[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1762-S1771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KOSOVO
Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Presiding Officer. I thank the distinguished
Senator from Michigan and my distinguished friend and colleague from
Colorado for their time.
This is sort of a news update on Kosovo, if I could describe it that
way, because several Senators have indicated a strong desire to offer
amendments to this bill in regard to the United States' role in Kosovo.
I hope that we won't do that. We need this bill to be expedited to send
a strong message to our American men and women in uniform. This is not
to say, however, that we do not need a frank discussion of ongoing
discussions about the United States' role in regard to Kosovo.
I have, as of 3 o'clock this afternoon--we are about an hour after
that--the latest report from the peace talks in Rambouillet, France.
Secretary of State Albright has just indicated that:
After 17 days of laborious negotiations, Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright said today that ethnic Albanians have
agreed to sign a Kosovo peace agreement within two weeks but
the Serbs continue to balk at a deal.
I will go on with this very briefly.
According to senior U.S. officials, the Serbs still refuse
to permit ethnic Albanians to have a president and are
unwilling to cooperate with a war crimes tribunal looking
into atrocities against civilians.
* * * * *
At a news conference by the six-nation Contact Group
overseeing the talks, French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine
announced that a new conference on the Kosovo conflict would
be held in France beginning March 15.
So we have a lull. So the peace talks can continue. A cynic might say
we drew a line in the sand. And yet, at another time we have gone
beyond that line in the sand and our credibility is at stake.
Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, called for the
parties to ``use these three weeks, use them to build peace. . . . We
have done a lot here, even if we have not done enough.''
The agreement came 1\1/2\ hours after the deadline for the peace
conference had passed. However, in regard to the Serbs, the news is not
that good, to say the least. Their Deputy Prime Minister has described
the talks as a bust, blaming the United States officials, who he said
``want the blood of the Serbs.''
He said, ``I am afraid the Rambouillet conference failed and we must
say very clearly who is guilty for that. But peace appeared as
elusive''--right during these talks, Mr. President. ``New fighting''--
or continued fighting. Actually, it is old and continued and new
fighting--``broke out between the Yugoslav army troops and the Serb
police and the ethnic Albanian rebels.''
So we still have war.
The reason I brought all of that up is that there was an article in
Monday's Washington Post written by Dr. Henry Kissinger. I think Dr.
Kissinger has pretty well summed up some of the concerns, at least, and
the frustrations that many Senators have in regard to the lack of
clarity in regard to the situation in Kosovo. And, of course, it
affects everything we do in the Balkans, not to mention Bosnia.
Dr. Kissinger said this:
In Bosnia, the exit strategy can be described. The existing
dividing lines can be made permanent. Failure to do so will
require their having to be manned indefinitely unless we
change our objective to self-determination and permit each
ethnic group to decide its own fate.
But in Kosovo, Dr. Kissinger certainly pointed out that option
doesn't exist. There are no ethnic dividing lines and both sides
actually claim the entire territory. Our attitude, the U.S. attitude
toward the Serbs attempts to insist that their claim has been made
plain. It is the threat of bombing. But how do we and NATO react to
Albanian transgressions? Are we prepared to fight both sides and for
how long?
As a matter of fact, Secretary Albright indicated if the Albanians
didn't get along, we could not bomb the Serbs. That seems to me to be a
little bit unprecedented and unique. As a matter of fact, I think it is
a little nutty.
But at any rate, are we prepared to fight both sides and for how
long?
In the face of issues such as these, the unity of the
contact group of powers acting on behalf of NATO is likely to
dissolve. Russia surely will increasingly emerge as the
supporter of the Serbian point of view.
And then Dr. Kissinger goes on, and I will not take the time of the
Senate in regard to his entire statement, but he sums up by saying:
``Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to weaken our
ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North Korea.''
You draw the line in the sand. That time expires, and it is a problem
in terms of our credibility.
The psychological drain may be even more grave. Each time
we make a peripheral deployment, the administration is
constrained to insist that the danger to American forces is
minimal--the Kosovo deployment is officially described as a
``peace implementation force.''
Such comments have two unfortunate consequences: They
increase the impression among Americans that military force
can be used casualty-free,--
And obviously that is a big concern on the part of everyone--
and they send a signal of weakness to potential enemies. For
in the end our forces will be judged on how adequate they are
for peace imposition, not peace implementation.
I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of Dr. Kissinger be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 22, 1999]
No. U.S. Ground Forces for Kosovo
leadership doesn't mean that we must do everything ourselves
(By Henry Kissinger)
President Clinton's announcement that some 4,000 troops
will join a NATO force of 28,000 to help police a Kosovo
agreement faces all those concerned with long-range American
national security policy with a quandary.
Having at one time shared responsibility for national
security policy and the extrication from Vietnam, I am
profoundly uneasy about the proliferation of open-ended
American commitments involving the deployment of U.S. forces.
American forces are in harm's way in Kosovo, Bosnia and the
gulf. They lack both a definition of strategic purpose by
which success can be measured and an exit strategy. In the
case of Kosovo, the concern is that America's leadership
would be impaired by the refusal of Congress to approve
American participation in the NATO force that has come into
being largely as a result of a diplomacy conceived and
spurred by Washington.
Thus, in the end, Congress may feel it has little choice
but to go along. In any event, its formal approval is not
required. But Congress needs to put the administration on
notice that it is uneasy about being repeatedly confronted
with ad hoc military missions. The development and
articulation of a comprehensive strategy is imperative if we
are to avoid being stretched too thin in the face of other
foreseeable and militarily more dangerous challenges.
Before any future deployments take place, we must be able
to answer these questions: What consequences are we seeking
to prevent? What goals are we seeking to achieve? In what way
do they serve the national interest?
President Clinton has justified American troop deployments
in Kosovo on the ground that ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia
threatens ``Europe's stability and future.'' Other
administration spokesmen have compared the challenge to that
of Hitler's threat to European security. Neither statement
does justice to Balkan realities.
The proposed deployment in Kosovo does not deal with any
threat to American security as traditionally conceived. The
threatening escalations sketched by the president--to
Macedonia or Greece and Turkey--are in the long run more
likely to result from the emergence of a Kosovo state.
Nor is the Kosovo problem new. Ethnic conflict has been
endemic in the Balkans for centuries. Waves of conquests have
congealed divisions between ethnic groups and religions,
between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic faiths; between
Christianity and Islam; between the heirs of the Austrian and
Ottoman empires.
Through the centuries, these conflicts have been fought
with unparalleled ferocity because none of the populations
has any experience with--and essentially no belief in--
[[Page S1763]]
Western concepts of toleration. Majority rule and compromise
that underlie most of the proposals for a ``solution'' never
have found an echo in the Balkans.
Moreover, the projected Kosovo agreement is unlikely to
enjoy the support of the parties for a long period of time.
For Serbia, acquiescing under the threat of NATO bombardment,
it involves nearly unprecedented international intercession.
Yugoslavia, a sovereign state, is being asked to cede control
and in time sovereignty of a province containing its national
shrines to foreign military force.
Though President Slobodan Milosevic has much to answer for,
especially in Bosnia, he is less the cause of the conflict in
Kosovo than an expression of it. On the need to retain
Kosovo, Serbian leaders--including Milosevic's domestic
opponents--seem united. For Serbia, current NATO policy means
either dismemberment of the country or postponement of the
conflict to a future date when, according to the NATO
proposal, the future of the province will be decided.
