[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 69 (Wednesday, June 7, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4607-S4635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2549, which the clerk will report.
  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 and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 90 
minutes of debate equally divided on the Kerrey and Warner amendments.
  Pending:

       Warner modified amendment No. 3173, to extend eligibility 
     for medical care under CHAMPUS and TRICARE to persons over 
     age 64.
       Kerrey amendment No. 3183, to repeal a limitation on 
     retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery 
     systems in excess of military requirements.
       Warner amendment No. 3184 (to amendment No. 3183), to 
     provide for correction of scope of waiver authority for 
     limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic 
     nuclear delivery systems, and authority to waive limitation.

  Mr. WARNER. Yesterday, Mr. President, we made progress on this bill--
not quite as much as I had hoped, but nevertheless progress was made. I 
wish to draw to the attention of my colleagues that late last night the 
ranking member and I put forth an amendment to this bill regarding the 
D-Day memorial. As the last act, it seemed to the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan and myself that it was most appropriate that the 56th 
anniversary of D-Day be concluded with an amendment which provides the 
opportunity for, first, the Senate, and hopefully the entire Congress, 
to participate in the raising of the needed dollars for the World War 
II memorial. Over 1,000 World War II veterans are dying each day. 
Organizers are within $6 million of reaching that sum of money needed 
to complete the construction and design phases of this memorial.
  I am pleased to say this amendment passed last night. I thank my 
distinguished colleague, Mr. Levin, for joining me. All the World War 
II veterans currently serving in the Senate were added as cosponsors. I 
served very briefly at the end of World War II. And the others, seven 
in number, were added as cosponsors together with our distinguished 
colleague, Senator Kerrey--although not a World War II veteran, a 
veteran of Vietnam with greatest distinction. So I am pleased to

[[Page S4608]]

make that announcement. Some Senators may have missed it last night.
  I note Senator Kerrey's presence in the Chamber. We thank the Senator 
for cosponsoring the amendment last night by which the Senate goes on 
record endorsing a contribution of $6 million, I might add, out of 
nonappropriated funds. We were able to get the funding from that 
account.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I join my good friend from Virginia in 
commenting on that action last night, how appropriate it is for the 
heroes and heroines who served us so well in World War II, both in war 
and on the home front. As my dear friend from Virginia mentioned last 
night, there were an awful lot of heroes and heroines--obviously, 
veterans first and foremost, but a lot of folks here at home. And this 
memorial is to them. We have now nine World War II veterans remaining, 
I believe, in the Senate; is that correct?
  Mr. WARNER. We have the number here. I will get it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Every one of those were cosponsors, each one with 
extraordinary stories to tell. I was just delighted to be a small part 
of that, even though I am not a vet, just in some way to speak for the 
nonvets in this body about the contributions which have been made by 
those who served us.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that this 
Senator, the Senator from Virginia, although his service at the end of 
World War II was brief, a little less than 2 years, does not put 
himself in the hero class with those in this body who, indeed, very 
humbly and rightfully earned that hero distinction. I may have served 
in Korea in the second engagement of our country in war but not at this 
particular time. Basically, the Navy educated me, for which I am 
grateful. The GI bill helped me, as it did all of those us who served 
at the time. That was probably the greatest investment the United 
States ever made in a bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator from Virginia and I properly tipped our hats 
to Bob Dole last night.
  Mr. WARNER. We did. I talked to him last night after we departed the 
Chamber. Guess what. He sat and watched us and critiqued us very 
carefully. We are proud of Bob Dole.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, if I could make a comment on that subject, 
very much a part of this effort to try to find a compromise on this 
memorial, in the beginning I opposed the design and they redesigned it. 
I am very pleased now to be able to support both the design and 
construction.
  One of the things, I say to my friend from Virginia, that happened 
during this process was that there was a deletion made from this design 
that I think at some point needs to be corrected --not on this site 
because its too small a site to accommodate it--and that is the 
construction of a museum that tells the full story. And I think it has 
relevance, in fact, to the debate on this bill because when George 
Marshall accepted Roosevelt's appointment to be Chief of Staff of the 
Army on September 1, 1939, the Armed Forces of the United States of 
America were approximately 137,000 people. Marshall had to build the 
Army to 8 million people in order for it to be an effective fighting 
force, and it wasn't just the military people who responded. There was 
a huge civilian effort that supported that buildup. It is a story of 
how dangerous it is, even though you may not see an enemy on the 
horizon at the moment, how dangerous it is to stack arms for the United 
States of America.

  We had a resolution a couple of years ago, I think, on this bill to 
try to allocate the resources and do the study to build. There were a 
number of terrific places in the Senator's State right across the river 
that were cited. I believe this will be a wonderful memorial, but the 
missing piece is to tell the full story of what happened from 
Versailles all the way through the Second World War. There was 
basically an interruption for 20 years while America tried to withdraw 
one more time from the world. We paid a terrible price for it. I 
appreciate very much the Senator's willingness to allocate the money 
for this.
  Mr. WARNER. If I can advise my distinguished colleague, the subject 
of a military museum embracing the chronological history of the 
participation of men and women of our Nation in causes of freedom 
beyond our shores is very much in the minds of the members of the Armed 
Services Committee. At the moment, I and other Senators are promoting a 
museum colocated with Arlington Cemetery on the ridge that overlooks 
where the current headquarters of the Marine Corps is located. That is 
due for demolition. That site seems to me and others to lend itself to 
the convenience of tourists visiting this Nation's Capital. It would 
embrace the military history of all branches of our services. We are a 
modest size in comparison to others, but the Senator is right.
  I noticed with interest yesterday in Great Britain the Queen opened 
an extraordinary exposition and permanent museum devoted to the 
Holocaust, again, a reminder of chapters of the tragedy that unfolded 
on the European Continent as a consequence of Hitler and the Axis 
powers.
  Mr. KERREY. I know that site fairly well. I think it would be a 
terrific site for history of the Armed Forces, but I also believe 
oftentimes the most important decisions aren't the decisions the 
military is making but that the civilians made prior to the military 
having to act, at least as I see the history.
  In the Second World War, there were an awful lot of mistakes made in 
the 1920s and the 1930s that created the necessity for that terrible 
war. It is a very important reminder, especially today. It is something 
I am asked all the time when debating authorization for the military.
  People say: Do we need it? Who is the enemy? We are spending more 
than 20 leading nations, et cetera, et cetera.
  People say: Why do we need to continue to do this? The cold war is 
over, and so forth.
  The best answer lies in that 20-year period between 1919 and 1939 
during which the United States of America tried, in the face of all 
evidence to the contrary, to stack arms and withdraw and become 
isolationist.
  We have talked long enough on that subject. I appreciate very much 
the Senator responding to former Senator Dole's request. This is the 
minimum that the people of the United States of America ought to do to 
participate in constructing this important memorial.
  Mr. WARNER. One footnote to this colloquy. Yesterday Senator Dole, 
who is chairman of the National World War II Memorial Campaign, 
received a check for $14.5 million from Wal-Mart stores. The 
contribution was presented by a group of World War II veterans and Wal-
Mart associates during a special ceremony yesterday. That, together 
with the action by this Chamber which I hope will become law, are the 
final building blocks needed in that fundraising campaign.

  Mr. KERREY. The junior Senator from Virginia and I actually sponsored 
legislation earlier. We have been trying to support what it is you are 
trying to do with this Armed Forces memorial that will tell the story 
of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
  Mr. WARNER. Senator Robb is very active in that.
  I yield the floor.
     amendment no. 3183
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate now 
presents to Members of the Senate a series of questions that we have to 
answer.
  The first is, Should the Congress, under any circumstances, impose a 
limitation on the Commander in Chief? As it says, the Commander in 
Chief can't go below a certain level of strategic nuclear weapons. We 
imposed this for the first time in 1998. One of the strongest arguments 
made in 1998 and 1999 was that we needed that in order to put pressure 
on the Duma to ratify START II. They have now ratified START II. I 
think it is unwise to impose a limitation. Whether the President is a 
Democrat, whether the President is a Republican, I think it limits that 
President's ability to be able to negotiate. As a consequence, it puts 
the President in a weaker position when he is talking, whether to 
Russia or other nations--it puts that President in a weaker position 
and gives him less maneuverability to be able to protect the people of 
the United States. If we don't like the action a President takes, the 
Congress can intervene to act. That is question No. 1.

[[Page S4609]]

  Do you think, under any circumstances that you can describe, we ought 
to pass a law that says a President cannot go below a certain level? In 
this case, the START I level is not only 6,000 warheads, but as the 
Senator from Arizona indicated earlier, we describe in the law the 
precise platform delivery systems for the warheads.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator posed a question. I will take responsibility 
to answer the question as we go along, and we can frame for colleagues 
where the differences are between yourself and my amendment, and then 
the distinguished Presiding Officer will take the second question.
  Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to do that.
  The first question is, Did the Congress do the right thing in 1998 
and 1999, and would we be doing the right thing today or in the future 
to have a statute that imposes upon a President a floor, a limitation, 
under which that President cannot go as a consequence of our deciding 
that should only occur as we described in this law?
  We did it in 1998 and again in 1999 and we are proposing to do it 
again this year.
  Mr. WARNER. The answer to that question is very simple. It was first 
done in 1996. We repeated it in 1997, 1998, and 1999. In 2000, we made 
it permanent. That is the provision which the Senator from Nebraska is 
trying to strike.
  In response to that, Congress took action and the President of the 
United States signed it into law one time, two times, three times, four 
times, five times. That should answer the question posed by the Senator 
from Nebraska.

  The President concurred in the judgment of the Congress which said 
that you should not drop below those levels. What the amendment from 
the Senator from Virginia says is it doesn't, in my judgment, restrict 
the President's constitutional right to negotiate, but it says, Mr. 
President, you should not unilaterally, as Commander in Chief, reduce 
our Armed Forces in terms of those strategic levels until you do two 
things which have been followed by previous Presidents, and, indeed, 
this President when he first came to office. You make a QDR study.
  For those that do not understand it, it is an entire study of the 
world threat situation, our force levels, force levels which are 
conventional, force levels which are strategic, and you do a 
comprehensive review of the nuclear posture.
  Those two things having been done, then you can proceed to exercise 
your judgment as Commander in Chief to reduce certain force levels.
  There it is. The President signed it five times, clearly. He could 
have vetoed it. He did not. He signed it into law five times. It 
remains the law of the land today. I will vigorously oppose the efforts 
of my colleague and good friend from Nebraska to repeal that law 
because that law very clearly says you must take prudent actions. My 
amendment sets out what those prudent actions are. Then my amendment 
gives the President the right, after taking those actions of the QDR 
and the posture review of the nuclear forces, to waive the statute that 
has been signed five times by the President of the United States.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first, Congress should be making a 
decision based upon what we think is right. We oftentimes pass defense 
authorization bills that have things the President doesn't like. My 
guess is that the Senator from Virginia has urged the President on many 
occasions: I understand, Mr. President, you don't like this particular 
provision, but I urge you to sign it anyway. There are many other good 
things in the bill. Mr. President, we hope you will sign it because we 
can't get it any better.
  That happens all the time here.
  So the fact that the President signed it does not mean the President 
concurs. Nor should it cause a Senator to say, just because the 
President signed it, that doesn't mean it is a good act. We disagree 
with the President all the time around here. We will get behind him 
when we like what he is doing, and we will get out in front of him when 
we do not like what he is doing. That is the appropriate way, I 
suspect, it ought to be done. Members of the Senate should be deciding: 
Do we think it is a wise thing? Do we want to restrict future President 
Bush or future President Gore? It is not accidental that was imposed in 
1996. It has not been imposed on previous Presidents. It has been 
imposed only on this particular President. So whether the President 
signs the bill or not, in my view, is secondary to the question: Do you 
think it is a sound policy?
  In a post-cold-war era where we have had three Presidential elections 
in Russia--and understand, the bulk of our strategic weapons system is 
for Russia. That is the bulk of our system. What would the Senator say, 
75 percent or 80 percent of the SIOP is dealing with the democratic 
nation of Russia with whom we have relations, with whom we are trying 
to work to help to be successful in their democratic experiment and 
their experiment with free markets? The question is, Does it restrict 
the President and make it less likely he can begin to think in a new 
way--which, in my judgment, needs to occur?
  So, regardless, whether the President signs it or not, my guess is 
the President does not support this provision. But even if he said, ``I 
support it,'' I would still oppose it. I still think it is unreasonable 
for Congress to do. So that is question No. 1 that you have to decide. 
Whether the President signs it or not is secondary. My guess is a lot 
of folks on that side of the aisle think the President signs a lot of 
things they wish he would not sign, things they voted against. So it is 
not, to me, a very compelling argument to say we have to do this 
because the President signed five previous bills that had this 
provision in them.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply say to my good friend, I strongly disagree. This 
President signed this five times. We saw an example where the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia and I had the Byrd-Warner 
amendment regarding the deployment of our troops and taking certain 
steps by the Congress. What happened? Not only this President but the 
candidates for President, both Vice President Gore and George W. Bush, 
communicated in various ways they believed that amendment was an 
encroachment on Presidential power, and we missed that by a mere three 
votes, is my recollection, because of that very issue. It was an 
abridgement of Presidential power. Nothing is fought on this Chamber 
floor with greater vigor than protecting the powers of the President of 
the United States.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, first of all, is our time being charged to 
the two of us? Is that how this is being worked?
  Mr. WARNER. It seems to me that is a fair allocation in the course of 
a colloquy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). When the Senator from Nebraska 
speaks, that is charged against his time. When the Senator from 
Virginia speaks, it is allocated against his time.
  Mr. KERREY. I do not think it is going to be persuasive to the 
Senator from Virginia, but this is the statement of policy on the 
Senate defense authorization bill:

       The administration appreciates the bill's endorsement of 
     our plan to reduce the Trident submarine force from 18 to 14 
     boats, while maintaining a survivable, effective START I-
     capable force. However, we prefer repealing the general 
     provision that maintains the prohibition, first enacted in 
     the FY 1998 Defense Authorization Act, against obligating 
     funds to retire or dismantle any other strategic nuclear 
     delivery systems below specified levels. . . .

  And on and on and on.
  So the President has signed it, but the President does not support 
this policy. Again, I do not suppose that is going to be persuasive to 
my colleague, but he used an argument against repealing this provision 
that said the President supports it, or he signed the bill which 
implies that he supports the provision.
  I personally believe the Congress should be making the decision. The 
Senator's argument, with great passion, that he does not like 
infringing upon the prerogatives of the President--I have heard him 
many times down here arguing, oftentimes against Members of his own 
party, against efforts to do that. So I am surprised, in fact, 
especially now that the Russian Duma has ratified START II, that we

[[Page S4610]]

want to continue this policy. I think it is not good. So that is 
question No. 1. You have heard very eloquent argument on the other 
side. Question No. 1 is: Does Congress want to do that under any 
circumstances with or without a review?
  The second question we are now going to be asked, as a consequence of 
the second-degree amendment, is: Do we want to delay action? Do we want 
to restrict the action in accordance with the second-degree amendment 
which basically says we have to have a nuclear force structure review 
and that review is submitted concurrently with the quadrennial review 
which is expected December of 2001?
  I believe it is time for the people's representatives, elected by the 
people, to be having a debate about what kind of force structure we 
want to maintain. And it is counterproductive, it is difficult for us 
to reach the right decision, if we once again farm it off and say we 
want somebody else to figure it out. It is the civilians who send 
instructions to the CINC at STRATCOM. It is PDD-60 that determines what 
the Single Integrated Operating Plan, the SIOP, is. The targets are 
selected as a consequence of civilian instructions, not the other way 
around. It is we who have to decide, Do we have enough? Do we have too 
much? Or is it right? It is we who have to bring commonsense analysis 
to the debate and answer the question: Given the current status, given 
what we expect out in the future, do we have enough?
  We have the statements of General Shalikashvili in 1995, as he 
evaluated this, that seem to indicate that lower levels are safe. But 
even there, General Shalikashvili is following civilian instructions.
  I understand this amendment provides people an opportunity to sort of 
vote for this thing and we are going to have a normal review. It may in 
fact carry the day. It is a very complicated argument, and it may in 
fact be that the second-degree amendment passes. I hope not, because it 
is time for this Congress to take back the responsibility for targeting 
and answer the question: Do we have enough, do we have too little, or 
do we have the numbers quite right?
  I urge Members to look at what we now have in the public realm, data 
that indicates what that targeting is. We have an analysis, public 
analysis now, of what happens when we have 2,500 strategic warheads 
after we subtract that fraction that may not be available to us for a 
variety of reasons. Understanding we are not shooting bullets here, 
these are very complicated systems, and you cannot, with 100-percent 
reliability, predict that they are going to arrive on target in the 
manner that has been described. So they are very complicated systems. 
It requires modernization; it requires constant analysis. The men and 
women at STRATCOM and others who have that responsibility are highly 
skilled, and they work on that problem all the time.

  This is why I think the review is not a good idea. It pushes away 
from us one more time the problem of just considering what these 
nuclear weapons can do instead of asking ourselves, with a commonsense 
analysis--because, again, the targeting begins with civilian 
instructions. It is the Presidential directive that determines what the 
targeting is. We have modified the targeting, certainly, to accommodate 
some of the changes that have occurred as a result of the end of the 
cold war. But I believe if you look at these things and say, oh, my 
gosh, what will those do, you will reach a commonsense conclusion that 
we have more than is necessary in order to keep the people of the 
United States of America safe.
  That is the mission of this defense authorization bill, whether we 
are debating the pay for our military, whether we are debating our 
force structure, or readiness, whatever it is. We ought to authorize 
and we ought to appropriate such funds as necessary to keep the people 
of the United States of America and our interests and our allies safe. 
That is what our mission is.
  But, again, on the question of the need for review, what is needed is 
for Congress to review it, for Congress to answer the question. We 
have, under what is called the minimal deterrent level, the 2,500 
warheads: We have 500 100- to 300-kiloton weapons that will land on 
war-supporting installations in Russia, 160 on leadership, 500 on 
conventional forces, 1,100 on nuclear targets.
  I urge, rather than doing a review, what we need to do is bring out a 
map of Russia and take a look and answer the question, What do 2,260 
nuclear detonations of a minimum of 100 kilotons do to Russia? 
Remember, the war in the Pacific ended in 1945 as a consequence of two 
15-kiloton detonations. I stipulated earlier my uncle died in the 
Philippines and my father was a part of the occupation force rather 
than invasion. I have a vested interest in declaring that I think 
Truman did the right thing. But those were two 15-kiloton detonations. 
We are talking about 2,260 detonations in excess of 100 kilotons. We do 
not need a review by professionals. The people's representatives need 
to do an analysis of this, and I urge my colleagues to do that kind of 
analysis. Imagine those kinds of detonations and ask yourself, Do we 
have enough?
  Connected with that, do an analysis yourself, both of the command and 
control capability of Russia and of their ability to do warnings, 
because if they have mistakes made at either command and control or 
warning--and their capacity to do early warning not only is declining 
but it is declining enough so the President, in one of the few 
successes he had, in addition to getting an agreement to eliminate 
weapons-grade plutonium, got an agreement to do a joint warning center 
in Moscow because the analysis says their capacity to do accurate 
warning is declining. What does that mean? It means if they get a false 
alarm, they are going to launch because their instructions are to 
launch on warning.
  So what we are doing is, as a consequence of maintaining higher 
levels pending more reviews, et cetera, et cetera, we are forcing the 
Russians to maintain a level higher than they are able to maintain, 
putting us at risk. It increases the risk today. That is how the end of 
the cold war has changed things. Russia cannot maintain 6,000 strategic 
weapons. They have been begging us for years. Indeed, one of the things 
I said yesterday, one of the paradoxes of this whole debate, is I am 
not sure this administration would take action.
  (Mr. WARNER assumed the chair.)
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator from Nebraska yield for just a moment? I 
would like to be able to answer his question.
  Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to.
  Mr. ALLARD. The Chairman made a good point. We need to run a 
comparison. The question the Senator asked is, Do we need to delay 
actions? The answer is, No, we don't want to unnecessarily delay 
action. But I think we need to have a responsible decisionmaking 
process set up. These are very complex issues.
  There are a lot of issues involved. Hearing the Senator's comments 
sounds to me as if he would agree with what the committee has tried to 
do. They said: Look, these are complicated issues. We need to have a 
careful review. In fact, the Strategic Subcommittee, which I chair, has 
set up a process where we have two studies to review our nuclear 
posture of where we are and move into negotiations.
  For the committee to be informed means we have to hear from the 
professionals who deal with these issues. They need to bring the 
information to the committee.
  We represent the people of the United States in the Congress and the 
Armed Services Committee tries to represent those interests. We have to 
set up a process to do exactly what the Senator from Nebraska is 
talking about.
  A lot has changed since the last posture review in 1994, and what was 
relevant in 1994 is not necessarily relevant today. We have new 
leadership, by the way, since that review. In Russia, we have new 
leadership. We have new leadership around the world. We have leadership 
that has changed even in this country. We need to reevaluate in the 
context of this new political environment. We need to reevaluate in the 
context of new technology, new positions as far as the nuclear posture 
is concerned.

