense authorization bill until we receive the information that 
we think we should have about costs and benefits on previous rounds.
  Let me close with a word about the subject that I originally 
discussed; that is, the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
  There are those who are critical of the political process, and I 
suppose in many cases justifiably, because there are a lot of things 
that are done in the democratic process that are not efficient, some 
not effective. It is not a very efficient form of government--the best 
form of government but not the most efficient form of government. But I 
say to all of those who question the effectiveness or the efficiency of 
Government that the program called the Cooperative Threat Reduction 
Program in which we help finance the destruction of weapons--bombers, 
missiles, and nuclear warheads--that previously were aimed at the 
United States of America is a program that is a bargain by any standard 
of measure. That makes this world safer; it makes it a better world; 
and to the extent that we can continue this program and fund it the way 
it should be funded, I want to be a part of that. I hope very much we 
can get a vote on the amendment that is now pending, and when we do I 
hope very much the amendment will prevail.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 670

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Defense to transfer $5,000,000 to 
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide funds for outreach and startup 
                   for the school breakfast program)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 670.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 670.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC.  . TRANSFER FOR OUTREACH AND STARTUP FOR THE SCHOOL 
                   BREAKFAST PROGRAM.

       (a) Transfer Required.--In each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 
     2000, 2001, and 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall transfer 
     to the Secretary of Agriculture--
       (1) $5,000,000 of the funds appropriated for the Department 
     of Defense for that fiscal year; and
       (2) any additional amount that the Secretary of Agriculture 
     determines necessary to pay any increase in the cost of the 
     meals provided to children under the school breakfast program 
     as a result of the amendment made by subsection (b).
       (b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Section 4 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1773) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(f) Startup and Expansion Costs.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Eligible school.--The term `eligible school' means a 
     school--
       ``(i) attended by children, a significant percentage of 
     whom are members of low-income families;
       ``(ii)(I) as used with respect to a school breakfast 
     program, that agrees to operate the school breakfast program 
     established or expanded with the assistance provided under 
     this subsection for a period of not less than 3 years; and
       ``(II) as used with respect to a summer food service 
     program for children, that agrees to operate the summer food 
     service program for children established or expanded with the 
     assistance provided under this subsection for a period of not 
     less than 3 years.
       ``(B) Service institution.--The term `service institution' 
     means an institution or organization described in paragraph 
     (1)(B) or (7) of section 13(a) of the National School Lunch 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1761(a)).
       ``(C) Summer food service program for children.--The term 
     `summer food service program for children' means a program 
     authorized by section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1761).
       ``(2) Use of funds.--Out of any amounts made available 
     under section __(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 1998, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     make payments on a competitive basis and in the following 
     order of priority (subject to the other provisions of this 
     subsection), to--
       ``(A) State educational agencies in a substantial number of 
     States for distribution to eligible schools to assist the 
     schools with nonrecurring expenses incurred in--
       ``(i) initiating a school breakfast program under this 
     section; or
       ``(ii) expanding a school breakfast program; and
       ``(B) a substantial number of States for distribution to 
     service institutions to assist the institutions with 
     nonrecurring expenses incurred in--
       ``(i) initiating a summer food service program for 
     children; or
       ``(ii) expanding a summer food service program for 
     children.
       ``(3) Payments additional.--Payments received under this 
     subsection shall be in addition to payments to which State 
     agencies are entitled under subsection (b) of this section 
     and section 13 of the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1761).
       ``(4) State plan.--To be eligible to receive a payment 
     under this subsection, a State educational agency shall 
     submit to the Secretary of Agriculture a plan to initiate or 
     expand school breakfast programs conducted in the State, 
     including a description of the manner in which the agency 
     will provide technical assistance and funding to schools in 
     the State to initiate or expand the programs.
       ``(5) School breakfast program preferences.--In making 
     payments under this subsection for any fiscal year to 
     initiate or expand school breakfast programs, the Secretary 
     shall provide a preference to State educational agencies 
     that--
       ``(A) have in effect a State law that requires the 
     expansion of the programs during the year;
       ``(B) have significant public or private resources that 
     have been assembled to carry out the expansion of the 
     programs during the year;
       ``(C) do not have a school breakfast program available to a 
     large number of low-income children in the State; or
       ``(D) serve an unmet need among low-income children, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       ``(6) Summer food service program preferences.--In making 
     payments under this subsection for any fiscal year to 
     initiate or expand summer food service programs for children, 
     the Secretary shall provide a preference to States--
       ``(A)(i) in which the numbers of children participating in 
     the summer food service program for children represent the 
     lowest