The same attitude governs the Albanian side. The Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) is fighting for independence, not
autonomy. But under the projected agreement, Kosovo, now an
integral part of Serbia, is to be made an autonomous and
self-governing entity within Serbia, which, however, will
remain responsible for external security and even exercise
some unspecified internal police functions. A plebiscite at
the end of three years is to determine the region's future.
The KLA is certain to try to use the cease-fire to expel
the last Serbian influences from the province and drag its
feet on giving up its arms. And if NATO resists, it may come
under attack itself--perhaps from both sides. What is
described by the administration as a ``strong peace
agreement'' is likely to be at best the overture to another,
far more complicated set of conflicts.
Ironically, the projected peace agreement increases the
likelihood of the various possible escalations sketched by
the president as justification for a U.S. deployment. An
independent Albanian Kosovo surely would seek to incorporate
the neighboring Albanian minorities--mostly in Macedonia--and
perhaps even Albania itself. And a Macedonian conflict would
land us precisely back in the Balkan wars of earlier in this
century. Will Kosovo then become the premise for a NATO move
into Macedonia, just as the deployment in Bosnia is invoked
as justification for the move into Kosovo? Is NATO to be the
home for a whole series of Balkan NATO protectorates?
What confuses the situation even more is that the American
missions in Bosnia and Kosovo are justified by different,
perhaps incompatible, objectives. In Bosnia, American
deployment is being promoted as a means to unite Croats,
Muslims and Serbs into a single state. Serbs and Croats
prefer to practice self-determination but are being asked to
subordinate their preference to the geopolitical argument
that a small Muslim Bosnian state would be too precarious and
irredentist. But in Kosovo, national self-determination is
invoked to produce a tiny state nearly certain to be
irredentist.
Since neither traditional concepts of the national interest
nor U.S. security impel the deployment, the ultimate
justification is the laudable and very American goal of
easing human suffering. This is why, in the end, I went along
with the Dayton agreement insofar as it ended the war by
separating the contending forces. But I cannot bring myself
to endorse American ground forces in Kosovo.
In Bosnia, the exit strategy can be described. The existing
dividing lines can be made permanent. Failure to do so will
require their having to be manned indefinitely unless we
change our objective to self-determination and permit each
ethnic group to decide its own fate.
In Kosovo, that option does not exist. There are no ethnic
dividing lines, and both sides claim the entire territory.
America's attitude toward the Serbs' attempts to insist on
their claim has been made plain enough; it is the threat of
bombing. But how do we and NATO react to Albanian
transgressions and irredentism? Are we prepared to fight both
sides and for how long? In the face of issues such as these,
the unity of the contact group of powers acting on behalf of
NATO is likely to dissolve. Russia surely will increasingly
emerge as the supporter of the Serbian point of view.
We must take care not to treat a humanitarian foreign
policy as a magic recipe for the basic problem of
establishing priorities in foreign policy. The president's
statements ``that we can make a difference'' and that America
symbolizes hope and resolve'' are exhortations, not policy
prescription. Do they mean that America's military power is
available to enable every ethnic or religious group to
achieve self-determination? Is NATO to become the artillery
for ethnic conflict? If Kosovo, why not East Africa or
Central Asia? And would a doctrine of universal humanitarian
intervention reduce or increase suffering by intensifying
ethnic and religious conflict? What are the limits of such a
policy and by what criteria is it established?
In my view, that line should be drawn at American ground
forces in Kosovo. Europeans never tire of stressing the need
for greater European autonomy. Here is an occasion to
demonstrate it. If Kosovo presents a security problem, it is
to Europe, largely because of the refugees the conflict might
generate, as the president has pointed out. Kosovo is no more
a threat to America than Haiti was to Europe--and we never
asked for NATO support there. The nearly 300 million
Europeans should be able to generate the ground forces to
deal with 2.3 million Kosovars. To symbolize Allied unity on
larger issues, we should provide logistics, intelligence and
air support. But I see no need for U.S. ground forces;
leadership should not be interpreted to mean that we must do
everything ourselves.
Soonor or later, we must articulate the American capability
to sustain a global policy. The desire to do so landed us in
the Vietnam morass. Even if one stipulates an American
strategic interest in Kosovo (which I do not), we must take
care not to stretch ourselves too thin in the face of far
less ominous threats in the Middle East and Northeast Asia.
Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to
weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North
Korea. The psychological drain may be even more grave. Each
time we make a peripheral deployment, the administration is
constrained to insist that the danger to American forces is
minimal--the Kosovo deployment is officially described as a
``peace implementation force.''
Such comments have two unfortunate consequences: They
increase the impression among Americans that military force
can be used casualty-free, and they send a signal of weakness
to potential enemies. For in the end our forces will be
judged on how adequate they are for peace imposition, not
peace implementation.
I always am inclined to support the incumbent
administration in a forceful assertion of the national
interest. And as a passionate believer in the NATO alliance,
I make the distinctions between European and American
security interests in the Balkans with the utmost reluctance.
But support for a strong foreign policy and a strong NATO
surely will evaporate if we fail to anchor them in a dear
definition of the national interest and impart a sense of
direction to our foreign policy in a period of turbulent
change.
Mr. ROBERTS. The reason that I brought this up is that we have
several Senators who are considering amendments on Kosovo. One I think
would simply say that the Congress would have to vote before any
deployment of any American pilot in any kind of a military mission and/
or ground troops would set foot on Kosovo. That is the extra step, if
you will, to certainly include the Congress in any decisionmaking. But
I would point out to my colleagues, and I made mention of this when I
spoke on behalf of this bill, i.e., the bill in regard to retirement
reform and pay reform, and I pointed out that we have in the law--and
let me just point out it is Public Law 105-262, October 17, 1998. It is
a public law, and the President signed it. And there is section
8115(a), and we say:
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under this Act may be obligated or expended for any
additional deployment of forces of the Armed Forces of the
United States to Yugoslavia, Albania, or Macedonia unless and
until the President, after consultation with the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Majority Leader of the
Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives,
and the minority of the Senate, transmits to Congress a
report on the deployment that includes the following:
And I want my colleagues to understand this. This is the law of the
land. And the National Security Council is aware of this. As a matter
of fact, my staff just an hour ago contacted the staff at the National
Security Council, and we said, ``Where is the report?'' We keep hearing
about progress and incremental steps or lack of progress with the peace
talks and yet we have 4,000, 5,000, maybe 7,000 American troops ready
to deploy in regard to Kosovo. This requires the administration to come
to the Congress and report on the following things:
The President's certification that the presence of those
forces in each country to which the forces are to be deployed
is necessary in the national security interests of the United
States.
That is pretty basic. Does our involvement really involve our vital
national security interests? Can a case be made?
Now, the President spoke to it in terms of his radio address. I think
that is good. That is the first time he has spoken to it on national
radio. But we really need to know why is our intervention in Kosovo in
our vital national security interests? Is it the future of NATO? I
think so to some degree. Are we talking about we don't want another
Palestine in the middle of Central Europe? I know that. But vital
national security interests? I don't know.
(2) The reasons why the deployment is in the national
security interests. . . .
(3) The number of United States military personnel to be
deployed. . . .
[[Page S1764]]
(4) The mission and objectives of forces to be deployed.
(5) The expected schedule for accomplishing the objectives
of the deployment.
(6) The exit strategy--
Mr. President, the exit strategy--
for United States forces engaged in the deployment.
