[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 68 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4525-S4542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is consideration of the 
Defense authorization bill, S. 2549, which the clerk will report.
  Mr. WARNER. I am ready to proceed.
  I ask my distinguished friend and colleague from Michigan if he is 
likewise ready to go.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are indeed. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2549) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2001 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.


                           Amendment No. 3173

  (Purpose: To extend eligibility for medical care under CHAMPUS and 
                    TRICARE to persons over age 64)

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Hutchinson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, 
     Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3173.

  Mr. WARNER. 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:

       Strike sections 701 through 704 and insert the following:

     SEC. 701. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPUS UPON THE 
                   ATTAINMENT OF 65 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) Eligibility of Medicare Eligible Persons.--Section 
     1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to a person referred to in subsection (c) who--
       ``(A) is enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance 
     program under part B of such title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.); 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of a person under 65 years of age, is 
     entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)(2)) 
     or section 226A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 426-1(a)).''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (1) who 
     satisfy only the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (2), but not subparagraph (C) of such 
     paragraph,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of paragraph 
     (2) who do not satisfy the condition specified in 
     subparagraph (A) of such paragraph''.
       (b) Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration 
     Program.--Paragraph (4) of section 1896(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``3-year period beginning on January 1, 1998'' and inserting 
     ``period beginning on January 1, 1998, and ending on December 
     31, 2002''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--(1) The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2001.
       (2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. WARNER. This is an amendment relating to the change in the 
existing military medical program to, in the future, encompass retirees 
over age 65. I shall address this later, and I am sure the Senator from 
Michigan is aware I would like to have that as the first amendment up. 
That was my understanding.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will withhold on any unanimous consent 
request relative to that, I am trying to see if we have been informed 
of it. Of course, the Senator has a right to offer it.
  Mr. WARNER. I am not able to hear my colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder, is this the amendment to which 
the Senator made reference this morning?
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, is there a unanimous consent request pending 
now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is none.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe the only request either pending, or perhaps 
already granted, is to withhold reading of the amendment. Is that 
correct?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is my understanding correct that this amendment will be 
set aside temporarily for opening statements to be given?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. Does the Democratic whip desire to be recognized?
  Mr. REID. No.
  Mr. WARNER. This amendment was shared beforehand with my colleague 
from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I don't know of any understanding, but the 
chairman has a right, of course, to offer an amendment. We just 
understand that this amendment now is to be temporarily laid aside so 
the opening statements can be given. The Senator has a right to offer 
an amendment at any time he wishes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this is the amendment about which I spoke 
on the floor earlier this morning. I think colleagues have had an 
opportunity to inform themselves about it. It is my hope that a number 
will desire to be cosponsors. We have a number of cosponsors right now.
  This amendment relates to the continuing work of the Armed Services 
Committee with regard to the necessity to provide a health care program 
for retirees over 65. As the Presiding Officer well knows, the 
committee has addressed this in several increments, and now with 
another amendment by the Senator from Virginia, which I offer on behalf 
of many. I want to recognize that this is a subject that has quite 
properly gained the attention of a number of colleagues. I know Senator 
McCain, on our side of the aisle, and Senator Hutchison have worked on 
this subject of health care. In no way do I indicate that anyone--
certainly not myself--has been the principal; we have all worked 
together as a team.

[[Page S4526]]

And at such appropriate time, I will return to this amendment.
  I want to make some opening comments now regarding this very 
important piece of legislation. This bill contains the much-needed 
increases in defense funding and critical initiatives, including in the 
area of recruiting and retention. Retention is one of the most serious 
problems we have facing us today in our current military, as well as 
recruiting. This bill, in the collective judgment of the committee, 
goes a long way toward helping to alleviate the problems we have and to 
improve those critical areas in our defense.

  It is most appropriate that we begin this discussion today, on June 
6, the 56th anniversary of D-Day. Today, America recalls the heroic 
acts of bravery and valor demonstrated on the beaches of France and the 
many who paid the price in life and limb for liberty and freedom. And 
how proud we are, as the Senate, to have as the President pro tempore 
the distinguished senior Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond, 
among us. He, of course, crossed the beaches of D-Day 56 years ago. He 
addressed the Senate earlier today on that subject.
  As we look to the future and the defense of this Nation, we must 
never forget what may be required, and indeed what was required, of so 
many--over 1,400 American servicemen, not to speak of our allies; they 
had casualties also. But 1,400 American servicemen died on June 6, 
1944, on the beaches of France, and thousands more were wounded. They 
did it to restore freedom to so many nations and people all through 
Europe--freedom that had been taken away by Hitler and the Axis forces.
  I begin by expressing my thanks to the ranking member, Senator Levin. 
We came to the Senate together 21 years ago. We have worked as partners 
on this bill and have produced a bipartisan product that will 
strengthen the security of the United States, in the collective 
judgment of all members of the Armed Services Committee, and improve 
the quality of life of our men and women in uniform and, most 
especially, for their families.
  I also applaud our subcommittee chairmen, ranking members, and all 
members of the Committee for their fine work throughout this year. I 
will put in the Record elsewhere the volume of hearings, special 
meetings, the prolonged markup sessions that led to the work product 
for which we labored in the Senate today.
  A special thanks to our committee staff. What a superb professional 
staff--not only this year and last year, but throughout the 22 years I 
have been privileged to be on this committee. Under many distinguished 
chairmen and ranking members, we have had the most nonpartisan and the 
hardest-working staff in the Senate. I salute Colonel Les Brownlee, 
David Lyles, and the personal staff of the committee members for their 
invaluable work which led to the creation of this bill.
  I appeal to all Members to join us in our bipartisan effort to 
improve our security. The safety and well-being of our men and women in 
uniform, thousands of whom are deployed at this very moment in harm's 
way across this world, should not fall victim to any partisan debate 
and certainly no election year politics. We have done that in the past. 
I hope we will not do it on this bill and in the future.
  We should keep in mind that Members of the Senate have always 
recognized the importance of the annual Defense authorization bill, and 
in the past we have put our partisan concerns aside for the good of the 
Nation. I remind colleagues that the Senate has passed a Defense 
authorization bill every year since the authorization process began in 
1961, some nearly 40 years. The House this year had a strong, 
resounding vote of 353 yeas to 100-some-odd nays. So that is a clear 
indication of the strength of the House and the Senate bills and the 
need for these bills to be brought into law.
  At this time of increased tension around the world, at this time of 
unprecedented deployments of U.S. military personnel around the globe, 
we must show our support for our troops. Accordingly, I urge all 
Members to abstain from offering nondefense-related amendments and to 
join in a bipartisan effort to pass this Defense authorization bill, to 
send a strong signal of support to our brave troops, wherever they are 
in the world, for risking their lives at the very moment we address 
this legislation, risking to safeguard freedom of our allies, our 
friends, and indeed those of us here at home. The problems and the 
threats facing the home front have increased to where they are greater 
today than I ever envisioned in my life.
  The national security challenges that the United States will face in 
the new millennium are many and diverse--new adversaries, unknown 
adversaries, new weapons, and unknown weapons. A very complex threat 
faces us at home and our forces forward deployed. It is important that 
we remain vigilant, forward thinking, and prepared to address these 
challenges.
  Just days ago the National Commission on Terrorism, established by 
Congress in 1998, issued its report, ``Countering the Changing Threat 
of International Terrorism''. I would like to quote from the Report's 
executive summary: ``Today's terrorists seek to inflict mass 
causalities, and they are attempting to do so both overseas and on 
American soil. They are less dependent on state sponsorship and are, 
instead, forming loose, transnational affiliations based on religious 
or ideological--regrettably I have to use that word, ``a common 
hatred''--affinity and a common hatred of the United States. This makes 
terrorist attacks more difficult to detect and prevent.'' We must be 
prepared to respond to this threat and I look forward to reviewing the 
numerous recommendations contained within the report which we may 
address in the course of the deliberations on this bill.
  While the Department of Defense (DOD) must plan and allocate 
resources to meet future threats, ongoing military operations and 
deployments from the Balkans to Southwest Asia to East Timor continue 
to demand significant resources in the short term and the foreseeable 
future.
  The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 
authorizes a total of $309.8 billion for defense spending--$4.5 billion 
above the President's request--and provides authority and guidance to 
the Defense Department to address the critical readiness, 
modernization, and recruiting and retention problems facing our 
military.
  For over a decade, our defense budgets have been based on constrained 
funding, not on the threats facing the nation or the military strategy 
necessary to meet those threats. The result of this is evident today in 
continuing critical problems with recruiting and retention, declining 
readiness ratings, and aging equipment.
  Last year, the Congress reversed the downward trend in defense 
spending by approving a defense authorization bill which, for the first 
time in 14 years, included a real increase in the authorized level of 
defense spending. This year, we continue that momentum with the bill 
before the Senate the second year of increased authorization levels. As 
I stated earlier, the authorized level of $309.8 billion in this bill 
is $4.5 billion above the President's request and consistent with this 
year's concurrent budget resolution. The fiscal year 2001 funding level 
also represents a real increase in defense spending of 4.4 percent from 
the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level.
  The funding we have provided is primarily going for modernization and 
readiness and for other benefits for the men and women of the military. 
The committee authorized $63.28 billion in procurement funding, a $3.0 
billion increase over the President's budget. Operations and 
maintenance was funded at $109.2 billion, with $1.5 billion added to 
the primary readiness accounts. Research, development, test and 
evaluation was budgeted at $39.31 billion, a $1.45 billion increase 
over the President's budget request.
  The committee's support for additional funding for defense is based 
on an in-depth analysis of the threats facing U.S. interests, and 
testimony from senior military leaders on the many shortfalls in the 
defense budget.
  While the cold war has been over for nearly a decade, it is evident 
that the world remains a complex and violent place. The greatest threat 
to our national security today is instability; instability fueled by 
ethnic, religious, and racial animosities that have existed for 
centuries, but are now resulting in conflicts fought with the weapons 
of modern warfare. Many have turned to the United States, as the sole 
remaining superpower, to resolve the

[[Page S4527]]

many conflicts around the world and to ensure stability in the future. 
However, this military power does not ensure our security. As 
Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told the committee in 
January, ``The fact that we are arguably the world's most powerful 
nation does not bestow invulnerability; in fact, it may make us a 
larger target for those who don't share our interest, values, or 
beliefs.''

  U.S. military forces are involved in overseas deployments at an 
unprecedented rate. Currently, our troops are involved in over 10 
contingency operations around the globe. Unfortunately, there appears 
to be no relief in sight for most of these operations. At an October 
1999 hearing of the committee, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, General Hugh Shelton, stated that, ``Two factors that erode 
military readiness are the pace of operations and funding shortfalls. 
There is no doubt that the force is much smaller than it was a decade 
ago, and also much busier.''
  Over the past decade, our active duty manpower has been reduced by 
nearly a third, active Army divisions have been reduced by almost 50 
percent, and the number of Navy ships has been reduced from 567 to 316. 
During this same period, our troops have been involved in 50 military 
operations worldwide. By comparison, from the end of the Vietnam war in 
1975 until 1989, U.S. military forces were engaged in only 20 such 
military deployments.
  This unprecedented rate of overseas deployments is one of the primary 
factors contributing to the severe problems we are having with 
recruiting and retaining quality personnel, and with maintaining 
adequate readiness of the existing force. We have tried to address 
these issues in the bill before the Senate.
  It has also affected our readiness, as the Presiding Officer well 
knows as chairman of the subcommittee with the primary jurisdiction of 
readiness.
  I want to pause for a moment and acknowledge the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Service Chiefs--the Chief of Naval 
Operations, the Air Force Chief of Staff, the Army Chief of Staff, and 
the Commandant of the Marine Corps--for their role in helping to 
reverse the decline in defense spending. I cannot think of one single 
factor that added greater emphasis not only this year but last year to 
the increase in defense spending--not one fact greater than their 
honest, forthright professional and personal assessments which were 
given this committee time and time in formalized hearings, and indeed 
in private consultations. I commend them. They have ably represented 
their troops.
  There is no group of leaders more responsible for stopping this 
downward trend than the Chiefs.
  On three separate occasions, October 6, 1998, January 5, 1999, and 
October 26, 1999, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
the Service Chiefs came before the Armed Services Committee to tell us 
about the ever increasing challenges the armed forces were facing in 
carrying out their military missions. Simply put, they did not have 
enough money. Their individual observations were forthright and candid. 
Collectively, their reports to the Congress became the unimpeachable 
voice that made Americans sit up and take notice. The chiefs were heard 
across the land. Our nation echoed back: we believe you, you have the 
people's support.