[[Page S4611]]

  This amendment is critical to protecting our country and stabilizing 
the world. We need to get the current crop of experts, military and 
civilian--it is proper to bring in the civilian role--to formulate 
recommendations given today's dynamic changes.
  It seems to me the Senator from Nebraska would agree with what the 
committee is trying to do. We agree perhaps times have changed. As the 
chairman pointed out earlier, the law expressly prohibited the 
President. Now we are saying, with a careful Nuclear Posture Review, 
maybe we can move ahead and review some of these issues.
  (Mr. L. CHAFEE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. KERREY. I appreciate that response. I made it clear in questions 
yesterday posed to the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from 
Colorado having to do with the issue of whether or not this action 
could be taken prior to December of 1991, whether or not an accelerated 
comprehensive review could occur if it was a President Bush or a 
President Gore. The answer was yes, leading me to say in that situation 
maybe I would support the amendment because if they can do an 
accelerated review, so can President Clinton.
  The answer then came back: No, we do not want President Clinton to do 
an accelerated view. We are willing to let President Gore or President 
Bush do it but not President Clinton. That is precisely why it is a bad 
provision because I believe it is there because of distrust of a single 
President. It is not wise, in my judgment, for the Congress to impose 
that kind of restriction because it does send a signal to our allies 
not to negotiate.
  It makes it much more difficult for the President to negotiate not 
only arms control agreements but to take action as President Bush did 
in 1991 facing a problem of how do we leapfrog the arms control 
process.
  I heard my colleagues on the other side say the old arms control 
process needs to be torn up. That is not inconsistent with this kind of 
thinking. That is exactly what Governor Bush said in his press club 
speech surrounded by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, 
and Colin Powell. If those four men were part of that new 
administration and they came out and said we need a review in November, 
December, and January and we think we can go to lower levels and we 
want to go immediately, we can get Russia to agree to a robust missile 
defense, my guess is every single Member of the other side would go 
along with it immediately, understanding these men are qualified and 
they understand what is necessary to protect the United States of 
America.

  They do not need another review, and they certainly do not need 
Congress imposing a limitation on where they can go. This is a 
limitation that has been imposed on a single President. If it becomes 
policy for Congress to do it, I believe it is going to be very 
difficult for us to take advantage of this new post-cold-war 
opportunity, as the other side has done repeatedly. There are times 
when the President submits a budget for defense and they say it is not 
enough. They do not say we need a review of this for another 3 or 4 
months or a long period of time. They say we have done a review; we are 
not ready so we have to put more money in the budget, we have to put 
more weapons systems in the budget that were not in the President's 
request.
  We do not have any difficulty confronting the President. We do not 
ask for reviews when the President is not asking us to do something we 
want. This is, in my judgment, a provision that was put in here as a 
consequence of not trusting a particular President, and it is a 
mistake. It is going to hamstring the next President, whoever that 
President is. This amendment attempts to soften it a bit, but it still 
leaves it in place. Senator Kyl, I understand, was speaking for how 
they now interpret the amendment, saying, no, the review has to be 
submitted concurrently with a quadrennial review whenever that occurs. 
Maybe it is not in December 2001. Maybe it is done in January 2002. 
What if you have a President Bush coming online with Secretary of 
Defense Colin Powell and George Shultz and Brent Scowcroft and Henry 
Kissinger as part of that administration, and they do a review in 
November and December and come to you and say: We decided we want to go 
to 5,000 in exchange for an agreement; is that sufficient?
  Mr. ALLARD. Let me tell you what the committee was thinking, as 
chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, when we looked at this and said 
we need to have a careful Nuclear Posture Review. The Senator is trying 
to imply there was a political motive with that. This committee, made 
up of Democrats and Republicans, said we need to have a careful Nuclear 
Posture Review and we need to look at the facts. We recognized that in 
1994 we had a review. We need to go back.
  Mr. KERREY. I am not implying a political motivation. I am rereading 
your answers to my questions yesterday. I saw reason I would support 
this amendment, and the reason I could have supported the amendment is, 
if you had said to me, yes, a thoughtful and thorough review can be 
done by civilians in less time than done by a quadrennial review that 
would allow President Bush or President Gore, and the answer was that 
would be acceptable. I then said: What if Clinton did the same thing? 
The answer was no. I am reading back and remembering what the exchange 
was yesterday.
  Mr. ALLARD. In considering this issue, we need to have a careful 
Nuclear Posture Review. It is not going to happen quickly. What the 
Senator from Nebraska wants to see happen in public policy where we 
would carefully evaluate where we are in comparison with the rest of 
the world is not going to happen in 3 or 4 months. It is going to take 
time. We have to have input from civilian experts. We have to have 
input from military experts. From a practical standpoint, it is 
probably not going to be an opportunity on which this President can 
act. Whether it is a Democrat or Republican President, whoever is in 
office next, I think the same policy is going to have to apply because 
the ultimate goal is to have a careful posture review and make sure we 
do not unilaterally disarm this country, that we do not make it more 
vulnerable than it is today.
  I yield my time to the chairman of the committee.
  Mr. WARNER. I will be happy to listen.
  Mr. KERREY. Go ahead.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply reiterate what my colleague, who is the chairman 
of the subcommittee, has said. This amendment, which I drew up 
carefully, is drawn in such a way that it does not preclude President 
Clinton from negotiating and, indeed, preclude him from exercising his 
authority as Commander in Chief to direct the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs and others in the Pentagon: This is a level to which you will 
drive nuclear weapons. He can do it.
  We are saying it should only be done after a quadrennial review, 
after a nuclear posture study has been completed. From a practical 
standpoint, it simply, in my judgment, cannot be achieved. If it were 
forced to be done, it would be viewed not only by us but the Russians 
and all others who follow this as an imprudent, an unwise step by our 
President. That is it.
  Mr. KERREY. May I ask the Senator a question?
  Do you think that Congress made a mistake not having a similar 
provision in place so we could have prevented President Bush from 
taking his action in 1991?
  Mr. WARNER. No. Fine. Let's review what President Bush did. In the 
final hours of the days of his Presidency, he did the START II. I 
understand that. But the point is, that was a process that evolved over 
many years. The work had been done. The studies had been done. All of 
it was in place ready for his signature.
  I say to the Senator, that is not the case in this instance. The last 
posture review of importance was 1994. Why this administration sought 
not to bring those up to date, to bring up a current one----
  Mr. KERREY. But I say to the Senator, the question directly is, Do 
you think Congress should have passed a similar restriction on 
President Bush so he could not have done what he did in 1991?

[[Page S4612]]

  Mr. WARNER. I would say, if this situation today were of a parallel 
situation at the time of President Bush, I would have been the first to 
pass this same law. It was an entirely different factual situation, I 
say to the Senator. I hope those listening understand that. But you 
posed the question. If President Bush at that time was faced with the 
decision such as this to lower the numbers drastically, I would say it 
should not be done until the staff work and the careful work had been 
done by those entrusted, namely, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to make the analysis before a President 
acts.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield just for----
  Mr. KERREY. I yield the floor to you.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  I must say, I am utterly amazed by the last answer of my good friend 
from Virginia. What the Senator from Virginia said is that President 
Bush carefully, after thorough deliberation and consideration, 
negotiated a START II treaty. That was done, to use my good friend's 
words: After the studies were done, after the work was done.
  I am wondering if my friend from Nebraska would agree with what I am 
now going to say. The law that is on the books will not let us go down 
to the Bush START II level, which was so carefully negotiated.
  Think about what our law is. We just heard--and I agree with the good 
Senator from Virginia--that President Bush carefully, thoughtfully, in 
the words of the Senator from Virginia, after the studies were done and 
the work was done, negotiated a START II treaty. I agree with that. The 
law on the books will not let us go to the level that President Bush 
negotiated. We have to stay at START I levels.
  Mr. KERREY. I quite agree with that.
  Mr. LEVIN. You cannot have it both ways. If President Bush 
thoughtfully--and he did--carefully--and he did--after work was done--
and it was--negotiated a START II level--we have ratified START II--the 
Joint Chiefs want us to go to that level and have testified to that, 
that we are wasting money staying at the START I level--we have 
peacekeepers that we can't afford to maintain; it is wasteful--they 
say, please don't force us to keep to that level, but we have a law on 
the books which says we have to stay at the START I level of 6,000 
warheads. We cannot go down to the START II level of 3,000 to 3,500 
warheads because of the law on the books. You can't have this both 
ways.

  To add insult to injury, now we are saying that the only way that can 
be waived, that limit, that START I requirement that we have on the 
books, is if there is another Nuclear Posture Review. We have had two 
very thoughtful, Nuclear Posture Reviews, one in 1994, one in 1997.
  You will not let us implement it. This law will not let us implement 
the previous careful, thoughtful Nuclear Posture Reviews. I do not have 
any problem with another one, by the way. I do not have any problem 
with the bill the way it now reads.
  The problem I have is with the Warner amendment, which says that we 
can't do what we negotiated in START II, even though it has been 
confirmed by two thoughtful posture statements, unless the President--
the next President, not this one--first has another Nuclear Posture 
Review. That is the problem.
  I think the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from 
Virginia is aimed very clearly at this President. I think it is a 
mistake in terms of its approach. It is being limited to hobble this 
President, to force him to maintain a force structure which was 
negotiated to a lower level by a previous President. I think that is a 
mistake in terms of precedent and in terms of what we should be doing 
in terms of a body. It should not be aimed at one President.
  But in addition to that, I must say that we are maintaining a force 
structure which the Joint Chiefs say we do not need, a force structure 
which START II--which was negotiated by President Bush--says we do not 
need. So we are wasting a lot of money as well as engaging, I believe, 
in a partisan effort to hobble the President.
  That is the sad news. That is one of the problems with the Warner 
amendment. But there is some good news--not in this amendment, but 
there is some good news that should give us a little bit of comfort.
  It will not work. We can waste money. We are. We can maintain a 
dangerous level of force structure, for the reasons which the Senator 
from Nebraska gave, making us less secure, not more. We can do all 
that. But we cannot hobble the President, although I believe the intent 
of this amendment is to hobble this President. I believe that is the 
intent because it is only aimed at this President.
  The next President--whether it is a Democratic or Republican 
President--we have been told last night, can go through this review in 
a matter of months, if they want to, and then waive this statute, but 
not this President. So I think it is aimed at this President. But this 
President has the constitutional right to negotiate a treaty, should he 
see fit. Thank God, the Constitution is there again to save us.
  Because although this language will not allow a waiver by this 
President to get down to the level which President Bush negotiated, and 
which the Joint Chiefs of Staff say is all we need to keep us secure--
half of the level which the current law forces us to maintain--even 
though that is what this language will force us to do, it cannot stop 
the President from carrying out his constitutional duty to his last day 
in office.
  He can negotiate a treaty at a lower level. If he does so, we can 
reject it. The Senate has to ratify under the Constitution. But the 
President is nonetheless able to negotiate reductions below the START 
II level, as the Joint Chiefs have said he safely can.
  In 1997, the Joint Chiefs said we can safely go down to 2,000, 2,500, 
which is about 1,000 below the START II level. They have already said 
that after a careful posture review. I hope the President succeeds in 
coming up with a treaty which allows us to deploy a limited national 
missile defense at a lower level of nuclear weapons. I hope he 
succeeds.
  But I must say this amendment is not constructive. It is not 
something which I believe would be offered were a President of a 
different party in office. I do not believe that it would be offered. I 
think the answers last night give support to that conclusion.
  It is a very sad conclusion on my part to reach that because I know 
my friend from Virginia is not ordinarily of that bent. We have worked 
together long enough so I know what his instincts usually are. But in 
this case, I am afraid it falls short of where we should be as a body, 
which should be supporting our right to ratify, supporting a force 
structure we need, but not maintaining a force structure we no longer 
need according to two careful posture reviews, for purposes which I 
believe are intended to restrict this President.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask the Senator from Nebraska, is it not 
accurate that the START II level which was negotiated by President Bush 
was supported by a Nuclear Posture Review made by the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff?
  Mr. KERREY. The Senator is correct. It is one reason additional 
review is not necessary. It is offered in good faith, but it is 
certainly not necessary to make this determination.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might summarize, again, on five 
occasions President Clinton has signed into law actions by the Congress 
of the United States which state very clearly we should not go to these 
levels. There it is.
  It is interesting, one of the reasons Congress took that action is we 
were not sure what the Duma would do on START II. We were right. They 
accepted START II, but with the following conditions on it: ABM treaty 
demarcation protocol, ABM treaty succession multilateralization 
protocol, START II extension protocol. Those protocols have not been 
sent to the Senate by the President. No one can refute that; they have 
not been sent here. They do not have his endorsement. That is why we 
should not undo hastily with this amendment this fabric of legislation 
which for 5 consecutive years has been passed by the Congress and 
signed by the President of the United States.

[[Page S4613]]

  The Warner amendment does not preclude President Clinton from 
negotiating. It does not preclude our President from creating a QDR in 
the next few months, creating an updated nuclear posture. He could do 
it. But it would be imprudent and unwise to do it because it would run 
against the guidance provided by the Congress. No one should say this 
Congress, particularly the Senate, is not an equal partner on matters 
of seriousness of this nature, particularly as it relates to treaties. 
It is in the Constitution just as clearly as is the President's 
Commander in Chief role.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if I may have 1 additional minute, I will 
then yield the floor.
  Mr. KERREY. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. On the point of the President signing five bills, when the 
President signs bills--these bills are 600 pages long--he makes it very 
clear he doesn't agree with every single provision in every bill he 
signs. As a matter of fact, if that were the test, I am sure we could 
get a statement right now from the President indicating his opposition 
to this provision. I would think the Senator from Virginia would still 
not drop this provision, even though the President of the United States 
would indicate opposition to it.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, speaking for the administration, I 
am sure, in 1995, said:

       Our analysis shows that, even under the worst conditions, 
     the START II force levels provide enough survivable forces 
     and survivable, sustained command and control to accomplish 
     our targeting objectives.

  That is the Joint Chiefs speaking for the administration in 1995. The 
current law will not allow this administration to go down to the levels 
which General Shalikashvili and the current Joint Chiefs say are 
adequate. It is wasteful as well as attempting to hobble the President. 
But if the test is whether the President supports the language or not, 
I am sure we can get a quick letter from the President indicating his 
opposition to the Senator's amendment. I wonder whether the Senator 
would drop his amendment if the President indicated opposition in a 
letter?
  Mr. WARNER. Unequivocally, no, I say to my good friend.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend.
  Mr. WARNER. In quick summary, he cites what the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs said in 1995. Fine. But General Shelton and others were acting 
on the predicate, on the assumption, which was a fair assumption, that 
the Russian Duma would adopt START II as it was written and not put 
these conditions on it. Once they put these conditions on, it was a 
clear signal to all of us, we had better go back and reexamine what in 
effect is the desire of Russia on arms control. These are conditions 
which they know this Chamber, as presently constituted, would never 
accept.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement of 
General Shelton be printed in the Record at this time, indicating that 
major costs would be incurred if we remain at START I levels, stating 
his opposition to the language which the Senator from Virginia would 
maintain in our law without the possibility of a waiver until next 
year.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Testimony Before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, January 5, 
                                  1999


             RATIONALE FOR STAYING AT START I FORCE LEVELS

       Senator Levin. General Shelton, in your view, is there any 
     military reason why we should freeze our strategic forces at 
     the START I level until Russia ratifies START II?
       What is the cost (a) in fiscal year 2000; and (b) through 
     the FYDP; to maintain our forces at the START I level instead 
     of a lower level that is required for military reasons?
       General Shelton. As a result, the force structure could 
     undergo change. The Joint Chiefs and I are working with the 
     Commander in Chief of our Strategic Command on a 
     recommendation for the Secretary of Defense. There are a 
     number of alternative force structures with fewer platforms 
     that meet our national security needs and still provide 6,000 
     strategic warheads to maintain leverage on the Russians to 
     ratify START II. The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time to 
     consider options that will reduce our strategic forces to the 
     levels recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. The START I 
     legislative restraint will need to be removed before we can 
     pursue these options.
       Major costs will be incurred if we remain at START I 
     levels. Since our START II baseline calls for Peacekeeper to 
     be retired by 31 December 2003, costs in fiscal year 2000 
     include an additional $51 million to maintain all Peacekeeper 
     missiles for 1 year. Overall Peacekeeper costs are 
     approximately $150 million per year and maintaining them over 
     the FYDP will cost $560 million. Keeping our SSBN force 
     structure at START I levels (18 SSBNs) until fiscal year 2006 
     will costs an additional $5.3 billion, which includes 
     refueling, overhaul, and backfitting four Trident SSBNs with 
     D-5 missiles.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Secretary Cohen. . . . So the answer is, I do not think we 
     need to have the legislation, which expires, and we can 
     maintain the same level until such time as--level of warheads 
     that we have under START I, until such time as the Russians 
     ratify START II, so we can achieve that particular goal.
       Senator Levin. So, the way the legislation is framed is not 
     helpful or necessary?
       Secretary Cohen. I think it is unnecessary at this point.

                           *   *   *   *   *



               FISCAL YEAR 2000 DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

       Senator Levin. Would you oppose inclusion of a provision in 
     the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Authorization Act mandating 
     strategic force structure levels--specific numbers of Trident 
     Submarines, Peacekeeper missiles and B-52 bombers?
       General Shelton. Yes, I would definitely oppose inclusion 
     of any language that mandates specific force levels. It is 
     important for us to retain the ability to deploy the maximum 
     number of warheads allowed by START I but the Services should 
     also have the flexibility to do so with a militarily 
     sufficient, yet cost effective, force structure.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Senator Levin. Are there any military requirements for the 
     50 Peacekeeper ballistic missiles?
       General Shelton. The Commander in Chief United States 
     Strategic Command conducted an extensive analysis of 
     maintaining 14 Tridents, 500 Minutemen IIIs, and 0 
     Peacekeepers uploaded to the approximate warhead limits of 
     START I in our inventory and he concluded this force was 
     militarily sufficient and I concurred with this assessment.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Senator Levin. I would hope they take that into account and 
     also the fact that they are doing that because that is what 
     we wanted them to do under the START agreements, is to move 
     to the new kind of weapons system. But whatever you want to 
     take into account, please respond to that for the record.
       [The information referred to follows:]
       The Service Chiefs and I agree it is time to reduce the 
     number of our nuclear platforms to a level that is militarily 
     sufficient to meet our national security needs. Specifically, 
     we should move to the force structure levels recommended by 
     the Nuclear Posture Review. For fiscal year 2000, this means 
     programming for the reduction of our nuclear-powered fleet 
     ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) force structure from 18 to 
     14 TRIDENTs while maintaining 50 PEACEKEEPERs. We strongly 
     believe it is militarily prudent to review PEACEKEEPER 
     annually. The four SSBNs will continue to operate until they 
     reach the end of their reactor core life when they will be 
     retired. With a strategic force of 14 TRIDENT SSBNs, 50 
     PEACEKEEPER and 500 MINUTEMAN III intercontinental ballistic 
     missiles (ICBMs), and our nuclear capable bombers, we will 
     still be capable of deploying approximately 6,000 strategic 
     warheads as allowed by START I. The statutory provision that 
     keeps us at the START I level for both TRIDENT SSBNs and 
     PEACEKEEPER ICBMs will need to be removed before we can 
     pursue these options.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I may make one observation in reply, 
the President's budget for 2001 includes funds to sustain our strategic 
forces at current levels. Why then did he send up a budget request to 
maintain those strategic levels, the levels you are now asking him not 
to knock down?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the answer to that is a question back to 
the

[[Page S4614]]

Senator from Virginia. If the President is asking for these levels, why 
would he insist on a prohibition of his going lower? Why is he so 
concerned he is going to go lower, if the President is asking for these 
levels? Why does he need this provision?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, ultimately we will go lower. But we should 
take into consideration the actions of the Duma and the fact that we 
should study very carefully this nuclear posture in view of the actions 
taken by the Duma.
  Mr. KERREY. The question the Senator from Virginia asked me was, Why 
did the President send up an authorization request for current levels 
if he was thinking about going lower? That is a good question. I am not 
certain the President would use his authority. The question that 
provokes is, Why, if the President is asking for existing levels, are 
this Senator from Virginia and others so concerned that he might go 
lower? Why do we have this prohibition on any President? It is an 
unnecessary and unwarranted interference, and it makes the people of 
the United States of America an awful lot less safe, given what is 
going on in Russia today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Chair state the allocation of the 
time remaining between the distinguished Senator from Nebraska and 
myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 14 minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Virginia has 25 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Kerrey amendment is a sensible proposal 
that merits bipartisan support.
  The Joint Chiefs of Staff decided many years ago under the Bush 
administration that we could safely go below START I force levels. 
President Bush signed START II, and the Senate approved it in 1996.
  Now the Russian parliament has approved START II. That treaty cannot 
enter into force yet, due to differences over the ABM Treaty, but both 
the United States and Russia could usefully go below START I levels.
  The Joint Chiefs have consistently opposed the statutory ban on going 
below START I levels. As General Shelton said to Senator Levin in an 
answer for the record.

       The cold war is over. . . . The Service Chiefs and I feel 
     it is time to consider options that will reduce our strategic 
     forces to the levels recommended by the Nuclear Posture 
     Review. The START I legislative restraints will need to be 
     removed before we can pursue these options.

  The ban that the Kerry amendment would repeal is a hindrance to 
rational planning and resource allocation. It makes us maintain forces 
that are not needed, at the expense of more pressing needs. As General 
Shelton replied to Senator Levin: ``Major costs will be incurred if we 
remain at START I levels.''
  The Warner second-degree amendment would retain this ban for another 
year-and-a-half, for no good reason.
  It would prevent the President of the United States from implementing 
strategic force reductions that are supported by our military leaders. 
It would also prevent his successor from implementing such reductions 
for nearly a year, and from deactivating any of those forces for 
another 30 days beyond that.
  This is not just a slap in the face of our President--although it is 
surely that. It is also a slap in the face of the likely Republican 
nominee for President, Governor Bush of Texas.
  Two weeks ago, Governor Bush proposed cuts in U.S. forces below the 
START II level--not just below START I, but below START II. Governor 
Bush said: ``The premises of Cold War nuclear targeting should no 
longer dictate the size of our arsenal.''
  He may think that the White House is the home of cold war thinking. 
If the American people should ever elect Governor Bush to be our 
President, however, he'll find that the cold war is alive and well a 
couple of miles east of the White House--in his own party.
  Governor Bush added, 2 weeks ago:

       . . . the United States should be prepared to lead by 
     example, because it is in our best interest and the best 
     interest of the world. This would be an act of principled 
     leadership--a chance to seize the moment and begin a new era 
     of nuclear security.