We are talking about a 3-year engagement here. This is 4 years in
regard to Bosnia.
The costs associated with the deployment and the funding
sources for paying those costs.
Now, I have quite a bit of blood pressure in this regard since we
have spent literally billions of dollars in Bosnia but we didn't pay
for it up front. We didn't pay for it with a supplemental. We do pay
for it when the pressure comes on the appropriators to come up with an
emergency funding request. So we need to find out what the costs would
be in regard to this deployment.
And finally:
The anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale,
retention and effectiveness of United States forces.
I made mention that one of the considerations why the people are
leaving the service today is the quality of mission, and we have the
situation where 60 percent of our service people today are married,
obviously part of families, and they go to Bosnia, and perhaps Kosovo,
and the Mideast and Korea, and we do not have enough people to really
fill those billets now so they are deployed for 6 months, 9 months,
come back for a month, bang, they are right over there again, plus the
Reserve and the Guard. That is one of the considerations in regard to
operation tempo, personnel tempo, as to why people are leaving the
service, but mission quality is also a good reason. That is No. 8 in
regard to the anticipated effects of the deployment on the morale, the
retention and effectiveness of U.S. forces.
Now, we say if there is an emergency here in terms of our national
security, obviously the President can intercede.
Now, I want to see this report. We met with Secretary Albright,
Secretary Cohen, and our national security director, Sandy Berger,
about 2 weeks ago during the impeachment trial. It was early in the
morning. We made them aware of this particular provision in this
report. Now, I understand from staff of the NSC that a report will be
coming, because in the words of the staff member, ``There is a lull
over in Kosovo.'' We have a 3 week time period to try to work something
else out in regard to the peace agreement.
Let me just point out something, Mr. President. The Secretary of
State said that we would not commit American men and women to a
peacekeeping role in Kosovo unless there were benchmarks for peace. I
would only remind this administration and my colleagues, on behalf of
all those in the military, that if you are a peacekeeper, there better
be a peace to keep because when there is not a peace to keep, you
become a target. That is a whole different situation.
So, consequently, I am very hopeful that the National Security
Council will be coming forth with this report and giving the report to
our leadership and the appropriate committee chairs. Since this is the
law, perhaps we can think about delaying any other amendments to this
bill in regard to the Kosovo situation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any Senator seek recognition?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are making progress on this bill. I
hope in short order we can address the pending amendment by the
Senators from Texas and North Carolina, but I am not ready yet. I am
trying my very, very best to determine what are the cost ramifications
of each of these amendments as they come along. At the moment, we are
close to isolating the financial repercussions of the amendment of the
Senators from Texas and North Carolina.
I see the Senator from Maine, so at this moment I will yield the
floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am honored to serve as an original co-sponsor of the
Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999
in the name of the hundreds of thousands of men and women trained to
deter, fight, and win our wars.
I also thank Senators Warner, Allard, Levin, and Cleland for their
bipartisan support of the legislation's universal 4.8 percent pay raise
and thrift savings proposals as well as the constructive amendments on
G.I. bill reform incorporated in the committee-reported version of the
bill.
The Bill of Rights Act legalizes the concept that military personnel
should receive the same retirement benefits based not on the arbitrary
factor of when they joined, but on the timeless standard of willingness
to sacrifice.
It is notable, therefore, that the Senate's opening legislation of
the year increases soldier pay for the first time in a generation and
strips away the layers of unfairness in a military retirement system
based solely on the date of entry rather than the length of service.
Unilke the current arrangement, which is more generous to active duty
personnel who started working before 1986, our proposal of benefits and
bonuses offers the same retirement package to all men and women in
uniform who build a military career of at least 20 years.
Today, we also commit ourselves to a comprehensive pay raise of 4.8
percent--the largest since 1982--that narrows the gap between military
and civilian salaries.
We commit ourselves, as Secretary Cohen did last month in
recommending salary increases for noncommissioned and mid-grade
commissioned officers, to retention and promotion bonuses that reward
the skills of 21st century war fighters.
We commit ourselves for the first time ever to making long-term
savings plans available to uniformed service members so that they can
build a foundation for family security.
We commit ourselves to increases the monthly G.I. benefit for Service
people who serve at least for 2 years while eliminating the punitive
$1,200 entry fee for young men and women who want to take advantage of
a college education under this historic program.
And we commit ourselves to financial independence for the junior
enlisted ranks by making available a special subsistence allowance of
$180 per month as an alternative to food stamp subsidies. This
provision will remove from the welfare rolls an estimated 11,900
military personnel in the lowest pay grades.
Beginning last September and continuing through the new year, the
committee constructed a public record of the financial and operational
strains that our military people have endured in recent times.
We found that the total value of the Army's retirement package had
eroded by 25 percent since 1986. We also found that inadequate pay left
the Navy short of 7,000 sailors, the Air Force short of 2,000 pilots,
and the Marine Corps short of combat engineers by a threshold of 30
percent.
Last month, General Henry Shelton, the nation's senior official in
uniform, told the Armed Services Committee that ``reforming military
retirement remains the Joint Chiefs highest priority.''
Echoing General Shelton, the Air Force Chief of Staff told the
committee that ``restoring the retirement system as a retention
incentive is our top priority.''
The Commandant of the Marine Corps told the committee that ``unit
commanders routinely cite dissatisfaction with . . . retirement . . .
as one of the foremost reasons for separation.''
And the Chief of Naval Operations told the Committee that ``pay and
retirement benefits rank among our sailors' top dissatisfiers.''
As the chairwoman of the Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee, I must
report that inadequate pay has directly strained our maritime Special
Operations forces--famously known as the Navy SEALS.
The SEALS conduct vital intelligence-gathering and enemy infiltration
activities in advance of, or as an alternative to, higher risk
conventional military campaigns. Intense training schedules and
exciting missions have traditionally held SEAL recruitment and
retention levels traditionally exceed those for most other naval
components by between 20 and 30 percent.
But today, the SEAL re-enlistment rate exceeds that for the rest of
the Service by only 2 percent. The SEALS now face an overall shortfall
of 300 men, and the senior enlisted member of
[[Page S1765]]
the organization told the San Diego Tribune last week that while morale
was still high, the pay was too low.
Beyond the SEALS, Mr. President, the Navy struggles with skilled
personnel shortages throughout the Service. Thirty-five percent of
naval aviators elect to take retention bonuses while the Pentagon's
goal in this area stands at 50 percent. Enlisted retention overall has
decreased 6 to 8 percent below normal requirements.
Finally, the most acute turnover rates faced by our sailors come from
the ranks of those who lead them: the mid-level officers who command
our surface ships and submarines.
The Bill of Rights Act responds in an aggressive way to these
disturbing developments. With this law, we declare that while Congress
cannot equalize the financial benefits of all Armed Services and
private sector jobs, it can devise compensation plans upholding the
value of military careers regardless of the state of the economy.
It's fair to ask, Mr. President, why the Joint Chiefs did not
identify problems like a ballistic missile strike from North Korea or
Iraq's chemical weapons as more serious threats to military
preparedness than pay levels or retirement benefits.
The answer rests with a fundamental but overlooked fact: only people
can deliver the capabilities to protect America and her interests
overseas. We must therefore ensure that the military's pay and
retirement policies provide strong retention incentives to skilled and
motivated troops.
Military strength not only comes from adequate spending on technology
and hardware. It also comes from compensation packages that inspire
officers and enlisted personnel alike to remain in service with fair
pay and to anticipate a secure retirement with a fair pension.