  The military service chiefs have testified that they have a remaining 
shortfall in funding of $9.0 billion for fiscal year 2000, a 
requirement for an additional $15.5 billion above the budget request to 
meet shortfalls in readiness and modernization for fiscal year 2001, 
and a requirement for an additional $85.0 billion in the future years 
Defense Program.
  This bill adds $3.8 billion to the President's budget request to 
specifically pay for items identified by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff and the Service chiefs as necessary requirements: 
necessary requirements that were not funded by the President's request.
  As I said earlier, the high operations tempo of our armed forces is 
having a negative impact on recruiting and retention. Last year, the 
committee took action to provide a pay raise and a package of 
retirement reforms and retention incentives in an effort to recruit and 
retain highly qualified personnel. The committee has received testimony 
that these changes are having a positive impact on recruiting and 
retention efforts.
  This year, the committee has focused its ``quality of life'' efforts 
on improving military health care for our active duty and retired 
personnel and their families.
  Earlier this year, I announced my intention to join with the majority 
leader and others to tackle the long-standing problems with the 
military health care system.
  I wish to acknowledge the full cooperation of my distinguished 
colleague, Mr. Levin, and the Members on his side of the aisle. It has 
truly been a bipartisan effort. We have heard increasing complaints, 
especially from over 56 retirement communities.
  While the Congress was taking some steps in the past to try to 
improve the health care system, it was time for a major assault on this 
problem. And we have done more than establish a beachhead. I used that 
term months ago when I laid down the first piece of legislation with 
our distinguished majority leader, Mr. Lott.
  The bill before the Senate today is but the first step, I hope, in 
what will be a continuing process to fulfill our commitment of quality 
health care for all military personnel--active duty, retired, as well 
as their families.
  The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and the 
service chiefs have all highlighted the many problems associated with 
implementing a user-friendly health care program for active duty 
service members, military retirees, and their families.
  In this bill, the committee included initiatives that ensure our 
active duty personnel and their families receive quality health care 
and initiatives that fulfill our commitment to military retirees, 
including extending TriCare Prime to families of service members 
assigned to remote locations, eliminating copayments for service 
received under the TriCare Prime, and authorizing a comprehensive 
retail and national mail order pharmacy benefit for all eligible 
beneficiaries, including Medicare-eligible beneficiaries with no 
enrollment fee or deductible.
  I will elaborate on the pharmacy benefit. Prescription medication is 
the major unmet need of the military retiree. I believe this bill meets 
that need. This bill for the first time provides an entitlement for a 
comprehensive drug benefit for all military beneficiaries, including 
those who are Medicare eligible.
  Hopefully, I will add my amendment which will further enhance this 
whole package of retiree benefits, particularly for those over 65. At 
the appropriate time, I will ask to turn to that amendment.
  Other quality-of-life initiatives of note in this bill are a 3.7-
percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001, and 
a provision that directs the Department to implement the Thrift Savings 
Plan for military personnel not later than 180 days after enactment of 
this act. We put similar provisions in last year's bill but gave the 
discretion to the Department. This year, we have been forthright and we 
direct action on that program.

  Last year, NATO conducted its first large-scale offensive military 
operation with the 78-day air war campaign--and it was associated with 
other military operations and was not exclusive to air--on behalf of 
the beleaguered and persecuted peoples of Kosovo. The lessons learned 
from that operation addressed during a series of committee hearings 
highlighted not only shortfalls in weapon systems and intelligence 
programs but also the complexities of engaging in coalition operations.
  As noted in the combined testimony of Operation Allied Force 
Commanders, Gen. Wesley Clark, Adm. James Ellis, and Lt. Gen. Mike 
Short, the Kosovo campaign:

       . . . required [that] we adopt military doctrine and 
     strategy to strike a balance between maintaining allied 
     cohesion, striking key elements of the Yugoslav Armed Forces, 
     minimizing losses of allied aircraft and crew, and containing 
     collateral damage.

  Of paramount concern to the committee this year was applying the 
lessons learned from the air campaign over Kosovo to our defense budget 
to ensure the future preparedness of the

[[Page S4528]]

U.S. Armed Forces for future military operations. Accordingly, the 
committee included over $700 million for a program to include aircraft 
precision strike capability, aircraft survivability, and intelligence 
surveillance and reconnaissance assets based on lessons learned from 
the Kosovo conflict.
  Over 38,000 combat sorties were conducted during the Kosovo air 
campaign--and I proudly say, for all nations that participated, some 
seven nations flew--with no combat casualties and some heroic rescue 
operations. While the committee understands that no military operation 
is without risk, limiting the risk to military personnel is an 
important goal. Every day, advances in technology such as computing and 
telecommunications are being integrated into warfighting equipment.
  The committee believes the Defense Department must further pursue 
these technological advances in an effort to provide advanced 
warfighting capabilities, while at the same time limiting the risk to 
military personnel. To this end, this legislation directs the DOD to 
aggressively develop and field unmanned combat systems in the air and 
on the ground so that within 10 years one-third of our operation of 
these type aircraft would be unmanned, and within 15 years one-third of 
our ground combat vehicles would be unmanned. The committee also added 
$246.3 million to accelerate technologies leading to the development 
and fielding of remotely controlled air combat vehicles and remotely 
controlled ground combat vehicles.
  As demonstrated in Kosovo, our Armed Forces are the best prepared in 
the world. They can beat the enemy on any battlefield. I don't say that 
with arrogance. It is factual. Our enemies, certainly those that can be 
identified, know that. It is the ones that we can't identify--the 
growing number we cannot identify, that we cannot anticipate--that pose 
the greatest threat. Current and future potential adversaries must 
fully understand, however, our military capability. Many are now intent 
on carrying the battle right here at home in the continental limits of 
the United States of America either by ballistic missile attack or 
attacks with chemical or biological agents or through cyberterrorism. 
That is where we are soft, soft in the underbelly of this great Nation. 
Recently, retired Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre characterized 
domestic preparedness as ``the mission of the decade.'' I agree with 
that distinguished former public servant.

  The military services play a critical and important role in domestic 
preparedness for such attacks. Should some madman or terrorist release 
a chemical biological agent on the civilian population at home--or, 
indeed, at a military base that could be a target--the Defense 
Department must be prepared to assist the first responders, whether 
they are volunteer firemen, the police officers, or even citizens who 
instinctively try to come to the aid of those suffering, along with the 
health care professionals in our local communities. To deter and defeat 
the efforts of those intent on using weapons of mass destruction or 
mass disruption in the United States, this bill does the following:
  It adds $76.8 million for initiatives to address the threat of 
cyberattack, including establishment of an Information Security 
Scholarship Program to encourage recruitment and retention of 
Department of Defense personnel with computer network security skills. 
This is a program in which I have had a great deal of interest. I do 
hope the Members will work with me on this. We have this massive people 
program, maybe $20 or $30 million just to begin to give incentives for 
young people to go into cyberspace terrorism. What better evidence do 
we need than this love note that floated around, causing billions of 
dollars of loss to the economy in this country for the shutdown of 
computers.
  Second, there is the creation of an institute for defense computer 
security and information protection to conduct research and critical 
technology development and to facilitate the exchange of information 
between the government and the private sector, and sharing of 
information to try and meet this common threat.
  Further, we added $418 million for ballistic missile defense 
programs, including $129 million for National Missile Defense Risk 
Reduction, $92.4 million for the Air Forces Airborne Laser Program, $60 
million for the Navy Theater-Wide Missile Defense Program, $15 million 
for the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology Program, $8 million for the 
Arrow System Improvement Program, $15 million for the Tactical High 
Energy Laser Program, and $30 million for the Space-Based Laser 
Program.
  This is a serious threat to our homeland, the intercontinental 
ballistic missiles. We are forging ahead. I wish we could be stronger 
in our efforts.
  I will, with others, try everlastingly to increase our strength to 
try to approach these things and solve these problems--because we are 
defenseless. Americans think we spent $300.9 billion this year and $300 
billion previous years and that we have some defense. We do not. We are 
absolutely defenseless against these intercontinental ballistic 
missiles, particularly the ones that might be fired by a rogue state or 
terrorist state or, indeed, an accidental firing. It could decimate any 
of our great cities or, indeed, rural areas.
  (Mr. HAGEL assumed the chair.)
  Mr. WARNER. Last, we added $25 million for five additional Weapons of 
Mass Destruction-Civil Support teams formerly known as RAID teams. This 
will result in a total of 32 of these teams by the end of fiscal year 
2001. It is the committee's intent to support the establishment of 
these teams for each State and territory. I commend this committee, 
particularly the subcommittee that handles this under Senator Roberts, 
for their relentless initiative to drive and get these teams in place. 
The Department of Defense has not been as aggressive as has the Senate 
on this issue.
  I would like to briefly highlight some of the other major funding 
initiatives and provisions of the bill.
  First, we strengthen the Joint Strike Fighter Program by 
significantly increasing funding for the demonstration and validation 
phase of this program while removing funding for the engineering, 
manufacture, and development phase in the fiscal year 2001.
  It increases the shipbuilding budget by $603.2 million to over $12 
billion. I commend the chairman and ranking member of that committee, 
the Senator from Maine. This is a very essential investment, an 
increase in spending, if we are ever to hope to maintain just a 300-
ship Navy.
  It authorizes $98.2 million for military space programs and 
technologies, $22 million for strategic nuclear delivery vehicle 
modernization, and $190 million for national and military intelligence 
programs.
  We support the Army transformation initiative and we add additional 
resources that support research and development efforts designed to 
lead to the future development of that force.
  Congress has to help the Army. They have some very bold initiatives, 
but the funding profile for these initiatives in the outyears has a 
degree of uncertainty which troubles this Senator. But we will try to 
do our best to work with the distinguished Chief of Staff, the 
Secretary, and others, in trying to move the Army along in its 
projected transformation program.
  We included provisions supporting, under certain conditions, the 
agreement reached between the Department of Defense and the government 
of Puerto Rico that is intended to restore relations between the people 
of Vieques and the Navy and provide for the continuation of live fire 
training on this island. I commend the former Presiding Officer, the 
Senator from Oklahoma, for his unrelenting efforts, many visits down to 
that region to work on this problem.
  We increased funding for military construction and family housing 
programs by $430 million to $8.46 billion.
  We authorized $1.27 billion for the environmental restoration 
accounts to enhance environmental cleanup of military facilities.
  We required the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Energy, to:
  No. 1, develop long-range plans for the sustainment and modernization 
for U.S. strategic nuclear forces and;
  No. 2, to conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of 
the United States for the next 5 to 10 years.
  That is an essential program. We must get that evaluation. We have 
not

[[Page S4529]]

done one since 1994. This was of great concern to me. While I commend 
the President--he did the best he could at the recent summit--it would 
have been advisable if this Nation had conducted one of these essential 
programs to make an analysis of the threat--what we have in our 
inventory, the inventories of the other nations of the world--and, 
therefore, have a better idea of exactly where this country stands 
today and what it faces in the future.
  These are but a few of the highlights of the many initiatives 
included in this bill. The subcommittee chairmen are truly the 
architects of this bill. They will discuss in greater detail the 
provisions in their respective subcommittees. Each should be 
congratulated for their study and hard work, together with their 
ranking members.
  I urge my colleagues to support rapid passage of this bill. We need 
to send a strong signal of support to our Armed Forces in the field, at 
sea, and those who have gone before them in the line of duty. We are 
trustees of this great Nation and we are given that trust by generation 
after generation after generation of Americans who have gone from the 
shores of our Nation to defend the cause of freedom in farflung places 
of the world. These are outstanding men and women now serving in 
uniform. We have an obligation to them as previous Congresses have had 
obligations to other generations, engaged in the preserving of our 
freedom.
  I, once again, thank my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator 
from Michigan, for his work on this committee--indeed, nonpartisan hard 
work--and the wonderful staff. We put this bill together.
  I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee in bringing the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 to the floor. The bill is the 
product of several months of bipartisan work on the part of our 
committee. I am, indeed, pleased to join with him in bringing this bill 
to the floor.
  This year the President added $12 billion in defense spending to last 
year's appropriated levels. The congressional budget resolution added 
an additional $4.5 billion. For the most part, the committee chose to 
spend the money wisely. More than three-quarters of the money added by 
the budget resolution would be used to meet needs that are identified 
as priorities by the Joint Chiefs, or to accelerate items that are 
included in the future years' defense plan.
  I may not agree with every provision in the bill--I do not--but S. 
2549 overall is a sound bill that basically continues the bipartisan 
partnership between the Congress and the administration. This bill 
would build on the budget that was presented by the Department of 
Defense to improve the quality of life for the men and women of our 
Armed Forces and their families, and to transform our military to 
ensure they are capable of meeting the threats to American security in 
the 21st century.
  I am particularly pleased the bill would implement the 
administration's proposal to address shortcomings in the health care we 
provide for our military personnel and retirees. Indeed, the bill would 
go a step further than the administration proposed and provide a 
prescription drug benefit for military retirees.

  I am appalled, and I hope most of us are appalled, by the rising cost 
of pharmaceuticals in this country and by the growing gap between the 
prices paid for drugs by our citizens and people who live in other 
countries. We have taken an important first step in this bill in 
agreeing to address the problem for military retirees. But it is my 
hope, perhaps during the course of this bill, and surely before the end 
of this Congress, we will be able to provide a similar benefit for 
Medicare beneficiaries whether they are military retirees or otherwise. 
All of our seniors--all of our seniors--should have an opportunity to 
purchase prescription drugs and not be precluded by an inability to pay 
the outrageous costs which prescription drugs now present to too many 
of our seniors.
  The committee also made the right decision in supporting the Army 
transformation plan that was put forward by Secretary of the Army 
Caldera, and Army Chief of Staff General Shinseki. The committee 
concluded the Army needs to transform itself into a lighter, more 
lethal, survivable and tactically mobile force, and we approved all the 
funds that were requested by the Army for that purpose. In fact, we 
even added some research money that the Army said would help the long-
term transformation process.
  At the same time, we have instructed the Army to prepare a detailed 
roadmap for the transformation initiative, and to conduct appropriate 
testing and experimentation to ensure the transformation effort is 
successful.
  The Department has made a strong commitment to the Joint Strike 
Fighter Program and the committee supports that effort. While our bill 
recognizes that slippage in the test schedule is virtually certain to 
result in a delay of the next milestone decision, we remain open to 
reprogramming of funds to enable the Department to make that decision 
in the year 2001, if it proves possible to meet a tighter schedule.
  I am also pleased the bill reported by the Armed Services Committee 
provides full funding for the Department of Defense Cooperative Threat 
Reduction Program and the three ongoing Department of Energy 
cooperative programs with Russia and other countries of the former 
Soviet Union. These programs serve as one of the cornerstones of our 
relationship with Russia and play an important role in our national 
security by reducing the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction from Russia or from rogue nations with which Russia may 
otherwise be tempted to form closer ties in the absence of these 
programs.
  While some restrictive language has been included in the bill, I am 
hopeful this language will not undermine the effectiveness of the 
programs. I am disappointed the committee chose not to provide $100 
million for a new, long-term Russian nonproliferation program at the 
Department of Energy.
  This program would allow the Department of Energy to accelerate the 
closure of portions of Russian nuclear weapons complexes and secure 
additional nuclear materials. I am hopeful, with the help of other 
Senators, we can address this issue in the course of our debate on the 
Senate floor or perhaps in conference.
  The committee bill would authorize $85 million of military 
construction sought in fiscal year 2001 by the administration to begin 
construction of a national missile defense site. The President's budget 
explains this request as follows:

       The budget includes sufficient funding so that if the 
     administration decides in 2000 to proceed with deployment of 
     a limited system, the resources will be available to quickly 
     proceed toward a 2005 initial capability.