  Would the Warner amendment allow him to seize the moment? Not for 
many months.
  Imagine our new President negotiating with President Putin of Russia 
in 2001. Putin says: ``Let's do START III.'' President Bush (or 
President Gore) replies: ``Heck, my Senate won't even let me go under 
START I. Come back next year!''
  Hamstringing the President in this way is silly, and we all know 
that. The Joint Chiefs opposed it; the future Republican nominee for 
President wants to go far beyond it; and the Congressional Medal of 
Honor winner from Nebraska, whom the Senator from Virginia praised just 
last night, would never undermine our national security.
  Let's stop playing games. Let's defeat the Warner amendment and 
support the Kerrey amendment.
  Mr. President, I will respond to some of what I have heard in today's 
debate. My dad has an expression: Sometimes what people say is not what 
they mean, even though when they say it, they think they may mean it. 
That sounds confusing. I always used to wonder what he meant by that. I 
think I understand it better now.
  The Senator from Virginia has an amendment that, with all due respect 
to him, is bad logic, bad law, and bad politics. I know him to be a 
much more informed fellow. I have asked myself why, why does he have 
this amendment? What is the real reason? I am not suggesting duplicity. 
I am not suggesting any kind of treachery, but why? Why would you have 
an amendment that says a President cannot do what a previous President 
said was proper to do and all the military people then and since then 
have said we should do? Why would you do this?
  It has dawned on me that we are finally getting to the place--I 
suggest humbly--that I predicted we would get to 18 months ago. We are 
finally coming out of the closet in the real debate. The real debate is 
whether there should be arms control any longer or not. I ask unanimous 
consent to print in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks a piece 
by Charles Krauthammer on this very point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BIDEN. It is in the latest Time magazine. Mr. Krauthammer is a 
very bright fellow. The thesis of his piece is that no one really 
listened to what George W. had to say. Everybody misunderstood what he 
meant when he stood up, with Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell and 
George Shultz standing behind him, and laid out his position, at least 
his position on nuclear weapons and on national missile defense.
  He said that what Governor Bush really means is that this is a new 
era. No more arms control, period. START I, START II, START III, START 
anything, START V--no more. He ends his article by saying we should 
make our judgments about whether to reduce our weapons or to increase 
our weapons, or whether to build a national missile defense, 
irrespective of anything other than what we believe should be done at 
that moment. And that dictates, he says, the end of arms control.
  That is what this debate is about. Cut through all the haze here. The 
problem with the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Michigan, the 
Senator from Nebraska, and my two colleagues on the floor now, is that 
we know too much about this. We are like nuclear theologians. I have 
been doing this for 28 years. I used to know what the PSI of the Soviet 
SS-18 missile silo was. That is very valuable information for someone 
to have to walk around with. The old joke is that we have forgotten 
more about these details than most people ever learned. In the process, 
we also forgot what this is really about.
  What is the logic of the Warner amendment? The logic is that this 
President cannot enter into any more agreements. Really he doesn't need 
an agreement to go down, but what they are worried about is that he 
could decide, either with Russian President Putin or without Putin, to 
take numbers down to the START II levels, and that that will be offered 
as a sign of good faith to Putin that the President, in fact, is ready 
to go lower, which is what the Russians want in a START III agreement.

[[Page S4615]]

  This is about arms control. Let's cut through all the malarkey. 
Before this next 12 months are over, in the next administration--
Democrat or Republican--it will finally be out in the open. This place 
will be divided between those who say that arms control has a place in 
our strategic doctrine and those who say it has no place. We are 
getting there. We are getting there, inching to it. They are feeling 
their way, I say to my friend from Nebraska, feeling their way around 
this because, up until now, arms control has been the Holy Grail of 
both Republicans who are informed and Democrats who are informed. 
Nobody except the wackos has been flat opposed to any arms control. But 
there is a feeling emerging in the intellectual community on the right, 
as well, that what we should be doing as the United States of America, 
because of our overwhelming military political and economic superiority 
relative to the rest of the world, not just the Russians--is taking 
advantage of the luxury of dictating outcomes without consultation.
  My friend from Virginia knows that a lot of his friends and my 
acquaintances in think tanks on the right believe what I just said. I 
am not saying the Senator does. But that is the genesis, the root, the 
cause of this debate--a legitimate debate to have. But they are just a 
little afraid, in this election year, to say they don't like arms 
control: If we are elected, no more arms control. We will adjust, or 
not adjust, to the levels that we choose independently, not in the 
context of a negotiation with anyone else. That is what this is about, 
with all due respect to my friends who support the amendment; even if 
they don't think that is what it is about, that it is just logical, 
rational, political purpose.
  Think what you are saying. You are telling the President of the 
United States of America: you can't go down--although, by the way, 
constitutionally we probably can't do this. He is Commander in Chief. 
Nobody has been more aware than I of the prerogative of the Senate as 
it relates to the war clause and the Constitutional relationship of the 
authority between the executive and legislative branches relative to 
the ability to use force and/or control the forces we have.
  The reason that there was a provision on the Commander in Chief was 
not to allow Presidents to go to war unilaterally. It was rather to 
make sure Congresses didn't tell George Washington he could or could 
not move troops out of Valley Forge. They had a bad experience during 
the Articles of Confederation. So they wrote it in saying, hey, don't 
tell the Commander in Chief he can't steam here with the fleet or he 
can't move the flanks there, or he can't move troops from one place to 
another. That is what somebody should do day to day. We are telling him 
in the law and in the Warner amendment that he cannot reduce force 
numbers to something that has been negotiated and that everybody says 
makes sense.

  Let me return to the Krauthammer piece, entitled ``The End of Arms 
Control; George W. Bush Proposed a Radical New Nuclear Doctrine. No One 
Noticed.''
  Byline: Charles Krauthammer. Concluding paragraph:

       We don't need new agreements; we only need new thinking. If 
     we want to cut our nuclear arsenal, why wait on the Russians? 
     If we want to build a defensive shield, why ask the Russians? 
     The new idea--extraordinarily simple and extraordinarily 
     obvious--is that we build to order. Our order.
       Read my lips. No new treaties.

  That is what this is about. Whether old ``W'' knows it or not--and I 
don't know that he does; I mean that sincerely; he may know more than 
all of us on the floor combined; he may know as little as it appears 
that he knows; I don't know--this approach says ``no new treaties.'' 
That is what this is about.
  So I would like us to have national elections. There should be a 
national referendum as well. We should have a national debate on that. 
I urge my friends to come out of the closet completely. Let's have an 
up-or-down debate. It is a little embarrassing to make the case for the 
Warner amendment on either logical grounds or constitutional grounds or 
political grounds, based on the way it is now. It doesn't add up.
  I thank the Chair. I see my time is up. I thank my colleagues, and I 
have a feeling this is only the beginning of what is going to be a big, 
big, long debate--not on this particular amendment, but for this 
Nation.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                    June 12, 2000.
       There have been two revolutions in nuclear theology since 
     the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction became dominant 
     four decades ago. The first came in 1983. President Reagan 
     proposed that defensive weapons take precedence over 
     offensive weapons. The second happened last week. It came 
     from George W. Bush and was almost universally misunderstood. 
     Bush was said to have proposed the primacy of defensive 
     weapons over offensive weapons. That is old news. In fact, he 
     did something far more important: he proposed the end of arms 
     control.
       This seems strange to us. For more than a generation we 
     have been living in a world in which arms control is the 
     norm. But for all of history before that, it was not: if you 
     needed a weapon to defend yourself and had the technology to 
     build it, you did not go to your enemy to get his agreement 
     to let you do so.
       When the world was dominated by two bitterly antagonistic 
     superpowers, arms control made sense. Barely. The world was 
     made marginally safer by the U.S. and the Soviet Union having 
     a fairly good idea of, and a fairly good lid on, the nuclear 
     weapons in each other's hands.
       For the U.S. it was important because of a rather arcane 
     doctrine called extended deterrence: we pledged to defend 
     Western Europe not by matching the huge Warsaw Pact tank 
     forces (which would have been outrageously costly) but by 
     threatening nuclear retaliation against any conventional 
     invasion.
       Not a very credible threat to begin with. And as the 
     Soviets overcame the American nuclear monopoly, it became 
     less credible by the year. We needed arms control to ensure 
     that there would be enough American nuclear firepower 
     (relative to Moscow's) to make our security guarantee to 
     Europe at least plausible.
       As I said, arcane. But then again, the whole arms race with 
     the Soviets had a distinctly academic, almost unworldly 
     quality. It was really a form of bean counting. Like money to 
     billionaires, it had little intrinsic meaning: it was just a 
     way of keeping score.
       Perhaps most important, arms control gave the Soviets and 
     us something to talk about at a time when there was very 
     little else to talk about. We were fighting over every inch 
     of the globe, from Berlin to Saigon. So, every few years, we 
     would trade beans in Geneva, shake hands for the cameras and 
     thus reassure the world that we were not going to blow it up.
       But now? That late-20th century world of superpowers and 
     bipolarity and arms control is dead. There is no Warsaw Pact. 
     There is no Soviet Union. What is the logic of tailoring our 
     weapons development against various threats around the world 
     to suit the wishes of a country--Russia--that is not longer 
     either an enemy or a superpower?
       Yet that is exactly what President Clinton has been intent 
     on doing in Moscow this week. He is deeply enmeshed in arms-
     control negotiations (1) to revise the treaty that radically 
     restricts America's ability to defend itself from missile 
     attack (the ABM treaty) and (2) to set new numbers for 
     American and Russian offensive missiles (a START III treaty).
       The parts of this prospective deal that are not 
     anachronistic are, in fact, detrimental to American security. 
     One of the reasons the development of an effective missile 
     defense has been so slow and costly is that the ABM treaty 
     prevents us from testing the most promising technologies, 
     such as sea-based and space-based weapons. Even today, we 
     cannot test a high-speed interceptor against any incoming 
     missile traveling faster than 5 km per SEC, because the 
     Russians are afraid it might be effective against their 
     ICBMs. This is quite crazy. It means that because of a cold 
     war relic, the U.S. has to forgo building the most effective 
     defense it can against nuclear attack by a rogue state such 
     as North Korea.
       But Bush's idea is significant because it goes beyond 
     questioning why we should be tailoring our defensive weapons 
     to Russian wishes. He asks, Why should we be tailoring 
     offensive weapons--indeed, any American military needs--to 
     Russian wishes?
       He proposes to reduce the American nuclear arsenal 
     unilaterally. The Clinton idea--the idea that has dominated 
     American thinking for a generation--is to hang on to 
     superfluous nukes as bargaining chips to get the Russians to 
     reduce theirs.
       Why? Let the Soviets keep, indeed build what they want. If 
     they want to bankrupt themselves building an arsenal they 
     will never use--and that lacks even the psychologically 
     intimidating effects it had during the cold war--let them.
       We don't need new agreements; we only need new thinking. If 
     we want to cut our nuclear arsenal, why wait on the Russians? 
     If we want to build a defensive shield, why ask the Russians? 
     The new idea--extraordinarily simple and extraordinarily 
     obvious--is that we build to order. Our order.
       Read my lips. No new treaties.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to pose a question or two to 
my very dear friend and good colleague from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will answer on the Senator's time.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. We will do that. I ask my friend to not overextend 
his responses.

[[Page S4616]]

  Mr. BIDEN. I won't.
  Mr. WARNER. I think the Senator has raised a legitimate question. Are 
we as a body in the Senate to look in a bipartisan way to future arms 
control or are we not? It is a fair question given the action by this 
Chamber, which is a proper action, on the test ban treaty. I fought 
hard against that. The Senator was on the other side. We rocked the 
Halls of this Chamber with that debate. But that is history.
  I want the Senator to know that this Senator from Virginia firmly 
believes in an ongoing arms control process, firmly believes that this 
country should continue its leadership with this very important 
endeavor to try to make this a more safe world. But every arms control 
agreement that comes along is not the one we should buy into. I say to 
my good friend, if he says this Chamber is divided, I commit this 
Senator to work, so long as I am privileged to be a Senator, for arms 
control. But for some reason, the Russian Duma, although it is in 
comparison a very new legislative body, had the opportunity to take 
START II and accept it, just as President Bush had signed it, put it 
into force and effect--but how well you understand, they put conditions 
on and those conditions they knew would not be acceptable in this 
Chamber. So they intentionally blocked going into force and effect the 
START II treaty. I say to my friend, why did they do that?
  Mr. BIDEN. I am sorry?
  Mr. WARNER. Why did the Russian Duma deliberately put conditions on 
START II, knowing that those conditions would never survive a vote in 
this Chamber?
  Mr. BIDEN. Well, I would respond rapidly by saying that we have 
enough trouble figuring what happened in this Chamber, let alone a new 
parliamentary body in a place called Russia. I think what they did was 
to put those conditions on because we had said we wanted these 
protocols.
  We negotiated with them. They cannot anticipate that we in the Senate 
do not want to do what our Presidents have negotiated with them to get 
done. But there is a little concern by them about this Senate like we 
are concerned about them.
  They are saying: Look, you negotiated a START II treaty with us, and 
you also negotiated demarcation protocols with us that you asked for. 
We didn't say we want new protocols to allow certain missiles to fly at 
certain speeds, et cetera. We didn't ask for that. You came to us and 
you said that.
  We agree. If you are going with the whole package you negotiated with 
us over the years, we are in on the deal. If you are not going with the 
whole package you negotiated with us, we are not in on the deal, 
because we don't know what you are about.
  I think that is what they are thinking. That is what I think. Keep in 
mind that the demarcation protocols the Senators are talking about are 
not protocols that the Russians initiated. They did not sit down and 
say: By the way, let's accommodate your ability to have theater missile 
defenses. We said: We want to be able to do that. And we went to them. 
They said: We don't want to do anything on the protocol. We said: You 
have to. So there were negotiations for several years. And they said 
OK. Finally, they signed it.
  That is what I think. I don't know. I have enough trouble figuring 
out this place, let alone the Duma.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in quick reply to my good colleague, he 
knows full well that those protocols put on by the Duma relate to the 
ABM Treaty. That is a subject of great controversy.
  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield for just a second, those 
demarcation protocols to the ABM Treaty were protocols that we--not the 
Duma--asked for. We asked for them. We said we will not ratify the 
extension of START II deadlines unless you, the Russians, allow us to 
test these theater missile defenses, which you claim are in violation 
of the ABM Treaty. Unless you amend the ABM Treaty to allow us to do 
this and also ratify START II, we will not ratify START II extension or 
go to START III. Right?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, our President doesn't take the exact turn 
in the way these things are written. The Duma knew full well that in 
this Chamber--and, indeed, in the Congress and, indeed, in the whole of 
the United States--there is a very serious and important debate going 
on; I hope it is part of the Presidential election debates, as to 
whether or not this Nation should allow itself to be held hostage by 
Russia in terms of a critical need to defend our Nation against the 
growing threat of strategic intercontinental missiles. You know that, 
and I know that. That is what these protocols go--the ability of this 
Nation to defend itself. They were very clever in the Duma because they 
knew that was putting out, as we say in the military, a ``tank trap.'' 
We were stopped cold once those protocols were put on.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield for another 
response? I will be very brief. Let me make an analogy for the 
chairman.
  Say we have a contract with someone on the rental of an apartment 
building. We say we want to renegotiate that contract to be able to 
rent to build 12 more units on that apartment building. We say: By the 
way, although parking is no part of this lease, we want to renegotiate 
our parking lot agreement with you as well. Before we agree to go into 
a new deal with you on the building, we want to get 10 more parking 
spaces. The guy who owns the building says: Wait a minute. I don't want 
to. I will only negotiate with you on the building. We say: We are not 
going to do it unless you give us more parking spaces.
  That is what we did here. They said they want to go to START III. We 
said we are not going to do that unless you give us more parking 
spaces--unless you allow us to do something the ABM does not allow us 
to do right now. You give us the ability to test these missiles at a 
faster speed to be able to intercept your missiles that are called 
theater nuclear missiles. You allow us to do that. If you do not, we 
are not going to renegotiate a deal on the whole building. Do the 
parking, or we will not even talk about the building.
  That is what we said. We said allow us to amend ABM, or we are not 
going to go down to these levels.
  That is what happened.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't know.
  I must regain the floor and control it.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BIDEN. The Senator is welcome.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I strongly disagree. I don't believe that 
linkage existed in these negotiations. What is clear is that our 
President, in good faith--I commend our President--at the summit did 
the best he could. I am concerned about some of the language he used in 
regard to the future discussions on the ABM Treaty.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article 
written by William Safire, which I think in a very clear and careful 
way points out the language about which I have a concern.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, June 5, 2000.]

                           Mistake in Moscow

                          (By William Safire)

       Washington.--``We have agreed to a statement of 
     principles,'' President Clinton told a joint news conference 
     in Moscow, ``which I urge you to read carefully.''
       Noting that the Russian and American sides disagreed on 
     whether a limited missile defense against rogue states posed 
     a threat to the mutual deterrence of the ABM treaty, Clinton 
     added: ``The statement of principles that we have agreed to I 
     thought reflected an attempt to bring our positions closer 
     together . . . let me say I urge you all to read that.''
       O.K., let's read it. The central issue is whether the U.S. 
     will allow Russia to hold us to the ABM treaty negotiated 30 
     years ago with the Soviet Union. We want to build defenses 
     against the few missiles from terrorist nations, not the 
     thousands held by Russia. President Vladimir Putin of Russia 
     wants to make us pay for his permission by slashing our 
     offensive missile forces in Start III down to levels our 
     military leaders consider imprudent.
       Clinton went along with the sweeping assertion that the two 
     nations ``reaffirm their commitment to that [ABM] treaty as a 
     cornerstone of strategic stability.''
       Putin then gave Clinton a little wiggle room by agreeing 
     that the missile threat from other nations ``represents a 
     potentially significant change in the strategic situation . . 
     .'' and to ``consider possible proposals for further 
     increasing the viability of the Treaty.'' That means allowing 
     the U.S. to defend its cities against rogue nations, 
     terrorists and accidental launches only in ways that Moscow 
     approves.
       Thrice did Clinton embrace the word viability, which means 
     ``capable of living.'' He

[[Page S4617]]

     committed the U.S. ``to strengthen the ABM treaty and to 
     enhance its viability'' and agreed that we ``attach great 
     importance to enhancing the viability of the Treaty. . . .''
       So here we have Clinton breathing new life into the cold-
     war treaty provided Putin will allow some minor amendments 
     that may not meet future U.S. defense needs.
       And then the outgoing American president stepped into the 
     incoming Russian president's trap. He paid for Putin's 
     permission to tinker with the ABM treaty with an enormous 
     concession:
       ``They agree that issues of strategic offensive arms cannot 
     be considered in isolation from issues of strategic defensive 
     arms and vice versa. . . .''
       Read that again to savor its import: that is the principle 
     of linkage. It's what Putin's military wanted and what 
     Clinton never should have given.
       ``Issues of strategic offensive arms'' means Start III: the 
     reduction of the massive U.S. and Russian arsenals. The issue 
     there is how far to cut: our military says our strength would 
     be sapped at fewer than 2,000 missiles, while the Russians--
     who can't afford to keep that many nukes--want us to weaken 
     our worldwide missile forces by 25 percent more.
       ``Issues of strategic defensive arms'' means ABM and our 
     national missile defense against dictators who could threaten 
     us with nuclear blackmail and against a possible Chinese 
     threat. By mistakenly linking reductions in Start III (our 
     missile offense) to the minor modification of ABM (our 
     missile defense), Clinton played into Russian hands, making 
     future arms negotiation more difficult for his American 
     successor.
       Now here comes the strange part. Putin must know the 
     substantial difference in approach between candidates Al Gore 
     and George W. Bush, Gore goes along with Clinton and 
     presumably will embrace his ABM-Start III linkage. Bush wants 
     a free hand with a limited anti-missile system and would set 
     our offensive missiles at a level to suit our deterrent 
     needs, inviting the Russians to reciprocate. Huge policy 
     difference.
       And yet Putin said, ``We're familiar with the programs of 
     the two candidates . . . we're willing to go forward on 
     either one of these approaches.''
       Did he mean to ad-lib that? Was he misinterpreted? Having 
     won his linkage with Clinton-Gore, is the inexperienced Putin 
     willing to toss that advantage aside with Bush? Is a 
     puzzlement.
       Despite Clinton's policy error, he neither embraced the 
     K.G.B.'s man nor called him ``Volodya.'' Our president's 
     demeanor remained coolly correct, and we can at least be 
     thankful for that.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is very clear that the next President 
of the United States must be given every possible bit of leverage he 
can have as he readdresses in good faith, as did President Clinton, 
this issue of the ABM Treaty. It could well be that the levels we are 
debating right here in this amendment are the levels of those arms 
reductions which we all know as a certainty will be done at some point 
in time.
  We believe, of course, in accordance with the Warner amendment, that 
it should be done after careful analyses and steps have been taken. In 
any event, we will come down to those levels. We know that.
  But should not that next President have in his negotiating strategy 
the ability to do those negotiations of lower levels as a part of the 
essential requirement to get some reasonable modification to the ABM 
Treaty that enables this country, as George W. Bush said in his 
statement, to rightfully defend itself? That is what this is all about. 
Don't take away a possible negotiating bit of leverage he has with 
regard to the levels of these weapons.
  Will the Chair advise us with regard to the time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 4 minutes, and 
the Senator from Virginia has 15 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, rising. I see other distinguished 
colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to point out 
that the START II agreement is not a unilateral agreement, it is a 
bilateral agreement. It takes the approval of both the Duma and the 
Russian leadership, as well as the United States.
  Also, to clarify the record, in 1997 the Quadrennial Defense Review 
didn't include a Nuclear Posture Review. I think it is entirely 
appropriate that we have a Nuclear Posture Review. Since 1994, a lot of 
leadership has changed. A lot of technology has changed. Certainly I 
would like to see us move forward with disarmament. But it needs to be 
verifiable. It shouldn't be unilateral. I think those are two very 
important conditions as we move forward on the disarmament discussion.
  I congratulate the chairman because I think he is moving forward with 
this amendment pretty much with the strategic committee; that is, we 
need a very careful Nuclear Posture Review. It should involve civilians 
as well as the military.
  This is not going to happen quickly. It is going to take time. This 
should happen no matter who the President of the United States is. We 
shouldn't rush into these agreements until we fully understand where we 
stand and where our posture is.
  I know we have some Members on the floor who may want to speak. But I 
say to the chairman that I think perhaps at this time we ought to have 
a little bit of review as to what has been happening here in the 
debate. I would like to take the time to do that and to clarify some 
statements that have been made in this debate.
  Since fiscal year 1996, Congress has passed, and the President has 
signed, legislation prohibiting the retirement of strategic nuclear 
delivery systems--bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and 
strategic submarines--until the START II agreement enters into force. 
This provision was designed to put pressure on Russia to actually 
ratify the START II agreement.
  The idea was not that they were going to send back a counterproposal 
to the United States. Again, it would have to be considered by this 
Congress. This was not an inflexible position.
  I point out that, for example, last year the law was modified to 
allow the Navy to retire 34 Trident strategic submarines. Moreover, the 
law has been and continues to be consistent with the administration's 
own policy.
  We have heard quite a bit about the statement made by Gov. George W. 
Bush relating to U.S. strategic forces. What has been overlooked in his 
focus on the need to have a comprehensive review of our strategic 
guided forces is the statement that originally was made by Governor 
Bush. He said, ``As President, I will ask the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct an assessment of our nuclear force posture.'' Then he goes on 
to say, ``the exact number of weapons can only come'' after this 
careful assessment.
  I think we are very much in step with what the committee has been 
saying, what George W. Bush would like to see happen, and what I hear 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee saying he would like to 
see happen.
  I would like to again review where we are with the Warner amendment.
  The Warner amendment substitute would include additional items to be 
considered in the review required by section 1015, including whether 
reductions can be conducted in a balanced and reciprocal 
manner, whether changes in our alert posture would enhance our security 
and strategic stability, and whether U.S. strategic reductions could 
adversely impact our conventional delivery systems, such as the B-52 
bomber.