Because the Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, and Marines' Bill of
Rights Act of 1999 recognizes the critical human dimension of defense
preparedness, I urge the Senate's enthusiastic support for this bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, 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. WARNER. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with the ranking member
here, and with the respective offices of the leadership, it is our hope
and expectation that we could have a vote at 5:30 on the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Carolina.
I urge all those who wish to address remarks concerning that amendment
to proceed to the floor. And as they arrive, hopefully they can seek
recognition. This is a very important bill. It is one in which there
will be further discussion.
Our colleague from Minnesota has an amendment, it is my
understanding.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank both my
colleagues, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan.
Amendment No. 16
(Purpose: To provide for enhanced protections of the confidentiality of
records of family advocacy services and other professional support
services relating to incidents of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and
intrafamily abuse)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on
behalf of myself and Senator Murray.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and
Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 16.
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.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 46, after line 16, add the following:
SEC. 402. REPORT AND REGULATIONS ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
POLICIES ON PROTECTING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF
COMMUNICATIONS WITH PROFESSIONALS PROVIDING
THERAPEUTIC OR RELATED SERVICES REGARDING
SEXUAL OR DOMESTIC ABUSE.
(a) Requirement for Study.--(1) The Comptroller General
shall study the policies, procedures, and practices of the
military departments for protecting the confidentiality of
communications between--
(A) a dependent of a member of the Armed Forces who--
(i) is a victim of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or
intrafamily abuse; or
(ii) has engaged in such misconduct; and
(B) a therapist, counselor, advocate, or other professional
from whom the dependent seeks professional services in
connection with effects of such misconduct.
(2) The Comptroller General shall conclude the study and
submit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the results of
the study within such period as is necessary to enable the
Secretary to satisfy the reporting requirement under
subsection (d).
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
in regulations the policies and procedures that the Secretary
considers necessary to provide the maximum possible
protections for the confidentiality of communications
described in subsection (a) relating to misconduct described
in that subsection, consistent with:
(1) the findings of the Comptroller General;
(2) the standards of confidentiality and ethical standards
issued by relevant professional organizations;
(3) applicable requirements of federal and state law;
(4) the best interest of victims of sexual harassment,
sexual assault, or intrafamily abuse; and
(5) such other factors as the Secretary in consultation
with the Attorney General, may consider appropriate.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this amendment is simple and it is
important. It calls on the Defense Department to issue new guidelines
that will strengthen the privacy rights of victims of domestic violence
who are spouses and children of our military employees.
Just a little bit of background. And it calls for this to be done in
an expeditious manner, I think within a 9-month period.
Mr. President, domestic violence--actually, I am sorry to say on the
floor of the Senate--is a huge problem and a huge issue in our country.
About every 15 seconds a woman is battered in her home. A home should
be a safe place, but all too often it is not. And this affects women
and children. And I say this is nationwide, because I would not want
any colleague to think that the focus here is just on the military.
Battering is one of the single greatest causes of injury to women.
According to the Department of Justice statistics, of the 1.4 million
hospital emergency room admissions in 1994, about a quarter of them
were treated for injuries from domestic violence. The prevalence of
violence against women associated with the U.S. Armed Forces is deeply
disturbing. The dependent victims of violent crimes in the Armed Forces
are particularly vulnerable due to isolation, the mobile lifestyle, and
financial security--some of which we are trying to deal with in our
legislation.
The Department of Defense data estimates that on average 23.2 per
1,000 spouses of military personnel experienced domestic violence in
the last 5 years. According to an Army survey released to Time
Magazine, spousal abuse is occurring in one of every three Army
families each year. So unfortunately it is a problem.
Here is the problem that we are trying to rectify: In civilian
society we recognize the confidentiality of communications so that if a
woman sees a doctor or she sees someone else, a mental health worker or
someone she needs to see to give her help, there is confidentiality.
But we do not have the same confidentiality for spouses of our Armed
Forces personnel and their children. And so what we are trying to do is
to make sure that we have the same guarantees of confidentiality.
When you do not have the confidentiality--and, again, we believe and
we agree that our military is absolutely correct that when it comes to
those that are enlisted in the military, there is a problem with
confidentiality because you want to know what is going on with that
soldier if you are about to put that soldier in a combat situation. But
I am not talking actually about the military; I am talking about the
spouses and the children. We want to make sure that the victims are not
retraumatized.
What happens too often, I say to my colleagues, right now--and I
think there is an acknowledgement of this; I
[[Page S1766]]
think this amendment is a positive step; I really do--what happens all
too often is that many women are afraid to step forward because the
conversation they have with their doctor, or wherever they go, is not
confidential; it becomes public, it becomes released to too many
people. And therefore what happens is she has to worry that her husband
may, in fact, take action against her. So many women are afraid. They
are afraid to tell anyone about what is happening to them. They are
afraid to tell anyone that they themselves are being battered or that
their children are being battered.
So let me just kind of conclude with an example. Annette--I do not
want to use any full names--is the former wife of a naval chief petty
officer and the mother of two young children. She was routinely beaten
by him from June 1994 through 1996. Military protective orders and
civilian restraining orders failed to protect her and her children. Her
ex-husband was charged with 21 offenses by the U.S. Navy, including
eight assault charges involving Annette. He was ultimately court-
martialed.
During the military's investigation of abuse, she was interviewed in
the presence of her batterer, and her batterer's command was notified,
which resulted in a brutal escalation of the violence toward Annette.
At his court-martial proceedings, her dating and marital history were
reviewed publicly by prosecuting attorneys.
We need to ensure that military wives and dependents like Annette are
given the same rights of privacy and confidentiality as civilian
victims. That is what this is about. It calls on the Defense Department
to basically issue some guidelines that will give these military wives
and dependents the same rights of privacy and confidentiality that any
other civilian victim has right now.
This will make an enormous difference, I say to my colleagues. We
bring these amendments to the floor. I am so pleased it is supported. I
thank both my colleagues for this. I certainly hope that we will keep
this in conference committee. I hope I will have their support because
this really will make an important difference. It is really very
important.
I thank Senator Murray. I hope she will have time to come down. I
thank both my colleagues for their support.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gallery will please refrain from
commenting on comments made by Senators.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to urge my Colleagues
to support the pending Wellstone amendment. I want to thank Senator
Wellstone for his efforts on behalf of battered spouses in the military
and commend him for his diligence on this issue.
As many of you know, both Senator Wellstone and I have worked hard to
address the needs of victims of domestic violence. Stopping domestic
violence should be a priority regardless of whether or not the batterer
is a civilian or member of the military. Unfortunately, we have not yet
done enough to protect military dependants who are victims of abuse.
The Wellstone amendment would protect the privacy of military
dependent's medical and counseling records. Currently, dependents of
the military are not afforded the same assumption of privacy as
civilian are for their medical records. If a spouse of a member of the
military is battered and she seeks health care services for the
treatment of the abuse, her records should not become public where they
could later be used against her.
We know one of the most important factors for domestic violence
victims is privacy. If a battered woman seeks help in an emergency room
or through a counselor, her medical records remain private. The records
cannot be released without her consent. This assumption of privacy is
crucial for women to come forward and ask for help. Because there is no
assumption of privacy for military dependents, the chances that these
women to will seek medical help and counseling is severely reduced.
We have heard from advocates that work with battered military
dependents. They have seen how this lack of privacy protection affects
their ability to help victims of domestic violence and their children.