[[Page S6968]]

     percentages of the number of children receiving free or 
     reduced price meals under the school lunch program 
     established under the National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1751 et seq.); or
       ``(ii) that do not have a summer food service program for 
     children available to a large number of low-income children 
     in the State; and
       ``(B) that submit to the Secretary a plan to expand the 
     summer food service programs for children conducted in the 
     State, including a description of--
       ``(i) the manner in which the State will provide technical 
     assistance and funding to service institutions in the State 
     to expand the programs; and
       ``(ii) significant public or private resources that have 
     been assembled to carry out the expansion of the programs 
     during the year.
       ``(7) Recovery and reallocation.--The Secretary shall act 
     in a timely manner to recover and reallocate to other States 
     any amounts provided to a State educational agency or State 
     under this subsection that are not used by the agency or 
     State within a reasonable period (as determined by the 
     Secretary).
       ``(8) Annual application.--The Secretary shall allow States 
     to apply on an annual basis for assistance under this 
     subsection.
       ``(9) Greatest need.--Each State agency and State, in 
     allocating funds within the State, shall give preference for 
     assistance under this subsection to eligible schools and 
     service institutions that demonstrate the greatest need for a 
     school breakfast program or a summer food service program for 
     children, respectively.
       ``(10) Maintenance of effort.--Expenditures of funds from 
     State and local sources for the maintenance of the school 
     breakfast program and the summer food service program for 
     children shall not be diminished as a result of payments 
     received under this subsection.''.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before I go any further, I ask 
unanimous consent that Justin Page, who is an intern, be allowed to be 
in the Chamber during the duration of this debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce some amendments so that my 
colleagues have some knowledge of them. We will get back to them when 
there is more time to debate these amendments.
  The School Breakfast Program was established back in 1966 as a pilot 
program. It was primarily located in rural districts. The idea was that 
children who lived in rural areas with long bus rides might not be able 
to have time to eat breakfast at home. Since then, the School Breakfast 
Program has really become a wonderful program upon which parents and 
students heavily rely. In many families, a single parent is working or 
both parents are working, and school breakfasts are recognized as one 
of the most beneficial nutrition programs we have.
  Let me make it clear that a hungry child cannot learn and will likely 
grow up to be an adult who cannot earn. We are talking about a very 
wise investment. One more time. Sometimes we debate in this Chamber and 
we make issues out to be so complex. This is simple. A hungry child 
cannot learn and later on that child is quite likely to end up being an 
adult who cannot earn.
  To give some context, we still have some 27,000 schools that are not 
able to make breakfast available or that do not make breakfast 
available to eligible students, and 8 million low-income children who 
need breakfast but do not participate. What my amendment does is 
correct an action that we as Congress took which was egregious. In the 
welfare bill that we passed, we eliminated a $5 million fund which was 
an outreach and start-up grant for school breakfast programs. It was 
created in 1990, and it was made permanent in 1994. These outreach 
grants are one-time grants that help States develop school breakfast 
programs.
  Let me be crystal clear as to what is going on here. Every low-income 
student who is eligible for a free lunch is eligible for breakfast as 
well but only 40 percent of those students are able to get the 
assistance they need for a healthy and nutritious breakfast. The $5 
million grant program was eliminated because it was an effective 
catalyst toward school districts expanding both their School Breakfast 
Programs. The welfare bill eliminated it because it was a success.
  Now, why in the world do we want to eliminate a small grant program 
which was such an important tool in providing a nutritious breakfast 
for low-income children in America? What this amendment does is to 
point out that in the budget plan we have $2.6 billion for the Pentagon 
above and beyond what the President requested. Can we not authorize the 
Secretary of Defense to take $5 million out of $2.6 billion more than 
the President even requested and put that into a grant program for 
States and local school districts so they can start up school breakfast 
programs?
  I submit that part of our definition of national security has to be 
the security of local communities--where every child is able to reach 
her and his full potential--because when our children do well, we do 
well. It is unconscionable that we eliminated an effective, crucial $5 
million grant program when so many low-income children who need a 
nutritious and healthy breakfast are not able to have it.
  So this is an amendment which gives the Secretary of Defense the 
authority to transfer to the Secretary of Agriculture $5 million from 
the $2.6 billion above and beyond what the President requested for the 
Pentagon. Is that too much to ask, $5 million to help State and local 
school districts expand the School Breakfast Program so more of the 
vulnerable children in this country can at least have a nutritious 
breakfast? That is what this amendment speaks to. This is amendment 
670.
  Mr. President, I now would ask unanimous consent that this amendment 
be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 666