  The Warner substitute amendment provides authority for the President 
to waive the limitations in current law regarding the retirement of the 
strategic nuclear delivery systems once the Secretary of Defense has 
completed the Nuclear Posture Review required by section 1015.
  The amendment by the Senator from Nebraska, on the other hand, would 
not be consistent with a policy enunciated by Governor Bush, nor would 
it satisfy the concerns Congress has raised for the last 5 years. It 
could lead to misguided and uninformed reductions rather than a forced 
posture review based on careful review of all of our strategic 
requirements and how they relate to overall national military strategy.
  I thank the chairman for his leadership. I pledge that I will 
continue to work with the Senator for disarmament, move towards 
disarmament, but it has to be bilateral and verifiable.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. He has served this committee very 
well in his chairmanship. I think he has stated very clearly the issues 
in this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. I have enjoyed the debate very much. I wish there was 
more opportunity to examine the subject. I ask unanimous consent to 
have two documents printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4618]]



                                        U.S. NUCLEAR FORCES (APPROXIMATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Launchers/       Year        Warheads x yield        Total
             Type                     Name             SSBNs       deployed         (kiloton)          warheads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             ICBMs
 
LGM-30G.......................  Minuteman III:
                                  Mk-12.........             200       1970         3 W62 x 170(MRV)         600
                                  Mk-12A........             300       1979         3 W78 x 335(MRV)         900
LGM-118A......................    MX/Peacekeeper              50       1986        10 W87 x 300(MRV)         500
                                                 ----------------                                    -----------
      Total...................  ................             550  .........  .......................       2,000
 
             SLBMs
 
UGM-96A.......................  Trident I C-4...           192/8       1979         8 W76 x 100(MRV)       1,538
UGM-133A......................  Trident II D-5..          216/10
                                  Mk-4..........                       1992         8 W76 x 100(MRV)       1,536
                                  Mk-5..........                       1990         8 W88 x 475(MRV)         384
                                                 ----------------                                    -----------
      Total...................  ................          408/18  .........  .......................       3,456
 
           Bombers*
 
B-2...........................  Spirit..........           21/16       1994       ALCM/W80-1 x 5-150         400
                                                                                B61-7/-11, B83 bombs         950
B-52H.........................  Stratofortress..           76/56       1961        ACM/W80-1 x 5-150         400
                                                 ----------------                                    -----------
      Total...................  ................           97/72             .......................       1,750
 
     Non-strategic forces
Tomahawk SLCM.................  ................             325       1984          1 W80-0 x 5-150         320
B61-3, -4, -10 bombs..........  ................             n/a       1979                  0.3-170       1,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First bomber number reflects total inventory. Second bomber number is ``primary mission'' number which
  excludes trainers and spares. Bombers are loaded in a variety of ways depending on mission. B-2s do not carry
  ALCMS or ACMS. The first 16 B-2s initially carried only the B83. Eventually, all 21 bombers will be able to
  carry both B61 and B83 bombs. B53 bombs have been retired and were replaced with B61-11s.
ACM--advanced cruise missile; ALCM--air-launched cruise missile; ICBM--intercontinental ballistic missile (range
  greater than 5,500 kilometers); MIRV--multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles; SLCM--sea-launched
  cruise missile; SLBM--submarine-launched ballistic missile; SSBN--nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine.

  
                                  ____
       Why does the Pentagon Say We Need 2,500 Warheads?

                     Vital Russian Nuclear Targets               Amount
Nuclear...........................................................1,110
Conventional........................................................500
Leadership..........................................................160
War-Supporting Industry.............................................500
                                                               ________
                                                               
    Total.........................................................2,260
       Damage Expectancy Levels = 80%
       80% of 2,260 targets = 1,800 warheads necessary to achieve 
     damage expectancy in an attack against Russia.
       Additional targets in China, Iran Iraq, and North Korea 
     have been assigned to U.S. strategic nuclear forces.
       In total, a minimum of 2,500 U.S. warheads are needed to 
     fulfill the SIOP.

  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, in 1968 I had the good fortune, or 
misfortune, to be given the chance to go down to Fort Benning and go 
through Army Ranger School. We had a little joke that was keying in on 
a line from a John Wayne movie. We looked out in the darkness and said: 
It sure is quiet out there. Somebody else would come back with a 
punchline: Too quiet.
  That is precisely my instinct when it comes to strategic nuclear 
weapons. There is a real danger. For some reason, we understand the 
danger if it is North Korea maybe getting nuclear weapons or Iraq maybe 
getting nuclear weapons or Iran maybe getting nuclear weapons.
  Russia has 7,000 strategic nuclear weapons and 12,000 tactical. These 
are not inaccurate, unreliable systems. These are very accurate, 
reliable, and deadly systems. They have more than they need, and we 
have more than we need. Instead of pressing the President to go to 
lower levels, the current language of law and this amendment says we 
want further delay; we want to push the President in the opposite 
direction. We are pushing this President in the wrong way. We should be 
pushing the President to go to lower levels because it keeps America 
safe if we do.
  Why does it keep America safe? Not only is it sort of odd to be 
negotiating with Putin on all sorts of things at the same time that we 
have 160 nuclear weapons aimed at Russian leadership, but in addition, 
the Russian economy simply doesn't generate enough income to enable 
them to be able to sustain the investments necessary to control their 
community system and most importantly, their warning system.
  So what happens? We are pushing the President to go slow, we are 
asking for more studies.
  Mr. President, we don't need more studies. We can make this debate 
about more and more studies, but for gosh sakes, this is one subject on 
which we don't need more studies. This has been examined up one side 
and down the other. We have studies coming out the wazoo. We need 
decisions. Looking at the current situation, one can reach no other 
conclusion than that we are requiring the Russians, as a consequence of 
current law, to maintain a level beyond what they can safely control, 
increasing the risk far beyond the risk of rogue nations such as Iraq 
or Iran or North Korea, far beyond that. If there is an accidental or 
unauthorized launch that occurs as a consequence of a mistake made 
because of a warning failure, they are not going to send a couple. It 
will be a couple hundred or a couple thousand.
  I smell danger. I am glad we have had this debate, but we are pushing 
the President in the wrong direction both with the amendment of the 
Senator from Virginia and the existing law. I hope that enough 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have listened to this debate 
and will vote against the Warner amendment. I believe quite seriously 
that it increases the risk to the people of the United States of 
America.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. It is on a 
very important issue. I express my gratitude to so many colleagues who 
have participated.
  In summary, I simply say this body, five times, has passed the 
statute which my good friend desires to have repealed. Do not repeal 
this statute. Do not, I say to my colleagues, in good faith, repeal a 
statute which was signed into law five times by the President. I ask my 
friend, what has changed to justify repealing it? He says the 
ratification of START II by the Duma. Had that ratification been in 
accordance with the way this Chamber ratified it, I would say it is 
time to let the statute go. But they did not do it. They put protocols 
on that treaty which pose a great problem to the next President--
indeed, to this President--as he saw when he went to the summit.
  And nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet, time and time again when our President 
tried in a very rational way to determine the flexibility that Russia 
might have on the ABM Treaty, which flexibility is essential for this 
Nation to provide for its own defense. Nyet, nyet, nyet. Those are the 
only changes since five times this Chamber has adopted that law; five 
times the President has signed it. The only change is a ratification of 
START II by the Duma, with impossible conditions put on it, which not 
only the Senate would not accept but nor would this Nation accept.
  Mr. LEVIN. Any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent the portion of the 1997 QDR saying 
that the 1994 posture review still applied and was adequate be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             Nuclear Forces

       Our nuclear forces and posture were carefully examined 
     during the review. We are committed to reducing our nuclear 
     forces to START II levels once the treaty is ratified by the 
     Russian Duma and then immediately negotiating further 
     reductions consistent with the START III framework. Until 
     that time, we will maintain the START I force as mandated by 
     Congress, which includes 18 Trident SSBNS, 50 Peacekeeper 
     missiles, 500

[[Page S4619]]

     Minuteman III missiles, 71 B-52H bombers, and 21 B-2 bombers. 
     Protecting the option to maintain this force through FY 1999 
     will require adding $64 million in FY 1999 beyond the 
     spending on these forces contained in the FY 1998-2003 
     President's budget now before Congress.

  Mr. LEVIN. That posture review supported the START II levels. Our 
Joint Chiefs of Staff support the START I levels. They want to be able 
to go to the START II levels. It has nothing to do with the 
ratification by the Duma. It has to do with what we no longer need in 
our force structure, which the law requires them to maintain, and costs 
dollars that could be better used elsewhere, including for perhaps 
health care.
  Mr. WARNER. I regain 30 seconds of my time. I simply say at the time 
that was done, they did not foresee the Duma would put these conditions 
on the START II treaty. That is the essence of this debate.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am a co-sponsor of the Kerrey amendment 
and urge the Senate to adopt this important amendment.
  Current law prohibits the U.S. from reducing its strategic nuclear 
delivery systems below START I levels. This law requires the U.S. to 
stay at START I levels--to maintain 6000 nuclear warheads, until START 
II enters into force. This law was enacted, in 1996, just 16 months 
after the START II treaty was signed. The amendment offered by Senator 
Kerrey will repeal this law which is neither needed or helpful.
  The START II treaty allows the U.S. to reduce the number of nuclear 
warheads to 3000-3500, but the law requires that we maintain 6000 
warheads. We do not need 6000 thousand warheads and we do not need this 
law.
  The Department of Defense has consistently argued that the law is not 
necessary. When asked his view about this provision, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shelton, was clear: ``I would 
definitely oppose inclusion of any language that mandates specific 
force structure levels.'' General Shelton made it clear that the Chiefs 
also oppose this provision: ``The Service Chiefs and I feel it is time 
to consider options that will reduce the strategic forces to the levels 
recommended by the Nuclear Posture Review. The START I legislative 
restraint will need to be removed before we can pursue these options. 
Major costs will be incurred if we remain at START I levels.'' We have 
already spent millions staying at the START I, 6000 warhead level. For 
instance, we are unnecessarily spending to maintain the 50 Peacekeeper 
ICBMs.
  The Nuclear Posture Review, conducted in 1994, reaffirmed that the 
U.S. did not need 6000 warheads and that the START I level of 3000-3500 
warheads was adequate. General Shalikashvili stated, in 1995, in 
testimony before the Armed Services Committee that ``Our analysis shows 
that even under the worst conditions the START II force levels (3000-
3500 warheads) provide enough survivable forces, and survivable, 
sustained command and control to accomplish our targeting objectives.''
  It is ironic that Governor Bush criticizes the Clinton administration 
for ``remain(ing) in a Cold War mentality'' and for failing ``to bring 
the U.S. force structure into the post-Cold War world'' when it is this 
law, put in place by Congress, that requires staying in the Cold War 
mentality.
  If this law is not repealed now, it will tie the hands of the next 
President, the next Secretary of Defense, as well as the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs.
  The Warner second degree amendment would require the U.S. to stay at 
the START I 6000 warhead level for at least another 18 months. Even 
though there is general agreement that we need to go below the START I 
level of 6000 warheads, the Warner amendment would keep the U.S. at 
this high warhead level, even though the 3000-3500 START II level has 
been reviewed and validated repeatedly and continually since 1992 when 
the START II Treaty was signed.
  In 1994 the DOD conducted a comprehensive Nuclear Posture Review that 
validated the START II force structure levels--3000-3500 warheads. The 
1997 Quadrennial Defense Review carefully reviewed and affirmed that 
the START II nuclear force structure was appropriate to protect U.S. 
national security requirements. In 1997, in preparation for discussions 
in Helsinki between the United States and Russia, the DOD and the Joint 
Chiefs again reviewed nuclear force structure levels and determined 
that an even lower force structure level at the proposed START III 
level of 2000-2500 warheads was adequate.
  Just last month, in extensive testimony before the Armed Services 
Committee, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Commander of the 
Strategic Command testified that the 2000-2500 warhead level proposed 
for START III level was adequate to meet U.S. military requirements. 
Only Congress is still stuck at a START I force structure levels.
  In light of the nuclear force structure reviews that have been 
conducted since START II was signed, it is clear that force structure 
levels will be at or below START II levels of 3000-3500 warheads. Why 
do we have to wait another 18 months to go below the START I force 
structure level--a level that no one seriously argues should be 
maintained?
  Mr. President, the Kerrey amendment is a simple amendment to repeal a 
law whose time and usefulness has past. I urge its adoption.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Kerrey motion to strike the Section 1017 of the Defense Authorization 
Act regarding U.S. strategic nuclear force levels.
  I do not believe that the restrictions that this bill contains, which 
prevents the Department of Defense from reducing U.S. strategic nuclear 
delivery vehicles--warheads--below START I levels until START II enters 
into force, is necessary or, given the current international security 
environment, needed.
  Striking this provision does not mandate any cuts in U.S. nuclear 
forces: It merely makes it possible, now that the Russian Duma has 
ratified the START II treaty, for the U.S. to make further cuts below 
START I levels.
  In fact, I believe that it is important that the President, the Joint 
Chiefs, and the Secretary of Defense have the flexibility to determine 
the appropriate force level and alert status for U.S. nuclear forces 
based on military and security need.
  In fact, the original reason for including this provision in the 
Defense Authorization bill in 1998 was not based on military or 
security need per se, but rather to encourage the Russian Duma to 
ratify START II. Well, now they have, and the U.S. should be prepared 
to reduce our nuclear forces below START I levels, consistent with our 
national security needs, if and when Russia moves to reduce its forces 
below START I levels in a verifiable manner. That is what the Kerrey 
Amendment will allow.
  Before I conclude, I would also like to take a few minutes today to 
speak to some of the larger issues raised by this debate.
  We no longer live in the world of the superpower nuclear arms race of 
the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s.
  During the Cold War the threat of nuclear war was omnipotent, and the 
size and configuration of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was very much a 
function of the Cold War international security environment and the 
needs of nuclear deterrence with the Soviet Union.
  But the Soviet Union is gone. The Berlin Wall came down over ten 
years ago. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are now members of 
NATO. The world in the year 2000 is not the same as the world of 
twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. And I believe that our nuclear 
weapons policy should reflect these new realities.
  We live in a transformative moment for international politics: The 
security structures and imperatives that guided our thinking during the 
Cold War have either melted away or are malleable to change. Both Al 
Gore and George W. Bush recognize that. Why should the U.S. Senate 
remain captive to the thinking of the Cold War, or to the nuclear 
weapons counting arithmetic of the Cold War?
  The world has changed, yet as Dr. Bruce Blair, President of the 
Center for Defense Information, has pointed out, the Single Integrated 
Operating Plan (SIOP) which guides our nuclear weapons targeting, has 
been growing steadily since 1993, and grew over 20 percent in the last 
five years alone. It includes over 500 weapons aimed at Russian 
factories in a country whose economy is all but defunct and which 
produced almost no armaments last year, and over

[[Page S4620]]

500 Russian conventional military targets for an army of a country that 
can not even successfully invade itself.
  Something is amiss. Clearly we need to retain a force capable of 
robust deterrence. But we can not allow ourselves to pursue an outdated 
policy that dictates an arsenal far larger than new, current-day 
reality suggests we need or is advisable.
  I strongly believe that deterrence can remain robust with a smaller 
nuclear arsenal. Analysis by Dr. Blair and others suggests that with a 
force of 10 Tridents, each with 24 missiles, 300 Minuteman III land-
based missiles, 20 B-2 bombers and 50 B-52 bombers we can assure the 
destruction of between 250 and 1,000 targets worldwide in retaliation 
for any strike against the United States. If this sort of retaliatory 
capacity does not deter any adversary, than it is hard to imagine what 
would.
  I also believe that it is critical, as we move into this new world, 
for the United States to review our own nuclear alert status and those 
of other nuclear capable-states. Right now the U.S. maintains 2,300 
warheads on launch-ready alert: 98 percent of the Minuteman III and 
Peacekeeper land-based force on 2-minute launch readiness and 4 Trident 
submarines, two in each ocean, on 15 minute launch readiness. The 
Russians, likewise, maintain their forces on hair-trigger alert. 
Keeping these forces on hair-trigger alert is a potential accident 
waiting to happen, with devastating consequences if it does.
  In January 1995 a commercial space-launch off the coast of Norway in 
the middle of the night was almost misinterpreted by Russia as a U.S. 
Trident missile launch, despite the fact that we had pre-notified them 
about the launch. As I understand it, Russia prepared for a nuclear 
retaliatory strike. It was only at the last minute that the Russians 
realized that this was a commercial launch headed for space, not a 
nuclear weapon headed for Moscow and stood-down their forces.
  These risks--these needless risks which do nothing to add to our 
security but, just the opposite, make the world a less safe, stable, 
and secure place--need to be addressed.
  And they need to be addressed in a way that will allow us to embrace 
the challenge of the new century, not be held captive to the grim math 
of the old. As Governor Bush pointed out on May 23, ``These unneeded 
weapons are relics of dead conflicts and they do nothing to make us 
more secure.''
  Mr. President, I think that it is important to point out that the 
Kerrey Amendment does not mandate that we cut U.S. nuclear force 
levels. It merely gives the President, the Secretary of Defense, and 
the Joint Chief the flexibility to determine whether, if and how 
lowering U.S. force levels below the START I limits would be a net-plus 
for U.S. national security and, if it is, to do it.
  As Senator Kerrey has argued, by mandating force levels higher than 
are needed or desired for national security needs, we actually run the 
risk of undermining our security interests. If we force the Russians to 
maintain at hair-trigger status more nuclear weapons than they can 
safely control we run the risk of an accidental or unauthorized launch. 
If we maintain our own nuclear arsenal at high levels when it is 
unnecessary to do so, we encourage rouge nations to pursue their own 
nuclear weapons programs.
  A decade after the end of the Cold War, and on the cusp of the 
twenty-first century, I believe that it is critical that the United 
States Senate show a willingness to engage in the serious business of 
forging a new strategic vision. We must do so with no preconditions or 
preconceived notions about how many, or how few, nuclear weapons are 
necessary. If an objective review of our national security needs 
dictate that we should maintain an arsenal at START I levels, then I 
will be second to none in this body in insisting that our arsenal 
remain at that size. But if, as Governor Bush has suggested, deeper 
cuts are advisable, then I do not believe that artificial barriers to 
achieving this goal should be put in place by this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Kerrey Amendment and strike 
Section 1017 of this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back on both sides.
  Under the previous order, amendments numbered 3183 and 3184 shall be 
laid aside, and the Senate will resume consideration of the Warner 
amendment, No. 3173. Under the previous order, amendment 3173 shall be 
laid aside, and the Senator from South Dakota is recognized to offer a 
similar amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. What is the time agreement on the upcoming two amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there are 2 hours 
equally divided for the two amendments.
  The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3191

  (Purpose: To restore health care coverage to retired members of the 
                          uniformed services)

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

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], for himself, 
     Mr. McCain, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, and Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 3191.