They have told us that this change is necessary and important. I urge
my Colleagues to listen to the recommendations of those who are truly
on the front lines in preventing domestic violence. They know this is
the right thing to do.
This amendment has been adopted in the past by the Senate and I urge
my Colleagues to again send the message to battered military dependents
that they should never fear seeking medical help or counseling and that
they do not have to remain in violent, abusive relationships.
I urge my Colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. We thank the Senator for bringing this important
initiative to the attention of the committee. And the committee accepts
this amendment. I hope that it will be accepted by all of our
colleagues. Does the Senator require a rollcall or a voice vote?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased not to have a call for the yeas and nays,
but rather a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, let me congratulate our good friend from
Minnesota for this amendment. This is a very, very, perceptive
amendment.
What he is doing here is requiring that the Comptroller General make
a study in a report to the Department of Defense on policies that would
protect the confidentiality of communications between military
dependents who are victims of sexual harassment, sexual assault or
intrafamily abuse or who have engaged in such misconduct; and
therapists, counselors and advocates from whom the victim seeks
professional services. The Senator has pointed out that without this
confidentiality, the victims of this kind of abuse and behavior are a
lot less likely to use what is available to them in terms of
counseling, medical services and protection. This becomes a very
essential ingredient in protecting the victims of this kind of abuse.
Without this confidentiality, we don't have the necessary protection
that will give the assurance to these victims.
I want to commend Senator Wellstone and Senator Murray for this
amendment. I hope it has prompt and swift approval of this body.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleagues. Before we have the voice vote,
I thank Charlotte Oldham-Moore of my staff for doing a lot of work, and
I thank the people around the country for helping us.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 16) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to advise colleagues that we are
proceeding toward a vote at 5:30. I am anxious to receive the further
comments from those Senators actively supporting the bill of the
Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Carolina. I anticipate
their appearance here very shortly.
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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, leadership has now authorized the managers
of the bill to advise the Senate that there will be a vote at 5:30
tonight on the amendments of the Senators from Texas and North
Carolina. I see both Senators present. I yield the floor for their
concluding remarks.
I wonder if I might just propound a question that I hope the Senator
will address in the course of her remarks. My colleague and I, as
managers of the bill, want to be careful about trying to limit the
amount of additional funds put on. After careful study of the Senator's
amendment, it is my view that
[[Page S1767]]
all authorization and funding is discretionary. Am I correct in that?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes. I say to the distinguished chairman that we are
obviously saying to the Department of Defense that we want to improve
the TRICARE system if they find that it is feasible to do so.
Obviously, they are going to have to find it feasible. But the
priorities that are set will improve TRICARE and particularly allow
immediately--well, when the amendment takes effect a year from now. But
there will be no cost to allowing people to be able to go to another
base and keep their TRICARE system in place. There is no cost in that.
Mr. WARNER. So the Secretary of Defense would have the discretion to
exercise within his appropriated fund budget in the health care
account. Am I correct on that item?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Is the Senator from North Carolina agreeing to that?
Mr. EDWARDS. That is correct.
Mr. WARNER. Therefore, it is the joint judgment of both sponsors that
there is no point of order.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Absolutely. In fact, I think what we are trying to
do, of course, is to give the Department the ability to do some of the
things that it would like to be able to do to improve the service.
Mr. WARNER. I thank both of my colleagues. Thank you very much. I
yield the floor. We will have a vote at 5:30.
First, has the Chair established that vote at 5:30?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to make that in the form
of a unanimous consent?
Mr. WARNER. I so make that request of the Chair.
Mr. LEVIN. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 18
(Purpose: To improve the TRICARE program.)
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Coverdell,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 18.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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:
On page 46, after line 16, add the following:
TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 501. IMPROVEMENT OF TRICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Improvement of TRICARE Program.--(1) Chapter 55 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
section 1097a the following new section:
``Sec. 1097b. TRICARE: comparability of benefits with
benefits under Federal Employees Health Benefits program;
other requirements and authorities
``(a) Comparability of Benefits.--The Secretary of Defense
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that the
health care coverage available through the TRICARE program is
substantially similar to the health care coverage available
under similar health benefits plans offered under the Federal
Employees Health Benefits program established under chapter
89 of title 5.
``(b) Portability of Benefits.--The Secretary of Defense
shall provide that any covered beneficiary enrolled in the
TRICARE program may receive benefits under that program at
facilities that provide benefits under that program
throughout the various regions of that program.
``(c) Patient Management.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize the
authorization or certification requirements imposed upon
covered beneficiaries under the TRICARE program as a
condition of access to benefits under that program.
``(2) The Secretary of Defense shall, to the maximum extent
practicable, utilize practices for processing claims under
the TRICARE program that are similar to the best industry
practices for processing claims for health care services in a
simplified and expedited manner. To the maximum extent
practicable, such practices shall include electronic
processing of claims.
``(d) Reimbursement of Health Care Providers.--(1) Subject
to paragraph (2), the Secretary of Defense may increase the
reimbursement provided to health care providers under the
TRICARE program above the reimbursement otherwise authorized
such providers under that program if the Secretary determines
that such increase is necessary in order to ensure the
availability of an adequate number of qualified health care
providers under that program.
``(2) The amount of reimbursement provided under paragraph
(1) with respect to a health care service may not exceed the
lesser of--
``(A) the amount equal to the local usual and customary
charge for the service in the service area (as determined by
the Secretary) in which the service is provided; or
``(B) the amount equal to 115 per cent of the CHAMPUS
maximum allowable charge for the service.
``(e) Authority for Certain Third-Party Collections.--(1) A
medical treatment facility of the uniformed services under
the TRICARE program may collect from a third-party payer the
reasonable charges for health care services described in
paragraph (2) that are incurred by the facility on behalf of
a covered beneficiary under that program to the extent that
the beneficiary would be eligible to receive reimbursement or
indemnification from the third-party payer if the beneficiary
were to incur such charges on the beneficiary's own behalf.
``(2) The reasonable charges described in this paragraph
are reasonable charges for services or care covered by the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security
Act.
``(3) The collection of charges, and the utilization of
amounts collected, under this subsection shall be subject to
the provisions of section 1095 of this title. The term
`reasonable costs', as used in that section shall be deemed
for purposes of the application of that section to this
subsection to refer to the reasonable charges described in
paragraph (2).
``(f) Consultation.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry
out any actions under this section after consultation with
the other administering Secretaries.''.
(2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 55 of
such title is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 1097a the following new item:
``1097b. TRICARE: comparability of benefits with benefits under Federal
Employees Health Benefits program; other requirements and
authorities.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Report on Implementation.--(1) Not later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the other administering
Secretaries, shall submit to Congress a report assessing the
effects of the implementation of the requirements and
authorities set forth in section 1097b of title 10, United
States Code (as added by subsection (a)).
(2) The report shall include the following:
(A) An assessment of the cost of the implementation of such
requirements and authorities.
(B) An assessment whether or not the implementation of any
such requirements and authorities will result in the
utilization by the TRICARE program of the best industry
practices with respect to the matters covered by such
requirements and authorities.
(3) In this subsection, the term ``administering
Secretaries'' has the meaning given that term in section
1072(3) of title 10, United States Code.
(d) Inapplicability of Reporting Requirements.--The reports
required by section 401 shall not address the amendments made
by subsection (a).
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to announce the cosponsors for
whom I am offering this amendment. The cosponsors are Mr. Edwards, Mr.