  I emphasize the word ``if.'' It is my understanding that this funding 
is provided consistent with the President's request in the event the 
President decides to proceed with the deployment of a limited national 
missile defense. As indicated in the President's budget, this decision 
will be based on an assessment of four factors: one, the assessment of 
the threat; two, the status of technology based on an initial series of 
flight tests and the proposed system's operational effectiveness; 
three, the cost of the system; and four, the implications of going 
forward with a national missile defense deployment in terms of the 
overall strategic environment and our arms control objectives, 
including efforts to achieve further reductions in strategic nuclear 
arms under START II and III.
  As our chairman said, the committee spent a great deal of time 
addressing the status of training exercises by Navy and Marine Corps 
personnel on the island of Vieques. As we all know, training on Vieques 
was suspended last year after the tragic death of a security guard at 
the training range. The Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval 
Operations, and others have testified before the committee that there 
is no adequate substitute for the live-fire training on the island of 
Vieques.
  Earlier this year, the President entered into an agreement with the 
Governor of Puerto Rico which establishes an orderly process for what 
we all hope will be the resumption of such training. As of today, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has lived up to its obligations under the 
agreement. The Navy

[[Page S4530]]

training on Vieques has been cleared of protesters with the assistance 
of the government of Puerto Rico, and the Navy training exercises have 
now resumed on the island with the use of inert ordnance as provided in 
the agreement.
  During the course of our markup, the committee considered proposed 
legislation which would have been inconsistent with this agreement. In 
my view, unilateral changes to or actions in violation of the terms of 
the agreement at a time when the government of Puerto Rico is living up 
to its obligations under the agreement would have sent exactly the 
wrong signal. Such changes would have offended many citizens of Vieques 
and others throughout Puerto Rico, undermining the efforts of the Navy 
and this committee to eventually resume live-fire training on Vieques.
  In the end, the committee included legislation that would implement 
the provisions of the agreement that call for limited economic 
assistance and holding a referendum on the island of Vieques. With 
regard to the other element of the agreement--the transfer of specific 
land to Puerto Rico under certain circumstances--the legislation is 
silent, deferring congressional action until a later date.

  While I would have preferred to fully implement the agreement between 
the President and the Governor of Puerto Rico at this time, avoiding 
unilateral changes to the terms of the agreement was the next best 
outcome. In light of the position taken on the floor of the House, I 
expect we will have an opportunity to further consider this issue in 
conference.
  One area where I am very disappointed with the outcome of the markup 
is the organization of the Department of Energy. Last year, the 
National Defense Authorization Act contained provisions reorganizing 
the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex by creating a new 
``semi-autonomous'' National Nuclear Security Administration, NNSA, 
within the Department of Energy. These provisions, which were added in 
conference, were inconsistent with legislation passed in the Senate by 
a vote of 96-1 and went far beyond anything that was even considered by 
the House.
  The Secretary of Energy dual-hatted a number of key NNSA employees, 
authorizing them to serve concurrently in both NNSA positions and DOE 
positions outside the NNSA. Although the provisions establishing the 
NNSA did not contain any provision prohibiting dual-hatting, many 
members of our committee believed this approach was inconsistent with 
the legislation.
  This bill responds to that perceived violation of the statute with 
provisions that would, one, prohibit the Department of Energy from 
paying any NNSA officials who are dual-hatted and, two, prohibit the 
Secretary of Energy from changing the organization of the NNSA in any 
way. These are unprecedented restrictions on the ability of a Cabinet 
Secretary to manage his own Department and undermine our ability to 
hold Secretary Richardson and his successors accountable for the 
activities of the Department of Energy.
  Dual-hatting is commonplace throughout the Government and has been 
legally permissible since we repealed the Dual Office Holding Act of 
1894 more than 35 years ago. Moreover, the Secretary provided our 
committee with a legal opinion which concluded that such dual-hatting 
is permissible.
  In any case, the prohibition on reorganization is completely 
unnecessary in light of the express prohibition on dual-hatting. The 
reorganization prohibition would go far beyond its stated purpose of 
addressing dual-hatting, and it would prohibit the Secretary of Energy 
from even establishing, altering, or consolidating any organizational 
unit, component, or function of the NNSA regardless of demands of 
efficiency or accountability.
  Last year, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board 
reported that the Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex had 
become organizationally ``dysfunctional.'' Much of this organization 
remains unchanged despite its transfer to the new NNSA. Yet the 
provision added in our committee would prohibit the Secretary from 
addressing that problem.
  In short, the Department of Energy organization provisions not only 
fail to address the problems identified by its sponsors, which is the 
dual-hatting problem, but go way beyond that and thereby undermine the 
ability of the Secretary of Energy to address many of the concerns that 
led to the enactment of last year's legislation in the first place.
  I am also disappointed that the bill does not contain a base closure 
provision. Last year, as this year, the top military and civilian 
leadership of the Department of Defense came to us and told us that 
more base closures are critical to saving billions of dollars needed to 
meet our future national security needs. Year after year, some Members 
express concerns about shortfalls in the defense budget and then reject 
the one measure that would do the most to help the Department address 
those shortfalls in the long term.

  Secretary Cohen said recently his biggest disappointment as Secretary 
has been that the Department of Defense still has too much overhead and 
that he has not been able to persuade his former colleagues--meaning 
us--that they are going to have to have more base closures. Authorizing 
a new round of base closures is an issue of political will to meet our 
long-term security needs. In the course of our debate on this bill, 
Senator McCain and I plan to again offer an amendment to allow more 
base closures.
  Finally, I will mention two other issues. First, the bill contains a 
provision that would replace the School of the Americas with a new 
Western Hemisphere Institute for Professional Education and Training 
which would provide a broad curriculum of studies, including human 
rights training, to both military and civilian leaders of democratic 
countries. I hope this step will allow us to put the controversial 
history of this institution behind us while we look instead to the 
future.
  Second, the bill contains an amendment I offered to prohibit the 
Department of Defense from selling to the general public any armor-
piercing ammunition or armor-piercing components that may have been 
declared excess to the Department's needs.
  This prohibition was enacted on a 1-year basis in last year's Defense 
Appropriations Act, and Senator Durbin has introduced a bill in the 
Senate to make the ban permanent. There is no possible justification 
for selling armor-piercing ammunition to the general public. I am 
pleased that we have taken this step toward enacting the ban into 
permanent law.
  Again, I thank Senator Warner for his work as chairman of the 
committee. There are a lot of provisions in the bill, and there will 
be, I am sure, a lot of amendments which will be offered in the course 
of our deliberations on the Senate floor. I think we all look forward 
to a full debate on all of the issues that will be presented to us.
  I am wondering if Senator Warner is on the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I make a parliamentary inquiry as to whether or not 
amendment No. 3173, which is the pending amendment, is subject to a 
point of order and, if so, what point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment that the Senator 
inquires on violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  Mr. LEVIN. This amendment was presented to us this morning. I think 
we should make an effort to see if we can't bring this amendment 
somehow or other into compliance with the Budget Act so we can 
accomplish the important provisions that are in this amendment. This is 
a goal which has been sought on a bipartisan basis to try to improve 
the provision of health care services to our retirees.
  I think it is in all of our interests to see if we can't find a way 
that we can make this come into compliance with the Budget Act. I am 
particularly sensitive to the Budget Act's provisions. I am not sure 
Senator Domenici is with us today. I believe he was absent during the 
picture, for reasons with which we are familiar. In that case, I am 
wondering whether or not, because of the Budget Act implications of 
this amendment, the Senator might be willing to set this aside so we 
can determine if there are ways of achieving these important goals 
consistent with the Budget Act.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend, I will try to 
accommodate you on that because it is a very important amendment. I 
would like to

[[Page S4531]]

discuss with you just perhaps the following procedure: That we have the 
opportunity to have a colloquy and make some presentations about the 
amendment, and then at that time I will consider laying it aside. I 
would like to have that opportunity this afternoon. I would very much 
appreciate the comments of my colleague.
  It had been my intention to give it to you a little earlier today, 
but I think it began to get to your people around 11 or 12 o'clock. It 
had been my intention to bring it up. That is not a fact in any way I 
wish to conceal. But anyway, that did not come to the attention of the 
Senator from Michigan.
  So, yes, we will work on this because in fairness to our colleagues--
and I anticipate an overwhelming majority of the Senate would like to 
support the objectives of this amendment--we should address what could 
be done to the amendment.
  I acknowledge that a point of order does lie, and at the appropriate 
time I would ask for the waiver. Yes. The answer is, we will see what 
we can do. So I suggest as follows, that we allow other colleagues--the 
President pro tempore, a member of our committee, the former chairman 
wishes to address the bill, and the Senator from Colorado wishes to 
address the bill. There may be others.
  So let us have some brief opening statements by our two colleagues, 
and I will adjust the procedure at the request of the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. That procedure would be fine. I welcome hearing from our 
good friends, including our former chairman, and then perhaps we will 
lay this aside so we can try to make it in compliance, if possible, 
with the Budget Act. I welcome the comments of the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, as the Senate begins consideration of 
the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001, I join my 
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee in congratulating Chairman 
Warner and the ranking member, Senator Levin, on their leadership in 
preparing a strong bipartisan defense bill, which passed the Committee 
by an overwhelming 19-1 vote.
  The national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2001 ensures 
that our Armed Forces can continue to carry out their global 
responsibilities by focusing on readiness, future national security 
threats, and quality of life. I am especially pleased with the focus on 
the quality of life issues. Our military personnel and their families 
are expected to make great sacrifices and they deserve adequate 
compensation. Therefore, I strongly support the 3.7 percent pay raise, 
the significant improvements in military health care, especially those 
impacting our military retirees and their families. These are critical 
provisions, which when coupled with the additional family housing and 
barracks construction, will result in a well-earned improvement in the 
standard of living for all our military personnel.
  The defense bill before us continues the improvements in the 
readiness issues identified by our Service Chiefs. The committee added 
over $700 million for programs identified as shortfalls during the 
Kosovo conflict. It increased key readiness programs such as 
ammunition, spare parts, base operations and training by more than $1.5 
billion. Although these are significant improvements, we cannot be 
satisfied with these increases and must ensure continued robust funding 
increases for these programs in future bills.
  Since the fall of the Berlin Wall our Nation has faced ever changing 
threats. Among these are the spread of nuclear weapons and other 
weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, and the ever 
increasing sophistication of weapons in the hands of countries 
throughout the world. To counter these threats the committee added 
$78.8 million in the Emerging Threats Subcommittee accounts. These 
resources will fund critical research into new technology, while at the 
same time provide for the reduction and security of the nuclear and 
chemical arsenals of the former Soviet Union. It is money wisely spent 
and deserves our full support.
  I have previously congratulated the chairman and ranking member for 
their work on this bill. Before closing, I want to congratulate each of 
the subcommittee chairmen--Senator Inhofe, Senator Snowe, Senator 
Santorum, Senator Roberts, Senator Allard and Senator Hutchinson--and 
their ranking members for their contribution to this bill. Their 
leadership and work provided the foundation for this legislation. 
Finally, I believe it is important that we recognize Les Brownlee and 
David Lyles for their leadership of a very professional and bipartisan 
staff.
  This national defense authorization bill is a strong and sound bill. 
I intend to support it and urge my colleagues to join me in showing our 
strong support for the bill and our men and women in uniform.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Warner for allowing me 
the opportunity to speak in strong support of this essential bill for 
our men and women in the armed services. I believe it to be very 
fitting that we bring up S. 2549, the fiscal year 2001 Department of 
Defense Authorization Act, only 9 days after Memorial Day.
  This bill should always be more than just a funding mechanism for 
today's military but a fitting tribute and to show our appreciation for 
those who served, are serving, and will serve in the future.
  The Defense bill is entirely too important to be mired in politics. 
We must respect our military and provide them the best Defense 
authorization bill we can.
  The fiscal year 2001 Defense Authorization Act is a bipartisan 
effort, and I believe we all did some essential heavy lifting in 
committee for our warfighters.
  For the second year in a row, we have reversed the downward trend in 
defense spending by increasing this year's funding by $4.5 billion over 
the President's request, for a funding level of $309.8 billion. This 
results in a 4.4 percent increase in real growth from last year's 
appropriated level.
  Last year as the Personnel Subcommittee chairman, I had the 
opportunity to oversee the first major pay raise for our military in 
almost 20 years. Now, I have the great privilege to serve as the 
chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee. While it is a tall order to 
fill the shoes of Senator Bob Smith as subcommittee chair, I believe 
the subcommittee has had a very successful and productive session. Just 
like last year with Senator Cleland, it is always rewarding to have a 
dedicated ranking member like Senator Landrieu. I want to thank her, as 
well as all the members of the subcommittee, for all the hard work they 
put into this bill.
  The Strategic Subcommittee has oversight and program authority over 
the following areas: (1) ballistic and cruise missile defense; (2) 
national security space; (3) strategic nuclear delivery systems; (4) 
military intelligence; and (5) Department of energy (DOE) activities 
regarding the nuclear weapons stockpile, nuclear waste cleanup, and 
other defense activities.
  During the last year, the subcommittee held four hearings.
  The first was on our national and theater missile defense programs 
which showed that the DOD continues to have a funding-constrained 
ballistic missile defense (BMD) program. In this year's budget, the 
administration finally increased the funding for the National Missile 
Defense (NMD) program, but we found that all of the Ballistic Missile 
Defense Organization's or BMDO's major acquisition programs remain 
underfunded. Plus, we were very concerned about the lack of funding for 
the research and development technology programs. That is why in this 
bill we recommend substantial increases in funding for ballistic 
missile defense programs and technologies.
  We also had a hearing regarding our national security space issues 
where we identified a number of areas in which budget constraints have 
caused DOD to insufficiently fund key space programs and technologies 
and technology development. We also learned from our extensive post-
Kosovo conflict hearings that intelligence processing and dissemination 
was insufficient to meet some of our warfighting requirements. That is 
why we recommended funding increases for the National Imagery and 
Mapping Agency to improve the imagery tasking, processing, exploitation 
and dissemination process.