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

       On page 241, strike line 17 and all that follows through 
     page 243, line 19, and insert the following:

     SEC. 703. HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY RETIREES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) No statutory health care program existed for members of 
     the uniformed services who entered service prior to June 7, 
     1956, and retired after serving a minimum of 20 years or by 
     reason of a service-connected disability.
       (2) Recruiters for the uniformed services are agents of the 
     United States government and employed recruiting tactics that 
     allowed members who entered the uniformed services prior to 
     June 7, 1956, to believe they would be entitled to fully-paid 
     lifetime health care upon retirement.
       (3) Statutes enacted in 1956 entitled those who entered 
     service on or after June 7, 1956, and retired after serving a 
     minimum of 20 years or by reason of a service-connected 
     disability, to medical and dental care in any facility of the 
     uniformed services, subject to the availability of space and 
     facilities and the capabilities of the medical and dental 
     staff.
       (4) After 4 rounds of base closures between 1988 and 1995 
     and further drawdowns of remaining military medical treatment 
     facilities, access to ``space available'' health care in a 
     military medical treatment facility is virtually nonexistent 
     for many military retirees.
       (5) The military health care benefit of ``space available'' 
     services and Medicare is no longer a fair and equitable 
     benefit as compared to benefits for other retired Federal 
     employees.
       (6) The failure to provide adequate health care upon 
     retirement is preventing the retired members of the uniformed 
     services from recommending, without reservation, that young 
     men and women make a career of any military service.
       (7) The United States should establish health care that is 
     fully paid by the sponsoring agency under the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits program for members who entered 
     active duty on or prior to June 7, 1956, and who subsequently 
     earned retirement.
       (8) The United States should reestablish adequate health 
     care for all retired members of the uniformed services that 
     is at least equivalent to that provided to other retired 
     Federal employees by extending to such retired members of the 
     uniformed services the option of coverage under the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits program, the Civilian Health and 
     Medical Program of the uniformed services, or the TRICARE 
     Program.
       (b) Coverage of Military Retirees Under FEHBP.--
       (1) Earned coverage for certain retirees and dependents.--
     Chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 8905, by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) For purposes of this section, the term `employee' 
     includes a retired member of the uniformed services (as 
     defined in section 101(a)(5) of title 10) who began service 
     before June 7, 1956. A surviving widow or widower of such a 
     retired member may also enroll in an approved health benefits 
     plan described by section 8903 or 8903a of this title as an 
     individual.''; and
       (B) in section 8906(b)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraphs (2) and 
     (3)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) through (5)''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) In the case of an employee described in section 
     8905(h) or the surviving widow or widower of such an 
     employee, the Government contribution for health benefits 
     shall be 100 percent, payable by the department from which 
     the employee retired.''.

[[Page S4621]]

       (2) Coverage for other retirees and dependents.--(A) 
     Section 1108 of title 10, United States Code, is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees 
       Health Benefits program

       ``(a) FEHBP Option.--The Secretary of Defense, after 
     consulting with the other administering Secretaries, shall 
     enter into an agreement with the Office of Personnel 
     Management to provide coverage to eligible beneficiaries 
     described in subsection (b) under the health benefits plans 
     offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits program 
     under chapter 89 of title 5.
       ``(b) Eligible Beneficiaries; Coverage.--(1) An eligible 
     beneficiary under this subsection is--
       ``(A) a member or former member of the uniformed services 
     described in section 1074(b) of this title;
       ``(B) an individual who is an unremarried former spouse of 
     a member or former member described in section 1072(2)(F) or 
     1072(2)(G);
       ``(C) an individual who is--
       ``(i) a dependent of a deceased member or former member 
     described in section 1076(b) or 1076(a)(2)(B) of this title 
     or of a member who died while on active duty for a period of 
     more than 30 days; and
       ``(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of 
     title 5; or
       ``(D) an individual who is--
       ``(i) a dependent of a living member or former member 
     described in section 1076(b)(1) of this title; and
       ``(ii) a member of family as defined in section 8901(5) of 
     title 5.
       ``(2) Eligible beneficiaries may enroll in a Federal 
     Employees Health Benefit plan under chapter 89 of title 5 
     under this section for self-only coverage or for self and 
     family coverage which includes any dependent of the member or 
     former member who is a family member for purposes of such 
     chapter.
       ``(3) A person eligible for coverage under this subsection 
     shall not be required to satisfy any eligibility criteria 
     specified in chapter 89 of title 5 (except as provided in 
     paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D)) as a condition for enrollment in 
     health benefits plans offered through the Federal Employees 
     Health Benefits program under this section.
       ``(4) For purposes of determining whether an individual is 
     a member of family under paragraph (5) of section 8901 of 
     title 5 for purposes of paragraph (1)(C) or (1)(D), a member 
     or former member described in section 1076(b) or 
     1076(a)(2)(B) of this title shall be deemed to be an employee 
     under such section.
       ``(5) An eligible beneficiary who is eligible to enroll in 
     the Federal Employees Health Benefits program as an employee 
     under chapter 89 of title 5 is not eligible to enroll in a 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits plan under this section.
       ``(6) An eligible beneficiary who enrolls in the Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits program under this section shall 
     not be eligible to receive health care under section 1086 or 
     section 1097. Such a beneficiary may continue to receive 
     health care in a military medical treatment facility, in 
     which case the treatment facility shall be reimbursed by the 
     Federal Employees Health Benefits program for health care 
     services or drugs received by the beneficiary.
       ``(c) Change of Health Benefits Plan.--An eligible 
     beneficiary enrolled in a Federal Employees Health Benefits 
     plan under this section may change health benefits plans and 
     coverage in the same manner as any other Federal Employees 
     Health Benefits program beneficiary may change such plans.
       ``(d) Government Contributions.--The amount of the 
     Government contribution for an eligible beneficiary who 
     enrolls in a health benefits plan under chapter 89 of title 5 
     in accordance with this section may not exceed the amount of 
     the Government contribution which would be payable if the 
     electing beneficiary were an employee (as defined for 
     purposes of such chapter) enrolled in the same health 
     benefits plan and level of benefits.
       ``(e) Separate Risk Pools.--The Director of the Office of 
     Personnel Management shall require health benefits plans 
     under chapter 89 of title 5 to maintain a separate risk pool 
     for purposes of establishing premium rates for eligible 
     beneficiaries who enroll in such a plan in accordance with 
     this section.''.
       (B) The item relating to section 1108 at the beginning of 
     such chapter is amended to read as follows:

``1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health Benefits 
              program.''.
       (C) The amendments made by this paragraph shall take effect 
     on January 1, 2001.
       (c) Extension of Coverage of CHAMPUS.--Section 1086 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c), by striking ``Except as provided in 
     subsection (d), the'', and inserting ``The'';
       (2) by striking subsection (d); and
       (3) by redesignating subsections (e) through (h) as 
     subsections (d) through (g), respectively.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
McCain, Bingaman, Murray, Reid, and Jeffords in offering an amendment 
dealing with military retiree health care. I first want to thank 
Senators Warner and Levin for their continued hard work in the Armed 
Services Committee in attempting to address this critical and urgent 
issue.
  Last year, the Senate began to address critical recruitment and 
retention problems currently facing our nation's armed services. The 
pay table adjustments and retirement reform enacted with my support in 
the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense authorization bill were, 
frankly, long overdue improvements for our active duty military 
personnel.
  However, these improvements did not solve our country's difficulty in 
recruiting and keeping the best and the brightest in the military. In 
order to maintain a strong military for now and in the future, our 
country must show that it will honor its commitment to military 
retirees and veterans as well.
  Too often, military health care is treated as an afterthought rather 
than a priority. That's why on the first day of this legislative year, 
I introduced the Keep our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act, 
S. 2003. This legislation currently has 32 bipartisan cosponsors 
including 18 Republicans and 14 Democrats.
  Companion legislation in the House has over 300 bipartisan 
cosponsors. The bill also has the strong support of military retirees 
across the country and organizations including the Retired Enlisted 
Association, the Retired Officers Association, the National Association 
of Uniformed Services, and the Disabled American Veterans.
  The amendment I offer today is the same language as that contained in 
S. 2003. This legislation honors our nation's commitment to the men and 
women who served in the military by keeping our Nation's promise of 
health care coverage in return for their service and selfless 
dedication.
  In doing so, it also illustrates to active duty men and women that 
our country will not abandon them when their military career ends.
  Our country must honor its commitments to military retirees and 
veterans, not only because it's the right thing to do, but also because 
it's the smart thing to do.
  We all know the history: For decades, men and women who joined the 
military were promised lifetime health care coverage for themselves and 
their families. They were told, in effect, if you disrupt your family, 
if you work for low pay, if you endanger your life and limb, we will in 
turn guarantee lifetime health benefits.
  Testimony from military recruiters themselves, along with copies of 
recruitment literature dating back to World War II, show that health 
care was promised to active duty personnel and their families upon the 
personnel's retirement.
  In fact, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Henry 
Shelton, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee and said:

       Sir, I think the first thing we need to do is make sure 
     that we acknowledge our commitment to the retirees for their 
     years of service and for what we basically committed to at 
     the time that they were recruited into the armed forces.

  Defense Secretary William Cohen also testified before the Senate 
Armed Services Committee and said:

       We have made a pledge, whether it's legal or not, it's a 
     moral obligation that we will take care of all of those who 
     served, retired veterans and their families, and we have not 
     done so.

  Prior to June 7, 1956, no statutory health care plan existed for 
military personnel, and the coverage which eventually followed was 
dependent upon the space available at military treatment facilities.
  Post-cold war downsizing, base closures, and the reduction of health 
care services at military bases have limited the health care options 
available to military retirees.
  That's right: Many of the people who helped us win the cold war have 
lost their health care because the cold war ended.
  Some military retirees in South Dakota and other rural states are 
forced to drive hundreds of miles to receive care. Furthermore, 
military retirees are currently kicked off the military's TRICARE 
health care system when they turn 65.
  This is a slap in the face to those men and women who have sacrificed 
their livelihood to keep our country safe from threats at home and 
abroad.
  My amendment honors the promise of lifetime health care coverage. It 
does so in two ways:

[[Page S4622]]

  First, it allows military retirees who entered the armed services 
before June 7, 1956 (the date military health care for retirees was 
enacted into law) to enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program (FEHBP), with the United States paying 100 percent of the 
costs.
  Second, military retirees who joined the armed services after space-
available care was enacted into law on June 7, 1956 would be allowed to 
enroll in FEHBP or continue to participate in TRICARE--even after they 
turn 65. Military retirees who choose to enroll in FEHBP will pay the 
same premiums and fees--and receive access to the same health care 
coverage--as other Federal employees.
  In my own family, my oldest son is in the Army and currently serves 
as a sergeant in Kosovo. I fully appreciate what inadequate health care 
and broken promises can do to the morale of military families.
  This stress on morale not only effects the preparedness of our 
military units, but also discourages some of our most able personnel 
from reenlisting, making recruitment efforts more difficult.
  I have long contended that all the weapons and training upgrades in 
the world will be rendered ineffective if military personnel and their 
families are not afforded a good ``quality of life'' in our nation's 
armed forces. I have been a strong advocate of better funding for 
veterans health care, military pay, active duty health care, education 
and housing.
  The Johnson amendment continues these efforts led by Senator Warner, 
Senator Levin, and others to address these important quality of life 
issues.
  Senator Warner's modified amendment incorporates an important part of 
S. 2003--the extension of TRICARE to Medicare-eligible retirees and 
dependents. I applaud the Senator for his work.
  However, only my amendment fulfills the promise of health care for 
military retirees while illustrating to current active duty personnel 
that our country supports its commitments to men and women in the 
military.
  I am also concerned that Senator Warner's modified amendment 
terminates in 2004. This could leave military retirees once again 
wondering where their health care will come from. The Johnson amendment 
does not terminate.
  I understand the rationale for Senator Warner's amendment. I am going 
to support the amendment of Senator Warner. It is a good-faith effort 
to do the best that can be done on the health care issues, within the 
context of the budgetary marching orders that have been imposed on 
Senator Warner's committee. I understand that. I understand he is doing 
the best he can within the fiscal envolope that he has been afforded.
  But it frustrates me, as I know it frustrates tens of thousands of 
military retiree and active duty personnel, that for years and years we 
have been told: Yes, we know we have a commitment to you for health 
care but we can't afford it. The Nation's budget is in the red. We are 
running deficits. We simply cannot afford to live up to those promises.
  That was never entirely true. In fact, in the context of a $1.5 
trillion budget, we could have reoriented priorities, I believe, in 
such a way that we could have kept our promises to military personnel 
and retirees. But there was an element of truth to the fact that we 
were running red ink and we were running massive deficits.
  Those days are gone for a lot of different reasons. We have had much 
debate on this floor as to why we now find ourselves running 
significant budget surpluses over and above that attributable to Social 
Security and why those surpluses, projected out 10 years from now, will 
run in the $3 trillion range, some $700 billion to $1 trillion over and 
above what is required for Social Security because we are certainly in 
agreement we are not going to dip into anything that is attributable to 
Social Security. That is off the table, and rightfully so. There is the 
question about what will we do with the $700 billion to $1 trillion 
budget surplus that is being projected by both the White House and by 
the congressional budget experts.
  The amendment pending is an expensive amendment. I understand that. 
It could run around $3 billion next year and $9 billion a year after 
that, according to our friends at the Congressional Budget Office. That 
is a significant expense. What I am asking is if this is not a time 
when we can afford to live up to our promises to our military retirees 
and our military personnel, then when will that time ever occur?
  There are those who see other uses for that $700 billion to $1 
trillion surplus over and above Social Security. I have other things I 
would like to do as well, including some tax relief. There are those 
who want tax relief in the range of essentially the entire surplus. I 
am suggesting there is room for tax relief, there is room for paying 
down the debt, there is room for education, and a number of other 
things. If we do this right, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity 
to utilize some of that projected surplus to, in fact, finally--
finally--live up to our commitment to our military personnel 
and retirees, many of whom, frankly, have gone to their graves without 
the benefits they were promised. We do have that once-in-a-lifetime, 
unique opportunity this year to do something constructive, to make a 
commitment that we will fund this, not out of military readiness, not 
out of active duty budgets, but, in fact, out of this projected surplus 
that the CBO and OMB people tell us is headed our way.

  Military retirees and veterans are our Nation's most effective 
recruiters. Unfortunately, poor health care options make it difficult 
for these men and women to encourage the younger generation to make a 
career of the military. In fact, in Rapid City, SD, which is outside of 
Ellsworth Air Force Base, a very significant B-1 military base in my 
State, I was talking to military personnel and talking to retirees who 
are as loyal and as patriotic, who have paid a price second to none for 
our Nation's liberty, and they told me: Senator, I can't in good faith 
tell my nephews, my children, young people whom I encounter, that they 
ought to serve in the U.S. military, that they ought to make a career 
of that service because I see what the Congress has done to its 
commitment to me, to my family, to my neighbors. The health care 
promises were never lived up to, and we don't think you ever will live 
up to them. You have no credibility with us. It has gone decades, it 
has gone generations, and you have not lived up to the health care 
obligations and responsibilities that you said, if we put our lives in 
danger, we would have. How can I in good faith tell these young people 
they ought to make a career of the military, that it is a distinguished 
professional option they ought to consider, when you treat us shabbily?
  That is the message I hear from active duty as well as retired 
military personnel in my State. It is the same in the mail and e-mail I 
get from all across the country saying: 2003 is the only legislative 
option we see that truly lives up to Congress' obligations.
  No more excuses. The money is there. The only question is, Is the 
political will there? Is this a priority or is it not? I am pleased we 
are having this debate.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from South Dakota yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Johnson has been working on this 
issue for a long while. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this amendment addresses a critical need. 
I ask him if he sees in South Dakota what we know and see in North 
Dakota with respect to the veterans' health care system. The system is 
not working. We have a fellow in north central North Dakota who went to 
Vietnam and took a bullet in the brain and is severely disabled for 
life. Because of that, he has muscle atrophy and a range of other 
health problems and had to have a toe removed.
  The VA system said to his father: Haul him over to Fargo, ND, and we 
will do that in the VA system.
  In other words, take this severely disabled person, put him in a car, 
drive him nearly 200 miles to the east and have this procedure done--
not a major procedure--and then drive him 200 miles back, and that is 
the only way we will cover that expense.
  The father said: Is this the way to treat a son who served his 
country in

[[Page S4623]]

Vietnam and was shot in the head and is now consigned to a very 
difficult life? Is this a way to treat him? It is not. The health care 
system is not working. The VA system is not able to meet the needs.

  I ask the Senator from South Dakota, is it not the case, in his 
opinion, that the cost of veterans' health care is part and parcel of 
the cost of defending this country? It ought to be part of the cost of 
defense because it is a promise we made and have not kept to veterans 
in this country when we said: Serve your country, and we will provide 
you a health care system that works for your needs.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, the Senator is exactly right. We have a 
problem both on the VA health care side and on the military retiree 
side; that is, those who have served their 20 years in the military and 
rely on TRICARE currently, previously CHAMPUS, for their health care 
needs in both instances.
  These people who have served this Nation in such an extraordinary 
fashion have, in all too many instances, not received the quality, the 
accessibility, or the affordability of health care they deserve. It is 
doubly difficult in rural States, such as our own, but it is a problem 
everywhere.
  It is suggested as a compromise that we simply extend TRICARE to 
those who are age 65 and older. That is an additional option which I 
applaud, but that does not extend the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
System to either people prior to 65 or older and, frankly, up until 
now, TRICARE is not viewed in my State with great enthusiasm by many of 
our military retirees. I understand it is a new program, and it may 
improve as time goes on. Simply doing that alone falls far short of 
living up to the obligations Congress made during times of war when we 
were not sure if our Republic was going to survive World War II, when 
we did not know what would happen and we called these people into 
service, followed with Korea, Vietnam, and other conflicts, with people 
dying for our liberty. We were quick to make promises at that time: If 
you help us out, if you work for almost nothing, disrupt your families 
and serve this Nation, we will provide you with quality health care.
  They did their share. They came home and we said: Wait a minute, this 
is a little more costly than we thought, and we have decided to forget 
about it.
  We are not going to live up to those obligations. That is what this 
Congress has said through administrations of both political parties 
over the years.
  We have an opportunity now to bring that, at last, to a halt and to 
deal with our military retirees with a spark of integrity, at last. 
That is what this amendment is about.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a last question?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the indulgence of the Senator from South 
Dakota.
  I assume he agrees with me we are not in any way attempting to 
denigrate the wonderful men and women who work at the VA health care 
centers around the country. Many of them do an extraordinary job. But 
they are not funded well enough. We do not have the resources to do the 
job we should.
  I just want to mention, on a Sunday morning some while ago, I was at 
a VA hospital presenting medals that had been earned, but never 
received by an American Indian. His family came, but also at this VA 
hospital, the doctors and the nurses came into his room. I pinned those 
medals on the pajama tops of this man named Edmund Young Eagle. He died 
7 days later. He was very ill with cancer. But it was an enormously 
proud day for him because he served his country in Africa and Europe in 
World War II. The fact is, this man served this country around the 
world. He never complained about it.
  The day I pinned the medals on his pajama tops, you could see the 
pride in his eyes. I appreciated the fact that at this VA hospital the 
doctors and nurses came around and were part of that small ceremony.
  But there are so many people such as Edmund Young Eagle and others 
who served their country, have never asked for much, but then need 
health care, only to discover that the system for delivering that 
health care is not nearly funded well enough, while in the Congress, 
somehow we are more eager to say that defense relates to the things in 
the Defense Department and that the VA health care system is somehow 
not part of that obligation. It is part of that obligation. That is why 
I am pleased to support this amendment.
  As I mentioned, I say to Senator Johnson, he has been working on 
these issues for a long while. I hope the Congress will embrace this 
approach now so that we can be as proud of what we are doing for 
veterans and for their health care needs as Edmund Young Eagle was 
proud that day of serving his country.
  Isn't it the case that we have dramatic needs--underfunding in these 
facilities--and that the Senator's approach to dealing with this would 
say it is a priority in this Congress to address the health care needs 
of veterans and we believe the health care needs of veterans are part 
and parcel of this country's defense requirements?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I think the Senator from North Dakota raises an 
excellent point. He himself has been a champion for veterans and 
military retirees.
  Obviously, when we come to the point of the VA-HUD appropriations 
issues, we will do the very best we can within the VA context, while at 
the same time trying to address the military retiree issues. They go 
hand in hand. They are both very much part and parcel of our overall 
effort towards military recruitment, retention, and readiness. They are 
part of that same package. I certainly commend the Senator from North 
Dakota for his leadership in that regard.