         (Purpose: To increase funding for Federal Pell Grants)

  Mr. WELLSTONE. I call up amendment 666.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 666.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of subtitle D of title X, add the following:

     SEC.   . TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FEDERAL PELL GRANTS.

       (a) Transfer Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     transfer to the Secretary of Education $2,600,000,000 of the 
     funds appropriated for the Department of Defense for fiscal 
     year 1998.
       (b) Use of Transferred Funds.--Funds transferred to the 
     Secretary of Education pursuant to subsection (a) shall be 
     available to carry out subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a) for fiscal 
     year 1998.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, we have a budget plan that provides an 
excess $2.6 billion to the Pentagon above and beyond what the President 
requested. This amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense to 
invest that $2.6 billion in Pell grants instead of $2.6 billion into 
the Pentagon budget.
  If this amendment passes, we would see the maximum Pell grant go up 
to $3,800, and Pell grants stretch to reach 4,278,000 students.
  This would make a huge difference. There was an excellent piece by 
Larry Gladieux in Monday's New York Times. Gladieux made the argument 
that what is now being proposed--and by the way, I am trying to provide 
a rigorous, if you will, critique of both Republicans' and Democrats' 
plans on this--both the President's plan and what is being done here in 
the Congress through tax deductions and tax credits does not reach 
those families for whom higher education really has not been 
attainable. He pointed out, for example, that if a tax credit program 
is not refundable, many families with incomes under $28,000 and many 
community college students are not going to benefit at all.
  Talk to your financial aid offices. Talk to your students. Talk to 
people in your States. I know this is the case in New Mexico as well. I 
know that Senator Bingaman has been a huge advocate of the Pell Grant 
Program. You talk to many in these community college programs, many of 
whom are older and going back to school, and they will tell you that 
the Pell Grant Program is the most effective, efficient way of meeting 
their needs.
  Mr. President, I do not remember exactly the statistics, but there 
has been something like a flat 8 percent graduation rate for women and 
men coming

[[Page S6969]]