[[Page S4532]]

  The Strategic Subcommittee also has oversight over two-thirds of the 
Department of Energy's budget, including the newly created and much 
needed National Nuclear Security Administration or the NNSA. The 
subcommittee also authorized funds for the Defense Nuclear Facility 
Safety Board, an independent agency responsible for external oversight 
of safety at DOE defense nuclear facilities.

  We held the first congressional hearing to assess the programs of the 
newly established National Nuclear Security Administration or the NNSA. 
We remain concerned about the science-based stockpile stewardship 
program and the fact that it could be 15 years before the DOE stockpile 
stewardship program can be evaluated as an acceptable substitute for 
underground nuclear testing. We are also concerned about the slow pace 
in re-establishing pit manufacturing and tritium production 
capabilities and any long-term requirements or plans for modernization 
of its aging weapon production plans.
  The fourth hearing was in the area of environmental management. I am 
encouraged that DOE continues to make progress in focusing its 
resources on closure of a limited number of sites and facilities. 
However, just like in the area of space and missile defense, I am very 
concerned that funding requests for science and technology development 
continues to drop. DOE needs a vigorous research and development 
program in order to meet its accelerated cleanup and closure goals.
  In response to these needs, the Strategic Subcommittee has a net 
budget authority increase of $266.7 million above the President's 
budget. This includes an increase of $530.3 million to the DOD account 
and a decrease of $263.6 million to DOE accounts.
  In the DOD accounts, there is a net increase of $418.6 billion for 
the Ballistic Missile Defense programs, an increase of $98.2 million 
for advanced space technology, an increase of $190.0 million for 
tactical and national intelligence programs, and an increase of 
approximately $22 million for strategic forces.
  There are two provisions which I would like to highlight which 
pertain to the future of our nuclear forces. First, we have a provision 
which requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Energy, to conduct an updated nuclear posture review. It 
has been since 1994 since the last nuclear posture review. This is 
important piece of the puzzle when determining the future shape of our 
nuclear forces.
  The second provision requires the Secretary of Defense, in 
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, to develop a long range plan 
for the sustainment and modernization of the U.S. strategic nuclear 
forces. We are concerned that neither Department has a long term vision 
beyond their current modernization efforts.
  A few budget items I would like to highlight include: an increase of 
$92.4 million for the Airborne Laser program that requires the Air 
Force to stay on the budgetary path for a 2003 lethal demonstration and 
a 2007 initial operational capability; an increase of $30 million for 
the Space Based Laser program; a $129 million increase for NMD risk 
reduction; an increase of $60 million for Navy Theater Wide; and extra 
$8 million for the Arrow System Improvement Program; and for the 
Tactical High Energy Program an increase of $15 million.
  For the Department of Energy programs, the budget structure we have 
proposed for DOE is slightly different from the Administration's 
request. We recommend that all activities of the NNSA appear in a 
single budgetary provision, as required by section 3251 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act of FY 2000. The bill has an increase of $87 
million to the programs within the NNSA, which is an increase of $331.0 
million over last year.
  In DOE's Environmental Management account, we decrease the 
authorization by $132.0 million. However, I want to stress that this 
bill still increases the environmental management account by more than 
$350 million over last year's appropriated amount. In addition, we 
decrease the other defense account by $88.8 million and move the 
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program account to a non-
defense account, reflecting a decrease of $140 million. Finally, the 
bill also provides $34 million to continue progress on restoring 
tritium production.
  I would like to mention an important highlight of the Authorization 
bill outside of the Strategic Subcommittee.
  I want to commend the new Personnel Subcommittee chairman, Senator 
Hutchinson, for his work on the comprehensive health care provisions in 
the bill. There are many significant improvements to the TRICARE 
program for active duty family members. The bill includes a 
comprehensive retail and national mail order pharmacy program for 
eligible beneficiaries, with no enrollment fees or deductible. This 
results in the first medical entitlement for the military Medicare 
eligible population. I am also very happy with the extensions and 
expansions of the Medicare subvention program to major medical centers 
and in the number of sites for the Federal Employees Health Benefit 
demonstration program.
  Lastly, I would like to point out a few items specific to Colorado. 
The Defense Authorization Act fully funds Rocky Flats at $673 million. 
Plus, we require that all safeguard and security activities to be 
managed by Rocky Flats, and not at DOE headquarter organization, in 
order to ensure that future savings will be used for additional Rocky 
Flats cleanup. There is also a provision asking for a report on, as 
well as encouraging the Secretary of Energy to use, the authority 
provided in last years DOD authorization bill which allowed him to use 
prior year unobligated balances to accelerate cleanup at Rocky Flats. 
Lastly, we also provide employee incentives for retention and 
separation of federal employees at closure project facilities. These 
incentives are needed in order to mitigate the anticipated high 
attrition rate of certain federal employees with critical skills.
  Also, the bill fully funds the Chemical Demilitarization Program at 
over $1 billion, while fully funding the military construction for the 
Pueblo Chemical Depot at $10.6 million. For Pueblo's destruction of 
their chemical agents, there is a provision which provides for the 
destruction of the chemical agents at Pueblo either by incineration or 
any technology through the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment on or 
before May 1, 2000. The provision is to expedite the destruction 
activities by using one of the technologies listed in the National 
Environmental Policy Act documents for the Pueblo Chemical Depot.
  Plus, there are $34 million for the procurement of precision 
targeting pods for the Air National Guard and I expect these funds to 
be used for such procurement.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Warner for the opportunity to 
point out some of the highlights in the bill which the Strategic 
Subcommittee has oversight and to congratulate him and Senator Levin in 
the bipartisan way this bill was developed and ask that all Senators 
strongly support S. 2549. I also want to thank Eric Thoemmes, Paul 
Longsworth, Tom McKenzie, and Tom Moore of the Strategic Subcommittee, 
all the Armed Services Committee staff, and Doug Flanders of my staff 
for all their long hours and hard work they put into this important 
bill.
  Finally, one of Congresses main responsibilities is to provide for 
the common defense of the United States and I am proud of what this 
bill provides for our men and women in uniform. We must not be blinded 
by political motives when it comes to our men and women in the Armed 
Services. I look forward to moving this bill through the Senate, out of 
conference and to the President in order to quickly provide the much 
needed and much deserved resources for our military. To our Armed 
Services, I say this bill is a tribute to your dedication and hard 
work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. It is 
a great pleasure to work with him. He has one of the toughest 
assignments as subcommittee chairman, and he does it very ably. I thank 
him.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the speedy 
adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2001.

[[Page S4533]]

  I join my colleagues on the committee in expressing my appreciation 
to Chairman Warner for the outstanding job he has done in his work on 
this bill.
  I commend Senator Allard for the great work he has done as chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, for the work he did on the 
Personnel Subcommittee prior to my ascension to that post, and for the 
assistance he has given me; I express my appreciation for that.
  As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I worked closely with 
Senator Max Cleland, our ranking member, to develop a package that is 
responsive to the manpower readiness needs of the military services, 
that supports the numerous quality of life improvements for our service 
men and women, their families, and their retirement communities, and 
that reflects the budget realities we have today and will face in the 
future.
  The subcommittee focused on the challenges of recruiting and 
retention during each of our hearings this year. Even the health care 
hearing really focused on that area of recruitment and retention and 
the impact of what we do in the area of health care on our future 
retention and recruiting ability.
  This bill will have a positive impact on both recruiting and 
retention as those who might serve and those who are serving see our 
commitment to provide the health care benefits promised to those who 
serve with a full military career.
  I am very pleased with this bill. I am proud of this bill. I believe 
these initiatives will result in improved recruiting and retention 
within the military services.
  The bill supports the administration's request for an active duty end 
strength of 1,381,600, and reserve strength of 847,436, more than this 
administration requested.
  On military personnel policy, there are a number of recommendations 
intended to support the recruiting and retention and personnel 
management of the services. Among the most noteworthy is a provision, 
that would be effective July 1, 2002, requiring high schools to provide 
military recruiters the same access to the campus, to student 
directors, to student lists and information as they provide the 
colleges, universities, and private sector employers unless its 
governing body, the school board, decides by a majority vote to deny 
military recruiters access to the high school.
  Currently, there are literally hundreds of high schools that have 
made decisions--usually on the basis of the superintendent or the 
principal--to deny access to military recruiters. For those school 
boards that do not vote to limit access to military recruiters, the 
proposed modification in the bill retains the original requirement that 
the services must send a general or flag officer to visit high schools 
within 120 days of the denial of access to military recruiters. If the 
high school continues to deny equal access to military recruiters, the 
Secretary of Defense will then send a letter to the Governor notifying 
him of the denial and requesting assistance in obtaining access for 
military recruiters.
  If, after the efforts of the Secretary of Defense and the Governor, 
the high school continues to deny access to military recruiters, the 
Secretary of Defense will notify the congressional delegation of the 
high school that has not complied with the statute we will enact with 
the passage of this bill. Of course, if the school board votes not to 
restrict access of military recruiters, the services and the Secretary 
of Defense will not be required to go through the procedures I just 
described.
  I believe requiring school boards to take that affirmative vote and 
to do so publicly in the light of their constituencies will really 
eliminate this problem that has posed such an obstacle to our military 
recruiters. In our hearings, we heard from frontline military 
recruiters that the biggest obstacle they have is actually having 
access to be able to make their case to young people in our schools 
today.
  Another initiative to support recruiting is a pilot program in which 
the Army could use motor sports to promote recruiting, implement a 
program of recruiting in conjunction with vocational schools and 
community colleges, and a pilot program using contract personnel to 
supplement active recruiters.
  Another important recommendation in this mark is the expansion of 
JROTC programs. We have added $12 million to expand the JROTC programs. 
We combine it with the funds in the budget request. This will maximize 
the services' ability to expand JROTC during fiscal year 2001.
  I am proud to be able to support these important programs that teach 
responsibility, leadership, and ethics and assist the military in 
recruiting. In fact, it has been one of the most effective tools the 
military has in recruiting high school students.
  Our major recommendations include a 3.7-percent pay raise for 
military personnel and a revision of the basic allowance for housing to 
permit the Secretary of Defense to pay 100 percent of the average local 
housing costs and ensure that housing allowance rates are not reduced 
while permitting increases that local housing costs dictate.

  The bill directs the Secretary of Defense to implement the Thrift 
Savings Plan for active and reserve forces not later than 180 days 
after enactment. Making mandatory the provision of the Thrift Savings 
Plan will be a very positive recruiting and retention tool in assisting 
the military services in attracting highly qualified personnel and 
encouraging them to remain until retirement.
  This year, the committee focused on improving health care for active, 
reserve, and retired military personnel and their families. In health 
care, there are a number of key recommendations. The foremost of these 
provisions is the pharmacy benefit for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries 
to which Senator Allard alluded in his remarks. This is the first time 
Medicare-eligible military retirees have an entitlement to military 
health care.
  In addition, prescription drugs represent the largest unmet need of 
Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. I will be speaking on the Warner-
Hutchinson amendment, when that is offered, regarding health care and 
what we are doing for our men and women in uniform.
  I am very proud of this bill and pleased with what the committee has 
put together. It will provide the resources the military services need 
to maximize their readiness and to improve the quality of life for 
active and retired military personnel and their families.
  I express my gratitude to Charlie Abell, committee staff, for the 
outstanding work he has done in the past and for the service he has 
again performed to our country and to the committee. I appreciate his 
work, along with other members of the committee staff. I especially 
thank my personal staff, Michael Ralsky, for the work he has done not 
only on behalf of our country and our national security but for the 
State of Arkansas. This is a good bill worthy of the support of the 
Senate. I am pleased to be supporting it.
  I again thank Chairman Warner for his leadership in putting this bill 
together.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his thoughtful 
remarks, most particularly the remarks directed at the staff and other 
members of the committee. He is a hard-working subcommittee chairman, 
and he is tackling the problem of recruiting and retention. We will 
hear further from the Senator as we proceed with this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent we proceed briefly to discuss the pending 
amendment, and then we will proceed to an amendment to be offered by 
Senator McCain on food stamps, if that is agreeable as procedure. I say 
to my colleague, we are moving expeditiously, with Senator Robert 
Kerrey anxious to come to the floor.
  I am not suggesting we will vote on the Warner amendment. We will 
discuss it, and when Senator McCain comes to the floor, we will take up 
that amendment. My understanding is he desires less than half an hour. 
The Senator can indicate the time the other side desires, and then we 
will proceed to rollcall vote and possibly go to the Kerrey amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is fine.


                           Amendment No. 3173

  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator from Michigan. He indicated to the 
Senator from Virginia that the pending

[[Page S4534]]

amendment, in our collective judgment, is subject to a budget point of 
order. I have shared with his senior staff that corrective measures 
were taken to try to bring that amendment within the strictures of the 
budget amendment so it would not be subject to a point of order. We 
will show immediately what we intend to do.
  In the meantime, I will discuss the amendment until Senator McCain 
comes to the floor.
  I have introduced this amendment today to change the existing 
military medical program to encompass in the future retirees over 65. 
This amendment provides uninterrupted access to both TRICARE and 
CHAMPUS for military retirees and their families without regard to age.
  Let me use the term ``retirees.'' Those following this debate might 
not fully understand. We are talking about men and women in the Armed 
Forces who put in the necessary number of years of active service or 
reserve service or guard service, whatever the case may be, to meet the 
criteria of the various frameworks of law to qualify them for a 
retirement for such services as they render. That is the class of 
individuals being referred to. It does not include persons, such as 
myself, who have short tours of military duties; it does not apply to 
me. When we use the term ``retirees,'' it is only for those who, by 
virtue of their services, met the statutory requirements and are 
eligible to receive retirement benefits.
  Beginning in World War II, promises were made to military members 
that they and their families would be provided health care if they 
served a full career. Of course, we certainly included active duty and 
to some limited extent the reserve and guard for military health care. 
We are talking about that category of persons I have just described.
  Subsequent legislation was enacted which cut off medical benefits for 
those over age 65, leaving them to depend on the Medicare system, 
which, in their judgment and in the judgment of others, has proven 
insufficient, and in other ways it is a breach of promise.
  So there are many underlying reasons for the legislation I am 
proposing and the most important is equity. The reputation of those in 
the military who gave the promise--not knowing there wasn't any 
statutory foundation--made promises concerning medical care to induce 
individuals to provide a minimum, say, 20 years of service in most 
instances, to enable them to have a career in the U.S. military.