  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I want very much for the Senator to have a full 
opportunity to present his viewpoints, of course, in the time 
remaining. But at some point I think it would be very helpful to the 
other Senators following this debate to frame exactly what the 
differences are between the Senator's approach and the approach I have 
in my amendment. If he could indicate in the course of his presentation 
when we can bring that into sharp focus for the benefit of our 
colleagues, I would like then to get into a colloquy, on my time for 
such portion of the colloquy as I expend in my statements.
  Mr. JOHNSON. The chairman, the Senator from Virginia, has a very 
constructive suggestion. I certainly will not put words in his mouth 
relative to the interpretation of his legislation. I applaud him for 
his legislative efforts. But I will draw some distinctions as to his 
pending amendment and my amendment.
  I intend to vote for both amendments. My amendment is farther 
reaching and, as I am sure the distinguished Senator from Virginia 
would note, is more costly. Because of that, it runs into additional 
parliamentary issues perhaps. But I will attempt, in closing, to draw 
some distinctions between what it is we are trying to do.
  Mr. WARNER. If the Senator would indicate such time it would be 
convenient for him to proceed to questions, then I would seek 
recognition.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Very good.
  The opponents of S. 2003, in my amendment, again would claim that it 
simply costs too much; roughly $3 billion in fiscal year 2001, and, 
over 10 years, CBO estimates an average cost of $9 billion a year to 
fulfill our promise of health care for military retirees. This does not 
come cheaply. I am very up front on that fact. However, we are talking 
about a $200 billion budget surplus--$9 billion here; $200 billion 
surplus--$800 billion to $1 trillion over 10 years. That is a 
conservative estimate.
  So if we look at the larger scheme of things, in terms of where this 
ought to be within our budget, and also with the possibility of some 
reprioritization of the existing budget, I believe the argument that we 
simply can no longer afford to live up to our promises to military 
personnel who sacrificed so much, including families of those who have 
died defending our right to be here debating this issue today, simply 
no longer holds.
  We invest billions of dollars each year to build new weaponry, and 
rightfully so. But all the weapons in the world will be rendered 
useless or less useful without the men and women in uniform and without 
the high-quality, qualified personnel we need to operate them.
  I believe a promise made should be a promise kept. We owe it to our 
country's military retirees to provide them

[[Page S4624]]

with the health care they were promised. The effort behind this 
amendment has been 100-percent driven by military retirees taking 
action on the benefits to which they are entitled. It is the right 
thing to do. No more tests; no more demonstration projects; no more 
experiments.
  I think we need to act now on a program that works, building on the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan system. On average, 3,784 
military retirees are dying each month. The time to act is now. These 
retirees have mobilized in a grassroots lobbying campaign throughout 
the country to fight for lifetime health care.
  I hope we do not leave this floor today without giving true access to 
health care to these soldiers, sailors, and airmen who have 
patriotically served our country. We have a long way to go. I will 
continue to work with Senators Warner and Levin, and my colleagues, to 
be sure that our country's active-duty personnel, military retirees, 
and veterans receive the benefits they deserve.
  Senator Warner has suggested we draw some clear distinctions between 
the amendments. I think that is a very constructive suggestion. I am 
sure he will elaborate on the differences.
  A difference, as I understand it, is that my amendment would allow 
those who retired before June 7, 1956, to have fully paid participation 
in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. That is the plan in 
which all Federal employees, including Members of this body, 
participate. Frankly, it is a very successful and very popular health 
system. Ask any Federal employee. They will tell you the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan is an excellent one. It provides every 
citizen with an option, a menu, from a ``Cadillac'' to lower-priced 
option, depending on how extravagant they feel in relation to their 
share of premiums in the health care plan.
  For those who retired before 1956, we will say, if you want to 
continue to participate in TRICARE, you certainly can, but your other 
option is to move over to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, 
like other Federal employees and like your Senator. What is good for 
your Senator is good for you.
  For those who retired after the magic date of June 7, 1956, we say, 
you, too, have the option of participating in the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Plan, or you can continue to use TRICARE. You will, 
however, pay premiums similar to what Federal employees pay.
  It is not entirely free, but you will have this additional option, 
and you may continue to stay there post age 65 in retirement.
  Our plan builds on utilization of the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Plan, fully premium paid for those older military personnel 
with premiums for the somewhat younger personnel, optional. And it is 
perpetual. This is not a pilot project. This is not an experiment. We 
will not take this away from you 2 years down the road because we ran 
out of money. This is a commitment. You have to decide what your 
retirement plans are. You have to plan for that. We don't want to be 
jerking the rug out from under you. We have a plan. It is there. You 
choose it, if you choose it. No more demonstration projects that apply 
to some parts of the country and not other parts or it is in for a 
couple years and then we will assess it and decide whether to continue 
it or not. We are not interested in that.
  The Warner amendment, which I think is certainly a step ahead of 
where we are now, does move the health care benefits down the road in a 
constructive way. I applaud the Senator for that. But as I understand 
the Senator's amendment, it essentially allows those who are 65 and 
older, rather than to be pushed out of TRICARE on to Medicare, to 
continue their participation in TRICARE health care services post 65. 
That is an additional option. I am all for options. I think that is a 
good thing.
  It does cost some money. Senator Warner's amendment does fit within 
the current budget resolution, but in order to get it within the budget 
resolution, it would terminate in 2004. It may be, if this is 
successful, there will be additional revenue, and maybe we will 
continue it post-2004. But there is no certainty to that within the 
legislation. It fits within the current budget resolution because it 
has been chopped short in fiscal year 2004. So while TRICARE works 
better for some people than for others, it has not worked terribly well 
in my home State. My State is a rural State, which may be a bit 
different. Trying to make managed care work in my State is a little 
more difficult than it might be in other areas. I certainly concede 
that. But in my area, even if we gave people a continued TRICARE 
option, I am not sure they would beat a path to it particularly. Some 
may. Again, I certainly applaud the option.
  That is the basic difference between Senator Warner's amendment, 
which is constructive and does give an additional option to those who 
are post 65, and my plan, which builds on the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Plan, applies both to pre-56 and post-56--pre-56 with premiums 
paid--and on into retirement, and gives people those options.
  Frankly, most people I talked to, if they had a choice between 
TRICARE and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, they would run 
as fast as they can go to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, 
the plan their Senators and Congressman have, and, for that matter, all 
Federal employees in their hometown have.
  As I see it, put very shortly and perhaps not with as much detail 
towards the plan of the senior Senator from Virginia, that is the basic 
difference from which we have to choose. They are not inconsistent 
necessarily, but I do believe that 2003 is a far, far more expansive 
and permanent approach to the urgent crisis we have for military 
retiree health care.
  The distinguished Senator from Virginia has suggested that he may 
want to comment at this stage on his amendment. I think it is 
appropriate that we discuss both of them in this context.
  Mr. President, I renew my request for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I advise my colleagues that at an appropriate time 
someone from the Budget Committee on this side of the aisle will make a 
point of order.
  Mr. President, we are almost parallel in thought here, certainly 
parallel in thought for the need to help the retirees. I have been 
privileged to be in this institution 22 years. This is the first time, 
I say to my colleague, we have ever taken a step to provide for 
retirees. No one can refute that. If I may say, to push aside a little 
humility, it came from this side of the aisle. It was not in President 
Clinton's budget. It hasn't been in any of his budgets. We took the 
initiative. We have done it carefully step by step. I commend my 
colleague for his leadership on this issue. Indeed, it is the interest 
in his bill which has been garnered across our land that has helped our 
committee to, step by step, begin to increase these provisions.
  I see my colleague wishes to make a point.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for one quick comment?
  Mr. WARNER. I will.
  Mr. LEVIN. The provision in the bill that provides the prescription 
drug benefit for retirees was a bipartisan effort in our committee.
  Mr. WARNER. Absolutely, Mr. President.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think the Senator said it came from a certain side of 
the aisle. It was not in the President's budget, but it was a 
bipartisan effort in committee which I now believe the President 
supports.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, once we took the initiative on our side of 
the aisle in the committee, we had bipartisan support across the board. 
The Senator is absolutely right. The point is where we are. We are 
faced with constraints in military spending, as we are in all other 
avenues. Let's make it clear--let's see if the Senator and I can 
agree--the CBO, in costing out my bill, said it would be about $40 
billion over 10 years. Will the Senator agree with that?
  Mr. JOHNSON. That is as I understand it.
  Mr. WARNER. The CBO, looking at the Senator's bill, said it would 
cost about $90 billion over 10 years.

[[Page S4625]]

  Mr. JOHNSON. Nine billion per year.
  Mr. WARNER. Correct. So the difference between the two approaches is 
very significant in terms of dollars. In fact, the distinguished 
Senator's bill would cost along the following lines: He said $3 billion 
in fiscal year 2001; $5.7 billion in 2002; up to $8.3 billion in 2003; 
$9.4 billion in 2004; and going out to 2010, $12 billion. So those are 
the figures. I think we are in agreement as to the dollar consequences 
of the two bills.
  Yesterday, my distinguished colleague, the ranking member of this 
committee, when I raised the amendment, said that a point of order 
would rest. The inference was clearly that it would be brought against 
my amendment. Whereupon, I thought it imperative that I take my 
amendment and amend it, which I did, to just go out to the year 2004. 
By so doing, the expenditures under my bill, as they flow out through 
these years, bring it within the Senate budget resolution and, 
therefore, does not make it subject to a point of order.
  I think we can agree on that point.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I am in agreement with the Senator on that issue.
  Mr. WARNER. But my distinguished colleague proposing this amendment 
has decided not to try to take a similar action with regard to his 
amendment. Am I correct in that?
  Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. The retiree community, in particular, following this, 
will say to the Senator from Virginia: Why did you cut short to 2004? I 
simply say: Because the likelihood of getting 60 votes was in doubt, 
and I didn't want to have that doubt. I wanted to make sure we got 
started on some major incremental series of benefits for retirees. That 
is why I did it. I made that calculation. I take full responsibility 
for having done it.
  Now, let's see if we can narrow the differences between the approach 
of my colleague and the one I take. I summarize it as follows: I have 
provided in my bill, albeit only through 2004, every provision the 
Senator has. Particularly, I commend him for waiving the 1964 law--not 
waiving it, but taking it off--which was essential. We did that 
together.
  The main difference is the coverage that is given to these retirees 
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program; would I be correct 
in that?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I believe that is a key difference. Also is the fact 
that this legislation of mine does address the issue of free medical 
care.
  Mr. WARNER. But my point is, had it been able to go out 10 years, we 
continue to use that baseline. I am absolutely confident that this 
issue of retiree health care will be injected into the Presidential 
campaign. Each candidate will be asked what position he wants to take 
on that. I am certain they will. And should my amendment be adopted by 
the Senate and become the law of the land, and given that it has to 
stop in 2004, the first question I would ask the candidates is, Are you 
going to support rewriting the Warner amendment such that it goes out 
in perpetuity? I forewarn the candidates to be prepared to answer that 
question.
  I support, of course, that action by the Congress, with the support 
of the next President, to make it in perpetuity. But going back to the 
Senator's point, coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program is what takes my bill from $40 billion to yours to at $90 
billion; are we correct on that? Let's address the situation.
  We passed--I believe it was 2 years ago--a program to allow the 
retirees to decide whether or not they wanted to go into this Federal 
health program. Interestingly, we allowed up to 66,000 to enter under 
that experimental test program. Mr. President, astonishingly, only 
2,500 of those eligible opted to do it, indicating to our committee 
that they felt if they could get the full benefits offered to them when 
they were on active duty in their retired status, they preferred to 
have that rather than to go into the Federal health program. What 
clearer evidence could there be? We offered 66,000 a chance to do it 
and only 2,500 accepted.
  Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield on that point, apart from the 
fact that the military retiree organizations themselves are telling us 
in no uncertain terms that they prefer the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Plan coverage, I think the following points need to be made. 
First, relative to this 66,000 test program, there was, in fact, I am 
told, a lack of timely delivery of accurate, comprehensive information 
about the Federal Employees Health Benefits Test Program. Some of those 
surveyed claimed that townhall meetings sponsored by the Department of 
Defense to promote the test were poorly planned and publicized. Many 
retirees noted the inability to get accurate information and forms from 
the Department of Defense call center.
  Frankly, there has been a fear of the unknown with the test program. 
Retirees are being asked to change health programs for a test program 
that ends in 2002. Many retirees are worried they would have to simply 
change back at the end of the test period. One retiree responded to the 
military coalition survey by saying, ``I just could not risk having to 
try to get insurance at age 73 should the demonstration fail to be 
renewed.'' That may have been a misperception, but it was one that 
skewed the results of the 66,000-member test. There is no doubt about 
that.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend, clearly some of that may have 
taken place. It is better that retiree organizations should certainly 
have tried to give them the information and explain it. They have done 
a magnificent job in explaining what my colleague is offering in his 
amendment.

  I wish to return to the following. Here we go. We are now taking the 
retirees who are given only Medicare, and the Warner bill now restores 
them to the full rights they had when they were on active duty in terms 
of health care. My good friend, Senator Johnson, wants to offer them 
also the chance to go into the Federal program, and the cost of that is 
largely borne by the Federal Government. That raises his amendment up 
to twice the cost of mine, using the 10-year average. But we are giving 
them both.
  At the same time, I project that the Congress is going to be called 
upon, should the Warner amendment or the Senator's amendment become 
law, to begin to add funds for the existing military health care 
program so that it can absorb back this community. That is not an 
insignificant expenditure. Now, having done that, which we have to do 
under either amendment, then to offer them the chance to go into the 
Federal program, you put the infrastructure in place, they don't avail 
themselves of it, they go into the Federal employees program, and you 
have built a big medical program that will not be fully utilized.
  Mr. JOHNSON. If the Senator will yield for a moment, one of the 
benefits of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan is it doesn't 
require a large, new infrastructure to be set up. People simply choose 
the insurance policy of their wish and they go to whomever they wish, 
whether managed care or fee for service, and you are not left with 
trying to create a new Federal bureaucracy or structure.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. But am I not also correct that if 
we mandate by law that the existing military health program has to 
absorb back into it this class of retirees, they will have to augment 
doctors, nurses, perhaps modest increase in facilities, and all of the 
other infrastructure that is necessary to give these people fair, good 
quality health care; am I not correct?
  Mr. JOHNSON. I am not sure I understand the Senator's point on this. 
In fact, it would seem to me that more military retirees will have 
their own personal health care services taken care of, and there would 
be less reliance on the existing military health care structure.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the number of retirees over 65 is roughly 
1.4 million persons. Under the Warner amendment, as well as the Johnson 
amendment, they are now taken back into the existing infrastructure 
that cares for active duty and under-65 persons. Anyone would know that 
with 1.4 million now given the opportunity to come back in, you would 
have to augment and refurbish that system. This will be a justifiable 
issue before the Congress very quickly. I am certain the Secretary of 
Defense--the next Secretary--in the posture statement of the next 
President will say: All right, Congress; you said we are to take them 
back. We are happy to take them back, but give us the funds to 
refurbish and

[[Page S4626]]

augment that system. That will be done.
  That system will be prepared to take back these people, and at the 
same time, you are saying to these people while we put the 
infrastructure in place, you may decide not to use it and go off here 
and avail yourself of other taxpayer dollars--namely, paying a premium 
of 70-plus percent, in most cases, to go into the private sector. Of 
course, there is no augmentation to the private sector. The private 
sector could probably absorb this class. There could be a competition 
between the private sector and the military infrastructure. But the 
military infrastructure has to be put into place. As you say, very 
little would have to be done in the private sector to absorb them.

  So that is the reason, I say to my colleagues, no matter how 
laudatory the amendment would be. I suggest we go a step at a time in 
treating these people fairly. And we have taken the initiative to do 
it. Let's do it a step at a time and first refurbish the existing 
military system to accept them back and give it a period of several 
years under my amendment to see how it works before we take the next 
leap and put on the American taxpayers double the amount of money that 
my amendment would cost.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. LEVIN. This is to clarify the differences between the approaches. 
I understand there is another difference between the two, which is that 
TRICARE would be available to all over 65 under both proposals, but 
under the proposal of the Senator from Virginia, TRICARE would only be 
available for those who pay Part B.
  Mr. WARNER. He is accurate in his statement.
  Mr. LEVIN. Whereas, under the Johnson proposal, Part B would not have 
to be paid for by retirees in order to have TRICARE provided to them.
  Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I believe the Senator indicated before that TRICARE was 
available to all retirees under both proposals, that this would be one 
difference in that regard, and that under your proposal, Part B would 
not have to be paid for by the retiree; whereas, under the proposal of 
the Senator from Virginia, it would have to be. I am not arguing the 
merits or demerits, but factually that is a difference; is that 
correct?
  Mr. JOHNSON. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would you give both times?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 46 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I join Chairman Warner in expressing 
my gratitude to Senator Johnson for his leadership on this issue. He 
made some very salient points on which I hope to reflect in my comments 
in support of the Warner-Hutchinson amendment.
  The question here is not one of sentiment. It is not one of seeing 
the problem. It is not one of wanting to act and to act now. The 
question is, What is the realistic way?
  The fact that the Johnson amendment will cost over $90 billion and 
will be subject to a budget point of order, which Senator Levin saw fit 
to raise in regard to the underlying Warner-Hutchinson amendment which 
would have made this permanent but has not seen fit to raise against 
Senator Johnson, but undoubtedly that is going to happen, that is a 
huge barrier, as we know, and a big problem.
  I think we have to do something this year. That is why I am glad to 
rise and join Senator Warner in introducing the Warner-Hutchinson 
amendment for the national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 
2001.
  I want to comment also on Senator Dorgan's points concerning the VA 
health care system; that it was this Congress last year that increased 
VA medical care spending by over 10 percent, the largest single 
increase in VA health care spending in over a decade; that, indeed, 
with our veterans, as well as with our military retirees, our 
credibility is in tatters when it has been this Congress that has been 
determined to take the steps necessary to restore that credibility and 
to restore that confidence--with the pay raise last year, with the 10-
percent increase in VA medical spending, far above the President's 
budget request, and now with this enormous step. Let us not, in 
comparing it with Senator Johnson's broad amendment, try to minimize 
the significance of the step that will be taken under the Warner-
Hutchinson amendment. I am glad to be a sponsor of this amendment in 
introducing it.

  In my experience as the Armed Services Committee Personnel 
Subcommittee chairman, and in my experience as a member of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee--I have served on the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee in the House and in the Senate since I came to Congress--I 
visit regularly with retired military personnel on a broad range of 
topics.
  Time and time again when speaking with military retirees, or 
responding to letters of concern, the subject of adequate health care 
coverage comes up. Senator Johnson is absolutely right about the 
feelings expressed by our military retirees and their concerns since we 
have broken our commitment and our promise to them.
  The citizens of our country who have served proudly in the armed 
services prefer to be doing other things than spending their time 
petitioning Members of the Senate. They are mature, humble, and they 
are patriotic by nature. But in this situation, they simply must speak 
out. These fine Americans have been slighted as the years have passed. 
They have seen benefits erode. They have seen promises broken or the 
fulfillment of promises delayed.
  No issue causes more distress than the lack of comprehensive medical 
care as part of their retirement benefits. Military retirees are 
annoyed. They are more than annoyed. They are distressed. They feel 
betrayed. They have witnessed bureaucratic stalling through trial 
programs and tests that serve no purpose and simply nibble around the 
edges of the problem. They do not provide the kind of permanent and 
tangible fixes to the inadequacies and shortfalls of the medical care 
system.
  I want to share a couple of quotes from several of the thousands of 
heartfelt letters I have received on the subject of military retirees 
in my home State of Arkansas. These letters from Arkansans who have 
served faithfully in our Nation's Armed Forces are a mere 
representation of the sentiments expressed by military retirees all 
across the Nation.
  Col. Bob Jolly, of Hot Springs, AR, echoes the feelings of many 
others when he writes:

       Thousands of military retirees are dying each month while 
     denied the health coverage our government willingly gives all 
     other federal retirees. We older retirees, now in our sixties 
     and seventies, cannot wait for your Senate colleagues to 
     prescribe years of tests to receive the care we were promised 
     and have earned through decades of fighting our nation's 
     wars.

  Then, in a letter Mr. Stewart Freigy, a retired Air Force pilot from 
Hardy, AR, writes:

       My decision to make a career of the Air Force was based on 
     two things. First a sense of patriotism instilled in me as a 
     child. The second factor was a promise by my government that 
     if I served twenty years, I would receive half of my base pay 
     plus free medical and dental care for myself and my 
     dependents for the rest of my life. By the time I retired, 
     the dental benefits were already gone. Since then I have 
     watched the erosion of my benefits through Champus and then 
     through Tri-Care. In short, like many other military 
     retirees, I feel I have been deceived by a government that I 
     served faithfully.

  Mr. President, it is time we let retired military personnel know that 
the Senate hears their plea for justice and equity. How we handle this 
issue will not only send a message to these Americans that correction 
is on the way, but it will also send the proper message to those on 
active duty and to those young people who are considering whether or 
not they want to enter the Armed Forces or whether they want to make a 
career of the military.
  I have heard from recruiters time and time again since I assumed the 
position as chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee that the most 
important pool from which to attract military recruits is the children 
of those who had

[[Page S4627]]

careers in the military. When their parents feel betrayed, it becomes 
increasingly less likely that they are going to make the choice to go 
into the military themselves. It is important that Congress and the 
American people demonstrate that we are going to honor our promises to 
our military personnel.
  The Warner-Hutchinson amendment will permit military retirees to be 
served by the military health care system throughout their lives 
regardless of age and active duty or retirement status. That is an 
incredibly huge and important step for this Congress to take. Under our 
proposal, the current age discrimination will be eliminated. No one 
will be kicked out of the military health care system just because they 
turn 65.
  Let us not minimize and let us not underestimate the dramatic step of 
the Warner-Hutchinson proposal: No more age discrimination, no more 
kicking military retirees out of the health care system and forcing 
them to leave the doctors and the system with which they have been 
served for many years and with which they are familiar. Beneficiaries 
will continue their health care coverage in a system with which they 
are comfortable and will not be forced to pay the high cost of 
supplemental insurance premiums to ensure their health care needs are 
adequately provided. Medicare will pick up what Medicare pays for, and 
TRICARE will be the supplemental plan to pick up the remainder.
  It is a dramatic, important, and positive step and commitment we are 
making. This initiative will act as a statement of our absolute 
commitment to the promises made to those who have faithfully served the 
United States of America in our Armed Forces.
  As Senator Warner stated, improving the military health care system 
has been the top priority of the Senate Armed Services Committee this 
year.
  Last year, we did the pay raise. Personnel chiefs tell me that has 
made an enormous difference in their ability to go out and recruit. It 
has improved morale in the Armed Forces. This is the next big step: 
Improving the health care system both with the prescription drug 
component as well as this very major step we are taking for our retired 
military. Hearings have been held on this issue, and input from 
retirees has been received and has been heard loud and clear.
  Time and again, our extensive review of the situation has highlighted 
the importance of retiree access to the health care system and to 
pharmaceuticals, with pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs being the 
No. 1 concern for retirees. This already addresses the issue of 
pharmaceutical actions by providing a pharmacy benefit with no 
enrollment fee for both the retail and mail order programs. On a 
bipartisan basis, that has been included. It is an important provision 
with overwhelming support.
  The Warner-Hutchinson amendment complements that pharmacy benefit and 
continues the efforts of the committee to provide a comprehensive 
solution to the issue of health care for America's deserving military 
retirees. By adopting this amendment the Defense authorization bill 
will provide a comprehensive health care benefit for all of our 
country's military retirees.
  As chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee, I am well aware of the 
other legislative alternatives that have been proposed. There has been 
a very positive, productive colloquy and debate on the floor on these 
alternatives. However, I believe strongly that the Warner-Hutchinson 
amendment provides the most effective and realistic remedy in a 
fiscally responsible manner. America's military retirees were promised 
a health care benefit. They served our country and we, as a nation, 
need to fulfill our duty by honoring the commitments made to them. This 
amendment does that.
  I applaud Senator Warner and his leadership on this issue, his 
willingness to take this bold step. I believe this amendment will pass 
with overwhelming support. I appreciate Senator Johnson's continued 
leadership. I know this will be a debate that continues in the years to 
come. It should not preclude first taking this step. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I applaud the work the Senator from Arkansas and the 
Senator from Virginia have done.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I certainly yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. LEVIN. I assure my friend from Arkansas, when I inquired 
yesterday about whether or not the amendment of the Senator from 
Virginia was subject to a point of order, that was the only amendment 
that was at the desk to which I could make such an inquiry to which the 
Parliamentarian could respond.
  Now that the Johnson amendment is there, I ask the same question: Is 
the Johnson amendment subject to a point of order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). In the opinion of the 
Parliamentarian, it is.
  Mr. LEVIN. While we are on the subject, there is now apparently some 
indication that there may still be a point of order problem with the 
Warner amendment which we are trying to assert.
  Mr. WARNER. At this time, I will address that issue. In the course of 
our floor consideration, we frequently ask the CBO for their estimates. 
They gave me estimates yesterday which they have now revised this 
morning.