Hagel, Mr. Helms, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Santorum.
Mr. President, this is an amendment that I think goes very well in
the bill before us. This is a military Bill of Rights. This bill is
going to try to help alleviate a very bad situation that we have with
our military. Right now we are having a hard time recruiting. We have
had the worst recruiting year in the Army for the United States since
1979. We are having a hard time retaining our best people. For every
two pilots that we lose, we are only gaining one to replace those
pilots. So you can see, if we are losing two pilots and gaining one,
pretty soon we are going to have a pilot shortage in the Air Force, and
the time has come.
It is also going to add to the expense of training the pilots in the
Air Force. The Navy has had to lower its educational standards to
recruit. This is not good. So many of us in Congress on a bipartisan
basis said, What can we do? What can we do to make sure we are giving
quality of life to those who are giving their lives to protect our
freedom? What can we do to make it worthwhile for them?
The basic things we have heard that are a problem that cause us to
lose personnel are pay, health care, and pension benefits. This bill,
with our
[[Page S1768]]
amendment, will address all three. The bill before us today is a pay
raise. It does increase pension benefits. But what it hasn't addressed
until our amendment is health care. And when I go across my State or
when I visit a base in Saudi Arabia, or Tuzla, Bosnia, I hear that
people are worried about health care. They are worried that their
families back home are not able to get the quality health care they
need.
So the amendment that Senator Edwards and I are proposing today,
along with all of our cosponsors, would reform the TRICARE system. It
would require that benefits be portable across the regions that are
established in the current system.
We all know that military personnel have to move every 2 to 3 years.
We want them to be able to take the benefits of their TRICARE system
with them when they go to another base. That costs nothing, but it
certainly does help ease the transition for the military family.
We would ensure military coverage as comparable to the average
coverage available to civilian Government employees. Many times on our
bases we have civilian Federal employees working side by side with
military personnel. We want them to have comparable health care. So
within the bounds that the Department of Defense can produce, we want
to try to make that comparable and equal if we can get it there. We
want to minimize the bureaucratic red tape and streamline the claims
processing.
One of the big complaints of the doctors who serve our military
personnel from the community is that there is so much bureaucratic red
tape that they can't get their claim, and it is not worth the hassle.
So what happens? The doctor says, ``I'm not going to serve military
families.''
Well, we want to stop that right now. We would increase the
reimbursement levels to attract and retain quality health care
providers. Where a base city does not have the capability to attract
pediatricians or OB-GYN or key areas of specialty to serve the military
families, we want to authorize the Department of Defense to reimburse
at greater levels in order to attract that service for our military
families. That is what the amendment does.
We also allow our military treatment facilities, our military
hospitals, to be reimbursed at Medicare rates from third party givers.
This is not adding a cost. In fact, it will help these military
hospitals to be reimbursed at a better rate so that they will be able
to give better care to our military participants.
So that is what our amendment does. We think it is a good amendment,
that the Department of Defense will be able to do some of the things
they have said they want to be able to do to get better health care in
the TRICARE system, and our amendment will allow them to do it.
So I appreciate very much that the distinguished chairman and ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee are supporting this amendment. I
think it is essential to make a true improvement in the quality of life
for our military to improve their health care benefits at the same time
that we are giving them pay raises.
At this time, I would like to yield to the Senator from North
Carolina, my cosponsor, Senator Edwards.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
It is a great honor for me to help cosponsor this particular piece of
legislation. The truth is that the TRICARE system, which covers over 6
million Americans and over 300,000 North Carolinians is broken and it
needs to be fixed.
Senator Hutchison's amendment goes a long way toward addressing the
problems of the TRICARE system. It begins by setting minimum standards
which the system clearly needs.
What I would like to do is talk just briefly today about why this is
so important to Americans, and why it is so important to the people of
North Carolina. And there are three or four examples that I think show
that very clearly.
We have had lots of correspondence, lots of calls about problems with
the TRICARE system. Comdr. Ronald Smith, who is from the Greensboro
area in North Carolina, Guilford County, which is one of the most
populous counties in North Carolina, tells us stories about the fact
that in Greensboro there is no primary care provider who is willing to
provide medical care for his soldiers and their dependents.
One example of the problem that creates is of a female soldier who
had to travel to a different county to be treated, and when she went
there, she had to actually write a check for a copayment before they
would allow her to leave.
A second problem that Commander Smith tells us about is the problem
pharmacies have getting reimbursed for their prescriptions. An example
he gave was a soldier who had a case of the flu, a bad case of the flu,
and needed prescription medication. But when the soldier went to get
the prescription medication, she learned that she had to make a
payment, cash payment, and didn't have the money. So this soldier had
to actually go out and obtain a loan in order to get the prescription
medication that she needed to treat the flu.
Another example of this problem is a soldier who was taking blood
pressure medication that was critical to that soldier's health. The
soldier put off for over a week taking the blood pressure medication
because she didn't have the money to pay the cash that was needed to
get the prescription medication.
This is a serious problem. These are problems that need to be
addressed. A Sergeant Williams, who is from Fayetteville, NC, where the
Womack Army Hospital is located, told me a story about his daughter
which was really amazing. His daughter had a problem with a small rash.
She went to the Womack Army Hospital and got a dermatology consult.
That was easy to do because the hospital is located nearby.
Then he tried to schedule a number of office appointments for his
daughter, but they kept being canceled. And then he decided, well,
maybe I need to take her to see a private physician, perhaps at Duke in
Durham, which is a little over an hour away. And he was told if he did
that, he would have to make an out-of-pocket cash payment of $300 to
have her seen. He was finally able to get something scheduled for her.
At the time of his letter to me, it had been over 80 days since her
initial consult and this rash, which began as a very small,
inconsequential rash, had then spread over her entire body.
This is a serious problem. It is one that needs to be addressed, and
it is one that Senator Hutchison's amendment addresses very directly. I
do think that what we are here about is not increasing health care
costs, but increasing efficiency. I think Senator Hutchison has some
wonderful provisions in this amendment to address that problem.
We have an obligation to honor the commitment that the soldiers and
their dependents have made to this country, and we need to provide
quality health care to these folks. They deserve it. They have made an
extraordinary commitment to this country. This country needs to show
its commitment to the soldiers who have served and are serving and
their dependents. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this
amendment. This TRICARE system needs to be fixed, and this amendment
goes a long way towards fixing it. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I really appreciate the one-on-one
experiences that Senator Edwards has mentioned because that really
brings it home, when that poor child started with a small rash and by
the time she could get an appointment with a doctor the rash had
covered her body. That is a terrible story, and I have heard stories
like that as well. It is why I became interested in trying to fix a
problem that was really hurting the military families and our ability
to retain those military families.
Just last week I toured Lackland Air Force Base. That is the basic
training base for all Air Force personnel. A young drill instructor
came up to me and said, ``Senator, keep up the good work and fix
TRICARE.'' I told him that we would. Certainly, this is the answer to
that drill instructor, because he clearly was having a hard time
getting care for his family.
In a letter that was written to me recently, a retired veteran
explained the difficulties he was experiencing with TRICARE. But, he
said, ``Senator,
[[Page S1769]]
please don't concentrate your efforts on my individual problems--this
is a systemic problem * * *''
It is a problem. We are losing access to care because of the
nightmare associated with claims processing and the dismal rate of
reimbursement for services. In fact, if you go to a smaller community
that has a base, often you cannot see a heart surgeon because they just
will not see a military person because they know the rate of
reimbursement is so low. We cannot allow that to be the case for our
military personnel.
