Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 68 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)

[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:

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.

[[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.

____________________