  Not meeting the commitment to provide medical care is a breach of 
promise made on behalf of our Nation. We have to correct it. These 
individuals devoted a significant portion of their lives, their 
careers, in service to our country. I recognize with profound sorrow 
how we broke the promise to these retirees, certainly when we passed 
legislation in the early 1960s. We rectify it today.
  I have examined these issues. There is no statutory foundation 
providing for entitlement to military health care benefits. It simply 
does not exist, in my judgment. It is mythical in terms of a foundation 
law. But good-faith representations were made to these members. Who 
made the commitment is irrelevant.
  I have some personal recollection. I was on active duty for a brief 
time toward the conclusion of World War II, and then I had a second 
tour of active duty during the Korean conflict-- again, less than 2 
years. Nevertheless, I was surrounded by military people. I remember 
well the inducements given at the conclusion of World War II when so 
many desired to return to civilian life, requests to stay on active 
duty; the same thing during the Korean conflict--stay on active duty; 
continue; give the military the opportunity to show you a career 
pattern. Part of those representations included the health care 
package.
  Our committee has made a determination--and indeed it is a bipartisan 
decision--that we would fix the issue of health care for our retirees 
this year. We started with a series of bills, step by step by step. I 
have acknowledged my gratitude, and indeed other members of the 
committee acknowledge their gratitude, for what the military retirees 
did in bringing to our attention certain inadequacies of steps we had 
taken. Step by step, we have improved the benefits, in this particular 
phase of legislation, in this fiscal year. We are going to achieve a 
very significant improvement to the health care benefit, particularly 
if that amendment is adopted by the Senate.
  The amendment I bring to the floor repeals the restriction barring 65 
or older military retirees and their families from continued access to 
the military health care system. If included, this provision will 
provide an equal benefit for all military health care system 
beneficiaries, retirees, reservists, guardsmen, and their families. 
This puts all beneficiaries in the same class.
  It is expensive, but I think it is essential we do this to keep the 
faith with military retirees. I have had many meetings with both active 
and retired military on the health care issue. I conducted town hall 
meetings, discussions with groups who have come to my office, and I 
have listened to those who have attended the Armed Services Committee 
hearings regarding their views. They filled the room on a number of 
occasions. They have come from all areas of the country to talk about 
this. They are not seeking it solely for themselves. They are seeking 
to preserve the image of the U.S. military so the young people today 
who are considering joining at the recruiting stations--going through 
our ROTC, NROTC, the AROTC, all of these programs--will consider a 
military career.
  When they go back home they hear the oldtimers say: Watch out, they 
broke a promise to me on health care. You are thinking about devoting 
20 years of your life to this, or more--watch out.
  We are going to get rid of the, ``Watch out.'' That is what we are 
trying to do, get rid of it, because the military retirees are the most 
cost-effective recruiters that we have in America today. They do not 
cost us anything. Yet it is those ladies and gentlemen who served this 
Nation who go out and talk to the youngsters. The youngsters look up to 
them. The youngsters trust them. They look up to the veterans. They 
have been there. They have done it. They help tremendously helpful in 
recruiting. So there are many reasons for making these health care 
improvements.
  The amendment is a quantum leap ahead of the provisions already in 
committee markup at the desk. While the markup includes the 
comprehensive drug benefit regardless of age, the amendment goes 
further and provides uninterrupted access to complete health care 
services. As a result of these initiatives, all military retirees, 
irrespective of age, will now enjoy the same health care benefits.
  In town hall meetings, as I said, I listened carefully to the health 
care concerns of the military, particularly those over 65. We have all 
done that. The constant theme that runs through their requests is that 
once they have reached the point at which they are eligible for 
Medicare, they are no longer guaranteed care from the military health 
care system. This discriminatory characteristic of our current health 
care system has been in effect since 1964. It reduces retiree medical 
benefits and requires a significant change in the manner in which 
health care is obtained at a point in the lives of our older military 
retirees when stability and confidence and respect and indeed the love 
of the community is most needed. This is an amendment which in effect 
repeals the 1964 law.
  In order to permit the Department of Defense to plan for restoring 
the health care benefit to all retirees, my provision would be 
effective on October 1, 2001. While some may advocate an earlier 
effective date, it is simply not feasible to expand the medical 
coverage to the 1.8 million Medicare-eligible retirees overnight.
  The amendment eliminates the confusing and ineffective transfer of 
funds from Medicare to the Department of Defense. Military retirees 
will not be required to pay the high cost of additional basic or 
supplemental insurance premiums to ensure their health care needs. 
Military readiness will not be adversely impacted, and our commitment 
to those who serve their full career will be fulfilled.
  What is apparent to me is that the will of the Congress, reflecting 
the will of the Nation, is that now is the time to act on this issue. 
Access to military health care has reached a crisis point. With the 
reduction in the number of military hospitals and with the growth

[[Page S4535]]

in the retiree population, addressing the health care needs of our 
older retirees has become increasingly difficult. These beneficiaries 
should be assured that their health care needs will be met.
  I am well aware of the legislative alternatives that have been 
proposed to address military retiree health care needs. I have 
struggled to examine the most acute needs of these beneficiaries and 
have struggled to develop a plan that equally benefits all our 
retirees, not just those fortunate enough to live near a military 
medical facility, or those fortunate enough to be selected through some 
sort of lottery to be allowed to participate in the various pilot 
programs now underway. My goal is to provide health care through a 
means that is available to all beneficiaries, in an equitable and 
complete manner.
  As I have made it clear throughout the year, improving the military 
health care has been the Committee's top quality of life initiative 
this year. We have listened. We have, with bipartisan support, enhanced 
our earlier legislation to include full pharmacy benefits. The 
amendment now before the Congress complements those earlier efforts and 
provides an equitable medical benefit, one that is not based on age. It 
is time to act.

  At the suggestion of my distinguished colleague, to avoid a point of 
order, I am looking at not changing the fundamental provisions in the 
amendment but limiting it to two or possibly three fiscal years. That 
will bring us within the constraints of the budget resolution. That is 
an important step. I appreciate my colleague bringing this to our 
attention.
  It will have another effect. It will enable the Congress, and 
initially our committee, to go in, in depth, and study this amendment 
because it is going to have a very significant impact on the existing 
infrastructure that is caring for the existing active duty and military 
retirees under 65. We cannot fully calculate, no matter how hard we 
look into this, what that impact would be. In my own judgment, it will 
require the Congress to step forward and provide funds, maybe some 
legislation, to help the existing infrastructure absorb the over-65 
retirees as they return to what was justly promised them when they 
signed up.
  So this amendment has the advantages of laying it out, giving a 
reasonable period of time for the Department and for the Congress to 
examine it and determine what we have to give by way of additional 
support.
  Also--I say this with no political motive whatsoever--it should 
become and will become, in my judgment, an issue in the Presidential 
campaign. I am quite certain the retirees will say to both candidates: 
Look here, the Senate of the United States included this provision. It 
went over to the conference with the House. It survived. It was signed 
into law by the President. But it ends. It ends in, say, 2003. I want 
to hear what the Presidential candidate has to say about this program 
and whether he will support it, support it in the sense of extending it 
beyond 2003, support it in the budget requests to provide the 
additional funds and whatever is necessary to make the infrastructure 
of our military able to support this program.
  That is what we are working on. Momentarily I will ask my amendment 
be modified. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, it is my intention to speak for about 10 
minutes in reference to the National Defense Authorization Act. I thank 
the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator 
Warner, for his outstanding leadership in the past year. I also thank 
the distinguished ranking member, Senator Levin, for his leadership as 
well.
  This is a good, solid, and positive effort in behalf of our national 
defense. As a subcommittee chairman, I am particularly proud of the 
work we were able to accomplish in the subcommittee that we call the 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I would like to review 
the key provisions contained in this act that fell under the 
jurisdiction of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee.
  As the chairman has pointed out, as well as the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan, in the last year, what we call information warfare, and 
what some call cyberthreats--and the American public is certainly 
becoming much more aware of that situation--to the United States, 
including the Department of Defense, have increased very dramatically. 
The Department of Defense reported that these attacks on Defense 
Department systems increased from under 6,000 in 1998, only 2 years 
ago, to over 22,000 in 1999. That figure is doing nothing but 
dramatically increasing and there is every indication that this trend 
is going to continue.
  From a national economic standpoint in regard to private industry, we 
are very susceptible and we are very vulnerable. In regard to our 
national security, we are very vulnerable. I remain concerned that many 
important, what we call information assurance programs, designed to 
protect against such cyberattacks, basically remain underfunded by the 
Department of Defense. For example, at the hearing before the 
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, as of this spring 
witnesses from the Department once again confirmed that such funding 
shortfalls remain significant and presented a list of almost $500 
million in unfunded requirements in this area. Obviously that is a 
considerable amount of money. When you compare it to the ever-
increasing threats and vuneralabilities, you can see just how important 
this is.

  For these reasons, we have included $76.8 million in this bill not 
only for today's underfunded requirements but also to really try to 
initiate programs such as training and education. Let me really 
underscore the word, in regard to education, in something called 
``cybersecurity,'' that will continue to provide meaningful solutions 
far into the future. Senator Warner's initiative--what I refer to as 
the Roberts-Warner initiative, and the distinguished chairman refers to 
it as the Warner-Roberts initiative--he has embarked through his 
leadership and through his research on a whole series of scholarships 
in information security to attract our young people, the best and 
brightest; not to rely on those who come to us from foreign countries 
with ever-increasing higher immigration quotas. We must bring the next 
generation on to have this expertise. So these Warner scholarships in 
regard to information security for the Department of Defense will have 
far-reaching and, most important, positive effects in this situation.
  Second, I want to talk about the terrorist threats to our citizens 
and our service members. It shows no sign of diminishing. Especially in 
regard to the weeks that led up to the millennium celebration, numerous 
individuals who were suspected of planning terrorist attacks directed 
at U.S. citizens were arrested in the United States and abroad.
  This is a threat from state actors and nonstate actors all over the 
world; and with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the 
threat of a terrorist attack with a chemical, biological, or nuclear 
weapon is increasing at an alarming rate.
  We asked the experts who came before the Emerging Threats 
Subcommittee, the experts whose job it is to determine what represents 
a vital national security risk: What keeps you up at night? What makes 
you really worry in regard to a vital national security threat?
  Their response was largely along two lines of concern: one, in regard 
to the cyberattacks which we are already experiencing in private 
industry and the Pentagon experiences every day, and the other one was 
biological attacks. It is so easy to use, whether it be a state actor 
or a nonstate actor or anybody connected with organized crime or any 
individual who wants to cause a great deal of trouble.
  We, as a nation, must continue to detect and try to deter such 
attacks, but if such an attack happens, we must be prepared to deal 
with the consequences. We call this consequence management. We in 
Kansas, just to the north of Oklahoma City, full well know what kind of 
a tragedy can occur in regard to consequence management. Stop and think 
a minute about a terrorist threat and what could happen in our urban 
areas or, for that matter, anywhere in the country, and my colleagues 
can understand the seriousness of this problem.

[[Page S4536]]

  Our subcommittee will continue to play a leading role in ensuring the 
Department of Defense is adequately funded and structured to perform 
its critical role in the overall U.S. Government effort to, again, 
deter, detect, and combat terrorism. The bill contains an additional 
$35 million for these efforts.
  This year we continue a comprehensive review, initiated last year, of 
the activities of the Department of Defense to combat terrorism. 
Obviously, our goal is to make the Department efforts in this critical 
area more visible and certainly better organized. In fact, at a 
subcommittee hearing, leading Department of Defense witnesses testified 
to, No. 1, what their jurisdiction is; No. 2, what they have been 
doing; No. 3, what they plan to do and what their budget requirements 
are; and if, in fact, they could ask us for their priority concerns, 
what would they be.
  Before this hearing, I asked them to sit in the order of their chain 
of command to figure out who was in charge and is this effort being 
properly coordinated and shared, and what about communication. They 
looked at one another. There were four witnesses and nobody knew who 
was at the top of the chain of command. Hello, we have a big problem in 
that respect.
  We included in the markup a provision to address this. When I say 
``we,'' I include the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, 
Senator Bingaman, and the distinguished Senator whose efforts, in part, 
led to the creation of the subcommittee, Senator Lieberman.
  We have also worked to increase the capabilities of the Department of 
Defense to assist in the event of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil 
involving the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
  This bill also authorizes over $1 billion, again to support the 
Russian threat reduction and nonproliferation efforts. During the post-
cold-war decade, the U.S. Government has spent--I do not think too many 
of my colleagues recognize this; I know not too many of our American 
citizens understand this, but during the post-cold-war decade, the U.S. 
Government has spent over $4.7 billion in the former Soviet Union to 
reduce the threat posed by the possible proliferation of weapons of 
mass destruction and weapons-usable nuclear materials and scientific 
expertise. After nearly a decade of working in Russia and the other 
states of the former Soviet Union, committing ourselves to future 
efforts, we thought it was important for us to review what these 
programs have achieved.