                Amendment No. 3173, As Further Modified

  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Virginia 
may modify his amendment. I have sent to the desk such an amendment, 
which reduces the year of my amendment from 2004 to 2003.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not, so we are all very clear, because there has been some discussion 
as to the differences between the two amendments, if this modification 
is made, the length of time that the Warner provision would be in 
effect, then, would be the years 2002 and 2003 instead of 2002, 2003, 
and 2004. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection. I think it is important everyone 
understand.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague from Michigan. We all have to rely 
on these estimates.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3173), as further modified, is as follows:

       Strike sections 701 through 704 and insert the following:

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

       (a) Eligibility of Medicare Eligible Persons.--Section 
     1086(d) of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) The prohibition contained in paragraph (1) shall not 
     apply to a person referred to in subsection (c) who--
       ``(A) is enrolled in the supplementary medical insurance 
     program under part B of such title (42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.); 
     and
       ``(B) in the case of a person under 65 years of age, is 
     entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title 
     XVIII of the Social Security Act pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     or (C) of section 226(b)(2) of such Act (42 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.
       (2) The amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Adjustment for Budget-Related Restrictions.--Effective 
     on October 1, 2003, section 1086(d)(2) of title 10, United 
     States Code, as amended by subsection (a), is further amended 
     by striking ``in the case of a person under 65 years of 
     age,'' and inserting ``is under 65 years of age and''.

  Mr. WARNER. My amendment is now modified so it is not subject to a 
point of order.
  Our distinguished colleague is subject to a point of order, and at an 
appropriate time he will raise that point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

[[Page S4628]]

                           Amendment No. 3191

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I make a clarification relative to my 
amendment. There may have been some confusion earlier. I wish to make 
it very clear that under my amendment those who entered the armed 
services prior to June 7, 1956, would be eligible for Federal employee 
health benefit plan coverage with the Government paying 100 percent of 
the premiums. Those who entered the armed services after June 7 of 1956 
can choose Federal employee health benefit plans with premiums or 
TRICARE. I want to make sure that point is very clear.
  There has been reference to points of order, and the Senator from 
Virginia is very correct that a point of order will be raised on my 
amendment. My amendment does cost more. It does more and it costs more. 
It is perpetuating. It is not a 2-year commitment.
  A point of order, while not taken up lightly, is simply an 
opportunity to determine whether 60 votes in this body believe the 
issue at hand is of sufficient importance that it ought to have that 
first level of concern, that priority.
  The question is, Are we going to pass or waive a point of order with 
60 votes and invade surplus dollars that otherwise are available for 
tax cuts or are we going to put our money where our mouth is? Do we 
have the 60 votes to say we will use those dollars, at least that part 
of it that is required, that $90 billion out of the $800 billion or so 
that is available, for this purpose?
  One of the things that makes this debate interesting, and the 
parliamentary process interesting, I don't know if we have the 60 votes 
to waive the order or not. After all these years of Veterans Day and 
Memorial Day rhetoric about how important our veterans are, this at 
last will be an opportunity for every Member of this body to stand up 
and be counted. Is that rhetorical support or are you willing to put 
these priorities ahead of other budget priorities, including tax 
relief? Are you willing to waive the Budget Act and make this happen or 
not? If you are not, I respect your views. Members can go home and 
explain that. That is certainly your prerogative.

  It is long overdue. We have an opportunity for some accountability 
for the American public to understand who is willing to truly make this 
a budget priority and who is not. If you are not, then you have those 
justifications that you can make. That is what the nature of this is. 
This is not because it is more costly, that this is an impossible 
program. It will require 60 votes, assuming that the point of order is 
raised, rather than the 50 votes of the Senator from Virginia.
  It will allow the Senate to make a determination in this body whether 
these priorities are ahead of other priorities that people have, a 
thousand other things for which they want to use the budget surpluses. 
No doubt almost all of them are worthy causes. But is this only one of 
many, many causes, one that we are going to cut short after only 2 
years, and then provide less than the full level of commitment to the 
promises made to our veterans or is this, in fact, a first priority and 
we are complying with our promises, albeit belatedly, but a full 
commitment permanently, and in order to do that invade into surpluses 
dollars that no doubt other people on both sides of the aisle have 
other purposes for which they can use the dollars? That is the question 
with which ultimately we have to contend.
  My colleague from New York has come to the floor and has a 1 minute 
request on an unrelated issue. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from 
New York be permitted 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, let's have clarified the amount of time 
remaining under the control of the Senator from South Dakota and the 
amount of time under my control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 33 minutes. The 
Senator from South Dakota has 17 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. That is 17 and 33. I say to my friend, I am prepared to 
yield back a considerable amount of my time because I think our 
caucuses are about to meet. It is very important. If he would give me 
some estimate of what he desires, and I will just do basically half 
that time remaining and do a quick wrapup?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, we have no additional speakers on my side. I agree we ought 
to expedite this debate at this point, unless the Senator has other 
speakers to whom I would choose to respond.
  Mr. WARNER. No, I am ready.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I will be open to conveying back my time.
  Mr. WARNER. At this point?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Yes.
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. Let's clarify one other thing. Senator Levin 
brought up the points of order.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time that it be in 
order for the Senator from Virginia to raise a point of order that the 
Johnson amendment, No. 3191, violates section 302(F) of the Budget Act, 
and that would take effect after my vote. Then there would be a point 
of order, and the Senator could, at this time, ask for the waiver.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I move to waive the point of order. Mr. 
President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. So at the conclusion of the brief remarks from my 
colleague, say not more than 2 minutes on my behalf, we then proceed to 
the votes as they have been ordered previously? That order, of course, 
is we will vote--I think the Presiding Officer should state the order 
of votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The first vote will be on the Warner amendment 
No. 3173, followed by a vote on the waiver of the budget point of 
order. If the waiver vote is successful, that is to be followed by a 
vote on the Johnson amendment. If it is not successful, the vote will 
be on the Warner amendment, No. 3184, followed by a vote on the Kerrey 
amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Does the Senator have anything further? Otherwise, I will just say 
two words.
  Mr. JOHNSON. It is my understanding, then, the Johnson amendment, the 
waiver vote on the Johnson amendment, will be the first vote? If that 
is successful----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the second vote, following the 
vote on the Warner amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON. The Warner vote then is the first vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Followed by the point of order on the Johnson amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The waiver.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. And we would each be permitted 2 minutes apiece at 
that time, at the time of that vote--that is my understanding--if that 
is acceptable?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will follow my colleague with maybe 2 
minutes of remarks if he has any concluding remarks before we proceed 
to the sequence of votes.
  Mr. JOHNSON. That is satisfactory.
  Mr. WARNER. At this time, you yield such time under your control?
  I am prepared to yield my time, reserving a minute and a half.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
  Mr. WARNER. I simply say once again I thank the Senator from South 
Dakota. He has been a leader on this issue. Indeed, his amendment has 
been widely supported throughout the retirement community.
  I have come in with the second-degree simply to say we should take 
these steps incrementally, one after another. Let us bring the retirees 
back into the fold of the military health care system. Let us build the 
infrastructures necessary to take care of them and try that out in the 
light that only 2,500 ever opted for the Federal program out of 66,000 
eligible. Let us try that out for the 2 or 3 years my program would be 
in effect.
  The next President will have to address this situation. The next 
Congress will address this situation. But we will have made enormous 
progress if the Senate will adopt the Warner amendment. Indeed, it 
represents well over two-thirds of the amendment by our distinguished 
colleague from South Dakota.
  The only thing remaining is whether or not we should give both at 
this point in time, which would double the cost over a 10-year period. 
It would double

[[Page S4629]]

the cost if we gave them the option of the Federal program in addition 
to what we are giving them under the Warner amendment; namely, now back 
into the system which has taken care of them for the period of their 
active duty and that period between the termination of their active 
duty and retirement up to age 65.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is making important strides in 
working to improve health care benefits for our military retirees. A 
case in point is the Defense Authorization measure before the Senate 
today, which includes significant improvements in pharmacy benefits for 
military beneficiaries as well as several demonstration projects 
intended to evaluate long range health care solutions for military 
retirees.
  But more needs to be done. We recognize that, and we are working to 
remedy the current situation. Senator Warner's proposal to permit 
military retirees aged 64 or older to remain under CHAMPUS and TRICARE 
by requiring these plans to be secondary payers to Medicare is a good 
step in the right direction, a responsible step, and I strongly support 
it.
  I also commend Senator Johnson for the laudatory goal of his 
amendment, but absent a plan to pay for such a sweeping reform, I fear 
that we are getting ahead of ourselves. The Senate has not set aside 
any money to pay for this proposal, and without a sure source of 
funding, we are offering our military retirees little more than an 
empty promise. For this reason, I am opposed to waiving the budget 
point of order against the Johnson amendment.
  The Senate has been moving toward improved medical benefits for all 
members of the military, active and retired, over the past several 
years. Health care benefits remain a top priority. Senator Warner's 
proposal to provide specific enhanced health benefits for older 
retirees for a three-year period while continuing to explore, test, and 
evaluate a long term solution is a prudent course of action. It gives 
us the opportunity to address the immediate health care needs of 
military retirees, while also giving Congress needed time to assess the 
best long-term solution, and to provide the necessary funding for 
whatever solution we reach.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senate has just spoken on one of the 
most important national security issues facing this Nation today--the 
quality of health care services we provide for those who have so 
selflessly served this Nation. As pointed out during this debate, we 
promised millions of Americans lifetime, quality healthcare as partial 
compensation for their service to this country. Sadly, for far too many 
of America's veterans, this promise remains unfulfilled.
  The amendments just voted on by the Senate represent efforts by their 
supporters to keep that commitment. These measures adopted a 
fundamentally different approach toward solving this problem. And 
although I had some reservations about each, I supported both.
  I would like to briefly discuss my reasons for doing so. However, 
before getting into the specifics of these very different amendments, I 
would like to commend the efforts of Senators Johnson and Warner. As a 
result of their hard work, we are much closer than ever before to 
keeping our health care commitment to this Nation's veterans. They are 
both to be commended for keeping this issue alive and forcing the 
Senate to deal with it on the bill currently before us.
  Under current law, military retirees under the age of 65 are eligible 
to enroll in TRICARE Prime or to use TRICARE's insurance programs. 
Those who use TRICARE's insurance may also seek care at a military 
treatment facility, MTF, on a space-available basis. Once retirees turn 
65, they are no longer eligible to use TRICARE, though they may 
continue to seek care at an MTF when space is available. The same 
eligibility rules apply to survivors of veterans. Unfortunately, the 
shortcomings of the current system are well known to thousands of 
America's veterans. I receive letters virtually every week describing 
the failures of TRICARE.
  Senator Johnson's amendment would address some of these failures and 
increase health insurance benefits for retirees. Specifically, retirees 
who entered military service before June 7, 1956 and their spouses 
would be able to use military health insurance and enroll in the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP. Those enrolling in 
FEHBP would pay no out-of-pocket premiums. Military retirees who 
entered the service after June 7, 1956 and their survivors would be 
eligible for increase coverage regardless of their age. They could 
either enroll in FEHBP or use TRICARE's insurance program.
  Senator Johnson's amendment clearly would provide better health care 
coverage for millions of veterans. My concerns with it are twofold and 
both are cost-related. First, I am somewhat troubled by the overall 
cost of this proposal. Although I believe no price is too high to keep 
our commitment to America's veterans--and Senator Johnson's amendment 
certainly represents a giant step in that direction--I wonder whether 
there may be a more cost effective means of doing so. Second, I am 
concerned that for those retirees who entered service after 1956 and 
who choose FEHBP, the Government would only pick up about 70 percent of 
the premium. Retirees and their families would be expected to pick up 
the remaining 30 percent. Depending on the plan chosen, this could 
represent an annual out-of-pocket expense of $2,000 or more--not an 
insignificant expenditure for many.
  Senator Warner's amendment also has merit as well as one fundamental 
flaw. Under the Warner amendment, all Medicare-eligible retirees would 
be allowed to remain in TRICARE. In other words, TRICARE would be a 
second-payer to Medicare, covering certain costs above and beyond those 
covered by Medicare. This change would greatly improve the quality of 
health care provided to our Nation's veterans. Unfortunately, in order 
to comply with a flawed Republican budget resolution, Senator Warner 
was forced to sunset this new benefit in 2003. In other words, the 
Warner amendment provides veterans a new health benefit with one hand 
and, two years later, takes it away with the other.
  As I said at the outset, I supported both of these amendments despite 
the flaws I have just discussed. I did so because I believe it is 
important we focus on the forest and not the trees and because both of 
these amendments would bring us closer to keeping this Nation's 
commitment to its military retirees. And I did so because I believed it 
was the right thing to do. I commend Senators Warner and Johnson for 
their work on behalf of our veterans and look forward to working with 
them to fulfill the promise we made to those who sacrificed so much to 
serve this Nation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I support the amendment by the 
distinguished Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. 
It takes the next step toward honoring the promise of lifetime health 
care for our military retirees. It removes the Title 10 provision that 
limits eligibility for military health care benefits to retirees under 
the age of 65.
  The amendment expands health care benefits for Medicare-eligible 
military retirees by removing the age limitation on who qualifies for 
military health care programs. It gives all military retirees one 
consistent health care benefit, with TRICARE supplementing Medicare 
after the retiree reaches the age of 65. This is the right thing to do 
for our retirees.
  I also support the amendment offered by Senator Johnson. It corrects 
an inconsistency in access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Program. Currently, our retired service members do not have the 
opportunity to participate in this program. While the out-of-pocket 
costs for some health plans offered under FEHBP may make this approach 
less attractive to senior military retirees, they should be given the 
option to join. Again, this is only fair. One, consistent health care 
program for all beneficiaries makes sense and is the right thing to do.
  I commend Senator Warner and Senator Johnson for their leadership in 
this important area. I support their amendments, and I urge my 
colleagues to approve them.
  This year is, indeed, the Defense Department's ``Year of Health 
Care!'' In the Armed Services Committee, we began the year considering 
how to improve health care for active duty service members and their 
families, and to address the well-documented health

[[Page S4630]]

care needs of military retirees, especially those over the age of 65.
  The Administration's budget request was a major positive step for 
active duty service members and their families. It proposed to expand 
TRICARE Prime to the families of service members who live far from 
military hospitals. It also proposed to eliminate the co-payments by 
active duty service members' families for medical care by civilian 
health care providers in TRICARE Prime.
  We heard testimony from Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, the Service 
Secretaries, and each of the Service Chiefs, that the availability of 
health care for senior military retirees is a serious problem. They are 
conducting a variety of TRICARE demonstration programs to find the best 
way to address it. We also heard from retirees and the organizations 
that represent them that the problem is urgent, and that Congress needs 
to act now.
  A promise of lifetime health care was made to our service members at 
the time of their enlistment. We have an obligation to meet that 
commitment. It is wrong that service men and women who have dedicated 
their lives serving and defending our country should lose their 
military health care benefits when they reach the age of 65. We must 
fix this injustice, and we must do it now.
  The pending DOD Authorization Bill takes a first step towards 
honoring this promise by giving military retirees a retail and mail-
order pharmacy benefit. Almost a third of them already have this 
benefit. 450,000 military retirees over the age of 65 have a pharmacy 
benefit under the base closing agreement. It provides a 90-day supply 
of prescription drugs by mail for an $8 co-payment, or a 30 day supply 
of prescription drugs from a retail pharmacy network for a 20 percent 
co-payment. The pending Defense Authorization Bill expands this benefit 
to all 1.4 million Medicare-eligible retirees. It makes sense, and it 
is fair that all military retirees over 65 have the pharmacy benefit, 
not just those affected by the base closing process.
  This pharmacy benefit addresses one of the most important concerns of 
the military retiree community--the high cost of prescription drugs.
  All of us are pleased that the Senate is taking this step to make 
good on our promise of health care to military retirees. But we should 
not forget the millions of other senior citizens who need help with 
prescription drugs too.

  It's long past time for Congress to mend another broken promise the 
broken promise of Medicare. Medicare is a guarantee of affordable 
health care for America's senior and disabled citizens. But that 
promise is being broken every day because Medicare does not cover 
prescription drugs. It is time to keep that promise.
  When Medicare was enacted in 1965, only three percent of private 
insurance policies offered prescription drug coverage. Today, ninety-
nine percent of employment-based health insurance policies provide 
prescription drug coverage--but Medicare is caught in a 35-year-old 
time warp.
  Fourteen million elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries--one-
third of the total have no prescription drug coverage today. The most 
recent data indicate that only half of all senior citizens have drug 
coverage throughout the entire year.
  The only senior citizens who have stable, secure, affordable drug 
coverage today are the very poor, who are on Medicaid. The idea that 
only the impoverished elderly should qualify for needed hospital and 
doctor care was rejected when Medicare was enacted. Republicans say 
they want to give prescription drugs only to the poor. But senior 
citizens want Medicare, not welfare.
  Too many seniors today must choose between food on the table and the 
medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their illnesses.
  Too many seniors take half the pills their doctor prescribes, or 
don't even fill needed prescriptions--because they cannot afford the 
high cost of prescription drugs.
  Too many seniors are paying twice as much as they should for the 
drugs they need, because they are forced to pay full price, while 
almost everyone with a private insurance policy benefits from 
negotiated discounts.
  Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense cost to 
Medicare--because they aren't receiving the drugs they need at all, or 
cannot afford to take them correctly.
  Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures 
for a host of dread diseases. But millions of Medicare beneficiaries 
will be left out and left behind if Congress fails to act. In 1998 
alone, private industry spent more than $21 billion in conducting 
research on new medicines and bringing them to the public. These 
miracle drugs save lives--and they save dollars too, by preventing 
unnecessary hospitalization and expensive surgery.
  All patients deserve affordable access to these medications. Yet, 
Medicare, which is the nation's largest insurer, does not cover 
outpatient prescription drugs, and senior citizens and persons with 
disabilities pay a heavy price for this glaring omission.
  The ongoing revolution in health care makes prescription drug 
coverage more essential now than ever. Coverage of prescription drugs 
under Medicare is as essential today as was coverage of hospital and 
doctor care in 1965, when Medicare was enacted. Senior citizens need 
that help--and they need it now.
  So I say to my colleagues--while we are making good on broken 
promises, it's long past time to cover prescription drugs under 
Medicare for all elderly Americans. If we can cover military retirees, 
we can cover other senior citizens too.
  Elderly Americans need and deserve prescription drug coverage under 
Medicare. Any senior citizen will tell you that--and so will their 
children and grandchildren. It is time to make this need a priority as 
well.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
need for responsible military health care reform.
  There is a critical need for real military health care reform. I am 
concerned that if this amendment passes today, that this body, as well 
as the lower chamber, will wipe their hands of this problem and move on 
to other issues. Our servicemembers past, present, and future deserve a 
world class military health care delivery system, and the Congress 
should accept no less.
  When the defense bill before us today came out of committee, I voted 
against it for several reasons. One of the most pressing reasons was 
that the health care legislation included in the defense authorization 
bill did not address the broken ``promise'' of lifetime medical care, 
especially for those over age 65. Voting for its passage would have 
been an abrogation of my responsibility as a Senator to let our 
declining military health care system continue without a responsible 
legislative remedy.
  One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and 
their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, 
especially for those over age 65. While the Committee included some key 
health care provisions, they failed to meet what I think is the most 
important requirement, the restoration of this broken promise.
  This week, we recognize the anniversary of the invasion of the 
European continent to free hundreds of millions of people from the 
grasp of a tyrannical dictator. Our servicemembers have served 
courageously in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and other locations 
throughout the world. We owe our servicemembers, past, present, and 
future a health care delivery system that adequately supports those who 
have served with honor and courage throughout the years.
  Today, our military health care delivery system is facing some very 
difficult and costly challenges. One of these is how best to 
reconfigure the military health care delivery system so that it might 
continue to meet its military readiness and peace-time obligations at a 
time of continuous change for the armed forces. In the process of 
deciding how to proceed, I have met with and heard from many military 
family members, veterans and military retirees from around the country. 
I have been inundated with suggestions for reform.
  In every meeting and in every letter, I encountered retired service 
men and women who have problems with every aspect of the military 
medical care system--with long waiting periods, with access to the 
right kind of care, with access to needed pharmaceutical drugs, and 
with the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees 
and their spouses. I heard these

[[Page S4631]]

concerns expressed as I have traveled across the United States over the 
past year. I was proud to introduce S. 2013, the Honoring Health Care 
Commitments to Service Members Past and Present Act of 2000.