from families with incomes under $20,000 a year since the late 1970's. 
That is a disgrace. We know higher education is key to economic 
success. All of us wish that higher education will be there for our 
children and our grandchildren, but still we have a lot of families for 
whom it is not affordable. The best way to make sure they have the 
assistance they need, the best way to make sure the Pell Grant Program 
can help working families, moderate-income families, even reach into 
the middle-income range, is to expand the Pell Grant Program. I suggest 
that when we have all sorts of reports that there are tens of billions 
of dollars the Pentagon cannot even account for in its expenditures--
Senator Grassley from Iowa has done an excellent job in continuing to 
focus on this issue--and when you have a situation where the Pentagon 
in the budget resolution receives more money than the President even 
requested, it would seem to me we could take that $2.6 billion in 
excess of what is needed or has been requested and instead put it into 
a very successful higher education program which is all about our 
national defense.
  We do not do well as a nation unless we have a skilled work force. As 
we look to the next millennium, when so many of the industries are 
going to be womenmade and manmade--and many of them, Mr. President, 
since you are a strong advocate of small business, are small 
businesses--let us make sure that higher education is affordable. Let 
us do something that will make a huge difference. And one of the things 
we do is take a small amount of money--it is a small amount of money in 
the context of the Pentagon budget--and put it into expanding the Pell 
Grant Program.
  There is not one of my colleagues, Democrat or Republican, who is 
going to hear from the higher education community, the students or 
their families that more of an investment in the Pell Grant Program is 
not extremely important to them. It is very important to the families 
we represent. It is very important to the future of our States. It is 
very important to the future of our country. I look forward to a full 
debate about our priorities as we go forward with this defense 
authorization bill and get back to debate on each of these amendments.
  With that, Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their 
graciousness in letting me introduce these amendments today and I will 
yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the amendment 
offered by Senator Wellstone to reduce defense spending. The budget 
agreement represents what is available for defense spending, not what 
is required. This amendment reduces defense funding below the amount 
that was agreed to by both the congressional and administrative budget 
negotiators.
  Mr. President, we have been down this road before, but it seems that 
some of my colleagues have forgotten where it leads. Those who oppose a 
strong defense often attempt to justify their position by reminding us 
that the cold war is over. They conclude that defense spending should 
be lower because we do not face an obvious danger from a threat like 
the Soviet Union. They make a simple argument. This argument is 
appealing because it provides an easy solution to our funding 
problems--but the argument is wrong and dangerous.
  While our Nation no longer faces a cold war danger, the world is 
still a dangerous place. The belief that continual reductions to 
defense are in order is not only ignoring reality, it also overlooks 
requirements for both present and future force readiness. We ask our 
men and women in uniform to respond to crises all over the world every 
day. Right now, we have United States troops on duty in Bosnia, in the 
skies over Iraq, and on ships at sea near any actual or potential 
trouble spot in the world.
  The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Reimer, testified that,

       Requirements have risen 300 percent. . . . Excessive time 
     away from home is often cited by quality professionals as the 
     reason for their decision to leave the military. It is common 
     to find soldiers that have been away from home . . . for 140, 
     160 or 190 days of this past year.

  The Secretary of the Air Force, Dr. Widnall, testified that,

       Since Desert Storm, we have averaged three to four times 
     the level of overseas deployment as we did during the Cold 
     War.

  The problem remains that we will not require less of our servicemen 
and women. At the same time, some of my colleagues seek to continue to 
reduce defense spending. This is not right. Deployments to trouble 
spots have not slowed down. We have not stopped sending our young 
service people all over the world.
  Arguments are made that the Pentagon could find all the money it 
needs by eliminating wasteful spending. Mr. President, this is probably 
true of many programs, not just defense. No one supports wasteful 
spending. But concerning the Defense Department, Secretary Cohen is 
taking action. He has just finished and delivered the Department's 
report on the Quadrennial Defense Review [QDR], a review of the 
national military strategy, force structure, and assets necessary to 
carry out it out. He has recently established another panel to push the 
Defense Department toward more business-like operations. The Armed 
Services Committee has already held one hearing concerning the QDR. 
More hearings will be held.
  Mr. President we must remember that the QDR is an attempt to define 
our military requirements for our future military security, but we must 
deter wars with ships, planes, and tanks today. There is a price for 
freedom. This is the price for world leadership. As Secretary Cohen 
stated:

       Having highly ready forces that can go anywhere at any time 
     really spells the difference between victory and defeat and 
     it also spells the difference between being a superpower and 
     not being one.