  Senator Levin has spoken eloquently of the need for the continuation 
of this effort and the intent of the effort. I share his commitment, 
but I am concerned that for all the good intentions and all the 
significant investment that has been made, the return of reducing the 
threat has been too small relative to the $4.7 billion. We can do 
better.
  For example, the General Accounting Office found that $481.2 million 
has been spent since fiscal year 1993 on a program designed to secure 
the weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia and the states of the 
former Soviet Union, but only 7 percent of the total nuclear material 
identified as being at risk has been secured. I am troubled by this 
progress achieved in light of this significant investment. We are not 
going to scrap the program, but we must do better.
  In March, the GAO testified that the costs associated with achieving 
the threat reduction will continue to increase due primarily to the 
following facts: Russia's inability to pay its share of the costs of 
these programs, and we are certainly working in that regard with our 
Russian counterparts; Russia's basic reluctance to provide the United 
States with needed access to its sensitive facilities. I was in Russia 
last August attempting to gain greater access. We will continue those 
efforts.
  To help solve those problems, this mark contains several initiatives 
to obtain greater Russian commitment and necessary access to ensure 
these programs will have a greater chance of attaining their stated 
objectives, and if we do that, these programs will attain even further 
widespread support and they can be a success.
  I call the attention of my colleagues to a modest, but extremely 
important, initiative in this bill with widespread bipartisan interest 
that will lead to a major joint field experiment in 2002. I do not know 
of any commitment that will be undertaken in the future by any of our 
military services that will not be joint.
  This experiment will evaluate visions of our military services for 
future combat forces and ensure they can be brought together 
effectively for joint military operations to deter and counter the 
emerging threats to our national security. I am talking about the fact 
that we lack interoperability. I know the services and the service 
chiefs say we have this interoperability. With all due respect to the 
service chiefs and others, we do not have that ability to the degree we 
need it. That is why we feel we must press ahead with a major joint 
field experiment if we possibly can. It is absolutely essential.
  Finally, my colleagues will find in this recommendation an 
affirmation of the subcommittee's strong support of the Defense Science 
and Technology Program. This bill includes an increase--I emphasize, an 
increase--of $446 million to science and technology. That is a 9-
percent increase over the President's budget request. It is this 
investment that will provide for future capabilities to deal with 
emerging threats to our national security.
  This is a solid effort; it is a positive effort. It will meet the 
objective within the constraints of the defense budget for the work 
assigned to the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee. I urge 
approval of this legislation.
  I join our able chairman in thanking the majority and minority 
committee staff, my subcommittee staff, and my personal staff for a job 
well done. I specifically mention Pam Farrell. If one puts charming and 
tenacious together, it might be considered an oxymoron. It is not the 
case with Ms. Farrell. Without her leadership and expertise and being 
just as tenacious as she can be, we would never have increased the 
science and technology budget by more than 9 percent over the 
President's budget. She does an amazing job.
  I would also like to thank Ed Edens and Joe Sixeas, who is 
affectionately called Andy, for their work in regard to the 
counterterrorism efforts we are conducting, more especially with the 
RAID teams that we now say are CST teams; Chuck Alsup in regard to the 
joint experimentation initiative; Cord Sterling, who has been in 
Central America, South America, virtually every country where we have a 
threat in regard to drugs, working overtime. In regard to cyberattacks, 
Eric Thoemmes, does an outstanding job. He really has to keep up with 
that and has done a super job. Then on the cooperative threat reduction 
programs, Mary Alice Hayward.
  All of these folks have done an outstanding job. Their minority 
counterparts have done likewise. We are only as good as our staff. In 
this regard, I want to pay personal thanks to the staff.
  I urge the adoption of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Before the Senator proceeds, I express my gratitude to 
our distinguished chairman of the Emerging Threats Subcommittee for a 
marvelous job. I commend the Senator for giving his staff due 
recognition for their wonderful work. It is a vital subcommittee. It is 
on the absolute cutting edge of everything we have to be doing in the 
Senate.
  I thank the Senator and yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Senator.


                           Amendment No. 3179

  (Purpose: To establish a special subsistence allowance for certain 
  members of the uniformed services who are eligible to receive food 
                           stamp assistance)

  Mr. McCAIN. I have amendment No. 3179 at the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending 
amendment?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3179.

  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.

[[Page S4537]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 206, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

     SEC. 610. SPECIAL SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS ELIGIBLE 
                   TO RECEIVE FOOD STAMP ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Allowance.--(1) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 402 the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 402a. Special subsistence allowance

       ``(a) Entitlement.--(1) Upon the application of an eligible 
     member of a uniformed service described in subsection (b), 
     the Secretary concerned shall pay the member a special 
     subsistence allowance for each month for which the member is 
     eligible to receive food stamp assistance.
       ``(2) In determining the eligibility of a member to receive 
     food stamp assistance for purposes of this section, the 
     amount of any special subsistence allowance paid the member 
     under this section shall not be taken into account.
       ``(b) Covered Members.--An enlisted member referred to in 
     subsection (a) is an enlisted member in pay grade E-5 or 
     below.
       ``(c) Termination of Entitlement.--The entitlement of a 
     member to receive payment of a special subsistence allowance 
     terminates upon the occurrence of any of the following 
     events:
       ``(1) Termination of eligibility for food stamp assistance.
       ``(2) Payment of the special subsistence allowance for 12 
     consecutive months.
       ``(3) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
       ``(4) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of 
     station.
       ``(d) Reestablished Entitlement.--(1) After a termination 
     of a member's entitlement to the special subsistence 
     allowance under subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall 
     resume payment of the special subsistence allowance to the 
     member if the Secretary determines, upon further application 
     of the member, that the member is eligible to receive food 
     stamps.
       ``(2) Payments resumed under this subsection shall 
     terminate under subsection (c) upon the occurrence of an 
     event described in that subsection after the resumption of 
     the payments.
       ``(3) The number of times that payments are resumed under 
     this subsection is unlimited.
       ``(e) Documentation of Eligibility.--A member of the 
     uniformed services applying for the special subsistence 
     allowance under this section shall furnish the Secretary 
     concerned with such evidence of the member's eligibility for 
     food stamp assistance as the Secretary may require in 
     connection with the application.
       ``(f) Amount of Allowance.--The monthly amount of the 
     special subsistence allowance under this section is $180.
       ``(g) Relationship to Basic Allowance for Subsistence.--The 
     special subsistence allowance under this section is in 
     addition to the basic allowance for subsistence under section 
     402 of this title.
       ``(h) Food Stamp Assistance Defined.--In this section, the 
     term `food stamp assistance' means assistance under the Food 
     Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
       ``(i) Termination of Authority.--No special subsistence 
     allowance may be made under this section for any month 
     beginning after September 30, 2005.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     402 the following:

``402a. Special subsistence allowance.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--Section 402a of title 37, United 
     States Code, shall take effect on the first day of the first 
     month that begins on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (c) Annual Report.--(1) Not later than March 1 of each year 
     after 2000, the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the number of 
     members of the uniformed services who are eligible for 
     assistance under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et 
     seq.).
       (2) In preparing the report, the Comptroller General shall 
     consult with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
     Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services (with respect to the 
     commissioned corps of the Public Health Service), and the 
     Secretary of Commerce (with respect to the commissioned 
     officers of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration), who shall provide the Comptroller General 
     with any information that the Comptroller General determines 
     necessary to prepare the report.
       (3) No report is required under this subsection after March 
     1, 2005.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide the funding 
necessary to end the food stamp military. I come to the floor with this 
proposal which I introduced in March. Two months ago, I offered an 
amendment to the congressional budget resolution for fiscal years 2001 
through 2005. The Senate adopted an amendment then to secure funding to 
end the ``food stamp military'' by a vote of 99-0.
  I would expect a similar vote, but I think it is important that we 
get Members on record to try to rectify what is really a very 
deplorable and unacceptable situation, and that is, our junior enlisted 
service personnel, mostly in the pay grades E1 through E5 are on food 
stamps.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles in the 
Washington Post, and several other newspapers--the Memphis Commercial 
Appeal, the London Sunday Telegraph--be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 20, 1999]

Feeling the Pinch of a Military Salary; For Some Families, Pay Doesn't 
                            Cover the Basics

                            (By Steve Vogel)

       On a muggy Saturday at Quantico Marine Corps Base, about 
     two dozen Marines and family members quietly poked through 
     piles of discarded furniture, clothing and household goods in 
     what has become a weekly ritual at the big Northern Virginia 
     installation.
       Those who defend the nation were trying to make ends meet.
       At 8 a.m., the patch of lawn was covered with beds, tables, 
     dressers and desks. Within 45 minutes, almost all the 
     furniture was gone. The price was right--everything was free.
       The items had been gathered by volunteers who go 
     ``trashing'' every Tuesday, scouring garbage left at curbs on 
     the base. Every Saturday, they give away what they collect to 
     needy, eager Marine families.
       Their efforts reflect a cold reality for thousands of low-
     ranking men and women in uniform assigned to high-priced 
     Washington and elsewhere: Military salaries, never 
     substantial, often fall far short of what they need.
       ``We're talking about the basics of life here, and they 
     don't have it,'' said Lisa Joles, a Marine wife who created 
     the volunteer network two years ago. ``Sometimes, they don't 
     have a thing. I didn't know how large the problem was until I 
     got to Quantico.''
       Of the 40,000 enlisted soldiers, Marines, sailors and 
     airmen based in the area, many feel compelled to work part-
     time or even full-time civilian jobs to supplement what their 
     country pays them, according to military families and 
     officials. Hundreds more, especially low-ranking troops with 
     families, rely on food stamps or other forms of federal 
     assistance. Many depend on the charity of their fellow 
     troops.
       ``How can we send members of the military to Kosovo and 
     expect them to do their job if they're concerned about the 
     family being able to afford new school shoes?'' said Sydney 
     Hickey, a spokesman for the National Military Family 
     Association in Alexandria.
       Since 1982, military salaries have fallen nearly 14 percent 
     behind civilian pay, according to federal figures. Congress 
     has tentatively approved a 4.8 percent pay raise to take 
     effect Jan. 1; many service members will receive a second 
     raise six months later.
       But the raises still will leave a military-civilian gap of 
     more than 11 percent, according to studies. The situation is 
     particularly hard of families--and 53 percent of the enlisted 
     force nationally is married.
       ``A single Marine, with due diligence, can get by,'' said 
     Thomas Loughlin, who heads the Marine Corps Community 
     Services at Quantico. ``The real problem is people with 
     families. It's a sad indictment of society that somebody 
     who's willing to give his life for his country gets paid 
     close to minimum wage.''
       Pentagon officials acknowledge that some service members 
     face severe hardships, not only in the Washington area but 
     also in other parts of the country. But they insist that such 
     cases do not reflect conditions for the vast majority of 
     troops, and they point to statistics showing that junior 
     enlisted service members earn more than the general 
     population of high school-educated 18- to 23-year-olds.
       At the same time, the officials said that improving pay is 
     critical to Pentagon efforts to solve problems in retaining 
     people in the armed forces. ``A lot of our troops are waiting 
     to see what happens with the pay package,'' said Rudy de 
     Leon, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.
       Military pay varies considerably by rank, length of service 
     and other factors. A single Marine private first class, for 
     example, would earn base pay of $1,075 a month, plus a 
     subsistence allowance of $225 a month for food. Those living 
     off base also receive a housing allowance that varies by 
     jurisdiction and would be $612 for someone living near 
     Quantico.
       In addition, members of the armed forces receive some 
     benefits, such as medical care, at a fraction of the cost for 
     most civilians. Commissaries offer items that are 30 percent 
     cheaper than at civilian stores, according to Pentagon 
     figures. Service members also do not pay federal taxes on 
     their food and housing allowances.
       A recent Pentagon study found that, overall, only 450 of 
     the 1.4 million members of the armed forces were living at or 
     below the national poverty level, which is $413,332 for a 
     family of three.

[[Page S4538]]

       But advocates for military families said that the 
     statistics and benefits do not reflect how difficult it is 
     for many men and women to both serve their country and 
     live comfortably in peacetime.
       ``We believe there are an awful lot of families who are 
     living at the wire, and frequently fall over it,'' Hickey 
     said.
       Several evenings each week, as soon as he finishes duty at 
     Quantico, Lance Cpl. Harry Schein darts off base, picks up 
     his 14-month-old son from day care and drops him off with the 
     boy's mother.
       Then he drives up I-95 to Arlington and joins a group of 
     Marines who moonlight by moving office furniture until about 
     11 p.m. On Saturdays and Sundays, he works from 4 p.m. until 
     midnight as a security guard in Alexandria.
       ``Most of the Marines I know are living check to check and 
     barely making it by and have to get some kind of 
     supplement,'' said Schein, whose pretax paycheck is $2,168 a 
     month, including housing and food allowances. That, he said, 
     does not cover his $595-a-month apartment in Dale City; gas; 
     car insurance; and day care, clothes and food for his son, 
     Devantre.
       On top of his part-time work, Schein has had to turn to the 
     government's Women, Infants and Children nutrition program, 
     which provides federal vouchers so he can buy formula, juice 
     and baby cereal. The Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society also 
     gave him several hundred dollars in commissary vouchers to 
     buy food.
       ``All the pride in the world, all the awe people have when 
     they see a Marine, all that isn't going to pay the bills,'' 
     said Schein, 22.
       The Queens, N.Y., native said that he joined the Marines to 
     make his parents proud but that he is likely to leave when 
     his enlistment runs out next year. ``As much as I love being 
     a Marine, monetarily, I can't,'' he said.
       Military installations do not generally track how many 
     troops receive public assistance. But many officials who work 
     with low-income service members in the Washington area said 
     that the problem is significant and has grown worse in recent 
     years.
       Many soldiers ``can only afford food, clothing and shelter 
     and getting to work,'' said Brenda Robbins, an Army Community 
     Services worker at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. ``Saving 
     is almost obsolete.''
       A recent survey of 165 soldiers at Walter Reed found that 
     41 percent were using some form of public or private charity, 
     according to Bill Swisher, a spokesman.
       Commissaries at Fort Belvoir, Fort Meade, Fort Myer, 
     Andrews Air Force Base, Quantico and Patuxent River Naval Air 
     Station collected more than $800,000 worth of food stamps and 
     WIC vouchers last year, according to the Defense Commissary 
     Agency.
       More than $21 million worth of WIC vouchers were redeemed 
     at military commissaries last year, according to Pentagon 
     figures. Nearly 12,000 service members--less than 1 percent 
     of the force--received food stamps in 1995, the last year a 
     study was conducted.
       ``I think it stinks, really, that a member of the armed 
     forces has to go to food stamps,'' said Lance Cpl. Damon 
     Durre, 25. But that's what the Quantico Marine did after 
     finding he could not support his wife and two children on his 
     take-home pay.
       Service members in this area do not receive cost-of-living 
     adjustments in their pay, unlike those in New York, San 
     Francisco and Boston. Washington does not qualify as a high-
     cost area under a formula used by the military.
       Housing allowances are adjusted according to jurisdiction, 
     but many service members say it is not enough to cope with 
     area rents, and many end up living 40 or 50 miles from their 
     duty stations.
       ``The cost of living will eat you alive,'' said Sgt. Edna 
     Jackson-Jones, a Marine at Quantico who tried to find 
     affordable housing near the base but instead lives with her 
     three children in an apartment in Fredericksburg. ``I had to 
     go further south because it's cheaper down there.''
       Quantico offers classes in budgeting and buying cars and 
     directs needy Marines to emergency aid, but officials say it 
     is difficult to assist all those facing difficulties.
       ``We have a lot of problems reaching out to them, because 
     many times, they don't want you to know they have a 
     problem,'' said Maj. Kim Hunter, deputy director of Marine 
     Community Services. ``It's not their nature.''
       One result is that members of the military routinely work 
     second jobs, often without permission from superiors, 
     military officials acknowledged. Enlisted men and women sell 
     goods at Potomac Mills, flip hamburgers at fast-food 
     restaurants, do construction work, deliver packages for UPS.
       ``Seems like everybody who's been here a while has a part-
     time job,'' said Marine Lance Cpl. Robert Hayes, who has a 
     second job as a mover. ``You really don't have enough money 
     to make it to the next paycheck otherwise.''
                                  ____