General Dennis Reimer is the Chief of Staff of the Army. He recently
said, ``This is about readiness and this is about quality of life
linked together. We must ensure that we provide those young men and
women who sacrifice and serve our country so well * * * the quality
medical care that is the top priority for them * * *'' General Reimer
said, ``We must help them or else we're not going to be able to recruit
this high quality force.''
When we are talking about readiness, we are talking about the high
quality people that make up our Armed Forces and we are talking about
keeping them. The last thing we want is a lot of great equipment but
not people to run that equipment.
We have to realize that times have changed in the military. No longer
are most of our military personnel unmarried. They are now married and
they have families. They expect to have health care for those families
and housing and good pay. That is what they expect, and that is what
they deserve. We need to give it to them.
That is why our amendment is so important, to be part of adding to
the quality of life of our military. We cannot allow the retention
problems to continue to erode the powerful military that we have. Our
military strength is based on people, good people, quality people,
people who are dedicated, people who care about this country and want
to protect it. They want to protect our freedom. If they are going to
give their lives to protect our freedom, I think in return they deserve
a quality of life for themselves and for their families that would make
us all proud.
That is why Senator Edwards and I, Senator Hagel, Senator Helms,
Senator Fitzgerald, Senator Coverdell, Senator Johnson, Senator
Santorum, Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Sessions have
come together on this amendment to try to add quality health care and
improvements to the TRICARE system to the military pay raise and the
pension improvements that are already in this bill.
Mr. President, I yield the floor. 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. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, there will be
no further votes after the vote now scheduled to begin at 5:30. I wish
to advise Senators that we are scheduling votes for tomorrow morning at
9:45 a.m. It is a vote on an amendment by myself and Senator Sarbanes
relating to civil service pay. That would be followed--and I presume
with a 10-minute vote--by an amendment by Senator Cleland, who will
address that vote tonight. But it is a further expansion, and an
important one, of the Montgomery GI bill provisions, which Senator
Cleland put in the basic bill.
So I just wished to give those pieces of information to our
colleagues.
Privilege of the Floor
Also, I ask unanimous consent that a fellow with Senator Jeffords,
Ernie Audino, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency
of S. 4.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in just a moment we are about to request
an order for the two votes in the morning. I say to my colleagues, I
certainly appreciate the cooperation of Senators. I think this bill has
moved along at a very good pace. We had good debate on important
subjects. I especially thank our two leaders, Senator Lott and Senator
Daschle, for giving strong support to the managers.
Having said that, I now ask unanimous consent the Chair place an
order that we will have two votes in the morning, at 9:45 a.m., on the
Warner-Sarbanes amendment, and a second vote to follow thereafter, not
to exceed 10 minutes, on an amendment by the distinguished Senator from
Georgia, Senator Cleland. He will lay that down immediately following
the 5:30 vote. We will have a certain amount of debate, and it will be
pending the following day.
Do I have the concurrence of my colleague?
Mr. LEVIN. No objection. We support that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if there is a moment, I wish to commend the
Senator from Texas and the Senator from North Carolina again on their
amendment. The DOD has been working hard to improve the delivery of
medical care through the TRICARE program. This amendment gives strong
encouragement to the Secretary of Defense to broaden the services which
were provided under the TRICARE system. It is important that these
services be provided to military members and their families. It is
important to improve the claims and the reimbursement process, and to
make benefits under the TRICARE program uniform across the country. So,
again, I thank the Senators from Texas and North Carolina and their
supporters for their leadership on this issue.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may, I associate myself with those
remarks. Indeed, it is a very important contribution. I have counseled
with the good Senator from Texas for some several months. This has been
a very important part of her overall legislative goals for a period of
time.
Now is the time. I think we are about ready.
Mr. President, I think the hour of 5:30 having arrived--are the yeas
and nays ordered on that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Texas. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced, yeas 100, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 21 Leg.]
YEAS--100
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Rockefeller
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 18) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have two Senators desiring to lay down
amendments tonight which will be voted on tomorrow, pursuant to an
order entered into a short time ago, beginning at 9:45, back to back.
The first amendment is from my distinguished colleague, the Senator
from
[[Page S1770]]
Maryland, and I am his principal cosponsor; the second amendment is
from the Senator from Georgia.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 19
(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that there should continue
to be parity between the adjustments in the compensation of members of
the uniformed services and the adjustments in the compensation of
civilian employees of the United States)
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes], for himself, Mr.
Warner, Mr. Robb, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment
numbered 19.
Mr. SARBANES. 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 28, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
SEC. 104. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARITY BETWEEN
ADJUSTMENTS IN MILITARY AND CIVIL SERVICE PAY.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Members of the uniformed services of the United States
and civilian employees of the United States make significant
contributions to the general welfare of the United States.
(2) Increases in the levels of pay of members of the
uniformed services and of civilian employees of the United
States have not kept pace with increases in the overall
levels of pay of workers in the private sector so that there
is now up to a 30 percent gap between the compensation levels
of Federal civilian employees and the compensation levels of
private sector workers and a 9 to 14 percent gap between the
compensation levels of members of the uniformed services and
the compensation levels of private sector workers.
(3) In almost every year of the past two decades, there
have been equal adjustments in the compensation of members of
the uniformed services and the compensation of civilian
employees of the United States.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
there should continue to be parity between the adjustments in
the compensation of members of the uniformed services and the
adjustments in the compensation of civilian employees of the
United States.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President I will be very brief. I appreciate the
courtesy of the distinguished Senator from Georgia in allowing me to
present this amendment before he presents his. We will take this up in
the morning. There will be a very limited amount of time.
Very simply, this is a sense-of-the-Congress resolution that there
should be parity between the adjustments and the compensation of
members of the uniformed services and the adjustments and the
compensation of civilian employees of the United States. In almost
every year over the past two decades, there have been equal adjustments
in the compensation of members of the uniformed services and the
compensation of civilian employees of the United States, and this
expresses the sense of the Congress that this parity in adjustments
should continue.
I know a number of Members wish to join in cosponsoring, and I add
Senators Robb and Senator Mikulski as cosponsors at this point. Members
will obviously have a chance to do that first thing in the morning.
Senator Warner and I can speak to it briefly in the morning.
It is a very straightforward amendment. I don't know of any
opposition to it. I very strongly urge my colleagues to be supportive
of this amendment.
I again thank the Senator from Georgia for his kindness, and I yield
the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is my 21st year in the Senate, and I
have had the privilege to work with my good colleague and other members
of the delegation from Maryland and Virginia through these many years.
I think we have done our duty as trustees to protect the parity of the
civil servants who are just as key players in defense and other areas
as any other individuals. So many of them have made their lifetime
careers serving the country. Many of them are very highly technically
qualified.
Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor a sense of Congress
amendment to S. 4 along with my colleagues Senator Sarbanes, Senator
Mikulski, and Senator Robb on behalf of the hard working federal
civilian employees.
This sense-of-Congress amendment states that there should continue to
be parity between the adjustments in the compensation of members of the
uniformed services and the adjustments in the compensation of civilian
employees of the United States. In the past, military employees and
federal civilian employees have received equal pay adjustments in
compensation.
Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have fought to ensure the fair
and equitable treatment of all of our federal employees. Our federal
employees play an important role in the efficient and intelligent
operation of our government. These dedicated public servants should be
compensated justly.