  Mr. President, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment that would intend to cut defense spending. It is absolutely 
necessary that we maintain defense for the security of this Nation. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just a very brief response. I 
appreciate the comments of my colleague from South Carolina. I always 
appreciate what he has to say.
  I do want to point out that one of my amendments--and I am hoping we 
can have some agreement on it--just says we should really follow the 
action of the House and do not eliminate a program within DOD which is 
a critical testing program for atomic veterans to find out what 
happened to them.
  The second amendment I have has a lot to do with defense. It has to 
do with veterans who found out after the fact that in the budget 
resolution we essentially put into effect cuts in veterans' health 
care. I just have to say to all my colleagues, these veterans are very 
much about our national defense. I don't think it is too much out of a 
$2.6 billion excess of what the President and Pentagon even asked for 
to say, look, let's take $400 million and put that into the VA health 
care budget. These veterans are all about our national defense. I think 
this is going to be a critically important vote, and I look forward to 
the debate on it.
  The third amendment I offered was an amendment which dealt with the 
School Breakfast Program. I again have to say, it would seem to me when 
we are talking about $2.6 billion more than what the President asked 
for, it is not so much to take $5 million which is so critical to 
enabling States to start up school breakfast programs and put it 
towards making sure that children have a nutritious breakfast before 
they go to school. This is all about priorities. It is not a question, 
I say to other Senators, of not wanting a strong defense. This is a 
small amount of money we are saying the Secretary might be authorized 
to transfer, a small amount of money with a very big bang.
  I just finished talking about how my Pell grant amendment, too, 
impacts our national defense.
  So, again, these amendments all focus on the $2.6 billion above and 
beyond what the President requested for the Pentagon. These amendments 
say we ought to at least give the Secretary the authority to transfer 
some of the small amount of funding to make sure veterans get the 
health care that they need or to make sure that we re-establish startup 
grants for the School Breakfast Program, to make sure we keep the 
program that we have had for the atomic veterans, and, finally, I

[[Page S6970]]

have raised questions about an investment in education, but it is all 
done within the framework of an excess $2.6 billion. This is a debate 
about priorities, it is not a debate about who is for a strong defense.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since there is no other Senator wishing 
to speak right now, let me say a word about the procedure that we seem 
to be agreed upon of having a cloture vote this afternoon at 3 o'clock. 
I know the majority leader has requested unanimous consent to do that 
and has been granted unanimous consent to do that. I certainly did not 
object. But I have to say, Mr. President, that the procedures in the 
Senate, as is said in Alice in Wonderland, get curiouser and curiouser. 
Having a cloture vote at this stage in our deliberations on this 
Defense authorization bill seems to me the most curious of any 
procedure I can recall.
  We are, as I understand it, being advised by the leadership, the 
majority leadership, Senator Lott, that we do not want any votes on 
this bill until at least 6 o'clock tomorrow evening when the absent 
Members who are in Madrid with the President attending the meeting on 
NATO return. I understand that is a very important meeting, and I 
certainly commend them for being there to attend that. I do not object 
to postponing votes on this important defense authorization bill until 
they return.

  But for us to be, on one hand, being told that we should not vote 
because Members are absent and, on the other hand, being told that we 
should invoke cloture because someone is delaying the Senate in 
concluding action on this bill, the only people delaying the Senate in 
concluding action are the absent Senators or the leadership in trying 
to protect them from votes. So I have great difficulty understanding 
why we are having this cloture vote today.
  Obviously, if that is the majority leader's will or desire, he has 
that right under Senate rules. But for people who try to understand the 
proceedings around the Senate, I think they need to understand that 
invoking cloture does cut off debate. That is the purpose of it. It 
limits the number of amendments each Senator can offer. It limits the 
length of time each Senator can speak. It prevents us from seriously 
considering legitimate proposals that may be made to improve or alter 
this bill.
  So I think it would be a big mistake for us to invoke cloture. As I 
said in my early comment, I think it is really very confusing to this 
Senator to understand why we are having the vote at all. I hope that 
the majority leader will reconsider and vitiate the yeas and nays and 
put off any votes on cloture until such time as there is some evidence 
at least that some Senator is trying to delay action on the bill. I see 
no evidence of that at the present time. I think all of the Senators 
who have come to the floor this morning to offer amendments have had 
those amendments set aside because of their agreement with the majority 
leader's position that we should postpone votes until tomorrow evening 
after our colleagues return from Madrid.
  Mr. President, I wanted to make that statement because I have great 
difficulty understanding myself the procedure that is being followed.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the 
cloture vote scheduled for today will occur at 3 p.m. It is my hope 
that cloture will be invoked so that the Senate can complete action on 
this very important Department of Defense authorization bill this week.
  It is my understanding that perhaps as many as 150 first-degree 
amendments have been filed to the bill. Needless to say, there remains 
a tremendous amount of work to be done in order to complete action this 
week.

                          ____________________