        [From the Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, Mar. 5, 2000]

         On Home Front, Military Families Struggle With Low Pay

                    (By Kim Cobb, Houston Chronicle)

       Quotesha Austin is tired of being poor. It is not what she 
     expected as an Army wife.
       Her husband, Pfc, Gary Austin, spends his days training at 
     sprawling Fort Hood, where he drives a lumbering, tank-like 
     vehicle called a Bradley. He is paid $1,171 a month before 
     taxes, a couple hundred dollars in subsistence pay and a 
     housing subsidy that does not cover the rent for his family.
       ``That spells broke,'' Quotesha Austin says dryly. They 
     can't afford a car, and she can't find a job that pays enough 
     to cover day care for her two children.
       In November, she began collecting food stamps, and the 
     Austins joined the list of an estimated 12,000 military 
     families who do the same.
       More than $13 million in food stamps was redeemed last year 
     in military commissaries. There is no way to measure how many 
     were redeemed by military families in civilian supermarkets.
       Although food stamp recipients are less than 1 percent of 
     the nation's 1.4 million service members, the issue has 
     embarrassed some officials who claim to be supporters of the 
     military and has erupted as an emotional campaign topic for 
     GOP presidential hopefuls George W. Bush and John McCain.
       They argue it is an outrage that men and women who put 
     their lives on the line for their country must seek help to 
     feed their families.
       For its part, the Defense Department has studied the food 
     stamp issue and dismissed it as too costly to fix in light of 
     the relatively small number of military families eligible for 
     food stamps.
       But the military has another problem--how to recruit and 
     retain good people when jobs are plentiful and the economy is 
     strong. The Senate Armed Services Committee met recently to 
     discuss the subject.
       Many advocates for better military pay point to a 13 
     percent gap between overall military pay and that for 
     comparable civilian jobs. The defense-oriented Center for 
     Strategic and Budgetary Assessments believes the gap is 
     exaggerated but concludes that increasing pay and benefits to 
     some degree is a reasonable response to recruitment problems.
       The Defense Department has ordered another study on its 
     food stamp families, the third since 1991. Defense spokesman 
     Susan Hansen said incremental pay raises scheduled through 
     2005 and a proposed major boost in the housing allowance 
     should help alleviate cost-of-living problems for everyone.
       ``But I think we've seen in the past that the food stamp 
     issue is more a function of larger families for junior 
     personnel than other demographic groups,'' Hansen said.
       Food stamp recipient Shauntrel Linton says her husband 
     joined the Army specifically because she was pregnant with 
     their first child. Her father was in the military, and they 
     assumed joining the Army would cover their young family's 
     costs. ``I think I thought he'd be making the same amount as 
     my dad,'' she said.
       The military doesn't want to encourage people who are young 
     and at low levels in the military to have many children, said 
     Steven Kosiak of the defense-oriented Center for Strategic 
     and Budgetary Assessments. Although raising all military 
     salaries costs more than just taking care of the food-stamp 
     population, targeting special financial consideration to 
     potential food-stamp recipients creates the problem of 
     different pay for the same work. ``But having said that, 
     nobody wants to think there are military people who are so 
     underpaid they are resorting to food stamps,'' Kosiak said. 
     ``This is not an unsolvable problem, but it is complicated.''
       The last Defense Department study, conducted in 1995, found 
     that 59 percent of military food stamp recipients were living 
     on the base. Most of that group would not be eligible for 
     food stamps, the study speculated, if the agencies that 
     administer them were able to fully measure ``hidden 
     compensation,'' like on-post housing.
       Those conducting the study found that an additional 41 
     percent of recipients were collecting food stamps even though 
     they lived off base and their housing allowances were 
     calculated as part of their gross pay. The study determined 
     that of 4,900 food stamp families living off base, only 1,100 
     should qualify for food stamps, based on income and family 
     size.
       At the lowest end of the scale, an enlisted man or woman at 
     the pay grade of E-1 earns $1,005.49 per month in base pay. 
     The largest percentage of servicemen and women drawing food 
     stamps are at the slightly higher E-4 pay grade, which starts 
     at $1,242.90 per month for those with less than two years of 
     service.
       The military got a 4.8 percent raise in January for every 
     person in uniform. Seventy-five percent of all service 
     members will receive another pay increase in July, although 
     it's targeted to midgrade and noncommissioned officers.
                                  ____


           [From the London Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 31, 1999]

           U.S. Soldiers Rely on Charity to Support Families

                           (By David Wastell)

       Thousands of American soldiers serving in the world's most 
     powerful armed forces are so poorly paid that they are having 
     to depend on charity to provide their families with basic 
     household necessities.
       The spectacle of America's defenders standing in line at 
     social service offices, or raking through discarded furniture 
     to find beds for themselves and toys for their children, has 
     horrified the nation and is emerging as a potent issue in the 
     forthcoming presidential election.
       Although military authorities insist that the problem is 
     small, and only affecting young men with unusually large 
     families, soldiers' wives and welfare organisations say

[[Page S4539]]

     that many more service personnel are struggling to make ends 
     meet--but are too proud to seek the help which they need.
       Tony Bradshaw, a 19-year-old lance-corporal at Quantico, a 
     US Marine base 30 miles south of Washington, who has been 
     receiving food stamps--vouchers that can be exchanged for 
     goods at shops--for the past two months, said: ``It's very 
     hard to realise and admit it. I have to do whatever I can to 
     provide for my family. But I did not expect it to be like 
     this when I joined up.''
       A family of three--with one child and the wife not 
     working--would qualify for food stamps if their pre-tax 
     income is less than $873 (K528) per month. A two-child family 
     would qualify on income less than $1,176 (K705) per month, 
     rising to $2086 (pounds 1252) for a family with five 
     children.
       Food stamps worth $142 a month have helped eke out the 
     $1,000 monthly pay cheque on which L/Cpl Bradshaw, his wife 
     Tenille and their two young children must live in a small, 
     tin house in the middle of the base. Mrs. Bradshaw said: 
     ``Without food stamps my children would not be having much of 
     a Christmas.''
       But the system can be humiliating. Despite having no other 
     means of paying, L/Cpl Bradshaw was not allowed to buy a loaf 
     of bread at the base's military supermarket recently because 
     although he had his food stamps, he did not have with him an 
     official card stating he was entitled to them. A long line of 
     other shoppers, many of them fellow marines, saw him being 
     refused.
       Denis McFeely, food stamps programme manager at the nearest 
     social services office to the base, said: ``The coupons 
     identify an individual in a check-out queue as being on a low 
     income. Other people look to see what is being bought with 
     their tax dollars. The programme has a sigma attached to 
     it.''
       That is one reason why the true number of US servicemen and 
     their families entitled to receive food stamps is almost 
     certainly far higher than the 12,000 who actually do so.
       The problem for young recruits to the American forces is 
     that many in the junior enlisted ranks earn only just over 
     $1,000 a month before tax. Even after allowing for free--if 
     rudimentary--housing and other benefits, a package that may 
     be adequate for single soldiers puts those with even small 
     families well below the official American poverty line.
       Military pay has fallen behind the rest of the American 
     economy as a result of budget squeezes over the last decade, 
     and a recent vote by Congress to grant a 4.8 per cent 
     increase from January still leaves a wide gap. Senator John 
     McCain, who is trying to beat George W. Bush for the 
     republican presidential nomination, is repeatedly raising the 
     subject in his election campaign.
       He said: ``These enlisted service members proudly wear 
     their uniforms on our behalf, ready to make the ultimate 
     sacrifice. They are the very same Americans sent into harm's 
     way in recent years in Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo and now 
     East Timor. They have a right to a decent salary.''
       It is a sentiment shared by many at Quantico, where 7,200 
     marines, many of them officers in training, live and work 
     inside the sprawling, 10 square-mile base with a small 
     civilian town at its centre. Although the base boasts a 
     marina and a leafy golf course, frequented by the marines' 
     upper echelons, living conditions for lower ranks are more 
     down-to-earth.
       In one case a young soldier, his wife and their baby lived 
     without furniture in their newly-allotted house for three 
     weeks before contacting a voluntary group in desperation.
       Tobias Miller, 18, who arrived at the base in March from 
     Missouri with her husband Mike, a lance-corporal, shortly 
     after he completed his basic training, said: ``We slept on 
     the floor for three weeks before I got up the guts to call 
     someone.'' Almost all the furniture in their two-bedroom home 
     was subsequently given to them by an organization called 
     Help--Help Enlisted Lives Prosper.
       Mrs. Miller and her husband also reluctantly decided to 
     apply for food stamps. But after three separate visits to a 
     social services office outside the base, during the last of 
     which they were forced to wait for three hours, they gave up 
     because they could not endure the humiliation.
       Mrs. Miller said: ``My mother was on food stamps and I 
     never wanted to be on them myself. This isn't what my 
     husband's recruiter led us to expect.'' Lisa Joles, 35, the 
     energetic founder of Help and the wife of a local marine, has 
     become an unofficial welfare officer for many of the young 
     families who arrive on the base, often to set up home for the 
     first time.
       She encourages them to apply for food stamps and other 
     welfare benefits. She has also worked hard to publicise the 
     problem, something which has not endeared her to the marines' 
     authorities. They have their own support system which Mrs. 
     Joles insists she is trying to complement. They point out 
     that any problems are not unique to Quantico.
       Most weekends Mrs. Joles and her husband, Baron, an 
     infantryman, distribute large quantities of furniture, 
     clothing and other household goods which have been donated 
     either by better-off marines or by sympathisers.
       Families like the Bradshaws and the Millers have equipped 
     most of their homes that way. Last week L/Cpl Eric Clay and 
     his family--wife Alisha and children Kelsey, aged three and 
     one-year-old Emily--were praising Mrs. Joles as they sifted 
     through the mound of material she had gathered in a shed 
     behind her house.
       Mrs. Joles also organises small squads of wives to do 
     temporary work for local employers, helping boost their 
     families; income. But she is no soft touch: if the women do 
     not learn how to manage the extra money they earn she will 
     not ask them back. She said: ``I don't want them coming back 
     two weeks later saying they don't have enough money to buy 
     diapers.
       ``I am teaching them to take care of their young man--that 
     he belongs to the country--and if the country needs him, he 
     will go. If his family is in chaos the marines are not 
     getting 100 per cent from him.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, these are stories concerning the 
lifestyles of the service men and women in the military. One in the 
Washington Post article of July 20 concerns Quantico Marine Corps Base 
in Virginia. One of the enlisted marines says:

       I think it stinks, really, that a member of the armed 
     forces has to go to food stamps,'' said Lance Cpl. Damon 
     Durre, 25. But that is what the Quantico Marine did after 
     finding he could not support his wife and two children on his 
     take-home pay.

  In the London Sunday Telegraph there is a story:

       Food stamps worth $142 a month have helped eke out the 
     $1,000 monthly pay check on which L/Cpl Bradshaw, his wife 
     Tenille and their two young children must live in a small, 
     tin house in the middle of the base. Mrs. Bradshaw said: 
     ``Without food stamps my children would not be having much of 
     a Christmas.''
       But the system can be humiliating. Despite having no other 
     means of paying, L/Cpl Bradshaw was not allowed to buy a loaf 
     of bread at the base's military supermarket recently because 
     although he had his food stamps, he did not have with him an 
     official card stating he was entitled to them.

  These are just demonstrations of a situation that exists in our Armed 
Forces today; that is, that approximately 6,300 service members receive 
food stamps. That is an unofficial DOD report, while the General 
Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service place the number 
at nearly 13,500. There is some disparity with the numbers, but the 
fact is that there are still thousands on food stamps. Obviously, I 
believe this is a national disgrace and it needs to be repaired.
  The amendment will cost approximately $28 million over 5 years. That 
is an average of less than $6 million per year, to pay for an 
additional allowance of $180 a month to military families who are 
eligible for food stamps. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that this amendment would save millions of dollars in the 
Food Stamp Program by removing service members from the food stamp 
rolls for good.
  As we know, in recent years military pay increases have barely kept 
pace with inflation. But last year there was a significant increase, 
including a pay raise for admirals and generals, who received a 17-
percent pay raise last year. And enlisted families continue to line up 
for free food and furniture.
  I was pleased to hear the prospective Chief of Naval Operations, 
Admiral Vern Clark, support a food stamp stipend when he testified 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 16. Admiral Clark was 
asked by Chairman Warner if he was concerned that a food stamp stipend 
would create an inequity between service members who qualify for food 
stamps and those who do not. Admiral Clark stated:

       My view is that it is far, far more important to not have 
     our people on food stamps than it is to have a small 
     inequity. . . . This is the kind of thing that speaks 
     volumes, much more than a few dollars that are involved in 
     it, about . . . how important we think they are. I support 
     any measure that would put us in a position where we do not 
     ever have to have a single Sailor on food stamps.