Mr. President, increases in the levels of pay of members of the
uniformed services and of civilian employees of the United States have
not kept pace with increases in the overall levels of pay of workers in
the private sector so that there is now up to a 30 percent gap between
the compensation levels of Federal civilian employees and the
compensation levels of private sector workers. Retention and labor
shortage issues in areas related to high technology jobs, and
specialized trade occupants in the current economy poses significant
gaps in pay for our federal civilian employees from their private
sector counterparts. This is particularly prevalent in the Greater
Metropolitan Washington area due to the high demand for high tech
workers in the private sector where salaries continue to increase.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. I want to add that there was a time not too far back
when Maryland and Virginia watermen used to shoot at each other on the
Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay. I am happy to report that has
never been the tenor of the relationship between myself and the
distinguished Senator from Virginia. I have enjoyed working in
cooperation with him on a whole range of issues which have been to the
benefit of our respective constituencies, and, indeed, to the benefit
of the country. I am delighted to be aligned with him once again on an
important issue.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague.
It is quite true, there were vicious battles--over oysters primarily.
I hope now the striped bass matter--and crabs--will not further
engender that type of dispute.
Mr. President, that will be the first vote in the morning.
The distinguished Senator from Georgia has been patiently waiting,
and therefore I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Amendment No. 6
(Purpose: To permit members of the Ready Reserve to contribute to the
Thrift Savings Plan for compensation attributable to their service in
the Ready Reserve)
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Cleland], for himself, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Landrieu, proposes an
amendment numbered 6.
Mr. CLELAND. 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 33, line 16, strike ``for a period of more than 30
days'' and insert ``and a member of the Ready Reserve in any
pay status''.
On page 34, beginning on line 10, strike ``on active duty''
and insert ``: members on active duty; members of the Ready
Reserve''.
On page 35, strike lines 3 through 6 and insert the
following:
``(c) Maximum Contribution.--(1) The amount contributed by
a member of the uniformed services for any pay period out of
basic pay may not exceed 5 percent of such member's basic pay
for such pay period.
``(2)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the amount
contributed by a member of the Ready Reserve for any pay
period for any compensation received under section 206 of
title 37 may not exceed 5 percent of such member's
compensation for such pay period.
``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subchapter, no contribution may be made under this paragraph
for a member of the Ready Reserve for any year to the extent
that such contribution, when added to prior contributions for
such member for such year under this subchapter, exceeds any
limitation under section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
[[Page S1771]]
On page 35, line 9, insert ``, or out of compensation under
section 206 of title 37,'' after ``out of basic pay''.
On page 35, line 12, strike ``308a, 308f,'' and insert
``308a through 308h,''.
On page 36, in the matter following line 15, strike ``on
active duty'' and insert ``: members on active duty; members
of the Ready Reserve''.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased to offer an
amendment to S. 4 with my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator
Bingaman, and Senator Landrieu. Of course, S. 4 is the Soldiers',
Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999. This
legislation will give the men and women of the National Guard and
Reserve the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. S. 4
offers this benefit to their active duty counterparts. Our amendment
will offer this to men and women of the National Guard and Reserve.
The Thrift Savings Plan is an excellent way for military families to
save for the future. It is not meant to take the place of a retirement
system. It is a tax-deferred savings plan that will grow while a
service member is actually serving, unlike the delayed benefits of the
military retirement system. Furthermore, the Thrift Savings Plan is a
portable benefit that can be rolled over into a civilian 401(k) plan,
in the event the service member, for whatever reason, must leave
military service.
In my opinion, the men and women of the Guard and Reserve must be
given the same opportunity to participate in this excellent savings pan
as their active duty counterparts. Although the amount of money they
will be able to deposit in the Thrift Savings Plan may not be
substantial at first, every dollar counts. The Thrift Savings board
themselves allows contributions ``as little as a dollar each pay
period.''
With the increase in worldwide taskings, Guardsmen and Reservists are
participating significantly above and beyond their mandatory one-
weekend-a-month and two-weeks-a-year duty, their contributions will
grow over time. While some Guardsmen and Reservists may have savings
plans through their civilian employers, allowing them to participate in
the Thrift Savings Plan allows them to contribute based on their
military earnings. For many Guardsmen and Reservists, their military
duty has become a second job.
Since the end of the cold war, the services have increasingly relied
upon their Reserve components to meet worldwide obligations. The active
duty force has been reduced by one-third, yet worldwide commitments
have increased dramatically.
In recent years, thousands of Reservists and Guardsmen have supported
contingencies, peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions around
the world: in the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and Kenya, just
to name a few. Guard and Reserve units responded immediately to
requests for assistance after Hurricane Mitch, delivering over 10
million pounds of humanitarian aid to devastated areas in Central
America.
Closer to home, Reserve and National Guard personnel answered the
cries for help after devastating floods struck in our Nation's
heartland. They braved high winds and water to fill sandbags, provide
security, and transport food, fresh water, medical supplies, and
disaster workers to affected areas. The Air Force Reserve's ``Hurricane
Hunters'' routinely fly into tropical storms and hurricanes in
specially configured C-130s to collect data to improve forecast
accuracy, which dramatically minimizes losses due to the destructive
forces of these storms.
As we transition into the high-tech 21st century, the Guard and
Reserve will continue to take on new and exciting roles. The Guard and
Reserve now have units performing satellite control and security
functions in order to maintain our country's lead in space-based
technology. And, because our country faces the increased threat
of chemical and biological weapons, the White House, the Department of
Defense, and Congress have joined to develop a ``Homeland Defense''
policy designed to respond to threats against the United States. The
Guard and Reserve will play a significant role in the implementation of
the policy, because their knowledge of local emergency response plans
and infrastructure is critical to an effective response.
The days of holding our Reserve Component forces ``in reserve'' are
long gone.
Just who are these citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines?
They are doctors, they are lawyers. They are farmers, grocers, teachers
and small business owners. They have longstanding roots in communities
across our great country. And, like their active-duty counterparts,
they have volunteered to serve. Remarkably, they must balance their
service with the demands of their full-time civilian jobs and families.
In September 1997, Secretary of Defense Cohen wrote a memorandum
acknowledging an increased reliance on the Reserve Components. He
called upon the services to remove all remaining barriers to achieving
a ``seamless Total Force.'' He has also said that without Reservists,
``we can't do it in Bosnia, we can't do it in the Gulf, we can't do it
anywhere.
Giving the men and women who serve in the Reserve Components the
opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan would carry on
the spirit of Secretary Cohen's Total Force policy. This amendment has
received the resounding support of the Reserve Officers Association,
the National Guard Association of the United States, the Enlisted
Association of the National Guard of the United States, and other
members of the military coalition representing 5.5 million active and
retired members.
The Reserve Components face many of the same challenges and dangers
as their active duty counterparts in this time of high operations
tempo. We should give them the same opportunity to participate in the
Thrift Savings Plan. It is important to send the right message to our
citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines: that we recognize and
appreciate their sacrifices. It's the right thing to do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I, first, want to state my complete
support and concurrence for the amendment which we will have tomorrow
morning by our distinguished colleague and member of the Armed Services
Committee jointly. The provisions relating to the GI bill, this
benefit, originated with our colleague. I thank him for his
participation. He has this Senator's strong support, and I anticipate
the Senate's as a whole. I thank our colleague very much.
Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
____________________