  S. 2013 was drafted with the help of the Military Coalition and the 
National Military and Veterans Alliance. The Military Coalition has 
strongly endorsed S. 2013, stating, ``We applaud your leadership in 
introducing comprehensive legislation aimed at correcting serious 
inequities in the military health care benefit.'' I am proud of the 
work on S. 2013, and I was prepared to re-introduce key provisions of 
this bill as an amendment to the defense authorization bill.
  However, the Warner amendment, and the more comprehensive Johnson, 
Coverdell, and McCain amendment, are coming up for a vote today, and I 
would like to comment on their attributes and my concerns.
  I would like to commend my colleagues, Senators Johnson and 
Coverdell, whose amendment fully restores the ``broken promise'' to our 
military retirees and their families. I am proud to be an original 
cosponsor of this amendment, as well as their companion bill, S. 2003.
  This amendment fully restores the ``broken promise'' by providing 
free military medical health care to military retirees and their 
spouses. I am a strong proponent of this amendment, because it gives 
the retirees what they were promised, military medical health care for 
life. This health care would be provided through the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment. Our service members deserve our support, and we have an 
obligation not to renege on a promise made to them many years ago.
  As I have mentioned, I was prepared to offer an amendment today--a 
version of S. 2013--that builds on the limited health care improvements 
provided in the defense authorization bill. However, I have decided to 
withhold my amendment at this time to fully support the Johnson 
amendment, as well as vote for the Warner amendment. The Warner 
amendment provides a substantial increase in the health care benefit 
provided to over-65 military retirees and their families that current 
law and the Armed Services Committee-reported bill, S. 2549, have 
failed to address. The Warner amendment is not a perfect solution, but 
it is a step in the right direction.
  Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their efforts to address 
many of these important military health care challenges. Not lost on 
any of us is the urgent need to address the over-age-65 issue, since 
there are reportedly 4,000 World War II, Korean and Vietnam War-era 
military retirees dying every month. It is imperative that as changes 
are made to our nation's armed forces, Congress not only stay focused 
on bringing health care costs under control, but that steps be taken to 
retain the health care coverage so critical to our nation's active duty 
personnel, their families, retirees, and survivors.
  Make no mistake, retiree health care is a readiness issue as well. 
Today's servicemembers are acutely aware of retirees' 
disenfranchisement from military health coverage, and exit surveys cite 
this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' 
decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that 
``access to medical and dental care in retirement'' was a significant 
source of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention-
critical specialties.
  Mr. President, this year will be, in the words of the Joint Chiefs, 
the year of health care reform. Whether we are successful or not will 
depend on several factors: Congress' ability to realize real health 
care reform and provide the necessary resources, the Pentagon's ability 
to work with private industry to control costs on pharmaceuticals and 
health insurance plans, and the military retirees who utilize the 
system coming together and galvanizing support for the future of 
military health care.


            Vote on Amendment No. 3173, as further modified

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Warner 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3173, as further 
modified.
  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 Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber who desire to vote?--
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 1, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 117 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--1

       
     Kerrey
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Crapo
     Domenici
     Harkin
  The amendment (No. 3173), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Senate just conducted two very 
significant and unprecedented votes--unprecedented in the respect that, 
as the good chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee has pointed 
out, this is the first time that the Congress has taken steps to 
provide health care equity for our Nation's military retirees. This 
effort was not led by the White House. It was led by Congress and by 
military retirees across the country.
  I have been deeply involved in this issue for many years now. As my 
colleagues know, I am the lead cosponsor of S. 2003, Senator Johnson's 
bill to restore the broken promise of lifetime health care made to 
military retirees. The mere presence of this bill, as Chairman Warner 
noted, drove the debate on military retiree health care this year and 
moved us to the point where we are today--on the verge of enacting the 
first comprehensive solution to the military retiree health care issue. 
This is a matter of fairness for military retirees, but our goal must 
be accomplished without destroying the fiscal discipline that has made 
this day possible.
  As a result, even though I am the lead cosponsor of S. 2003 and fully 
support its objectives, I could not vote to waive the budget point of 
order raised against the amendment today. The Senate has budget rules 
that must be protected if we want to ensure, year-in and year-out, that 
all of the Nation's priorities are fairly and appropriately funded. 
These are the fiscal rules of the road that have enabled us to balance 
the budget, to create unprecedented surpluses for the first time in 
decades, and to contemplate any funding for a military health care 
proposal such as this. Once the rules are broken, fiscal discipline 
will evaporate. Deserving long-term priorities would be pitted against 
the politically popular causes of the moment in a rush to tap the 
surplus dollars first.
  We must also remember that we are working with the fourth consecutive 
balanced budget that protects Social Security--a tremendous exercise in 
fiscal restraint that the Senate must not abandon. Preserving Social 
Security has been a priority for the American people for a long time 
and it took the Congress many years to make it a reality. If we begin 
our fiscal work by

[[Page S4632]]

eviscerating the budget rules, we will put the Social Security surplus 
and the retirement benefits for millions of senators at great risk.
  I could have taken the politically expedient route, the easy route by 
casting my vote to waive the budget rules. But that vote would not have 
changed the outcome or brought us closer to passage of S. 2003. Had the 
motion to waive the budget rules prevailed, it would have set a 
dangerous precedent and ultimately would make it more difficult to 
protect the funding needed to restore the broken promise. My vote today 
to preserve the budget rules, notwithstanding my strong support for 
military retirees, represents my view that the work of the Nation must 
move forward and that it will not unless the Senate works responsibly 
within the budget process in order to balance competing demands for 
funding.
  There is no doubt in my mind that the gains on this issue today would 
not have been achieved without the introduction of S. 2003. At the 
beginning of this Congress, we were at ground-zero on this issue--the 
same place as in every previous Congress. We made headway this year in 
the Armed Services Committee and with our colleagues on the Budget 
Committee. Today, Senator Warner's amendment, while not everything we 
wanted, did take an important step forward by giving military retirees 
one part of what they deserve--the ability to keep their military 
health benefits when they reach Medicare eligible age. I believe the 
Senate has demonstrated a new found commitment to our Nation's military 
retirees and I look forward to continuing our work to restore the 
broken promise in full.


                           Amendment No. 3191

  Mr. WARNER. We are ready for the vote on a point of order.
  I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of the two leaders, that the next 
two votes be limited to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There will be 2 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, a point of order has been raised on the 
amendment of the Senator from South Dakota. I would like to have 
Senator Gramm of Texas recognized to argue that point of order and that 
his name replace my name on having made it. He is on the Budget 
Committee. I simply made it on behalf of the Budget Committee. He makes 
it in his own right, my name to be deleted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me remind everyone that 4 years ago we 
moved to begin to correct an injustice in military medicine, and the 
injustice was that if you served in the military for 20 or more years, 
you received a commitment, at least in your mind and I believe in 
reality, that you and your dependents would have access to military 
medicine for the rest of your life. When Medicare came in and the 
federal government started making the military pay Medicare payroll 
taxes, it stopped allowing retirees over 64 to use military medicine. 
That was a breach of faith. Then we started an experiment 4 years ago 
to allow them to use their Medicare coverage to obtain treatment at 
base hospitals again. The Warner amendment we just adopted will allow 
people who served a career in the military to get treatment at base 
hospitals from military doctors, and have Medicare pay the cost. It is 
a good idea and I strongly support it.
  Now, Senator Johnson has offered an amendment that on its face has 
merit, and that is to put military retirees into FEHBP. Maybe in the 
long run that is the answer to the problem. But the problem with 
Senator Johnson's amendment today is that it busts the budget by $92 
billion. So I urge my colleagues, whether they support the FEHBP 
solution or not, to not bust the budget today. Let's stand with the 
taxpayers today, and let's also complete the Medicare subvention 
experiment, and let's take up Senator Johnson's proposal when we know 
how to pay for it. I thank the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I join Senator McCain and the other 
cosponsors in support of this legislation. We have a fundamental 
question before us, and that is whether the military retirees of this 
Nation deserve to have the same kind of health care system that Members 
of this body have, or other Federal employees, through the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Plan. That is the amendment that the military 
retiree organizations are asking to have and we can, once and for all, 
be done with the question about whether we are going to live up to our 
commitment to our military personnel in terms of the medical care that 
they were promised and which they deserve.
  I think there is an across-the-board agreement in this body that if 
we are truly going to live up to this obligation, this legislation is 
what we have to pass. It would involve a waiver, and the fundamental 
question we have, then, is whether we have 60 votes in this body to get 
into the surplus dollars, or whether those surplus dollars will remain 
available for tax cuts and other purposes.
  If you believe that military health care is a first priority, ought 
to come first, rather than the crumbs that come after we have made 
other budget decisions, you will support the Johnson-McCain amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we had a very good debate on this. I see 
it slightly different. What we are doing in the Johnson amendment is 
giving two health care programs to military retirees. We are giving 
them the military health care program and then asking the taxpayers to 
add on the tax burdens of the Federal program. So it is not the same as 
we get; we do not get the military program. I have to correct the 
Senator. There are two systems if you vote for that. That is why his is 
$90 billion over 10 years versus the Warner amendment, which is $40 
billion.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, given Senator Warner's observation, I ask 
unanimous consent for 10 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Saying our military retirees would beat a path to the 
Federal system offering TRICARE as an alternative--frankly, that is an 
unpopular option. This Johnson amendment is what the military retirees 
want and deserve.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the issue before us is whether we are going 
to waive the budget point of order. I insist on the point of order and 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to waive the Buget Act. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The 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.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 118 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Burns
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Gorton
     Grams
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Thomas
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

     Allard
     Baucus
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Dodd
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Crapo
     Domenici
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 52 and the nays 
are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained.
  Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S4633]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. It is my understanding we are now to turn to the 
amendment by the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid, after the 
next two votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided on the 
amendment of the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Following that, after the two votes, if two votes are 
necessary, the Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. After the amendments of the Senator from Nevada are 
disposed of, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as the manager of 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3184

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for 5 consecutive years, the Senate has 
put language into law with the President's signature reserving these 
numbers, which the distinguished Senator from Nebraska now wishes to 
strike from 5 years of consecutive law signed by the President.
  The Warner amendment simply says that the President, whether it be 
President Clinton or the next President, should follow a very careful 
procedure before changing the numbers, of strategic systems; namely, to 
do a QDR process which takes into consideration not only the strategic 
weapons but the conventional weapons and then do an updated posture 
statement regarding exclusively the strategic.

  Those are prudent steps that should be taken. In essence, this 
Chamber recognized that in the 5 consecutive years we have kept this 
language in.
  Given the nyet--no, no, no--that our President received in Moscow on 
the ABM issue, he may well need the leverage given by the 5 consecutive 
years of law. My amendment gives the President the right of waiver, but 
it imposes on him the need to take a prudent managerial course of 
action before any decision is made.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, with great respect to the Senator from 
Virginia, both the underlying law and his amendment push the President 
in the wrong direction. Both Russia and the United States have more 
nuclear weapons than we need. This has been studied to death. There are 
plenty of studies, plenty of reviews, plenty of evaluation. Gov. George 
W. Bush, with Henry Kissinger, with George Shultz, with Brent 
Scowcroft, and with Colin Powell, has it right. It requires new 
thinking. We will not only be pushing President Clinton in the wrong 
direction, but if Governor Bush wins, we push him in the wrong 
direction. We are forcing the Russians to maintain nuclear weapons in 
excess of what they can control. As a consequence, we are increasing 
the risk, threat, and danger to the people of the United States of 
America.
  I urge my colleagues, in as strong a language as possible, to vote 
against the Warner amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The yeas and nays have 
not been ordered on the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3184.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 51, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Crapo
     Domenici
       
  The amendment (No. 3184) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The question is on the 
underlying amendment, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3183) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have worked out, hopefully, a mutually 
agreed upon unanimous consent request. I will slowly propound it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the previous order for Senator Warner to 
be recognized to offer an amendment on working capital be laid aside to 
recur following the disposition of the BRAC amendment.
  I further ask that on the Reid amendment, it be limited to 1 hour, 
with 45 minutes under the control of Senator Reid and 15 minutes under 
the control of Senator Warner, and no second-degree amendment in order 
prior to the vote in relation to the amendment.
  I further ask consent that following the disposition of the Reid 
issue, Senator Kennedy be recognized to offer his HMO amendment, and 
that there be 2 hours equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
the amendment, with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the 
vote.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the Kennedy issue, 
Senators McCain/Levin be recognized to offer their amendment, re: BRAC, 
on which there will be 2 hours equally divided, under the same terms as 
outlined above; namely, an hour under the control of Senators McCain 
and Levin, and 1 hour under the control of Senator Warner.
  I further ask that following the disposition of the Warner amendment, 
Senator Wellstone be recognized to offer his amendment, re: Child 
soldiers, on which there will be 30 minutes equally divided in the 
usual form and under the same terms as outlined above.
  I further ask consent that during the debate today or tomorrow, the 
following Members be recognized for debate only: John Kerry for up to 
60 minutes and Senator Feingold for up to 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I 
appreciate the distinguished chairman and his interest in accommodating 
the many colleagues who want to offer amendments. I think we are almost 
there. I don't think we are quite able to reach agreement yet on this 
side. I wonder if it would be appropriate, given the fact that we could 
not yet agree to that sequencing, if we might proceed with the 
amendment to be offered by the Senator from Nevada, and while that 
amendment was being considered, address the other parts of the 
unanimous

[[Page S4634]]

consent request just propounded by the Senator from Virginia. If he 
would be interested in pursuing that approach, we might be able to find 
some final resolution to the other elements of the proposal he 
suggested.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I certainly respect the contribution by 
our distinguished minority leader. I don't have any other recourse.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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 other side has advised Senator Warner 
that the unanimous consent can be accepted provided that paragraph 3 
relating to Senator Kennedy be taken out. I agree to that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not--
we agreed that Senator Kennedy would have an amendment or amendments 
sequenced at a later time.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I am not 
sure I will--I ask for a continuation of the quorum call for another 3 
minutes, if I may. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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, I again propound the amended unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3198

  (Purpose: To permit retired members of the Armed Forces who have a 
     service-connected disability to receive military retired pay 
          concurrently with veterans' disability compensation)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), for himself and Mr. 
     Inouye, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Daschle, Mr. McCain, 
     Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3198.

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

       At the appropriate place in title VI, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. CONCURRENT PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND COMPENSATION 
                   FOR RETIRED MEMBERS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED 
                   DISABILITIES.

       (a) Concurrent Payment.--Section 5304(a) of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) and 
     section 5305 of this title, compensation under chapter 11 of 
     this title may be paid to a person entitled to receive 
     retired or retirement pay described in such section 5305 
     concurrently with such person's receipt of such retired or 
     retirement pay.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and apply with respect to payments of compensation for months 
     beginning on or after that date.
       (c) Prohibition on Retroactive Benefits.--No benefits shall 
     be paid to any person by virtue of the amendment made by 
     subsection (a) for any period before the effective date of 
     this Act as specified in subsection (b).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 109 years ago, for reasons no one can quite 
understand, a law was passed that prevented someone who had a service-
connected disability from drawing disability at the time they were 
drawing retirement pay from the U.S. military.
  If someone is injured, for example, in combat, they are eligible for 
a disability pension. If they have military service for 20 or 30 years, 
they are eligible for retirement. But under a quirk in the law that has 
been around for 109 years--let's assume the disability is $200 a month, 
and the retirement is $500 a month--the person who has been injured in 
combat must either waive his entire disability or take $200 from 
retirement to receive the $200 of disability.
  To say the least, this is certainly not an incentive for someone to 
stay in the military, in addition to its basic unfairness. For example, 
someone can retire from the Forest Service or the Department of Energy 
or the Department of Treasury --any executive office--and have a 
disability from the military. They could draw both retirements. But if 
you retire from the military, you can't. Certainly this is a 
nonincentive to stay in the military.
  If an individual leaves the military and begins a career in the 
executive branch, that person may receive both entitlements, but not if 
they choose to serve our country in the U.S. military.
  It seems unusual to me at a time when the military is having 
difficulty retaining personnel. This is, to say the least, ridiculous. 
This amendment will encourage improvement and retention for armed 
services.
  This bill has been introduced in its substantive form in this body. 
There is a similar measure in the House of Representatives that has 
approximately 250 sponsors.
  In effect, this amendment will permit retired members of the armed 
services who have a service-connected disability to receive military 
retired pay concurrently with veterans' disability compensation.
  The original law was passed in 1891 to prohibit concurrent receipt. 
It is time we eliminate this unfair law that has been an injustice for 
109 years. This law discriminates against military men and women who 
decide to serve their country as a career, whereas a civil service 
retiree's pension may be received in its total in addition to the 
disability from the U.S. military.
  Totally unfair.
  This discriminates unfairly against disabled career soldiers. In 
effect, they must pay their own disability as a result of this quirk in 
the law. Military retirement pay and disability compensation are earned 
and awarded for entirely different purposes: One is for having served 
your country for a specific period of time; the other is for having 
been injured while you were a member of the U.S. military.
  Retirement with service disability compensation for injury incurred 
in the line of duty certainly is deserved. This amendment represents an 
honest attempt to correct an injustice that existed for far too long. 
It affects approximately 437,000 disabled military men and women. Each 
day, this great country of ours loses 1,000 patriots who served as 
military combatants in World War II. Every day, there are 1,000 deaths 
of World War II veterans. Each day we delay the passage of this 
legislation, thousands of men and women are denied their benefits.
  Some say this is too expensive. I say no amount of money can equal 
the sacrifices these military men and women have made. Yesterday, in 
this Senate, Strom Thurmond, who is approaching 100 years of age, spoke 
eloquently of his feelings about World War II. Following his statement, 
Senator Durbin of Illinois gave a very compelling statement regarding 
Strom Thurmond. Strom Thurmond is an example of the sacrifices people 
made in World War II. Even though he was over the age where people 
would normally go into the armed services, he went into the armed 
services as a combat military man and, in a glider, went into Europe 
where he was injured and still suffers some disability from his 
injuries.
  In this Chamber there are many others who sacrificed significantly as 
a result of World War II: Senator Dan Inouye, who I am happy to say is 
going to receive a Congressional Medal of Honor for his valiant service 
in Italy; Senator Fritz Hollings served valiantly in World War II; 
Senator Warner served toward the end of World War II, as he stated on 
the floor today. This amendment recognizes the people who served in 
World War II, the Korean conflict, Vietnam, and the other skirmishes we 
have had since then. People who have been injured and have service-
connected disability who have been able to finish their full term in 
the U.S. military deserve both benefits. That is what this amendment is 
all about.
  Recently, the Congressional Budget Office reported a budget surplus 
of about $160 billion. A few of those dollars should be used to take 
care of this

[[Page S4635]]

anomaly in the law. The best use of the budget surplus is to support 
this concurrent receipt legislation. Our veterans earned this. Now is 
our chance to honor their service to our Nation. It comes a little late 
for many of these service-connected veterans.
  This amendment is supported by veteran service organizations: the 
Disabled Veterans, the American Legion, and the Paralyzed Veterans of 
America.
  The interesting thing about this law that prevents this concurrent 
receipt now is that nobody knows why it originally was passed. There is 
a lot of conjecture. Maybe it was to relate to the fact that we didn't 
have large standing armies in 1891; maybe it was that only a small 
portion of what we did have in the military consisted of career 
soldiers. We don't know. What we know now, 109 years later, is it is 
unfair. It is unfair that a person who served this country, was 
discharged honorably, and has a service-connected disability, can't 
draw both benefits. That is what this amendment does.
  The present law discriminates against career military men and women, 
when you consider when they retire from some other branch of our 
Government they can draw both benefits.
  I respectfully request of the managers of this legislation that this 
amendment be accepted. I am happy to have a vote, if that is what is 
required. I think if there were ever an example of where we should send 
this to the House by unanimous vote, this is it. This is fair. This 
amendment is supported by many veterans organizations; to name only a 
few, the Disabled American Veterans, American Legion, and Paralyzed 
Veterans of America. They and the American public deserve to have this 
injustice corrected.
  I yield the floor.
  How much of the 45 minutes have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada used 9 minutes and 20 
seconds of the 45 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the amendment by the distinguished 
minority whip, the Senator from Nevada, is one I intend, as manager of 
the bill, to accept because it has in it some provisions we have 
studied for many years. I think it is important we study it in the 
context of the conference. I am strongly in favor of a number of the 
concepts the Senator has raised.
  At the appropriate time I will indicate the acceptance of the 
measure.
  Mr. REID. If I could ask the Senator, would it be appropriate, then, 
if the Senator accepts my amendment, that following accepting this 
amendment, the Senator from Wisconsin have 12 minutes and the Senator 
from New Jersey have 10 minutes?
  Mr. WARNER. Fine. If I might inquire, for the purpose of addressing 
the Senate--not for putting in an amendment?
  Mr. REID. For debate.
  Mr. WARNER. It is 12 minutes and 10 minutes. That falls within the 
period the Senator has reserved. We will put that in the form of a 
unanimous consent request.
  I thank the Senator for reference to those who served in World War 
II. I don't want to put myself in any category of the heroism displayed 
by Senator Inouye. I was a simple sailor serving in training command, 
waiting for the invasion of Japan. I always want to be careful.
  Mr. REID. I only say to my friend, we are all aware of the work the 
Senator has done and the love the Senator has for the military, having 
been one of our Secretaries.
  Yesterday was a very moving day, to see our President pro tempore 
step down here and speak with the strong voice that he has, recognizing 
the sacrifices made by others. He didn't, of course, mention his own 
name, but he is an example of what has made our country great.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator for that reference to Senator 
Thurmond. Indeed, he crossed the beaches in a glider and crashed and 
was wounded. He got out and took right on his duties.
  Also, late last night, Senator Carl Levin and I put in an amendment 
which was accepted, was cosponsored by all the veterans of World War II 
who are now in the Senate, some eight or nine, and it provided $6 
million toward the memorial that is being constructed on The Mall.
  Earlier that day, our former distinguished majority leader and 
colleague, Robert Dole, accepted a $14.5 million contribution. Together 
with the $6 million of the Senate, and my understanding from Senator 
Dole, with whom I spoke late last night, that brings within completion 
the budget they had for design, construction, and otherwise for that 
memorial.
  It was a historic day.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent, following the acceptance of my 
amendment, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, be recognized for 
12 minutes on general discussion, not to offer an amendment; following 
that statement, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, be 
recognized for 10 minutes to speak on an unrelated subject and not to 
offer an amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
want to advise Senators that was in the timeframe allocated to the 
distinguished Senator from Nevada for the purpose of his amendment. 
That is how this time was freed up. Otherwise, Senator Levin and I are 
anxious to keep this bill moving.
  Following presentations by two distinguished colleagues, we should 
proceed, then, to the McCain-Levin amendment on base closure.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, he is absolutely right. The only reason 
we are doing it this way is just to make the process a little more 
orderly.
  Mr. WARNER. I understand that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Has my amendment been accepted then?
  Mr. WARNER. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3198) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________