  I commend Admiral Clark for his clear thinking and his support of a 
measure that will reflect whether or not we care fundamentally for our 
service members. Admiral Clark is right. We need to rectify this 
problem. There is no provision in the bill at this time concerning the 
food stamp issue.
  I might point out, this amendment is supported by The American 
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Association for 
Uniformed Services, the Disabled American Veterans, The Retired 
Officer's Association, and every enlisted association or organization 
that specifically supports enlisted service member issues in the 
Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans Alliance. 
These associations include the Non Commissioned Officers

[[Page S4540]]

Association, The Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve 
Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the U.S. Coast Guard 
Chief Petty Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the 
National Guard of the United States, and the Naval Enlisted Reserve 
Association.

  During the budget resolution, I talked for a long time about this 
problem in the military. We are talking about, I believe, a $290-some 
billion authorization. We are talking about now an additional $6 
million a year to handle a problem which has received enormous 
publicity, enormous visibility. In the view of officers and enlisted 
alike, it is a problem that has caused a great impact on the morale of 
the men and women in the military, whether they happen to be on food 
stamps or not.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Warner, the chairman of the committee, 
for allowing me to offer this amendment at this time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. This is an initiative on which he 
has worked for some time.
  I wish to ask him a question or two. I intend to support it. I think 
we need a little clarification on one or two points.
  I commend him for bringing this up. I commend him for his 
determination to address this issue, and not only this year but in past 
years.
  It was passed by our committee, this basic language, in last year's 
bill; am I not correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is basically correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy 
with the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. This question of pay inversion, let me just sort of 
describe it. You have a sergeant who has served 5 or 6 years. He has a 
wife and two children. And then a private comes into his platoon, and 
he has a number of children, which enables him to qualify for food 
stamps.
  Now we add a certain sum of money, which the Senator proposes, and 
the salary of the private is coming right up very close to the salary 
of the sergeant. Now, the Senator knows from his long experience in the 
military--and my experience is far more modest than our distinguished 
colleague from Arizona, but having served in the Department of Defense, 
I have watched for many years this question of pay because pay has a 
tremendous significance not only to the military person who wears the 
uniform, but to the wife and family. It is a matter of pride. It is 
recognition for his length of service, for his professionalism, which 
by virtue of that length of service is greater than the younger people 
coming on. How do we address that? What guidance do we give, say, the 
officer corps and senior noncoms who have to deal with this issue, on 
the assumption that Congress passes it?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I am sure the Senator from Virginia 
is aware, as he points out, that this is a problem, although the reason 
why we chose $180 a month was so that while it would not completely 
close the gap, which is higher than that between the two ranks he just 
stated, far more important than that--I can only quote the prospective 
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, when asked by Chairman 
Warner this past May 16, a few weeks ago, about this exact issue he 
raises. The response of the prospective Chief of Naval Operations was:

       My view is that it is far, far more important to not have 
     our people on food stamps than it is to have a small 
     inequity. . . . This is the kind of thing that speaks 
     volumes, much more than a few dollars that are involved in 
     it, about . . . how important we think they are. I support 
     any measure that would put us in a position where we do not 
     ever have to have a single Sailor on food stamps.

  Also, as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, every enlisted 
association: the Noncommissioned Officers Association, the Retired 
Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force 
Sergeants Association, et cetera, who are also aware of this situation, 
still because of the gravity of the problems, support this $180-a-month 
increase for those who are on food stamps.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. Indeed, we will have 
to call upon those organizations to help explain this because it is 
going to pose some problems. But like others, we have to deal with it.
  Mr. McCAIN. If I may respond briefly to my friend, Senator Warner was 
involved in this many years ago when we had enormous retention problems 
in the military, especially in what we call critical rates--those who 
had specialized skills and talents. The chairman was involved in this 
because we decided we would give higher pay to people who were of the 
same time or even less time in the military because they had special 
skills. And they are today, and were then, receiving higher pay because 
of the special skills and the need to retain those people with special 
skills.
  I have always felt that the backbone of the Navy was the bosun's 
mate. Yet we find in the Navy that the bosun's mate is the lowest paid, 
while the electronic technician, the computer specialist, and others, 
who are of equal rank--or rate, to be accurate--receive a much higher 
salary. We did that for practical reasons, which was that it was an 
absolute criticality of maintaining people in the Navy and other 
branches of the military who had these critical skills. We are sort of 
doing the same thing here. We are trying to correct the morale problem 
that exists when the word spreads throughout the military and in our 
recruiting efforts in high schools all over America that if you are 
going to join an organization, i.e., the U.S. military, and you have 
children, you may still be on food stamps. I think there is some 
comparability between those two situations, although not an absolute 
one. I hope the chairman takes my point here.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do. Of course, that is strictly a 
question of professionalism in the aviation community to which the 
Senator has given a lifetime of service. It is critical that they get 
higher pay, not only for flight but for retention purposes, than other 
officer segments. I have to chuckle. In what little military experience 
I have, I was an electrician's mate third class. I am not sure I could 
have qualified for a bosun's mate.

  Mr. McCAIN. Today, you could have a lieutenant who is an aviator 
making more money than a nonaviator officer, an E1 or E2 ranked senior 
to that person because of the criticality of keeping those people in 
the Navy.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is right, the electronic technician people, 
and so forth.
  The second question is--and it is interesting--you were quoting from 
the future Chief of Naval Operations--indeed, an outstanding 
professional. He says he would rather not have people on food stamps. 
Isn't that what he said?
  Mr. McCAIN. He said:

       My view is that it is far, far more important to not have 
     our people on food stamps than it is to have a small 
     inequity. . . .

  The Commandant of the Marine Corps and the current Chief of Naval 
Operations also share those views.
  Mr. WARNER. It is important as part of this colloquy that we lay the 
foundation that the Senator was very careful in arriving at his pay 
levels--not to bump sergeant, or jump over it, which I think was wise. 
In doing so, would I not be correct in saying you will not eliminate 
all food stamp cases? In all probability, the efforts, if adopted and 
signed into law, will still leave some on food stamps. Would I be 
correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. It is not clear because we have gotten two or three 
different estimates, I say to the Senator from Virginia. Several 
experts say this will largely eliminate the problem. There are others 
who say there will still be a few remaining, but all agree this would 
eliminate the overwhelming majority of service members on food stamps.
  Mr. WARNER. It is going to have my support. Mr. President, those are 
the questions I had in mind. I thank the Senator for the colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend my good friend from Arizona for 
his tremendous sensitivity to the issue that he raises. We still have 
service members who are receiving food stamps and that should not be 
the case.

[[Page S4541]]

  If there is good news here--and there is--it is that, since 1991, the 
number of service members on food stamps has been dramatically reduced, 
as well as the percentage in the total force has gone down dramatically 
since 1991. In 1991, there were 19,400 service members receiving food 
stamps. That number went to 11,900 in 1995, and then in 1999 it went to 
6,300. That number--which is the latest we have--does not include the 
fiscal year 1999 or a later pay raise. So we have at least some good 
news in this area, which is that the number of service personnel on 
food stamps has been reduced by about two-thirds since 1991.
  As a percentage of our total force, the percentage has been cut 
roughly in half, from .9 percent in 1991 to .45 percent in 1999. So 
there has been significant improvement. Senator McCain is absolutely 
right. We still have 6,300 service members on food stamps. We should 
not be in that situation. He is pointing out to this body again that we 
should try to do something about it. The informal estimate we get is 
that his amendment will help. It will not eliminate the number of 
people who we have on food stamps, but it will reduce by somewhat that 
number of 6,300. I am going to support it on that basis.

  Again, I commend the Senator from Arizona for his constant raising of 
this issue until we can try to finally resolve this problem.
  There is one little wrinkle in here which is sort of an irony, I 
guess. Maybe that is the best it is. For instance, if you take a 
typical E4 with three dependents who lives on base in Government 
housing, he will get the food stamps because he doesn't have a housing 
allowance. The person under this proposal who might be a similar E4 
with the same number of dependents gets a housing allowance if he lives 
off base, and it is that housing allowance which pushes him above the 
eligibility level for food stamps. Yet, because that housing allowance 
may be inadequate to pay for housing, he may actually be in greater 
need for the food stamps than the person who is on base. However, that 
is something we will just have to try to work with. We have to try to 
make this work the best we possibly can to reduce the number of further 
service members who are receiving food stamps.
  Again, I thank Senator McCain for his constancy, his commitment, his 
dedication, and his passion to this issue. He is right, as he so often 
is in terms of what this goal must be, which is to remove members in 
the services from receiving food stamps. They should not need food 
stamps. We ought to be able to pay them enough and give them enough of 
a housing allowance so there is no need for them to receive food 
stamps.
  I commend him. I will be supporting this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their support of this amendment. I think the remarks of both 
pointing out that this is not a perfect fix but is a significant step 
in the right direction is entirely appropriate. Obviously, we will have 
to review the situation after we see what the result of this amendment 
is once it is enacted into law.
  I thank both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, momentarily I believe the Senator from 
Arizona will ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  I want to work with Senator Levin to see if we can order the 
sequencing of amendments this afternoon to accommodate the Senate. We 
will have the McCain vote. We will decide on that time in a few 
minutes. I have talked to our distinguished colleague from Nebraska, 
Mr. Kerrey. He has a very important amendment. He just indicated to 
this manager that he is willing to bring it up and have a vote on it 
tonight. Is that correct?
  Mr. KERREY. That is correct, unless the chairman is going to accept 
the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. KERREY. Perhaps we can avoid the vote after he hears my argument. 
I am prepared to send an amendment to the desk and schedule a vote on 
it this evening. That is fine. I am ready to go as soon as we vote on 
the McCain amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask my colleague if he has any comment to make.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant 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.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the managers will address the question of 
how we proceed from here at the conclusion of the vote on the McCain 
amendment. Let us proceed. I would suggest the yeas and nays have been 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Let's proceed with the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the McCain amendment. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. 
Domenici) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. 
Dodd), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), and the Senator from 
New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 93, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

                                YEAS--93

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     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
     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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Breaux
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
  The amendment (No. 3179) 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.


                    Amendment No. 3173, As Modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, first, I modify the pending amendment, the 
Warner amendment No. 3173. I send to the desk the amendment, as 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike sections 701 through 704 and insert the following:

     SEC. 701. CONDITIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPUS UPON THE 
                   ATTAINMENT OF 65 YEARS OF AGE.

       (a) Eligibility of Medicare Eligible Persons.--Section 
     1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to a person referred to in subsection (c) who--
       ``(A) is enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance 
     program under part B of such title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.); 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of a person under 65 years of age, is 
     entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42

[[Page S4542]]

     U.S.C. 426(b)(2)) or section 226A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     426-1(a)).''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``paragraph (1) who 
     satisfy only the criteria specified in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (2), but not subparagraph (C) of such 
     paragraph,'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B) of paragraph 
     (2) who do not satisfy the condition specified in 
     subparagraph (A) of such paragraph''.
       (b) Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration 
     Program.--Paragraph (4) of section 1896(b) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg(b)) is amended by striking 
     ``3-year period beginning on January 1, 1998'' and inserting 
     ``period beginning on January 1, 1998, and ending on December 
     31, 2001''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--(1) The amendments made by subsection 
     (a) shall take effect on October 1, 2001 and terminates 
     September 30, 2004.
       (2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe my distinguished colleague from 
Michigan has a request, and then I will present a UC request to the 
Senate.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington 
be recognized for 8 minutes as in morning business.
  Mr. WARNER. Could I put in a UC request before that?
  Would the Senator forbear and allow me to put in a UC request?
  Mr. President, in consultation with the majority leader, the 
Democratic leader, and my colleague, Senator Levin--while I had hoped 
we could continue with votes tonight--we have now reached the following 
recommendation in the form of a UC request.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia be recognized 
to modify his amendment, and following the modification of the 
amendment, the amendment be laid aside and Senator Robert Kerrey be 
recognized to offer an amendment relative to strategic forces, and 
immediately following the reporting by the clerk, the Senator from 
Virginia be recognized to offer a second-degree amendment.
  I further ask consent that following the debate tonight, there be 90 
minutes additional beginning at 9:30 a.m. on the strategic forces 
issue, to be equally divided in the usual form, and following that 
debate, the amendments be laid aside.
  I also ask consent that following that debate, the Senate resume the 
amendment of the Senator from Virginia, amendment No. 3173, and it be 
laid aside in order for Senator Johnson to offer a similar amendment, 
and there be 2 hours, equally divided, total, for debate on both 
amendments, and following that debate, the Senate proceed to vote in 
relation to the amendments.
  I also ask consent that there be no amendments in order to either of 
the four amendments described above, or the language proposed to be 
stricken, and there be 2 minutes for explanation prior to each vote. 
The voting order for tomorrow would be as follows: Warner amendment No. 
3173; Johnson amendment; Warner second degree to Kerrey; Kerrey first 
degree, as amended, if amended.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I just want 
to be clear that the Senator from Washington would be recognized prior 
to Senator Kerrey, and that that time would not come out of any time 
indicated.
  Mr. WARNER. I have no objection to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for working out 
this UC.
  If I could just make an announcement, in light of this agreement, 
there will be no further votes tonight. However, Members should be 
aware that at least two, and up to four, back-to-back votes will occur 
sometime tomorrow commencing at around 12:30 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair and thank my colleagues for yielding 
me this time.

                          ____________________